Dissent in the LCMS

All Martin Luther wanted to do with those 95 theses was to discuss them with his academic peers and ecclesiastical supervisors. He wasn't out to divide or destroy the church; he merely wished to discuss his ideas about reforming it. Over time, though, his concern about the sale of indulgences gave way to deeper concerns about the church as a human, fallible institution and about the abuses of church authority. He was threatened with excommunication, then excommunicated, then made into an outlaw, and subject to all sorts of punishments. As a result of his spiritual and mental sufferings, he was driven back to Christ and to Scripture. Gradually, his understanding of the gospel sharpened as he encountered further resistance from church authorities (and ultimately the Pope), and this sharpening led him to take positions that were critical of other church beliefs and practices, some quite ancient and venerable, that he judged to be contrary to the Scriptural gospel and Christian freedom.

While no one showed up to debate those 95 bullet points in the fall of 1517, church leaders certainly took note of them and began to act against the Wittenberg heretic. Their actions and words against him, especially when he perceived that they fell short of his reference to specific Scriptural and historical evidence, led him to adopt a more radical position against the hierarchical church and its coercive power. While holding firm to conciliar decisions about the dogmas of God and of Christ, which serve the truth of the gospel, he held that the authority of the church resides solely in its proclamation of the evangelical sense of the prophetic and apostolic words of Scripture. This gospel proclamation, delivered through evangelical preaching and the administration of the sacraments in accord with the gospel, bears witness to Christ, the living Word of God. Luther thus rejected Roman tradition as an authority, even as he also criticized Protestant sectarianism for its denial of the evangelical and sacramental means of grace.

When attacked, Luther appealed to his baptism and to the fact that he had been made a doctor of theology. He frequently had to defend his callings, especially against those who sought "[to make] sport of the authority of all doctors of theology" ("Disputation against Scholastic Theology"). While he rightly distrusted his own wisdom (Prov. 3:5), he distrusted even more the received "wisdom" of the medieval Scholastic theologians, when it ran contrary to clear Scriptural teaching and the truth of the gospel, and he thus dared to present publicly his arguments and Scriptural interpretation before the judgment of all, so that they could decide if his arguments and interpretation had been deduced well or poorly from St. Paul and St. John and the other authentic prophets and apostles.

I've been thinking a lot about Luther's struggles with the church authorities of his day because I, too, am a baptized doctor of theology who finds himself presently in conflict with a few church authorities (even as I fully and humbly acknowledge that I'm no Martin Luther!). 

For more than a decade I have been involved in discussions with my "peers" in the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod (inclusive of both clergy and educated laity) about the interpretation of the first chapters of the Bible and the practice of ordaining only men to the office of the holy ministry. (These issues are related in the LC-MS, since the latter practice is based partly on a commonly-held interpretation of the former Scriptural texts.) During this time I have honored and upheld the LC-MS's doctrinal positions, in accordance with guidelines and definitions provided by the synod, the synod's Board for Higher Education, at least one of the boards of regents of one of the synod's universities, several current and former district presidents, a former synod president, a former seminary president, and a district board (on which I served as secretary for many years).

While I would have preferred that my questions and probing about these theological matters be discussed and debated freely within the synod, especially in its academic institutions, without the threat of expulsion from the brotherhood, given the way the synod is currently structured, matters of theological difference within the synod get quickly put into the adjudicatory process that is outlined in the synod's Handbook (viewed by many as almost on the same level as Scripture and the Evangelical Confessions). According to Section 1.8 of the 2010 edition, "Dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements is to be expressed first within the fellowship of peers and then brought to the attention of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) before finding expression as an overture to the convention calling for revision or recision." The Handbook does not specify how one is to bring such dissent to the attention of the CTCR, nor does the Handbook indicate how long one must express one's concerns "within the fellowship of peers" before bringing the concerns to the attention of the CTCR.

Over the course of twenty years of publicly teaching theology as a member of the synod, when I have publicly expressed concerns about the synod's position on women or on the interpretation of the Bible's cosmological passages in light of modern scientific knowledge, I have been formally charged with teaching false doctrine. In all cases, the charges have been resolved in my favor or dismissed or not pursued after a certain amount of time. In all cases, too, there has been very little theological discussion about the pertinent issues. Rather, the accuser always assumes that because the synod has a clear position against women pastors, a member of synod who might question this position is guilty of advocating false doctrine."Because Mother Missouri has spoken, how dare you to question her interpretation of Scripture?!" That seems to be the sentiment. (And let's be clear here: We're not talking here about the essential dogmas of the church, the doctrine of God, the person and work of Christ, sin, faith and good works, or the means of grace, etc. The matters to which I am referring concern the interpretation of Scripture with respect to church order and the contemporary understanding and application of biblical cosmology and anthropology.)

Perhaps because of what happened to LC-MS theologians back in the 1970s, there has developed a climate of fear within the synod that stifles theological discussion and debate. The synod lacks "free space" to discuss intellectual matters that are peripheral to the gospel yet still related to it and to the freedom that gospel creates in the life of the Christian and in the life of the church. Because of the real possibility of being removed from the synodical roster for questioning even seemingly peripheral matters, like church order and biblical cosmology, the structures of the synod insure that very few are willing to question a synodical practice or a widely-held interpretation of some verses in the Bible for fear that they will have to undergo a heresy trial, spend time defending themselves, and face possible expulsion from their gainful vocation.

The synod, at least on paper, allows for dissent. I have tried to follow the process outlined in the Handbook. Early last year I brought to the attention of the CTCR my dissent on two synodical positions. I did this by distributing to the CTCR copies of a book I had edited, A Daystar Reader, in which are published two essays of mine that dissent from synod positions about women pastors and modern scientific theories. At that time I thought that this action of mine was sufficient to bring to the CTCR's attention my dissent. However, last summer I learned from my district president that it was insufficient.

In this dissent I identify two issues about which I have concerns and critical questions:

(1) I am convinced that the synod's practice of restricting the office of pastor only to men is wrong. The synod's defense of such a restriction runs contrary to biblical and confessional evidence, does harm to individual consciences (especially to those LC-MS women who have been called by God to serve as pastor but cannot do so within their own church body), runs contrary to Christian freedom, and needlessly frustrates the work of the Holy Spirit in the church's mission within our western, egalitarian society. For my dissent to this position of the synod, one can read my online essay, "An Argument for Women Pastors and Theologians," http://www.thedaystarjournal.com/. An earlier, de-footnoted version of this essay was published in A Daystar Reader.

(2) I am also convinced that the synod's position of interpreting the first two chapters of Genesis to mean that God created the universe over the course of six twenty-four-hour days, and that the general theory of evolution must be rejected, is wrong. The synod's defense of such a literalistic interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis ignores the problems and contradictions that are involved in such a literalistic interpretation of these chapters, runs contrary to physical evidence in God's "book of nature," does harm to individual consciences (especially to those educated Christians who know the biblical and physical evidence that contradicts such an interpretation), and needlessly frustrates the work of the Holy Spirit in the church's mission within our western, scientifically-informed society. For my dissent to the synod's position on the interpretation of the first chapters in Genesis, see my essay, "The Scandal of the LCMS Mind," in The Daystar Reader (also available online at http://www.thedaystarjournal.com).

Back in November of last year the CTCR officially responded to my letter of dissent that I submitted to them last June. In that letter I identified the two concerns I have and directed the CTCR to my published essays on these matters. You may now read the CTCR's response to my essays at http://www.lcms.org/ctcr

I did not receive that CTCR response until much later, for reasons that are unclear to me, but I finally did read it last month. It struck me as a non-response to my materials. So I sent the CTCR the following letter:

The Baptism of our Lord 2012

The Commission on Theology and Church Relations

The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod

1333 S. Kirkwood Rd

St. Louis, MO  63122

Dear members of the CTCR,

Grace, mercy, and peace be with you from God our Father through His beloved Son, Jesus, in the Holy Spirit.

For some unknown reason I did not receive your letter of November 15, 2011. It finally came this past week as a result of efforts on the part of Rev. [Paul] Linnemann to have a copy of the letter sent to my university address.

Your letter surprised me for several reasons, especially because it avoids responding directly to the exegetical and theological points I have made in my essays.

With respect to the issue of the ordination of women, you state that my essay on this topic "does not reference or quote a single resolution or doctrinal statement of the Synod regarding the service of women in the church." While this is technically true, the essay does in fact accurately describe the position that the Synod has taken on this topic, both in its resolutions and in several CTCR documents.

The "order of creation" argument has often been made within the LCMS to support a male-only pastorate and it has been made in the way I describe it.

            i) One of the two guiding principles adopted in 1969 Resolution 2-17 is that women should not "violate the order of creation." While that resolution does not define what this expression means, it is clear from subsequent synodical materials that the "order of creation" notion means that women are subordinate to men within creation and cannot exercise authority over them. A 1970 decision from the CCM ruled that women may serve as officers and members of board and committees "as long as these positions are not directly involved in the specific functions of the pastoral office… and as long as this service does not violate the order of creation (usurping authority over men)" (emphasis added). In the 1985 CTCR Report, "Women in the Church," the CTCR wrote, "The Order of Creation. This refers to the particular position which, by the will of God, any created object occupies in relation to others. God has given to that which has been created a certain definite order which, because it has been created by Him, is the expression of His immutable will. These relationships belong to the very structure of created existence" (p. 21). The relationship of male to female is further clarified on p. 27: "The idea that God desires man to be the head of woman and woman to be subordinate to man is rooted deeply in the Old and New Testaments." This "order of creation" principle has been repeatedly affirmed in synodical convention resolutions (e.g., 1981, 1986).

            ii) While my dissent in no way describes "the order of creation" argument as "having primarily to do with the 'order' (the 'chronological sequence') in which God created Adam and Eve," as you incorrectly describe my criticism (my dissent never states that the Synod has presented the order of creation argument "as a mere matter of 'chronological sequence'"), the CTCR itself in its 1985 report stated that the "order of creation" also involves "the headship" of the man over the woman and that this headship is based on the chronological order of woman coming from man: "[The apostle Paul] argues for male 'headship' on the basis of Genesis 2:18-25, which teaches that the man did not come from the woman but the woman from the man and that the woman was created for the sake of the man… [In First Timothy 2:13-14] Paul appeals to the temporal priority of Adam's creation ('Adam was formed first'; cf. Gen. 2:20-22), as well as to Eve's having been deceived in the fall (Gen. 3:6), to show that women should not teach or exercise authority over men in the church" (p. 22; emphasis added). The current CTCR has evidently overlooked this chronological aspect of "the order of creation" argument as it has been set forth within the CTCR's own earlier report.

            iii) Your letter does not acknowledge that indeed 1969 Resolution 2-17 makes explicit reference to "the order of creation." Apparently the current CTCR has overlooked that important second paragraph in the resolution: "The principles set forth in such passages, we believe, prohibit holding any other kind of office or membership on boards or committees in the institutional structures of a congregation, only if this involves women in violation of the order of creation." Clearly, this expression serves as "code language" for the kind of argumentation set forth in the 1985 CTCR report regarding the subordination of women to men in the created order of the Creator and the prohibition against women exercising authority over men. That same 1969 resolution uses the expression "the order of creation" synonymously for "the principles set forth in [those] passages" "which direct women to keep silent in the church and which prohibit them to teach and to exercise authority over men." It was this argumentation, which is not argued at length in the 1969 resolution but which is behind the expression "order of creation" within that resolution, to which I was primarily responding in my essays (both the one in The Daystar Reader and the original one which I am herewith enclosing).

            iv) I am troubled that the CTCR could not take more time to respond directly and concretely to my specific arguments and evidence against the ideological construct of the "order of creation" within the 1969 resolution and the 1985 CTCR report, let alone the other specific arguments I present against limiting the pastoral office only to men.

Furthermore, you state that my "dissent regarding creation and evolution also suffers from a lack of specificity and focus." With all due respect, I do think my description of how the synod has historically understood the "six days" in Genesis is accurate and that I was quite clear in my rejection of this understanding for all of the reasons I set forth in my essay.

            i) The Brief Statement, authored principally by Dr. Pieper (who also rejected the Copernican Theory), asserts: "We teach that God has created the heaven and earth, and that in the manner and in the space of time recorded in the Holy Scriptures, especially Gen. 1 and 2, namely, by His almighty Word, and in six days." The 1967 Resolution 2-31 uses the same language: "…Scripture teaches and the Lutheran Confessions affirm that God by the almighty power of His Word created all things in 6 days by a series of creative acts." How is this language, adopted by the Synod when it adopted the Brief Statement and then when it reaffirmed that same language in the 1967 resolution, any different in actual content from the language in my June 29th letter, namely, that "the synod's position of interpreting the first two chapters of Genesis to mean that God created the universe over the course of six twenty-four-hour days." Are you suggesting that it is acceptable doctrinally to interpret the "six days" as being different from "six actual, twenty-four-hour days?" I understand the history of such a reinterpretation of "day" (YoM) in this context, but such an interpretation has not been widespread within the history of our Synod and has never been officially adopted by synodical resolution. In point of fact, the position of the Synod on the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis and the Synod's corresponding rejection of the modern scientific theory of evolution is reflected in Dr. Kieschnick's words from his 2001 presidential acceptance speech: "I believe the world was created in six 24-hour days…" After this one sentence he was given a lengthy standing ovation by nearly all the convention delegates. Based on that action alone, I think my description of the Synod's position is quite accurate.

            ii) To put the matter as clearly as I can, I am opposing the Synod's opposition to the well-established physical facts of evolution. The Synod should adopt a more cautious approach about condemning scientific theories and should allow for modern natural knowledge of God's creation to shed light on how one is to understand the language and genres in the first chapters of Genesis. We should learn from our forebears who were forced to adjust their interpretations of cosmological passages in Scripture to accord with modern cosmology, as has happened with respect to the acceptance of the Copernican Theory (Dr. Pieper's rejection of that theory, notwithstanding).

            iii) In my dissent I did not confuse A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles with its study version. While I quote from the study version that was distributed after the 1972 original document, the sections from which I quote are direct quotations from earlier synodical statements and resolutions (e.g., the 1959 Statement on Scripture, the Brief Statement) or from the 1972 document itself (e.g., the sections on "The Gospel and Holy Scripture" and "Original Sin"). All material I quote is from synodically-adopted documents.

            iv) Whereas I have concerns about some of the phrasing and emphases within 1967 Resolution 2-31, I agree with the basic doctrinal content presented there.

With respect to my understanding of Scriptural authority and interpretation, I do not think you have been very helpful by merely directing me to A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles. I am well aware of the contents of this document, one of the most controversial in the history of the Synod.[1] It has rightly been criticized for its failure to take seriously the historical character of the Scriptures and the temporal and cultural distance that exists between the biblical writings and modern western interpreters of those Scriptures who have, as a part of their mental framework, knowledge of facts that were unknown to the biblical authors. Our post-Copernican, post-Darwinian worldview is different from the cosmological views presented in the Scriptures. While I acknowledge that the historical approach to the Scriptures conflicts with modern ideas that Protestant Fundamentalists have set forth about Scripture, notions that are reflected in Dr. Pieper's Brief Statement and the Preus-authorized A Statement, I do not accept that this approach is "clearly incompatible with the Synod's doctrinal position on the authority and interpretation of Holy Scripture," a position which can only be the Scripture's own position on itself (which is not really possible). Of course the Lutheran Confessions do not refer to the inerrancy of Scripture either, as that concept developed after the 17th Century, or to post-Enlightenment methods and principles of biblical interpretation, but instead refer to the Scripture's teaching of law and gospel as the key that unlocks the meaning of the Scriptures.

My approach to the interpretation of the Bible (and Genesis 1-11, in particular) is almost completely shaped by the 1967 CTCR report, A Lutheran Stance toward Contemporary Biblical Studies (commended by the 1967 Synod Convention [Res. 2-02]; see also 1969 Res. 2-04), which includes the following statements:

"In hearty agreement with the Lutheran Confessions we affirm that the right understanding of the Gospel (including the proper distinction of Law and Gospel as grounded in the article of justification) is the key that finally unlocks the meaning of Sacred Scripture (Apology, IV, 2-5; FC, SD, V, 1).  We therefore hold that all theological questions raised by any interpretation must be posed and answered with reference to this central concern of the Scriptures.  We also hold that those technical questions involved in interpretation which neither aid nor impair the right understanding of the Gospel (in its full sense) ought not become a matter of controversy in the church" (A Lutheran Stance toward Contemporary Biblical Studies, pp. 8-9).

We consider the following to be basic and legitimate elements of the so-called historical-critical method (cp. “Guiding Principles for the Interpretation of the Bible” as accepted by the Ecumenical Study Conference, Oxford, 1949):

1. Establishing the text…

2.  Ascertaining the literary form of the passage. This entails, as an aid to better comprehension, analyzing the Biblical passage in terms of its formal structure and character at the hand of such questions as these:  Is it prose or poetry?  Is it an address, a prayer, a monologue, a treaty, an edict, a letter?  Is it an oracular saying, an invective, a lament, a liturgy, a proverb, a parable, a creed, a hymn? and so on.

3.  Determining the historical situation. This entails discovering, so far as possible, the original setting—in time and place and circumstances—of the document, its author, and its readers.

4. Apprehending the meaning which the words had for the original author and hearer or reader. This entails careful investigation of the actual linguistic usage and idiom (together with their overtones conditioned by the social context in which they appear) of the author and his contemporaries in the light of the Biblical data and also of such extra-Biblical literature as may belong to the same social context.

5.  Understanding the passage in the light of its total context and of the background out of which it emerged. This entails consideration not only of the text’s antecedent and contemporary circumstances—religious, cultural, historical—but also of the full range of the Biblical witness in both the Old and New Testaments" (ibid., 9).

"The problem of 'history' needs to be handled with extraordinary sensitivity by the Christian interpreter.  He cannot adopt uncritically the presuppositions and canons of the secular historian.  In his use of historical techniques the interpreter will be guided by the presuppositions of his faith in the Lord of history.  It is indeed true that Christian faith rightly sees in the historicalness of God’s redemptive work (His entry into and participation in our saeculum) a divine warrant for the use of 'secular' means and methods in the study of His Word, including linguistic, literary, and historical analysis of the texts.  But at the same time faith recognizes that there is more to history than can ever be adequately measured by 'laws' derived exclusively from empirical data and rational observation…" (ibid., 10).

"The undeniably necessary effort to hear a text of Scripture first of all in its particularity, its meaning 'then and there,' must be balanced by an equal effort to hear the text both in its integral relation to all the rest of Scripture and in its meaningfulness for all who hear it today. This effort does not require an arbitrary flattening out of the rich variety of the Biblical witness into a dull one-dimensional uniformity…" (ibid.).

"Whatever cognizance needs to be taken—as indeed it must—of the connection between Biblical materials and their background in the whole complex of social, cultural, political, economic, and religious factors of their day, a clear distinction must nevertheless be maintained between the unique, divine, and revelatory character of Scripture and the sheer human and contingent character of Scripture’s earthly milieu.  Parallelisms between extra-Biblical materials and the form or substance of Scripture do not as such constitute causal or substantive relations.  This is not in the least to deny the genuinely human and earthly dimension of Scripture itself…" (ibid.; See also the “Introduction” to the CTCR document [1969], A Project in Biblical Hermeneutics, 5-18).

May I remind the current CTCR that the committee that articulated these principles and set forth the legitimacy of the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation included Robert Preus, Ralph Bohlmann, Raymond Surburg, H. Armin Moellering, Martin Franzmann, and Heino Kadai.

The 1967 CTCR Report and its 1969 Project in Biblical Hermeneutics have been very helpful to me over the years, especially as I have sought to understand how the Bible is to be understood and applied today with respect to scientific knowledge about creation and about the service of women in the contemporary church. In light of the synodically-commended hermeneutical principles in these documents, could you show me how my observation about the influence of Aristotle's social teaching on the New Testament is incompatible with the Synod's position on Scripture, since one of the hermeneutical principles is to understand a biblical passage "in the light of its total context and of the background out of which it emerged?" Or how modern scientific understandings of human origins are necessarily incompatible with the Christian understanding of the doctrinal content of Genesis 1-3 (and other Scripture texts that address matters about creation and theological anthropology), especially if one attends to the distinct genres present in the first chapters of the Bible and how these are not "scientific" but phenomenological and culturally-conditioned?

If one argues that the Synod changed its position on Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture between 1967 and 1973, I can accept that argument, but I would simply respond then by saying that the Synod commended a better position on Scriptural interpretation in 1967 than it adopted in 1973. I believe the Synod erred in 1973 when it adopted the resolution about A Statement, an outcome that was more the result of political maneuvering and making sure of convention votes than it was of careful theological argument and understanding. Hopefully, in the future, the Synod will once again commend the hermeneutical principles and historical-critical method that it commended in 1967 and 1969. The hermeneutical principles set forth by the CTCR then and by its special committee on biblical hermeneutics (a committee that included the participation of the principal author of A Statement!) in those years are the right ones for us to be using and commending today.

Finally, the distinction between a so-called "magisterial use" of "reason" and a "ministerial use" is a false one and merely a convenient way to discredit an interpretation of Scripture with which one disagrees without offering reasons for that disagreement. The same kind of distinction between "magisterial" and "ministerial" uses of reason was used at the time of Galileo to discredit his re-thinking of those Scriptural passages that clearly state the sun moves around the earth and that the earth does not move. In that context the defense of "a ministerial use" of reason, to serve "what Scripture clearly teaches," would necessitate the acceptance of a geocentric worldview and the rejection of the Copernican theory. In point of fact, the real issue, then as now, is not "the use of reason" at all, but what is the appropriate understanding of the Scriptural texts in light of the natural knowledge of God's creation, what is the genre of the Scriptural passages in question, what is the meaning of the biblical language "in that distant time and place," and how can one balance that historic meaning with contemporary understanding. The meaning of at least some biblical texts, such as the ones that deal with cosmology, may not be the same today as it was "back then." We certainly don't understand many cosmological passages in Scripture in the same way as did pre-Copernicans.

Within the academic discipline of theology scholars have the duty to "be attentive, be intelligent, be rational, be responsible, develop and, if necessary, change," to use the helpful prescription I learned from my teacher, David Tracy, who learned it from his teacher, Bernard Lonergan. I believe that you who serve on the CTCR have this same responsibility, as do I.

Sincerely,

Matthew Becker

---

[1] One should note, too, in passing, that A Statement, adopted by the slimmest of majorities in a highly politicized and polemical context, has the same doctrinal status as any other doctrinal resolution adopted by the Synod. It was never formalized as an official statement of the Synod, since it was never adopted by the required 2/3 majority of LCMS congregations.

So that was the letter I sent in January. Then, last week, the executive committee of the CTCR put on the CTCR's webpage a reply to my January letter. After reading this second document I have concluded that the CTCR, just like the Roman curia in Luther's day, is not interested in having a theological discussion about matters that are not as simple as the CTCR and other synod members seem to think they are. I'm not the only member of the synod who has questions about these issues. But how is real theological discussion possible in a church body where critical inquiry about the understanding and application of Scriptural teaching is dismissed with the words, "He has a different understanding of the authority of the Bible, so we don't have to pay any attention to his specific exegesis and theological analysis?" Just as in Luther's day, the appeal is to church authority (in this case, that means synodical resolutions and statements and synodical traditions), as if that is really going to address the specific points of theology in a dissent about some synodical resolutions. How is C. F. W. Walther's principle that synod members have only two authorities, Scripture and convincing, being applied in this situation?

Dr. Frederick Danker+

The first really big textbook I had to purchase in college was a Greek-English lexicon. It was required for Dr. Richard Reinisch's courses in Greek. While we initially worked solely in Attic, "classical" Greek, so as actually to learn the language by reading unfamiliar texts, we eventually focused more and more attention on translating Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece. For that task, we needed to rely on that big book, the second edition of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 1979), based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der Fruehchristlichen Literatur, and edited by Americans W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Thus, it was usually abbreviated as BADG.

That second edition got a lot of use through college and seminary and then on into the parish and graduate school. I still used it when I was asked to take over the teaching of Greek at my alma mater, Concordia University, Portland, when Dr. Reinisch retired. Just as he had done with me and my fellow students, so I did with my own. They had to buy that big book. Midway through my decade of teaching Greek (alongside my other courses in Christian theology and the history of Christianity), a new edition of that lexicon appeared (Chicago, 2000). Because the last of its American editors, Dr. Danker, had done so much revision to it, his name now appeared second, after Bauer's. The third edition now gets abbreviated as BDAG.

This magisterial work, topping out at 1108 pages, remains the standard reference work for anyone studying the Greek New Testament and early Greco-Christian literature.

Sometime during my undergraduate years I learned about "Seminex," a complicated series of events in 1973 and '74 that eventually led to the dismissal of the majority of professors at the principal seminary of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. Included among those professors was Dr. Frederick Danker. My parish pastor, Dale Koehneke, had attended the seminary that those fired professors formed after their dismissal, Christ Seminary--Seminary in Exile, otherwise known as Seminex. One summer when I was home from college I asked Pr. Koehneke if he could direct me to a book that would help me to understand what "Seminex" was all about. He gave me his copy of Dr. Danker's personal account of that traumatic event, No Room in the Brotherhood. It was my first exposure to the theological and ecclesial conflicts that fractured the Synod.

I almost went to Seminex myself, but my teachers at Concordia, Portland, my pastors in Salem, Ore., my family, and my close friends, encouraged me to head off to the seminary that was formed in the same location as the one that had become exiled in 1974. There we were required to read another book by Dr. Danker, his Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study (first edition by CPH in 1960; 2nd ed. by Fortress in 1993), an insightful analysis of the most important resources for the historical-critical investigation of the Scriptures. While we post-1974 students had to refer to these scholarly methods under the title of the "grammatical-historical method," they were essentially the same as the so-called modern "historical-critical method," an approach that the Synod had encouraged its members to use in the late 1960s and early 70s. Some of us joked at the time--1984-88--that "the historical-grammatical method" merely meant that one didn't have to use one's brain as much as "the historical-critical method." "Krino," from which we get the word "critical," means "to make a judgment based on taking various factors into account, judge, think, consider, look upon; to come to a conclusion after a cognitive process, reach a decision, decide, propose, intend" (BDAG 568).

Even in my seminary course on Luke, we were encouraged to read Dr. Danker's marvelous exposition, Jesus and the New Age.

I first met Dr. Danker through our mutual friend, Dr. Edward Schroeder, also a veteran of the Missouri wars of the 1970s. "Red Fred" as he was known to his students, had learned about my work on the nineteenth-century Bible scholar, Johannes von Hofmann, and wanted to talk with me about Hofmann's commentaries on the New Testament. Later, when I gave a conference paper on the theology of Werner Elert, Dr. Danker asked me about Elert's perspective on the so-called quests for the historical Jesus. (As I recall I stressed how important the historical-critical investigation of the New Testament was for Dr. Elert, since purely literary approaches in his view ended up with a mostly fictional Jesus.) Still later, Dr. Danker and I had other conversations in other venues. The last time I spoke with him was in San Francisco, last Nov. at AAR/SBL. He was pretty frail, but we managed to share a few words and even a laugh at the LCMS seminary reception where we ran into each other. He wondered how I got invited and I wondered the same about him.

Word came last week that "Red Fred" Danker died from complications that resulted from a fall he took. He was kicked out of an earthly "brotherhood" that had no room for him and for so many others. One can imagine our Elder Brother having said to Fred last week: "Welcome, there is room for you here."

To read his obituary that was published earlier this week in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/obituaries/rev-frederick-william-danker-dies-renowned-bible-scholar-taught-and/article_09364329-9b28-549c-aa6d-be43d44cacde.html

Pericope for the Week: A Comment from Prison

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

A week from today I will be speaking about the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-45) at a conference devoted in part to the one substantial book of his that was published during his lifetime, Discipleship. People outside of Germany got to know this book only after its author's death and mostly because they wanted to learn more about the person who wrote the prison letters that he sent to his former student, friend, nephew-in-law, and eventual biographer, Eberhard Bethge. (Bonhoeffer was involved in the resistance efforts against Hitler that centered around Col. Oster and Bonhoeffer's brother-in-law, Hans von Dohnanyi. He was eventually arrested, interrogated for more than a year, and then executed.) His "letters and papers from prison" delivered a new way of thinking theology, from below, from the margins, from the perspective of the least.

Eberhard Bethge

We know from these letters that he was working on several theological projects, not least his Ethics, but also a book that would offer an appraisal of the Christian Church in the modern world and set forth the direction he thought theology should take in light of "a world come of age." While the finished parts and fragments of Ethics were published posthumously, most of what he did on the other book was lost between the prison cell in Tegel and the gallows at the Flossenbuerg concentration camp.


One comment from one letter to Bethge caught my attention last night, partly because it speaks to a situation within my own church body. It certainly fits with the spirit of the person whose words and actions we commemorate today, someone who also was influenced by Bonhoeffer:


The church must get out of its stagnation. We must also get back out into the fresh air of intellectual discourse with the world. We also have to risk saying controversial things, if that will stir up discussion of the important issues in life. As a "modern" theologian who has nevertheless inherited the legacy of liberal theology, I feel responsible to address these questions.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, "Letter to Eberhard Bethge, August 3, 1944," Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. John W. De Gruchy, trans. Isabel Best et al., vol. 8 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English, ed. Victoria Barnett et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), p. 498.

Further Reflections on 1967 LCMS Resolution 2-02

Dr. Richard Jungkuntz was inducted into the office of executive secretary of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod (LCMS) in March 1966. He worked full-time in that position until he was forced out by President J. A. O. Preus, who was elected president of the Synod in 1969. How quickly the tide turned between 1966 and 1969.

In 1966 the executive committee of the CTCR was comprised of Alfred Fuerbringer (chairman; then-president of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis); Herbert Bouman (secretary); Theodore Nickel; J. A. O. Preus; and Frede Mortensen. The ex officio members were Jungkuntz (executive secretary) and Oliver Harms (then-president of the Synod). Others serving on the CTCR at that time were Albert Meyer, Samuel Roth, Carl Gaertner, and Norbert Mueller.

The eight individuals who served on the hermeneutics committee were selected by the CTCR, "by vote, from a list of candidates submitted by a committee and augmented by the CTCR" (1967 Workbook, 51). Clearly, there was a real attempt on the part of the CTCR to reflect in this hermeneutics committee the basic perspectives toward Scripture that were then current in the Synod. For example, the two systematic theologians, Bob Bertram and Robert Preus, lived in two very different theological worlds and were oriented toward very different ends. I think one is not too far off to say that Preus lived, at least theologically, in the 17th Century, whereas Bertram lived in the 20th (informed by the best evangelical insights of the 16th and 19th). Burkee's recent book is sufficient to demonstrate that these two men also lived in different political worlds. Today Preus comes off very bad in light of that scholarship. His Machiavellian machinations (in league with his close friends, Herman Otten and Kurt Marquart) put him in a different world from Bertram. But there was further diversity in the other theological areas that were represented on that committee: Walter Bartling and Martin Franzmann were the New Testament scholars, Raymond Surburg and Walter Roehrs were the Old Testament scholars, Heino Kadai was the one historical theologian, and H. Armin Moellering the lone parish pastor. Dr. Jungkuntz served as convener and was the real "driving force" of this core working group. Anyone familiar with the times knows that R. Preus, Moellering, and Surburg can be grouped on the one hand (representing the repristinationist camp), and Bartling, Bertram, Franzmann, and Jungkuntz can be grouped on the other (representing the hermeneutical significance of Article IV of the Apology and a basic openness to the legitimacy of historical criticism of the Scriptures in service to the gospel). Overlapping both groups were Kadai and Roehrs.

According to the official minutes of the 1967 convention, the delegates "commended [the hermeneutics committee] for the study of Biblical hermeneutics of the [CTCR] to the Lord's guidance" (Resolution 2-15 adopted in Session 3 on July 8). Though awkwardly constructed, the sentence is clear enough in meaning. Then, in the sixth session (July 10), "the convention commended the document 'A Lutheran Stance toward Contemporary Biblical Studies' for study and declined Overture 2-07. An amendment to commend the document for study to pastoral conferences was defeated" (Resolution 2-02A and 2-02B). The convention then "commended the [CTCR] and encouraged it to continue its important work" (Resolution 2-01).

Here are the resolutions that were acted upon by the convention that year:

Resolution 2-13: To Invoke God's Blessings on Hermeneutics Committee
Whereas, The 1965 convention of the [LCMS] instructed the [CTCR] to plan and produce a comprehensive study of Biblical hermeneutics, based on the Lutheran Confessions and oriented to the church's primary task of proclamation and edification (Resolution 2-07, Proceedings, 1965, p. 95); and

Whereas, A subcommittee of eight men has been appointed by the [CTCR], which committee is working full time this summer and will regularly report to the [CTCR]; therefore be it

Resolved, That we commend these men for their work and call upon our Lord to bless their work and given them His guidance for their future efforts.
Action: Adopted. (1967 Proceedings, p. 91)


Resolution 2-02: To Commend "A Lutheran Stance toward Contemporary Biblical Studies" for Study and Discussion

A
Whereas, The Detroit convention (Resolution 2-07, Proceedings, 1965, p. 95) resolved that the [CTCR] conduct a comprehensive study of Biblical hermeneutics; and

Whereas, This assignment does not declare a moratorium on Biblical study and scholarship throughout the Synod, but on the contrary the church's scholars as well as all other members of the church are expected to continue their daily study of the Scriptures; and

Whereas, Questions have been raised regarding the essential elements that characterize sound Biblical studies in our time and a Lutheran stance toward such studies; and

Whereas, The [CTCR] has provided the membership of the Synod with a document, "A Lutheran Stance Toward Contemporary Biblical Studies"; therefore be it

Resolved, That the document "A Lutheran Stance Toward Contemporary Biblical Studies" be commended to the Synod's membership for study and discussion.

B
Whereas, The responses which the [CTCR] received from members of the Synod have been very helpful; therefore be it

Resolved, That we encourage those who have concerns regarding any part of the document "A Lutheran Stance Toward Biblical Studies" to present these concerns to the [CTCR] for clarification of the document; and be it further

Resolved, That Overture 2-07 be respectfully declined.
Action: Adopted. (An amendment to substitute "pastoral conferences" for "the Synod's membership" in the Resolved of 2-02A was lost.)


And what was Overture 2-07 that was respectfully declined?
Overture 2-07: To Reject "A Lutheran Stance Toward Contemporary Biblical Studies"
This overture, submitted by St. John's Ev. Lutheran Church, Clinton, Iowa, criticizes the CTCR's document because it "approaches the Bible with the preconceived notions of modern theology's 'new hermeneutics,'" and "whittles 'necessary controversy' down to issues which have a bearing on 'the Gospel itself,'" and "opens the door wide to the destructive principles of Modernism's devastating 'historical-critical method'"; and "enables one to sit in judgment over the Bible by alleging that this sacred book contains an endless amount of unspecified 'literary forms' ('and so on'), which could include myths, legends, beefed-up accounts, contradictions, and the like."

The resolution concludes with this single resolved:
"That the Synod reject 'A Lutheran Stance Toward Contemporary Biblical Studies,' as does St. John's Ev. Lutheran Church." (Workbook, 60-61).



The folks in Clinton knew that for the Synod to adopt Resolution 2-02 it would be commending a document that itself commends the legitimate use of the historical-critical method. That is why they opposed the resolution and sought to have the Synod adopt their own overture. But the Synod acted differently. The convention commended the CTCR's document, with its commendation of the historical-critical method, and rejected the overture from St. John's Clinton.

Then, the convention commended the CTCR itself:

Resolution 2-01: To Commend Commission on Theology and Church Relations
Whereas, the [CTCR], which was established by the Synod at its convention in Cleveland, 1962, has continued faithfully during the past 2 years since the Detroit convention the work assigned to it; and


Whereas, This commission with the assistance of its executive secretary, Dr. Richard Jungkuntz, has provided the members of the Synod with several important documents and studies dealing with theological issues referred to it by the Cleveland and Detroit conventions; therefore be it

Resolved, That the [CTCR] be commended for its dedicated labors; and be it further

Resolved, That the commission be encouraged to continue its important work, supported by our prayers for the aid and guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Action: Adopted.


So, for the next several years, the members of the Synod (pastors and congregations) were encouraged to study A Lutheran Stance Toward Contemporary Biblical Studies, a document that commends the legitimate use of historical-criticism among the Synod's membership. This document that was commended by that 1967 convention and re-commended by the 1969 convention is still commendable today.

To read the 1966 CTCR study, go here.

An Exegesis of 1967 LCMS Resolution 2-02

This year marks the 45th anniversary of a convention resolution (1967 Resolution 2-02) by the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod that "commended" a rather remarkable document: A Lutheran Stance toward Contemporary Biblical Studies.  Two years earlier the Synod had authorized its Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) to form a  committee to  "conduct a comprehensive study of Biblical hermeneutics," that is, to examine the principles and methods of biblical interpretation.  

The eight individuals who formed that committee and who prepared the report that was commended in 1967 were Walter Bartling, Robert Bertram, Martin Franzmann, Heino Kadai, H. Armin Moellering, Robert Preus, Walter Roehrs, and Raymond Surburg. Ralph Bohlmann and Richard Jungkuntz also participated in the work of the committee. Anyone familiar with that period of synodical history knows that these ten individuals represented the two basic theological camps within the synod at that time, one that was oriented toward seventeenth-century Lutheran Orthodoxy (with its rather novel notion of "biblical inerrancy") and the other oriented toward post-enlightenment theological developments and toward an understanding of biblical authority that rested on the Bible's dynamic witness to law and gospel. And yet, at the end of the day, all ten professors, from  Bob Bertram (my teacher at Chicago), on the one hand, to Robert Preus and H. Armin Moellering (my teacher in St. Louis), on the other, signed off on the report that was eventually "commended" to the Synod's membership.  

Between January 1966 and April 1969, the committee met 12 times. Seven essays from the group were published by the CTCR in the 1969 booklet, A Project in Biblical Hermeneutics, edited by Jungkuntz. At the Synod convention that year, the delegates "received" a further CTCR document, "Answers to Questions Raised Regarding the Document A Lutheran Stance toward Contemporary Biblical Studies," which basically addressed a few minor criticisms of the original report. The Synod also encouraged further study of the original 1967 document (see 1969 Resolution 2-04). Speaking for the CTCR committee, Dr. Jungkuntz wrote that year to the Synod: 

"The committee is fully convinced that the basic hermeneutical issues which appear to be the source of tension and confusion in our church today are not uniquely a problem of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod and that their solution or removal from the area of Christian concern will not be achieved by our unique contribution alone. At the same time, however, we also believe that the action of the Synod in authorizing this comprehensive study and the work that has been done on it so far furnish our church with an opportunity for growth in Biblical understanding and mutual edification which would now be abandoned only at great loss to ourselves--loss of courage, loss of freedom, loss of trust in the power of God's Word to overcome our darkness with His light" (1969 LCMS Convention Workbook, 66).

Yet, just four years later, after Dr. J. A. O. Preus was elected president of the Synod at that same 1969 convention, a slim majority of synodical delegates to the 1973 convention acted by resolution to condemn 40 of 45 faculty members at the Synod's Concordia Seminary, in part because they had been utilizing the very principles and methods of biblical interpretation that had been deemed "legitimate" by the ten-member CTCR committee and had been "commended" to the Synod in 1967 and further commended in 1969. Looking back on that 1973 convention action, in light of how those contemporary biblical principles and methods ("the historical-critical method," as it was then called) had been commended to the Synod in 1967 and 1969, one is reminded of that scene in the film Casablanca where Claude Rains' character, the police chief, is forced to shut down Rick's casino. As his men are doing this, he declares to Rick, "I'm shocked! Shocked, to learn there is gambling in this place!" And then the chief is presented with his winnings from the evening. The 1973 Synod seemed to be saying, "We're shocked! Shocked to learn that you faculty majority have been using the historical-critical method and contemporary principles of biblical interpretation!" ("Leave aside the fact that we commended this method to scholars in the Synod and have benefited from its use in our Synod...")

This is not to suggest that the use of the historical-critical method is on the same moral level as gambling, although I suspect there are some who would argue that it comes close. Certainly the vast majority of Bible students for the past several centuries have benefited greatly from the scholarly results of such historical and literary investigation of the Scriptures. In my view, the pay-off of this scholarship has been much, much greater than whatever winnings the police chief got that night at Rick's. Each week that I prepare a sermon or a Bible study, I benefit from the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (as does even the most "fundamentalistic" of Bible scholars), the Stuttgart edition of the Hebrew Bible, the great historical-critical work that was done by the German scholars who produced the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, the Greek lexicon that was edited by former LCMS scholar, Fred Danker, and by those scholars who worked on the Anchor Bible Dictionary and all those who have produced the ocean of critical commentaries on the biblical books, and the list goes on.

Remarkably, there was a time in LCMS history when contemporary tools of biblical study, including the legitimate use of the modern historical-critical method, were commended to the Synod's own membership. In the CTCR committee's report to that 1969 convention, the ten-member group could even write publicly:

"Our church too must critically examine the methods and products of modern biblical scholarship. It is a matter of record that in recent decades there has been a shift away from the crass theological liberalism that was rampant earlier in this century in the direction of a more conservative, more Biblical theology. With this shift has come, on the part of many Biblical scholars, a more responsible use of the historical-critical method of Bible study. It is therefore not a foregone conclusion that all the presuppositions and conclusions of current scholarship are necessarily the same as those against which our fathers rightly protested. Hence it must not be assumed in advance that our church's present judgment needs to coincide at all points with that of the fathers, although it should indeed proceed from the same theological perspective" (1969 LCMS Convention Workbook, 5). Remember, the names that stood behind these words included Robert Preus, Raymond Surburg, H. Armin Moellering, and Ralph Bohlmann. 

A Lutheran Stance toward Contemporary Biblical Studies sets forth basic presuppositions for a faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture, "the basic and legitimate elements of the so-called historical-critical method," and "necessary controls" for the rightful use of that method.

Within the section on presuppositions, the committee stated the following:

"In hearty agreement with the Lutheran Confessions we affirm that the right understanding of the Gospel (including the proper distinction of Law and Gospel as grounded in the article of justification) is the key that finally unlocks the meaning of Sacred Scripture (Apology, IV, 2-5; FC, SD, V, 1).  We therefore hold that all theological questions raised by any interpretation must be posed and answered with reference to this central concern of the Scriptures.  We also hold that those technical questions involved in interpretation which neither aid nor impair the right understanding of the Gospel (in its full sense) ought not become a matter of controversy in the church" (A Lutheran Stance toward Contemporary Biblical Studies, pp. 8-9).

Then there came a section that gave a basic description of "the historical-critical method" of biblical interpretation and how that method is to be legitimately used:

"We consider the following to be basic and legitimate elements of the so-called historical-critical method (cp. 'Guiding Principles for the Interpretation of the Bible' as accepted by the Ecumenical Study Conference, Oxford, 1949):

1. Establishing the text. This entails the sensitive use of both external and internal criteria (i.e., the evidence of manuscripts, ancient versions, lectionaries, patristic quotations; and   the evidence of style, language, thought) for detecting any alterations which the text may have suffered through the process of transmission by human hands, and thus to determine the original reading as accurately as possible.

2.  Ascertaining the literary form of the passage. This entails, as an aid to better comprehension, analyzing the Biblical passage in terms of its formal structure and character at the hand of such questions as these: Is it prose or poetry? Is it an address, a prayer, a monologue, a treaty, an edict, a letter? Is it an oracular saying, an invective, a lament, a liturgy, a proverb, a parable, a creed, a hymn? and so on.

3.  Determining the historical situation. This entails discovering, so far as possible, the original setting—in time and place and circumstances—of the document, its author, and its readers.

4.  Apprehending the meaning which the words had for the original author and hearer or reader. This entails careful investigation of the actual linguistic usage and idiom (together with their overtones conditioned by the social context in which they appear) of the author and his contemporaries in the light of the Biblical data and also of such extra-Biblical literature as may belong to the same social context.

5.  Understanding the passage in the light of its total context and of the background out of  which it emerged. This entails consideration not only of the text’s antecedent and contemporary circumstances—religious, cultural, historical—but also of the full range of the  Biblical witness in both the Old and New Testaments" (ibid., 9).

Among the "controls," one finds the following:

"The problem of 'history' needs to be handled with extraordinary sensitivity by the Christian interpreter. He cannot adopt uncritically the presuppositions and canons of the secular historian. In his use of historical techniques the interpreter will be guided by the presuppositions of his faith in the Lord of history. It is indeed true that Christian faith rightly sees in the historicalness of God’s redemptive work (His entry into and participation in our saeculum) a divine warrant for the use of “secular” means and methods in the study of His Word, including linguistic, literary, and historical analysis of the texts. But at the same time faith recognizes that there is more to history than can ever be adequately measured by “laws” derived exclusively from empirical data and rational observation… " (ibid., 10).

"The undeniably necessary effort to hear a text of Scripture first of all in its particularity, its meaning 'then and there,' must be balanced by an equal effort to hear the text both in its integral relation to all the rest of Scripture and in its meaningfulness for all who hear it today. This effort does not require an arbitrary flattening out of the rich variety of the Biblical witness into a dull one-dimensional uniformity…" (ibid.).

"Whatever cognizance needs to be taken—as indeed it must—of the connection between Biblical materials and their background in the whole complex of social, cultural, political, economic, and religious factors of their day, a clear distinction must nevertheless be maintained between the unique, divine, and revelatory character of Scripture and the sheer human and contingent character of Scripture’s earthly milieu. Parallelisms between extra-Biblical materials and the form or substance of Scripture do not as such constitute causal or substantive relations. This is not in the least to deny the genuinely human and earthly dimension of Scripture itself…" (ibid.).

The hermeneutical principles and "the basic and legitimate" historical-critical method that this CTCR committee defined for the Synod in 1967 and which were commended that year by the Synod and further commended in 1969, strike me as still valid and useful for our own contemporary situation some forty-five years later. I certainly could not teach theology very well in my university or parish setting without using and relying on tools and resources of historical-critical investigation.

It seems to me that paragraph two (on literary form and genre) and paragraph five (on the historical context) have been largely neglected in synodical biblical interpretation and theological understanding since 1973.  The same can be said for the language about "an equal effort to hear the text both in its integral relation to all the rest of Scripture and in its meaningfulness for all who hear it today."

A good example with respect to paragraph two and the sensitivity to contemporary "meaningfulness" is the apparent refusal within the contemporary LCMS to acknowledge the distinct genres that are present in the first chapters of Genesis and to accept the fact that none of these genres fits with modern notions of "historical report" or "modern scientific description." Such a conclusion is easy to make if one takes the time to compare the stories of origin in Genesis 1-11 with other, similar stories from the ancient Near East, including the Babylonian epic of creation (Enuma Elish), the Akkadian epic of Gilgamesh (e.g., flood, serpent, tree of life), other Akkadian epics and myths, Ugaritic myths and epics, Sumerian epics (e.g., speaking snake), myths of primeval time among African peoples (including the Egyptians), Greek tragic mythologies, and other ancient Near Eastern myths and legends. By discerning the genres in these early chapters in Genesis, a key task of the historical-critical method, one is less likely to force the text into a genre that is foreign to it, e.g., thinking about it as "pure myth" (as in "false story"), or as "historical report" or modern "scientific language."

A good example with respect to paragraph five of the CTCR committee's report is the apparent refusal in the contemporary Synod, post-1973, to acknowledge that the Scriptures are in tension with one another with regard to their teaching about men and women within the church. The few NT commands that "women be silent in the churches" and that women are not "to exercise authority over men" must be understood in the light of the Bible's "total context and of the background out of which it emerged. This entails consideration not only of the text’s antecedent and contemporary circumstances—religious, cultural, historical—but also of the full range of the Biblical witness in both the Old and New Testaments." When one does that, one realizes that the Bible contains some apparent contradictions on the same issue, in this case what women may or may not do in the churches in the first century, since some women spoke authoritatively within the churches and exercised leadership over men (in both the OT and the NT) whereas in a few other places women were severely restricted. When one attends to historical and cultural contexts and acknowledges the distinction between abiding principle ("all things must be done decently and in order") and temporal/transitory application ("women should be silent"; "women should not exercise authority over men"; "women should have an authority on their head"; etc.), then there is freedom to discern how a given Scriptural text should be understood and applied in the contemporary situation. The application today might even be the exact opposite of the application that some used in the first century. It is not a coincidence that the Synod voted in 1969, finally, to allow women to vote in congregations and to serve in leadership positions, just at the time that it was commending the historical-critical method, since most scholars within the Synod at that time readily used this method to point out how the Scriptures really do not prohibit such actions for all times and places. Even then, there were a few synodical scholars who, as a result of their historical and literary investigation of the Scriptures, had come to the conclusion that the prohibition on women serving as theologians and pastors is not really biblically supportable either.

What the Synod commended in 1967 and 1969 still needs to be commended today. The reaction against the hermeneutical principles and the legitimate use of historical-critical methodology that the Synod took in 1973 and later--over against the synodical commendations of those same principles and method in 1967 and 1969-- was a mistake. It was a mistake for that faculty majority to have been condemned for using the very biblical tools that the Synod had earlier commended.

If one argues that the Synod changed its position on Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture between 1967 and 1973, I can accept that argument, but I would simply respond then by saying that the Synod commended a better position on Scriptural interpretation in 1967 and 1969 than it adopted in 1973 and later.

Sure, there is more to this story than what I am presenting here. My friend, Ed Schroeder, one of those who was condemned in 1973 and who lost his synodical calling as a result, has written about some of the other dynamics in play here, as has another friend, Fred Danker, one of the most able of historical-critical investigators in the twentieth century. (One the ironies in this story is that two of the earliest proponents of the use of historical-critical methodology within the Synod, namely, Horace Hummel and Martin Scharlemann, later took up defensive positions "on the other side" and acted against those who used the very method that they had earlier helped to introduce into seminary education within the Synod. I remember thinking to myself, after hearing Dr. Hummel lecture on "inerrancy" one day, when I was his M. Div. student in the mid-1980s, that the term really was meaningless, since the whole point of his lecture was to kill the term through a dozen qualifications. Same was true with his extremely qualified use of the expression "the historical-grammatical method," which was supposed to replace the forbidden phrase, "the historical-critical method." As he described the former approach, it really didn't seem to be substantially different from the latter. If there was a significant difference it was that the historical-grammatical method encouraged one to maintain the status quo of synodical doctrinal resolutions and not call a synodical understanding into question, whereas "the historical-critical method" did in fact lead one to reject as unsupportable certain cherished positions within the traditional LCMS, e.g., a literalistic understanding of Genesis 1 and an insistence that the first-century apostolic applications about keeping women "silent" and not allowing them "to exercise authority over men" were just as valid today as they were for at least a few in the first century. Because of this difference I became convinced that Dr. Luther would have actually supported the use of the historical-critical method--and there are solid indications within his own biblical interpretation that leads in this direction--because it would allow the Scriptures to be placed over against the church and its received interpretations of the Bible, it would allow scholars to test those traditional interpretations continually against the biblical texts as historically and literarily understood, and it would allow the church to remain open to the possibility that the biblical texts had not been properly understood or applied in its own history.