Co-missioners,
Today Steve Kuhl continues his response to Ron Roschke on the topic of how the Scriptures were heard and listened to in the classrooms of Seminex a half-century ago. Simmering in the background is Steve’s reaction to Ron’s suggestion—see his posts of last April—that historical critical methodology needs to be applied also to our reading of the Lutheran Confessions.
Peace and Joy,
The Crossings Community
__________________________________________________________________
Seminex Hermeneutics: Schroeder’s Ellipse and Bertram’s Cross
(Part Two of Two)
by Steven C. Kuhl
Continuing from last Thursday—
Hermeneutics, Times for Confessing, and the Promise of the Holy Spirit
Hermeneutics—how to understand Scripture and do theology—is not just an academic exercise, though it certainly is that. But in addition, especially in contemporary theology, the theologian’s experience has conscientiously come to play a significant role in the process of interpreting Scripture and doing theology. In the case of Bob Bertram and Ed Schroeder it is what I would call their martyrological experience—the experience of conflict with ecclesiastical authority—that has most profoundly shaped their hermeneutics.
Bertram called this experience a “time for confessing,” borrowing the term from Article X of the Formula of Concord, and emphasized that such times are not times of everyday theological debate between academic theologians. Rather, they are times when those in positions of authority use their otherwise legitimate secular/organizational authority to silence the gospel, usually by relegating the gospel to secondary importance. To the best of my knowledge, Bertram and Schroeder did not analyze this experiential dimension of hermeneutics in a systematic way, but they often spoke about how much they learned simply by going through the ordeal that was Seminex.
That they learned much through this ordeal is, I believe, no accident. For as distressful and trying as conflict over theological matters can be, the promise of the gospel includes the promise that, when such times come, the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into all truth—and that is the hermeneutical significance of the Holy Spirit in times for confessing. More on this below. Jesus called these experiences “times of trial.” Knowing how trying these trials can be, Jesus bids his disciples pray they never come (Matthew 6:13). Still, it is in such times that hermeneutics, times for confessing, and the Holy Spirit’s guidance come together.
The experience of the confessor in times for confessing resembles what Bertram means when he talks about “ambiguous certitude.” Ambiguous certitude is a certainty about the gospel that is born of faith, but which nevertheless bears this ambiguity: it defies rational comprehension. Bystanders, whether sympathetic or antagonistic to the confessors, would frequently say, “Why put up with so much grief for what seems to be such a subtle point?” And frequently the confessors themselves would be tempted by the same question. As Bertram puts it, “Who are to be pointing the finger!” For we are “people who are demonstrable sinners, and are that perhaps most demonstrably in the way criticize others, have to bear the overwhelming burden…of being for once in lifetimes embarrassedly, mortifyingly right.” (See Bertram, A Time for Confessing, p. 148-149.) The confessor stands in the tension of blasphemy (misrepresenting God) and apostasy (forsaking God). (Ibid., p. 149.)
The Promise of the Spirit’s Guidance in Scripture
It is no exaggeration to say that the Church’s Scripture and theological tradition generally—its orthodoxy, so to speak—is born out of such “times of trial.” True, not all of the understandings that emerge from such times are necessarily incorporated into the dogmatic holdings of the Church or even remembered by the Church. Some are hidden in the confines of Church history, others lost to history altogether, still others tucked away in some remnant of the Church. In his book A Time for Confessing, Bertram seeks to ensure that some of the 20th Century’s times for confessing are not lost all together, but gain a place in history, be it in something as tenuous as Bertram’s little-distributed book.
Jesus and the apostles attest frequently to the promise of the Holy Spirit’s guidance in times of theological controversy over the nature of the gospel. For example, in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus says, “When they (ecclesiastical or secular authorities) bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak but the Holy Spirit” (Mark 13:11; see also Matthew 10:19-20; Luke 12:11-12.). Paul, too, notes the role conflict can play in revealing the truth of the gospel in his dealings with the Corinthians: “Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine” (1Corinthians 11:19).
A third example is Jesus’ upper room discourse in John’s Gospel. Anticipating the trials that the disciples will face not only on the “night of his betrayal, but also after his “return to the Father,” Jesus says, “I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you” (John 14:25-26). Another example is when the resurrected Jesus “opens the Scripture” for his disciples, thereby clearly identifying the hermeneutical key to Scripture (Luke 24:44-47) and firmly establishing them as the Church: the Christ-commissioned witnesses to the gospel (Luke 24:48-49; Matthew 28:18-29) and Spirit-filled interpreter of Scripture (Acts 2:14-36, 8:26-40).
Finally, the inappropriateness of using secular (coercive) authority to silence theological debate is, ironically, affirmed by none other than Gamaliel when he says to the governing council in Jerusalem concerning the gospel taught by the apostles: “If this plan or this understanding is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God” (Acts 5:38-39). The irony is thick. Even though Gamaliel is persuasive, the council can’t help but have the apostles flogged and ordered not to speak (Acts 5:40). And then, to top that, the apostles leave the council rejoicing that they were found worthy to suffer for the gospel (5:41). Such are the times of trial.
Times for Confessing in the Church’s History
The ongoing history of this promise in the post-apostolic age is attested to in the martyrologies of the early Church; in the conflicts that Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria engaged against the Gnostics; in the battle Athanasius endured—being exiled five times—against the Arians (giving rise to the Nicene Creed and the Trinitarian doctrine of God); and in the Roman persecution faced by Cyprian. Augustine voiced late-in-life reservations about the alliance developing between the Catholic Church and Imperial Rome, even though his “victory” over the Donatists and the Pelagians “benefited” from that alliance. (Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo, pp. 337-339.)
The Middle Ages, too, had its share of experience with this promise. I would put the witness of Dominic and Francis in that category, as well as the work of Royalists like John of Paris, the Conciliarist Movement, and the witness of John Wycliffe and Jan Hus.
For Bertram, the Lutheran Reformation—centered in the trial at Augsburg—was the first time a confessing movement gave systematic analysis to what it means to be immersed in a “time for confessing.” Drawing on insights gleaned from Article X of the Formula of Concord, Bertram gave further systematic expression to the concept and applied it to movements of the 20th Century, events that might otherwise be missed as “confessing movements.”
Describing the promise of the Holy Spirit as a hermeneutical principle in times of confessing does not mean we have a mystical illumination apart from or, even, upon Scripture. The promise of the Holy Spirit should not be likened to a doctrine of inerrancy attributed to true believers—whether the fundamentalist type or the Roman Catholic, Papal-magisterial type. Nor does this promise reflect a need for adopting a pre-critical, enchanted worldview. But it does reflect a point of view that Edgar Krentz sees as lacking in the Enlightenment worldview that gave rise to and still limits the Historical Critical Method.
Krentz observed that the Enlightenment outlook of the HCM “has emancipated itself form any serious consideration of God’s action in history and from the tradition of the church…. Only when exegesis is brought back into the framework of the third article of the creed can this minimalizing liberation be met effectively.” (Krentz, The Historical Critical Method, p.87.) Krentz sees the need to reclaim the Lutheran formula of and Luther’s view of Scripture as its own interpreter to correct the historicism of the HCM.
The “Surplus Value” in the Apostolic Witness
Bertram proposed that this promise of the Spirit’s guidance in matters of hermeneutics in times of trial unearths a kind of “surplus value” that allows the scriptural witness to speak authentically to situations and circumstances that the biblical writers never imagined. In other words, there is a “Biblical Theology,” summarized as the Distinction of Law and Gospel, that can be “crossed” into new situations. Therefore, the Spirit’s leading is always inseparable from the apostolic witness. This spiritual guidance does not give “new,” in the sense of novel or innovative, information, but it does entail creatively expanding upon the meaning or implications of the biblical message in continuity with past interpretations and extrapolations of the Apostolic Message (See John 14:26, John 16:13, Mark 13:11, Matthew 10:20, and Luke 12:12). Just as necessity is the mother of invention, so necessity brought on by times of confessing is the mother of interpretation.
A Final Thought from Elert
Here we are not adopting either an enthusiast (whether of the old Schwärmer type or the modern Pentecostal type) or an institutionalist (Roman magisterial) point of view concerning the Spirit’s work. But this approach does value experience as part of the hermeneutical task the way Luther talks about experience, as occasions for discerning how the truth of the biblical message is confirmed by daily living. For instance, as Luther says, the Christian life is in many ways a study into the catechism in that our experience will illustrate and confirm what the catechism teaches. In other words, the Christian life is not just the school of hard knocks, but a school that confirms and illustrates the meaning of cross, as Paul notes throughout his letters.
Given this experiential aspect of biblical hermeneutics, Werner Elert offers a helpful distinction. In his Der christliche Glaube, Elert asserts that there are two kinds of exegesis that correspond to two kinds of exegetes: a literary exegesis and a theological exegesis. To be sure, both kinds of exegesis and exegetes utilize all the tools of historical criticism available to them to get at the intended meaning or understanding of the author. But they differ with regard to how the text strikes them, where “strikes” is Elert’s term for faith.
The literary exegete treats the biblical message like any other piece of literature, as a report confined to its times. Accordingly, the literary exegete also judges the veracity of the text on the basis of the “best” human understanding available and the kinds of concerns that that understanding deems important or relevant. To be sure, that kind of inquiry can illuminate aspects of the text and is certainly a legitimate scholarly enterprise. But ultimately it misses the mark. For it doesn’t recognize that the biblical message is not simply a report about events that happened 2000 years ago, but a present-day address to the reader by God himself.
By contrast, the theological exegete is one who is struck by the message as the Word of God addressed to them. As Elert puts it “In order to understand Scripture, one must not only ascertain what is meant, but also who is meant, namely, none other than the reader and exegete himself. This readiness to know that one’s self is meant is faith.” (Emphasis mine.) It is this readiness to receive what the message of the text as pertaining to us—specifically, message that we are justified by grace, through faith, in Jesus Christ apart from the works of the law, a message, thanks be to God, that insists on the priority of gospel over law—is what ultimately distinguishes Seminex hermeneutics.
If there is any unfinished business to Seminex hermeneutics, it is because we still wait in hope for Jesus to come again. God is still granting us more history that needs to be critically interpreted and crossed in light of God’s two words, law and promise.
__________________________
SCK
East Troy, Wisconsin
September 18, 2024