The Function Of Doctrine Theology And In Light Of The Unity Of The Church

and the historically discernibleprocess by which Scripture cameinto being.Any adequate concept of the unityof Scripture must be related to anddrawn from serious attention tothe individual texts and units ofScripture and what they uniquelyhave to say. Clearly this is closelyrelated to what has been saidabove about the central content ofScripture. The nature and contentof the unity of Scripture cannot bedecided in advance so that it becomes an abstract principle towhich Scripture itself must be subordinated. Even though we havepresuppositions about the natureand content of the unity of Scripture which we bring with us to ourexegetical work, this unity ofScripture must always remain aquestion if we are to take the norming function of Scripture itselfseriously. Thus even the possibility that the unity of Scripture maycontain within itself divergenttheologies cannot be excluded automatically.While the Confessions do not advocate an exegetical method, theydo presuppose that the true, normative meaning of a text is its literal,grammatical-historical sense; i.e.,what the original author intendedto say to the original hearers.The exegetical interpretations ofparticular passages in our exegetical tradition or in the Confessionsthemselves are aids to exegesis,78but they can never be normativefor exegesis. Again, if Scripture itself is normative, we can never assume that the true interpretationof any particular passage is already given to us in our exegeticaltradition, even though that may bethe case. To do so would be to subordinate Scripture to a normativeexegetical tradition. Obviously ourexegetical tradition . does andshould serve as a hermeneuticalaid in interpreting passages, andas a presupposition it serves as aquestion we bring to Scripture.The literal sense of Scripture is itssimplest and most direct senseseen within the context in which itwas written and to which it was addressed. Due to our historical distance from the situations that provide the most direct contexts ofpassages in Scripture as well asfrom their thought forms, conceptual world, and even literary forms,what may appear to us to be thesimplest sense of a passage mayhave little relation to the meaningit had in its historical context. Thesimplest sense of a text must always be the sense it had in its historical context; i.e., its literal grammatical-historical sense, which isits normative sense.To ascertain the literal sense of apassage we must take full accountof the use and function of literaryand rhetorical forms, interpretingthe text in terms of the meaningthese forms are intended to convey. A serious commitment toScripture, which means a strictcommitment to the literal grammatical-historical sense of the text,requires the use of all the aidsavailable for understanding it.Such aids include linguistic andliterary skills, knowledge of his-torical linguistic and conceptualworlds, awareness of history andthe history of ideas, including history of religious ideas, ability toidentify historical literary and rhetorical forms and their function inconveying meaning, and understanding the process by which biblical texts and books come into being as an aid in interpreting themin their historical intention. Thecriterion for the validity of any exegetical method is that it be anaid in opening our eyes to whatstands written in the text so thatit speaks its word to us, rather thandirecting our attention away froma serious consideration of the textitself.In view of the historical distancebetween the interpreter and thecontext within which the text being interpreted originated, a commitment to the literal grammaticalhistorical sense of the text requires the use of historical methods of interpretation. As an extensive set of tools for seeing the textin its historical / conceptual contextthe historical-critical method isnecessary in our day.As in the development of any exegetical tool, the questions broughtto the text in the historical-criticalapproach may at times be differentfrom the scope of the text itself. Inaddition to the purposes for whichit was written, the text of the Biblecan also be used as a resource forlinguistic, historical, and literaryquestions. This use is important indeveloping tools for understandingthe literal, grammatical-historicalmeaning of texts in Scripture. Suchquestions may include the historical setting, literary relationships

we interpret what the text says, butit also involves a movement fromthe text to the interpreter in whichthe interpreter's world and existence before God is interpreted bythe text (new hermeneutic).As the Word of God, the text ofScripture has hermeneutical powerin human existence; it does notneed to be protected or defendedby us. The history of traditions asreflected, for example, in Gerhardvon Rad's "Old Testament Theology" has shown that the materialin the Bible itself reflects a historyof transmission in which older traditions were reappropriated in newhistorical situations in such a waythat the new situations were interpreted in relation to God's actionby the older traditions and theolder traditions in turn were seenin a new light. Clearly this processinvolved distortion as well as a trueappropriation in the biblical perioditself (e.g., true vs. false prophets).But the hermeneutical process bywhich biblical texts illuminate newhistorical situations and in turnare seen in a new light in new situations is not external to the materials themselves. It belongs to thescope of the material itself.If Scripture is the source and normof theology, the character of Scripture itself must determine thecharacter and structure of theological thought. The unity of Scripturecannot be defined on the basis ofour presuppositions about the logical unity and coherence of theological thought, but the characterof Scripture itself must determinewhat constitutes the unity of Scripture.80The character of Scripture and thekind of unity it manifests must determine the nature of the unity oftheology and the unity of thechurch. The unity of theology andthe church is not necessarily constituted by a rationally consistent,homogeneous, uniform theology;it may include what appears to usto be diverse and even rationallyinconsistent, competing theologies. Ernst Kasemann argues thatdenominational diversity is rootedin theological diversity within thecanon. 4 The point that there istheological diversity within thecanon is widely held in biblicalexegesis, and for someone whohas read Luther's introduction tothe Epistle of James it does notappear to be a strange, new conviction.5Whether or not Kasemann is correct is not something that can bedecided on a priori grounds (e.g.,to argue that such diversity is theologically impossible or that theidea of the unity of Scripture automatically excludes it); it can onlybe decided exegetically. If Kasemann is right, then faithfulness toScripture would require a modification of our understanding of theunity of theology and of the churchto include a greater degree of theological diversity than has been customary for us. After all, reality doesnot necessarily have to conform toour canons of logical consistencyand coherence. Even in the realmof physics people have had to learnto live with logically incompatableand inconsistent statements whichare necessary to describe the reality of nature as, for example, thewave and particle descriptions ofreality which must both be maintained in an accurate model eventhough they are inconsistent.A mosaic may be a more adequatemodel of the unity of theology andthe church as required by Scripture than a linear, homogeneousconstruction. Under the impact ofMcLuhan and others, we are compelled to recognize that the linearlogic most of us have been trainedto regard as normal is only oneamong many ways of thinking, andtaken by itself it may not even beentirely adequate. At the sametime, biblical studies are makingquite clear the difference betweenour logical way of structuring theology and the way the Bible itselfdoes theology (e.g., von Rad's "OldTestament Theology").If Scripture is normative for theology, then the true interpretationof Scripture is never given us already as a presupposition but mustconstantly be sought. The seriousness with which we take Scriptureis not so much seen in our doctrine of Scripture as in our strictpursuit of the literal grammaticalhistorical sense of the text withthe aid of every tool at our disposal. If theology is to be faithful,it can never seek to protect itselffrom new encounters with themeaning of passages in the Bibleseen in their historical context.

If theology is to be faithful to astrict commitment to the normative function of Scripture in its literal grammatical-historical sense,then in our day the historicalcritical method is not optional butnecessary. Anything less than thiswould be an abandonment of aserious commitment to the literalgrammatical-historical sense ofScripture as the sole rule, norm,and judge of theology. Since theConfessions bind us to Scriptureas the sole norm for theology, theybind us to the use of whatevertools are available to us for understanding passages of the Bible intheir historical sense.The work of the Spirit through theunderstanding of the externalWord to create internal clarity orunderstanding (faith) is not conditioned by our methodology. Although the Spirit is wrapped upin the external word and worksthrough it, the Spirit does not require for his work accurate exegesis, only that Christ be proclaimed.While the Spirit does not requireaccurate exegesis, theology, to doits work, does.1 To the concept of a doxological state-ment, cf., E. Schlink's discussion of"The Structure of Dogmatic Statements in an Ecumenical Problem,"The Coming Christ and the ComingChurch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1968), pp. 16-84; W. Pannenberg,"Analogy and Doxology," Basic Questions in Theology, Vol. I (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1970), pp. 211-38.2 Cf., the very helpful discussion inRalph A. Bohlmann, Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the LutheranConfessions (Saint Louis: ConcordiaPublishing House, 1968), pp. 111-24.3 Cf., Hans Georg Gadamer's concept ofhermeneutics as a process of mergingof horizons, Truth and Method (NewYork: Seabury Press, 1975).4 Ernst Kasemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1964), pp. 95-107.5 See Preface to the Epistles of St.James and St. Jude, E. TheodoreBachmann, ed., Luther's Works, Vol.35 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1960), pp. 395-98.81

man accent on the doctrinal tradi tion of the church as the normative interpreter of Scripture. The em phasis on the clarity of Scripture was an aid in maintaining the her meneutical function of Scripture. Statements about the Bible as the Word of God or about the inspira tion, efficacy, and unity of Scrip