The Leuenberg Concord Translation by TOHN DRICKAMER icience, The Bible, Evolution, ;reation, And The Flood RAYMONDF. SURBURG The Outside Limits Of Lutheran Zonfessionalism In Contemporary 3iblical Interpretation HORACED. HUMMEL fie Nerv Quest For The Sacred : llle Witchcraft Craze And The Lure Of The Occult / RALPHL. MOELLERING i Ikitsch1 And Pieper On Subjective ustification : A Comparison I OTTOC. HINTZE he "Cry Of Derelictionv- nother Point Of View 1 ROBERTHOLST The Outside Limits Of Lutheran Confessionalism In Contemporary Biblical Interpretation Visiting Assistant Professor at Iml-paraiso Unil-ersity PART I1 GOSPEL VERSUS BIBLE N0 MATTER HO\V one cuts the cake, the issue of confessional- ism is also the issue of Scripture. I regret that some have ap- parently misunderstood my own earlier accent on a "confessional hermeneutic" as somehow intended to supplant sola Scril~tura.~' This, of course, is emphatically not the case. Obviously, the nornta norlrzata is no stronger than the norma Izornzans, just as, conversely, the latter is subject to all sorts of hermeneutical legerdemain when confessional principles of interpretation fade. The two stand or fall together. In both cases, and as already noted nith respect to the con- fession, me have a sort of "Gospel reductionism."" ii'hat is abso- lutely indispensable if "biblicism" and "legalism" are realh- to be avoided increasingly finds itself a sort of spiritualistic sole sur-liver. "Gospel" itself often comes to imply only some brand of es-istentialism with a little traditional, Christian veneer. Instead of the Bible and thc various doctriilal articles giving concrete form to the Gospel, the Gospel comes virtually to be pitted against the Bible, as "freeing" one from it or any ultimate concern about it. I thoroughly believe, also on the basis of mjr own experience, that this kind of Gospel-Bible dichotomization is the beginning of rril for any valid confessionalism, the Pandora's box which easily leads to increasing vaporization of the Christian s~bstance.'~ By the same token, I think it reall! is the parti~zgof the ?tiays for much of contemporary Lu- theranism (as of much of the rest of Christendom). It is so tempting to say "Just agree on the Gospel," but all elidence indicates that when a firm "formal principle" is no longer maintained, the "material prin- ciple" fast becomes shaky, ambiguous, and obscure too. It is also my personal experience that those who are so willing to settle for some arnorphic "Gospel," not surprisingly, rarelv find anything under the sun conflicting with it (short of explicit renunciation, which, of course, rarely occurs). Strangest of all, this dichotomization often appeals for support to both Luther and the confessions! (I am not competent to discuss all issucs in depth at this point, but it is hard to see how the appeal to either can even be allowed its day in court). Although neither makes a great point of inspiration or inerrancy, as such, it remains to be demonstrated that it was not simply assumed by all parties to the main debate (excluding, of course, sonie of the fringe sects). Debates there Kere about Scripture, to be sure, but apparentlj. none comparable to the fundamental, secularistic challenges to its author- it!. in later times (something which those who accent history SO much often inconsistently overlook). We have already noted what careful definitions are needed when speaking of Luther's "subjec-tivism," and the same n-ould be true of any appeal to his alleged "dynanlic" or "existential" interpretation (over against the "static scholasticisni," etc.), which conveniently forgets that Luther n-as no s~stematician. Similarly, then, Luther's allegedly "ca~ialier" attitude toward Scripture (as it is often describcd) turns out to be obiter dicta, off-the-cuff observations, about certain minor exegetical prob- lenls such as Alatthew's (27:9) apparent citation of Jeremiah in- stead of Zechariah, etc., with which any exegete must wrestle. Such observations surel!- have to be balanced against other repeated and explicit statements to the effect that Scripture mas absolutelp reliable, inviolable, etc. Hence, unless ~vc are to assume that 1,uther did not know his own mind and consistently contradictecl himself, it rvould scem to be a much more faithful reproduction of his thought to speak of "problerns" n-hich he observed in the Bible, rather than "errors" (at least in an!- n~ethodological, hermeneutical sense; cf. below). Thus, if it be objected that Luther had no dereloped ~~~~~~yof inspiration or of hermeneutics, but only a "simple trust" in the Bible's sufficient\-and reliabilitv, I think n-e could happily settle for the latter, especiall!- in contrast to most other options offered us toda).. Liliewise n-ith the question of the canon. Luther's dislike of James, Esther, Revelation, etc., and his accent on "was Christunl treibt" as n primar)- principle of interpretation are highly touted in sornc circles? a5 though they self-evidentlv denionstrated Luther's "subjective" stress on faith, Gospel, Christ, etc., over against an objective canon. .Although, obriously, the two must coexist and com- plement one another. both Luther's general practice as well as his vehement objections to the spiritualism of the Scl17i-iirlner n-ould seem to establish that Luther really meant to accent n-hat must always be centrrrl in exegesis, not something which could be pitted against it. There is no hint that Luther ever elevated his observations into an!- kind of herl~leneutical principle which n-ould justif!. any canon within tlic canon. So doubt, certain boots and parts of books enunciate the heart of the Gospel more inlmediate1)- and clearly than others, but the less clear are also to be interpreted in the light of the clear. That is a far cry from execting some new canon or any really "subjective" basis. Seither clid Luther's immediate heirs ever understand or in-terpret hill1 in that n-a!-. Even if it mere true that Luther did place the criterion of the Gospel in oypositio~lto the canon of Scripture, n-e mould still have to insist that ozrr norm is the Book of Concord, ?lot Luther as such. As a matter of fact, however, what we find there does not rcpresrnt an!- relapse from the loftiness of Luther's insights, but, rather, conscious faithfulness to him. The increasingl~ strident Roman Catholic claim that the church deter-lrlirzed the canon ap-parent]!-resulted in a certain reluctance to accent canonicity, as such, but, if an!-thing, with even greater accent on the forlnal principle of Scriptural authority as the basis of judging truth claims. At the same time, there was, of course, a reopening of the ancicnt problem of the esact limits of the canon: the mcdiel-al "deuteroca- nonical" works arc declared on the basis of earlier church history rather to be "apocr!-phal" and hence outside the canon, while the "antilegomcna" are reexamined and reaffirmed with the early church as truly can~nical.'~ However, there is no indication \\-hatsoc\-er that the lristorical question of precisely which books n-ere inspired was ever allowed to becloud the theological issue of inspiration and hence the authority of thc bulk of the canon. Also over against the Re- formed tradition, there is somewhat greater reserl-e in placing a priniar!. accent on the canon, but the difference may be esaggeratecl. The Lutheran concern that the Gospel, not the Biblc as such, receive the primary accent probably has an inner relationship to the parallel accent on God's 1o1.c over the Reformed stress on his holincss, but in neither case is the latter in any way denigrated. The question of what is logically or hermeneutically primary is, again, a diffcrcnt one fro111 that of n-hat is to be expounded in that light. Hence, at least as far as I can see, any attempt to exploit the fact that thc con- fessors did not include a special article on Scripture, and, further- more (apparently deliberately), refused to offer their own canonical list can only be regarded as a rather desperate, sophistical grasping at straws to attempt to justif!- a position 11-hich is. in fact, at basic variance from their own.'" That is to sa!-that the most elementar!. faitl~fulness to tlic Lutheran Reformation requires that any and et7er.>, clichotornization of Scripture be uncompromisingly rejected. The substitution of es-clusir.it)- for centrality is expressed in various n-a!-s, but the net result varies little, if any. The dichotomy ma!- be expressed in terms of "Christology" or "justification by faith" instead of "Gospel." In Lutheran circles one -is not surprised to find it articulated in terms' of "Law-Gospel:" rather than this key Lutheran insight being used to interpret all of Scripture, the attempt is nlacle to distillgrrislr "Law" froin "Gospel" ~rithin the Bible (a modern variant of an old prob- lem), so much so that sometimes when the debate gets hot one ivoulcl almost think he had to choose bet117eelr an authoritative Scrip- ture and "La~v-Gospel." Commonly, all prescripti~~e portions (e.g., the role of women) are styled "lam," and in moclern times, under the influence of historical investigation, those portions also come to be considered merely descriyti~le-of what was held at that time. The Old Testament, considered as virtually all "Lan-" and/or mere I~istorical background to the New Testament, is an especially fre-quent casualt!r of such dichotomizations, resulting, as someone has saicl, in the abbreviation of the canon by one testament." 1111addition, of course, the old assertion that the Bible is not the "word of God," but only contains it, is, in effect, still very much alive. iT'hile the former certainly runs the risk of true biblicism if not carefully quali- fied, and while a little theological sophistication will makc one wary of overly facile definitions of "~vord of God," it is also crystal clear that the latter fornlulation inevitably substitutes canonical authority 267 Bible And Confession with some other extraneous authority which must decide what is and what is not really God's word. The extent to which modern existentialist influences, represented especially in the entire Bult-mannian movement, hare rirtually reduced the "nord of God" to subjectivity or the jides qua is a major, but by no nleans untypical, exanlple of the spiritualistic and relativistic im ulses which seem inevitably to follow in the wake of any and alP dichotomirations, even if that is no conscious vart of the original intent. " The svnon!-nlit!- of tota Scriytura and sola Scriytz~ra as an indispensable component of confessionalism requires special accent again today. The Keformation took the theological unity of Scrip-ture as a self-e\.ident corollarj- of its inspiration, and hence, common divine authorship, so much for granted that it scarcely even com-mented on it, just as with other aspects of the doctrinc of Scripture. A generation ago again, under the aegis of neo-orthodoxy and "biblical theology," the unity of the Bible was virtuall!. an unques-tionable axiom, albeit in slightly different form. In today's radicall>- different atmosphere, however, almost the opposite is virtuall!. axio-matic, namel!- the sinlple dogma that the Bible is a collection of heterogeneous, non-unifiable "theologies." Not, mind you, simply a matter of varying accents and formulations (which was one of the great potential contributions of "biblical theolog>-" over against the traditional tendenc!- to equate unity and uniformity), but of com-pletely irreconcilable testimonies as to the nature of the Gospel itself. \\'hat has changed? Keally nothing, except the atmosphere and the axioms or presuppositions with which the stud>- of the Bible is approached! Could there be a better illustration of the nonsense of "scientific objectivit!-," or of the indispensabilit!- of a confessional hermeneutic? Perhaps nowhere is the new mood expressed more programmatical11- and more militantly than in the works of the influential Nen-- Testament scholar, E. Kasemann, ~vhose legion of faithful disciples all say. "Amen,"27 Indeed, if the Bible is no longer \-iemed as in its essence a sean~less robe to be interpreted according to the "analog!- of faith" (i.e., of Scripture as its own interpreter), but rather a miscellany of contradictory theologies, some good and some bad and all dated, the elltire basir of any sort of traditional dogmatics or confessional the- ology collapses as nell. Self-evidently, then, any confessional insist- ence upon doctrinal unity as a condition for union no longer has a leg to stand upon. The divorce of the exegetical and dogmatic disciplines follows almost as a matter of course, as it, in fact, has in most non-confessional circles today: the exegete believes that any acceptance of confessional postulates would inevitably compromise his "scientific freedom," and the systematician, in turn, finds few exegetical conclusions usable (even if he wants to) and so proceeds to erect a quite frankl! "philosophical theolog!" in n-hich, at best, Scripture often plays a very minimal role. No doubt, if the Bible is really orll? "testimon!- literature," hermeneutics is really not needed at all, for the simple reason that since, then, personal experience must be the pimar!- datum of revelation, the Bible, as merely an-other derivative description, must suffer from all the relativit~ and deficiency to which any human thought is prone, and the modern interpreter is at least on a par with the ancient writers. illoderlz histor!, it is argued, where Ire live is surely just as important as the ancient histor!- of two or three millenia ago-and that means politi- cal and social action instead of the "once for all" of biblical theology. It easily (and not only theoretically!) then comes to the point where one can prove lzotlziizg from the Bible, except perhaps the reality of religious experience, not even (and perhaps especially not!) the existence of a personal God. It is precisel!. the prevention of that sort of neutralization of scriptural authority that a "confessional hernieneutic" in our dal7 must be all about! Hence, one more common dichoton~ization of Scripture must be abjured, namely, that which attempts to distinguish betn-een the reliability of theological or doctrinal and other elements in the Bible. Unfortunately, however, no one yet seems to have determined satisfactorily where the line comes and, hence, how to prevent the camel's nose of "lchtheologie" from entering the tent. It remains to be established how a God who was impotent to prer.ent all types of marginal errors from entering his inspired scriptures should be trusted any more when it comes to the far more central theological ones. If logic does not convince, history should clinch the case. One might wish it were not SO, but the wish is not the father of fact. It seems inevitrzbl?. to be the case that from "minute" errors in fact the "degression of revelation" leads ineluctably to errors in substallce or theology, and thence to the location of ultimate authority in the interpreter's subjectivity. Loosed from the "external \\70rd," the Holy Spirit soon becomes hopelessly confused lrith man's spirit and spirituality. \\-hat is "theological" is usuall!- more or less formulated in Christological terms, but, as we hare seen, that easily comes to have the greatest 1-ariety of meanings. Properll- construed, our accent is no "bibliolatr!-." but a corollary of the lordship of Christ (a far- orite "liberal" phrase from which biblical inspiration is somehow curiously excluded!); no "obscurantism," but a humble submission to our Lord's authority and true enlightenment; no crutch or response of insecurity and little faith (con~parable to rightist political cries for "law and order," as some would hare it), but an essential part of our freedom in the Gospel! Indeed, it is again a matter of faith, axioms, presuppositions, i.e., no proper subject for either proof or disproof. It is hard to see how that situation is altered in principle whether one applies it to all of Scripture, to only its doctrinal content or not to Scripture at all-or, for that matter, not even to Christian- ity in any sense, but to some totally other faith, unless one really is prepared to argue positivistically. Those n-ho disagree often take umbrage at the suggestion that their dichotomization usuallv leads to a more casual attitude toward the Bible, but most of my observa- tions, too, indicate that that is emphatically the case! Likewise, those who style themselves "evangelical" (in the usual American usage of that term) are usually more so, also in fact, at least as measured by any confessional definition of the substance of that term. That is, confessionalism, in m! judgment, ~~ecessaril?' implies taking one's stand, in essence, on the side of "inerrancy," (or of 269 Bible .And Cotzfessiotz "infallibilitj-," no distinction being attempted here between those two terms), as I have aln-a)-s AS often, however, one may wonder if it is the happiest tenlz. (Maybe we should expunge botlz it and "the historical-critical method," as we suggest below). I cer-tainly do not har-e in mind the evasion which limits it to its etymo- logical (or allegedly "dynamic") sense of not leading astray from God's intended purpose; again, if one is not truly a "biblicist" the eral~gelicalconcern of "making wise unto salvation" must always re- main paramount, but the danger here, one fears, is another subtle version of "Gospel reductionism." Likewise, the point is not to dis- semble on the principle itself as an inevitable complement to "in- spiration," but among the factors which becloud the term are (a) the escessire sloganeering which readily attaches to it; (b) its tendency to become a code-word for only one dogmatically held style or tradition of exegesis, especially that which held sway before thc rise of modern historical perspectives, and (c) the frequent ob- session to "prove" the Bible true as "inerrancj-" all but becomes an end in itself, and the resultant distortion of doctrinal balance. Like- wise, some concept of the "perfection" of Scripture ~vould seem quite axiomatic if it reall! is God's word, but if thc inspiration was reall!-not mantic, but "historical," the term should be defined by empirical stud!- of His IYorc1. Neither does it seeln fruitful to talk about "nbsolzlte inerrancy" or the like; like virginity or pregnancy, it either is or it isn't! However (if one may follon- up the latter simile) just as a pregnancy may be of sorts (resulting in single or multiple births, etc.), so. within outside limits, "inerrancy" (if the term be retained) permits of a certain amount of difference in precise under- standing and of exegetical variation. Although it seems to have alna!-s been a part of the church's (and s!-nagogue's) dogma, it certainly has been esplicated with some variation? depending on the prevailing exegetical usages. As we shall try to demonstrate shortly, it is capable of some adjustment to contemporary historical horizons too, n-ithout being in principle called into question. (At the same time, of course, if thc differences are really only terminological, the basic concern of the fundamental unity and reliability of God's J170rd in all respects will set some relatively stringent outside limits to the permissible variation, which is precisel!. the concern of this paper). Further difficulties with the term are suggested by its very negatir-e form ("i)zerranc!-"). That form suggests that its primary usefulness is perhaps in npologetie contexts (meeting attacks on the faith's first line of defense), although here too one might wonder if a Inore positive, evangelistic posture might not generally be more useful. In other contests its "siege mentality" easily leads to mis- placed emphases that can properly be called "biblicistic" or "funda- mentalistic:" believing in Christ because the Bible is true, rather than rice versa; belie\-ing in the Bible and what it sa!-s in some pri- mar!-, atomistic wa!- independent of the Gospel, etc. Such attitudes are very common in the "Bible belt" and in much Protestant sec- tarianis~n, but the!- surely are a parodv of Lutheran confessionalism -and it is probably anachronistic, at best, to attribute them even to Orthodoxy in its own historical milieu. Ho~vever, one should not fight windmills, or object so much that he becomes blind to the in- finitely greater caricatures or erversions of the faith on the "left." Protests on this score ob.criousfy often cloak especially the esisten- tialist confusion of the certainty of personal faith, where the Bible is theoretically dispensable, and the certainty of articultated the-ology, where it is anything but. That is, if "inerrancy" in many contexts is the 11-rong Fragestellutzg, "errant!-" certaint! is. If "in- errant!" on occasion threatens to become the tail that wags the dog with certain resultant caricatures, one cannot be blind either to the extent to which "errancy" becomes a basic and allnost fanatically held hermeneutical principle-and the almost complete subversion of Scriptural authority which is bound to follo\v. But, again, the very form of the term, it is to be feared, encourages the almost fiendish delight which many liberals display in finding and multi- plying alleged "errors" throughout the Bible. L.et us try to be more positive ourselves. If n-e assume the trustn,orthiness of the Bible in all respects, .cr-e must still concede many problem^.'"^ There is no doubt that the Bible is true (dog- matics), but precisel!. in what respect is not aha!-s clear (esegezis). (Xor in a confessional context will we be pla!-ing word-games with the n-ord, "truth.") !\'e hare already noted that such a formula perhaps best does justice to Luther's multifarious observations on the subject. No doubt, the difficulties and the possible solutioils in and of themselves often remain the same, regardless of what one calls them, but her~~zc~zez~ticallyit does ultimately make a ~i,orldof difference whether they are construed as God's inabilitv to reveal adequately or as man's inability to understand completely! Our great distance from and frequently extreme paucity of detailed in- formation about the circumstances of the Bible should beget great reserve in suspecting "errors" (even of a textual sort). (One might here well recall St. Augustine's dictum on inerrancy: "Either the manuscript is fault!., or the exegete is mistaken, or you do not un- derstand.") As a matter of fact, new information, especially from archaeology has solved many ancient riddles, while exposing ~nany new ones.30 The unity of Scripture always has put primary stress on the most natural, literal sense (cf. below), but has alwa!-s also as- sumed a certain amount of various kinds of symbolism, hyperbole etc. Lacking clear evidence one way or another, there usually have been various hypotheses on how the problems might best be solved. Above all, as we ha\-e indicated, in passing. now several times, modern historical perspectives open up some new possibilities which scarcely even came to mind in earlier periods. But this now leads us into the third part of the paper. FOOTNOTES 21. Cf. e.g., the journal, Sola Scripttcra, I/1, p. 7, and elsewhere. 22. Try as I will, I cannot escape the conviction that, to one degree or the other, some such spiritualistic dichotomization is always operative when the Pauline injunctions against the ordination of women are set aside. (It must be conceded that Paul does not speak ex-plicitl?, to the issue of Bible Arzd Cor~fession 2'71 ordilrntioli, but only 1-ia some sophistry, it seems to me, can that be excluded from the import of his remarks.) Stendahl's influential study (The Bible aizri tlie Role of lTromen, esp. p. 21) is quite explicit about the disjunction betn-een the "descriptive" or historical and normative senses of the Bible. But how does one prevent that principle from widening into a general historical and cultural relatil-ism (including the argument that "n-omen tend to be more interested in people than in abstract theological principles")? Nor am I able to see that the more sophisticated argument from "changing orders of creation" is no1 ulti- matcly vulnerable to thc same charge; in any event, it seems to mc to be exegetically beside the point because Paul clearly does not argue from something he considers a result of sin, and hence subject to "redemption," but rather from a gil-en alread preceding the Fall. .Mso hermcncutically very revealing is the one-sideJ accent those who arc more theologicallv orientcd put on the "realized eschatology" of Gal. 3:2S over ngni~zst the other passages. In any event, anyone who has his ears to the ground will easily hear no great concern with exegesis or theology of any sort at this point on the part of most Lutherans (like many other Christians, even including. i~iirribile dictlr, not a few Roman Catholics), but only the axiom that at this point Paul was a child of his times. Nen-s reports indicated that ncithcr the LCA nor the ALC con\-entions spent much time on the theo1og:- of the issue, but were very concerned about "justice" for women. It is also clear that many in LCZtIS who oppose-or at least arc 1-ery luken-arm about-thc ordination of women often refrain from pro- testing vocall!- for fear lest it impede church union. On the face of it, isn't it strange that those who seem most aware of the culturall!- different contest of the Bible often seem so oblivious to the possibility that they ma:-bc using the e~alitarian assumptions of ollr culture to relati\-ize Scripture? 23. If this be granted, one can at least understand how so much defense effort can be thrown into the fray at this point that a conserratire easily appears to become "bihlicistic" or guilty of the obverse error of exalting Bible over Gospel, n-hen that is anything but the intent. The Bible is not the citadel of the faith, but only its fast line of defense, if you n-ill. However, it is scarcel?. good defense strategv to abandon the outer bul- warks and I-rtwnt to the citadel! One docs not succeed in stressing Gospel more by accenting Bible less. Furthermore (if we ma!-continuc n-ith militaristic imagery-for which there is ample biblical warrant!), 11-hy not also imple~nent the old adage that "the best defense is a good offense"? (We understand "offense" primarily in the sense of mission and evangel- ism. not polemics, as such.) All too easily, orthodoxy allows itself to be maneu~wed into a purcly defensix-e position n-ith its resultant siege or fortress mentality. Changing the metaphor somewhat, one does n-ell to rccall that the biblical picture of "a little leaven" is used of the aggressive dynamic of the Gospel as well as of the insidious power of darkness! 24. Even today one might ask what would renlly be lost if n-e no longer had thc antilcgomena. (Sot el-cn the ordination of women n-ould be easier to defend; the most uncompromising passage appcars in I Corinthians!) With on]!- slightly greater difficulty, one could assert the same thing if 11-e again accepted the apocrypha. A stimulating study of the issue appcars in A. C. Sundberg's The Old Testament of the E~rrlv Clzurclz (Harrard, 1961) follon-ed by more programmatic and controversial essays in Cntholic Biblicnl Qiinrterl~, 1966, pp. 194-203 and 1968, pp. 143-5 5. 25. Cf. also Schlink, 01,. cit., Chap. I ("Scripture and Confession"). E. g., p. 1, n. 1: "-the absencc of a special article on Scripture must not blind us to the fact that the very silencc of the Confessions on this point amounts to a doctrinal declaration. Furthermore, in the actual use of Scripture b!- the Confessions there is implicit not only a doctrine of Scripture, but also principles of interpretation, and even important hermeneutical rules for the exegesis of the Old Testament." See also esp. p. 9. Cf. also A. C. Piepkorn, "The Position of the Church and Her Symbols, CTdI, XXV, (10754) esp. p. 740 (speaking of the principals in the Reformation discussions): "If there was one point of universal agreement among all of these, aside from the nude assertions of the Ecumenical Creeds, it was the authority, the inspiration, and the inerrancv of the Sacrcd Scriptures. It is not surprising, therefore, that we do not hare an explicit article on the Sacred Scriptures in the Lutheran Symbols." 26. Cf. our discussion of Old Testament issues belon-. The Old Testament is, in effcct, decanonized on other theoretical bases too, of course, but the facility with which the entire Bultmannian tradition has dismissed it on an allegcd "Law-Gospel" basis as well as the extent to which Old Testa- ment scholars (Baumgartel, Hesse) in the Luthcran-oriented Erlangen context hare tended to reduce it severely in existentialist bases, illustrate, I think, how vulnerable especially Lutheranism is along these lines. In American Lutheranism the recent swing away from the Old Testament has scarcely even had that much theological profundity; it has been much more a matter of unreflectingly flying with ercry latest wind that blorrs-and as clear an illustration as any of the extent to which it is something other than confessional concerns which is usually calling the shots! The extent to which the Old Testament has come to be considered subcanonical (often-in practice-in even more conservative circles) may be illustrated in two recent experiences of my onn. Some ha1.e expressed surprise that it was an Old Testament scholar like myself who protested the current tide of non-confessionalism, and I 11-ould not care to deny that professional as ~vell as theological reasons were intertwined. The position of the Old Testament has long been marginal enough in Protestantism as is, without a secularistic fanaticism that threatens to sweep aside all the potential gains registered in rhc previous "biblical theology" movement. Secondly, from Protestants who n-ondered hole Sotre Dame could "risk" having a Lutheran in its theology department. I repeatedly heard the suggestion that since it was oltly the Old Testament that was involved, there couldn't be much at stake an!~\r-a)-! 27. Especially in his Jeszts Rleans Frerdorn (published in English translation by Fortress press!!), but also throughout his prolific work, especial1:- in the footnotes, which teem with sarcasm and ridicule of traditional posi- tions. I think that anyone who checks mill readily discover that his position or a I-ersion of it is virtual de facto dogma in much of the LCA toda!-, rvhere also some of Kasemann's greatest American champions are to be found. One thinks also of the LCUS.4 popular study on the ordination of women which evinced no scruples about criticizing some parts of the Sew Testament for allegedly showing sub-el-angelical signs of a "codc-book" mentality, where again one has to ask just what or ~vho is the norm? Hence, as I can testify personally, if one ventures to defend almost any thesis on scriptural grounds he is, in effcct, immediately accused of personal prejudice or of an imperialism of his on-n subjective judgments; if only he ~vould follo~v x's theo1og:- in the Bible instead of y's, he would soon discover a contrary thesis, of course! No doubt, personal and cultural blind spots do easily bedevil our cxegesis, but the danger is infinitely less if hermeneutically one regards the Bible as essentially harmonious. The extent to which such radical notions are increasingly beginning to appear in Roman Catholic contexts is esempli- fied in the recent work of John Charlot: A'e117 Testa~r~entDiszrnity: Itr Significance for Christianity Today (Dutton, 19TO), where the Sen-Testament's disunity is again considered a simple fact and no 1ong::r a problem, and ~vherc-not surprisingly-as a result a pluralistic theolozy based on creative human freedom and subjectivih- (allegedly like the New Testament's!) is proposed. Furthermore, if the dogma of the canon and its essential unity are really only the (false!) crcation of the later church's insecurity, there certainly is no reason why it should not all be debunked, as argued by, e.g., Robert \%'ilken, The ll!,tlz of C1zristinil Beginnitzgs (Doubleday, 1970); cf. hlartin hlartv's fat-orable revicw in L~rthernn Forzrtn, 2/'71, p. 34. 28. I am not interested in turning this article into any apologicz pro ritn film, but any earlier misunderstandings and/or misrepresentations arose from 273 Bible And Confessiotz some of the same out of hand rejection of nearly any and all historical perspectives and the corresponding absolutization of earlier versions of the term \vhich this paper tries to correct. Of course, once one is labelled a "liberal," gossip, imagination, if not simple slander, easily attribute to a person all sorts of positions which do not have the remotest basis in fact. In this respect I could react favorably to at least the surface meaning of point 1 of the Bertwin Frey-sponsored "A Declaration of Determination" if it were reasonably clear on all sides that only different understandings of inerrancy were at stake and if outside limits were clearly spelled out. Certainly, as already indicated, in American Lutheranism as a whole, it has often long since ceased to be merely a matter of inerrancy or of verbal inspiration, but of inspiration and of objective biblical authority in any traditional sense. Hence, the Declaration's strong ecumenical stance, theoretically laudable enough, seems either inconsistent or unin- formed. 29. As I wrote this I noted in Christianity Today, Jan. 15, 1971, pp. 28-29, that a recent "Latin -4merica Congress on Evangelism" in Bogota, after finding basic agreement in all areas except this one, finally dropped "inerrancy" and agreed on "problems." 30. Many illustrations of both hare recently been gathered in A. ron Rohr Sauer's, "The Meaning of ilrchaeology for the Exegetical Task," CTJI, XLI/9 (Oct., 1970), pp. 519-41.