No. 50. >> Dr. Rast, your discussion is very helpful. I appreciate the time you've taken to help us explore ecumenism. While you were speaking, a related question occurred to me. When a pastor from one of the more ecumenical congregations encourages turning a blind eye to denominational distinctions in favor of unity, do you think he completely ignores the high probability of differing hermeneutics? Could we take just a few minutes to review the biblical criticism employed by the groups we've discussed so far? >>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Now you've put your finger on something exceptionally important here, David. In fact, towards the latter part of my last answer, I underscored the differences of opinion on how to proceed ecumenically among Lutherans. And some of those differences emerge from deeply held commitments on the part of both groups that have proceeded from the way they read the Scriptures in the first place. Afterall, if we even think back to a guy like Samuel Schmucker, his conviction that the real presence of Christ, the teaching of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament was a mistake reflects his own reading of the Bible. In fact, as Schmucker would put it, he said there were three positions in the history of the church in regard to the presence of Christ. There was the Roman Catholic position that taught Transubstantiation. That is that the bread and wine were literally changed into the body and blood of Christ. So that bread and wine did not remain. Only the accidents, as we've discussed before. This he said was medieval Rome's position. So he also said it was the position of Luther with a little vocabulary fine tuning. The second position, said Schmucker, was that of John Calvin. And Calvin's position was such a strange teaching. This ascending defeat on Christ located at the right hand of the Father by faith to feed on his glorified human nature spiritually speaking, Schmucker said: That's so strange, nobody believes it. Even Calvin's followers. The third position, he said, was the Pauline position, the position of Saint Paul which was best captured by Ulrich Zwingli. Namely, that there was a symbolic representation in the practice of the Lord's Supper that excited the mind, the cognition, of the participant. And that alone, said Schmucker, was the biblical position. Well, again, he came to those positions in his own mind. I don't think he was right, by the way. But he came to those positions in his own mind by his reading of the Bible. And he read the Bible in a certain way. He was very much a devotee of Scottish common sense realism that said things are what they seem. Therefore, one could not say if you looked at the host and at the chalice that it was body and blood because clearly, it tasted like bread. It tasted like wine. It smelled like bread. Smelled like wine. Functioned like bread. Functioned like wine. Therefore, it had to be bread and wine. It could not be this it mysterious body and blood. However, one described it, either spiritually, transubstantially or in Luther's idea of a sacramental presence. It just couldn't be. The senses taught otherwise. And as a result, his philosophical commitments actually ran the way he interpreted the Bible. Thus, the word is, though its clearly used by Jesus at the Lord's Supper, could not mean is for him. It had to mean represents. Even though Jesus never said that. He said that has to be the meaning there. Hermeneutics were, in fact, driving the way he interpreted the Scriptures. Those hermeneutics have been of a various kind, especially since Schmucker -- and I'll make this point regarding him as clearly as I can. He was a committed Bible believer. He believed the Bible was God's Word. Without error. Without any problem. He simply accepted it as such. However, there were other interpreters in the 1800s who began to take hermeneutics into a different direction. In fact, especially in the year 1835, an important event occurs in the history of biblical interpretation. A book is published by David Friedrich Strauss called "Leben Jesu", "The Life of Jesus." And in this book, Strauss says: We must treat the Scriptures as we've received them, specifically the gospels, like any other humanly authored work. That means what we find in them are the perspectives, commitments, philosophies, hopes, dreams of certain human authors. There's not some mysterious kind of inspiration going on where these are different than other works. They are simply like any other human book. And as such we know authors write in certain ways with certain commitments and with certain purposes. And in the New Testament document, specifically in the gospels themselves, said Strauss, we see these prejudices and assumptions coming out in various ways. Particularly as stories about Jesus, vesting his life with the unique character, begin to come to the forefront. So, for example, in order to give Jesus a certain authority, both in the church and outside of it for the sake of its proclamation, early church followers of Jesus began to say certain things about his life and his ministry. That perhaps, and very likely, did not happen in fact. For example, the story of Jesus being born of a virgin. A miraculous birth unlike any other human being's birth that would immediately set him apart and give him a unique status that no other human being has had in the history of the human race. And then in the Gospel stories themselves, stories of miracles, stories of wondrous events that surrounded him. Stories of him being able to know the hearts and minds of those with whom he interacts. All of these, again, giving him a certain status and authority so that the words reportedly coming from his mouth will have then, in turn, an authority on those who hear them read within the context of the church. And in the church's missionary proclamation. The death story, the atoning death of Christ, paying for the sins of the world, the resurrection story, the ascension into heaven, all of these, said Strauss, show the influence not so much of historical fact. But more so of what the early Christians either hoped for in Jesus or had developed on their own in terms of reflection upon the life of Jesus. Thus, said Strauss, the key to interpreting the gospels is the hermeneutical concept of myth. And what the myths give us are not historical facts. But rather, they indicate what it was that the early church authors. The Gospel writers, hoped for in regard to the Christ. Or invested into him as Messiah and Savior. To put it just a little bit differently, the gospels are not so much the historical record of the life and ministry of Jesus. Rather, they tell us more about what the early church believed about Jesus or wanted to believe about Jesus. Whether they happened or not was not the point. In fact, in Strauss's mind, they probably did not. In the wake of Strauss, many picked up this theme. In fact, there were others who had already been working with this theme previous to him. But it becomes a dominant theme in German -- the German educational system in the mid 1800s. And German higher criticism, as it comes to be called, tends to dominate from this point forward. As a result, you can imagine every claim made on the basis of the Bible can then be challenged to a greater or lesser extent. There are a variety of approaches that are advanced in terms of how best to carry this off to get at what Jesus really said. And in fact, by the latter part of the 1800s, there is a search for the historical Jesus that's going on. And a distinction is made between the man Jesus and the Christ of faith. The man Jesus who really lived, worked, being largely inaccessible behind a myriad of mythical stories about him that comprise the story of the Christ of faith. Well, what do you preach then if these things, perhaps, are true or are not true? Later in the 20th Century Rudolph Boltman would say: Again, that kind of question misses the point. The point is not whether these things are true or not. The key is the kerigma, the proclamation itself. And as long as the proclamation remains intact, it accomplishes who God desires for it. Namely, the message of hope creates hope wherever it is proclaimed. Whether it happened or not. Whether, say, for example, Jesus actually turned water into wine is not the point. But the message of Jesus turning water into wine produces hope and faith in a person who hears it. And that's the key. Not historical fact. But the result of proclamation. Well, you can imagine then that there might be a diversion of opinion on exactly what this means in terms of the various teachings of the Scripture. In other words, what may be myth for one is held to as historical fact for another. The result, of course, is it's very difficult for the various churches to come to any agreement on this. For many in the tradition that we share, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, these are, in fact, historical events that are recorded in the Scriptures. And they are kerigmatic, proclamatory, carrying forward the Gospel message. Not as though the two are at odds with one another. But support one another mutually. And that, in fact, the entire Scriptures are given by God for us so that we may read, mark and inwardly digest them. Convinced and committed to their clarity. That is that the Scriptures speak clearly in respect to the reality of human sin. The work of Christ on behalf of human beings in conquering that sin. And the application of the merits of Christ through the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. A church body like ours with commitments like those can find it difficult to be in conversation with others who do not see these as truth and as fact. And that's part of the reason for the tensions we noted in our last answer as we talked about the ongoing ecumenical process. That contributes to the tension. But it also gives us a great opportunity I think, once again, to hold up that Christ who truly was born of the virgin, lived life perfectly for us, suffered, died, rose again and ascended for our salvation. Will the differences go away? Not any time soon I don't think. But until we capture the basics of this and understand that we're talking about matters of biblical interpretation, hermeneutics, we will find it very difficult I believe to engage in a meaningful discussion. However, being cognizant of that, we can approach conversations with those -- Christians of other and differing commitments with a clear confession of Christ. And that we should do always and often.