Hermeneutics today poses one of the most important challenges to theology. The volume Theology as History (“New Frontiers in Theology,” III, 1967) is only an example of current interest in the problems of Scripture interpretation. The problem that hermeneutics places before theology has many sides. It is focused, first of all, on the Scriptures as the Word of God (a focus seen, for example, in the discussions that buzz around the names of Bultmann, Fuchs, Ebeling, Pannenberg, et al.). But along with this, it has to do with the reading of the confessions of the churches.
This problem touches the whole gamut of theology and of every confession. For here an effort is made to get at the essential and unique message that the churches wanted to express in their confessions. The words of the confessions are of enormous importance, of course, but words must be read with their associations. And this demands an accounting of the historical background of the creeds, of the polemics that gave rise to them, of the whole situation in which they were created. What was the intention behind the dogma? This is the question.
Roman Catholic theologians are involved in today’s reflections on the hermeneutical problem in a special way. The interpretation of Scripture has been central in the Reformation churches from the beginning. But today hermeneutical questioning of dogmas (in Roman Catholic context, the infallible dogmas) is lively in Roman Catholic circles also, and it is very much a part of the ecumenical situation. The question in the background is this: Does hermeneutics offer the possibility of a convergence that was impossible until now? Henrich Ott has spoken of a “converging interpretation” that brings theologians closer together without compromise. This is the central problem of interpretation today.
Is the current trend legitimate or does it imply a reduction of conviction, an irenicism that shaves the edges off deep commitment? Aware that something new is afoot, writers sometimes create the impression that hermeneutics has to do with a very simple matter: the dissociation between the literal text in its historical, time-conditioned form and the essential matter that is being confessed. In practice, however, this dissociation is not easy to determine. Opinions often differ as to what is essential and what is only form, what is abiding and what is only the verbal garment of another time.
The problem of interpretation has been acute in other days also. For instance, the modernism of the early years of our century also sought to distinguish between form and content. It sought, as it were, to rescue the pearl of great price from the house of criticism. But the effort ended in a radical reduction of the Gospel; truth was victimized by human whim.
In our time, with the hermeneutical problem associated with ecumenicity, concern is also aroused lest new methods of interpretation result in the error of reductionism. More than one pope has expressed this concern—see Humani Generis, 1950, and Mysterium Fidei, 1965. The writers of these encyclicals tended to insist that truth and its formulation are very intimately bound together. The formulations in which the Church has clothed dogma have also been the work of the Holy Spirit and must therefore be preserved. Given this view, there can be no real problem of interpretation.
The historical aspect of church teachings does not affect the abiding character of the truth if the form is considered to be as much the work of the Spirit as the content. In Mysterium Fidei, for example, we read that transubstantiation is not merely a culturally conditioned term, and that words like substance and species are “valid for all men of all times and places.” This encyclical was directed against the idea of symbolism in the Eucharist. But the encyclical has been criticized; it has been said that the Pope’s attack on the new hermeneutics rests on a misunderstanding. For, it is said, the new approach does not intend to oppose symbol to reality in the sacrament. Besides, it is contended, transubstantiation did in fact arise in a context of Aristotelian concepts with which medieval and Tridentine thinkers worked. It is unlikely, then, that the encyclical Mysterium Fidei will have much influence.
The fact is too clear that specific times have put their stamp on the Church’s formulations of dogma; the task of getting at the deepest intent lying behind the formulations is unavoidable. This is the hermeneutical task. That it may be dangerous is undeniable. What one generation discerns as the essence is conditioned by the insights of its own time. And the distinction between form and content can be used to slough off the traditional confession of the Church.
But the dangers involved may not be used as an excuse to avoid the task; the problem of interpretation is real and inescapable. There is every reason to search out the deeper motives in the speech of the Church. We do this when, for instance, we try to understand the essential differences between the Reformed and the Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper. Both accept a real presence of Christ; how do they differ?
In the present situation—granted the presence of dangers—there is a real possibility of a “converging interpretation,” and that without compromise. If it is to be achieved, a large measure of openness and honesty will be required. We should beware of attacks on the confession that bear the name “interpretation.” But, in the community of faith, we must seek out those elements of faith that unite us.
To do this we must reckon with the historical conditionedness and the changeability of the formulations the Church has given of the truth. That changes have occurred is evident in that phrase of the ancient confession: “descended into hell.” One may not appeal to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in a way that suggests that his guidance does away with all historical influences and the need for hermeneutical study. The Holy Spirit leads the Church but does not release it from the conditions of history or set it above the effects of time and place.
This realization creates new tasks for us in the area of the hermeneutics of the Holy Scriptures. The Word of God is the only possibility we have for a converging interpretation. Its resources are rich and deep, and we have yet to mine it out. Bound to the one Lord, we are challenged to test all formulations in the light of his truth.
G. C. BERKOUWER
