Archive: A Methodist Layman Reacts to Rudolf Bultmann

By Paul H. Wright, Assistant Lay Leader, Zion United Methodist Church, Grand Forks, North Dakota

The name of Rudolf Bultmann, the “demythologizer,” means little to most Methodists. Nevertheless, his influence is extremely great in Methodist pulpits and in our official literature. We can see the influence of Bultmann in the shift from the terminology of evangelical, Biblical Christianity to the terminology of existential philosophy and psychology.

We used to hear about sin, grace, atonement, salvation, eternity and the Holy Spirit. Now we hear about the “whole man,” the “authentic person,” the “becoming individual,” “encounter,” “dialogue” and the “existential crisis.” We can see the influence of Bultmann in the widespread tendency to regard the New Testament as myth, allegory, parable and metaphor rather than actual event. We can see his influence in an over-emphasis upon modern literature and drama … at the expense of Biblical references and exposition. Overall, we see an approach to Christian experience that somehow misses the boat—it overlooks what is really vital in the Gospel and appears to have “a form of Godliness while denying the power thereof.”

Bultmann’s influence in the United Methodist Church is startlingly explicit. The High School quarterly, New Creation for Winter, 1968-69, devotes much space to Biblical criticism and existential theology. New Creation for Spring, 1969, presents several detailed lessons on Biblical criticism and Bultmann’s views. These lessons are attractively packaged, extremely well written and convincingly presented. The materials are not designed to stimulate thought. Nor are they designed to educate young Christians about possible challenges to their faith. The Bultmann-Methodist curriculum is designed to convince.

As a concerned layman and church school teacher, I decided to learn as much as I could about “demythologizing.” I saw the need for a well-founded response from the evangelical point of view. Although untrained in theology, I have two advantages: training in another academic discipline and a tremendously stimulating and supportive Christian wife. Our project has hardly begun and we are theological babes in the woods. But we have pieced together enough of a picture so that we may be able to give some support to other evangelical laymen who, like ourselves, have found themselves confused, exasperated, a little threatened—and not quite knowing how to respond.

A good way to weaken a vaguely-understood threat is to clarify it. So let’s look first at some of Bultmann’s more important views. Then we can consider some answers from the evangelical point of view. Pinning The Great Demythologizer down On specific points is like trying to nail whipped cream to a barn door. But let’s try it anyhow!

Why Demythologize?

Bultmann sets an admirable goal for himself. He emphasizes that “modern man” has a scientific view of the world; he is constantly exposed to the attitudes, as well as the products, of science and technology. Therefore, Bultmann says, we cannot expect people today to take the New Testament seriously as literal truth. Instead, Bultmann teaches, the New Testament actually is eternal truth cloaked in mythological or symbolic language. He claims that modern man rejects mythological language. So the Church must strip away the “mythical elements” of the New Testament and get at the core of essential truth about God.

In other words, Bultmann thinks that if we expect modern men to accept the God of Christianity, we have to translate the “mythological” New Testament language into “non-mythological” language which people today are more likely to accept.

The Demythologizer’s Method

Demythologizing relies mostly on a method of Biblical research called “form criticism.” The form critics claim that there was a long period in the early Church when the stories of Jesus were passed down by word-of-mouth. Eventually, these stories became doctrinal statements. They were written down in the form of gospels, history and/ or letters.

Actually, they say we know almost nothing about “the Jesus of history”—that is the Jesus who actually existed. One form critic says we know “just a whisper.”

These critics make a careful distinction between “the Jesus of History” and “the Christ of Faith” (the object of belief and devotion).

They develop their thinking as follows: the doctrines of Christianity did not originate in the life of Jesus—they say. Instead, the doctrines we find in the New Testament started taking shape after the Church was formed. The Biblical accounts given of the life and ministry of Jesus were those that supported the developing doctrines … those that met the needs of the Church because of need to promote Christianity … and also the Church “life setting” (the technical German term is Sitz im Leben). Thus, say the form critics, our New Testament writings are not about the actual “Jesus of History”—a real man—but the “eternal” in the experiences of those who formed the early Church. The New Testament writings are mythological, say these critics, because words like “Messiah” and “Holy Spirit” were the only way the early Christians could communicate their religious experience. The Biblical writers knew this, and were not bothered by it because such “mythology” was an accepted form of serious communication in those days.

The actual work of “demythologizing” consists of examining the New Testament texts determine 1) when they were written, 2) who wrote them, 3) the purpose they served and 4) what they meant at the time they were written. Critics believe this gives us a more correct picture of the experience of Christ in the lives of the early Christians. Also, the critics think, “demythologizing” reveals to us the nugget of eternal truth to be found in the “Christ event” (since the New Testament as we have it, is not truth but a propaganda document!) Having this core of truth, we are better able to have a “personally meaningful encounter” with “the Christ event” in our own lives today … so the theory goes.

What is the effect on this “encounter” with “the Christ of Faith?”

It is difficult to summarize Bultmann’s stand without making it appear simple-minded. But it boils down to this: Man is in a sinful, fallen condition as long as he seeks his security in the temporary and unreliable aspects of the material world. He is a slave to his fallen condition as long as he refuses to see in himself the possibility of being a free, individual who can rise above his attachment to the security of the material world. Because the material world does not, in reality, provide a secure existence, fallen man is burdened with care and anxiety. A genuine encounter with the “Christ of Faith” literally forces a person to see himself in a different light. Also, Bultmann thinks, this forces him to choose between continuing in his enslavement, or starting on a new path of freedom by means of a completely changed conception of himself.  If he chooses the path of freedom after the pattern of Christ, then he is no longer burdened by the anxieties of the material world. He has found salvation … that is true self-hood, purged of such ideas as cleansing of sin through the blood of Christ, and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The Evangelical’s Response

Let’s start with an affirmation. We who are evangelical Christians regard the New Testament as an accurate report of things Jesus did and said—things that really happened to Him during His earthly ministry. Scripture is also an accurate record of the activities of the early Christians in establishing the Church and spreading the Gospel. Further, the New Testament is an account of the way in which the early Christians, guided by the Holy Spirit, explained and expounded God’s eternal truth, revealed supremely in the life, death and resurrection of Christ as accurately reported in the New Testament. It was all written within a fairly short time after the earthly ministry of Jesus. And most (if not all) was written while eyewitnesses to His life and work were still alive. It is impossible to separate the “Jesus of History” from the “Christ of Faith.” They are one and the same! Through our knowledge of actual events connected with the life of Jesus and His followers, we can understand who Jesus is, what God is like and how we can enter into a new and right relationship with Him through a faith decision for Christ. We have this distinct focus and solid foundation for our faith. None of the evidence from Biblical scholarship seems conclusive enough to call this faith-conviction into serious question. Biblical criticism, like any other research, has room for various methods, approaches and differences of opinion. There are many highly trained Biblical scholars who criticize Bultmann’s approach. They believe in the factual reliability of the New Testament.

Now let’s look at some important questions.

1. Other than the support of certain Biblical scholars, what reasons can we give for viewing the New Testament as nonmythological?

Read the New Testament for yourself. Does it read like mythology? Or does it have, as J. B. Phillips argues, the “ring of truth?” Capable individuals from different walks of life—literature professors, lawyers and newspaper reporters as well as ministers and theologians—declare their conviction that the New Testament reads like reporting, not mythology.

Did the New Testament writers feel that they were writing mythology? Read Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-3. Read I John 1:1-4, I Corinthians 15:3-7 and 15:17- 22. Especially noteworthy is II Peter 1: 16 (RSV): “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

On the testimony of the writers themselves, we have to conclude that they were either reporting actual events, or they thought they were reporting actual events, or they were trying to mislead their readers into thinking they were reporting actual events. I believe they were “telling it like it was.”

2. Would calling the New Testament “mythology” offer any real advantages to Christianity today? Would it, as Bultmann feels, make Christianity more acceptable to modern man?

Bultmann has a somewhat mistaken picture of the “scientific world view” of modem man. But that problem need not concern us here. Even if this judgment were valid, calling the New Testament “mythology” would not make it more acceptable. What “scientific man” rejects is not the language of the New Testament, but the idea of a supernatural God. When he rejects the language of the New Testament, he does so because it talks about the activity of a transcendant God; he is not likely to accept the idea of God just because we change language!

3. Can we really expect the unconverted to take Christianity seriously if we tell them our faith is based on mythology?

Almost certainly not. In the first place, if we accept the New Testament as myth rather than fact, what makes New Testament mythology better than any other kind of mythology? Why should the mythological truth of the New Testament bring us any closer to God than the mythological truth of the ancient Egyptians or the American Indians or the African snake cults or anyone else?

In the second place, the New Testament writers expressed themselves as if they were reporting events. If we cannot trust them to describe actual events and get the facts straight, we certainly have no reason to trust their judgment about the weightier matters of God and eternity.

In the third place, can we expect the effects of reading mythology to be powerful enough to bring about the dramatic changes in a person’s conception of himself that Bultmann sees as the key to salvation? No. When a person is affected that profoundly, he is affected by something that he feels is real and concrete, not mythological.

4. Is it enough to say that Christian conversion brings about a changed conception of one’s self?

While the work of Christ does bring about a change in the individual’s conception of himself, this is not nearly an adequate description of conversion. The results of Christian conversion are much more profound. We see people who are able, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to do things and overcome forces in a way that would be impossible to them “on their own.” We see people who are relieved of the burden of guilt and anxiety—not because they see themselves in a better light, but because they know themselves to be forgiven by God through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. We see people who are free from the cares and insecurity of this world—not because they see themselves as having a wider range of choices, but because they have the hope of eternal life through Christ’s promise of deliverance.

It is tempting to blame and belittle Rudolf Bultmann for troubling us evangelicals with such an unsatisfying approach to Christianity. This would be a mistake. Bultmann is a highly intelligent, well trained and ingenious scholar. As such, he has to go where his mind takes him (although it is unfortunate for him that he could not find his way to a sounder Biblical Christianity).

What we need to blame and belittle is the widespread and uncritical acceptance of his theories by a Church that should be committed to preaching sound Biblical Christianity to a world that is starving for the Gospel of Christ. Let us be committed to “earnestly contending for the faith.” And let us always be willing to say along with the Apostle Paul, “I am not ashamed of the Gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith.” (Romans 1:16a.)