Contemporary Theology I: Hegel to Death of God Theologies

Transcription

1 Contemporary Theology I: Hegel to Death of God Theologies ST503 LESSON 14 of 24 John S. Feinberg, Ph.D. Experience: Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. In this lecture, I want to turn with you to Rudolf Bultmann. But before we do that, why don t we begin with a word of prayer. Thank you, Lord, for the opportunity to study again as we look at Rudolf Bultmann and some of his key ideas. Help us to understand what he is saying. Help us to realize the significance of this thinker. And help us as well, Lord, to gain that which is valuable from him but also to see the areas where his views are problematic for orthodox theology. Bless our time together then today. For it s in Christ s name we pray it. Amen. In my last lecture, I finished my thinking on Karl Barth. And I want to turn now to look at Rudolf Bultmann. As with any of these theologians and any of these movements, there s always an awful lot more that we could say than what we re going to. But I want to just give you at least a taste of these major contemporary thinkers. In terms of Bultmann, I want to look with you at three basic items. I want to discuss, first of all, the philosophical presupposition of his system. Then I want to discuss for a little bit what Bultmann has to say about hermeneutics. And then finally I want to close off my discussion of Bultmann by looking at what he has to say about eschatology. Well Bultmann as to his dates, lived from 1884 through 1976, so he had a long life. He was a great New Testament scholar, New Testament theologian and a very, very important one in a number of respects. Let me turn with you, first of all, to look at the philosophical presupposition behind his system. The philosophical presupposition of Bultmann s views, and he s very, very explicit about this, is Martin Heidegger s version of existentialism. In particular, it s Heidegger s existential analysis of man and man s condition that Bultmann uses as his basic presupposition. Now Bultmann says that every interpreter of Scripture, as a matter of fact anyone who interprets any literature, comes to that task with certain conceptions, perhaps idealistic or even psychological. He has certain presuppositions, in other words. So the idea that he 1 of 13

2 should tell us his presupposition is not something that should strike us as odd. Everybody has presuppositions. In fact, Bultmann says it s impossible not to interpret with some sort of presuppositions. Bultmann says presuppositions in respect to results are wrong. But on the other hand, presuppositions of method are correct. What he s saying then is that if you presuppose the content of what you will believe without ever having discussed it, without ever having provided any evidence for it, that s gonna be a problem. But on the other hand, if you have certain assumptions about the best way to go about discovering truth and investigating topics, if you have certain presuppositions of method, that s understandable and that s acceptable. The question then becomes which are the right conceptions to bring as presuppositions and also whether any such presuppositions are available as we come to the task of interpreting Scripture and forming our ideas of theology? Bultmann says the basic presupposition for every form of exegesis is that your own life relationship to the subject matter prompts the questions that you bring to the text, and it elicits the answers that you get from the text. That s true whether the text is Scripture or any other piece of literature. Well, this means then that when we read the Bible, our interest is not merely to get a historical awareness of the situation spoken of in Scripture. Instead, our interest is really to hear what the Bible has to say for our actual present. That is we want to hear what is the truth about our life and about our soul right now. Well, Bultmann says in regard to the questions to ask in doing exegesis that if it is true that the right questions are concerned with the possibilities of understanding human existence, then it is necessary to discover the adequate conceptions by which such understanding of existence is to be expressed. To discover these conceptions then is the task of philosophy according to Bultmann. Now this, of course, is going to mean that our exegesis in a certain respect has to fall under the control of our philosophy. And we might be a little bit uncertain as to whether we should allow that to happen. But Bultmann says it s really all right to allow our exegesis to fall under the control of philosophy because in every age that has been the case. That s the way people proceed. The question then is not whether I should allow philosophy to enter into the discussion or not. The question is which philosophy is going to be the right one for today in our life situation? Well Bultmann has a very specific answer to that question. He says 2 of 13

3 that the best philosophy for our day is existential philosophy. And it s the best because it s in this philosophical school that human existence is directly the object of attention. Now of course it s Heidegger s brand of existentialism that he thinks is the very best form of existentialism, and that s the one that we should adopt. Existential philosophy shows us what it means to exist, but it doesn t say what way one must exist. Let me quote what Bultmann says from his work Jesus Christ and Mythology. This is found on page 56 of that work, and I m quoting here from the edition that was published in 1958 by Charles Scribner s. Bultmann says this: Existential philosophy while it gives no answer to the question of my own personal existence, makes personal existence my own personal responsibility. And by doing so it helps me be open to the Word of the Bible. Existential philosophy then can offer adequate conceptions as presuppositions for the interpretation of the Bible (according to Bultmann), since the interpretation of the Bible is concerned with the understanding of existence just as existentialism is. On page 57 of Jesus Christ and Mythology Bultmann makes the point this way. He says, Once again we ask, does the existentialist understanding of existence and the existentialist analysis of that understanding already include a decision in favor of a particular understanding? Certainly such a decision is included, but what decision? Precisely the decision of which I have already spoken: you must exist. Without this decision, without the readiness to be a human being, a person who in responsibility takes it upon himself to be, no one can understand a single word of the Bible as speaking to his own personal existence. While this decision does not require philosophical knowledge, scientific interpretation of the Bible does require the existentialist conceptions in order to explain the biblical understanding of human existence. Thus only does it become clear that the hearing of the Word of the Bible can take place only in personal decision Both the Bible and existentialism are after the same thing. They are both trying to help us understand the meaning of existence. Well the result of that, according to Bultmann, is that his theology does have a presupposition. And that presupposition is existentialist philosophy. And yet he thinks that having that presupposition is totally justified. It s totally justified because 3 of 13

4 the interpreters of the Bible as well as existentialist philosophers themselves are really after the same thing. They re both trying to understand existence. Therefore, interpreters of Scripture are actually helped by existential philosophy to have the right questions to use when approaching Scripture. Let me move now to talk about Bultmann on hermeneutics. We ve seen something of the presupposition of his system. Now I want to turn with you to look at his hermeneutics. And probably if you ve ever studied Bultmann before or heard about his views on hermeneutics, there are two key ideas that you re acquainted with. One of them is the idea of demythologizing. The other one is the idea of the hermeneutical circle. Let me look, first of all, at this idea of demythologizing. It s safe to say that Bultmann s method is a method that encourages us to demythologize. Now in order to understand this, we need to understand what he means when he uses the term myth. According to Bultmann, a myth is a form of imagery in which that which transcends the world is represented as though it were of this world. In fact it s represented as though it were human. In each myth then, there s always an underlying kernel of truth. But that kernel of truth is presented in mythical terms. There s a mythical garb or set of images that surrounds it. Well, why is it that we need to demythologize specifically in regard to Scripture? You can imagine from what I ve just described as Bultmann s concept of myth why it is that he thinks it s necessary to demythologize the Bible. Very clearly, Bultmann says that the reason is that the worldview out of which the New Testament was written is a mythological one. I think he would say the same thing clearly about the Old Testament. But his focus primarily is New Testament studies and New Testament theology. Bultmann makes this comment, and I quote him from page 15 of Jesus Christ and Mythology. And you ll see here the sense in which he understands the biblical worldview as mythological. He says this, This conception of the world we call mythological (The conception he s looking at is the New Testament conception) because it is different from the conception of the world which has been formed and developed by science since its inception in ancient Greece and which has been accepted by all modern men. In this modern conception of the world, the cause and effect nexus is fundamental. Modern science does not believe that the course of nature can be interrupted or so to speak perforated by supernatural powers. 4 of 13

5 Well it s very, very clear then if you look at the New Testament that it contains items which Bultmann would call mythological because it does show our world interrupted or perforated, so to speak, by the supernatural. As a matter of fact, Bultmann says that the whole worldview that the New Testament presupposes is mythological. Modern science has shown us that a number of the things that we find in the New Testament really are not true. They have to be mythological and unscientific. You say what sort of things are you talking about? Well, for example as you look at the New Testament you see a conception of the world as being structured in three stories: the heaven, the earth, and hell. You also see the conception of the intervention of supernatural powers in the course of events. You also see various miracles that are spoken of. You especially see the intervention of supernatural powers in the inner life of the soul. You also see in the New Testament the concept that men and women can be tempted and corrupted by the devil. They can be possessed by evil spirits as well. Now all of these things, according to Bultmann, are mythological, they re unscientific. And they have to be stripped away if we re gonna get at the real kernel of what the New Testament is saying. He also says that the New Testament s views about the future, its views about eschatology, its views about a Redeemer and redemption are also mythical and we have to strip them away. We can t see any of these things as literal. So we need then to demythologize. And by that he means we need to remove the mythical elements of the New Testament in order to get at what he calls the kerygma, the message of the Bible, what it s actually proclaiming as its underlying method. Now Bultmann says that this demythologizing is not only necessary in order to interpret the Bible correctly, but it also serves an apologetic function and has an apologetic purpose. He says that it s just absolutely impossible for modern scientific men and women to take the message of Scripture seriously when it s couched in all of these mythological ideas. In fact, it s really absurd to ask someone to believe in these ideas, these myths. It s absurd to present arguments to the effect that someone should believe these myths. These myths turn out to be a stumbling block for modern man. They re a stumbling block that keeps modern men and women from turning to Christianity. The problem is, says Bultmann, is these things are not the true stumbling block of Christianity. Christianity contains a true stumbling block, but that true stumbling block is the kerygma, the true proclamation 5 of 13

6 of Scripture which underlies the myth. Well, we might say what then is this true stumbling block, this kerygma? Bultmann says the kerygma is that the word of the cross calls men and women out of their manmade security and out of their inauthentic existence. That is a stumbling block. But the problem is that it is covered over by all of this myth in Scripture so that oftentimes people are offended by the myth and they never even see the true stumbling block, the kerygma. Now if we re going to get modern man to confront the true stumbling block, if we re going to get him to see the kerygma, we have to demythologize. If we don t do this, we re never going to be able to make any kind of case to modern men and women that they should become Christian. Well, how do you go about doing this demythologizing? Well, let me speak for a moment about what Bultmann says in regard to the task of demythologizing. He is very clear that demythologizing is a method of hermeneutics or interpretation. He says that this demythologizing begins with the insight that and I quote him, Christian preaching is kerygma. That is, a proclamation addressed not the theoretical reason but to the hearer as a self. In this manner, Paul commends himself to every man s conscience in the sight of God (2 Corinthians 4:2). Demythologizing will make clear this function of preaching as a personal message and, in so doing, it will eliminate a false stumbling block and bring into sharp focus the real stumbling block, the Word of the cross. This comes from page 36 of Jesus Christ and Mythology. Bultmann says then that our task is to strip away the mythical elements to get at the kernel message that underlies the shell of an antiquated worldview. And Bultmann is very, very clear that this demythologizing has to be total. You can t demythologize one part of Scripture and leave other parts alone. Either you do all of it or you do nothing. If you don t do it all, if you only do one part and you don t do the rest, then you could be misled by these mythological elements. You could think that they tell you the true kerygma when in fact they don t. So demythologizing has to be done thoroughly. It has to be done rigorously. Well, that completes what I had to say about Bultmann on demythologizing. Let me turn now to another aspect of his hermeneutics, what he has to say about the interpreter s interaction with the text. Bultmann has already said that theology has a presupposition, namely existentialist philosophy. And he holds that because he says that both the Bible and existential philosophy ask the question about man s existence. He s also 6 of 13

7 said that using existential philosophy one must demythologize to get at the kernel of truth that speaks to us today. But there is yet another hermeneutical presupposition that goes along with these former two items. Bultmann says that each person comes to a text with certain questions. Those questions come from one s conceptions by which one understands life as well as interprets the text. Now Bultmann says that these conceptions that we have, these ideas what we might call our basic worldview, form the basis for the questions that any of us bring to a text. And these basic ideas come from our own life, our own experiences. Bultmann says that the resulting or the corresponding presupposition of exegesis is that each one of us does have a relationship to the subject matter that we re reading about. Bultmann calls this relation the life relation. So when I go to the text of Scripture or to any other piece of literature, I don t just come to it in a disinterested way. I have something at stake. I have a certain view of the world that comes from my experiences from my life, and I have certain questions that I want to ask of the text. And I m hoping that the text will answer them. Well, he says that in this relationship, in this life relation that we have, we have a certain understanding of the matter in question. And from this understanding grows our conceptions of exegesis. And Bultmann says that without such a life relationship to the text, it is impossible to understand any text. Now all of this means that the interpreter must put his or her understanding of the matter into the interpretation. This means that interpretation is not merely a matter of the text operating on the interpreter so that the interpreter then tells us what the writer said and what the writer meant. Instead there s a need for the interpreter to interact with the writer and to impose the interpreter s understanding of the issue in the interpretive process. The result, of course, may well be that you don t interpret exactly what the writer said. You don t come up with exactly what he said. But instead you come up with what the writer said as you mold it to fit your understanding of the subject. Now many people have called this interaction of the text with the interpreter, the interpreter with the text, the hermeneutical circle. By that they mean that you place yourself, as it were, in a circle with the text and interact with it. You add to it even as it adds to you and to your understanding, and the both of you come up with the meaning. Therefore, you encounter the text and it encounters you, and the two of you together derive the meaning. Notice that in a way this sounds an awful lot like the Hegelian dialectic that there are two sides to an issue and in the synthesis of the two sides into a greater whole, you have the 7 of 13

8 full meaning. I m not saying here that Bultmann is deliberately borrowing this from Hegel, but I simply note, as we have at other points in our discussion, how important the Hegelian system, the Hegelian dialectic is to modern theology. Well, that completes what I want to say about Bultmann on hermeneutics. Let me turn for just a few moments then to look at what he has to say about eschatology. Bultmann says that there is no future coming of Christ to set up a kingdom. That s an idea that orthodox theologians have had as they ve read the Bible, but that idea is not correct. All of that is just part of the myth of the Bible. Now the proof to us or the supposed proof, that in fact this idea of a coming kingdom is mythological, is that Christ Himself expected the kingdom to come but it never did. And that means, Bultmann says, that He was simply mistaken. And anyone who expects some sort of kingdom to be established falls into the same mistake that Jesus did. Well, if eschatology doesn t deal with a future kingdom, then what does it deal with? Well eschatology, according to Bultmann, is to be understood in two senses neither one of which is Jesus notion of a coming kingdom. In the first place, we are to understand eschatology as wrapped up with the imminent end of the world. It s wrapped up with imminent judgment and with a new time of salvation and of eternal bliss. Eschatology, in this sense, speaks of man s finitude and of his ability for self-destruction and God s judgment by that self-destruction. Eschatology then means to be open to God s future which is really imminent for all of us. To be ready for this future which will come as a thief in the night and will judge those who are bound to this world is what it means to think of eschatology in this way. We have to be ready for this future. It will come, as I said, as a thief in the night. It will judge those who are bound to this world and are not free and open to God s future. When the end of the world comes, it will put those who are not judged into a state of bliss where man becomes an authentic self. However, Bultmann doesn t really say much about what this state of bliss is going to be like. Well, that s one sense in which we can speak of eschatology. There s another sense in which Bultmann thinks of eschatology. And it s eschatology as realized eschatology. Bultmann says that the only eschatological coming that was expected was the first coming of Christ. The event of Christ, that is everything that He did, was itself the eschatological event. And as a result of that, you and I are not to look for any other eschatological event. 8 of 13

9 This is paradoxical, of course, because mere history doesn t see Jesus of Nazareth as the eschatological event. Jesus of Nazareth is a mere human being, a historical person. And of course, the historian can t see anything more than that. He cannot become aware of what God has done in Christ as the eschatological event. On the other hand, for the believer, the eschatological event of Jesus Christ has already been realized in two respects. It s been realized, first of all, in history. He did come once. And secondly, it s been realized when Christ came individually to each person who encounters him and made that person a new creature. So the paradoxical thing here is that while this coming occurred back in history, it also occurs here and now when the Word of God is being preached and men and women encounter God. This is realized eschatology. The coming is here and now as well as back in history some time ago. Bultmann says that we need to be open to God s future to encounter us in a similar way as well but not in the sense of our traditional notion of the second coming. Let me read to you a portion from Jesus Christ and Mythology to sum up and complete this section on eschatology. On pages 81 and 82 of Jesus Christ and Mythology, we read the following: In the fourth gospel as we have seen, the cosmological eschatology is understood from our point of view as an historical eschatology. We have also seen that for Paul, the believer is already a new creation. The old has passed away. Behold the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17). We must therefore say that to live in faith is to live an eschatological existence, to live beyond the world, to have passed from death to life. Compare John 5:24, 1 John 3:14. Certainly the eschatological existence is already realized in anticipation for we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:17). This means that the eschatological existence of the believer is not a worldly phenomenon but is realized in the new selfunderstanding. This self-understanding, as we have seen before, grows out of the Word. The eschatological event, which is Jesus Christ, happens here and now as the Word is being preached (2 Corinthians 6:2, John 5:24) regardless of whether this Word is accepted or rejected. The believer has passed from death to life and the unbeliever is judged. The wrath of God rests upon him, says John (John 3:18 and 36, 9:39). The word of the preaching spreads death and life, says Paul (2 Corinthians 2:15 and following). Thus, the once for all is now understood in its genuine sense namely as the once for all of the eschatological event. For this once for all is not the uniqueness of an historical event 9 of 13

10 but means that a particular historical event, that is Jesus Christ, is to be understood as the eschatological once for all. As an eschatological event, this once for all is always present in the proclaimed Word, not as a timeless truth but as happening here and now. Certainly the Word says to me that God s grace is a prevenient grace which has already acted for me but not in such a way that I can look back on it as an historical event of the past. The acting grace is present now as the eschatological event. The Word of God is Word of God only as it happens here and now. The paradox is that the word which is always happening here and now is one in the same with the first Word of the apostolic preaching crystalized in the Scriptures of the New Testament and delivered by men again and again, the Word whose content may be formulated in general statements. It cannot be the one without the other. This is the sense of the once for all. It is the eschatological once for all because the Word becomes event here and now in the living voice of the preaching. I m sure you noticed as I read this a number of ideas that we saw in Karl Barth and, to a certain extent, in Soren Kierkegaard in terms of becoming contemporary with Christ, God revealing Himself to us in Christ right here and now and the idea that you do not have to resort solely to historical events and historical ideas. Well, I realize this has been a somewhat short survey of Bultmann, but I think this hits some of the highlights in his thinking. He is an existentialist theologian, and a number of the ideas that he holds you could find in Karl Barth and some of the other existentialist theologians. But let me turn away from Bultmann at this point to begin looking with you at the end of this lecture at Paul Tillich. And Paul Tillich is going to occupy our thinking for several lectures to come as well. Paul Tillich s dates are 1886 through So you can see as you compare that to Bultmann that he is definitely a contemporary of Bultmann. Tillich also was alive during the time when Karl Barth was living. Let me just say a few words, to begin with, about Tillich s background. Tillich grew up in a small town. Now this was good in one sense, namely that it gave him a sense of security. But it was bad in another sense. It was bad in that there was a certain restrictiveness in living in a small town. Tillich s father was a minster in the Prussian Lutheran Church, 10 of 13

11 and he was very authoritarian. He was intellectually authoritarian as well as authoritarian in other respects. By that, I mean that his father really wouldn t allow any doubts to creep in. His mother was puritanical in her morals, so she molded the ethics of her children while Tillich s father molded their thinking. And he just really would not allow any intellectual doubts about Christianity to creep in. Well, the big intellectual event for Tillich was the time when he could break out of his home. This allowed him to throw off all of this authoritarianism. And he broke away from this authoritarianism by using the tool of critical philosophy. Tillich s father had taught him the tool and had told him that it would bring him to truth and confirm what he believed. Tillich, on the other hand though, used philosophy to break away from his beliefs. Well, Tillich was forced to leave later on in life. He was forced to leave his position at the University in Frankfurt in 1933 because of his outspoken criticism of the Nazis. He immigrated to the United States at the age of 47, and he taught for some 22 years at Union Theological Seminary in New York. And then he went on to teach at Harvard Divinity School. At the time of his death, he was professor at the divinity school of the University of Chicago. Well obviously, there s a whole lot more to say about Tillich and his life, but that gives you just a very brief thumbnail sketch about him. Let me turn now to look at the thought of Tillich. And I want to begin by looking first at Tillich s conception of the nature, the method, and the structure of systematic theology. Let me begin by just making a few general observations about how he understood the nature, method, and structure of systematic theology. Tillich said that a theological system should satisfy two basic needs. On the one hand, it should deal with the statement of the truth of the Christian method. On the other hand, it should offer the interpretation of that truth for every new generation. And according to Tillich, theology should move between the two poles of its foundational eternal truth and the temporal situation in which that truth must be received. And Tillich said that fundamentalism had erred by missing this point. They only wanted to emphasize the underlying foundational eternal truths. They didn t want to recognize, at the same time, the temporal situation and adapt and adopt that into their theology. Now, the situation that theology must consider, according to Tillich, is the creative interpretation of existence. Tillich makes this point in his Systematic Theology, Volume 1, page 4. This point is 11 of 13

12 very, very much like what we ve already heard earlier in this lecture from Rudolf Bultmann. It s the same idea. Theology then must focus on a creative interpretation of existence. That tells you at the outset that Tillich, like Bultman, is going to rely very heavily on existentialism. Now Tillich says that kerygmatic theology what he calls kerygmatic, not charismatic but kerygmatic kerygmatic theology is related to fundamentalism and to orthodoxy in that it emphasizes the unchangeable truth of the message of Scripture. It emphasizes the kerygma. But it differs from them in that it applies that message and interprets that message to the situation of our day. And Tillich also says that kerygmatic theology must be apologetic theology. And by apologetic, he means it must be an answering theology. What it must answer, he says, are the questions put before it by the contemporary situation. Well, those are just some general observations about the nature, method, and structure of systematics. Let me turn now to begin, for just a few minutes here at the end, talking about Tillich s specific understanding on the nature of systematic theology. The first idea that he raises is the idea of the theological circle. Now Tillich says that we cannot simply attempt inductively or deductively to derive a system of theology as if we are a disinterested observer. If you re going to try to structure theology in that way, it s not going to work. We have to realize instead that whether we proceed deductively or inductively, we have made a prior choice as to where we will get our information for doing theology. Tillich says that in any truly theological system, the a priori, the presupposition which directs the induction is a kind of mystical experience. That is, an awareness, an experiencing of something ultimate in value and being. But this means that if we are going to do theology, we must already previously be in the sphere, or circle if you will, where theological issues and contents reside. Tillich says that we enter the theological circle by an act of commitment and with an intention to perform an important function of the church, namely, its theological self-interpretation. So we put ourselves into that theological circle by an act of our will. Tillich says that if we begin as a philosopher of religion and then we subsume Christianity under our concept of religion, then we re not really a theologian. We re really not functioning in the theological circle. But we are instead functioning within a religious, philosophical circle. On the other hand, if we enter the theological circle in the way that I ve already mentioned by making a commitment, then we are truly theologians. Let me read to you what he says on page 10 in Volume 1 of his Systematics. And with this I want to close this lecture. In this particular portion, he 12 of 13

13 talks about the problem of being in the theological circle and the need to put oneself there. He says, But even the man who has entered the theological circle consciously and openly faces another serious problem. Being inside the circle, he must have made an existential decision. He must be in the situation of faith. But no one can say of himself that he is in the situation of faith. No one can call himself a theologian even if he is called to be a teacher of theology. Every theologian is committed and alienated. He is always in faith and in doubt. (This sounds an awful lot like Kierkegaard). He is inside and outside the theological circle. Sometimes the one side prevails, sometimes the other. And he is never certain which side really prevails. Therefore, one criterion alone can be applied. A person can be a theologian as long as he acknowledges the content of the theological circle as his ultimate concern. Whether this is true does not depend on his intellectual or moral or emotional state. It does not depend on the intensity and certitude of faith. It does not depend on the power of regeneration or the grade of sanctification. Rather, it depends on his being ultimately concerned with the Christian message even if he is sometimes inclined to attack and to reject it. Well, that completes what I want to say about Tillich s concept of the theological circle. In our next lecture, I want to continue with Tillich s understanding of the nature of theology. And I ll begin with what he has to say about the two formal criteria of every theology. We ll go from there next time then. Christ-Centered Learning Anytime, Anywhere 13 of 13