The Meaning and Purpose of Demythologization

1. The Horizon of Eschatology

The starting point and basic assertion of Bultmann's project of demythologization is that "Today nobody doubts that Jesus' conception of the Kingdom of God is an eschatological one,"(1) which is the heart of Jesus' preaching and message. There are two things at stake in this statement, namely, the kingdom of God and eschatology. While the former is a category of space, the latter is one of time. The kingdom of God seems to be an emphasis on the transcendent realm that is in contrast and actually in conflict with the human world, agenda and construct. In this sense, God and God's will are always the Absolute Other that is beyond human reason and grasp. Bultmann once exhorted the assembly in his homily, "Has our old picture of him fallen to pieces? If so, then we must first of all be grateful that we have lost our false conception;... New sides of his infinity constantly emerge, strange and enigmatic;... never static and at rest, but constantly ready to yield anew, to allow itself to be raised anew."(2) This conception of the kingdom of God, logically, renders any present understanding of God inadequate and surpassable. Therefore, no present should simply be an attachment to or a repetition of the past, but should always be opened to the future. This is the rationality for the other side of the same coin, namely, eschatology. Eschatology means the doctrine of the last things, implying the dimension of the future for the sake of shedding light on the present. If the Greek perceives the present as decided and emptied by the future and final destiny, Jesus and the New Testament writers see the present in the light of the final judgment of God at the end of time. If the Greek's vision implies humility and fatalistic submission, Jesus demands of human beings first and foremost responsibility toward God and repentance.(3)

Furthermore, borrowing the insight of St. John, whose Gospel shifts the cosmological eschatology to an historical eschatology, Bultmann affirms the "once-for-all" of eschatology while he denies the legitimacy of other once-for-all statements about God. There is a paradox here. The once-for-all eschatological Christ event affirms that the only genuine encounter with God happens in concrete history and time, rather than in any so-called timeless statements of truth. So, if I follow Christ, I am to let this eschatological moment, as the only timeless truth, reveal itself in me here and now through the kergyma and demand my personal response.(4)

2. The Notion of Freedom

Related to his eschatology, Bultmann situates freedom proper as the bliss after death when Christians have an untroubled relationship with God, which has been mythologically but properly described as a worshipping community that sings hymns of praise and thanksgiving. This kind of freedom, however, is different from the platonic mythological picture of dialogue in the transcendent realm, and from its conception of freedom that the spirit is finally liberated from the body and is satisfied with perceiving the truth. Christian freedom is freedom from sin and the old self, the yeast that is incompatible with the God's holiness. The difference between these two understandings is due to distinct conceptions of human nature. For Bultmann, the Greek conceives human nature as not subject to time or history, while the biblical conception of the human being is essentially temporal and historical. The former understanding directs human ideal living towards static and quiet contemplation, while the latter perceives the ideal Christian life as ongoing towards a future of the totally new. However, this newness is not visible because it is hidden with Christ in God. "It does not yet appear what we shall be." (1Jn 3:2) (5) This tension renders faith, hope and love dominant dispositions for Christians to cultivate by the grace of God.

Dialectically, this eschatological freedom has been achieved once and for all in the Christ event, which is always present in the proclaimed word, not as timeless truth, but as happening here and now. In this sense, the eschatological freedom justifies and demands the existential freedom to take up responsibility here and now. This inner logic grounds the rationality of demythologization, in line with the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. If this doctrine frees Luther from the works of law, it frees Bultmann from the sphere of knowledge and thought through the project of demythologization. Both of them aim to emancipate people from deceived and enslaving security. For Luther, it was the security of good works. For Bultmann, it was the security built on objectifying knowledge, which renders to Christians the illusion that they have got hold of God and thus become blind and deaf to God's word spoken here and now and calling for their action and response. In this sense, established security through reason renders Christians not blessed or free for God as the eschatological vision shows.(6)

3. Demythologization Proper

Bultmann understands demythologization as a hermeneutical method to discover the meaning of the Scriptures. This method dwells within a dialectical tension. Negatively, it is an abandonment of the biblical worldview that has become a stumbling block for understanding God's word for us. "To de-mythologize is to deny that the message of Scripture and of the Church is bound to an ancient world-view which is obsolete." (7) In fact, our modern world is shaped by science, to which a mythological cosmos makes no sense. A modern person does not look for transcendent intervention or miracles, as those in the biblical worldview did, to explain daily events or solve their related problems, whether they might be physical sickness, family finance or national security. If the scriptural message still sticks with non-sensible mythological expressions, its actual and important meaning as God's word to us here and now becomes elusive, if not totally inaccessible. For Bultmann, the essence of the scriptures is "kergyma, that is, a proclamation addressed not to the theoretical reason, but to the hearer as a self." (8) The perennial message of God's word is to challenge the hearer, shaped by whatever worldview, it might be, to give up personal sinfulness and security, and become a new person in Christ. This understanding of giving up is structurally correlated with Bultmann's eschatology and notion of freedom. Bultmann is fully aware that this kind of giving up and option for freedom is a stumbling block for the hearer, as Paul has already acknowledged. If this is a genuine stumbling block inherent in the kergyma, however, the mythological worldview as a stumbling block for our modern Christians is a false one. In order to render the hearers capable of focussing on and being challenged by the genuine one, the mythological worldview has to be removed by demythologization. Here, Bultmann has no intention at all of incorporating the modern worldview into the kergyma, since any worldview for Bultmann, in spite of its usefulness, is simply a human construct or reasoning that shapes and promises illusive security, and falls short of putting our total trust in God.

Positively, demythologization is equipped and engaged by the categories of existential philosophy to sharpen the exigency of the kergyma. Taking demythologization as a hermeneutic method, Bultmann is aware that interpretation is always based on principles and conceptions as its presuppositions since God's word has to be mediated through human language shaped by certain philosophical categories. But two things are at stake. First, if presuppositions cannot be removed from the beginning of interpretation, nevertheless they should not determine or foresee its outcome in advance. "An exegesis which, for example, makes the presupposition that its results must agree with some dogmatic statement is not a real and fair exegesis."(9) This statement is certainly consistent with Bultmann's suspicion towards any human construct or worldview that aims to explain everything in certain logical and foreseeable ways. Second, which are the adequate presuppositions? This question is related to that of the philosophy one should adopt. Certainly, this adoption is not arbitrary, but should contribute to the understanding of the kergyma, which demands an existential response to God's word in freedom from sin and freedom for love. In this sense, Bultmann sees the value of existential philosophy whose categories are not supposed to replace God's word, but can enhance the sensibility and exigency of the hearer towards it. This kind of dynamic is similar to that by which understanding a musical text presupposes one's being musical, or understanding a book on mathematics presupposes one's ability to think mathematically. Unless a person intends to live an authentic life, the essence of God's word does not make sense to him or her. When we Christians encounters a scriptural text, our main interest or purpose is not so much to receive historical or political information as to let it say something to our actual present existence so that we can hear the truth about our life and our soul. Existential philosophy exactly demands the truthfulness of existence too. Its own logic forbids itself to tell anyone how to exist, but affirms that one must exist. While its categories give no answer to the question of our personal existence, they sharpen our awareness of the need to take up personal responsibility and make us open to the word of God. In this sense, Bultmann rejects the criticism that demythologization turns Christian faith into philosophy. An existential analysis of love does not lead a person to understand how he must love here and now, apart from making clear to him the timeless truth that only by loving can one understand love. The response and power to love in a concrete here and now finally depends on the encounter with God's word. Bultmann delineates sharply the difference between faith and theology. While faith is entirely an existential event, theology is a disciplined interpretation of faith, utilizing existentialist categories as tools of thought. It is not too reckless to say that theology is simply a handmaid of faith.

Furthermore, Bultmann's existential concern does not allow any possibility of valid investigation of God's self "because we cannot speak of what God is in Himself but only of what He is doing to us and with us."(10) However, he tries to dispel the fear and accusation of being entirely subjective in demythologization. No doubt, demythologization partly depends on personal experience, perception, and decision, but its objective basis is God's word in the Scriptures. A person cannot discover his human-God relationship by looking into himself; it can only be made real by his encounter with the demythologized word of God.(11)

4. The Understanding of God As Acting

Demythologization is to affirm that God is acting in the world. However, this action does not happen among worldly actions or events; it rather happens within them. The recognition of this reality can only appeal to the eyes of faith, not to the evidence of any causal relationship between events.

Bultmann makes it clear that demythologization does not exempt one from using symbolic language or images, since he acknowledges that "Mythological conceptions can be used as symbols or images which are perhaps necessary to the language of religion and therefore also of the Christian faith."(12) However, he denies the valid use of these symbols and images in a general sense. For example, images such as God as creator or God as acting do not refer to any event without myself being involved in this event. The analogical use of the symbolic language must correlate with a personal or an existential reference. "When we speak in this manner of God as acting, we conceive [of] God's action as an analogue to the actions taking place between men...It is in this analogical sense that we speak of God's love and care for men...and it is in this analogical sense that we call Him Father."(13) Here, Bultmann denies the legitimacy of affirming God as the creator of the world or Jesus as the saviour of the world, apart from my relationship with God as creature and with Jesus as my saviour. The strength of faith is to accept that the former statements in general cannot be proved so that faith transcends the causal relationship that can be proved in this world and thus stands in a privileged position with regard to theoretical reason, without succumbing to the latter's logic and demand.

1. Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), 13.

2. Rudolf Bultmann, Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann, tr. by Schubert Ogden (New York: Meridan, 1960). This passage is Used by Roger A. Roman, Rudolf Bultmann: Interpreting Faith for the Modern Era (London: Collins, 1987), 48.

3. Jesus Christ and Mythology, 26.

4. Cf. Ibid, 81-82.

5. Cf. ibid, 28-31.

6. Cf. ibid, 82-84.

7. Ibid, 36.

8. Ibid, 36.

9. Ibid, 49.

10. Ibid, 73.

11. Cf. ibid 49-59.

12. Ibid, 67.

13.Ibid, 68-69.