*

PART TWO: DEMYTHOLOGIZATION AND
THE SEARCH FOR INTELLIGIBILITY

6. The Impact Of Philosophy.

 Another important element in determining the scope and nature of the christological enterprise is the use, or not, of philosophy as its cohesive framework. Now philosophy has had a major role within Christology almost from the very beginning. [The most fruitful philosophical concept in this vein, even up to modern times, is that of the Logos; which already had a 600 year-long tradition within Greek thought when the prologue to John's Gospel was written.] Thanks to the powerful influence of Alexandria upon the early churches, neo-platonic thought became the favored adviser to most theologians (both East and West) up until the time of Thomas Aquinas. Today, philosophical pluralism directly impacts upon modern Christology.

  For example, Pannenberg and Kasper both make use of Hegelian terminology; Bultmann and Balthasar make use of Heideggerian categories (most importantly 'Being and Time'); and Rahner is much indebted to Kant (among others). A strong philosophical base is essential to modern Christology because a solid understanding of humanity, history, and Cosmos is fundamental to theology in general. Many modern theologians "attempt to recast Christology in the light of a philosophically analyzed view of human experience" (Tho 64). Hence Rahner uses a transcendental (and phenomenological) analysis of human experience; Pannenberg an evolutionary analysis of history; and Balthasar an analysis of aesthetic experience. This only goes to show that we cannot build up our knowledge of Jesus Christ in a vacuum (as it were).

 Nowhere does philosophy play a larger role in Christology then in Bultmann's program of demythologization (which means 'reinterpreting the myth'). Demythologizing (ie. the program of radical re-interpretation) thus translates mythical language into existential language; not completely, however, for there remains a residue of analogical language that is also myth (according to Bultmann's own definition). Even so, it recaptures the original existential significance - objectified in the myth - and presents it in a non-mythical form. For example, Bultmann regards the Resurrection as a useful myth that expresses the significance of the Cross, such that the believer's atonement and surrender of self- sufficiency (ie. internalizing the Cross) leads to a new life of wholeness and authentic existence (ie. internalizing the Resurrection).

 Now Bultmann accepted Schweitzer's negative conclusions about the 19th century Quest; in part, because he saw clearly that faith is not dependent upon the findings of historical research, and (in part) because the churches faith documents (ie. the NT) are (for him) far more concerned with myth than with fact. "For the Gospel-writers Jesus had become the central object of religious devotion" (O'C 'Int.Jesus' 36). Since this old world mythology is fundamentally incredible to our scientific age, the Christian message, to gain a hearing today, must be parted (or rescued) from its mythological form as it is found in the New Testament. God's truth lies hidden in the mythical language, and this truth must be restated and re-presented, if we wish to give back to the kerygma its lost biting edge. The key to this task of translation Bultmann finds in the existentialist understanding of human existence (eg. in Heidegger's 'Being & Time'). This is adequate to the job only because the truth concealed beneath the myth is a true understanding of human existence: Christian salvation is therefore intimately bound up with the believer's new self-understanding.

 Here Christianity is (and ought to be) an existentialism concerned with concrete reality, rather than an over-elaborated ideological superstructure filled with myth, timeless ideas, and other fantastic notions having little or no basis in, or connection with, the daily realities of modern life. In order to make Jesus intelligible to the modern mind, it is necessary to purge the biblical vision of its mythological aspects so as to get to the vital core of its message, which is the Kerygma. It is the kerygma that mediates salvation, and challenges us to authentic existence. Bultmann's work unites soteriology and philosophy to produce a Christology oriented toward the individual believer.

 For Bultmann, Jesus was prophet, rabbi, and exorcist. He also suggests that the titles Son of Man, Suffering Servant, and Messiah all stem from the early churches' high-Christology. And yet the prophetic rabbi identifies himself with the people (ie. the Jews/Israel) - which is (in part) what 'Son of Man' signifies - but never considers a gentile mission.. [The author's view of this matter is that Jesus of Nazareth (near the crossroads of East and West via the Fertile Crescent) easily developed a highly cosmopolitan vision such that the Gentiles were never too far from his mind.] Bultmann also recognizes Jesus' uniqueness and genius when he says that Jesus, unlike all other rabbis, when he looks at scripture, "critically distinguishes the important from the unimportant, the essential from the indifferent" ('Theology of the NT' 16). Despite its shortcomings, the image of Jesus as the existentialist rabbi remains a largely valid one (pastorally, if not historically) and intelligible (ie. no myths) and relevant (ie. it emphasizes the primal importance of personal conversion).

 Bultmann demythologizes and distills Jesus' teachings down to three main points:
(1) The Kingdom of God is 'dawning'; the sign of this is Jesus' own presence, deeds, and message. "Now is the time of decision."
(2) The Demand of God. Jewish legalism gives more weight to the source of the laws than to the motivation behind any given command. The courts are there to deal with overt acts of lawbreaking, but God is concerned with "man's inner attitudes, his secret motivations, his desires and purposes" (Bow 48). Thus God requires a 'radical obedience': the demand for love.
(3) The individualization of God's relationship with humanity; which means that the Heavenly Father encounters the de-historized and de-institutionalized individual. This is because corporate institutions (ie. Church, Israel) cannot have a personal I-Thou relationship with God; only persons (ie. individuals) can encounter God 'face-to-face'.

 The Kingdom is indeed addressed to the individual person, as Bultmann maintains, but it does not stop there. It goes on to embrace body, nature, and world (as both Moltmann and Rahner maintain); Time, history, and process (as Pannenberg and Rahner maintain); the social, economic, and political dimensions of being human, in terms of a just and righteous social order (as Moltmann maintains); the realm of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful (as Balthasar maintains), but it does not stop there either.  It goes on to embrace all that we are, and all that we shall be ...

 Now historical science cannot say that Jesus had all this in mind, any more than it can say that he worked miracles and was resurrected. The horizontal dimension can only take us so far; at the border, only the vertical dimension allows us to travel into 'the far country'. As to the Kingdom, I think Jesus' conception of it was far more expansive than most scholars are willing to give him credit for. By making the Kingdom big enough to embrace the conceptions of all five scholars, we may in fact be on the right track. After all, Jesus is (as Balthasar says of God) "ever greater"; which means that he cannot validly be reduced to first century Jewish (or 20th century existential) categories.

 Most modern theologians recognize the need for some demythologization, but very few scholars are willing to reduce Jesus to the Kerygmatic Christ. Demythologization, in its widest meaning, indicates a new approach to the mysteries of Christian thought and life; one more in harmony with the critical realism and concrete practicality of the modern mind. Now this general approach presupposes the necessity of an honest and reciprocal dialogue between faith and culture; one which includes the best elements of each. In the search for an adequate Christology, various degrees of commingling will result. Near one end of the spectrum are Bultmann's heirs rejecting the concept of Incarnation, saying that for Jesus to be fully human no divinity can be included (ie. any 'plus' added to the 'man' necessarily compromises his humanity: 'man-plus' does NOT equal 'man'!).

  Of course, there is no arguing the logic of this position.  We can only point out that here demythologizing means reducing Jesus to the 'merely human' by separating him from all hint of 'supernatural taint'. The great weakness here is that this approach effectively removes all elements of mystery, power, and glory (which the scriptures clearly testify to). When you take away all aura from the Son of Man it may make Jesus more intelligible to the so-called 'scientific-mind', but it also makes it that much harder to emphasize his 'absolute uniqueness' vis-a-vis the other outstanding 'paradigmatic individuals' (cf. K. Jaspers).

 A more moderate approach to demythologization is represented by Karl Rahner, who generally avoids such mythologically weighty terms as 'Incarnation', but instead reinterprets the contents in ways that are more historically, scientifically, and philosophically plausible. For example, his Christology is based upon a philosophical anthropology which recognizes and incorporates an evolutionary structure and dynamism to elucidate the nature and goal of human life, and Jesus' role in this grand cosmic scheme. Here, human beings are fundamentally predisposed to accept grace (ie. divine self-communication), and Jesus is the highest instance of this general supernatural orientation toward God. Rahner's interpretation of God's two-fold involvement (ie. immanent and transcendent) with the world and human beings retains the necessary element of mystery, and yet presents all this in a language acceptable to the modern (or, at least, academic) mind.

 A major problem with Rahner's Christology, however, is that it will not impress those with an aversion to any sort of Hegelian-like universal process whose ultimate goal is to merge matter and spirit into some fantastic ideal unity. An adequate Christology must certainly be based upon a comprehensive and holistic philosophy, which is both historically and scientifically aware, but it need not carry the idea of universal process to extremes (eg. the so-called 'omega-point').

 Now Rahner's Christology - and, even more, his anthropology - is excellent; but only up to a point! He has gone a long way in making Jesus, and Christianity in general, both more intelligible and attractive to the Western world. His brand of demythologizing includes a serious view of the facts of evolution, a sober acceptance of the reality of other world religions, and so forth. He has explained Jesus' role as Mediator in terms of the supernatural existential and his sacramental significance. The 'Jesus of History' and the 'Christ of Faith' are, for him, one and the same; indeed, Jesus is the ultimate unity of humanity and divinity.

  Moltmann's functional Christology focuses on the Cross, and brings out the soteriological implications therein. In this way he sought to make Jesus relevant and intelligible, and above all practice-able to the modern mind. Along more conservative lines, Balthasar has no explicit intention to demythologize anything, yet he is very much concerned with renewing the Church by making the faith more credible and pragmatic. This emphasis on a more pastoral outlook is in harmony with the Enlightenment's legacy of world-affirmation; it is also entirely consistent with Catholic tradition, and, moreover, shows that demythologization is not the only way of making Jesus more intelligible.
 

9. Beyond Intelligibility.

 This 'Quest for Intelligibility' - of which the quest for the historical Jesus is a large part - requires the careful use of the tools of demythologization, reductionism (in the sense of avoiding supernaturalism and dogmatism), and materialism (in the sense of natural laws and causality). In effect, this means that we should speak about Jesus in concrete terms if we wish to dialogue with the modern world. We can say that he was a prophet, healer, rabbi, carpenter, mystic, sage, revolutionary, reformer, liberator, and so forth; these terms are more meaningful today than the ambiguous 'Messiah' or 'Son of Man'. But this is not really a new problem at all; in the first century the Gentiles found the phrase 'Jesus is Lord' to be more meaningful of than the older 'Jesus is Messiah'.

 In any case, all of these names, as all of the various aspects of the Kingdom, rest on the kerygma, which challenges the human being to realize his or her identity in relation to God. As sons and daughters of the Heavenly Father we are all in a new and dynamic situation, in a new love-relationship, with all things. [It is hard to make this intelligible to skeptical, cynical, and hard-headed pagan types!] In concrete terms, this means that the believer embarks upon a spiritual journey or quest that involves all aspects of human life (mundane or not), and that this trip does not end with death. It seems to me that both Jesus and the Kingdom he preached are big enough to accommodate many of the insights of Bultmann, Pannenberg, Moltmann, Rahner, and Balthasar; and still have some  maneuvering room left over for future insights and/or revelations.