Bultmann

[dms1972]

When I was younger I was interested in Bultmann and read some of his books despite being cautioned about his theology. I still don't think I have shaken the influence he had on me, though I don't read him much now.

One of the most controversial statements Bultmann made was that a person cannot believe in the spirit and wonder world of the New Testament and at the same time believe in radio and modern medicine. The exact quote was:

"We cannot use electric lights and radios and, in the event of illness, avail ourselves of modern medical and clinical means and at the same time believe in the spirit and wonder world of the New Testament."​

Bultmann scholar David Congdon says it is the most misunderstood quote in modern theology, but I cannot quite understand how he thinks it has been misunderstood exactly.

The Most Misunderstood Quote in Modern Theology (Guest Post by David Congdon) | Kyle Roberts (patheos.com)

I assume Bultmann meant we cannot hold two worldviews at the same time.

So what happens then, what does one do if one wants to believe the New Testament as its written, miracles and all?

Enlightenment and Post Enlightenment thought has been a huge hurdle to my believing the Bible.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Science is a tool to discover the wonders of God's creation.

Medicine is discovering the application of science for the good health of mankind.

Both are sanctified endeavours.

The miraculous further shows His Glory as He is beyond all that has been created.

 

[LeGato]

He sounds a bit Amish. I have a special place in my heart for the Amish.
As the memes say. Reject Modernity, Embrace Tradition.

 

[fhansen]

When I was younger I was interested in Bultmann and read some of his books despite being cautioned about his theology. I still don't think I have shaken the influence he had on me, though I don't read him much now.

One of the most controversial statements Bultmann made was that person cannot believe in the spirit and wonder world of the New Testament and at the same time believe in radio and modern medicine. The exact quote was:

"We cannot use electric lights and radios and, in the event of illness, avail ourselves of modern medical and clinical means and at the same time believe in the spirit and wonder world of the New Testament."​

Bultmann scholar David Congdon says it is the most misunderstood quote in modern theology, but I cannot quite understand how he thinks it has been misunderstood exactly.

The Most Misunderstood Quote in Modern Theology (Guest Post by David Congdon) | Kyle Roberts (patheos.com)

I assume Bultmann meant we cannot hold two worldviews at the same time.

So what happens then, what does one do if one wants to believe the New Testament as its written, miracles and all?

Enlightenment and Post Enlightenment thought has been a huge hurdle to my believing the Bible.

We don’t believe in technology, or if we do it’s become a false idol for us. Otherwise we simply use technology. Sandals are technology applied to the feet.

Bultmann was one of the most famous of liberal theologians who boldly sought to “demythologize” Christianity, arguing against miracles and supernatural claims to make the faith more acceptable to modern minds. He and his methodology were heroes to more recent figures, folks involved in the Jesus Seminar a number of years ago for example. Bright man, not good stuff overall because it compromises the faith severely with its anti-supernaturalism.

 

[dms1972]

He sounds a bit Amish. I have a special place in my heart for the Amish.
As the memes say. Reject Modernity, Embrace Tradition.

I don't think he was talking about rejecting modernity.

 

[dms1972]

We don’t believe in technology, or if we do it’s become a false idol for us. Otherwise we simply use technology. Sandals are technology applied to the feet.

That is why I thought he meant the modern worldview that gave rise to radio and medicine.

 

[fhansen]

That is why I thought he meant the modern worldview that gave rise to radio and medicine.

Either way, at the end of the day it’s all the same. It’s not the modern world view that gave rise to those things but simply man’s ability to learn and apply that increasing knowledge to multiple ways of improving his life, generally speaking.

 

[dms1972]

I think it is the modern view - people came to view illness in biological terms, not as due to such things as demonic spirits, and viewing it biologically sought medical cures.

 

[fhansen]

If I know Bultmann he was opposed to the “spirit and wonder world”, as being a childish concept for a less educated world of the past.

 

[dms1972]

If I know Bultmann he was opposed to the “spirit and wonder world”, as being a childish concept for a less educated world of the past.

That would be my understanding of him.

 

[dms1972]

So I am confused, what are we supposed to believe about God and the Cosmos?

 

[Bob Crowley]

I've only got the one book "Faith and Understanding - Rudolf Bultmann" which is a series of essays by Bultmann.

I've managed to wade through it a couple of times. Like most theologians, he uses a lot of words to make his points.

I know the quote "We cannot use electric lights and radios and, in the event of illness, avail ourselves of modern medical and clinical means and at the same time believe in the spirit and wonder world of the New Testament" is in the book somewhere, but I can't be bothered to find it. If I did and read the rest of the essay, it would help to put it in context.

I remember my old Presbyterian pastor (who was conservative to his boot laces) saying that CS Lewis gave Bultmann a bad press, but he thought part of the reason was that Bultmann was German, and during and shortly after World War II Germans weren't held in high regard in the west. He remarked "I think Lewis was a bit unfair" and "I think he (Bultmann) had something to say".

To put Bultmann in context, we'd need to be aware of the work of other "demythologising" and liberal theologians leading up to his tenure. He and Barth were probably the most dominant protestant theologians in the 20th century.

The quote above reminds me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "secular Christianity" in a "world come of age" which means we must live in this world as Christians without God, yet before God. I've got a peculiar belief that God intends to drive us off the planet and out into the universe, and the method won't be gentle. As a precursor to this, He's allowed humanity to make enormous gains in technology in a very short time - the first Wright Brothers flight took place in 1903, and by 1969 men had landed on the moon. Not long ago Voyagers 1 and 2 exited the solar system.

Suppose He does drive us off the planet, which we will have done our fair share to wreck - what's going to happen to our earth bound vision of the church? In the Catholic sense Rome is seen as the "eternal city", but is it?

In the Protestant sense what is going to happen to all those looking for some sort of "Biblical" mythological deliverance eg. the so-called "Rapture" when it doesn't happen?

Looking backwards to the culture of Biblical times won't be much help in a world come of space age. Bleating about rebuilding a third Jerusalem temple won't be of much interest to a generation which could well relate to something like the Star Trek Voyager on a daily basis.

 

[fhansen]

So I am confused, what are we supposed to believe about God and the Cosmos?

God is alive and well, any progress by man in knowledge and science is only a scratching of the surface of His own mind, and there’s much more to this universe than we will ever be able to observe or deduce by natural, human means. The supernatural is real, including the “spirit and wonder world” and grace will always be necessary in order for man to understand and perceive and believe in it.