This essay forms part of an ongoing series in philosophical theology produced through the Department of Philosophical Theology at Christ School of Theology. The series explores questions of intelligibility, reality, theological language, and the philosophical conditions for Christian belief.
The preceding essays have argued that the Kantian restriction theology inherited was never as philosophically secure as the theologians who built upon it assumed, that it was received rather than re-derived from Kant's own text, and that it was supplied by one of two neo-Kantian schools — Marburg — rather than by the critical philosophy as a whole. They have also shown what happened when a theologian of genuine seriousness, Rudolf Otto, tried to recover the objective otherness of the holy from within the Kantian inheritance: he succeeded in restoring the phenomenological priority of the object while leaving its ontological priority unsecured. The experience of the numinous pointed beyond consciousness, but Otto could not finally show how the reality of the object is to be distinguished from the distinctive structure of consciousness through which it is apprehended.
This essay is about what happened next. It is about a specific room, a specific winter, and the precise moment at which the phenomenological displacement of divine agency passed from philosophy into Protestant theology — not by argument, but by transmission. The room was at Marburg. The winter was 1923–24. The transmission happened across a seminar table.
The Room
Rudolf Bultmann held the New Testament chair at the University of Marburg from 1921. When Martin Heidegger arrived to take the philosophy chair in 1923, he entered an institution already shaped by fifty years of neo-Kantian philosophy of the kind the preceding essays have described. Paul Natorp — whose dissolution of the thing-in-itself into "the limit of the infinite process of objectification" had done more than any other single formulation to close the question of supersensible reality for a generation — was still alive, still at Marburg, three months from his death in August 1924. Wilhelm Herrmann, who had taught theology at Marburg since 1879 as Cohen's institutional neighbor and had built his entire account of theological certainty on the conviction that "no other kind of certainty about divine reality remains available after Kant," had retired only seven years earlier. Bultmann and Barth had both been Herrmann's students.
Into this building, in the winter semester of 1923–24, Heidegger stepped — not to lecture on ontology but to present in Bultmann's own New Testament seminar, on the ethics of Paul, reading Luther. The protokolle of that seminar, preserved by Bernd Jaspert, record two presentations: February 14 and February 21, 1924. What they record is not simply a philosopher helping a theologian read a Reformer. They record the moment at which a decisive philosophical move — the transformation of theological truth-conditions from metaphysical to phenomenological — was performed inside a New Testament seminar, in front of the man who would spend the next four decades making that move the methodological foundation of Protestant biblical interpretation.
What Heidegger Did to Luther
Heidegger came to the seminar having read Luther intensively and, by most accounts, penetratingly. Bultmann reportedly quipped that Heidegger was in fact the leading expert on Luther. The first session worked through Luther's 1516 Questio de viribus et voluntate hominis sine gratia disputata and the celebrated theses of the Heidelberg Disputation. The second explored Luther's later theology of sin, moving through the 1517 Disputation against Scholastic Theology and the 1544 Genesis lectures.
What Heidegger found in Luther — and found, by his own account, with approval — was a radicality of sin that the scholastics had missed. The scholastics understood sin as an impairment of human nature, a deficit that damaged but did not destroy the prelapsarian donum superadditum. Natural reason remained sufficiently intact to secure knowledge of God, to establish the authority of the Church as a divine institution, and to demonstrate the grounds of revelation. Luther, Heidegger argued, opposed this entire architecture not with a counter-argument but with experientia: the natura hominis is corrupt, the being of human being is itself sin, and accordingly sin is none other than an Existenzbegriff — an existential concept — not something tacked onto the moral constitution of the human being but constituting humanity's ownmost core.
Heidegger's reading of Luther here is not wrong. Luther does say this. The Heidelberg theses are genuinely about epistemology rather than ontology; Luther's quarrel with the theologian of glory is about inflated confidence in rational access to God, not about whether God has a determinate ontological character. The 1544 Genesis lectures do, as Heidegger quotes them, have Luther thundering against scholastic theory in favor of experientia: fugiamus deliria ista... et sequamur potius experientiam.
But something crucial happened in the move from Luther's experientia to Heidegger's phenomenological method. Luther's appeal to experience was an appeal against a particular theory of how much natural reason can achieve regarding a God who actually exists and acts. The experientia Luther commended was the experience of a God genuinely encountered, genuinely hidden, genuinely addressing the sinner through Word and cross. For Luther, what the theologian of glory misses is not that God is a limiting-concept or a phenomenological correlate of faithful self-understanding, but that the God who actually is, is known only under conditions of hiddenness — through suffering and cross, not through the via eminentiae of speculative ascent.
Heidegger's phenomenological appropriation of this reads the hiddenness but not the reality it hides. What concerns Heidegger is the phenomenological shape of Christian life — what it is to live in the world and before God, what it is to be positioned (gestellt) before God in such a way. He brackets, methodologically and permanently, the question of whether God exists apart from this positioning. When Heidegger has Luther saying that sin is an Existenzbegriff, he means something Luther did not mean: not that sin is a real disruption of the real relation between a real human being and a real God, but that sin names a self-understanding, a mode of Dasein's being-in-the-world, a way of finding oneself.
The truth-conditions of the two positions are not merely different in emphasis. They are logically independent. Luther's claim that sinners cannot do otherwise than accuse God and excuse themselves is true, on his interpretation, if and only if there is a domain of persons, a domain containing God, and sinners in fact stand in the relation of accusation toward God and reflexive excuse toward themselves. Heidegger's version of the same claim is true if and only if there is a self-understanding of accusation-and-excuse available within the phenomenological structure of Christian factical life. The first requires God to exist and to be the kind of being toward whom sinners can bear real relations. The second requires only that a particular structure of self-understanding be phenomenologically identifiable. The two interpretations can come apart entirely: one can be true while the other is false, because their domains of quantification have no overlap.
Heidegger was sufficiently honest to acknowledge what he was doing. Theological investigation, he held by 1927, is an ontic inquiry into Christian factical life — into what it is to live in a certain way. It is not an ontological inquiry in his sense, and it does not reach the level at which questions of being as such are addressed. Theology is a positive science of faith, not fundamental ontology. The existence of God, he held, cannot be investigated phenomenologically and is accordingly irrelevant to the truth-conditions of theological assertions properly understood.
What he did not say, and what was left for Bultmann to work out, is the theological consequence of this methodological decision.
What Bultmann Inherited
Bultmann was present for both February presentations. He had already, through his formation under Herrmann, absorbed the conviction that theological certainty must be grounded in something other than speculative metaphysics or historical proof. He had already accepted, in other words, the core prohibition the preceding essays have traced through Ritschl, Herrmann, and the Marburg inheritance. What Heidegger supplied was not the prohibition — that was already in place — but a precise philosophical apparatus for executing it at the level of New Testament interpretation.
Demythologizing, as Bultmann would later systematize it, is the methodological application of Heidegger's phenomenological displacement to the entire content of Christian proclamation. The mythological worldview of the New Testament — three-storey cosmology, divine intervention in the natural order, resurrection as bodily event, parousia as literal return — cannot, Bultmann holds, be believed by modern persons. This is the claim his opening pages of "New Testament and Mythology" assert without arguing. The claim is not primarily cosmological. It is epistemological in the Marburg sense: what "modern scientific consciousness" can and cannot constitute as an object determines in advance what theological claims are available for belief.
What demythologizing then proposes is that the kerygma — the core proclamation — be reinterpreted through the existential categories Heidegger had developed in Sein und Zeit. The resurrection does not refer to a bodily event in which God raised the crucified Jesus from the dead. It refers to the rise of faith in the disciples, to the eschatological self-understanding awakened in those who hear the proclamation of the cross. Original sin is not the real disruption of a real relation between real human beings and a real God. It is the condition of inauthentic existence, the fallenness of Dasein into the anonymous public world of das Man, from which the call of conscience — or the proclaimed Word — summons the hearer to authentic decision.
The parallel with what Heidegger did to Luther is exact. Heidegger had taken Luther's metaphysical truth-conditions — sin as real enmity between a real sinner and a real God — and replaced them with phenomenological truth-conditions: sin as a self-understanding, as a mode of Dasein's positioning before God. Bultmann applied the same operation to the New Testament as a whole. Theological assertions were reinterpreted as disclosures of existential possibility. Divine action became the event of self-understanding awakened in the hearer. Revelation became the occasion for authentic existence rather than the address of a God who exists and acts.
The result was a theology in which the sentence "God raised Jesus from the dead" no longer refers to what God did, but to what the proclamation of the cross does in the hearer. The agent disappears. The action is relocated into consciousness. The satisfaction-conditions of the original claim — the conditions under which it would be true that God raised Jesus — are replaced by conditions under which an existential self-understanding arises.
What the Model Makes Visible
The logical point is worth stating with the precision the underlying argument deserves. A theological sentence divides its possible interpretations into those that satisfy it and those that do not. "Sinners cannot do otherwise than accuse God and excuse themselves" is satisfied, on Luther's interpretation, by an interpretation that contains a real domain of persons, a real God, and a real relation of accusation between them. On Heidegger's interpretation, it is satisfied by the presence of a certain structure of self-understanding within the phenomenological field of Christian existence.
What demythologizing systematically achieves is the replacement of the first kind of satisfaction-condition by the second, across the entire range of Christian proclamation. And because the two kinds of interpretation are logically independent, this is not a translation that preserves content under a new vocabulary. It is a substitution. The sentences remain. The reality capable of satisfying them has been methodologically excluded before the interpretation begins.
This is the point at which Otto and Bultmann, who seem to be doing very different things, turn out to share a common structure. Otto restored the objectivity of the holy phenomenologically — the numinous is genuinely intended, genuinely other, genuinely prior to the subject's constituting activity. But he could not finally show how the reality of the object is distinguished from the distinctive structure of consciousness through which it is apprehended. Bultmann, a generation later, goes further: the object is no longer even phenomenologically prior. The kerygma creates what it proclaims. The proclamation of the crucified one awakens faith, and faith is the existential event within which the theological content becomes real. The direction of dependence has reversed entirely. The Word does not disclose a prior reality. The Word constitutes the self-understanding within which theological reality first obtains.
The Hidden God and the Absent God
There is one moment in the seminar protokolle that cuts against this trajectory with unexpected force, and Heidegger himself is the one who supplies it.
Near the end of his second presentation, Heidegger notes that even after the Fall, when Adam and Eve flee from God in guilt and accusation, their flight does not sever their relation to God. It is the highest grace, Heidegger says — summa gratia — that after the fall God does not fall silent but still speaks: loquitur. The being of God is always grasped as Verbum; the fundamental relation of human being to God is one of hearing, audire.
And in the concluding section of "A Tale of Two Martins," the essay in which these seminar protokolle are analyzed in detail, the observation stands that Heidegger's own reflection on truth as alethia may disclose more than he intended. A-lethia is derivative upon lethia: something must first be concealed in order to be unconcealed. Heidegger's a-theism, by the same logic, suggests that the absence of God is derivative upon a deeper divine presence. The phenomenological bracketing of divine agency may itself presuppose, without being able to acknowledge, precisely what it brackets.
But Christianity in general, and Luther in particular, never mistook seemings for the reality proclaimed by the Word and appropriated in faith. The theology of the cross is not committed only to the hiddenness of God in the world. It is committed to the reality of God perceived in Christ's suffering and proclaimed in his Word. The hidden God is hidden, not absent. The concealment is real, but so is what it conceals.
What Bultmann's demythologizing finally cannot accommodate is this distinction. A phenomenology of hiddenness is possible within its framework. A phenomenology of presence as the self-disclosure of a God who actually exists and acts is not. The summa gratia that God still speaks after the Fall is, for Luther, a fact about what God has done. For the program Bultmann inherited from the Marburg seminar room, it can only be a fact about the structure of Christian self-understanding.
The Word grounds the hearer. The hearer cannot ground the Word.
The next essay will consider what becomes of proclamation when the reality that grounds it has been methodologically suspended — and why the Lutheran tradition in particular has the resources to recover what Bultmann's inheritance displaced.
No comments:
Post a Comment