John A.T. Robinson (1919-1983)
Robinson is a fairly contemporary and recent theologian of the 20th century whose claim to fame was his attempted synthesis of Tillich and Bonhoeffer in his 1963 book Honest to God. Although nominally Anglican, and indeed a bishop in the Church of England, he also espoused the heresy of universalism based on his secularization of the Christian faith that took away the supernatural - if Jesus doesn't really save and God doesn't exist, in other words, then man cannot be all bad and all men are to be "saved." He is also a mentor of the now notorious American Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, whose liberalism has scandalized the American Anglican tradition for decades. To read Robinson's work alongside a more conservative Anglo-Catholic traditionalist such as Mascall, one could almost conclude they belong to two different religions! (Information on Robinson obtained from "John Robinson {Bishop of Woolwich}" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robinson_{bishop_of_Woolwich} - accessed 2/22/2018). As Mascall notes on page 8, the major weakness of the type of radical secularization proposed by Robinson and those like him is that it entirely undermines the whole notion of Christian social theology, in that it completely capitulates to the outlook of the contemporary world and thus has no criterion for passing judgment on it. This is the reason as well why "political correctness," as well as "liberation theologies," radical feminism, the "gay agenda," and other such things have made inroads into churches which espouse such views.
Although Mascall notes that Robinson, along with Paul van Buren (1924-1998) and I would add as well people such as Stanley Hauerwas and Jurgen Moltmann, are typical examples of a contemporary deliberate secularization of Christianity (in that league as well I would place Catholic theologians such as Tielhard de Chardin and Richard McBrien), he also notes on page 8 that this didn't appear out of a vacuum, but instead rests in the efforts of "demythologizing" associated with Rudolf Bultmann, who we will now discuss in detail as well.
Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976)
Bultmann (whose likeness reminds me personally of the actor Christopher Walken for some reason!) was one of the most influential liberal theologians of his time. Unlike Robinson, Bultmann was a German Lutheran, and he was noted for being a leading proponent of "form criticism," which essentially is a method of reading Scripture which attempts to look at the original form of a certain pericope (passage) of Scripture and then try to determine what its writer intended. In this context, as Mascall notes, Bultmann then reduces the Gospels to mythological notions unacceptable to 20th-century man, and which the main purpose was for transmitting the Kerygma to the culture of its time. Therefore, the task of the form critic, in Bultmann's rationale, was to discard the myth and retain the Kerygma at the heart of what the myth was trying to communicate. This result is achieved by a method that Bultmann lifted from philosopher Martin Heidegger's playbook in that it makes the Gospel strictly existentialist - this therefore means that Christian belief is dependent upon one's present existence rather than the actual message of Christ in the Gospels. To summarize Bultmann's system in this regard, here is a synopsis.
For Bultmann, the "thought-forms" of the New Testament are "mythical," depicting the universe as being divided into three parts - center being earth, sandwiched between heaven and hell. He ascribes this mythical view to the Biblical description of the events of salvation, and to this worldview then the "aggravatedly modern man" is irreconcilably opposed. The reason for this, Bultmann proposes, is that man has a self-conception as a self-contained being who is not open to the seizure of supernatural powers. Retention of the "myth," Bultmann argues, is tantamount to returning to a primitive era and sacrificing faith to intellect. Bultman therefore advocates not only for just "demythologizing" but also "reinterpreting" the Gospel in terms of a self-understanding which mythology furnishes the vehicle, and that Paul and John furnish the pathway to this "reinterpretation." (Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2002. pp. 228-229). Basically, to put what Bultmann proposes into lay terms, the way the Gospel was written is not infallible (that is in opposition to Church teaching, which does affirm the infallibility of Scripture), and therefore must be "tweeked" to get rid of those inconvenient, outdated concepts which Bultmann generally designates as "myth" in order to make the Kerygma palatable to modern man. The problem with this approach is that it also deconstructs orthodox teaching on many levels. This also concurs with Mascall's critique of Bultmann's position on page 9, in which he notes a couple of important things:
1. Bultmann lumps together a variety of quite diverse items under the all-inclusive term "myth."
2. While Bultmann is quite tender to the modern man's intellectual prejudices regarding the supernatural and the miraculous (he mirrors Bauer and Strauss in that regard), he is at the same time unsparing in his demands (which Mascall notes are based in Heideggerian existentialism) on dogma and even the Scriptures themselves to conform to his sensitivities of modern man's objections.
3. Bultmann's insistence that the Kerygma is limited only to audible proclamation from a pulpit is a false premise, as in particular for the Catholic Christian it is also lived out in the sacramental life of the Church as well.
In response to Bultmann's ideas, and also in true Thomistic fashion, Mascall contends on page 11 that if only "authentic existence" which Bultmann espouses were true, then a sincere Muslim or Buddhist would be just as valid as the Christian. It is at this point I will leave off on Mascall's thought until the next part of the series and conclude with a few observations of my own.
Bultmann's idea of "authentic existence" is an old one, and also a very incorrect one, when one understands what he really is saying. In essence, it is a sort of "salvation by works" in which the Kerygma is reduced to a mere moral code and thus its only relevance is in what conforms with the hearer. Authentic Christianity, as Mascall will later argue and with which I concur, is very different - we are to conform to the Gospel rather than make it conform to us, and proclamation is only part of the equation - proclamation serves as a means for living out the commandments God gave us, even when they go against the whims and fancies of contemporary society. Therefore, the problem with Bultmann's premise is the same old rehash of his predecessors - Schleiermacher, Rauschenbusch, Baure, Strauss, and Heidegger, among others. What they say, in essence, is that the Gospel is reflected in merely being a "good person," and that is what comprises "authentic existence." As Mascall correctly pointed out on page 11, this reduces Christianity to just another belief system among many, and thus its outcome is to lead the person to question very important dogmas of the faith such as Christ's divinity, as well as His death, Resurrection, Ascension, and His coming again. It also serves to desacramentalize the faith as well, in that if the supernatural is ruled out, then sacrament is not possible because supernatural grace is imparted to us via the Sacraments. Being a "good person" (authetic existence) may temporarily benefit a society, but once those virtues are divorced from their Christian and Biblical moorings, they are also subject to reinterpretation and that is where secularization becomes the fertile field of heresy. In the next segment, we will continue on Chapter One as Mascall deals as well with the views of Paul Tillich.
