Applying critical moral reasoning to the writings of Paul or Mark in a thoroughgoing way requires understanding the "demythologizing" approach to biblical interpretation developed by 20th century theologian and scripture scholar Rudolf Bultmann. Bultmann was a dedicated Christian (Lutheran) believer, who wanted to preserve what is valid and challenging about Pauline-Christian belief by dissociating it from the idea that it is based on literal-minded factual claims about supernatural entities. He did not want to dismiss the mythological language, but understand its intended practical significance, its meaning for human life. Click here for an excerpt from Bultmann's own description of demythologizing.
Demythologizing rests on a particular analysis of the (often unconscious) structure of religious belief. It can be contrasted with the usual more literal-minded but implausible account. By an analysis of "the structure of religious belief" I mean an account of what is based on what.
According to the literal-minded account of the structure of belief, believers' understanding of their own lives is based on knowledge of certain supernatural facts. Under this assumption, reasoning about religious belief means asking for evidence as to whether these facts are true or not, since here the facts are thought to be the ultimate basis. On this literal-minded account, If the facts are not true, then the faith lacks a sound basis. This account is historically implausible because it does not give any reason or motive as to why believers begin believing in these supernatural facts, or why they continue in these beliefs. This account also leaves very little room for critical reasoning because it is pretty obvious that only very small parts of the apparent facts that religious believers believe can be supported by rational evidence and arguments. This literal-minded account of the structure of belief is responsible for the idea that all faith is "blind faith," and that it is impossible to use critical reasoning where faith is concerned.
Demythologizing proposes a different account of the structure of belief. On this account, believers' statements about supernatural entities and events are based on their own personal experiences and perceptions, rather than vice-versa. When early Christian believers describe themselves as "possessed by the Holy Spirit," this should not be understood to mean that they have special knowledge of a supernatural entity which is causing their experience. Rather, Spirit-language is used as a way of describing certain kinds of experiences (being "carried away" by strong internal emotion), and interpreting those experiences (they have a "divine" quality because they raise one's life to a higher level.)
When we ask about the validity of these statements we should not ask whether they are literally true on a factual level, but whether they are based on perception of something we can recognize as truly good and admirable, and whether they inspire a genuinely higher kind of life. This gives a more plausible account of what motivates believers to believe, pointing to possible good reasons for some beliefs, depending on what motivates the beliefs and what conclusions believers draw from the beliefs. It also makes it possible to subject beliefs to critical rational analysis, by Socratic reasoning or some other kind of critical reasoning.
Here are some specific examples of contrasting accounts of the structure of early Christian belief.
| A. The more usual, literal-minded but rationally implausible account of what is based on what. | B. An alternative more plausible and rational account of what is based on what, based on a "demythologizing" approach to interpretation. |
| I know certain very strong feelings I feel are to be followed, because I believe they are caused by the Holy Spirit. [This leaves the latter belief unexplained.] | I picture some very strong feelings within me as caused by a divine "Holy Spirit," when I know they represent something that deserves being followed, a pure passion for a transcendent ("divine") rightness. |
| I know Jesus is to be followed because I believe that he is Son of God. [This leaves the latter belief unexplained.] | I think of the Jesus in Mark's story as a "divine" being because I know that he represents something worthy of my complete commitment, an oppositional passion for rightness in a pure and perfect form. |
| I know I should follow the bible because I believe it is the word of God. [This leaves the latter belief unexplained.] | I picture the bible as "divinely inspired" because I know that it represents something worthy of being followed wholeheartedly. |
| I know humans are sinful and cannot save themselves from their sinful state by their own efforts, because I believe in original sin. [This leaves the latter belief unexplained.] | The picture of some kind of fundamental and irremediable sin infecting the human race appeals to me because a passion for a very pure rightness makes me feel that human societies will always be fundamentally and irremediably not-right. |
| I know I am saved because I believe that God saved me through the death of Jesus. [This leaves the latter belief unexplained.] | I associate the death and resurrection of Jesus with a state in which I no longer feel that I am always falling short, because I associate Jesus' death and resurrection with my own "putting to death" my own limited "fleshly" will power, and with a new life animated by an inner drive toward perfect rightness. |
For convenience's sake, I describe both of these accounts in the first person, as accounts of how "I" think. This is slightly misleading in relation to column B, because early Christian believers probably did not consciously think of or analyze their beliefs in this fashion. This is a modern rational account of the largely unconscious structure of early Christian belief.
Click here for an excerpt from Bultmann's own description of demythologizing.