Essays
Journal Articles
“Deworlded within the World: Bultmann's Paradoxical Politics in an Age of Polarization.” Theology Today 79, no. 1 (2022): 52–66. [Download]
Abstract: Rudolf Bultmann has long been criticized for failing to reflect theologically on political life, and even for developing an apolitical theology that many consider to be supportive of the political status quo. This article challenges that reading by examining Bultmann's account of eschatological existence as a form of social identity set in contrast to what he regarded as the gnostic form of identity: an apocalyptic mode of existence that separates between an objectively redeemed community and an unredeemable world. The gnostic bifurcation between in-group and out-group represents a kind of social polarization that Bultmann rejects in favor of a paradoxical form of existence that is “deworlded within the world.” Bultmann's theology generates a paradoxical politics that becomes highly relevant in light of the apocalyptically polarized nature of contemporary American political life.
“Apocalypse as Perpetual Advent: The Apocalyptic Sermons of Rudolf Bultmann.” Theology Today 75, no. 1 (2018): 51–63. [Download]
Abstract: The apocalyptic interpretation of the New Testament developed in the mid-twentieth century in explicit opposition to the work of Rudolf Bultmann, and this conflict has persisted despite the changes that have taken place within the field of apocalyptic theology. This article interrogates the relation between Bultmann and apocalyptic in two ways. First, it takes a second look at the history of twentieth-century theology and shows that the work of Ernst Käsemann, who was instrumental in retrieving apocalyptic as normative for Christian thought, contained two distinct definitions of apocalyptic, only one of which Bultmann rejected. The other definition became the dominant position in later apocalyptic scholarship. Second, the article gives a fresh hearing to Bultmann’s theology by exploring his often overlooked Advent and Christmas sermons. Whereas current work in apocalyptic theology focuses on Paul’s theology of the cross, Bultmann develops a distinctively existential apocalyptic on the basis of John’s theology of advent.
“‘See What Is Coming to Pass and Not Only What Is’: Alain Badiou and the Possibility of a Postmetaphysical Theology.” Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory 16, no. 3 (2017): 294–329. [Download]
Abstract: The French philosopher, Alain Badiou, has attracted a lot of attention in recent years in the field of theological studies. So far the focus has been on his earlier work, and specifically the mathematical ontology from Being and Event. Badiou’s most recent work in Logics of Worlds and Second Manifesto, however, present a promising new challenge for theology. Instead of ontology, Badiou turns to questions of phenomenology, existence, decision, and concrete subjectivity. This paper argues that Badiou’s mature argument against metaphysics, and his emphasis on the relation between event and subject, offer important resources for the development of a nonmetaphysical theology.
“The Nature of the Church in Theological Interpretation of Scripture.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 11, no. 1 (2017): 101–17. [Download]
Abstract: In a 2012 article on Bultmann and Augustine, R. W. L. Moberly argued that the church should be understood as a “plausibility structure” for faith and thus a presupposition for the interpretation of Scripture. My response to him in 2014 addressed misinterpretations of Bultmann but did not speak to the central issue of the church as a presupposition. The present article rectifies this omission by interrogating the meaning of the church in the present discussion of “theological interpretation of Scripture” (TIS), which largely views the church as a distinct culture. The church-as-culture model bears an important resemblance to the church-as-Volk model that was dominant during the period of the church struggle in Germany in the 1930s. Bultmann developed his concept of the church as an eschatological community in direct contrast to the church-as-Volk idea. If the church is in some sense a presupposition for theological interpretation, then we first have to ask what we mean by “church,” and some answers to that question may be theologically problematic.
“Is Bultmann a Heideggerian Theologian?” Scottish Journal of Theology 70, no. 1 (2017): 19–38. [Download] [Link]
Abstract: Ever since the 1920s, Rudolf Bultmann has been charged with confining theology to philosophy and reducing talk of God to talk of the human person. The source of this problem, so the claim goes, is Bultmann’s naïve adoption of Martin Heidegger’s existentialist ontology. Bultmann’s personal friendship with Heidegger is well-known, and the presence of Heideggerian concepts throughout his work is impossible to miss. But there is a great deal of confusion over the details of this relationship, and scholars differ widely over what conclusions we ought to draw regarding the nature of Bultmann’s work. Critics on the ‘left’ claim that Bultmann was not Heideggerian enough, while critics on the ‘right’ claim that his theology is confined within a philosophical straitjacket. Some even condemn Bultmann’s work with the charge of racism, because of its association with Heidegger, who is notorious for his pro-Nazi views. This article reassesses the Bultmann-Heidegger relationship from three angles. First, I show that the essential elements of Bultmann’s theology are already in place before meeting or learning from Heidegger. Second, I argue that Bultmann circumscribes Heidegger’s philosophy within a theology of revelation. Heideggerian analysis has access neither to the problem nor to the solution of human existence before God. Third, I demonstrate that his theological program is, in principle, open to other conceptualities. Nothing material rests on the appropriation of Heidegger. For these reasons, one cannot accurately call Bultmann a Heideggerian theologian.
“Demystifying the Program of Demythologizing: Bultmann’s Theological Hermeneutics.” Harvard Theological Review 110, no. 1 (2017): 1–23. [Download] [Link]
Summary: Though still widely regarded as the most significant New Testament scholar of the twentieth century, Rudolf Bultmann’s reputation has suffered a precipitous decline since the 1970s as postmodern and postliberal approaches to Christian theology supplanted interpretations associated with the Enlightenment and modernity. For those only familiar with Bultmann’s most popular texts, such as the famous 1941 lecture that announced his program of demythologizing, it is easy to see Bultmann as the quintessential representative of modern, liberal theology. Demythologizing appears to be a program designed to make Christianity acceptable to modern audiences, which seems confirmed by Bultmann’s claim that we cannot use lights and radios and believe in the wonder world of the New Testament. On top of all this, the main English-speaking authorities on his work in the mid-twentieth century reinforced this reading in their scholarship and criticized Bultmann for not being consistently modern and liberal.
With the ongoing publication of documents from Bultmann’s archive, the flaws in the standard reading of Bultmann are becoming more and more apparent. Perhaps the most significant flaw concerns Bultmann’s concept of myth, a source of much confusion in the secondary literature. Sometime between 1942 and 1952, Bultmann wrote an essay responding to Wilhelm Nestle’s 1940 work, From Mythos to Logos, under the title, “On the Concept of ‘Myth.’” In this essay, which was not published until 2012 when it was included as an appendix in the volume of his correspondence with Paul Althaus, Bultmann provides his most extensive clarification of the concept. He rejects the criticism of myth advanced by modern scholars who see myth as something to be outgrown as humanity moves into the age of science. Instead, Bultmann argues that myth has an existential meaning that is qualitatively other than and superior to science. The problem with myth is not its difference from but rather its similarity to science. Demythologizing criticizes myth’s proximity to scientific thinking—namely, where it objectifies God and tends toward a general worldview—and thereby affirms myth’s existential truth.
Once we liberate Bultmann’s thought from the box of “modern liberalism” into which he is so frequently put, we can begin to recognize his hermeneutical program as genuinely theological in nature. Bultmann’s work is governed by his interest in the revelation and saving power of God, not by extratheological commitments to modern philosophy or liberal historical criticism. Whereas the old readings had to settle for the claim that Bultmann was simply inconsistent or even incoherent, this new reading is able to do justice to the entirety of his life and work. Contrary to widely held assumptions, demythologizing is a consistently theological hermeneutic.
“Emancipatory Intercultural Hermeneutics: Interpreting Theo Sundermeier’s Differenzhermeneutik.” Mission Studies 33, no. 2 (2016): 127–146. [Download]
Abstract: This article introduces and assesses Sundermeier’s “hermeneutic of difference” (Differenzhermeneutik). Though he is not well-known in English-speaking circles, the pioneering work of Theo Sundermeier has contributed to a hermeneutical and intercultural turn within the field of missiology, as well as a missiological and practical turn within hermeneutics. He criticizes the western hermeneutical tradition for being text-centric and egocentric, and he replaces the standard hermeneutical models with one that is focused on the practical problem of understanding the stranger. I summarize the four-step process he provides for learning how to understand and coexist with another person, reflect on its missiological implications, and offer a constructive critique in the direction of a distinctively emancipatory intercultural hermeneutic.
“Is There a Kerygma in This Text? A Review Article.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 9, no. 2 (2015): 299–311. [Download]
Review of: Beyond Bultmann: Reckoning a New Testament Theology. Edited by Bruce W. Longenecker and Mikeal C. Parsons. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014. 382 pp. ISBN 978-1-4813-0041-4. $59.95.
“Apokatastasis and Apostolicity: A Response to Oliver Crisp on the Question of Barth’s Universalism.” Scottish Journal of Theology 67, no. 4 (2014): 464–480. [Download]
Abstract: Oliver Crisp argues that Karl Barth is incoherent on the question of universal salvation. Making use of a modal distinction between contingent and necessary universalism, Crisp claims that Barth’s theology leads to the view that all people must be saved, yet Barth denies this conclusion. Most defenses of Barth reject the view that his theology logically requires the salvation of all people; they try to defend him by appealing, as Barth himself seems to do at times, to divine freedom. This paper argues that even though his theology does lead necessarily to the conclusion of universal salvation, it is still coherent for him to deny universalism on his own methodological grounds, since the necessity and the denial operate at different levels. Barth has other commitments in his theology than mere logical consistency. To support this claim, I argue that the necessity that belongs to God’s reconciling work in Christ coincides with a double contingency: (a) the ‘objective’ contingency of Christ’s particular history and (b) the ‘subjective’ contingency with which this reconciliation confronts particular human beings and calls them to participate in the apostolic mission of Jesus. In each case, necessity coincides paradoxically with a kind of contingency, such that, within Barth’s theology, we can speak of what Kevin Hector calls ‘contingent necessity’ or what Eberhard Jüngel calls ‘eschatological necessity’. Most debates over universalism focus on the objective side. There the question is whether the necessity of Christ’s universally effective work compromises divine freedom. But Barth’s concern on this point is whether the necessity is ‘transcendent’ or ‘immanent’, that is, whether it is determined by God or the creature, and since God can indeed will the salvation of all, this poses no problem in principle for affirming universal salvation. Barth’s central concern has to do with the issue of ‘subjective’ necessity. Barth denies that theology is ever a matter of describing what is objectively or generally the case regarding God and the world. On the contrary, he situates theology within the existential determination and subjective participation of the one called to bear witness to Jesus Christ. For this reason, he rejects all worldviews, including universalism. The rejection of universalism is the affirmation of apostolicity.
“Dialectical Theology as Theology of Mission: Investigating the Origins of Karl Barth’s Break with Liberalism.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 16, no. 4 (2014): 390–413. [Download]
Abstract: Based on a thorough investigation of Karl Barth’s early writings, this article proposes a new interpretation of dialectical theology as fundamentally concerned with the issue of mission. Documents from 1914 and 1915 show that the turning point in Barth’s thinking about mission – and about Christian theology in general – occurred, at least in part, in response to a largely forgotten manifesto published in September 1914. This manifesto appealed to Protestants around the world to support Germany’s cause in the war on the grounds that they would be supporting the work of the Great Commission. Barth’s reaction to this document sheds light on the missionary nature of dialectical theology, which pursues an understanding of God and God-talk that does not conflate the mission of the church with the diffusion of culture.
“Kerygma and Community: A Response to R. W. L. Moberly’s Revisiting of Bultmann.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 8, no. 1 (2014): 1–23. [Download]
Abstract: In a 2012 article, R. W. L. Moberly brought Bultmann into conversation with Augustine around the question of hermeneutical presuppositions. The article affirmed Bultmann’s emphasis on “existential openness,” but criticized his apparent disregard for the church as the primary presupposition for biblical interpretation. Moberly’s article misreads Bultmann, however, and misses the deeper logic at work in Bultmann’s apparent lack of attention to ecclesiology. The community, as the bearer of the kerygma, is included within the event that it proclaims. Ecclesiology is therefore indirectly present, so that, as Bultmann states regarding John, “one may not conclude from this that interest in the church-community is completely absent. On the contrary, there is a very lively interest in it.”
“Bonhoeffer and Bultmann: Toward an Apocalyptic Rapprochement.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 15, no. 2 (2013): 172–195. [Download]
Abstract: In the 1950s and 1960s, the relation between Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Rudolf Bultmann was a topic of much dispute, with Gerhard Krause declaring the apparent opposition between them ‘resolved’ in 1964. Recent apocalyptic theology has reopened the divide between them by claiming Bonhoeffer as an apocalyptic thinker over against Bultmann. This paper disputes that reading by arguing that the very conditions under which Bonhoeffer is rightly understood as apocalyptic open up the door for a new interpretation of Bultmann. The question of their relationship reveals the ambiguity surrounding the notion of apocalyptic. There is a pressing need for greater clarity regarding this notion as well as greater charity in relation to Bultmann.
“Reconsidering Apocalyptic Cinema: Pauline Apocalyptic and Paul Thomas Anderson.” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 24, no. 3 (2012): 405–418. [Download]
Abstract: Apocalypticism has been a consistent theme in modern culture. In recent religious studies, the definition of “apocalyptic” has undergone extensive revision and expansion, resulting in the articulation of a distinctively “Pauline” apocalyptic theology. This new conception of apocalypticism offers a new way to interpret works of popular culture, especially film. This paper argues that Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1999 movie, Magnolia, is properly viewed as an apocalyptic film in this revised Pauline sense. Viewing it from this perspective helps to make better sense of its key themes and plot developments. The goal of the paper is to initiate a broader conversation regarding the field of apocalyptic cinema in light of the latest theological research.
“The Myth of Heaven: Demythologizing and Remythologizing.” Princeton Theological Review 17, no. 1 (2012): 74–96. [Download]
Abstract: A review article of Christopher Morse, The Difference Heaven Makes: Rehearsing the Gospel as News (New York: T & T Clark, 2010) and John A. T. Robinson, In the End, God: A Study of the Christian Doctrine and the Last Things—Special Edition, ed. Robin Parry (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2011).
“Creatio Continua ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of the Doctrine of Creatio ex Nihilo.” Koinonia 22 (2010): 33–53. [Download]
Abstract: The case against the classical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo continues to mount as arguments arise from all angles—historical, exegetical, and theological. In this paper I identify three theological problems with the doctrine in conversation with three theologians. The first problem is the fact that the doctrine of “creation out of nothing” posits no material relationship between creation and redemption (Catherine Keller). The second problem is that “creation out of nothing” indicates no essential connection between the divine will to create and the divine being as creator (Jürgen Moltmann). The third and final problem is the separation between creation and providence, between original creation and continuing creation (Friedrich Schleiermacher). I conclude by using a modified version of Barth’s doctrine of election as the lens through which I reconcile these various strands in modern theology. I argue for what I call a creatio continua ex electione—a continuous creation out of divine election.
“‘A Beautiful Anarchy’: Religion, Fascism, and Violence in the Theopolitical Imagination of Guillermo del Toro” [Download]
and
“Secular Parables of the Truth: A Reply to Jenson and Lubeck.” [Download] Cultural Encounters 6, no. 2 (2010): 43–67, 77–83.
Abstract: According to director Guillermo del Toro, “the entire world we live in is fabricated,” and within this fabricated cosmos, there are two kinds of imaginations, two ways of living: one which favors the present world—the “Establishment”—and another which stands opposed to it. One kind uncritically affirms our present reality; the other, the one he prefers, rebels against it with “a beautiful anarchy.” Del Toro thus sees film as the medium for the imaginative and anarchic reinterpretation of the horrors of fascism. Film narrates a “spiritual reality” which funds a subversive counter-politics. In this essay, I bring del Toro into conversation with the theopolitical work of William Cavanaugh. I argue that despite del Toro’s rejection of his former Catholic faith, in two of his films, The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth, he displays a distinctly theopolitical cinematic imagination.
“Jesus and Faith: The Doctrine of Faith in Scripture and the Reformed Confessions.” Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009): 321–344. [Download]
Abstract: This article examines the complicated relationship between church confession and Holy Scripture as it manifests itself in the doctrine of faith expounded in the Reformed confessions of the sixteenth century. I first locate the problem historically in the conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism. I then summarize the New Testament witness to faith, examine whether the Reformed confessions do justice to this witness, and conclude by suggesting some theological possibilities for a fresh doctrine of faith within the context of a confessional and biblical Reformed theology. Along the way, I raise questions about the relationships between divine action and human action and between Son and Spirit in the event of faith.
“The Trinitarian Shape of ΠΙΣΤΙΣ: A Theological Exegesis of Galatians.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 2, no. 2 (2008): 231–258. [Download]
Abstract: This article is a theological contribution to the debate over the contested Pauline expression πίστις ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. I begin by assessing Karl Barth’s christological conception of faith in his Church Dogmatics, focusing on the themes of history, obedience, and imitation. Except for a significant passage in CD II/2, Barth consistently employs the objective genitive, but his christocentric pisteology enables it to do the same work accomplished by the subjective genitive argued for by Richard Hays. Barth, however, does not connect his trinitarian theology to the text of Galatians, and Hays does not give sufficient attention to the life of Christ or to the agency of the Spirit. In the bulk of the paper, therefore, I explore the missional-trinitarian shape of faith through a theological exegesis of Galatians in order to supplement the insights of Barth and Hays. I argue that Paul presents a missional narrative in which Father, Son, and Spirit are each involved in actualizing the faith of the community. We can thus speak of the faithfulness of the Father, the faith of the Son, and the faith-producing Holy Spirit. A trinitarian interpretation of Galatians is able to ground the distinction between the objective and subjective dimensions of faith in the mission of the triune God.
Book Chapters
“Eschatology and Resurrection.” In T&T Clark Handbook of the Doctrine of Creation, edited by Jason Goroncy. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2024.
Abstract: This chapter explores the relationship between creation and eschatology, a relationship that has become especially complex with the modern breakdown of the classical consensus. It begins by outlining nine categories for conceptualizing the problem of the (dis)continuity between creation and consummation: resurrectional, cosmological, anthropological, epistemological, scientific, historical, sociopolitical, narratival, and covenantal. After examining the way these categories play out in theological history, it argues for moving beyond the problem of continuity altogether by conceiving creation and eschatology as paradoxically identical, drawing on medieval mystical theology and Rudolf Bultmann’s dialectical theology.
“Kerygma and History: Bultmann’s Hermeneutical Theology in North America Today.” In Rudolf Bultmann und die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft der Gegenwart, edited by Lukas Bormann and Christof Landmesser, 79–110. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022. [Download]
Abstract: Rudolf Bultmann‘s hermeneutical theology synthesized Christian theology and New Testament exegesis by holding each discipline‘s respective norm—kerygma and history—in a dialectical unity, neither reducing one to the other nor isolating one from the other. This essay clarifies Bultmann‘s project by comparing his work to key schools of thought in contemporary New Testament studies: Paul within Judaism, N. T. Wright, Pauline apocalyptic, and theological interpretation of scripture. A further further looks at radical or atheistic interpreters of Bultmann. I argue that each of these schools emphasizes either kerygma or history to the detriment of the other, resulting in the loss or outright denial of translation as the purpose of interpretation. I suggest that Bultmann‘s work offers a way forward that, however difficult, remains worth considering in the face of growing antagonism between theology and biblical studies.
“Desperatio Fiducialis: Barth and Bultmann on the Anthropological Significance of Revelation.” In Luther, Barth, and Movements of Theological Renewal (1918-1933), edited by [Christine Helmer,] Heinrich Assel, and Bruce L. McCormack, 125–146. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020. [Download]
Abstract: Scholars often interpret the divide between Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann in terms of the distinction between the Reformed and Lutheran traditions. While understandable, this approach has obscured the Lutheran character of Barth’s own theology, particularly in the Weimar period. This essay argues that we should interpret their respective theological programs as branches extending from a common Lutheran root, illustrated by the way both theologians made repeated use of phrases from the early Luther: Bultmann cited Luther’s idea of knowledge of God as “knowledge of ourselves” from the Lectures on Romans, while Barth drew on Luther’s notion of “confident despair” (desperatio fiducialis). Bultmann first used this passage from Luther in his 1927 essay on the concept of revelation, which he associated with a passage from Barth’s Die christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf from the same year. The doctrines of revelation that each developed during that pivotal year manifested their shared dialectical concern to prevent the objectification of revelation, but each accomplished this task in ways that betrayed this concern: Bultmann ended up conflating the revelation in Christ with natural revelation, while Barth developed an entirely formal concept of revelation that had virtually no real content. One can see in this moment of transition the separate paths each theologian would take as they resolved their inconsistencies in increasingly divergent ways. By attending to their shared reformational origin, we may be in a position to bring these paths together again.
“Barth and Hermeneutics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth, edited by Paul Dafydd Jones and Paul T. Nimmo, 564–579. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. [Download]
Abstract: While Karl Barth avoided the question of hermeneutics and theological method—preferring to focus on the actual exegesis of Scripture—his work is thoroughly, albeit often implicitly, hermeneutical. His hermeneutics, however, is always determined by the subject matter. Over against the historical critics who advocated a posture of feigned neutrality, Barth argued that the interpretation of the text requires a participation in the subject matter. Barth’s hermeneutics thus changed over the course of his career as his understanding of the subject matter changed. The eschatological subject matter of his early theology led to a hermeneutic of simultaneity. The historical subject matter of his later, christocentric theology led to a hermeneutic of description. This essay argues for an apocalyptic subject matter that unifies the eschatological and the historical and issues in a bifocal hermeneutic.