When we say, then, that today, in our situation, the demand for demythologization must be accepted without condition, we are simply saying that at least this much of the liberal tradition is an enduring achievement. However much we may have to criticize liberal theology's constructive formulations, the theology we ourselves must strive to formulate can only go beyond liberalism, not behind it.

In affirming this we have already taken the decisive step in breaking the deadlock into which Bultmann's attempt to formulate such a theology has led. For we have said, in effect, that of the two alternatives to his position variously represented by the other participants in the demythologizing discussion, only one is really an alternative. If the demand for demythologization is unavoidable and so must be accepted by theology unconditionally, the position of the ``right'' is clearly untenable. Whereas Bultmann's ``center'' position is structurally inconsistent and is therefore indefensible on formal grounds alone, the general position of the ``right,'' as represented, say, by Karl Barth, involves the rejection or at least qualification of the demand for demythologization and so is invalidated on the material grounds we have just considered.

It follows, then, provided the possibilities have been exhausted, that the only real alternative is the general viewpoint of the ``left,'' which has been represented on the Continent by Fritz Buri and, to some extent at least, is found in much that is significant in American and English theology.