Some More Reflections on Rahner

Recent expositions of his work have called into question the idea that the transcendental philosophy which Rahner adopts is crucial to his theology. The rather ad hoc approach of Rahner to theology has been pointed out; he preferred essays rather than systematic treatises. Even Fergus Kerr, who in an earlier post was referred to as pointed out a basically Cartesian starting point for Rahner has come to Rahner's defence. He does this in the final chapter of his Immortal Longings where he discusses Balthasar's critique of Rahner. According to Kerr, Balthasar is striking out at phantoms so to speak, when he charges Rahner's theology with reducing the particularity of the Christian faith to the mere expression of the human subject's self transcendence. I'm afraid I can't elaborate further on Kerr's analysis as I read the chapter some years ago and no longer have access to the book. I would definitely recommend that anyone interested in a defence of Rahner read this chapter.

Now, it need not be denied that the language in which Rahner expressed his conviction that the human person reaches beyond himself to an answer to which he is the question is not particularly felicitous and there is always the danger that such a theology will be all too anthropocentric. However, is it really all that different to the Augustinian emphasis on man's desire for God? "Thou hast made us unto thyself [ad te], and our heart is restless, until it find rest in thee."

Rahner's own evaluations of his work should also be taken into account. His disavowals of being a 'systematic' theologian and of actually being something of a dilettante should be taken as more than just false humility on his part. In later interviews he also distanced himself from certain aspects of his work and did not like being pigeon-holed into the philosopher-theologian niche based on readings of his early work and called Spirit and Hearers "lopsided works of my youth" (Faith in a Wintry Season). Rahner also became increasingly aware of the plurality of philosophies, the impossibility of one, single unifying philosophy - what he called "gnoseological concupiscence". These evaluations by Rahner of his own work militate against 'foundationalist' readings of Rahner.

I think no clearer statement can be found on the centrality of Jesus Christ for theology than this one by Rahner:

"Christianity's concretissimum for which alone it stands, is Jesus Christ, who in accepting death and suffering for us (and in no other way) has created our relationship of immediacy before God, and the Church, which looks for the Kingdom which is yet to be fulfilled and which is not identical with the humanism we ourselves have produced or shall produce in the near future."

Rahner thus emphatically affirms the capacity for the Christian faith to disrupt and transform as much as he affirms its power to complete and intensify our deepest spiritual longings.

But although grace may disrupt nature but whilst it overturns the creature's expectations it also fulfils their deepest desires. Grace is first and foremost God's self-communication, the gift of himself. This is not something 'alien' to human nature, but humanity's self-fulfilment, the bringing to completion of the human being's desire for God. To reject this is to reject an entire strand of Christian tradition.

For those who feel that Rahner's theology is too 'universal' it is perhaps worth bearing in mind what Rahner says here: "Just because grace is free and unmerited this does not mean that it is rare (theology has been led astray for too long already by the tacit assumption that grace would no longer be grace if God became too free with it)." (Nature and Grace, Dilemmas in the Modern Church)

As for Rahner's much contested Vorgriff auf Esse - the pre-apprehension of being: does not Balthasar require this too? He admits it himself, otherwise the human being would not be able to recognise the coming of beauty. To an extent then, the differences between Rahner and Balthasar are a difference in emphasis.

Given Rahner's views on God's offer of himself as a constitutive element of humanity, it becomes clear that reflection on human experience is not going to provide merely the structures of a 'purely' human nature, but of a human nature already historically engraced and existing in the presence of the divine.

Rahner also introduces the notion of "negative philosophy" by which he meant that all philosophical reflections on human experience are inadequate to the task. This along with his emphasis on the pluralism of philosophies once again undermines the idea that Rahner adopted one particular philosophy to serve as the foundation of his theology. He explicitly rejected this possibility.

Other writers have highlighted the principle source for Rahner's theology: his spirituality. Rahner's work is ultimately rooted in his Ignatian spirituality, with its emphasis on "finding God in all things." I think this emphasis on Rahner's sprituality is salutary. One book on Rahner aptly describes him as a "mystic of everyday life" and this is one of the principle reasons I am drawn to Rahner. He speaks to the situation ordinary men and women find themselves in during the daily struggles and also joys of life. One can read many a brilliant theologian and wonder how on earth all they say relates to their own life. Not so with Rahner. He writes on sleep, on work, on eating. Anyone new to Rahner could do no better than start with his writings on prayer and the spiritual life, for these are the wellspring of his theology, not his early philosophical works.

It is also important to bear in mind the context in which Rahner formulated his ideas about "anonymous Christians". First of all, he was not the first, Barth and de Lubac had already begun considering this. Barth in his assertion that in our dealings with those to whom we are directed to preach the gospel we are not encountering an 'actual' Christian but "certainly a virtual or potential Christian" (!) Balthasar too, would not wish to deny it. The notion of an implicit "baptism of desire" could also be seen as belonging to this tradition. One of the occasions when the idea of an "anonymous Christian" comes up is in an essay entitled "The Christian and Unbelieving Relations" - as one can see just from the title, there is a very practical starting point here; it arises from a specific, concrete situation that many Christians find themselves in and the purpose of the essay is to develop the idea that a Christian need not remain in agonising anxiety as regards the eschatological fate of relations who do not believe. The starting point for all these reflections was, again, NOT his transcendental philosophy, but the Christian doctrine of God's universal salvific will. Rahner recognises this hope for all when he says that all people “including the good Christians, enter silently into the darkness of God, and no mortal eye follows them there on their way, no earthly ear listens to the judgment of their eternity. But this uncertainty can be contained within the hope for all.” (The Christian among Unbelieving Relations, TI 3)

Could this not have come from the pen of Balthasar himself? Consider for example Balthasar's impassioned defence of the possibility of the salvation of all men in Dare we hope? This issue was one of supreme concern for Balthasar. Could the difference between the two lie in the fact that Balthasar sees no need for the development of a formal scheme for how the salvation of non-Christians can take place? Or rather, that he sees the inherent dangers in doing so? (i.e. the possible relativisation of Christianity). But is it not the task for Christian theology to work out these issues in its reflection on the faith? Nostra Aetate perhaps is a pointer: it remained silent on the issue - but is this just a matter of leaving it open to theologians to work it out? Rahner thought so.

Balthasar's theology of Holy Saturday provides powerful hope for the salvation of all men, but I'm worried it remains somewhat 'gnostic' and fails to account for how grace is encountered in this life. Human beings are socio-historical beings, how is grace encountered if not through concrete practices? Thus Rahner's assertion that grace can be encountered in lawful religions and that the religions themselves are the means by which grace becomes available seems necessary. Of course, Rahner never said that all religions were necessarily lawful or that they were not in a gravely deficient situation as opposed to Christianity. He explicitly does argue this and never goes as far as one of his followers such as Jacques Dupuis who calls the religions "paths of salvation" and refuses to accept that they are merely "transitory" as Rahner insisted.

Rahner also addressed the issue of whether his speculations rendered Christianity a mere superfluous and explicit manifestation of what is already there implicity: "Anonymous Christianity does not render explicit Christianity superfluous, but rather itself demands it, and that there would no longer be any anonymous Christianity . . . if he upon whom it is bestowed as offering were radically to close himself to any explicit Christianity" - (Anonymous Christianity and the Missionary Task of the Church, TI 12)

As Rahner put it: a seed has no right to refuse to grow into a plant. One could not choose to remain in the implicit depths of faith once encountered with the explicit offer of Christianity existentially efficacious - to do so would be to reject grace.

Rahner was adamant that Christianity was the one, true valid religion and that "wherever in practice Christianity reaches man in the real urgency and rigour of his actual existence, Christianity - once understood - presents itself as the only still valid religion for this man, a necessary means for salvation." (Christianity and Non-Christian Religions, TI 5)

As regards the charge that the theory of "anonymous Christians" does away with the Church's missionary imperative I'd be inclined to suggest that the theory behind the terminology is in fact helpful in explaining how mission may even be possible! Look, in contrast, at post-liberal theories of "incommensurability": if it is really true that different religions are wholly incommensurable then the missionary has a serious problem in addressing what is going to be a completely alien language to those he wishes to 'win over'. If it is really the case that non-Christians have no experience of the grace which flows from Christ, then any preaching of the Christian message will be falling on deaf ears. They will not be able to understand and they will see no reason why this message relates to them at all.

The terminology is perhaps unfortunate and Rahner did not pretend otherwise. It was never meant to signify that Christianity could ever forego its character of proclamation and witness. Likewise from the perspective that it is a somewhat 'arrogant' or 'imperialistic' appelation: he did not intend it to be used in inter-religious dialogue. That said, I find the criticism that the term is problematic because it is in some way offensive an odd one. It is the consequence of a resolute adherence to the truth that Jesus Christ is the absolute, universal saviour, that all grace flows from him. One cannot really take issue with the principle of the matter without also taking issue with a central truth of the Christian faith.

It is not the case that 'special revelation' is merely one instance of general revelation as has been claimed. For Rahner, 'general revelation' (or transcendental revelation as he puts it) flows from the special revelation in Jesus Christ. This is obviously not a chronological dependence.

There is obviously a tension between the two different visions represented by two theologians such as Rahner and von Balthasar, but I do neet feel that they are wholly incommensurable, and what is needed is not the opting for one over the other, but a means by which to hold the two in balance as two different 'poles' of the same Christian faith. We must definitely not"genuflect before the world" as Jacques Maritain had it. But neither should the relationship between Christianity and 'the world' be construed in too dialectical a fashion. In uniting the two poles, we ought to aim at a Christian humanism, that whilst giving due emphasis to the transformative power of the Christian message, does not thereby cut off all ties with the religious element of humanity as such. The religious strivings of humanity are not simply a "fabrica idolorum" (as Balthasar affirmed).

Considering there are 23 volumes of Rahner's Theological Investigations available in English, which cover countless different topics related to doctrine, ecclesiology, spirituality and various other questions that address themselves to Christians today, the idea that Rahner is somehow 'overrated' and not really worth reading any longer needs to justify itself more fully. Rahner is not best read as the author of a 'system' which must either be accepted or rejected wholesale. Dip into his essays, focus on matters that interest you at any given moment, you are sure to find incisive creative wisdom from the man whom von Balthasar himself considered "to be, on the whole, the strongest theological power of our time."

The Charge Against Rahner (Part 2): Anonymous Christians?

Man’s implicit knowledge of God is a ‘transcendental revelation’ which remains somewhat shadowy and moves towards an explicit, categorical revelation. This revelation is Jesus Christ. Other religions, however, can be seen as legitimate means of salvation insofar as they have not yet encountered the truth of Christianity in an existentially meaningful way. He states that his view of other religions is analogous to the religion of Israel which was a lawful religion which enabled its faithful adherents to attain salvation. If non-Christians are to be saved then they must be able to receive grace through their religious traditions (for man is a socio-historical being). All this does not relativise Christianity which remains the absolute religion and Jesus Christ the final mediator of grace. For Rahner then, adherents of other religions can be viewed as “anonymous Christians” because they receive grace which ultimately derives from Christ himself even though they remain ignorant of this fact. Rahner is opposed to the approach of “dialectical theology” to the theology of religions which posits a sharp distinction between the revelation of Christianity and the unbelief and humanly constructed character which permeates the other religions. This is so because of his transcendental anthropology wherein all humanity is implicitly seeking God.

One of the major criticisms of Rahner’s “anonymous Christian” is that it seems to do away with the salvific efficacy of Christ’s death on the cross. Karl Rahner asks the question of how Jesus Christ can be said to be present in the lives of non-Christians. He affirms that Christ is present in the lives of these individuals through the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is present through the “merits of Christ.” Here Rahner, however, encounters a problem. He does not wish to assert that Christ’s death in anyway ‘changes the mind of God’ – he appears to have a somewhat crude atonement theory in mind wherein the mind of a capricious God is appeased through the sacrifice of his Son. He wants to steer clear of any such notions and also maintain the basic continuity of the revelation of Christ with general, transcendental revelation – it is simply a fuller revelation of what was already implicit – the historical and dramatic aspect of the Christ-event is downplayed. Thus Rahner posits that rather than being an ‘efficient cause’ of God’s grace (i.e. it actually brings it about), the Cross is to be seen as the ‘final’ cause of God’s grace – the sign of his irrevocable and tangible gift of the Spirit for our salvation. It seems clear that Rahner has abandoned the traditional Christian emphasis on the salvific efficacy of the Cross of Christ of which the New Testament is replete. In so doing he also seems to minimise the tragic aspects of life and the brokenness and sinfulness of our human condition. In a sense his theory can appear overly optimistic – he downplays the extent to which human beings reject God’s offer of Himself for a far more optimistic notion that in confronting adherents of other religions one should approach them as if they were already living a life of grace and so are “anonymous Christians”.

This leads on to a second major criticism of Rahner’s “anonymous Christian” and that is that it appears to render mission somewhat superfluous. If God’s universal salvific will (and this cannot be denied regardless of what position one takes regarding Rahner) means that humanity is already ‘enveloped’ in grace and on the path to salvation – the necessity of preaching the gospel “to the ends of the earth” appears to lose its urgency. As the then Cardinal Ratizinger points out, all individuals now seem to be able to be saved simply by virtue of fully accepting their humanity and the Christian “plus” is merely that he realises he is grasped by God’s love. This seems apparent in the following passage by Rahner: “anyone who courageously accepts life…has really already accepted God.” The particularity of Christianity, the necessity of the Church, the sacramental system and so forth no longer appear absolutely necessary. The explicit proclamation of having heard Jesus’ call and responded to it are of the essence of Christianity and the formation of disciples and preaching the word is absolutely necessary for this to take place. If others are “anonymous Christians”, however, this urgency is lost, for by becoming Christian, people would merely be moving into the realm of the explicit and visible sign of God’s self-communication. The notion of conversion seems to disappear. Rahner is sensitive to these criticisms and argues that implicit faith is always striving to be made explicit and so all people are still called to become members of the Church. He also adds that Christians have a greater chance of salvation than those who remain outside. Despite these attempted assurances (and Rahner’s basically orthodox intentions cannot be doubted) it is difficult to dismiss the charge that the notion of the “anonymous Christian” does certainly make mission seem far less of an important issue than the major task of the Church which it has long been held to be. Rahner does state, however, that anyone who closed himself off to ‘explicit faith’ could not be justified by implicit faith and so the basic problem may lie to an extent in Rahner’s use of ‘implicit’ and ‘explicit’ which certainly tends towards a misunderstanding of Rahner’s position as making the ‘explicit’ superfluous. Von Balthasar charged Rahner with basically positing an Enlightenment version of religion, a general theory of religion – universally applicable to all men and doing away with particularity.

Or so the story goes. But is it a fair account of Rahner's position? Does his theology ultimately end up with Christians annihilating themselves, as Balthasar has it in his dialogue between the commissar and the Christian (a Rahnerian) in The Moment of Christian Witness? "You've liquidated yourselves and spared us the trouble"...

Another criticism of Rahner has been directed at him from both so-called ‘pluralists’ and ‘exclusivists’. This is that the term “anonymous Christian” is in fact ‘imperialistic’ and an impediment to dialogue. John Hick is one who has thus accused Rahner – stating that if one regards the adherents of non-Christian religions as basically ‘crypto-Christians’ then one is simply imposing a Christian identity on them whether they like it or not. Rahner, however, never meant for the term to be used in the confrontation with other religions, rather it was an intra-Christian term. The force of the argument is somewhat nullified when one considers that Hick basically tells adherents of all religions (including Christianity) that their beliefs and practices are simply expressions of a common religious experience of man and that he knows better than all of them what their fundamental beliefs really are. Rahner is working within a Christian dogmatic framework and any charges of ‘arrogance’ are simply misplaced – they are essentially arguments against the claims of Christianity to be the absolute religion – one can argue against this if one wishes but in doing so one ceases to be a Christian. Similarly Lindbeck argues that any notions of “implicit faith” such as the “anonymous Christian” are a hindrance to dialogue. It is better, says Lindbeck to dispense with any such designations and treat the other religions as they would like to be treated – as distinct readings of being. “The otherness of the other” (Milbank) is thereby respected and an authentic dialogue can commence. There is certainly some force to this argument and it certainly appears more honest than when Hick levels it at Rahner.

Balthasar Blog Conference

I'm not sure if this is the first theology 'blog conference' but it's certainly an interesting idea. It's being hosted at the Fire and the Rose blog.

The topic is “Von Balthasar’s Theological Interpretation of Scripture.” Not something I'm terribly familiar with so it should prove to be enlightening.

A NT scholar whilst I was in University did however, in the course of lamenting the divorce between theology and biblical studies, point to Balthasar as an example of a theologian who proof-texts scripture without due regard to historical criticism and so forth.

Hopefully the conference papers will provide a more nuanced view of von Balthasar's approach to Scripture. Though the issue of Biblical studies' relation to theology is obviously one that needs to be worked out more completely. The same lecturer also complained about Karl Rahner, in an essay in a rare compilation that he owned, telling off Biblical scholars and letting them know that their findings had to conform to the ideas that dogmatic theologians were discussing! I read the essay and found myself agreeing with Rahner for the most part!

The Continuing Relevance of Karl Rahner

It is a common to encounter the opinion that Karl Rahner, once the most influential theologian in the Catholic Church, is now somewhat passé. While Rahner's influence was great during the debates leading up to and after Vatican II, his theology is now often looked upon as overly dependent on his transcendental anthropology. A major reason for this reversal in opinions has been the asendency in influence of Hans urs Von Balthasar. He was one of Rahner's most vocal critics, his objection to Rahner's project being most forcefully expressed in his short book Cordula oder der Ernstfall, translated in english as The Moment of Christian Witness. I am a great fan of Balthasar and feel that he levelled some extremely telling criticisms at Rahner's theology and in so doing all theologies which take as their point of departure 'the turn to the subject' characteristic of modern philosophy. This attitude is clearly expressed in an interview with theologian Werner Loser (which doesn't seem to be available online any longer). In it he states that "One morning while reading one of his books, it suddenly struck me that Rahner's theology was limited by his philosophy." This is a common criticism. In theological discourse Rahner is often presented as a sort of 'Catholic Schleiermacher' (with Balthasar the Catholic Barth).

I do, however, retain a soft spot for Rahner, his 'Foundations of Christian Faith' was the first 'heavy' book of theology I read, and it seems unfair that a theologian of his stature, one whom Balthasar himself acknowledged to surpass him in speculative capacity, should be quite so easily written off. Yet this is unfortunately the sort of view prevalent amongst many orthodox Catholics. Indeed, it was on my first forays into the world of the theology on the internet that I first became aware of the attitudes of many 'conservative' Catholics to Rahner: he is habitually written off as a "modernist" and a "heretic". There still are, however, some excellent expositors of Rahner, who while not trying to pretend that his theology is in some ways problematic, attempt to secure Rahner's legacy by demonstrating his continuing relevance.

Such readings of Rahner by Karen Kilby and Richard Lennan reveal a different Rahner from the 'transcendental' theologian so harshly criticised by Balthasar, one who, it could be argued, is actually non-foundationalist (i.e. he doesn't build him entire system on a questionable transcendental anthropology) and of whom the defining characteristic should rather be said to be his ecclesiological emphasis. His writing on the Church far outweighs any other theological theme. These are important developments for they do not allow an easy dismissal of Rahner on the grounds that his entire theology is built on shaky foundations, that these foundations have been destroyed and thus Rahner's theology too, is merely a matter of historical interest. I will offer a series of posts in the coming weeks examining the critiques of Rahner and arguing that his theology does have a future although many criticisms against him are valid.

Hans urs Von Balthasar on the Petrine Office

The loud-mouthed, Christian, mostly clerical rogues who take such pleasure in attacking Rome can study their own physiognomies in the satirical pictures of Bosch and Breughel…They have all the laughs on their side. But Peter must have seemed fairly laughable too when he was crucified upside down; it was simply a good joke…therefore, blessed the office—whether it’s the Pope or the bishops or simple priests who stand firm, or anyone else who feels responsible when people start saying ‘the Church should do this and that’—which offers itself to fulfill this function, to be the seat of the illness. There is no honor to be won in this role, but if the crowd is to have its fun, a face is needed which one can slap in order to try one’s own strength: the oscillation of the needle tells one infallibly how strong one is. And that too is a form of infallibility.

- “The Pope Today”, Elucidations, trans. John Riches, (London: SPCK, 1975), quoted in the following article http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/cleaveland.htm