'Christianity is first and last Christ himself. It is not, ultimately, a collection of doctrines and laws, dogmas and regulations, but a reality which is there, and which is present in our lives ever anew: Christ and his grace, the reality of God which, in Christ, becomes our own reality . . . For Christ is God's will for our salvation made historical, made flesh; God's personal, loving will does not encounter man in some unattainable, intangible 'inner realm'; since Christ, since the One who became man, all grace is Christ's grace with a body, grace dependent on the historical event that at one particular space-time point in our human history the Word became man and was crucified and rose again . . . If anything was not assumed, neither was it redeemed . . . But everything has been assumed, for Christ is true man, true son of Adam, truly lived a human life in all its breadth and height and depth . . . And hence everything, without confusion and without separation, is to enter into eternal life; there is to be not only a new heaven but a new earth. Nothing, unless it be eternally damned, can remain outside the blessing, the protection, the transfiguration of this divinization of the world which, beginning in Christ, aims at drawing everything that exists into the life of God himself, precisely in order that it may thus have eternal validity conferred upon it. This is the reality of Christ, with constitutes Christianity, the incarnate life of God in our place and our time. A reality to which belongs the word; a reality in which all human reality is called to God and blessed.'

In the above quotation Rahner answers the question regarding the meaning of Christianity with some key christological convictions that express the core of his faith. Christology for him is not simply one theme among others; rather, it constitutes the heart of his theology. Karl Rahner, S.J. saw himself as a socius Jesu, a “companion of Jesus ” - the poor and marginalized one - and as a member of his religious order, the Society of Jesus.

The following short essay will rehearse and critique one of the best-known Protestant engagements with Rahner: George Lindbeck's reading of Rahner in The Nature of Doctrine. This admittedly falls some way short of a comprehensive account of “twentieth century Protestant theology.” However, Lindbeck's criticisms of Rahner are probably the most important and most interesting, because of Lindbeck's influence upon Protestant theology, and because Lindbeck was an appreciative Protestant reader of Rahner.

Rahner has not been directly influential on Protestant theology, either dogmatic or philosophical, and in my judgment is unlikely to be in the future. This is not because Rahner is rejected in any emphatic way, or because his theology is deficient. It is for two reasons. One is that the problems Rahner tries to repair are often local problems: local to Roman Catholicism, and sometimes more specifically local to German Roman Catholicism. These local problems include, most obviously, questions of ecumenism (on the Catholic side) and questions of ecclesial authority. The second reason is that Rahner investigates the relationship between objective truth-claims and subjective experience, and the theories of truth with which he operates are no longer persuasive either to Catholics or Protestants. Whether one favours “linguistic” (Schleiermacher, Heidegger, Wittgenstein), or “pragmatic” (Peirce, Dewey, Rorty) tools, the theories of truth upon which Rahner depends fail to persuade contemporary theologians. Rahner is, like any theologian, a thinker of his age. Even Catholics who wish to learn from and use his theology will need to repair his philosophical apparatus.

Employing the riches of the Christian tradition, Karl Rahner developed a comprehensive theological vision that brought disparate doctrinal elements together as facets of a central mystery, the grace that is God's self-communication to the world. The heart of Rahner's theology is the divine self-gift evolving in history from creation to covenant to incarnation to vision and unfolding a “world of grace.” Rahner attempted to integrate the essentials of faith into a unified whole, drawing new life and unrealized meaning from the tradition. His vision toppled the neo-scholasticism that dominated Catholic theology since the mid nineteenth century and contributed to unleashing a Catholic theological renaissance. Rahner retrieved much that theology had come to overlook in its history of forgetting.

Influenced by Heidegger, Kant, and Maréchal, Rahner was rereading Scripture, the Fathers, and especially Aquinas, in light of the modern “turn to the subject.” In a radical inversion of Feuerbach, Rahner saw that if theology is anthropology, correlatively, anthropology is theology, since God’s incarnation forever united humanity and divinity.We cannot speak of God or humanity without at least implicitly speaking of both. The turn to the subject, then, is not inimical to Christian proclamation of human fulfillment as union with God. One finds in Christianity the fullest affirmation of the human as finite spirit open to holy mystery. In its thrusting toward this mystery the human person in freedom creates itself. Anthropology becomes the point of entry to the whole of theology. Theology will be taken seriously, Rahner thought, to the extent that it can show that humanity has to do with the question of transcendence.

TRANSLATORS’ INTRODUCTION

Shortly before his death in March 1984, Karl Rahner offered this brief retrospective on his life's work as a theologian in which he focused on four “experiences” which, as he approached the end of his life, he considered crucial to any form of theological reflection. With characteristic modesty he uses these experiences as a way of critically reviewing his own theological work. These experiences appear to us to be in order of priority for Rahner. Pride of place goes to what he calls the analogical nature of all theological assertions, since Rahner always favored an apophatic way of speaking about God. Yet this God does not remain distant but has communicated God's very self to humankind. This self-communication of God, an experience of grace, is the second experience discussed here and constitutes for Rahner the core of the Christian message. A third retrospective experience is that as a Jesuit his theology has some affinity with the spirituality of his religious order. At least, that was his hope – that he would be able to incorporate some of the “existentialism of Ignatius” into his own way of theologizing. A fourth and final experience is the “incongruence” of theology with the other sciences. Nevertheless, if theologians are not to preoccupy themselves with a purely abstract concept of God, they will see the various natural sciences and artistic expressions such as music, visual art, and poetry as revealing the hand of God.

Rahner's literary output was prodigious - even by 1974 it had reached almost 3,000 publications, including translations - and for the student approaching his work for the first time it can be a daunting task to know exactly where to begin. It is with this problem in mind that the following comments and selections have been made.

One danger for students approaching Rahner is that his often dense writing style will prove off-putting and result in a reliance solely on the extensive secondary literature. Such an approach, however, only leads to an impoverished understanding of Rahner. Moreover, it overlooks the fact that underlying themyriad of theological themes that he explores are a few basic convictions. Some of these are articulated in the last public address he gave prior to his death in March 1984, “Experiences of a Catholic Theologian,” included in this volume.

Rather than beginning there, an easier place to start is with a series of interviews he gave over a number of years (Karl Rahner in Dialogue: Conversations and Interviews 1965–1982, trans. and ed. H. Biallowons, H. D. Egan, S.J., and P. Imhof, S.J., New York: Crossroad, 1986). These interviews comprise an overview of many of the themes in Rahner’s theology in an engaging style. The passion and personality of Rahner come more to the fore than in his Theological Investigations. A further series of interviews towards the end of his life is contained in Faith in a Wintry Season: Interviews and Conversations with Karl Rahner in the Last Years of his Life, 1982–84 (trans. and ed. H. Biallowons, H. D. Egan, S.J., and Paul Imhof, S.J., New York: Crossroad, 1990).

For someone who never wrote a major treatise on the subject, Karl Rahner exercised a remarkable influence on the field of trinitarian theology. His main production was a chapter of eighty-five pages written in 1967 and titled “Der dreifaltige Gott als transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte” (”The Threefold God as Transcendental Ground of Salvation History”)f or the second volume, Die Heilsgeschichte vor Christus (Salvation History Before Christ), of Mysterium Salutis: Grundriss heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik (Mystery of Salvation: Outline of a Dogmatic Theology Based on Salvation History). Two years later he wrote two substantial articles, “Trinität” and “Trinitätstheologie,” for the German original of the theological encyclopedia Sacramentum Mundi, the first being closely modelled on “Der dreifaltige Gott.” This (”Der dreifaltige Gott”) was published in English translation as a separate work (a book) titled The Trinity in 1970; and the English versions of the above-mentioned articles, “Trinity, Divine” and “Trinity in Theology,” appeared in volume vi of the English Sacramentum Mundi in 1970. In this chapter, the references will generally be supplied in the text so as to avoid overloading the footnotes. The majority of the references will be to The Trinity, whose title will be abbreviated to Trin. Of the two articles, only the first will be quoted. Finally, apart from the conclusion, the sections of this chapter will correspond in content and relative length to those of The Trinity.

The reputation of great figures is often eclipsed in the generation after their death, and there is no lack of commentators who regard Rahner's achievement as passé. At the end of this collection of essays on Karl Rahner, compiled in the year when he would have been 100 years old, an obvious question arises about the kind of significance Rahner's theology has for us now. Is Rahner's achievement now primarily a matter of cultural and intellectual history? Does it amount simply to a set of ideas highly influential on Roman Catholicism in the historically rather unusual situation of the 1960s? Are Rahner's lessons something we need to outgrow, whether in gratitude for what they have helped us to accomplish, or in repentance for the errors into which they once seduced us? Or do they still hold a message for the future? Is there still life in Rahnerian theology?

There is no doubt that Rahner’s work enabled official Catholicism rather belatedly to engage with modernity – a modernity of which it had been decidedly wary for four centuries, whether in its initial appearance as a Lutheran appeal to the individual conscience, or later in various forms of Enlightenment emancipation. For many thinkers both in Rahner’s own time and on the contemporary scene, there was something ignoble and mistaken about that engagement. Moreover, it appears ironical that Catholicism should have been trying to catch up with modernity just as the secular world was moving into something different, something so elusive that we can only call it “post-modernity.” It might easily appear that Rahner’s theology is at best an anachronism, and at worst a heretical muddle.

Karl Rahner has been rightly praised as the twentieth century “Father” of Roman Catholic theology and as “the quiet mover of the Catholic Church.” His four thousand written works show his profundity as a philosopher and as a multi-faceted theological genius. They also indicate his talent as a preacher, a retreat director, and a teacher of prayer. A great ecumenist, he entered into dialogue with atheist, Buddhist, Jewish, Marxist, Muslim, Protestant, and scientific thinkers the world over.

Although this Catholic titan defies easy classification, many of Rahner's earliest commentators wrote almost exclusively about his philosophical theological- speculative prowess. More recent studies have corrected this imbalance by accenting the spiritual dimension of even his most difficult writings, particularly as this relates to his own Jesuit and priestly life. However, this chapter will attempt to make evident the indissoluble marriage of theology and spirituality which runs throughout almost all the Rahnerian enterprise.

A SAPIENTIAL THEOLOGIAN

When praised by an interviewer for his numerous publications, Rahner replied: “I always stressed that in point of fact by profession I never claimed to be a scientific researcher either in philosophy or in theology. I never practised theology as a sort of art for art’s sake. I think I can say that my publications usually grew out of pastoral concern. But in comparison to professional scholars I have remained a theological dilettante.” Thus, he spoke of himself only as a man, a Christian, and a priest – not as an academic scholar. When asked a few years before his death about his theology, he reiterated that his theological norm centered on pastoral problems relating to the proclamation of the gospel in ways the contemporary person can understand.

INTRODUCTION

The implications of Karl Rahner's theological project for ethics become clear when one considers that the concept of choice is at the heart of both his transcendental anthropology and the Ignatian spiritual tradition that so richly informs all of his theology. It would be a serious mistake, however, to view the Rahnerian concept of choice and the theology of freedom that supports it as the mere capacity to select among various objects. Choice in this account is correctly understood as “the possibility of saying yes or no to oneself, the possibility of deciding for or against oneself,” which is also always a decision for or against God.

For Rahner, then, the human person is that self-transcending spirit who in the act of knowing or willing implicitly experiences both itself as subject (that is, free) and something of the ultimate structure of reality. The person’s unthematic experience of the self as free before the gracious mystery that is God is, for Rahner, necessarily related to self-disposition. This self-disposition, known as fundamental option, involves the subject’s definitive acceptance or rejection of God by means of free, moral action. This capacity for definitive choice finds its most perspicuous Christian expression, Rahner argues, in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola.

It is hard to name a theologian who has singularly influenced the contemporary discourse on religious pluralism more than Karl Rahner. In the 1960s and 1970s his writings on the topic gained wide appeal and his thoughts enjoyed popular exposure through public sermons and radio addresses. Throughout the last quarter of the twentieth century and into the new millennium, his theological project has so influenced the discussion that many of today's major voices on religious diversity present their theologies in direct conversation with his. Rahner's ideas have even elicited responses from notable spokespersons of the religions of the world. Thus, in examining Rahner's theology of religious pluralism, we can gain insight not only into his own influential thinking, but into the contours of the conversation today.

At the forefront of Rahner’s work was a concern that theology speak to people. And so, he explained Christian doctrine in a way that connected with lived experience. As people embedded in a complex and diverse world, Rahner recognized that the encounter with the religious “other” would be among the challenges Christians would face. Religious diversity was not merely an abstract theological concern, but one that grew out of an increasing awareness of and engagement with people of other faiths.

There is a wide consensus among theologians that Rahner was a turning point in Catholic theology, paving the way for a fruitful dialogue between modernity and Catholic theology and opening countless doors to further theological enterprises. A very fruitful Rahnerian heritage can be found in the work of two theologians who have developed their own theological projects in two different cultural and social contexts: Johann Baptist Metz in Germany, and Gustavo Gutiérrez in Peru. Political theology has developed in Germany through the works of Dorothee Sölle, Jürgen Moltmann, and Johann Baptist Metz. Of the three, Metz is the key figure to capture some of the potentialities and problems in the theology of Rahner, of whom Metz was a student, a collaborator, and a friend. Liberation theology is a way of doing theology that originated in Latin America in the late sixties and is currently widespread throughout the world. Gustavo Gutiérrez is widely regarded as the father of that theology, since he has been one of its most consistent proponents, and the first who formulated it formally.

Gutiérrez and Metz, as well as the theological currents they represent, relate to Rahner in a different way. Whereas Metz studied under Rahner, Gutiérrez’s main exposure was to la nouvelle théologie during his studies at Lyon. However, Rahner’s theology plays the role of starting or referential point in both political and liberation theologies, which, therefore, present continuities and discontinuities in relation to Rahner. Among the continuities, these post-Rahnerian theologies seek the meaning of faith and the role of theology in relation to the situation from which they stem and to which they relate, thus following the Rahnerian drive toward a pastorally focused theology that is meaningful to those Christians who want to live out their faith in the midst of their culture. In that sense, they are pastoral correlational theologies.

Karl Rahner's writings on “the Church” are significant in volume, in content, and in their connection to the central concerns of Rahner's life and work. For Rahner, the Church was always more than a social structure, a political force, or a site for religious activities; the Church was a genuinely theological reality. Rahner affirmed an intimate connection between the Church and the foundational elements of Christian faith: God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ; the presence of the Holy Spirit in human history; and God's promise that love, rather than sin or death, would speak the final word in that history.

Just as Rahner’s emphasis on the capacity of human beings to encounter God in their everyday world resulted in a theology of eating, of laughing, and of childhood and old age, so too it ensured that the Church’s relationship to history and culture was a prominent feature of his ecclesiology. For Rahner, living as an ecclesial Christian was an invitation to be part of the world in a particular way, a way that witnessed not simply to humanity’s orientation to God, but to the social implications of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ. To that end, Rahner was at pains to aid the appropriation of ecclesial faith by articulating the authentic claims and necessary boundaries of “the Church,” by promoting reconciliation between Christians, and by sketching the possibilities for the Church’s creative engagement with the wider world.

Karl Rahner developed his theology and method within the shift taking place in theology between Vatican I and Vatican II. In that period, neo-Thomist theology permeated much of academic theology. The growing influence of scriptural, patristic, liturgical, and philosophical studies began to dismantle the neo-Thomist approach and to prepare the way for Vatican II. Karl Rahner was both influenced by these advances and was a leading figure in their development in the period before and after the Council. Today, however, another significant shift is taking place. The aftermath of the Second Vatican Council saw not only the implementations of the Council, but also many multi-sided criticisms. The Right maintained that the Council went too far, whereas the Left claimed that the Council did not go far enough. From the perspective of post-liberalism, Vatican II went too far, was too progressive, and surrendered too much of the tradition for the sake of modernity. From the perspective of the various liberation, feminist, post-colonial, and pluralist theologies, the Council was too embedded within a European mentality whose patriarchalism and colonialism constitute the undersides of Western modernity. Consequently, the current scene is one of theological conflict, disagreement, and controversy.

These shifts are important for interpreting Karl Rahner’s method. As the cultural climate has changed from an openness to modern philosophical values to a critical caution toward modernity and to an embrace of postmodern values, so too the assessment of Karl Rahner’s method has changed.

The year 2004 marks the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Karl Rahner, S. J., who, it is widely acknowledged, was the dominant theological voice of the Roman Catholic Church in the twentieth century. For many, his theology has come to symbolize the Catholic Church's entry into modernity, an event publicly and ritually celebrated at the Second Vatican Council. Not surprisingly in the forty years since the Council and the twenty years since the death of Rahner both the Council and the theology of Karl Rahner have undergone some critical reappraisal, often in connection with their relationship to modernity. With the widespread intuition that society had moved beyond modernity into a somewhat amorphous consciousness called “post-modern” came the need to look critically at all things labelled “modern.” On the other hand, there is also a growing concern with a tendency in some quarters to retreat into a kind of naïve pre-modern mindset that would also call into question the vision of the Council and the theological insights of Karl Rahner. The legacy of Karl Rahner stands between this Scylla and Charybdis. It seems, then, an appropriate time to re-examine his theology and to introduce Karl Rahner to students of theology for whom he has not been a formative influence.

RAHNER AS A MODERN THEOLOGIAN

Rahner has “modern” credentials. Following Maréchal, he seeks to overcome the constraints which the Enlightenment project placed upon knowledge. The former ontological critique was displaced by the transcendental critique of the Enlightenment, and it was no longer possible to give an account of exteriority other than in terms of the subject. As Maréchal notes, “the ancient critique posits the ontological object, which includes the transcendental subject; whereas the modern critique relates to the transcendental subject, who posits the ontological object.” If, in modernity, the concern was the constituting role of the epistemic subject in knowing and the concomitant problem of the ontological status of the object, the problem in post-modernity is the displacement of the stable subject, now viewed not simply as constituting and constructing but also as constituted and constructed, and the concomitant return of the object whose exteriority disturbs and disrupts subjective frameworks and horizons. Said otherwise, the post-modern concern is for fragmented subjectivity or interiority and the return of objectivity or exteriority, and the challenge which these present to enlightened transcendentalism.

Now, Rahner himself admits “the principle that every philosophy, i.e. every genuine metaphysics worthy of the name must proceed along the lines of transcendental philosophy, or else it is not philosophy in this authentic sense at all.” For “transcendental,” the “phenomenological” – which can be viewed as a continuation of the project of modernity – can also be imputed.

Eschatology, or the doctrine of the Last Things, has had a chequered history in Christian theology. Rooted in the belief concerning Christ's return (parousia) in glory to judge the living and the dead and his eternal kingdom and in the expectation of the universal resurrection, the Christian teaching on life everlasting occupied the central position in the theology of the early Church. Theologians of both East and West kept in the forefront of Christian consciousness the New Testament conviction about the final consummation of human history through Christ in God's reign (see 1 Corinthians 15:28). Such is the case with, for instance, Irenaeus (c. 130- c. 200) with his concept of recapitulation (anakephalaiosis), Origen (c. 185- c. 254) with that of universal restoration (apocatastasis), and Augustine (354-430) with that of the City of God (civitas Dei). Furthermore, during the first few centuries of the Christian era, this eschatological consciousness was also heightened by millenarianist groups such as the Gnostics and the Montanists.

Except for brief outbursts of millenarian enthusiasm with Joachim of Fiore (c. 1135–1202), and, much later, with the Anabaptists and the Bohemian and the Moravian Brethren during the Reformation, the Church’s official consciousness of Christ’s glorious return and one-thousand-year rule was gradually eclipsed, and with it the collective eschatology that discusses the meaning and destiny of human history. In late scholasticism, and subsequently in neo-scholastic manualist theology, the main focus was the post-mortem fate of the individual.