{"id":52,"date":"2010-07-15T10:20:07","date_gmt":"2010-07-15T10:20:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ipsinaction.com\/ips\/?p=52"},"modified":"2024-06-20T15:43:46","modified_gmt":"2024-06-20T15:43:46","slug":"rahner-in-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ips\/?p=52","title":{"rendered":"Rahner In Review"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Ryan Hoffman<\/a><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Karl Rahner was without doubt one of the most influential contemporary theologians in Catholicism. Karen Kilby writes of Rahner:<\/p>\n

In the 1950s he was on the margins, his orthodoxy questioned, his work censored; in the 1960s he suddenly was at the centre of things, a theological expert at the Second Vatican Council, and, in almost all accounts but his own, one of the shaping influences upon it (p. xv).[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

The set of essays contained here seeks to illuminate these \u2018shaping influences\u2019 by treating Rahner\u2019s theology of the human person and Jesus Christ. It will not be an exhaustive treatment of such topics; I acknowledge more could be said about Rahner\u2019s theology, the connections he makes and the conclusions he draws. I know, too, that the implications of his work have been immense, informing ecclesiology, Trinity, Grace, and beyond. Even so, as a student of Rahner, I will surface my own syntheses of these key Rahner constructs and discuss their relevance today. In doing so, following Rahner\u2019s lead, I will use predominately masculine language. I intend no disrespect to women; I use his language for clarity\u2019s sake. Rahner, if he were writing today, would likely utilize more inclusive language, a move I support.<\/p>\n

Rahner in Review: Christian Anthropology<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Karl Rahner\u2019s approach to the question of what it means to be human is foundational in his theology. How are we to understand human potential? Where, and in what form, does the divine dialogue with humanity? It is no accident that Rahner starts <\/em>with the human and traces other theological constructs (e.g., God) from this starting point. Understanding Rahner\u2019s Christian Anthropology<\/em> is essential in theologizing about his concepts of God, Christ, Trinity, and more. As such, I start here too.<\/p>\n

Rahner aptly discusses the human person in a chapter entitled The Hearer of the Message<\/em>.[2]<\/a> Humans, in their capacity as subjects<\/em>, whether conscious or not, hear something calling themselves beyond themselves. The essence of being human, Rahner asserts, rests in humans\u2019 transcendence<\/em>. Rahner writes that \u201cman raises analytical questions about himself and opens himself to the unlimited horizons of such questioning\u201d[3]<\/a> – this very questing, reaching out, restlessness and energy being man\u2019s attempt to transcend himself. Karen Kilby notes that this transcendence, rooted in our personhood<\/em>, is constitutive of who we are and exists from our inception. We are born, whether we understand it or not, already<\/em> related to God.[4]<\/a> Our trajectory, our dynamism, from the beginning, is pointed towards God. It is as if there is a piece of God already nestled within us, inviting us to come home to ourselves so that we may flourish in God.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, though pointed towards God, humans are free <\/em>subjects. Rahner describes this sentiment in saying, \u201cWe can only say, then, that because and insofar as I experience myself as person and as subject, I also experience myself as free\u2026\u201d (p. 35). Greater freedom is a derivative of our finiteness and dependence on God. The more dependent on God we become the more liberating we feel; dependence on God and humanity\u2019s freedom are in direct proportion to each other. Spiritually speaking, an encounter with God, and humans\u2019 complete surrender to the divine, allows us to experience greater freedom and peace. To be sure, this is a paradox of human reality, a reality which claims the more we trust in God the more we are able to self-surrender and self-actualize in God.<\/p>\n

The above treatment of human subjectivity, transcendence, and freedom lays claims on us as Christians. Part of what it means to be Christian is taking our personhood, our creatureliness<\/em>, seriously. This departs from more scholastic (traditional) understandings of humans as depraved, inherently inadequate, unworthy. Rahner flips this on its head, advancing a Christian Anthropology that not only affirms the human condition but alleges its inherent divinity and goodness. We are, then, based on our ontological goodness and transcendental access to the divine, asked to make decisions for or against God \u2013 and thus for or against ourselves. This fundamental option<\/em>, marked by our cumulative choices and actions, invests in God\u2019s reign or disparages it. Taking our humanity seriously, given the context laid out above, means spending time reflecting on who we are and discerning our calling, praying alone and in community, making intelligible our yearnings and desires, and the like. We are not only subjects, but agents<\/em> and stewards<\/em> of a shared world.<\/p>\n

Moreover, humans do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, as Rahner points out, there is a historicity<\/em> to our existence. Otto Hentz writes of this when saying, \u201cGod creates the human spirit as transcendence in history\u201d (p. 111).[5]<\/a> We are socially, culturally, ideologically, religiously, and even temporally and spatially located. This \u2018uniqueness,\u2019 or \u2018specificity,\u2019 lays claims on Christians, too. The context in which we live presents certain challenges and joys. Rahner highlights historicity by saying:<\/p>\n

Historicity means that characteristic and fundamental determination of man which he is placed in time precisely as a free subject, and through which a unique world is at his disposal, a world which he must create and suffer in freedom, and for which in both instances he must take responsibility\u2026 it is in historicity that the subject must work out his salvation by finding it there as offered to him and accepting it (p. 41).[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

Instead of shying away from modern cultures and worldviews, Rahner implores Christians to critically assess and examine the signs of the times. What unique gifts and talents, individually and collectively, are being called forth? What perspectives and wisdom, prophetic or otherwise, are taking root? Rahner reminds us we must take responsibility for what we do in the here and now. God\u2019s in-breaking is not only an eschatological hope, but a present-day reality, based, in-part, by human self-actualizing (realization) and potentiality.[7]<\/a> As is customary in all of Rahner\u2019s writings, we are asked to look at a broad horizon, a salvation history connected to, constitutive of, human history. We must acknowledge God active in all times, in all people, in a myriad of ways. This begins by knowing ourselves (humanity) as \u2018wired for God,\u2019 part of a supernatural existential<\/em> in which we are offered, and asked to accept, God\u2019s very self.<\/p>\n

Rahner in Review: Jesus Christ<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Our notion of Christ only makes sense in and through our understanding of what it means to be human. Perhaps, rather, our understanding of humanity takes place in reflecting on Jesus the Christ. Whatever the case, in Rahner\u2019s theology these constructs are tightly linked, there exists interplay between the essential Jesus<\/em> and who we are as humans. Rahner makes this point when saying \u201ca Christology cannot be developed without repeatedly bringing in considerations from transcendental anthropology\u201d (p. 213).[8]<\/a> Otto Hentz affirms this significance:<\/p>\n

In sum, to express and appreciate anew the meaning of Christ we need an understanding of the God-man which is based on a reflective appreciation for what it means to be a human being\u2026 an approach to Christology through anthropology is one of Karl Rahner\u2019s major contributions to contemporary theology (p. 110).[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

Kilby repeats this Rahnarian approach by describing Christ as \u201ca radicalization of all of us\u201d (p. 20).[10]<\/a> It is not that we are Christ, but that we can be Christ-like. It is not as if Christ was substantially different from who we are as humans. There is overlap in Christ\u2019s very self and our own being. We share a humanity<\/em> positioned toward God. The difference, therefore, is not in kind but degree. Kilby describes this dynamic yet another way, articulating that Jesus \u201cis what the rest of us are, only more so\u201d (p. 16). The difference lies in the fact that Jesus is the prototype, perfect believer, the supreme integration and unity<\/em> of humanity\u2019s capability and potential divinity in God. Though Jesus possesses hypostatic union<\/em>, something we cannot say of ourselves, we embody and respond to God\u2019s Grace, something that reaches its climax in Jesus.<\/p>\n

God chose, through God\u2019s logos<\/em>, to express God\u2019s self in the form of Jesus. Jesus as man<\/em> touches humanity on its terms \u2013 in its time and place. As such, when we say God became man and took on human form in flesh<\/em>, we mean everything this encompasses.<\/p>\n

Jesus is truly man, he has absolutely everything which belongs to a man, including a finite subjectivity in which the world becomes conscious in its own unique, historically conditioned and finite way, and a subjectivity which has a radical immediacy to God in and through God\u2019s self-communication in grace, just as it is also present in us in the depths of our existence (p. 196).[11]<\/a><\/p>\n

We understand God acting here in a double gratuitous<\/em> manner, evoking creation and then giving himself to that creation in Grace<\/em> through Jesus (incarnation). The tangible and explicit gift of Jesus makes God\u2019s giving of himself in love \u201cabsolute and irrevocable\u201d (p. 193).[12]<\/a> Creation and incarnation, as Rahner points out, is part of one process<\/em> by which God bestows God\u2019s self in the world and shows it complete and radical love. Humanity, then, is the recipient<\/em> of God\u2019s self-communication through our transcendental experience and in and through Jesus as Christ as offer<\/em>. Jesus is part of a process by which God gives us our authentic self<\/em> through which we also receive God\u2019s own self.<\/p>\n

The preceding discussion of Christ has appraised a transcendental Christology. There is much to be said, too, of the historical<\/em> Jesus. This approach to Christology examines the life of Jesus the man as we know him through critical-historical scripture exegesis. Peter Schineller, writing about an ascending<\/em> Christology, offers that the historical approach \u201cmeans following and even reenacting the path and process by which the disciples came to believe in Jesus as Christ\u201d (p. 94).[13]<\/a> Schineller, paraphrasing Rahner\u2019s analysis of the historical Jesus, declares we know this of Jesus of Nazareth:<\/p>\n

Jesus, born a Jew, took part in the religious life and culture of Palestine. This involved worship at the temple and synagogue, familiarity with Jewish laws and customs, celebrations of feasts and praying the scriptures. Within this tradition, Jesus intended to be a religious reformer rather than a radical religious revolutionary (p. 95).[14]<\/a><\/p>\n

To this end, a reflection on the historical Jesus revolves around our encounter<\/em> with Jesus\u2019 birth, life and death. It must involve not only a rational approach to who Christ is and his relationship to God and humanity, but an affective, experiential methodology by which we invite Jesus to be a friend and mentor. It is clear from scriptures that those who experienced Jesus had, as Rahner notes, a \u201cradical conversion or metanoia<\/em>\u201d that was \u201cinseparably connected with his person\u201d (p. 251-2).[15]<\/a> Followers were able to relate to Jesus in ways new to them. He seemed to inspire goodness and promote wholeness. People intuitively knew Jesus to be a unity<\/em> of flesh and spirit, matter and embodiment. Jesus\u2019 essence, composed of the intersection of humanity and divinity, touched people deeply. His teachings and healings transformed people so much so that people began to follow and hope<\/em> in him as messiah<\/em> and eschatological prophet<\/em>. Jesus was a man who moved people and communities and in which they encountered someone radically different yet completely faithful.<\/p>\n

Moreover, Jesus\u2019 historical reality challenged the structures and institutions of his time. Rahner records this sense in saying that Jesus:<\/p>\n

Fought against legalism in order to move beyond a mere ethic of pious sentiments, and beyond a justification by works which was supposed to give man security against God\u2026 he was someone who saw himself in radical solidarity with social and religious outcasts\u2026 his mission was bringing him into mortal conflict with the religious and political society (p. 248).[16]<\/a><\/p>\n

The ministry of Jesus, his mission and function, was to bring about the Kingdom of God<\/em>. This reign was to include, perhaps primarily<\/em> include, the poor and hurt, wounded and homeless, the marginal and hated. It is this type <\/em>of world Jesus gave voice to, hoped to usher in, instill in those he encountered. It is this<\/em> vision of the reign of God which gave rise to and sustained a movement. It was this very movement<\/em>, however, that became dangerous for the elite and powerful. The Jesus worldview – gaining traction, credibility, and authenticity \u2013 undermined traditional power structures and sought to cultivate, instead, a society built on relationality, marked by, above all else, love of God and love of neighbor.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Rahner in Review: Shaping Influences<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

I began this paper by citing Karen Kilby\u2019s assertion that Rahner had shaping influences on Catholicism. In this final section of the paper, I lay out what I believe to be the most exceptional of these influences. Given today\u2019s historical milieu, how might Rahner be relevant? What are we to take away from this analysis and how it informs modern society? Finally, in what ways are Rahner\u2019s theological constructs in dialogue with present reality? It is in these questions that we are able to unlock Rahner for today, unpacking pragmatic and pastoral implications.<\/p>\n

First, as human consciousness evolves and we search for more expansive<\/em> understandings of our world, we must, also, re-examine, re-envision, and re-appropriate our faith and religious beliefs (perhaps religious structures and institutions as well). In many instances Rahner re-interpreted traditional scholastic teachings into a more modern, digestible, accessible form. Rahner\u2019s theologizing understood the need to touch lives, inform practical living, and be a part of the fabric<\/em> of human yearning and growing. It is my contention that Rahner saw in traditional Catholicism outdated tenants and anti-modern tendencies. For Catholicism to be relevant, for it to continue to harvest vibrant faith communities and touch people interiorly, it had to undergo a re-working of what it means to not only understand religious concepts, but how to live out and embody the truth of such teachings. Ultimately, no longer could God and Jesus be qualitatively different, or radically apart from, who we are as human beings.<\/p>\n

To this end, Rahner\u2019s theology of the human person is one considerable area, perhaps the primary area, which instructs the rest of his theology and implicates Christians in a much more radical way. First off, Rahner\u2019s theology allows us, even implores us, to take experience<\/em> seriously. Like sacred scriptures and church teachings, we are to carefully discern the consolations and desolations of our lives, seek to understand and acknowledge our divinity and woundedness, face honestly our gifts and talents; mainly, to explore our rich, and to be sure, complex, humanity in order to find the God \u2018still-point\u2019 within calling us to greater wholeness and union. It is in and through our categorical<\/em> experiences, revelation, and freedom that we come to greater awareness of and dependence on our transcendental<\/em> selves. Again, what it means to \u2018find God\u2019 is not located in a wholly different realm or substance; rather, is located in the innermost dimension of who we are as people, giving voice to our truest desires and most self-actualized existence.<\/p>\n

Moreover, humanity, with all of nature, co-creates<\/em> and co-affirms<\/em> life in God. We are given, as pure offer, in the very texture of our humanness, unmerited and unearned love. As such, we begin not depraved of and disconnected from God. Humans are not degenerates or lascivious beings; we are inherently good<\/em>. Rahner\u2019s most profound contribution to Christianity is this understanding of the human person and its relationship to the divine. It is a starting point which threads that which is God and that which is human very closely together. This is the major pivot Rahner constructs, moving away from a traditionalist scholastic understanding of the cosmos ontologically barren of Grace to creation infused, from the very beginning, as the condition of the possibility of human existence, with God\u2019s Grace. The modified arrangement raises up divinity and<\/em> humanity.<\/p>\n

Finally, building on top of what has already been explored here, is the matter of access <\/em>to a Christian God. We have approached this material from both an anthropological and Christological perspective; our access to God is constitutive of who we are and the person and symbol of Jesus. In today\u2019s discourse, it is vitally important to keep the significance of this at the center of credible theology. While parishes and congregations attempt to hold up salient values and theologies, and standard operating procedures and rituals, what is most important<\/em> is not found in rigid, uncompromising doctrines but in deep thinking about what it means to be true to our authentic individuality while also, perhaps because of our inner self, being in solidarity with all of humanity. Who we are reveals what we do. What we do discloses who we are. Our sense of creatureliness is forever beholden to the one (Jesus) who most embodies, and at the same time, extends who and what we are.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Rahner was able to look at Catholic tradition and re-formulate what it meant. He was able to restore and sustain a fresh look at dated doctrines and traditional conclusions. Ironically, Rahner\u2019s own words about Jesus exemplify what he was able to do as a theologian. Describing the totality of Jesus\u2019 ministry, Rahner writes that, \u201cJesus\u2026 proclaimed nothing really new<\/em>, but only proclaimed the old anew<\/em>, although in a prophetic and radical way\u201d (p. 253).[17]<\/a> The same I believe is true of Rahner. While his thinking did not produce original inventions, it did suggest and solidify ways of thinking not previously allowed or formally accepted until his daring attempts. Rahner\u2019s theology re-arranged the furniture of Catholic systematics: he suggested different emphases, shaded and illuminated different parts, spotlighted and accentuated varying pieces of the whole, and refined and suggested different hermeneutical accents. In creatively balancing the tension between himself, his religious tradition, and his scholarly gifts and calling, Rahner epitomizes what is asked of many of us today, that is, living a life renewing our humanity while re-imagining and building up authentic and faithful community in hopeful anticipation of the more<\/em> that is yet to come.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Kilby, Karen. 2007. Karl rahner: A brief introduction. <\/em>Crossroad Publishing Company.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith. The Crossroad Publishing Company, January 1, 1982.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith. The Crossroad Publishing Company, January 1, 1982.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Kilby, Karen. 2007. Karl rahner: A brief introduction. <\/em>Crossroad Publishing Company.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Hentz, Otto. 1995. Starting with the human. In A world of grace: An introduction to the themes and foundations of karl rahner’s theology.<\/em>, ed. Leo J. O’Donovan, 17-29. Georgetown University Press.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith. The Crossroad Publishing Company, January 1, 1982.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> This is not pelagiansim as it does not rely solely on our efforts but requires God\u2019s grace, too.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith. The Crossroad Publishing Company, January 1, 1982.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Hentz, Otto. 1995. Starting with the human. In A world of grace: An introduction to the themes and foundations of karl rahner’s theology.<\/em>, ed. Leo J. O’Donovan, 17-29. Georgetown University Press.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Kilby, Karen. 2007. Karl rahner: A brief introduction. <\/em>Crossroad Publishing Company.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith. The Crossroad Publishing Company, January 1, 1982.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith. The Crossroad Publishing Company, January 1, 1982.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Schineller, Peter. 1995. Starting with the human. In A world of grace: An introduction to the themes and foundations of karl rahner’s theology.<\/em>, ed. Leo J. O’Donovan, 17-29. Georgetown University Press.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Schineller, Peter. 1995. Starting with the human. In A world of grace: An introduction to the themes and foundations of Karl Rahner’s theology.<\/em>, ed. Leo J. O’Donovan, 17-29. Georgetown University Press.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith. The Crossroad Publishing Company, January 1, 1982.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith. The Crossroad Publishing Company, January 1, 1982.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a>Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith. The Crossroad Publishing Company, January 1, 1982.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Ryan Hoffman Introduction Karl Rahner was without doubt one of the most influential contemporary theologians in Catholicism. Karen Kilby writes of Rahner: In the 1950s he was on the margins, his orthodoxy questioned, his work censored; in the 1960s he suddenly was at the centre of things, a theological expert at the Second Vatican read more <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ips\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ips\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ips\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ips\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ips\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=52"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ips\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4673,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ips\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52\/revisions\/4673"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ips\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=52"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ips\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=52"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/ips\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=52"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}