Karl Rahner was a German Jesuit (1904-1984) who was arguably the best and most well-known Catholic theologian of the 20th century. Foundational to Rahner's entire system of thought is his assertion that the human being has a fundamental and pre-thematic openness to and awareness of absolute mystery. What he meant by this is that every person is aware of and in some way encounters God whether or not this is consciously recognized. For Rahner, even the avowed atheist is somehow in contact with God, even if that person does not realize it.
This assertion underlies every other theological claim made by Rahner and it is ultimately rooted in his readings of Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant and Martin Heidegger. Many people who have read and studied Rahner's work have had strong reactions to it. He has been the subject of much praise and the subject of much criticism.
One of the strongest critiques made of his work was by his student, Johann Baptist Metz. Metz was a German theologian trained by Rahner, but he ultimately disagreed with his teacher on the question of the context of theology. Metz objected to Rahner's failure to consider the context of individual human beings and the reality of their life experiences. Coincidentally, towards the end of his life, Rahner said that of the many critiques of his work, the critique of Metz was the one that he took particularly seriously. He seemed to acknowledge that the problem identified by Metz in his work was a significant one
.
In the fifth chapter of the book, Race: A Theological Account
, J. Kameron Carter notes Rudolph Otto's Idea of the Holy, which asserts that "'the category of the religious [is an] a priori in the human consciousness'" (204). In other words, "'formally speaking, the religious experience is the same for the earliest man as it is for the mystics in the highly developed religions of Judaism, Christianity or Hinduism'" (204). This view is very similar to Rahner's: each person has an experience of God that is common to all people and thus universal.
A friend of mine was present during the interview of a candidate for a position teaching theology in a seminary. The candidate, a woman originally from Latin America, taught a class of students that were very receptive to her and asked her a number of questions after her lecture. One of the questions asked of her was whether or not her personal context as a woman from Latin America in any way informed the way in which she approached the theological task. She replied that it did not, which seemed to disappoint some of the students.
Rahner, Metz, Otto and my friend's experience all approach a question that Carter seems interested in addressing in this chapter. Does context matter? Does the theology or biblical interpretation we do look different depending on our own personal location? Does it matter for my own work (for example) that I approach the theological task as a woman? Does it make a difference if one approaches the theological task from a cultural background and context than is different than the dominant one? Of course it is clear that whether or not context should matter that it does matter. To grossly oversimplify the hermeneutical work of Hans Georg Gadamer, each of us has a tradition or a context out of which we operate. The only major question is whether or not we are honest about it.
The question that still needs to be addressed is whether or not context should matter and whether or not we should be intentional about considering context in our theological work and in our readings of scripture. Should the contemporary context inform what we do in this arena? If Otto is right, as Carter depicts him, and "the religious embraces the totality of human existence" (206), does the particularity of one person or one group's human existence have a role to play?
Carter tells us in this chapter that Charles H. Long's critique of modern theology holds that wealth, fullness and Western culture are aligned with Christianity (which is seen as the "absolute religion") while poverty and marginalization is associated with the non-Western and non-Christian other (207). As a result, Long sees theology as inherently tied up with the Western philosophical tradition. Responding to this, Carter writes, "Long's reduction of Christian theology to its [Western] performances does not allow him to reckon with other types of Christian theological performances, both within and on the underside of the West, performances that might actually be consonant with and perhaps even radicalize his own brilliant insights into the poverty and wealth of existence" (208). Carter seems to think that context should matter. What do you think?
One of the strongest critiques made of his work was by his student, Johann Baptist Metz. Metz was a German theologian trained by Rahner, but he ultimately disagreed with his teacher on the question of the context of theology. Metz objected to Rahner's failure to consider the context of individual human beings and the reality of their life experiences. Coincidentally, towards the end of his life, Rahner said that of the many critiques of his work, the critique of Metz was the one that he took particularly seriously. He seemed to acknowledge that the problem identified by Metz in his work was a significant one
.
In the fifth chapter of the book, Race: A Theological Account
, J. Kameron Carter notes Rudolph Otto's Idea of the Holy, which asserts that "'the category of the religious [is an] a priori in the human consciousness'" (204). In other words, "'formally speaking, the religious experience is the same for the earliest man as it is for the mystics in the highly developed religions of Judaism, Christianity or Hinduism'" (204). This view is very similar to Rahner's: each person has an experience of God that is common to all people and thus universal.A friend of mine was present during the interview of a candidate for a position teaching theology in a seminary. The candidate, a woman originally from Latin America, taught a class of students that were very receptive to her and asked her a number of questions after her lecture. One of the questions asked of her was whether or not her personal context as a woman from Latin America in any way informed the way in which she approached the theological task. She replied that it did not, which seemed to disappoint some of the students.
Rahner, Metz, Otto and my friend's experience all approach a question that Carter seems interested in addressing in this chapter. Does context matter? Does the theology or biblical interpretation we do look different depending on our own personal location? Does it matter for my own work (for example) that I approach the theological task as a woman? Does it make a difference if one approaches the theological task from a cultural background and context than is different than the dominant one? Of course it is clear that whether or not context should matter that it does matter. To grossly oversimplify the hermeneutical work of Hans Georg Gadamer, each of us has a tradition or a context out of which we operate. The only major question is whether or not we are honest about it.
The question that still needs to be addressed is whether or not context should matter and whether or not we should be intentional about considering context in our theological work and in our readings of scripture. Should the contemporary context inform what we do in this arena? If Otto is right, as Carter depicts him, and "the religious embraces the totality of human existence" (206), does the particularity of one person or one group's human existence have a role to play?
Carter tells us in this chapter that Charles H. Long's critique of modern theology holds that wealth, fullness and Western culture are aligned with Christianity (which is seen as the "absolute religion") while poverty and marginalization is associated with the non-Western and non-Christian other (207). As a result, Long sees theology as inherently tied up with the Western philosophical tradition. Responding to this, Carter writes, "Long's reduction of Christian theology to its [Western] performances does not allow him to reckon with other types of Christian theological performances, both within and on the underside of the West, performances that might actually be consonant with and perhaps even radicalize his own brilliant insights into the poverty and wealth of existence" (208). Carter seems to think that context should matter. What do you think?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I remember reading that, when shown the same photograph, American and Japanese viewers focused on completely different parts of the picture. IIRC, Americans studied the foreground more, and the Japanese studied the background.
"Context" can affect how you gather information and the initial assumptions you make, but after that, logic is still logic, and I'm not sure how much the end results are affected by these things.
Maybe RJS has different experiences, but in my field we interact with Asians quite a bit, and in the end, we all come to similar conclusions, even if the path is a little different.
Of course, theology is different from hard science.
"The only major question is whether or not we are honest about it."
I think part of being "honest" is being aware. CS Lewis said that we should read old book to (among other reasons) be aware of the biases of our time. 21st Century Americans share common assumptions that we don't realize we make; reading 18th Cent Americans or 15th Cent Europeans -- not to mention Africans and Asians -- can help us identify those blindspots.
I'm still not sure, though, how much this matters to the end result.
Being honest about it is a very positive "theological" act that forms us, contributing to the whole of who we are as we study these things.
I think it matters a lot.
Dana
I would add my "Amen" to Prof. Veeneman's and ChrisB's comments regarding honesty and awareness of one's context.
Let's set aside the connotations of deceit; occasionally, willfully keeping hidden one's context, or supposing one could, is usually a rare matter.
But, the awareness matter is far more grave. I don't know enough about Long to discern how alert he was to his context. Yet, the proposal by Carter presses us to consider that none of us has a context-less theology. Some long time readers of this blog will recall some of the push-back Scot received when he proposed that we need to understand Mary better if we would understand the Gospel better. Yikes! I kept thinking as I read the comments, "Do any of these folks understand their social location: at all?" The concerns raised even had some merit: but, virtually all of the rejections disconnected any relationship between the reign of God and injustice. Privileged people, people of power, get to make those kinds of statements. And, sometimes, they are aware of their context.
Sorry, but I just noticed that far too often we don't celebrate context as a positive contribution. Perhaps if I read more authors (and worshipped with believers) from south of the Equator, I might reconsider context more positively without enshrining anyone's culture over another.
I think it was John Mbiti that pointed out that the gospel is "kerygmatically universal but theologically provincial." The process of the study of God is bound by our human limitations, and that includes our social location. When we read the Scriptures, where does our gender go? Our race? Our nationality? The answer is nowhere! We need to take these things into account.
I connect to certain theological ideas and concepts due to my own context. They seem more important because certain theological ideas and concepts give life. I think context does matter in shaping theology. That's why i believe it is important for us to do theology in community and not in isolation or within our own cultural horizon. By listening to myself and others we can gain more insight.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.