Introductory notes for readers of this thesis - Theses - Flinders ...

In contrast, William Thompson argues that Rahner’s ‘transcendental hermeneutics’—aninterpretation of reality with an emphasis on the subjective process—is based uponRahner’s biblical reflection on the interplay between trinitarian word and spirit 77 .Thompson unpacks his thesis with reference to the ‘biblical grammar’ of TheologicalInvestigations showing, with reference to a wide variety of TI articles, the strong logocentricand pneumatological overtones of Rahner’s thought and his prioritising of NewTestament reflection over and above the dogma of scholasticism. Thomson also notesRahner’s ‘rehabilitation of the Greek patristic theme of divinization’ 78 and the ‘narrativetheology’ of his Ignatian-style meditations 79 . Thompson argues that a careful reading ofthe whole Rahner corpus (just as a reading of the whole Bible is necessary for appropriateexegesis) will lead to a radically different conclusion around the authentically Christiansources of his thinking.The ‘idea’ of an ‘Absolute Saviour,’ arising from the Spirit-given sense ofexpectancy coming from our world of the supernatural existential—which is thereal core of all forms of Rahner’s transcendental Christology—does not seem tobe a hopeless attempt to deduce the particular Jesus from human universalstructures. It is rather an articulation of the (Spirit-given) universal conditions ofthe Incarnation found within this intentionally graced universe. It would seem thatthe only way we could deny the legitimacy of this (inclusive) kind oftranscendental Christology would be to ‘rip’ the Spirit from the incarnate Word,which of course is impossible on Trinitarian grounds. If you will, transcendentalChristology and narrative Christology are distinct, but never separate, as the Spirit80and the incarnate Word are distinct but never separate .Thomson advocates a pneumatic understanding of Rahner’s concept of ‘transcendental’that orientates specifically to the logos of the biblical narrative. It is in this sense that heoffers his essay as a ‘Barthian reading of Rahner’. His conclusion: ‘Without denying theimportant differences between these two great theologians, perhaps we can glimpse herea significant dimension of union between them’81 , namely their mutual emphasis onword/spirit interplay within a trinitarian frame of reference.77 ‘Word and Spirit, hermeneutics and transcendental method: exploring their connections in Karl Rahner’,in Philosophy and Theology 7 (Winter, 1992): 185-212.78 Ibid, 193.79 Ibid, 204.80 Ibid, 209.81 Ibid, 210.149