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

unhelpful assumptions that diminish authentic dialogue between Christians and people ofother beliefs and worldviews. The following quote from Hans Kung, Rahner’s formerstudent 135 —and later a colleague—expresses this criticism in vivid language:Are the masses of the non-Christian religions really marching into the holyRoman Church? Or is this only going on in the theologians head? Anyway, inreality, they—Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and all the others, who knowquite well that they are completely ‘unanonymous’ remain ouside. Nor have theyany wish to be inside…The will of those who are outside is not to be ‘interpreted’in the light of our own interests but quite simply respected. And it would beimpossible to find anywhere in the world a sincere Jew, Muslim or atheist whowould not regard the assertion that…[he or she] is an ‘anonymous Christian’ aspresumptuous. To bring the partner to the discussion into our own circle in thisway closes the dialogue before it has ever begun…A pseudo-orthodox stretchingof the meaning of Christian concepts like ‘Church’ and ‘salvation’ is no answer to136the challenge of world religions ’The importance of Kung’s perception is the suggestion that a theological view, howeverattractive, must be reality-tested. His conclusion: Rahner’s grand idea of a universalChristian spirituality of silence is nothing but a theological version of ‘the emperor’s newclothes’.Kung’s comments draw attention to the tension between Rahner’s creative transcendentalapproach and his unreserved commitment to the received dogma of the Roman Catholicchurch. Is Rahner’s idea of the anonymous Christian, as with his idea of the supernaturalexistential and real symbol, stretching credibility by trying to express genuine spiritualinstinct and observation within the construct of a doctrinal assumption? Adams, in hisarticle ‘Rahner’s reception in twentieth century Protestant theology’ 137 , notes Lindbeck’sconclusion that reconciling a creative transcendental approach with the assumption ofreceived dogma involves Rahner in a process of ‘intellectual gymnastics’—a commentnot dissimilar to Kung’s ‘over-heated theological imagination’. Tyron Inbody, in hiscritical assessment of Rahner’s Christology, proposes that Rahner is creative, courageousand industrious in his construction of a transcendental idea of a God–person who saves,but then simply attaches this idea to the particular historical Jesus of Nazareth on the136 From On being a Christian, p.98 in Worthing, Foundations and functions, 287.137 The Cambridge companion to Karl Rahner, 211-224.170