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

As you see, at the top of the cartoon is a theological atomic physicist who’ssupposed to be me. What it means is that I speak about things that no oneunderstands. Beneath me sit the so-called multipliers. They are the ones who areexpected to hand on what I say. Beneath them sit the popularisers who spend theirtime putting what the multipliers say into simple language. Below them in thepulpit is an individual populariser who preaches to the Christian people whatneeds to be said there. Nearby sits Jesus Christ who listens to what is beingtranslated from what I’ve concocted, and he says: ‘I don’t understand.’ That’s justthe way it is when you’re a theology teacher 56 .Rahner’s observation that this is ‘just the way it is’ hardly does justice to the ultimatepastoral motivation behind the ‘atomic physicist’ nature of some of his writings. Thecomplex dialectic between Rahner’s multiple sources and target audiences contributes tothe ‘difficulty’ of his style. On the one hand, he seeks to explain what Christian truthmeans within the frameworks of a post-medieval and a rational philosophical worldview.To support this perspective, he utilises a particular way of explaining being andinterpreting texts that he drew from Heidegger. The spiritual heart and content of hismessage, however, he drew from the church fathers and Christian mystics, and his owndeep personal experience of God in relation to both. The dialectic tension climaxes in hisattempt to express theology that demonstrates Roman Catholic orthodoxy57 and at thesame time appeals to the spiritual instincts of a culture cynical about institutional religion.As certain aspects of Rahner’s corpus can be very difficult to read—primarily because ofhis commitment to counter the polarisation he observed between expressed orthodoxyand contemporary human experience and worldview—later chapters of this thesis willpresent the more complex, apologetic Rahner, using a ‘multiplier/ populariser’ approach.It is a continuing irony, however, that in his quest for theological engagement withmodern experience and thinking, at times Rahner becomes virtually incomprehensible tohis potential readers.56 Ibid, 19.57 R. Modras comments on the particular tension that Rahner felt in his younger years to extensively qualifyhis statements to ‘safeguard against any suspicions that he was straying beyond the bounds of orthodoxy’,Ignatian humanism – a dynamic spirituality for the 21 st Century (Chicago: Loyola Press, 2004), 205.18