Idea Transcript
TILBURG UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES & SCHOOL OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY
THE HANDS OF GOD A COMPARATIVE INQUIRY INTO THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN THEOLOGY
MARINUS GERARDUS DE JONG ANR 821008 RESEARCH MASTER IN THEOLOGY
PROF. DR. H.W.M. RIKHOF (SUPERVISOR) DR. H.J.M.J. GORIS (SECOND EXAMINER)
TILBURG, OCTOBER 2011
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION: I N THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
1
CHAPTER I: PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH QUESTION, AND OUTLINE
3
§1. Introduction
3
§2. Revelation and the Challenge of Religious Pluralism
3
§3. Theology of Religions
6
§4. Vatican II: New Answers and New Questions
7
§5. Problem Statement and Research Question
11
§6. Thesis Outline
14
CHAPTER II: KARL RAHNER’S THEOLOGY OF REVELATION
16
§1. Introduction
16
§2. The Mysterious Ground of Being: Natural Revelation
17
§3. The Transcendental Dimension of Revelation
20
§4. The Categorical Dimension of Revelation
25
§5. Recapitulation
29
CHAPTER III: THE TRIUNE GOD AND THE TWO MODALITIES OF SELF-COMMUNICATION
31
§1. Introduction
31
§2. Jesus Christ: The Unsurpassable Climax of the History of Revelation
32
§3. The Trinitarian Pattern of God’s Self-Communication
34
§4. Universal Revelation in the Spirit: Anonymous Christians
38
§5. The Relation Between Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit
41
§6. Recapitulation
44
CHAPTER IV: RAHNERIAN OPPORTUNITIES AND OBSTACLES FOR A
45
TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS §1. Introduction
45
§2. Rahner’s Strengths for a Theology of Religions
45
§3. Rahner Criticized: Erosion of Identity, Imperialism and Christocentrism
46
§4. Constructing a Trinitarian Theology of Religions
52
§5. Recapitulation
54
CHAPTER V: JACQUES DUPUIS’S TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
56
§1. Introduction
56
§2. A Trinitarian Christology for a Theology of Religious Pluralism
56
§3. The Trinitarian Rhythm of Salvation-History
58
§4. The Trinitarian Structure of Revelation
61
§5. The Christ Event and the Operative Presence of the Word and the Spirit
65
§6. The Value of Religious Pluralism
68
§7. Recapitulation
71
CHAPTER VI: GAVIN D’COSTA’S CHRISTOCENTRIC TRINITARIANISM
72
§1. Introduction
72
§2. The Hidden Exclusivism of Pluralism and Inclusivism
72
§3. The Trinity as Key to Reconcile Particularity with Universality
75
§4. Non-Christian Religions: Vehicles of Revelation and Salvation?
77
§5. Trinitarian and Ecclesiological Implications of the Work of the Spirit
80
§6. The Trinity and the Religions
83
§7. Recapitulation
86
CHAPTER VII: DUPUIS AND D’COSTA REVIEWED
87
§1. Introduction
87
§2. Trinitarian Leads for a Theology of Religions
88
§3. The Status and Value of Other Religions
93
§4. Trinitarian Theology of Religions: Possibilities and Obstacles
97
CONCLUSION: VALUE AND PROSPECTS OF A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
101
BIBLIOGRAPHY
107
INTRODUCTION
IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
The sign of the cross, accompanied by the Trinitarian recitation “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, is commonly used as a ritual act of prayer or blessing in various Christian denominations. The Trinitarian gesture and formula symbolize a central doctrine of Christian faith that distinguishes Christianity from all other religions. For the Christian, God is the One who revealed Godself in the ministry and message, the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. A Christian theological understanding of God cannot ultimately be divorced from this revelation of God in Jesus Christ (…) The full Christian doctrine of God discloses the trinitarian form of divine reality that must inform every symbol and doctrine.1 This study will take heed of this exhortation by David Tracy. In this thesis it will be investigated how a Trinitarian approach can inform and enrich the Christian theological view on the reality of religious pluralism. The choice for this specific theme can be explained as follows. Tracy mentions that the Christian theological understanding of God as Trinity is based on the revelation in Jesus Christ. It is indeed so that in the historical event of Jesus of Nazareth, Christians perceive a unique divine revelation that has an unequalled depth and richness. However, this historical event is at the same attributed universal relevance. Christians believe that the salvific message revealed in the particular human person Jesus Christ is a universal message, intended for all human beings of every time and every place in history. This conviction is based on the belief in a loving God who wills the salvation of all people. Scripture provides a clear attestation of these two fundamental Christian beliefs: This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all – this was attested at the right time. (1 Timothy 2, 3-5)
1
David Tracy, “Trinitarian Speculation and the Forms of Divine Disclosure” in Stephen Davis, Daniel Kendall & Gerald O’Collins (ed.), The Trinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 283.
2
THE HANDS OF GOD
Thus, at the heart of the identity of Christian faith lie both an element of particularity – the historical event of Jesus Christ – and an element of universality – the universal relevance of Christ. But it seems that these two elements are difficult to reconcile with each other. How can something that is historically limited be of universal relevance? This problem comes to the fore with special clarity when we consider it over against the contemporary context of religious pluralism. Looking around the globe, a rich variety of religious traditions can be observed. All these religions provide different accounts of the human relatedness to a transcendent dimension of reality. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religious traditions provide their own “ultimate” answers based on their own particular accounts of revelation. Moreover, this religious diversity has increasingly become an element of people’s everyday lives. Growing mobility and the availability of modern means of communication have made the situation of religious plurality an inescapable reality.2 How is the revelation in Christ related to these other accounts of revelation? Is there theologically speaking a role for other religions in revelation and salvation? Can Christians approach people from other religions in a respectful and open way without relativizing their own identity and truth claims? These questions illustrate the fundamental tension between particularity and universality inherent to the nature of the claims put forward in the Christian faith tradition. In this thesis we will examine to what extent a Trinitarian approach is able to address this tension in view of the plurality of religions. Thus, we aim to assess whether a Trinitarian perspective can contribute to a Christian theology of religions thereby strengthening the intellectual soundness and reasonableness of Christian thought. In taking up the central question of the tension between particularity and universality, the underlying project can be understood to serve both an “apologetic” and a “dogmatic” role. Inasmuch as this study aims to provide a reasonable grounding for certain seemingly contradicting Christian faith claims, one could argue that it is part of apologetics aimed at people outside the Christian tradition. This is in line with the traditional characterisation of the theologia religionum as part of the prolegomena of theology. However, we also share the conviction that theological viewpoints on other religions is co-determining the identity of Christianity and its understanding of faith.3 As such, this study is also part of fundamental theology insofar as it aims to provide a contribution to the intra-Christian discussion on truth claims and religious pluralism. Thus, it might be good to note beforehand that this study will discuss expressly theological positions on Christianity’s particularity and universality in relation to other faith traditions. The following chapter will give a more detailed account of the central problem at hand, formulate the central research question, and present an outline of the structure of this study. 2
Paul Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religion (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2002), 5. Pim Valkenberg & Harm Goris, “In Hem is Gods volheid lijfelijk aanwezig. Jezus en de religies” in Tijdschrift voor Theologie 48 (2008): 406. 3
CHAPTER I
PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH QUESTION AND OUTLINE
§1. INTRODUCTION This first chapter serves to sketch the general background of our investigation in order to situate it in the broader context of theological debate. We will begin by an explanation of the central concept of revelation and relate how this concept has come increasingly under critique since the Enlightenment. This critique brings to light the issue that forms the central theme of this study: the tension between the particular and universal dimension of Christian faith in view of the reality of religious pluralism. Section 3 provides a very short introduction of the theology of religions that originated in response to the Modern critique of Christianity and the grown awareness of other religions. Theology responded to these Modern challenges and a good example of this response is the Second Vatican Council. Section 4 will discuss this ground-breaking event in Catholic theology by touching upon the questions that it dealt with and by identifying the questions that remained unanswered. With this historical background in place, we will formulate in section 5 the research problem and the central research question that are the subject of this study and introduce the theologians that we will study in order to seek an answer to this question. Section 6 finally will outline the overall structure of this thesis. §2. REVELATION AND THE CHALLENGE OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM Our discussion of the challenge to the intelligibility of Christian faith presented by the reality of religious pluralism can be located within the broader context of Modernity’s critique of the Christian concept of revelation. Let us first explain this notion of revelation. The concept of revelation provides the foundation of faith claims and thereby functions to distinguish between Christian convictions and non-Christian convictions. Moreover, the understanding of revelation influences how other religions are approached, either in an inclusive or in an exclusive way.4 Depending on the context, revelation can be defined very broadly or more specifically. From a religious perspective, we can describe revelation as the disclosure of the divine to human beings. In contemporary Catholic theology, revelation is usually defined as the radical and total self-communication of God as the absolute mystery to humankind.5 The primary actor in revelation is God, who decides to unveil and manifest Godself. But without 4 Wolfgang Beinert, “Revelation” in Wolfgang Beinert & Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (ed.), Handbook of Catholic Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1995), 602. 5 Ibidem, 598.
4
THE HANDS OF GOD
a receptive response in faith by a human person revelation remains incomplete. Revelation presupposes actualisation by a receiving subject, i.e. apprehension and acceptation of the divine communication followed by a response in faith of the human being. The process of revelation therefore includes both the initiating action of the divine object and the dynamic response in faith of the human subject.6 A discussion of revelation is not complete without paying attention to its relation to the notion of salvation. Christians hold that revelation is no arbitrary matter but carries a very particular purpose: the salvation of humankind. God being infinitely good has a plan for all humans and wills the universal salvation of humankind. This divine universal salvific will is made manifest and brought to fruition in the words and events of divine revelation, the socalled history of revelation. Salvation history encompasses the historical actions of God’ offer of salvation and the human person’s positive response in freedom to God’s actions in the acceptance of this offer. So revelation and salvation are closely connected; both refer to the same thing, though from different perspectives. On the one hand, salvation history can be defined as the human encounter with revelation. The human subject in freedom either accepts or rejects God’s offer of salvation that is presented in revelation. On the other hand, revelation becomes manifest to the world precisely in its history of salvation. The salvation of humankind is the ultimate purpose why God reveals Godself at all.7 Since the age of Modernity, the epistemological status of theological truth claims has become increasingly a topic of intense debate. This has come to the fore especially in the theological attempt to (re)think the possibility and nature of Christian revelation. The Christian faith tradition holds that God manifests Godself in particular historical events, which are interpreted by prophets, apostles and biblical authors. God’s self-communication comes to a climax and fullness in the life, teaching, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.8 This notion of revelation and its corresponding truth claims came under critique in the Enlightenment. Two important developments played a role. Firstly, the Enlightenment’s new ideals of reason and autonomy began to undermine the authority of the Christian churches and their claims of possessing a privileged and final revelation. More concrete, the question was raised how a particular and historically conditioned revelation could be the vehicle through which the whole of humankind was saved by God.9 As a result, natural or philosophical theologies based exclusively on rational arguments were developed. Immanuel Kant, for instance, argued in Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der Bloßen Vernunft that the essence of religion can be mediated through pure reason alone. Because of this natural and universal access to the essence of religion, there was no or only limited need for
6
Roger Haight, Dynamics of Theology (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2001), 51-52. Heinrich Fries, Revelation (New York: Herder & Herder, 1969), 15. 8 Avery Dulles, “Faith and Revelation” in Francis Schüssler Fiorenza & John Galvin (ed.), Systematic Theology. Roman Catholic Perspectives, vol. 1. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 99. 9 Haight, Dynamics of Theology, 53. 7
PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH QUESTION AND OUTLINE
5
historical, positive revelation mediated by religious traditions. 10 Secondly, historical consciousness started growing from the nineteenth century onwards. The awareness arose that human beings are temporal beings situated within a state of becoming at a specific geographical place. This being situated in history, being “thrown” in a specific time and place, is beyond human control and has to be accepted as givenness. On the other hand, relating to reality through the medium of time also enables humans to grasp the distinction between
themselves
and
the
“other”.
Thus,
historical
consciousness
manifested
simultaneously the limitations of time as well as the possibility of transcending these limitations.11 The new ideals of the Enlightenment and the awareness of the historicity of human being challenged the Christian understanding of revelation. This challenge becomes particularly manifest in face of the questions presented by the reality of religious pluralism. Can a particular and historically conditioned revelation be the universal vehicle of salvation for humankind? What about the millions of people that have lived without ever coming in contact with the Christian message? In other words: can a God who wills the salvation of all condition salvation on the acceptance of a revelation that is limited in time and space, and therefore not available to each and everyone? Another related question is how other religious traditions and their truth claims should be valued. Are non-Christian revelations false or inferior, or should the plurality of religions and revelations be accepted in principle?12 In short, what we notice here through the challenge of religious pluralism is that Christian faith involves a difficult tension between historical particularity on the one hand and claims of universal significance on the other hand. To account for the variety of religions and truth claims and in order to determine the relation between these claims and Christianity’s claims, various theologies of religions have been developed.
10
In his Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Kant aims to demonstrate that our moral conscience leads to religious convictions. Human beings universally experience the duty to act according to the moral law (categorical imperative), and this moral nature rationally demands objects of religious belief. These objects – freedom, immortality of the soul and supreme being – are rational postulates based on the requirements of practical reason. However, in Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der Bloßen Vernunft Kant also recognizes that the reality of sin and evil conflicts with his ethical doctrine based on autonomous human freedom. Human persons ought to obey the moral law, but at the same time they are free to misuse their freedom. Kant explains this by pointing out the radical corruption of the human will. To overcome this corruption, human beings require divine assistance. The ideal of moral perfection – already present in the human mind – needs to be awakened. Therefore, to attain such regenerated human freedom capable of coming to the essence of religion, humans need a historical exemplar such as Jesus Christ. Kant maintains that Christianity of all positive religions comes closest to pure rational, moral faith, but he does not in principle exclude the possibility that other religious traditions have a similar revelatory potential. Thus, while Kant’s response to the challenge of universal availability of revelation and salvation retains the need for historical revelation, it also devaluates the particularity of the Christian historical revelation account. (Cf. James Livingston & Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, Modern Christian Thought. The Enlightenment and the Nineteenth Century, vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 62-68. 11 Rino Fisichella, “Historical Consciousness” in René Latourelle & Rino Fisischella (ed.), Dictionary of Fundamental Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1994), 433-434. 12 Haight, Dynamics of Theology, 53-54.
6
THE HANDS OF GOD
§3. THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS This short introduction to the theology of religions relies primarily on Gavin D’Costa’s chapter on this theme in the handbook The Modern Theologians. Christianity has responded in different ways to the reality of religious pluralism. It is common in the discourse of theology of religions to distinguish three types of theological responses: exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. However, it must be noted that this categorisation is not entirely adequate. Theologians of the same category often disagree on important issues and many theological responses involve an overlap between different approaches.13 Nonetheless the categorisation is prevalent in the mainstream theological debate on religious pluralism. The threefold typology serves primarily as a useful heuristic tool to address the discussions within the theology of religions. We will therefore explain the three categories in short hereafter. Exclusivism fundamentally affirms two central insights. Firstly, it holds strictly to the principle solus Christus, i.e. salvation comes from Christ alone. God has sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to bring salvation into the world. This salvation is both judgment and mercy for all people who are estranged by God because of sin. Secondly, only through explicit faith in Christ does the salvation won by Christ become available. One can only come to explicit faith by hearing the gospel being preached (fides ex auditu) and consequent repentance, baptism and adopting a new life. The exclusivist stresses the gratuity of salvation; it is entirely a free gift of God. Rather than questioning the particularity of this gift, one should proclaim its truth because it is of universal importance to all. Mission and evangelization are therefore preferred over dialogue. Exclusivism is attractive when one refuses to abandon the ontological and epistemological claims of Christian discourse in order to suit non-Christian discourses. It has also attracted those who see Christianity as a bastion against the uncertainties and changes of the modern age.14 Inclusivism has become the “default” position of many mainstream Christian churches. Quite a number of Roman Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox share this approach. Yet there are also differences, including the important question whether non-Christian churches have salvific structures. The inclusivist position has been associated with theologies of fulfilment. Such theologies acknowledge the possibility that pagans were inspired by God as a preparation for the gospel (preparatio evangelica). Consequently, the main argument posited by inclusivists is that grace is operative outside the visible Church. Inclusivism is attractive when one wants to retain ontological and epistemological tenets of traditional faith (for instance the solus Christus principle, Christ as sole cause of salvation in the world), while also developing and relating these tenets of faith positively to the modern world (for instance rethinking the notion of God’s universal salvific will). It seeks to construct a firm theological 13 Gavin D’Costa, “Theology of Religions” in David Ford (ed.), The Modern Theologians (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 627. 14 Ibidem, 630-631.
PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH QUESTION AND OUTLINE
7
basis in order to engage in fruitful dialogue with other religions, trying to do justice to old traditions as well as to new experiences.15 Pluralism is a relatively new approach and has many supporters within “liberal Christianity.” Theologians arrive at this position in different ways. Some argue that all religions have a common core or essence that can be historically codified, whereby they often focus on the mystical traditions in the world religions. Others argue that this common essence cannot be derived from historical comparison, but is only found by “esoteric” believers by penetrating the depths of their own mystical tradition. A third form of pluralism starts from historical relativity and therefore argues that all traditions are relative. One tradition cannot claim over others, all are limited and relative ways to salvation. Others again hold that despite important and substantial historical differences, there is a real unity of religions to be found in a common moral vision or in a common experience of liberation and salvation. The pluralistic approach is attractive for the increasing number of secularised non-churched agnostics or religious in Western society. It is also attractive if one rejects an either/or clarity and ontological exactness about every characteristic of the divine mystery.16 §4. VATICAN II: NEW ANSWERS & NEW QUESTIONS After having introduced the concept of revelation, the critique of Modernity, and the various theological responses to the challenge of religious pluralism, we will now turn to the contemporary debate in Catholic theology concerning these themes. In the last couple of decades, a number of Catholic theologians has contributed to the discussion of the nature and possibility of revelation and the challenges of religious pluralism. More specifically, they have considered whether Christianity’s particular account of revelation (based on the historical event of Jesus Christ) can be combined with Christianity’s claim of universal relevance (based on the conviction that God wills the salvation of the entire human race). But before we examine this central issue of particularity and universality into more detail, we will first explain the historical background against which these theological contributions originated. For Catholic theology, the Second Vatican Council was a ground-breaking event that caused a remarkable shift in the understanding of revelation. At the origin of this shift lies a new perspective on the relation between nature and grace. We will hereafter shortly discuss the main characteristics of this new perspective and its resulting concept of revelation. In the post-Reformation era, Neo-Scholastic Catholic theology developed a theory of grace in which grace was understood primarily as a created spiritual entity. The human person was thought to undergo through grace an ontological change, which brought him or her into a new relationship with God. As a result grace was viewed as extrinsic to nature, 15 16
Ibidem, 632-633. Ibidem, 627-628.
8
THE HANDS OF GOD
being a new “nature” or “essence” added as a superstructure to human nature.17 By stressing the radical separation between the natural and the supernatural orders, these orders began to appear as divided and self-enclosed spheres of reality. Human nature became reduced to “pure nature” without any access to the supernatural.18 The concern behind the development of this Neo-Scholastic duplex ordo was the preservation of the transcendence and gratuity of grace. The distinction between nature and grace aimed to prevent grace being viewed either as a human accomplishment or as the outgrowth of human nature.19 But the Neo-Scholastics hereby created a strange paradox. For on the one hand, they held that the supernatural order exists so as to effect absolute fulfilment for human beings. Yet on the other hand, revelation of the supernatural had become uninteresting and unintelligible for human persons in their self-enclosed natural world. If God imposes grace on human existence completely from outside nature, history and human experience, then there is no need for the human being to search for grace or revelation. The supernatural revelation simply does not correspond to anything that is grounded in the human being’s natural, historical world.20 In the mid-twentieth century the theological school that became known as the Théologie Nouvelle attempted to overcome the extrinsicism caused by the strict separation of nature and grace. Henri de Lubac can be regarded as the most prominent representative of the theologians that renewed the debate on nature and grace. In his book Surnaturel, de Lubac argues that the human spirit has a natural desire for God. He sought to substantiate this thesis by referring to Thomas Aquinas’ notion of the human person as created in God’s image. Because humans are created in God’s image, the final goal and end of human nature is the desire for the vision of God. This supernatural end of the human spirit differentiates humans from the other beings of nature that have ends proportionate to their natures.21 In this way, de Lubac also sought to unify the order of creation and the order of finality. From the beginning, God created and ordered the human being for and to a single end.22 However, de Lubac’s theory of the spirit’s natural desire for God does present a difficult paradox. On the one hand the finite being is open to the infinite, but on the other end he or she cannot attain this end him- or herself. By searching for an immanent grounding of transcendence and integrating the natural and the supernatural order, de Lubac endangered the gratuity of grace in the eyes of the Neo-Scholastics. For this reason the church rejected in the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) the natural desire for God. Yet this did not resolve the issue of nature and grace. While the Neo-Scholastics lost immanence in their attempt to preserve transcendence, the opposite happened in the theology of de Lubac. Therefore, the concept of
17 Stephen Duffy, The Graced Horizon. Nature and Grace in Modern Catholic Thought (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 55. 18 Roger Haight, Experience and Language of Grace (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1979), 122. 19 Duffy, The Graced Horizon, 55-56. 20 Haight, Experience and Language of Grace, 124. 21 Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, “The New Theology and Transcendental Thomism” in Modern Christian Thought, vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 204. 22 Duffy, The Graced Horizon, 79.
PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH QUESTION AND OUTLINE
9
revelation remained in need of further elaboration at the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century. A decisive development with regard to the understanding of revelation happened at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). The debate around the Théologie Nouvelle turned out to function as the catalyst for the transition toward the communicative-theoretical understanding of revelation.23 One of the major figures contributing to this transition to a more personal and historical conception of revelation was the theologian Karl Rahner. He managed to find a solution that avoided extrinsicism while maintaining the gratuity and transcendence of grace and revelation. Rahner’s contribution to the development of the concept of revelation will be our central topic in the next chapter. For now we will sketch the new perspective on revelation that the Second Vatican Council could adopt because of renewal in the theology of revelation, brought about by theologians such as MarieDominique Chenu, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, Bernard Lonergan and Yves Congar. We will discuss first the constitution on divine revelation Dei Verbum, and second the declaration on the relation of the church to non-Christian religions Nostra Aetate. In Dei Verbum, it becomes clearly visible that the Catholic Church adopted a new approach to theology in general and to revelation in particular. The tone of Dei Verbum is pastoral rather than polemical and it contains unmistakably an ecumenical spirit. The following quotation from Dei Verbum expresses this new outlook on revelation: In His goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will (see Eph. 1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph. 2:18; 2 Peter 1:4). Through this revelation, therefore, the invisible God (see Col. 1;15, 1 Tim. 1:17) out of the abundance of His love speaks to men as friends (see Ex. 33:11; John 15:14-15) and lives among them (see Bar. 3:38), so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself. This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having in inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. (Dei Verbum, 2) When we take a closer look at this passage, two important elements can be noticed. In the first place, acknowledging the divine initiative in revelation the Council emphasizes the personal dimension of revelation. God, by way of communicating Godself, invites human beings to enter into a community orientated toward salvation. Revelation is depicted as an encounter between God and the human subject in which ultimately the message of salvation 23
Beinert, “Revelation” in Handbook of Catholic Theology, 601.
10
THE HANDS OF GOD
is mediated. Thus, the economy of revelation coincides with the history of salvation. The repeated passing from the language of revelation to the language of salvation and vice versa indicates that the council viewed revelation and the offer of salvation as two inseparable (though distinguishable) realities.24 The second novelty visible in Dei Verbum is the explicit attention to the historical character of revelation. Vatican I scarcely took history into account. In contrast, Vatican II describes revelation as the combined and interdependent action of deeds and words that take place in the history of salvation. The use of the terms “deeds” and “words” denotes the aforementioned increased personal character of revelation, when compared to the NeoScholastic emphasis on revealed “facts” or “truths”. By this identification of God as the one who acts in history (deeds) and comments on these actions (words), the historical character of revelation is emphasized.25 The Council locates the divine events and words concretely in human history by referring to the personal history of Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and most importantly Jesus Christ (i.e. the stories that are handed on in Hebrew Bible and the New Testament). It is important to note that apart from historical revelation, Dei Verbum also identifies another type of divine self-manifestation. In the created order God has given a personal testimony, yet this cosmic testimony is not explicitly called revelation. The term revelation is reserved in Dei Verbum for the historical sequence of events and words that constitute God’s offer of salvation to humankind. This history ultimately culminates in the person of Jesus Christ “who is in himself both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation” (Dei Verbum, 2). Jesus Christ in his concrete existence perfectly reveals the Father and therefore completes the work of revelation. Although Dei Verbum introduces some refreshing new elements with its emphasis on the personal and historical dimension of revelation, it also prompts again the question how the particularity of the Christian concept of revelation can be explained with regard to the Christian claims of universal truth and significance. By describing revelation as God’s special self-disclosure through the events of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, the availability of revelation seems to be limited only to the Jews and Christians. Although the possibility of general or cosmic revelation is acknowledged, this does not take into account the other religions that have their own historical accounts of revelation. Moreover, the explicit designation of Jesus Christ as the mediator and fullness of revelation poses the question how these revelation accounts are related to the Christian concept of revelation. Interestingly, whereas Dei Verbum is silent with regard to revelation to people from other religious traditions, Nostra Aetate states that:
24 Gerald O’Collins, Retrieving Fundamental Theology. The Three Styles of Contemporary Theology (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1993), 49-54. 25 Latourelle, “Dei Verbum II: Commentary” in Dictionary of Fundamental Theology, 220-221.
PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH QUESTION AND OUTLINE
11
Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing ‘ways,’ comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. (Nostra Aetate, 2) No explicit reference is provided, but implicitly this passage seems to refer to Jn 1:9 “the true light which gives light to everyone was even then coming into the world.” By mentioning that in other religions there can be “a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men”, the Council seems to conceive of the possibility of revelation in non-Christian traditions. But as we will see later on, theologians as of yet do not agree on this issue. To complicate things even further, immediately after confirming the rays of Truth in the non-Christian religions Nostra Aetate proceeds by stating that: Indeed, she [the Catholic Church] proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself. (Nostra Aetate, 2) The Council in this passage seems to aim to remain faithful to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Consequently, other religions are in a sense subordinated to Christianity, since it is held that they can find the fullness of revelation and salvation only in Christ. In other words, nonChristian religions may participate to various degrees in the economy of revelation and salvation, but can find fulfilment only in Jesus Christ. 26 This does seem to create the impression that the plurality of religions ultimately is not recognised de iure by the council. Some theologians have argued that Vatican II has intentionally left open the essential problem of the theological quality of non-Christian religions.27 Whether intended or not, we must indeed conclude that the Second Vatican Council did not resolve the tension of particularity and universality in the Christian theology of revelation. As a result, the question regarding the relation between Christianity and other religions was not settled eiher. §5. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTION The Second Vatican Council sought to provide a theological response to Modernity’s questions and challenges. Dei Verbum redefined the Christian concept of revelation as being 26 27
Mariasusai Dhavamony, “Religion X: Theology of Religions” in Handbook of Fundamental Theology, 891. Cf. Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religion, 77.
12
THE HANDS OF GOD
personal and historical, while Nostra Aetate attempted to recognise and take seriously the reality of religious pluralism. Even though Vatican II was a major development in Catholic theology’s engagement with modern questions, the Council did not resolve the tension between particularity and universality underlying these questions. A tension that in the past decades has becomes manifest with particular clarity in the challenging confrontation with the reality of religious pluralism. The crux of the issue at hand can be explained as follows. Christianity is a historical religion; its concept of revelation and truth claims are ultimately based on the historical event of Jesus Christ. As Vatican II emphasizes the historical and personal character of revelation and confirms that the history of revelation culminates in the particular human person Jesus Christ. However, the Council also states that Jesus is “the mediator and fullness of revelation” and the one “in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself”. Here the universal dimension of the Christian truth claims becomes visible: the particular Jesus is the universal mediator of revelation and salvation. Conferring universal normativity upon a particular event conditioned by history is problematic. It immediately calls to attention a number of questions. How can the particular Christ event with its historical limitations be of universal significance? What is the nature and theological value of other religious traditions and what is their place within the history of revelation and salvation? How are revelation accounts of other religions related to the highpoint of revelation in Jesus Christ? Can other religious traditions be vehicles of revelation and salvation? It is possible for Christians to retain the normativity of Jesus Christ on the one hand and to approach other religious traditions and their adherents with respect and openness? The tension between particularity and universality that causes these questions forms the topic of this study. We want to explore how the Christian tradition can put forward universal claims despite the particular and historical foundation of these claims in conscious awareness of the plurality of religions. In other words: we are looking for a theology of religions that reconciles particularity with universality. The incapacity of a theology of religions to reconcile particularity and universality would weaken the reasonability of Christian truth claims. Failing to account for the aspect of particularity would lead to the pluralistic rejection of the normativity of Jesus Christ, a subsequent loss of distinct “Christian” identity or even a tendency toward relativism. Failing to account for the aspect of universality makes Christianity an exclusivist religion and makes it hard to maintain the universal salvific will of the Christian God. We have outlined how Vatican II noticed this issue, yet ultimately did not resolve it. Therefore, we will focus on one particular line of theological thought: the Trinitarian theology of religions. The Trinitarian approach in the theology of religions that will form the central focus of this research developed during the decades following Vatican II and that took up some the questions that the Council left
PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH QUESTION AND OUTLINE
13
unanswered. Our choice for the Trinitarian theology of religions can be explained as follows. As Karl Barth already aptly stated: The doctrine of the Trinity is what basically distinguishes the Christian doctrine of God as Christian, and therefore what already distinguishes the Christian concept of revelation as Christian, in contrast to all other possible doctrines of God or concepts of revelation.28 The doctrine of the Trinity thus functions as a structuring principle to distinguish the Christian concept of God and revelation from the concepts in other religions. As a result, the Trinitarian orientation enables a distinctly Christian theology of religions. In recent years, several theologians have argued that the doctrine of the Trinity holds the key to the Christian understanding of religious pluralism. Examples of this turn to the Trinity can be found in the theologies of Raimundo Panikkar, Jacques Dupuis, Mark Heim, and Gavin D’Costa. 29 Furthermore, other authors, without having developed Trinitarian theologies of religion on their own, have nonetheless expressed their appreciation for the Trinitarian approach in the theology of religions. Rowan Williams in a critical assessment of Panikkar’s theology praises Panikkar for showing that the Trinity can be a resource rather than a stumbling block in the dialogue with other religions. 30 Christoph Schwöbel has suggested that the doctrine of Trinity enables a proper understanding of the relation between the particular and the universal in the Christian faith.31 However, the focus on the Trinity simultaneously raises the question how this Christian doctrine can be universally relevant. Roger Haight has argued that universal significance of the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean that non-Christians should be converted to an acceptance of this doctrine. It rather concerns the question “whether the Christian doctrine of the Trinity unveils a dimension of reality, including human existence as such, that can generally be understood precisely without conversion and thus reflect the doctrine’s universal relevance and truth”.32 The goal of this research study is to assess whether the focus on the Trinity yields a fruitful approach for Christian theology of religions that seeks to hold in balance Christianity’s universal and particular dimension. This results in the following central research question:
28
Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik, I,1 (Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag A.G. Zollikon, 1947), 318. Cf. Raimundo Panikkar, The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man: Person-Icon-Mystery (New York: Orbis, 1973); Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1997); Idem, Christianity and the Religions. From Confrontation to Dialogue (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, Christianity, 2002); Mark Heim, The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001); Gavin D’Costa, “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality” in Gavin D’Costa (ed.) Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religion (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1992); Idem, The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000). 30 Rowan Williams, “Trinity and Pluralism” in Gavin D’Costa (ed.) Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1992), 3-15. 31 Christoph Schwöbel, “Particularity, Universality, and the Religions” in Gavin D’Costa (ed.) Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1992), 30-45. 32 Roger Haight, “Trinity and Religious Pluralism”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 44:4 (2009), 534. 29
14
THE HANDS OF GOD
To what extent can a Trinitarian theology of religions contribute to the development of an adequate theological response to the challenges of religious pluralism that maintains a balance between Christianity’s particular identity and Christianity’s universal relevance? In order to narrow down the scope of this study, we will focus in our search for an answer to this central question on the contribution of three theologians: Karl Rahner, Jacques Dupuis, and Gavin D’Costa. The first thing to note is that they are all Roman Catholic. This has certain consequences for our project. On the one hand, this facilitates a fruitful comparison because all three accept the authority of Vatican II and make use of such ecclesial documents in their argumentations. Moreover, they share a concern for and familiarity with the work of the forebears of their tradition. On the other hand, this choice of authors also implies certain limitations in so far as Protestant and Orthodox views are not taken into account. Given the limited scope of this study however, this restriction is unavoidable. The second thing to note is that Rahner, Dupuis, and D’Costa could all be identified as inclusivists. We have mentioned the inadequacies of the threefold typology and it should be stressed that the label inclusivist fits these three theologians to a different degree. Nevertheless, they share the intention to give a theological account of other religions that retains the epistemological and ontological notions of the Christian tradition yet tries to look beyond the boundaries of the church. §6. THESIS OUTLINE The subsequent discussion is basically divided in two major parts. The first part will explore the theology of Karl Rahner. This prolific theologian was highly influential before, during, and after the Second Vatican Council. Some cardinals even called him the “Holy Ghost writer” of the Council.33 Rahner is especially famous for his contribution to the Renaissance of Trinitarian theology on the one hand34 and for his concept of anonymous Christians on the other hand. Surprisingly however, he has not combined these central notions into a Trinitarian theology of religions. The first part of this study therefore seeks to explore to what extent Rahner’s theology contains elements with which a Trinitarian theology can be constructed. We will start in Chapter Two by discussing Rahner’s theology of revelation, which forms the foundation for the rest of his theology. Approaching revelation by way of a transcendental anthropology, Rahner comes to distinguish between the transcendental and the categorical dimension of revelation. Moreover, as will become clear in Chapter Three, as a result of God’s threefold relation to humankind we can distinguish two modalities of divine self-communication: the Son and the Spirit. We will examine how Rahner conceives of 33 Karl Rahner, I Remember. An Autobiographical Interview with Meinold Krauss, tr. Harvey Egan (New York: Crossroad, 1985), 82. 34 Cf. Herwi Rikhof, “The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity. A Reconstruction” Bijdragen 70:4 (2009), 423-457.
PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH QUESTION AND OUTLINE
15
the two divine missions and their mutual relation. Importantly, the combination of the (transcendental) theology of revelation with the Trinitarian structure of revelation results into the theory of the anonymous Christians. Here we will find openings for a theology of religions. But before we make up the balance, we will discuss in Chapter Four a number of theologians that have voiced criticism in response to Rahner’s theology. Taking this critique into account, we will review to what extent Rahner’s theology contains elements for the construction of theology of religions that is able to balance particularity with universality. Although Rahner made a great contribution to the debate on the tension between particularity and universality in view of the reality of religious pluralism, the debate was not settled. The second part of this study therefore engages into a critical discussion of the work of Jacques Dupuis and Gavin D’Costa. Both theologians have taken up questions that Rahner left unanswered. Chapter Five will discuss Dupuis’ Trinitarian theology of religious pluralism, that seeks to develop a form of “inclusive pluralism”. Chapter Six in turn will be devoted to D’Costa’s Christocentric Trinitarianism. Following the expositions of these recent contributions to the theology of religions, Chapter VII will compare the two proposals and thereafter provide an answer to the central research question by evaluating whether the Trinitarian approach yields insights for a theology of religions that seeks to balance particularity and universality in the Christian faith. We will end with a short conclusion that recapitulates the main insights gained in this study.
CHAPTER II
RAHNER’S THEOLOGY OF REVELATION
§1. INTRODUCTION In this chapter we will examine the theology of revelation of Karl Rahner. Although he discusses the theological concepts of revelation and salvation in close connection with each other, this chapter will focus mainly on Rahner’s theology of revelation. Rahner asserts that Christianity fundamentally claims to be a religion of absolute value, declaring to be salvation and revelation for every person. Revelation is intended not only for particular groups of people, not only for particular periods of history, but for all people until the end of history. At the same time, Rahner also acknowledges that such a claim conflicts with the historical nature of Christianity. Something historical seems by definition incapable of making absolute and universal claims.35 Universal relevance and particular historical identity at first seem to be irreconcilable characteristics of a religious tradition. But Rahner will argue in his theology of revelation that these seemingly conflicting elements can be reconciled in the Christian account of revelation. The crux of his argument concerns the intrinsic relationship between two distinct aspects of revelation. On the one hand, revelation has a transcendental dimension, constituted by the transcendental, unthematic experience of the absolute and merciful closeness of God. This forms the basis for Rahner’s argument for the supernatural existential. On the other hand, transcendental revelation is always historically mediated so revelation also has a historical or categorical dimension. These two sides of revelation exist in unity and in reciprocal relation to each other. The transcendental self-communication of God and its historical mediation in their unity constitute the universal history of revelation. For Rahner, the unique and final culmination of this history of revelation has occurred in Jesus Christ.36 Rahner’s theological method is often referred to as transcendental method. Important in this approach is the “turn to the subject”, the focus on human subjectivity and its role in human
knowledge
and
religious
belief.
In
transcendental
theology,
the
term
“transcendental” refers both to the subjective a priori conditions of knowledge of revelation (the Kantian meaning of transcendental) and to the dynamism of the human intellect to grasp the meaning of the totality of reality (the Scholastic meaning of transcendental).37 Both
35 Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith. An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, tr. William Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1978), 138-139. 36 Karl Rahner, “Observations on the Concept of Revelation”, pp. 9-25 in Karl Rahner & Joseph Ratzinger. Revelation and Tradition, tr. W.J. O’Hara (New York: Herder & Herder, 1966), 13-15. 37 Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, “Systematic Theology: Task and Method” in Francis Schüssler Fiorenza & John Galvin (ed.) Systematic Theology. Roman Catholic Perspectives (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 26-29.
KARL RAHNER’S THEOLOGY OF REVELATION
17
these elements of transcendental theology can be clearly perceived in Rahner’s theological approach. According to Rahner, every theological question necessitates a transcendental anthropology. If you want to know an “object of dogma”, you also have to inquire which a priori ontological conditions the subject must have in order to know this object.38 Thus, when talking about divine self-communication, the ontological constitution of the human being as the recipient of such divine self-communication must be investigated. That is why we will begin in Section 2 of this chapter with Rahner’s transcendental analysis of the human being. As we will see, from these anthropological reflections we will be led to the theological concepts of grace and revelation. In order to understand Rahner’s theology of revelation, insight into his view on the relation between nature and grace is indispensable. In the twentieth century, a fierce debate on nature and grace raged in theological circles. The arguments between the Neo-Scholastic theologians on the one hand and theologians of the Théologie Nouvelle on the other hand, led to the antithetical positions of extrinsicism and immanentism. On the one hand, the Théologie Nouvelle argued that since the human being is ordained to a supernatural end, this ordination must belong to the human ontological constitution. On the other hand, the Neo-Scholastics responded that this disposition cannot belong to human nature, because grace is then no longer gratuitous. With the publication of the article “Über das Verhältnis von Natur und Gnade” in 1950, Rahner enters into this debate attempting to find a middle position that is able to overcome this antithesis.39 Rahner argues for a new view on the relationship between nature and grace. It is in light of this new view on grace that we will discuss Rahner’s understanding of revelation. §2. THE MYSTERIOUS GROUND OF BEING: NATURAL REVELATION Before he discusses real or “supernatural” revelation, Rahner addresses the ontological a priori conditions for the human reception of revelation. If the human being is the addressee of divine revelation, then he must be able to receive and understand this communication.40 Rahner is convinced that there are presuppositions required to hear the message of grace, and that these presuppositions belong to the human being’s constitution. They can be accounted for in a philosophical and reasonable way, i.e. by reflecting theoretically on the self-interpretation
of
human
existence.
41
Rahner
demonstrates
these
ontological
presuppositions by referring to transcendental experience. Under transcendental experience he understands “the subjective, unthematic, necessary and unfailing consciousness of the knowing subject, that is co-present in every spiritual act of knowledge, and the subject’s 38 Cf. Karl Rahner, “Theology and Anthropology” in Theological Investigations Vol. IX, tr. Graham Harrison (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1973), 29. 39 Karl Rahner, “Concerning the Relationship between Nature and Grace” in Theological Investigations Vol. I, tr. Cornelius Ernst (New York: Crossroad 1974). 40 We will be paraphrasing the writings of Karl Rahner frequently in the chapter. Since we want to remain faithful to the original writings, the language used in this chapter might not always be gender-inclusive. 41 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 25.
18
THE HANDS OF GOD
openness to the unlimited expanse of all possible reality”.42 Such experience is transcendental because it belongs to the necessary and inalienable structures of the knowing subject. To begin with, the human being has the basic and transcendental experience of himself as a person and subject. He is able to grasp the totality of what he is and thereby becomes aware of the fact that he is the product of something that is radically different than himself. Yet precisely in the experience of being conditioned and limited, the human person is also able to transcend himself. By analysing his situation of being conditioned, the person affirms himself as the subject of this analysis. Precisely because as subject he is able to confront his own limitations, the human person is also able to transcend these limitations. In asking questions about himself, in distinguishing the conditions of his existence, the human being affirms himself as a subject who is more than the elements of his reality. This selftranscending quality of human subjectivity is present whenever the human being approaches the world through the act of knowing. As a subject, the human being has the ability to question everything and anything that he encounters in reality. It belongs his essence to wonder and to ask questions about himself and about the world. On the one hand, this infinite questioning manifests the human being’s finiteness and contingency of his origin. Yet on the other hand, in order to contemplate finiteness, a non-finite i.e. infinite perspective is required. To perceive a boundary as a boundary, you must be able to stand beyond this boundary. Consequently, when the human being through his encounter with the world experiences himself as conditioned and finite, he also simultaneously affirms that he has an unlimited, infinite horizon that allows him to grasp these limitations. Rahner calls this experience of unlimited openness co-present in all acts of knowledge a transcendental experience. The human subject who surpasses finiteness in this experience, experiences himself as transcendent being, as spirit.43 But in addition to this awareness of unlimited transcendence, the spiritual human being also experiences that he is not an absolute subject or pure spirit. Ultimately, the human being cannot explain himself. He is dependent on something wholly other from which he receives being. The human being therefore is fundamentally orientated towards an infinite horizon of being. Rahner calls this the pre-apprehension (Vorgriff) of being as such. The preapprehension of being is not experienced as a specific, individual object in the act of knowledge. It is rather an a priori openness of the subject to being as such. The mysterious mode of being is beyond categorical reflection and can never become an object of human knowing itself. Yet this mysterious mode of being enduringly confronts the human subject as it is present as background in all objective experiences of reality.44 Connected with the experience of self-transcendence in acts of knowledge is the experience of responsibility and freedom. The presence of the infinite horizon of being 42
Ibidem, 20. Ibidem, 26-32. 44 Ibidem, 33-35. 43
KARL RAHNER’S THEOLOGY OF REVELATION
19
provides the subject with a standpoint from which he experiences himself as free and responsible being. When the subject experiences himself as subject, he becomes aware that he is left to himself. Every person is placed in his own hands when it comes to the realisation of his existence through actions, willing and love. Since the human being has a corporeal nature, human freedom is actualised in the concrete realities of time and space. But prior to any concrete action in reality, the human being already experiences himself as the subject who is given over to himself. In this experience of real subjectivity and self-responsibility, an a priori transcendental experience of freedom is manifested. This transcendental freedom refers to the human being’s entire actualisation of existence. Moreover, this experience includes a moment of confrontation in which the subject has to give an account of this freedom to actualise himself. The subject is moved to either accept or reject the absolute ground of his transcendental freedom.45 Thus, when the human subject experiences himself transcendentally, he grasps his essential being as free, transcendent spirit orientated towards absolute being. Rahner sees the ground of this unlimited self-transcendence in what he calls the “whither” (Woraufhin) of transcendence.46 The term God is intentionally not used yet, because Rahner wants to discuss the type of knowledge of God that precedes knowledge in conceptual form, the experience of transcendence that precedes all conceptual knowledge of reality.47 The infinite horizon is always present in all experience, but cannot be defined or named. The human being’s transcendental experience or pre-apprehension of being is directed towards this indefinable and ineffable whither. But the whither of transcendence itself is absolutely beyond all determination. The ultimate measure cannot be measured.48 In the ordinary experience of reality the whither is not experienced in itself. But while it is absolutely beyond anyone’s disposal, the whither is nonetheless always present in the experience of subjective transcendence. In its own proper form of aloofness, the whither refers the subject to something else, something finite which can be approached directly. It forms therefore the condition for the possibility of categorical knowledge. The primordial distinction between the whither (absolute being) and objects in general (all beings) is always presupposed when human knowledge forms categorical distinctions and concepts.49 Thus, in every categorical encounter with concrete reality the subject transcendentally experiences the presence of the whither of transcendence. Since the wither cannot be approached directly but always remains an infinite horizon, it can be named mystery. Furthermore, it can be designated as the holy mystery in so far as the whither of transcendence is not only related to knowledge but also to freedom (willing and love). The whither of transcendence is also the
45
Ibidem, 35-38; 65. Karl Rahner, “The Concept of Mystery in Catholic Theology”, Theological Investigations Vol. IV, tr. Kevin Smyth (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966), 49. 47 Ibidem, 49-50. 48 Ibidem, 51. 49 Ibidem, 51-52. 46
20
THE HANDS OF GOD
source of freedom and love, as that which opens up the human transcendence of freedom and love and draws this movement of transcendence toward itself. The human subject exists completely at the disposal of the horizon of infinity. As the source and term of transcendence in freedom and love, the whither of transcendence can be called holy mystery.50 The human being as transcendent being is always confronted both in acts of knowledge and in acts of freedom with the whither of transcendence as holy mystery. Moreover, these acts of self-transcendence also bring a basic and original knowledge of being as such. In transcendental experience the whither of transcendence is posited from the outset as something genuinely real, as the original unity of essence and existence. The reality of absolute mystery is affirmed by the necessity with which human beings transcend themselves. It is only in the act of self-transcendence that they experience as subjects what reality is. Human beings need the infinite horizon to experience reality, and thereby they affirm necessarily the absolute fullness of being of absolute mystery.51 As the infinite horizon of every encounter with reality, absolute mystery is always infinitely different from the subject. If the mystery were not absolutely different, it would be an object of knowledge and thus no longer the ground of such knowledge. Furthermore, absolute mystery cannot be in need of the finite reality as this would break the radical difference. The finite reality on the other hand must be radically dependent on the absolute mystery that is the fullness of being.52 To recapitulate what has been said so far, we have seen that the transcendental investigation into the nature of the human being has resulted in the conclusion that the human person experiences himself in his finiteness as spirit of unlimited transcendence. As transcendent being he always lives in the closeness of absolute or holy mystery, which is the absolute ground of his knowledge, freedom and being. Although the word God itself has not been used so far, we can already see how Rahner’s anthropology leads into the realm of theology. In the transcendental experience of the subject, an ever receding mysterious horizon of infinity appears. This disclosure of infinite mystery to finite beings can be designated as a natural revelation. However, this leaves God still unknown “insofar as he becomes known only by analogy as mystery, insofar as he becomes known only negatively by way of his pre-eminence over the finite, and only by mediate reference, but he does not become known in himself by direct immediacy to him”. 53 Mystery in itself remains unknown, a question but no answer has become manifest. However, beyond natural revelation there is also real or supernatural revelation. Here Rahner moves from a philosophical discourse into a specifically Christian discourse. In Rahner’s terminology, this supernatural revelation consists of the event of God’s self-communication in grace. This revelation discloses the inner reality of God and his personal and free relationship to 50
Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 65-68. Ibidem, 68. 52 Ibidem, 77-78. 53 Ibidem, 170. 51
KARL RAHNER’S THEOLOGY OF REVELATION
21
spiritual beings. 54 As mentioned in the introduction, this single revelatory event has a transcendental and a categorical dimension. The next section will discuss the notion of transcendental revelation and show how it encompasses a truly universal revelation for all human beings. §3. THE TRANSCENDENTAL DIMENSION OF REVELATION The transcendental openness of the finite human being to absolute mystery can be deduced by way of the light of reason, independent from “real” revelation. But this philosophical inquiry does not reveal much about this mystery or whither of transcendence. The absolute mystery is only known negatively by way of pre-eminence over the finite.55 Christianity claims to know more. Rahner argues that Christians believe that God has revealed himself in self-communication to free human beings. Moreover, in this divine self-revelation salvation is offered to all human beings. That is why Rahner defines human existence as the event of a free, unmerited and forgiving, absolute self-communication of God in grace. The subject’s a priori dynamism of transcendence moving toward absolute mystery is supernaturally elevated. The ontological constitution of the human being has been given in grace a supernatural movement toward the loving God. According to Rahner, this is the real origin and centre of what Christianity really is, mediates, and means.56 This section will discuss Rahner’s notion of the transcendental dimension of revelation. We will start by reviewing how Rahner conceives of the relationship between nature and grace. His focus on grace understood as God’s indwelling in the creature induces Rahner to develop the notion of the supernatural existential. We will continue and explain how this existential as a supernatural elevation of human transcendence is offered in grace to every human being. Finally, we will discuss how Rahner argues that this offer constitutes real revelation, namely transcendental revelation, and how this transcendental dimension is related to the categorical dimension of revelation. In Rahner’s view, the fullness and mystery of grace is that God communicates himself in his own proper reality to the human being. Hence we can speak of an ontological selfcommunication of God that becomes present to the human being personally. However, this self-communication must not be understood as objective, conceptual, information about God. On the contrary, grace is not a “thing” but must be seen in the context of the personal love of God inviting a free answer of the human subject. 57 Rahner hereby renews the discussion on the relationship between the scholastic concepts of uncreated grace and created grace. He argues that grace is first and foremost God’s gift of himself to the human 54
Ibidem, 170-171. Ibidem, 170. 56 Ibidem, 116-117. 57 Karl Rahner, “Nature and Grace” in Theological Investigations Vol. IV, tr. Kevin Smyth (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966), 175-177. 55
22
THE HANDS OF GOD
person (God’s indwelling or uncreated grace). The created effect within a person (created grace) only follows as an effect of God’s indwelling. This is a critical response to the NeoScholastic theology with its emphasis on created grace. The Neo-Scholastics taught that a human person needs an ontological change in order to be able to receive uncreated grace. Thus, created grace is seen as the basis of God’s self-communication. In Rahner’s opinion this view is in conflict with the Scriptural and Patristic sources which teach that created grace is a consequence of God’s self-communication to the human being (uncreated grace).58 Rahner constructs his argument for the primacy of uncreated grace by starting from the concept of the beatific vision. The supernatural and immediate vision of God is the human being’s end according to Christian theology. What Rahner emphasises is that grace and the beatific vision have to be seen as two phases of the same event of God’s self-communication to humankind. They are the possibility and the realisation respectively of the immediate presence of the absolute mystery. The beatific vision or glory is the natural fulfilment of the human being, the divinization through grace.59 In both instances God communicates himself by way of quasi-formal causality to the human being. To understand this we must first understand the concept of formal causality. By way of formal causality a principle of being becomes a constitutive element in another subject, because it communicates itself and not something different to this subject.60 Thus, when God communicates himself by way of formal causality to the human subject, his divine essence becomes a constitutive element in the subject. Rahner uses the term quasi-formal causality because it is only analogically predicated of God. So in grace something happens that changes the human beings’s relationship to the absolute mystery that he transcendentally experiences. The absolute mystery formerly present as the distant source of human existence becomes now present in a mode of closeness. Yet God does not cease to be infinite reality and absolute mystery, and the subject does not cease to be finite existent being. Grace is not the beginning of the elimination of mystery, but the self-communication of God as absolute proximity and as absolute mystery.61 In the gift of his divine essence, God imparts divinizing effects on the human subject in whom the self-communication takes place. God is both the giver as well as the gift. So Rahner understands grace as the supernatural elevation of the human subject directing him towards the beatific vision.62 The term supernatural elevation might indicate that something is added extrinsically and accidentally to the essence of the human subject. But this would reintroduce the NeoScholastic duplex ordo. Rahner therefore presents the “supernatural existential” as a concept that describes the transformation of human transcendence. The supernatural existential
58 Karl Rahner, “Some Implications of the Scholastic Concept of Uncreated Grace” in Theological Investigations Vol. I, tr. Cornelius Ernst (New York: Crossroad, 1974), 320-325. 59 Rahner, “The Concept of Mystery”, 55. 60 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 121. 61 Rahner, “The Concept of Mystery”, 55-56. 62 Ibidem, 65.
KARL RAHNER’S THEOLOGY OF REVELATION
23
forms part of the ontological constitution of the human being without endangering the gratuity of grace. Rahner asserts that “if God gives creation and man above all a supernatural end and this end is first in intentione, then man (and the world) is by that very fact always and everywhere inwardly other in structure than he would be if he did not have this end, and hence other as well before he has reached this end partially (the grace which justifies) or wholly (the beatific vision)”.63 The first and last of God’s plans for the world is that God wills to communicate himself. The human person therefore is created so that God can communicate the love that he himself is.64 This necessarily has ontological consequences for the constitution of the human being. In order to be able to act as a real partner in the selfcommunication of God, the human being must be capable of either accepting or rejecting the divine offer of grace. Therefore, Rahner concludes that the ordination to the supernatural end must be the central and abiding existential of the human being. The orientation to the offer of self-communication is not restricted to particular or religious occasions, but permeates human existence. From the beginning the human person’s created nature is elevated or transformed, from the beginning every human person has been given a supernatural existential. As a result from this supernatural existential, the human being always has a burning desire for the immediacy of God.65 Although constitutive of the human being, the supernatural existential does not coincide with human nature. If the human being were created as this existential, then the supernatural end would be essentially unconditional. The human being would not be able to understand the supernatural existential as a free gift, but would rather view it as something that belongs to his nature. The fulfilment of this existential, God’s self-communication in grace, would consequently be viewed as something that would have to be offered by God. Grace would no longer be gratuitous. That is why Rahner argues that the supernatural existential is offered to human beings as a free gift, a gift which they must either accept of reject in freedom. In this way, the gratuity of the supernatural existential ensures the gratuitousness of God’s self-communication in grace. The human person recognises God’s self-communication as unexpected wonder, as something gratuitously given and not simply as the logical and necessary consequence of his nature.66 Because of God’s universal salvific will, God’s self-communication is offered to all human beings in all ages and places in history. So grace is offered again and again to all human beings in the form of the aforementioned supernatural existential.67 The supernatural existential as universal offer of grace can therefore be considered as the first stage in the divine process of self-communication. But although grace is offered to every human being,
63
Rahner, “Concerning the Relationship”, 302-303. Ibidem, 310. 65 Ibidem, 311-312. 66 Ibidem, 312-313. 67 Karl Rahner, “History of the World and Salvation History” in Theological Investigations Vol. V, tr. Karl-H. Kruger (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966), 103. 64
24
THE HANDS OF GOD
this does not mean that every person necessarily accepts this offer. Grace is offered prior to the human being’s freedom and invites every free existing subject to either accept or reject the offer of grace. In addition, God’s self-communication is also the necessary condition that makes the acceptance of it possible. Without the acceptance being borne by God’s self, the finite subject would reduce God’s self-communication to a finite and created gift.68 The communication of grace changes the structure of human consciousness; it is supernaturally divinized. In scholastic terms, the formal object of human consciousness – the a priori infinite horizon – is changed by grace.69 As a result, human subjects now transcendentally experience that the end of their movement of self-transcendence is no infinitely distant horizon. What they experience is a hidden yet absolutely close horizon. A welcoming mystery that is the inner fulfilment of their spiritual movement of infinite transcendence.70 The supernatural existential as a modification of human transcendence in grace is not straightforwardly experienced or identified. In the first place, the transcendental experience of God’s self-communication in grace cannot be clearly and unambiguously differentiated from the “natural” self-transcending dynamism of the human spirit. Actual human nature is never “pure” nature, a nature that is occasionally influenced by supernatural grace. On the contrary, human nature is continually determined by grace. Grace permeates human existence. The concept of “pure nature” therefore can only be used as a theological “remainder concept” (Restbegriff).
71
Because the supernatural elevation of human
transcendence is a priori present in all human acts of freedom and knowledge, it belongs to the transcendentality of the human being.72 As a result, although the orders of nature and grace are theoretically distinct, in actual human existence they are experienced as one. There is in concrete reality neither pure nature nor pure grace. The human subject experiences these orders always in their unity.73 In the second place, the supernatural existential cannot be an object of a categorical experience. The existential is not encountered as an object alongside other objects, but always unthematically, a priori present in every human encounter with the world in knowledge and freedom. A person might therefore have an experience of God’s self-communication, but this experience cannot be recognised with unambiguous and reflexive certainty. Grace pervades the totality of human existence, but cannot be sharply distinguished from the human being’s natural capacity of selftranscendence experienced in all actions of freedom and knowledge.74 However, stirrings of grace can be seen at work in the individual’s experience such as infinite longing, radical optimism, unquenchable discontent, radical protest against death, or radical guilt and of a
68
Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 128. Rahner, “History of the World”, 103-104. 70 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 131. 71 Rahner, “Nature and Grace”, 183-185. 72 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 129. 73 Rahner, “Nature and Grace”, 184. 74 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 129-130. 69
KARL RAHNER’S THEOLOGY OF REVELATION
25
still abiding hope.75 A person who opens himself to his transcendental experience of absolute mystery experiences that this mystery is not only an infinitely distant horizon, but also a hidden closeness and has an experience of grace. This original and thematic experience of grace takes place wherever human beings are living out their existence in their historical encounter with the world. 76 Nonetheless, this supernaturally elevated transcendental experience of God’s closeness can be characterised as a true supernatural revelation. It is what Rahner calls transcendental revelation. Not revelation in the sense of a propositional communication about an object, but in the sense of a change of consciousness. The human subject is made open to God as the goal of his movement of self-transcendence, even without categorically knowing and naming this absolute mystery specifically as God. Thus, a person is invited to accept the offer of God’s self-communication. If he accepts his supernaturally elevated transcendence, if he accepts his new orientation to mystery, then he exercises implicitly that what in the Christian tradition is called faith.77 Throughout the course of history, human beings reflect on their transcendental experience of the absolute mystery and try to interpret it, express it into words and categories. In the next section we will turn to this categorical (historical) mediation of transcendental experience and its history of interpretation. With the help of categorical, theological interpretations people will be able to recognise their transcendental experience of the absolute mystery. Yet they will never be able to recognise it with unambiguous and reflexive certainty as God’s self-communication. 78 The transcendental experience of the whither of transcendence can only clearly and unambiguously be translated into objectivated, thematic knowledge with the help of categorical revelation. For Rahner as Christian theologian, this means that a transcendental encounter with God’s selfcommunication remains anonymous or incomplete as long as it is not interpreted from without by the message of Christian faith. 79 Rahner believes that the full categorical interpretation of transcendental experience has happened in Jesus Christ. He is the complete actualisation of both transcendental and categorical revelation.80 What Jesus Christ reveals is the central content of the Christian faith: that God in his self-communication draws near to human beings. §4. THE CATEGORICAL DIMENSION OF REVELATION On the basis of a transcendental analysis Rahner asserts that the human person is a free and transcendent being. However, to these transcendental characteristics of the human being
75
Rahner, “Nature and Grace”,183-184. Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 131-132. 77 Rahner, “History of the World”, 104. 78 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 130-132. 79 Rahner, “Nature and Grace”, 180-181. 80 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 174-165. 76
26
THE HANDS OF GOD
must be added that the human subject is a being in the world and in time, i.e. a being in history. The human being is not able to grasp his transcendental subjectivity by way of unhistorical reflection and introspection. The realisation of his transcendental subjectivity requires the mediation of history. A person finds himself as being in the material and external world. By self-alienation from this world he discovers and affirms himself as a being who belongs both to the material world of things and to the transcendental world of persons. Time, world and history mediate the subject to himself as free and spiritual subject. Transcendental subjectivity and freedom thus are mediated and realised through experience, suffering, and acting in history. Since history mediates the human being’s subjective essence, we must assert that historicity is a constitutive element of the human subject too.81 From this assertion logically follows that the supernatural existential has a history as well. The elevation of human transcendence is an ontological reality that is always present in the subject as a priori condition. This supernatural orientation becomes actual through a posteriori experience of the historical, categorical reality. Furthermore, the human being is not only an individual but also a social being. The history of the supernatural existential therefore unfolds not only as an individual history. Because of the social dimension of human existence, the supernatural existential becomes actualised as the history of social units, of peoples, of the whole human race. Thus, the history of the supernatural existential as the offer of God’s self-communication to the freedom of the human being is at once the single history of the salvation and revelation. 82 Rahner emphasises the fundamental connection between revelation and salvation: “Revelation is revelation of salvation and therefore theology is essentially salvation theology. What is revealed and then pondered upon in theology is not an arbitrary matter, but something which is intended for man’s salvation.” 83 The single history of salvation and revelation must be seen as the synthesis of God’s and humanity’s historical activity. On the one hand, God freely and absolutely communicates himself to the human subject in his freedom. This history is the one true history of God himself and manifests his power to enter into the time and history he has created. On the other hand, since God addresses the human person in his freedom (which is grounded in God), the history of revelation and salvation is also the history of human freedom. This interconnectedness of divine and human activity means that divine history of salvation always appears in the human history of salvation, and that divine revelation always appears in human faith.84 Moreover, the history of salvation and revelation as taking place within the world is also co-extensive with the history of the world. This can be explained by recalling that transcendence and historicity both belong to the essence of the human being. To these essentials of the human being correspond two mutually conditioning moments that form 81
Ibidem, 40-41. Ibidem, 140-141. 83 Rahner, “Theology and Anthropology”, 35. 84 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 141-142. 82
KARL RAHNER’S THEOLOGY OF REVELATION
27
together the essence and reality of the history of salvation and revelation. On the one hand, God’s absolute self-communication is offered to human freedom. This offer is either accepted or rejected by the human subject in freedom. Thus the transcendental event of God’s selfcommunication seems to be trans-historical since it is permanent and always present. On the other hand, because all transcendence is historically mediated, this transcendental event also necessarily takes place within history. The original act of acceptance or rejection of God’s self-communication is actualised in the concrete historical corporeality of the human being.85 Moreover, mediation of transcendence is not confined to explicitly religious material of concrete experience. On the contrary, the transcendentality of the human being is mediated in all the categorical material of a posteriori experience. Consequently, every categorical reality through which the subject becomes present to itself mediates the supernatural selfcommunication in grace. Whenever a subject performs acts of knowledge or freedom through which he becomes present to himself, God’s self-communication is mediated.86 Revelation and salvation are therefore taking place everywhere in the history of mankind. Every person who does not close himself, every person who does not reject the offer of God’s self-communication, but accepts it if only implicitly has touched on divine revelation and can be saved. The history of revelation and salvation, however, is not identical with the history of the world. In profane history God’s offer of self-communication is rejected or misinterpreted as well.87 On the basis of the co-extensiveness of world history and revelation and salvation history, it can be concluded that there is in every human subject a transcendental experience of God’s self-communication which is a priori present in every self-actualisation in the concrete world. This transcendental experience needs a categorical, historical mediation to enter into the consciousness of the human subject, but this mediation does not necessarily have to make the transcendental experience explicit. The transcendental experience mediated through the concrete world constitutes supernatural revelation, without being explicitly conceptualised and thematised as God’s revelatory activity. 88 Therefore, since every human being through actions of knowledge and freedom in the concrete world comes into touch with God’s self-communication, it can be asserted that transcendental revelation is truly universal revelation. While the transcendental experience of God’s self-communication mediated by history already constitutes real revelation, such transcendental revelation nonetheless has an intrinsic dynamism towards its own objectification. The actualisation of the supernatural existential does not remain a merely unthematic and a priori experience, but has a history of categorical self-interpretation. This explicit process of self-interpretation of the implicit transcendental experience results in conceptualisation and objectification. As social beings, people will attempt to put into words what they hold to be as an unthematic encounter with 85
Ibidem, 143-144. Ibidem, 151. 87 Ibidem, 144-146. 88 Ibidem, 151-152. 86
28
THE HANDS OF GOD
God. For instance when they are confronted in the loss of a relative with the finitude of human existence. Not only does objectification enable them to communicate this experience, but it might also help them in clarifying what it exactly is that they experienced. Thus, the dynamism of objectifying reflection on transcendental experience necessarily leads to the history of categorical revelation. Furthermore, this history of revelation moves in an irreversible direction towards a highest and comprehensive self-interpretation of the transcendental experience of revelation. The transcendental experience will ever more intensely be interpreted in an explicitly religious sense. From the transcendental experience of revelation therefore flows a universal, categorical history of revelation.89 The universal categorical history of revelation can also be called the history of religion when the self-interpretation becomes explicitly religious. In every religion, the attempt is made to mediate the original and non-objective transcendental experience of revelation by making it reflexive and putting it into propositions. In principle, every individual can engage in self-interpretation and objectification of transcendental experience. The capability to grasp and proclaim the divine message of God’s self-communication is grounded in what is called in the Christian tradition the “light of faith”, which is basically the supernatural existential.90 Historical, religious self-interpretation of transcendental revelation by individuals leads to a particular categorical history of revelation. Furthermore, since such historical selfinterpretation takes place at different times in history and in different places in the world, there originate various particular or special categorical histories of revelation. However, the categorical history of revelation is always affected by the darkening and depraving effects of human guilt. For this reason, every self-interpretation of transcendental revelation remains provisional and not yet completely successful. Even though particular histories of revelation might contain partial pure self-interpretations, they will always be shot through with erroneous human interpretations.91 Moreover, Rahner points out that the self-interpretation of transcendental revelation also has an important social dimension. The self-interpretation of a person’s own transcendental existence is not a solipsistic affair, but necessarily takes place in and through the historical experience of a religious community. Within this community are certain individuals who have the capability to express the self-interpretation of transcendental revelation correctly in words and deeds. Their God given “light of faith” has been concretely and historically configured so that they can mediate the transcendental experience of correctly. These bearers of revelation are in the tradition of the Old and New Testament characterised as prophets. Consequently, their expression may become for others too the correct and pure objectivation of transcendental experience.92 When a religious community knows with certainty that their self-objectivation of transcendental revelation (derived from 89
Ibidem, 153-155. Ibidem, 159. 91 Ibidem, 156. 92 Ibidem, 158-160. 90
KARL RAHNER’S THEOLOGY OF REVELATION
29
their prophets) is directed by God so that it remains pure, when this objectivation is shown to be legitimate by signs, then we have what is known as public, official, particular and ecclesially constituted revelation.93 Such a particular categorical history of revelation must be seen a species of the universal categorical history of revelation. It is the full realisation of the essence of both transcendental and categorical revelation and their single history.94 Rahner maintains that in the collective history of humankind, in the history of religion outside the history of the Old and New Testament, there can be partially pure and correct selfinterpretations of the transcendental experience of God. However these are merely partially pure and complete, since human sinfulness corrupts every human historical selfobjectivation of God’s self-communication. As a Christian theologian, for Rahner the complete and pure categorical history of revelation is to be found in the unsurpassable event of Jesus Christ. He is the criterion for distinguishing in the history of religion between the human misinterpretations and legitimate interpretations of the transcendental experience of God.95 The next chapter will review how Rahner conceives of Jesus Christ as the climax of the history of revelation. §5. RECAPITULATION After this detailed discussion of the various elements of Rahner’s theology of revelation we will conclude this chapter with a brief recapitulation. Rahner starts his investigation of revelation with a transcendental anthropology. From this he concludes that the finite human subject has a self-transcending movement toward an absolute horizon, also called the whither of transcendence. This could be termed natural revelation. However, Rahner argues that on the basis of the message of Christian faith this movement of self-transcendence is known to be a grace given dynamism toward the immediacy of the loving God. The human being is the event of God’s absolute self-communication in grace. This event of revelation has two mutually conditioning elements, the transcendental dimension and the categorical dimension. Since God wants to communicate himself, he has not only created the human being but also gratuitously elevated human transcendence. As a result, every human being has a supernatural existential that enables the reception of Gods’ transcendental selfcommunication. Yet transcendental revelation is not experienced outside the realm of concrete human life, but always historically mediated. God’s offer of self-communication is a priori present in every human act in knowledge and freedom. Prior to the actualisation of human existence, God’s self-communication is offered to human freedom. In living their lives, human beings unthematically either accept or reject this offer. That is why the history of the supernatural existential is co-extensive with the profane history of the world. This 93
Ibidem, 174. Ibidem, 155. 95 Ibidem, 156-157. 94
30
THE HANDS OF GOD
notion of the continuing offer of God’s self-communication to human subjects in their transcendentality constitutes Rahner’s concept of transcendental revelation, which is truly universal revelation. As has been discussed in Section 3, the transcendental experience of God’s selfcommunication does not remain unthematic but has a dynamism towards its own interpretation
and
objectification.
Through
reflective
interpretation
the
implicit
transcendental revelation will be put into explicit categories and concepts. Thus from the history of the supernatural existential flows a history of categorical interpretation. When the transcendental revelation experience becomes interpreted in an explicitly religious sense, we can speak of the history of religion. Since such interpretation takes place according to the particular context in time and space, there are different religious communities that have different particular categorical interpretation histories. Such categorised accounts of the transcendental experience of God’s revelation constitute the categorical dimension of revelation. Because of human sinfulness, these interpretations always remain ambiguous, but there is a historical dynamism toward the fullest interpretation. Rahner as a Christian theologian believes that the full categorical interpretation of transcendental experience has happened in Jesus Christ, as we will see in the next chapter.
CHAPTER III
THE TRIUNE GOD AND THE TWO MODALITIES OF SELF-COMMUNICATION
§1. INTRODUCTION The previous chapter provided a detailed discussion of Rahner’s theology of revelation. Important concepts such as revelation understood as divine self-communication, the relation between grace and nature, transcendental revelation and categorical revelation were explained. The most important element for a theology of religions is Rahner’s account of the universality of transcendental revelation. Since all people always and everywhere throughout history are offered God’s self-communication in grace in the form of the supernatural existential, this transcendental revelation can rightfully and truthfully be understood as universal revelation. Although the terminology used so far is sometimes explicitly Christian in nature (grace, beatific vision, etc.), it has not become clear yet how this theology of revelation is specifically Christian. However, Rahner repeatedly argues that in light of the Christian message we learn that the mysterious ground of being that we encounter in transcendental experience is not a “general God” or a philosophical concept. After having discussed the formal structure of revelation it is therefore time now to take into account the material (Christian) content of revelation as well. This chapter will explain how Rahner argues for a distinctly Christian concept of God, namely the Triune God. To begin with, we will examine in Section 2 how Rahner as a Christian theologian argues for the ultimacy of Jesus Christ by locating the highpoint of the universal history of revelation and salvation in the Christ event. In Section 3 we will proceed and see how in the event of Jesus Christ we come to know that God’s revelation has a Trinitarian structure. Rahner argues that this Trinitarian pattern of divine selfcommunication reveals to us that the mysterious ground of being is in fact the Triune God. In Jesus Christ we learn that God the unoriginate Father communicates him-self in the two mutually conditioning modalities of Son and Spirit to humankind. Section 4 will again take up the argument for the universality of transcendental revelation. Rahner’s theory of anonymous Christians aims to show the universal presence of God’s grace through the work of the Holy Spirit. Yet this poses the question as to the relation between the Spirit and the Son. Section 5 will examine therefore how Rahner relates the absolute highpoint in the history of revelation (Jesus Christ) to the universal offer of grace (the Holy Spirit).
32
THE HANDS OF GOD
§2. JESUS CHRIST: THE UNSURPASSABLE CLIMAX OF THE HISTORY OF REVELATION Rahner’s argument for the ultimacy of Jesus Christ revolves around the notion of the Absolute Saviour. We have mentioned in the previous chapter Rahner’s important presupposition that the world, including humankind, has been created so that God can communicate himself. For this reason, human beings have been given by grace a dynamism of self-transcendence (the supernatural existential) by which they are directed towards God’s self-communication and its acceptance. The ultimate goal of the human being is to become immediately conscious of the absolute ground of transcendence. The final end of the human being is the direct experience of God in the beatific vision. However, in concrete, historical human existence only the beginning of this movement towards the final goal is experienced. God’s self-communication in grace is transcendentally experienced through the mediation of the historical and material world and needs interpretation, but human self-consciousness of absolute mystery always remains partial and incomplete. The dynamism of human selftranscendence therefore moves historically towards a highest and most comprehensive interpretation of the mysterious ground. Human history searches for an explicit and unambiguous beginning in time and place of God’s self-communication, which forms a permanent guarantee of its reality. In other words, the history of human self-transcendence looks for an Absolute Saviour.96 The Absolute Saviour is according to Rahner “that historical person who, coming in space and time, signifies that beginning of God’s absolute communication of himself which inaugurates this self-communication for all men as something happening irrevocably and which shows this to be happening”. 97 This notion does not imply that God’s selfcommunication only starts in time with this person. We may recall that Rahner asserts that the history of revelation is co-extensive with the history of the world. The Saviour manifests something different. Firstly, in the subjectivity of the Saviour the process of God’s selfcommunication to the spiritual world is irrevocably present as a whole. Secondly, in the Saviour this self-communication can be recognised unambiguously as something irrevocable. Thirdly, in the Saviour God’s self-communication reaches its unsurpassable climax in human history. Thus, the Saviour manifests the culmination of the history of God’s self-communication without being the end of this history. As the climax of God’s selfcommunication, the Saviour must be both the absolute promise of God himself to all human beings and the unconditional human acceptance of this offer of self-communication. Then, God’s self-communication is unambiguously and irrevocably present in the world in a historical and communicable way.98 Christians believe that this event of the Absolute Saviour has occurred in Jesus Christ. In the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God’s self96 Karl Rahner, “Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World” in Theological Investigations Vol. V, tr. Karl-H. Kruger (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966), 170-174. 97 Ibidem, 174-175. 98 Ibidem, 175-176.
THE TRIUNE GOD AND THE TWO MODALITIES OF DIVINE SELF-COMMUNICATION
33
communication in grace and its human acceptance become manifested as definitive and irrevocable. That what is expressed and communicated (God himself), the mode of expression (the historical reality of Jesus Christ), and the human acceptance of the communication (by the man Jesus Christ) have become absolutely one. Jesus Christ is therefore revelation in the absolute sense.99 The fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ can be clarified by the doctrine of the hypostatic union. On the one hand, the climax of the history of divine self-communication must be part of the world. The Absolute Saviour must be a moment in the history of God’s self-communication to the world. Christian theology indeed holds that Jesus is true man, truly part of the historical and material world. The Word of God has assumed an individual human nature. Consequently, Jesus has absolutely everything which belongs to the human nature: both a finite material corporeality and a self-transcending subjectivity orientated towards God. Like every human person Jesus is a recipient of God’s self-communication in grace and therefore forms part of the history of self-transcendence moving towards the direct presence of God. But Jesus differs from other human beings, because he has radically and completely accepted the gift of divine self-communication. This absolute acceptance is expressed in his obedience, his prayer and the freely accepted destiny of his death. Thus, Jesus as the absolute human acceptance of God’s self-communication forms the climax of the history of human self-transcendence moving towards the absolute closeness of God. He possesses the beatific vision which is promised in grace to all people. In Jesus Christ, God’s self-communication is no longer merely a possibility but becomes an irrevocable reality.100 On the other hand, Jesus Christ is not only the climax of human self-transcendence, he also represents the definitive highpoint and fullness of God’s self-communication. The process of God’s self-expression to the world that has been initiated with creation reaches its full realisation in the incarnation.101 In Jesus Christ, God communicates himself explicitly and irrevocably in a historical and tangible form. Apart from the beatific vision, every selfcommunication of God is mediated by a finite reality. Because of their finite character these mediations are transitory and surpassable. In order to be an absolute, final, and unsurpassable self-communication the mediating reality must be God himself. It must be a human reality which belongs absolutely to God. 102 This is precisely what is meant in Christian theology with the notion of hypostatic union. In Jesus there is a unity between the human and divine nature that has the character of a self-communication. Because the concrete human nature of Jesus is completely receptive, the Logos can assume this nature so that God’s reality is absolutely communicated. Thus the reality of Jesus Christ, in whom God’s absolute communication is present both as offer and as acceptance, is God himself. In the tangible historical reality of Jesus Christ God himself is encountered. Proclaimer and 99
Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 174-175. Rahner, “Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World”, 176-178. 101 Ibidem, 177-178. 102 Ibidem, 182-183. 100
34
THE HANDS OF GOD
proclamation, human reality and God’s absolute salvific will become in Jesus Christ irrevocably present to humankind. He can therefore rightly be asserted to be the climax of the history of God’s self-communication.103 However, the fact that Jesus Christ is the climax of revelation does not mean that the history of God’s self-communication has ended with him. All spiritual beings are offered final self-transcendence into God through the universal offer of God’s self-communication in grace. The beatific vision is promised to all human beings in grace as their fulfilment. The question then arises how the Jesus Christ as climax of human self-transcendence is related to the self-transcendence of humanity in general. Rahner responds by arguing that although the incarnation is a unique event, it is nonetheless an intrinsic moment in the universal bestowal of grace. The hypostatic union is not only the climax of the history of human selftranscendence, but also its condition.104 When Jesus’ human nature is assumed by God as his reality in the incarnation, human nature has arrived at the point to which it always strives by virtue of its essence: the direct immediacy to God. The nature which obediently gives up itself, which empties itself for the complete acceptance of God’s self-communication becomes the nature of God himself. The incarnation is the unique case of the total actualisation of the human reality in concrete history. In Jesus Christ therefore the true nature of humanity is revealed. He reveals that God dwells in all human beings calling them to become what Jesus is: perfect communication with God i.e. direct immediacy to God.105 Consequently, Jesus Christ shares with humanity God’s indwelling presence in grace (since he is true man), but Jesus is different from humanity in so far as his ontological reality is God selfcommunicating himself (since he is true God). Therefore, as the irrevocable revelation of the human goal, Jesus Christ forms the ground of all human self-transcendence towards God.106 §3. THE TRINITARIAN PATTERN OF GOD’S SELF-COMMUNICATION We have now seen how Rahner argues that the history of revelation has reached its unique and unsurpassable high point in the God-Man. In the event of Jesus Christ there is an irrevocable unity between the transcendental self-communication of God to human beings and its historical mediation and interpretation. Jesus Christ is in himself: 1) God as the one who is self-communicated; 2) the human acceptance of this self-communication; and 3) the definitive historical manifestation of this offer and acceptance of divine self-communication. But in this climactic unity of transcendental self-communication and historical mediation and manifestation, there is also something new and important revealed: the Grundgeheimnis
103
Rahner, “Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World”, 181-184. Rahner, “Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World”, 180-181. 105 Karl Rahner, “On the Theology of the Incarnation” in Theological Investigations Vol. IV, tr. Kevin Smyth (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966), 109-110 106 Rahner, “Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World”, 182-183. 104
THE TRIUNE GOD AND THE TWO MODALITIES OF DIVINE SELF-COMMUNICATION
35
of the Triune God. 107 In Jesus Christ it becomes manifest that the universal history of revelation and salvation is taking place according to a Trinitarian pattern. God is revealed not to be a numinous distant power, but rather the Triune God who seeks immediate closeness to human beings by communicating himself. In support of this assertion Rahner introduces a famous presupposition known also as Rahner’s axiom or Rahner’s rule. In his essay “Der dreifaltige Gott als transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte” he argues for the axiom “the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa”. Rahner comes to this insight because he places the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly in a soteriological context. Salvation forms the key in understanding how Christians have a distinct concept of God: God as Trinity.108 For Rahner, the only possible explanation as to why the mystery of the Trinity has been revealed to us, is because this mystery is intrinsically related to our salvation. Even stronger, he argues that the Trinity is in essence a mystery of salvation. 109 Combined with the theological presupposition that God wills the salvation of the whole of humankind, the Trinity must be of existential interest for all people and therefore in some way affect each and everyone. As has been mentioned earlier, revelation and salvation are intrinsically connected in Rahner’s theology. Salvation history encompasses the history of the offer of God’s absolute self-communication to humankind on the one hand and the acceptance by human beings of this offer in faith on the other hand. Thus the economy of salvation coincides with the history of revelation.110 This history of revelation and salvation learns us that God draws near to humanity in a threefold way. But for this self-communication to be real self-communication, the God who appears in the economy of salvation is God as he is in himself. And since God’s self-communication in the economy of salvation has a fundamentally Trinitarian pattern (revealed unambiguously in Jesus Christ), it becomes manifest to us that God is not a numinous power or abstract being but rather the Triune God.111 Christianity thus has a distinct concept of God, which is based on how this God has revealed himself throughout history in order to offer salvation to humankind. For Rahner, Christianity in essence mediates the message that the loving God draws near to the world in free self-communication in grace. Within this single act of divine self-communication two modalities can be distinguished that are known as the two divine missions. Rahner argues that in the transcendental self-communication in which human self-transcendence is supernaturally elevated (the supernatural existential) God is present to us as Holy Spirit.
107 Karl Rahner, “Offenbarung” in Karl Rahner & Adolf Darlap (ed.) Sacramentum Mundi. Theologische Lexikon für die Praxis, Band III (Freiburg – Basel – Wien: Herder, 1969), 834-835. 108 Karl Rahner, “Der dreifaltige Gott als transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte” in Johannes Feiner & Magnus Löhrer (ed.) Mysterium Salutis. Grundriss Heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik, Band II (Einsiedeln – Zürich – Köln: Benziger Verlag, 1967). 109 Rahner, “Der Dreifaltige Gott”, 327-328. 110 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 141-142. 111 Karl Rahner, “Trinität” in Sacramentum Mundi, 1012.
36
THE HANDS OF GOD
Jesus Christ is because of his hypostatic union the climax of the history of revelation and as such revelation in an absolute sense. In this irrevocable historical expression of God’s selfcommunication, God is present for us as the Word (Logos) or Son. Finally, the selfcommunication in the Spirit and the Son also reveal an incomprehensible ground and origin. What the missions of the Spirit and the Son make present to us is the ineffable and unoriginate mystery: God the Father. This is the Trinitarian mode in which God reveals himself in the economy of salvation.112 The two missions of the Spirit and the Son must be understood as mutually conditioning moments in the one and single act of God’s self-communication. Rahner understands God’s self-communication in grace to be primarily a personal communication over against an emphasis on revelation as the communication of the divine nature as such. He stresses therefore that each of the divine persons communicates himself to the human being according to his own particularity and peculiarity.113 Consequently, the Trinitarian pattern of divine self-communication signified by the terms Father, Son, and Spirit is not merely a verbal distinction but a true and real distinction mirroring the distinctions based on the eternal processions of Son and Spirit within God himself in the immanent Trinity. God’s self-communication thus has a double mediation in the mission of the Son and the Spirit. But this double mediation does not take the shape of a created mediation. Otherwise we could not speak of divine self-communication as it would not be God himself who would be communicated. Rahner therefore argues that the mediations in Son and Spirit are by way of quasi-formal causality (in contrast to efficient causality), which makes that God is truly himself present in his self-communication.114 Rahner explains the two distinct moments within the one divine self-communication into more detail using four different “double aspects”: origin - future, history – transcendence, offer – acceptance, and knowledge – love. He notes himself that these aspects become intelligible when the human person as addressee of God’s self-communication is taken into account.115 Firstly, the communication has an origin and a future. It begins when the human being is created as addressee for self-communication and includes simultaneously a future or destiny. Secondly, the human person is not only a transcendent but also a historical being. Every human being has the capacity of self-transcendence in knowledge and freedom. This transcendental subjectivity is realised through the mediation of history. Salvific self-communication must therefore address the human person both in the historical as well as in the transcendent dimension of human existence. Thirdly, the human being as history in transcendence is a free being. God’s self-communication is an offer to human freedom, that also carries with it the divine gift of acceptance by the free human being. Fourthly, “knowledge and love describe in their duality the essence of man.” God’s 112
Rahner, “Trinität”, 1013-1014; Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 136-137. Rahner, “Trinität”, 1012-1013. 114 Rahner, “Der Dreifaltige Gott”, 338-339. 115 Ibidem, 374-375. 113
THE TRIUNE GOD AND THE TWO MODALITIES OF DIVINE SELF-COMMUNICATION
37
self-communication must therefore present itself to the human person as absolute truth and absolute love. Now each side of these four double aspects forms a unity, thereby manifesting the two missions. It also becomes clear now how these two modalities of the single divine self-communication condition each other.116 Origin, history, offer, and truth form the first unity of aspects. God offers himself in free self-communication to historic people that he has created as to be addressees of this communication. This offer of divine self-communication is only definitely and irrevocably real to historical beings when it is historically present in the Absolute Saviour. As we have seen, in the event of Jesus Christ this Absolute Saviour has entered history. Truth fits into this combination of aspects when it is understood in a specific sense, namely as revealing the essence of something. Rahner sees truth as the deed in which one firmly posits oneself, both for oneself and for others. Divine self-communication as revelation of God’s essence is truth for us, because in Jesus Christ God’s offer of self-communication has been definitely established in the concreteness of history. So the unity of origin, history, offer, and truth form the essence of the modality of God’s self-communication that we know as Jesus Christ or the Word or the Son.117 Future, transcendence, acceptance and love are the opposite aspects that form together a unity. Rahner explains that “transcendence arises where God gives himself as the future”.118 This is exactly what happens in the supernatural elevation of human self-transcendence in grace, attributed to the working of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, for self-communication to be absolutely willed by God, it must also carry with it its acceptance. As we discussed in Chapter 2, because God’s self-communication is not a finite and created gift but really God self, acceptance of God’s communication must be borne by God himself. In other words: the power of human freedom to accept God’s offer must be posited by God’s creative power, without this freedom thereby being eliminated. The question that still remains is how love fits into this combination of aspects. Rahner argues that the self-communication that wills itself absolutely and creates both the possibility of its acceptance and the acceptance itself is precisely what is meant by love. The self-communication that is freely offered and freely accepted is specifically called divine love because it creates its own acceptance.119 At another place, Rahner describes love as being so great, that one freely becomes smaller for another in order to give oneself to another. Future, transcendence, acceptance, and love form the essence of the modality of God’s self-communication that we know as the Holy Spirit.120 So Rahner distinguishes two basic modalities of one divine self-communication: Son (truth) and Spirit (love). In so far as this self-communication occurs in truth, it happens in history, and in so far as it occurs in love, it opens up history in transcendence toward the 116
Ibidem, 376-378. Ibidem, 378-380. 118 Ibidem, 380. 119 Ibidem”, 381. 120 Rahner, “Trinität”, 1015. 117
38
THE HANDS OF GOD
absolute future. These modalities are not separated nor are they simply bound together by divine decree. In contrast, the Son and the Spirit mutually condition each other. On the one hand, the historical appearance of truth is only perceptible against the horizon of transcendence towards the absolute future of God. On the other hand, this absolute future is communicated irrevocably as love precisely when this communication is established firmly in concrete history (the event of the Absolute Saviour). Rahner concludes therefore that the two modalities of Son and Spirit constitute the one divine self-communication of the unoriginate and ineffable God.121 §4.
UNIVERSAL REVELATION IN THE SPIRIT: ANONYMOUS CHRISTIANS
Before we start to examine one of Rahner’s most famous contributions to theology, the theory of anonymous Christians, we will shortly recoup the discussion in this chapter so far. First, we have discussed how Rahner explains the Christian claim of Jesus Christ’s ultimacy. He argues that in Jesus Christ the event of the Absolute Saviour and ipso facto the climax of the history of revelation has occurred. The second section explained how in the fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ it becomes manifest for us that God relates to us in a threefold way. In the economy of salvation (which is at the same time the history of revelation) God is present to human beings as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Invoking the logic that this divine self-communication in the economy of salvation truly is self-communication, this learns us that God in himself is Triune. Further examination of the characteristics of revelation shows that the one divine self-communication happens under two modalities: Son or Logos (truth) and Spirit (love). God’s self-communication in the Son has already been discussed in detail in Section 2. Jesus Christ reveals to us that our transcendental experience of selftranscendence in knowledge and freedom essentially is an experience of grace, brought about by the Holy Spirit. We will now turn to this second modality of God’s selfcommunication. More specifically we will focus on Rahner’s theory of anonymous Christians. According to Rahner, religious pluralism is one of most difficult challenges at present for Christianity. The plurality of religions concretely questions the claim of absoluteness put forward by the Christian faith. 122 This issue prompts the question of Christian theological meaning of the non-Christian religions. Rahner seeks an answer to this question by developing his theory of anonymous Christians, which rests on four basic theses. The first thesis formulated by Rahner is: “Christianity understands itself as the absolute religion, intended for all people, which cannot recognise any other religion beside itself as of equal right.” 123 Valid and legitimate religion must be grounded in God’s salvific selfcommunication. Since in Christ God’s self-communication has come absolutely and because 121
Ibidem, 1016. Karl Rahner, “Das Christentum und die nichtchristlichen Religionen” in Schriften zur Theologie, Band V (Einsiedeln – Zürich – Köln: Benziger Verlag, 1962), 136-137. 123 Ibidem, 139. 122
THE TRIUNE GOD AND THE TWO MODALITIES OF DIVINE SELF-COMMUNICATION
39
in the death and resurrection of Christ the world has been reconciled with God, Christ and his continuing historical presence in the world (the church) must be considered as the absolute religion.124 In other words: Christianity is not simply one religious tradition among many. Nonetheless, Rahner also concedes that Christianity is a historical religion. It was not always there, but has a beginning in history: in Jesus of Nazareth and in the event of the cross and the empty tomb. Thus, the absolute religion comes to human beings in a historical way. Does then the existential demand put forward by the Christian religion take place at the same chronological moment for all people? Rahner chooses to maintain that Christianity is the absolute and only valid religion regarding humanity’s salvation, yet he leaves open at what exact time Christianity’s absolute obligation has come into effect as objective obligation for every human being in every culture.125 Lastly, the acknowledgment of Christianity as historical religion implies another thesis: “in concrete human existence as such, a social constitution belongs to the essence of religion itself.”126 The existential demands of a religion therefore always require a social form. Rahner then proceeds with his second thesis, which is that elements of grace exist in non-Christian religions. Though not free of corruption or error, a non-Christian religion can therefore be recognised as a valid and lawful religion. 127 This thesis contains two fundamental points. In the first place, it is a priori possible to hold that supernatural grace is present in non-Christian religions because of the Christian belief in the genuine and universal salvific will of God. Morever, according to Rahner Christianity conceives of salvation as being offered in the earthly life of human beings. To reconcile these two convictions, the conclusion must be that every person is exposed to grace (i.e. the offer of God’s self-communication and communion with God), irrespective of whether a person accepts this grace or not. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that this offer of grace remains without effect. Although Rahner does not discount the disruptive reality of personal guilt, he holds the belief that “where sin existed, grace came in abundance.”128 So Rahner is not simply arguing for the universality of salvation, but rather for the possibility that in the life of all human beings salvific grace is at work on the basis of God’s universal salvific will. The second fundamental point of this thesis is that there are lawful non-Christian religions that have salvific significance in God’s providential plan. Lawful religion is defined by Rahner as “an institutional religion whose ‘use’ by man at a certain period can be regarded on the whole as a positive means of gaining the right relationship to God and thus for the attaining of salvation, a means which is therefore positively included in God’s plan for salvation.”129 Again, this does not mean that religions in their concrete historical reality are
124
Ibidem, 139-140. Ibidem, 140-142. 126 Ibidem, 142. 127 Ibidem, 143. 128 Ibidem, 146. 129 Ibidem, 147-148. 125
40
THE HANDS OF GOD
free from error and corruption. But human beings are social beings, who live out their inner relationship with God in categorical realities (most explicitly in religious traditions) that are available to them in their own particular historical circumstances. Thus, from the assumption that God’s grace is at work in the life of every human being, it must necessarily follow that the tradition which categorically mediates the transcendental experience of grace must also contain salvific elements of grace.130 Assuming the correctness of the second thesis results in Rahner’s third thesis: “Christianity encounters people of extra-Christian religions not as mere non-Christians, but as someone who can and must be regarded as an anonymous Christian.”131 The grace that supernaturally elevates the a priori horizon of human consciousness is revelation in the true sense. Because grace is offered universally, all human beings have the possibility to accept this grace in many different ways according to their particular historical circumstances. Explicit proclamation of the Christian message thus does not make someone a Christian, but rather makes that someone now knows by objective reflection about that which he already knows unthematically. Moreover, the explicit confession of Christian faith in a social form (the church) is in Rahner’s view a higher state of development of a person’s Christianity. It is required for two reasons: in the first place because of the incarnational and societal structure of grace and in the second place because it gives people a greater chance of attaining salvation.132 Christian missionary activity therefore is not at all superfluous. Rahner argues that Christians should approach the world seeking the anonymous forms of Christianity and bringing to explicit consciousness that these are the divine gift of grace. His fourth and final thesis is that the church is no exclusive community with a claim to salvation, but rather the “historically tangible vanguard” that forms the social expression of that what the Christian hopes to be a hidden reality outside the visible church. The church is the concrete historical evidence of the divine grace that is hidden (but also at work) in other religions. It is the “communion of those who can explicitly confess what they and the others hope to be.”133 These four theses constitute together the Rahner’s theory of the anonymous Christians. In this article he does not state it explicitly, but having in mind the earlier discussion on transcendental revelation, the supernatural existential and the characteristics of the mission of the Holy Spirit, it will be clear that Rahner attributes the presence of Christ in the nonChristian religions to the work of the Spirit. Indeed, elsewhere he states explicitly that anonymous Christian faith is made possible and is based upon the supernatural grace of the Spirit.134 In the mission of the Spirit, God’s self-communication in grace is offered to all people in the form of the supernatural existential. This supernatural elevation in grace of human transcendence constitutes revelation in the real sense. Consequently, because of the 130
Ibidem, 150-151. Ibidem, 154. 132 Ibidem, 155-156. 133 Ibidem, 156. 134 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 316. 131
THE TRIUNE GOD AND THE TWO MODALITIES OF DIVINE SELF-COMMUNICATION
41
mission of the Holy Spirit God’s offer of communion and salvation is universally revealed. The universal offer of God’s self-communication in the Spirit leads us to assume that grace is present in the non-Christian religions. God’s self-communication therefore can be understood as truly universal revelation, in accordance with the universal salvific will of God. Yet, the question that comes up is how Jesus Christ is related to this universal work of the Holy Spirit. Rahner speaks not of anonymous theism or anonymous spiritism. The grace that is universally present is the grace of Jesus Christ. Before we will review the value of the theory of anonymous Christians for a theology of religions, we will first turn to the question of the relation between the two missions of the one divine self-communication. §5. THE RELATION BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND THE HOLY SPIRIT Rahner observes himself that the argument for the universal working of the Holy Spirit in revelation and salvation poses an important question for Christian theology: how is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given in all times and at all places, connected to the historical event of the cross, which has taken place at a particular point in time and space?135 Rahner provides two ways to answer this question, the theory of sacramental causality on the one hand and the distinction between final cause and efficient cause on the other hand. The first explanation runs as follows. In his article “Der eine Jesus Christus und die Universalität des Heils” Rahner starts with the observation that at first sight, the Christ event seems to be the effect rather than the cause of God’s self-communication in the Spirit. However, Christians believe that “all salvation comes from Jesus Christ.”136 This issue cannot simply be resolved by invoking the “cosmic Christ”. It is true that one can conceive of the pre-existent Logos as being present in history and in the world in a creative, sanctifying, forgiving and divinizing way. But we are talking then about the divine Logos as the final dynamism that is working always and everywhere and that forms the foundation of the entire history. The question that remains then is how the historical event of Jesus Christ can be of fundamental importance for each and everyone’s salvation. Thus, the pre-existent Logos in Jesus forms is partial yet not the complete answer to the question under review.137 After having introduced the issue at stake, Rahner turns to the specific role of the event of the cross in salvation. In the first place, he argues that according to Christian understanding there is not simply the possibility to effect your own salvation. That would deny the priority of God’s grace in salvation and amount to Pelagianism. Because human beings do have the freedom either to accept or reject God’s salvific offer of selfcommunication in grace, there is a concept of “saving yourself” to the extent that human freedom plays an active role in salvation. At the same time, the Christian tradition learns that 135
Ibidem, 316. Karl Rahner, “Der eine Jesus Christus und die Universalität des Heils” in Schriften zur Theologie, Band XII (Einsiedeln – Zürich – Köln: Benziger Verlag, 1975), 257. 137 Rahner, “Der eine Jesus Christus und die Universalität des Heils”, 259-260. 136
42
THE HANDS OF GOD
Jesus’ cross is the cause of our salvation. Rahner argues therefore that the cross forms the general and individual condition for the possibility of freely saving yourself by the acceptance of grace. God’s universal will of salvation forms the key here. Importantly, the cross is the result and not the cause of God’s salvific will. There is a cross because the loving God wills the universal salvation of humankind. The cross is not there because a wrathful and judging God must be satisfied with a sacrifice (as in the satisfaction theory of Anselm of Canterbury). It would then seem as if the cross “influences” God, which would conflict with God’s sovereign immutability. In other words: Rahner argues for an understanding of the cross as an event of love rather than justice.138 However, this qualification of the cross as the result of God’s universal salvific will still leaves open how Jesus’death and resurrection have a soteriological meaning for us, as attested to by Scripture and church teaching. How exactly is the death of Jesus related to the salvation of all people? Rahner starts by arguing that Jesus shares with humankind a relation to all people, because every person is connected with everyone else through the unity of humankind and history. This unity already played a role in the soteriology of the Greek Church Fathers, where the eternal Logos through the incarnation becomes part of the single community of the human race. Since humanity is one, it has been saved when the eternal Logos incarnates in this unity. Although there is no fault in this argument, Rahner maintains that it does not explain how the concrete historical event of the death of Jesus’ on the cross and his resurrection are a salvific event for every human being. Still, Christianity holds that Jesus’ death is “significant” for all people as he has died “for” every one of us.139 Rahner’s answer to this question is as follows. The cross (along with the resurrection) works by way of ursakramentale ursächlichkeit. The salvation of all people is caused by the cross, in so far as it mediates the salvific grace that is present and working everywhere in the world.140 And as we have seen, this grace that is everywhere present constitutes essentially God’s selfcommunication in the Spirit. Thus, the causality of the cross rests on being the ursakramental sign of grace. Grace (Spirit) and the sign of grace (cross, i.e. Jesus death and resurrection) are opposed yet not separated realities that stand in a mutually conditioning relation to each other. Grace and the sign of grace are two moments in a Wesensvollzug (of divine selfcommunication) that occurs historically. Neither of them is just cause or just effect.141 Not surprisingly this accords precisely with how Rahner described the relation between the two missions of divine self-communication (discussed earlier in Section 3). Having established this framework of ursakramental causality, Rahner proceeds by arguing that the cross essentially forms the Realsymbol of the salvation of humankind. The cross is the irreversible event in which the universal possibility of salvation becomes historically tangible. It has a working that is theologically known as sacramental. Without 138
Ibidem, 260-261. Ibidem, 264-265. 140 Ibidem, 267. 141 Ibidem, 268. 139
THE TRIUNE GOD AND THE TWO MODALITIES OF DIVINE SELF-COMMUNICATION
43
Jesus, the positive end of the history of salvation remains obscure because of the ambivalence of divine and human freedom. But because this obscurity disappears in Jesus (i.e. in his cross and in his resurrection), it can be said that Jesus’s death on the cross and his resurrection are the cause of the salvation of all people. In Jesus Christ as Ursakrament, the sign of grace (the historical reality of Jesus Christ) and the thing signified (grace or Godself) are essentially one. As a result, on the one hand grace happens in and through Jesus Christ, but on the other hand Jesus Christ (in this specific and limited sense) causes grace. This is why Rahner argues that the cross causes the salvation of all people.142 The second argumentation used by Rahner to explain the relation between Jesus Christ (the cross) and the Spirit (grace) involves the scholastic concepts of final cause and efficient cause. This argument runs as follows. The incarnation and the death of Jesus on the cross are final cause of God’s universal salvific will and self-communication to the world in the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is working always and everywhere in the world, but not in a transcendental, abstract way. The history of revelation and salvation as the history of God’s selfcommunication and its acceptance take place in concrete historical mediations. Moreover, this history is orientated towards a historical event in which God’s self-communication becomes tangible and irreversible. And this takes place in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus. Because the universal working of the Spirit is always orientated towards the climax of self-communication in Jesus Christ, Christ can be called the final cause of the divine self-communication in the Spirit. Yet as mentioned before, neither modality of divine self-communication is to be understood purely as cause or purely as effect. Whereas Christ is the final cause of the Spirit, the Spirit is the efficient cause of Christ. God as Spirit has caused the event of Jesus Christ, i.e. his birth, life, death, and resurrection. The Spirit realises his own essence as communicated to the world in Jesus Christ. Rahner concludes therefore that between Jesus Christ and the Spirit there is a relationship of mutually conditioning: Christ causes the Spirit as final cause and the Spirit causes Christ as efficient cause.143 Finally, we can now return to the question that came up in the previous section: what is the relation between the two missions of divine self-communication? Rahner argues that the grace that is universally present is in fact the grace of Jesus Christ. More precise, it is through God’s self-communication in the Spirit that grace and justifying faith are present everywhere, both inside as well as outside the Christian church. Because this Spirit is caused by Christ and at the same time also causes Christ, he is from the outset the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Consequently, insofar as Christ is present in his Spirit he is also present in the grace and faith that are the work of Spirit. That is why Rahner speaks of anonymous Christians.144 Thus, universal offer of grace by the Spirit and the climax of the history of revelation are not two separated moments of revelation, but rather two intrinsically related modalities of the 142
Ibidem, 268-269. Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 317-318. 144 Ibidem, 318. 143
44
THE HANDS OF GOD
one event of God’s self-communication. The mission of the Spirit is not complete without the mission of the Son, and the mission of the Son cannot be without the mission of the Spirit. §6. RECAPITULATION In this chapter we have discussed how Rahner argues that the Christ event forms the climax of the history of revelation. In Jesus Christ it becomes manifest that God relates to humankind in a threefold way. Rahner argues that the Trinitarian pattern of the economy of revelation and salvation yields a distinctly Christian concept of God as Trinity. In the single economy of divine self-communication, God draws near to human beings as Son and Spirit who in turn make present to us the ineffable and mysterious God the Father. Through an extensive elaboration of the universal mission of the Spirit, Rahner develops his theory of anonymous Christians. On the basis of this theory he concludes that through the mission of the Spirit God’s salvific grace potentially touches each and every human being. Moreover, Rahner argues that the universal presence of the Spirit is related to the historical Christ event of Jesus Christ. The Son and the Spirit stand in a relationship of mutual conditioning: while the Spirit causes Christ by way of efficient causality, Christ causes the Spirit by way of final causality. Explaining the universal relevance of the Christ event in this way, Rahner speaks deliberately of anonymous Christians instead of anonymous theists. The question that we have not attended to as of yet is to what extent Rahner’s approach opens up possibilities for a theology of religions. To this question we will turn in the next chapter.
CHAPTER IV
RAHNERIAN OPPORTUNITIES AND OBSTACLES FOR A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
§1. INTRODUCTION Although Rahner is famous both for his role in the Renaissance of Trinitarian theology and for his transcendental method leading to the theory of anonymous Christians, surprisingly he has not combined these doctrines into a Trinitarian theology of religions. This chapter sets out to explore to what extent Rahner’s Trinitarian approach to revelation contains elements for the development a Trinitarian theology of religions. What are the opportunities and what are the obstacles? For that purpose, we will first start in Section 2 by identifying the main strengths of Rahner’s theory in the context of the theology of religions. Then we will turn to the criticisms that have been raised in response to Rahner’s theology. Some scholars argue that Rahner has diminished Christian identity and particularity, while others argue that Rahner’s approach fails to do justice to non-Christian religions. Section 3 will attend to both lines of critique by discussing the responses to Rahner of Hans Urs von Balthasar, Johann Baptist Metz, Hans Küng and John Hick. Finally, in Section Four we will make up the balance by recapitulating the essential characteristics of a Rahnerian theology of religions and by presenting questions that remain unresolved. §2. RAHNER’S STRENGTHS FOR A THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS We will start this chapter by reviewing the strengths and possibilities that Rahner’s theology contains for a theology of religions. Is his theory able to support the universality of the Christian faith and also able to safeguard the particular identity of the Christian faith? To begin with, it must be noted that Rahner’s transcendental approach provides very a strong argument for the reality of a universal revelation, available to all people irrespective of their time or place in history. Whether one lives in Judea during emperor Augustine’s reign, in Peru at the time of the Inca empire, or in present day India: the theory of the supernatural existential explains that an unthematic encounter with God’s self-communication is inescapably present in every categorical actualisation of human existence. The fundamental background assumption that grounds this view on the universality of revelation is the belief in God’s universal salvific will. Moreover, God’s universal salvific will and the universal presence of grace lead to the possibility of salvation outside the church. Because the Triune God wills the salvation of all people, grace is offered in his self-communication as Spirit to
46
THE HANDS OF GOD
everyone in the form of the transcendental existential. And this universal offer of grace does not remain ineffective, but is accepted individually with the help of social mediation of religions, Christian and non-Christian. As a result, the act of faith is exercised throughout history both by Christians (explicitly) and non-Christians (anonymously). In conclusion, because Rahner is able to account for the universal presence of grace and the universal availability of salvation, his theory helps to support Christianity’s absolute and universal claims. But while there is a strong universal current in his theology, it is also clear that Rahner aims to retain a specifically Christian identity. He does not argue merely that a general God reveals God’s existence to humankind. Rahner rather argues that according to the Christian faith, God who is Triune communicates himself in grace and through the two modalities of Son and Spirit to the world, because God wills the salvation of all of humankind. Thus, Rahner provides us with a distinctly Christian concept of God (Trinity) and a distinctly Christian concept of revelation (divine self-communication in Son and Spirit), without excluding non-Christians from the divine sphere of influence. Importantly, Rahner argues not only for the universality of God’s self-communication in the Spirit, but also for the universal significance of the event of Jesus Christ. Concretely, he understands Jesus Christ as the Absolute Saviour who forms the highpoint of the universal history of revelation and salvation. Rahner insists that the grace which is offered universally, is the grace of Jesus Christ. Christ is by way of ursakramentele causality the Usrakrament of salvific grace. The Holy Spirit, who bestows grace universally, has its final cause in Jesus Christ and is therefore always the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Consequently, each and every human person is in transcendental experience of grace related to God as Spirit (supernatural existential), God as Son (Jesus Christ as the formal cause of grace) and God as Father (as the ineffable ground of communication in Spirit and Son). In this way, Rahner tries to maintain the unique and absolute position of Jesus Christ. Rahner’s theory thus contains elements that strengthen Christianity’s universal and absolute claims, but also strives to retain Christianity’s distinct identity (in particular the unique position of Jesus Christ, which for Rahner is intrinsically connected to the Holy Spirit as well). For these positive features, Rahner’s theology truly deserves appraisal. However, Rahner’s approach has received substantive criticism as well. To these critiques we turn now. §3. RAHNER CRITICIZED: EROSION OF IDENTITY, IMPERIALISM AND CHRISTOCENTRISM HANS URS VON BALTHASAR Although Von Balthasar considered Rahner’s transcendental method to be the best effort at renovating Neo-Scholastic theology, he was nevertheless critical of modern theological
RAHNERIAN OPPORTUNITIES AND OBSTACLES FOR A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
47
approaches and developed in response a different theological system. In an interview in 1976, Von Balthasar praised Rahner’s theological strength and their mutual cooperation. But he also argued that their respective starting points were different from the very beginning. While Rahner had chosen Kant and Fichte, Von Balthasar himself preferred Goethe and his emphasis on the “form” (Gestalt).145 Von Balthasar’s critique of the transcendental method becomes particularly visible in his critique of the theory of anonymous Christians. He argues that the theory of the anonymous Christian is only possible when theology is subsumed under a philosophical system. Yet this results in a reduction of the historical life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to a mere historical manifestation of God’s universal salvific will. They are no longer the “event of salvation”. It becomes difficult then to prove the necessity of an explicit historical Christianity.146 Both elements of critique, the neglect of the cross and the relativisation of explicit Christianity, will be discussed hereafter. In his book Christian Witness Von Balthasar argues that Rahner fails to provide an adequate theology of the cross. To be more precise, his doctrine of the anonymous Christian involves a devaluation of the theology of the cross. The life of Christ culminating in his death on the cross merely functions to manifest the eternal saving will of God.147 Von Balthasar does not disagree with Rahner that Jesus Christ reveals God’s eternal love for humankind, but rather argues that this love is a particular love directed towards human beings as sinners. The event of Jesus Christ is the fullest revelation of the reality of sin. Only in the meditation of the cross does a human being become aware that he was “in the abyss of forlornness”.148 Von Balthasar questions whether Rahner’s theology of the cross suffices. Although this revelation of sinfulness is simultaneously also the revelation of the elevation of the human being, the redemptive role of the historical Christ, especially in his death, should be given a central position. Rahner understands Jesus’ complete commitment to the Father, culminating in his death on the cross as the climax of God’s self-communication. Von Balthasar wants to stress that Jesus suffers on the cross the death of all sinners. A death of complete godforsakenness that is redemptive for the entirety of humankind.149 A second and related criticism concerns the relativisation of explicit Christianity. Von Balthasar is willing to agree with Rahner that grace is available outside the church, and that non-Christian individuals can be saved through God’s grace. So Von Balthasar agrees to the term “anonymous Christian”, affirming this reality by acknowledging great human examples outside Christianity. However, he rejects the concept of “anonymous Christianity”. That would be a relativisation of the objective revelation of God in the biblical event. Von Balthasar rejects the possibility that the non-Christian religions can be graced ways to 145
Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Geist und Feuer”, Herder Korrespondenz 30:2 (1976), 76. Eamonn Conway, The Anonymous Christian. A Relativised Christianity? (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1993), 34-36. 147 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Moment of Christian Witness, tr. Richard Beckley (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 109. 148 Hans Urs von Balthasar, Neuere Klarstellungen (Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag, 1979), 50. 149 Von Balthasar, “Geist und Feuer”, 76. 146
48
THE HANDS OF GOD
salvation.150 Jesus Christ is the perfect image of God and other religions are at best human projections of the God idea that strive to reach this image but are more likely to distort it. Despite being comparable sociologically, the Catholic Church as the extension of Christ’s reality into time is essentially incomparable with other religious communities. That is why Von Balthasar rejects the possibility of anonymous Christianity and stresses the importance of Christianity as absolute religion.151 JOHANN BAPTIST METZ Another critique of Rahner comes from one of his students. Johann Baptist Metz approaches Rahner’s transcendental theology by way of his own method: a practical fundamental theology based on a narrative-practical understanding of Christianity. Metz understands the transcendental theory of anonymous Christianity as a response to the tension between the increasingly obvious historical particularity of the church and the universal nature of God’s saving will as represented in the church.152 Yet when Metz examines the present situation of Christianity in the light of Rahner’s theory, he observes two issues that seem problematic to him. Firstly, the transcendental theory of anonymous Christianity shows signs of an “elitist idealistic gnoseology”.153 Only a few endowed with the gift of the wise possess an explicit knowledge of faith, while the great majority of people are saved simply by virtue of their implicit faith. Metz notes that Rahner admits this, but responds by arguing that faith is not different in this respect from fields like aesthetics, logic and ethics. Yet this defence remains unconvincing in Metz’s eyes. The arcanum of the knowledge of faith cannot be Socratic (philosophical), but must be based on discipleship to Jesus (practical) in order to avoid an orthodoxy of the elite.154 It is in creatively following Jesus in our own particular context, that we truly respond to God’s offer of self-communication and more fully get to know Jesus. Furthermore, Metz argues that the principle of implicit yet unconscious faith is too closely connected to a pre-critical, pre-Enlightenment paradigm of consciousness. Interpreting someone against his or her own convictions stands in sharp contrast to the Enlightenment’s ideal of maturity. Contemporary people consciously and autonomously live out their faith, without being determined by heteronomous authorities. They are dependent on their (social) context, but ultimately it is the person self who commits him or herself consciously in faith.155 Secondly, Metz also fears that transcendental Christianity in face of the historical threats to its identity neutralises this very identity. Given its historical character, Christian faith is 150
Ibidem, 76. Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Catholicism and the Religions”, Communio 5:1 (1976), 12; Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Response to my Critics” Communio 5:1 (1976), 74-75. 152 Johann Baptist Metz, Faith in History and Society. Toward a Practical Fundamental Theology, tr. Matthew Ashley (New York: Crossroad, 2007), 148-149. 153 Ibidem, 149. 154 Ibidem, 149. 155 Johann Baptist Metz, A Passion for God. The Mystical-Political Dimension of Christianity, tr. Matthew Ashley (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1998), 114. 151
RAHNERIAN OPPORTUNITIES AND OBSTACLES FOR A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
49
always endangered and threatened in its identity. Rahner’s transcendental method aims to universalise this concrete historical experience of Christian faith in an intellectual-speculative way. However, according to Metz this attempt fails because it confuses identity with tautology.
Rahner’s
transcendental
anthropology
being
based
on
an
a-historical
understanding of universality makes that the human person is “always already” with God. Revelation and salvation can be found in the world regardless of the concrete historical conditions. History with its concreteness, its problems, its vulnerability, and its dangers barely intervenes. As a result, Christianity attains universality in the form of a kind of omnipresence. Harmonising the course of history makes the beginning like the end, paradise like the end of time and creation like the fulfilment. The transcendental approach immunises the historical-apocalyptical struggles, while these struggles characterise the very identity of Christianity according to Metz. The experiences of non-identity, human suffering, the history of the victims; in short the negativity of history forms an important and indispensable element of Christian identity. 156 Thus, a transcendental harmonisation of history that neutralises these negative elements might achieve the universality of Christianity, yet at the cost of losing its particular identity.157 To prevent this loss of identity, Metz proposes an alternative approach. He argues for a universalisation of the experience of Christian faith that involves Christian praxis. Christianity’s universal offer of salvation does not have the character of a transcendental concept of universality, but rather the character of an invitation. An invitation that has a narrative structure and a practical-liberating intention. Universal salvation grounded in Christ becomes universal not by means of an idea but by means of the intelligible power of a praxis of discipleship. Moreover, this intelligibility has to be conveyed narratively rather than in a purely speculative way. Hence Metz’s plea for a narrativepractical Christianity.158 HANS KÜNG In his book Christ sein written in 1976, Hans Küng voices some sharp criticism of Rahner’s theory of the anonymous Christian.159 He begins by sketching the changed attitude of the Roman Catholic with regard to those “outside the holy Roman Church”. Whereas the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching used to be extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“no salvation outside the church”), this changed decisively when at the Second Vatican Council the possibility of salvation for individual non-Christians was recognised. Küng supports wholeheartedly this teaching of Vatican II, but he rejects a subsequent step that according to 156 In addition, Metz also argues that one has to take into account the forces that prevent Christians from becoming authentic subjects, such as the privatisation of religion, the monopoly of instrumental rationality, the culture of exchange, the understanding of time without finale, etc. All these forces alienate the subject and foster social apathy. Cf. Metz, Faith in History and Society. 157 Metz, Faith in History and Society, 149-152. 158 Ibidem, 149-152. 159 Hans Küng, Christ sein (München – Zürich: R. Piper & Co. Verlag, 1976).
50
THE HANDS OF GOD
him has been taken by some Catholic theologians. To be precise, Küng disagrees with theologians who argue that non-Christian religions as such are possible ways of salvation. And this is exactly what Rahner does in his theory of the anonymous Christian, arguing that all men of good will as anonymous Christians form part of the church. Küng in reaction poses the question “is not the whole of good-willed humanity thus swept with an elegant gesture across the paper-thin bridge of a theological fabrication into the back door of the ‘holy Roman Church’, leaving no one of good will ‘outside’?”160 As such, it would essentially amount to a revival of the old teaching of “no salvation outside the church”: all people of good will belong to the Roman Catholic Church, either formally or anonymously. Moreover, the theory of the anonymous Christian also conflicts with the factual reality, according to Küng. The masses of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and all the others choose to remain outside the church. They know very well that they are “unanonymous Christians” and do not wish to become part of the church. Moreover, forcing people “by theological sleight” to become active or passive members of this church against their will is for Küng irreconcilable with the understanding of the church as a free community of faith. Whereas Metz argues that we cannot interpret people against their own convictions, Küng argues that we should not interpret someone else’s will in the light of our own interests; we must respect the will of others. Finally, Küng also believes that sincere Jews, Muslims or atheists would regard it presumptuous to be labelled as anonymous Christian. He rhetorically asks what Christians would say if they were named anonymous Buddhists by Buddhists.161 Thus, in Küng’s view Rahner’s theory of anonymous Christians contains a claim of superiority that is offensive to non-Christians. Consequently, it forms an obstacle rather than being conducive to open dialogue with people of other religions. 162 Although Küng sympathises with Rahner’s positive theological and pastoral intentions that lie behind his theory of anonymous Christians, he proposes an alternative approach to people from other religions. Christians should take non-Christians fully seriously in an open and unambigious way, approaching non-Christians precisely in their own self-conception as non-Christians. That is the only way to respect both Christianity’s own position as well as the own position of other religions.163 JOHN HICK John Hick main criticism is that Rahner remains too Christo-centric in his approach. Following a personal conversion, Hick has called for a “Copernican revolution” in the Christian attitude to other faiths whereby he uses the threefold distinction of exclusivism, 160
Ibidem, 89-90. Ibidem, 90. 162 Ibidem, 90. 163 Hans Küng, “Anonyme Christen – wozu?”, Orientierung 39:19 (1975), 215. 161
51
RAHNERIAN OPPORTUNITIES AND OBSTACLES FOR A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
inclusivism and pluralism.164 The exclusivist position upholds a literal interpretation of the traditional axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Though consistent and coherent, this position implicitly accepts the damnation of the large majority of the human race by God. Hick considers this to be irreconcilable with the idea of a God of universal love, willing the ultimate good and salvation of all human beings. Christian exclusivism therefore is no viable option in his eyes.165 The second position taken by the majority of contemporary Catholic and Protestant theologians is inclusivism. However, though more open and charitable than exclusivism, inclusivism still does not bring the Copernican revolution that is needed according to Hick. Faithful people remain required sooner or later to arrive at a form of explicit Christian faith. The salvific process is understood as taking place throughout the world, both within and outside Christianity. But salvation remains the work of Jesus Christ. Hick identifies Rahner as a leading representative of the inclusivist position. Rahner’s theology asserts that all people can be saved, but also that all salvation is ultimately Christian salvation. Since people do not have to know the source of their salvation, they can be called anonymous Christians.166 Although Hick values Rahner for his struggle to do justice to the reality of religious faith outside Christianity, Rahner also has not been able to face the Copernican revolution. The
Copernican
revolution
Hick
advocates
for
encompasses
a
shift
from
Christocentrism to theocentrism. In order to make sense of the idea of Christ being at work within the world religions, it is necessary to leave aside the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth and his death on the cross. Instead, we should conceive of a supra-historical Christfigure or Logos, who secretly inspired the Buddha, Moses, Confucius, Muhammad, etc. Since this Christ figure operates independently from the historical Jesus, it becomes essentially a name for the divine impact upon human life. Hick calls this universal source of salvific transformation, which goes beyond the historical figure of Jesus, the “Transcendent”, “Real” or “Ultimate.” Christians may call it the Cosmic Christ or the Eternal Logos, while Hindus may call it the Dharma and Muslims may call it Allah. Thus, there is no longer a form of exclusively Christian inclusivism, but rather a plurality of inclusivisms. This is the kind of pluralism constituting the real Copernican revolution that Hick wants to defend.167 Hick’s pluralist position conceives of an ultimate ineffable Reality, which is the source and ground of everything. The different religious traditions then are seen as different human conceptions of the Real. The underlying assumption of the pluralist position is the Kantian distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal orders. The Real an sich is distinct from the different ways in which human beings perceive the Real as a range of divine phenomena. This position argues for a more modest and sceptical epistemology, which stresses the impossibility of assessing Christ’s uniqueness or normativity. Consequently, Christianity is 164
John Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths (New York: St. Martins Press, 1974), 121-125. John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 19-20. 166 Ibidem, 20. 167 Ibidem, 22-23. 165
52
THE HANDS OF GOD
but one of the different valid human conceptions of and responses to the Real. Each religious tradition is in its concrete particularity a unique response to the Real.168 Thus, Hick argues for a pluralistic position in which religious traditions must abandon their claims to unique superiority. He disagrees therefore with Rahner’s theory of the anonymous Christian in so far as this theory retains the unicity of Jesus Christ. His pluralistic alternative advocates a theocentric rather than a Christocentric position. §4. CONSTRUCTING A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS In this final section we offer some final reflections with regard to the usefulness of Rahner’s thought for a Trinitarian theology of religions. Working with an inclusivist orientation, Rahner produced a theological attempt to accommodate the reality of religious pluralism in the Christian tradition. On the one hand, Rahner searched for universal openings looking beyond the confines of the church. This is reflected in his concept of transcendental revelation that rests on the conviction of the universality of grace through the work of the Spirit. On the other hand Rahner also wanted to safeguard Christianity’s particular identity. He argues therefore that the universality of grace in the Spirit is never to be separated from the event of Jesus Christ. While his theory of anonymous Christians acknowledges the possibility of salvation outside the church, it also maintains that all mediations of salvation are related to Jesus Christ. We can therefore conclude with Jeannine Hill Fletcher that Rahner’s systematic project has enduring value in as much as it maintains two essential teachings: God’s universal salvific will of salvation and the Christological affirmation of Jesus’ role as the mediator of that salvation. 169 These same doctrines also serve as the cornerstone of Vatican II’s Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian Religion. In Nostra Aetate the Roman Catholic Church states: One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth (Cf. Acts 17:26). One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men (Cf. Wis. 8:1; Acts 14:17; Rom. 2:6-7; 1 Tim. 2:4). The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), 168
Ibidem, 27-30. Jeannine Hill Fletcher, “Rahner and religious diversity” in Declan Marmion & Mary Hines (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Karl Rahner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 244. 169
RAHNERIAN OPPORTUNITIES AND OBSTACLES FOR A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
53
in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself (Cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-19). Like Rahner, Nostra Aetate acknowledges that all people have a single origin and a single destiny in God and that God’s saving plan extends to the whole of humankind. But although rays of Truth are found to be present in the non-Christian religions, each and everyone’s salvation is ultimately mediated by Jesus Christ. So Rahner’s inclusivist theology resonates well with this part of Catholic Church teaching. But what about the criticisms that have been discussed in the previous section? Whereas Von Balthasar and Metz argue that Rahner’s theory waters down the distinctiveness and particularity of the Christian faith, Küng and Hick argue that Rahner remains too Christocentric thereby failing to respect non-Christian religions in their own right. The first critique displays the concerns of exclusivism while the second critique reflects the concerns of pluralists. Rahner’s position thus seems to involve an unsolvable paradox: in its effort to be universal it reduces Christian particularity, while its goal of retaining an explicitly Christian identity defeats universality through arrogance and imperialism. In response to theologians who are concerned about the specific Christian identity, we can recount Rahner’s explanation of the relation between the Son and the Spirit. The Spirit does not work separately of Jesus Christ. The grace brought about by the Spirit is ultimately dependent on its final cause, i.e. Jesus Christ. So even the non-Christian who responds positively yet anonymously to the God’s offer of self-communication in grace, stands in a relation to Jesus Christ. The question is whether this theoretical argument resting on concepts such as ursakramentele causality and final causality ultimately convinces. For example, does this in practice leave any difference between explicit faith and implicit faith, considering that both can bring salvation? And to what extent do the religions themselves indeed play a positive role in mediating salvation if all salvation comes through Christ? We cannot attend to these issues in detail here. However, it is clear that Rahner gives preference to explicit Christian faith within the social context of the church. He acknowledged himself that the term “anonymous Christian” implies a dynamism towards explicit expression, towards its full name.170 At the same time he was also distinctly aware of the sensitivity of this claim: “It might sound presumptuous to non-Christians, that the Christian regards the good and sanctified good in every human being as the fruit of the grace of Christ, and therefore interprets it as anonymous Christianity and the non-Christian as not having become yet reflexively self-conscious.”171 This attitude can in part be explained by recalling the fact that Rahner tries to give a theological place and role for the world religions, which means that he engages in dogmatic reflection within the boundaries of Christian doctrine. Rahner himself was conscious of this specific context of questioning and also accepted that 170 171
Rahner, “Anonymous Christians”, 395. Rahner, “Das Christentum und die nichtchristlichen Religionen”, 158.
54
THE HANDS OF GOD
others might treat him as he had treated them. The Japanese philosopher Nishitani once asked what Rahner’s reaction would be to being regarded as an anonymous Buddhist. Rahner answered him: Certainly you may and should do so from your point of view; I feel myself honoured by such an interpretation, even if I am obliged to regard you as being in error or if I assume that, correctly understood, to be a genuine Zen Buddhist is identical with being a genuine Christian, in the sense directly and properly intended by such statements. Of course in terms of objective social awareness it is indeed clear that the Buddhist is not a Christian and the Christian is not a Buddhist. Nishitani replied: Then on this point we are entirely at one.172 Despite this awareness, the charge that Rahner fails to do full justice to other religions remains one of the main weaknesses of his theology of religions. Part of the explanation is that Rahner’s theology follows the lines of a fulfilment theory. Although non-Christian religions contain divine grace, ultimately they are incomplete and mere preparations for Christianity as the absolute religion. Rahner’s position is certainly an improvement compared to more exclusivist positions that limit the possibility of salvation to explicit believers in Jesus Christ. But it falls short of a positive appreciation of non-Christian affirming the dignity of each and all in their particularity.173 §5. RECAPITULATION In conclusion, the various critiques not withstanding Rahner’s theology contains a strong argument for the universality of revelation and salvation which helps to support Christianity’s claim of universal relevance. Moreover, Rahner also respects Christianity’s particular identity by retaining the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as universal mediator of revelation and salvation. He argues for the universal relevance of the historical Christ event by presenting it as the final cause or Ursakrament of the universal offer of salvific grace. Furthermore, through the theory of anonymous Christians, Rahner is able to acknowledge God’s graceful presence in other religions. However, despite these positive elements Rahner’s theory requires further development. In particular, two correlated issues concerning revelation and salvation in the context of religious pluralism require further study. In the first place, the role and status of other religions must be clarified. Even though we are aware that Rahner’s terminology of anonymous Christians results from his explicit intention to contribute to the intra-Christian theological debate on religious pluralism, the 172 Karl Rahner, “Der eine Jesus Christus und die Universalität des Heils” in Schriften zur Theologie, Band XII (Einsiedeln – Zürich – Köln: Benziger Verlag, 1975), 276. 173 Terrence Tilley et al., Religious Diversity and the American Experience. A Theological Approach (New York – London: Continuum, 2007), 79.
RAHNERIAN OPPORTUNITIES AND OBSTACLES FOR A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
55
fact remains that his approach fails to respect and appreciate other religious traditions per se. As a result, a qualitative distinction between Christianity and other religions remains. We have seen that some theologians consider this position to be too Christocentric and thus lacking in universal potential while others fear a loss of Christian particular identity. Therefore, first issue that needs further elaboration is the theological status of other religions. In the second place and in connection to the first issue, the role and status of Jesus Christ also needs to be addressed. Especially the relation of Christ to the Spirit and the consequent implication for the understanding of the uniqueness and fullness of the Christ event needs further study. Our hypothesis is that a Trinitarian approach might yield fruitful insights with respect to these two issues. The theologians Jacques Dupuis and Gavin D’Costa are both indebted to Rahner, but have tried to develop his theoretical framework into more contemporary models of inclusivism. Moreover, they have explicitly chosen to approach the question of religious pluralism using a Trinitarian model. In the subsequent chapters we will therefore examine these two recent contributions to the theology of religions.
CHAPTER V
JACQUES DUPUIS’ TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
§1. INTRODUCTION Having spent more than thirty years living and teaching theology in India, Jacques Dupuis developed his theology of religions in the minority situation of Christianity on the Indian subcontinent. He sought so reconcile official Catholic teaching on other faith traditions with genuine respect for other traditions. 174 In this chapter we will discuss his model of a Trinitarian Christology and see how he uses this model to approach the questions of religious pluralism. The chapter will be structured as follows. First, we will discuss Dupuis’ analysis of the debate on the theology of religions, his methodological considerations, and his proposed solution of a Trinitarian Christology. Then we will continue by examining how Dupuis applies his model on the theological themes of salvation history (section three) and revelation (section four). In section five we will focus on the Christological question and discuss how Dupuis explains the relationship between the universal saving value of the historic Christ event on the one hand and the continuing operative presence of the Word and the Spirit on the other hand. Finally, we will conclude by examining the consequences of Dupuis’ proposal for the theological position on the status of non-Christian religions. §2. A TRINITARIAN CHRISTOLOGY FOR A THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM Despite the need and irreplaceability of Christian theologies of distinct religions, in Dupuis’ eyes there remains need for a general theology of religions. Such a general theology of religions “asks how the other religious traditions – and their component parts – relate to the Christian mystery: to the event of Jesus Christ, which is at the heart of Christian faith, and derivatively, to the Christian Church established by Jesus Christ as the ‘universal sacrament of salvation (LG 48) in the world.”175 Before one can attend to specific questions that come up in Christianity’ dialogue with other religions, the general questions need to be studied first. Dupuis therefore sets out to develop a theology of religious pluralism in the light of Christian faith. In his view, the reality of religious pluralism is not simply a fact of history (pluralism de facto), but has a raison d’être in its own right (pluralism de iure). Dupuis therefore sets out to search for the root-cause of the plurality of living faiths and religious traditions. At stake is the place and significance of religious pluralism in God’s salvific plan for humankind. In addition, Dupuis also searches for the possibility of a mutual convergence 174 175
Tilley, Religious Diversity, 81-82. Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1997), 9.
JACQUES DUPUIS’ TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
57
of religious traditions (whilst fully respecting differences) and for mutual enrichment and cross-fertilisation.176 In reference to the title of his book, he states that: “One God – One Christ – Convergent Paths”, on the contrary, evokes at once the foundational character of the Christ-event as the guarantee of God’s manifold way of self-manifestation, self-revelation, and self-gift to humankind in a multifaceted yet organically structured economy of salvation through which the diverse paths tend toward a mutual convergence in the absolute Divine Mystery which constitutes the common final end of them all.177 Dupuis sees himself confronted with a dilemma that came up already in the previous chapter. The dilemma between inclusivism (associated by Dupuis with Christocentrism) and pluralism (associated by Dupuis with theocentrism). The dilemma between maintaining the fullness of divine revelation in Jesus Christ on the one hand, and respecting other divine manifestations – not having the same fullness of sacramentality – on the other hand.178 For Dupuis, it all comes down to the “Christological problem”: the question whether in the present context of dialogue we have to re-examine and reinterpret the universal significance of Jesus Christ. 179 We need an “inclusive pluralism model” of religious pluralism that combines Christocentrism with theocentric pluralism and a Trinitarian Christology can provide the solution. “Such a Christology will place in full relief the interpersonal relationships between Jesus and the God whom he calls Father, on the one side, and between Jesus and the Spirit whom he will send, on the other.”180 A Trinitarian Christology has certain consequences for a theology of religious pluralism. To begin with, it must be shown that Christian theology is theocentric by being Christocentric and vice versa. Jesus was himself entirely “God-centred” and should therefore never be conceived to be a substitution for the Father. Because of the incarnation, God and Jesus have a relation of unique closeness but at the same time, there is also an unbridgeable distance between God and Jesus in his human existence. In the second place, more attention must be devoted to the pneumatological aspect of the mystery of Christ. Jesus’ relation to the Spirit must be clearly expressed in an integral Christology, demonstrating the influence of the Holy Spirit both throughout Jesus’ earthly life and beyond the resurrection. In a Christian theology of religious pluralism, one should not only affirm the universal presence and action of the Spirit in human history but also adopt them as guiding principles.181
176
Ibidem, 11. Ibidem, 209. 178 Ibidem, 204. 179 Jacques Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions. From Confrontation to Dialogue (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2002), 88. 180 Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, 205. 181 Ibidem, 206. 177
58
THE HANDS OF GOD
Dupuis is convinced that the model of a Trinitarian Christology can show how affirmation of Christian identity is compatible with genuine respect and recognition of the identity of other religions. Importantly, he asserts that the historical centrality of the Christ event should not obscure the Trinitarian rhythm of the divine economy.182 In his focus on the two missions of God’s self-communication we recognise Rahner’s methodological approach. Dupuis like Rahner carefully emphasises that there are not two distinct and separate economies of salvation. There is one divine economy of salvation in which Son and Spirit function in total complementarity. On the one hand, the punctual historical event of Jesus Christ stands at the centre of the divine economy of salvation unfolding in history. On the other hand, this event is actuated and becomes operative in time and space throughout the universal and dynamic action of the Spirit.183 So despite their true distinctions, there is fundamentally a relation of mutuality between Son and Spirit. Dupuis argues that the hypostatic distinction between Son and Spirit and their specific yet complementary roles in the economy of salvation provides a hermeneutical key. With help of this key we can learn to understand the diversity and plurality of the concrete realisations divine-human relationships throughout history.184 §3. THE TRINITARIAN RHYTHM OF SALVATION-HISTORY The first theme that Dupuis explores through the lens of a Trinitarian Christology is salvation history. He starts by observing that Christians view God’s salvific plan for humankind as singular and complex at the same time. It is held to be one and universal because of God’s universal salvific will, but it is also held to be manifold and variegated because it unfolds historically. Approaching salvation history with the Trinitarian model brings makes us attentive to the universal presence and activity of the “Word of God” and the “Spirit of God” in human history. Without denying or forgetting that the Word and the Spirit are related to the particular historical event of Jesus Christ, Dupuis emphasises that through these media God deals with humankind universally. This opens way to treat nonChristian traditions more positively.185 He constructs his argument in two parts. First, he explains how the entirety of the history of salvation is marked by a Trinitarian rhythm, thereby strongly relying on Rahner’s theology. In the second part, this theory is illustrated by a discussion of the covenants and their significance for non-Christian religions. Dupuis follows Rahner in his affirmation that there is a single history of salvation coextensive with the history of the world. The experience of God’s universal offer of grace (in the form of the supernatural existential) is mediated and shaped by religions.186 The 182
Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 94. Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, 206-207. 184 Ibidem, 207. 185 Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 96-97. 186 Ibidem, 100. 183
JACQUES DUPUIS’ TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
59
Jewish and Christian traditions are clear examples of explicit awareness and recognition of God’s saving and revealing action in history. Yet the question is whether the same holds true for other religious traditions. Dupuis argues that the Old Testament already attests that God’s mirabilia are not limited to Israel but extend to other peoples.187 We cannot exclude the possibility that these and other events are interpreted in other religious traditions as divine interventions. Consequently, the demarcation line that is often drawn by theologians between general salvation history (religions in general) and special salvation history (the Judeo-Christian tradition) must be called into question.188 Reasoning from his Trinitarian Christology, Dupuis argues that the entire salvation history has a Trinitarian structure. The Christ event is the midpoint and focal point of the history of salvation. But there is also – before and after the Christ event – the universal operative presence of the “Word of God” and the “Spirit of God” in history, specifically in the religious traditions. According to the Old Testament the Wisdom-Word and the Spirit are mediums of God’s personal intervention in history. In the New Testament their true personhood is revealed. By retrospection, the Word and Spirit are understood as two distinct persons within the Triune God: the Son who became incarnate in Jesus Christ and the Spirit. John 1:9 indicates the universal revelatory function of the Logos that was present throughout history from the beginning and culminated in the incarnation in Jesus Christ.189 The Spirit is present as life-giving energy in the religious life of all human beings and in the various religious traditions to which they belong. Pope John Paul II has confirmed this operative presence of the Holy Spirit in various encyclicals, including Redemptor Hominis, Dominum et Vivificantem, and Redemptoris Missio.190 The question that arises is how Christocentrism on the one side and attention for the influence of the Logos and the Spirit on the other side are related to each other. Dupuis answers this question by invoking another Rahnerian idea. In the economy of salvation there are mutually conditioning relationships. Christ is the final cause of the pre-incarnate Logos and the Spirit. Spirit and Son therefore never work in isolation of each other.191 Dupuis further adds that we encounter here the mystery of time and eternity. “While for our human discursive knowledge the historical unfolding of salvation is necessarily made up of beginning-middle-end, or of past-present-future, in God’s eternal awareness and knowledge, all is continuous and coexisting, co-simultaneous, and interrelated.”192 On the basis of the foregoing discussion, Dupuis concludes that the Trinitarian structure informs the various stages in which God’s saving action unfolds in history. He illustrates this assertion by taking a closer look at the so called covenants. Christian tradition usually distinguishes four covenants. Irenaeus for instance wrote:
187
Dupuis points at Dt. 2, Am. 9:7 and Isa. 19:22-25 as examples of this Scriptural attestation. Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 100-103. 189 Ibidem, 110. 190 Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, 173-179. 191 Cf. Discussion in Chapter II, §5. 192 Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 111. 188
60
THE HANDS OF GOD
Four covenants were given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the Law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates the human being, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing human beings upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.193 In Irenaeus’ view, the covenants are all different instances of divine engagement with humankind through the Logos. They are Logophanies in which the Logos “rehearses” its breaking into history that happens in the incarnation in Jesus Christ. The Christ event does not abolish the previous Logophanies. These latter must rather be understood as earlier stages of salvation history, they are the seeds that already contain in promise the fullness that is yet to happen in the incarnation in Jesus Christ. 194 Since the whole history of revelation and salvation unfolds according to a Trinitarian rhythm, every divine covenant with humankind involves the active presence of God, of his Word, and of his Spirit.195 Dupuis argues that the Bible attests this threefold rhythm in the context of creation: God created through his Word (Gen 1:3; Jdt 16:13-14; Ps 33:9; Ps 148:5; Jn 1:1-3) in the Spirit (Gen 1:2). With regard to the Mosaic covenant, he remarks that God’s interventions for the people of Israel are accomplished through his Word. The Spirit takes possession of individual persons making them an instrument of God’s action and empowers prophets to speak God’s word. In the case of the covenant with Noah, Scripture gives no clear indications of the Trinitarian structure. Dupuis argues nonetheless that since the entire history of salvation is marked with the Trinitarian rhythm, the covenant with humanity in Noah must be stamped by it as well.196 As a result of the affirmation of the Trinitarian structure of the history of salvation a logical question follows, namely whether the earlier covenants retain any value after the incarnation. We first examine the covenant with Noah. In Dupuis’ reading of Genesis 9, the elements of this narrative symbolise a personal and universal commitment of God. It is a true event of salvation marked by grace and extending toward every nation of the earth. Consequently, on the basis of this covenant each and everyone, including the peoples belonging to extrabiblical traditions, are in a state of covenantship with God and may therefore be called “peoples of God”.197 When considering the covenant with Moses, Dupuis seeks recourse to elements of the contemporary Jewish-Christian dialogue. This learns that one should avoid both a theory of simple replacement in Jesus Christ of the Mosaic covenant with Israel, and also a dualism of parallel ways, as this would destroy the unity of God’s 193
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III, 11, 8. Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 104. 195 Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, 227. 196 Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 112. 197 Ibidem, 105. 194
JACQUES DUPUIS’ TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
61
salvific plan for humanity. Dupuis therefore argues for a middle way: there is a single covenant with two interrelated ways within one organic plan of salvation. Although the covenant with Israel does not exist independently of the Christ event, it remains in place and is not abolished by the covenant in Jesus Christ. Dupuis argues that this example of the enduring significance of Judaism can be applied analogously to the other religious traditions. Like the Mosaic covenant, the covenant made in Noah with the nations has not been cancelled in Christ, despite the fact that in Christ the goal of the covenant has been reached. Thus, the other religious traditions likewise retain a permanent value, without being unrelated to the Christ event.198 §4. THE TRINITARIAN STRUCTURE OF REVELATION In addition to a discussion of salvation history, Dupuis also considers the theological theme of revelation and more specifically the issue of sacred scriptures. As we have mentioned before in our discussion of Rahner’s theology, salvation is closely connected with revelation.199 Dupuis stresses that God’s self-manifestation in history takes place under the double form of words and deeds, consisting at once of revelation and salvation. 200 By application of Rahner’s concept of the supernatural existential, it seems possible to conclude a priori to the universality of revelation in human history. Consequently, “elements of truth” originating in divine revelation must be found in the various religious traditions of the world.201 However, before one can focus on revelation as such, the question arises whether the God of other religions is the same as the God of Christians. Dupuis does not attempt to distil an illusory “common essence” from all the religions.202 He mentions the important distinction between monotheistic or prophetic religions on the one hand and mystical religions of the East. While he argues that the continuity between the Jewish, Christian and Muslim God can be substantiated, pointing for instance at their common origin in the faith of Abraham, he also concedes that this is more difficult and complex with regard to the religions of the East. 203 Does this invalidate the theological search for revelation, for “elements of truth”, for words of God, etc. in other religious traditions? Is it possible to search for the many faces of One Divine Mystery in the religions and interpret them in terms of Christian Trinitarian theism? Dupuis answers this question positively, being convinced that due attention and respect for differences can be combined in an analysis of other traditions from the vantage point of one’s own faith. That means that whereas Hindu and 198
Ibidem, 109. Cf. Chapter I, §4. 200 Dupuis refers to Vatican II’s Dei Verbum: “This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having in inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. (DV, 2). 201 Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, 239. 202 Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 116. 203 For Dupuis’ detailed argumentation, cf. Christianity and the Religions, 118-122 and Toward a Christian Theology, 254-279. 199
62
THE HANDS OF GOD
Buddhist theology will continue to interpret reality according to their own terms, “Christians who, in continuity with the Jewish revelation and their own tradition, adhere to a Trinitarian monotheism cannot but think in terms of the universal presence and self-manifestation of the Triune God”.204 To this Christian understanding of revelation and its consequences for other religions we turn now. Dupuis argues that, like the structure of salvation history, God’s self-revelation also has a Trinitarian rhythm, which is a consequence of the inner mystery of the Triune God (Rahner’s axiom). Because God is a three-person communion, God’s self-communication happens in a threefold manner: from the Father through his Word in his Spirit.205 Especially the roles of the Word and the Spirit offer possibilities for an open theology of revelation. Dupuis finds support for this view both in Scripture as well as in the tradition. Firstly, the assertion that God’s speech is always through his Word is attested by the Johannine prologue (Jn. 1:9) that speaks of “the true light that enlightens every human being by coming into the world”. Vatican II seems to refer to this passage in Nostra Aetate, acknowledging “rays of Truth” in other religious traditions (NA 2), and in Ad Gentes, acknowledging “seeds of the Word” in other traditions (AG 11;15). Dupuis mentions that the idea of “seeds of the Word” seems to be borrowed from Justin Martyr’s theology of the Logos Spermatikos. What these examples show is that before the culmination of divine selfcommunication in the incarnation, God had already spoken to humankind through the Word-to-become-incarnate. Consequently, “room must be left for his anticipated action in history as well as his enduring influence under other symbols”.206 Secondly, Dupuis argues that postconciliar doctrinal statements (especially the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II) have acknowledged the universal active presence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is active both in the lives of individual people and also in the religious traditions of the world. The Spirit anticipates the Christ event, and extends after this event beyond the confines of the church. 207 Moreover, Dupuis stresses that every personal encounter between God and the human occurs in the Holy Spirit: “God becomes God-for-the-human-being in the Spirit, and it is in the Spirit that we can respond to the divine advances.”208 The Spirit is therefore active and present in all authentic experience of God. Thus, Dupuis argues that divine revelation has occurred and continues to happen through the Word of God and in the Spirit of God at various stages in the history of humankind. Thus, there must be signs of God’s self-revelation – “seeds of his Word” and “imprints of his Spirit” – in the foundational experiences and events that lie at the basis of religious traditions. Does this mean that sacred scriptures of other religions can be 204
Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 119. Ibidem, 111-112. 206 Ibidem, 124. 207 Ibidem, 124. 208 Ibidem, 125. 205
JACQUES DUPUIS’ TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
63
acknowledged as “word of God”? To answer this question, Dupuis distinguishes between divine revelation, prophecy, and sacred scripture. Divine revelation is a personal selfmanifestation of God in history, which recalling Rahner’s notion of the supernatural existential occurs constantly and universally in the history of humankind. The prophetic charism is an interpretation of divine interventions in the history of a particular people, originating in mystical experience. Finally, sacred scriptures contain memories and interpretations of divine revelation written under a special divine impulse. It is the word of God in the words of human beings. The reason that God and human beings can be co-author of sacred texts, is because of the personal inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who inspires the human authors.209 Do sacred scriptures of other religious traditions contain a word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit, and if so what the connection is between this word and the decisive word of God spoken in Jesus Christ? Dupuis here takes a clearly pneumatological approach, repeating the argument that the Holy Spirit is present and active not only in all authentic religious experience (e.g. the experience of sages and seers of other traditions) and in prophecies, but also in the social expression of this experience of God. Sacred scriptures represent a “tradition-in-becoming” guided by divine providence, containing words of God that “lead other human being to the experience of the same Spirit”.210 That is not to say that the whole content of these scriptures must be held as the word of God, or that these scriptures already contain God’s decisive word to humankind. But according to Dupuis, it is possible that they contain an experience of the Spirit authentically interpreted and recorded in sacred scriptures under divine providence, therefore constituting truly a word of God.211 Taking into account the cosmic influence of the Holy Spirit, Dupuis thus accords a revelatory role to the sacred scriptures of non-Christian religions. How does this accord with the claim that Jesus Christ is the fullness of revelation? Vatican II clearly stated that Jesus Christ “is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation” (DV 2) and “perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself” (DV 4). Dupuis starts by asserting that this fullness of revelation is not to be equalled with the written word of the New Testament, which is the authentic memorial of that revelation and is therefore to be distinguished from the Christ event itself. It is the total event of the person Jesus Christ – his deeds, his words, his life, his death, and his resurrection – that constitutes the fullness of revelation. 212 Furthermore, the fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ should not be understood quantitatively (as if Jesus reveals everything there is to know about the divine mystery) but qualitatively. As we will see, the human nature of Jesus Christ forms the key both to his characterisation as the fullness of revelation as well as to the limitations that are involved. The fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ is grounded in a unique and unsurpassable 209
Ibidem, 126-127. Ibidem, 128. 211 Ibidem, 128. 212 Ibidem, 129. 210
64
THE HANDS OF GOD
personal human experience: Jesus lived and experienced himself as the Son of God, thereby possessing and revealing an immediate knowledge of the Father and of the mystery of Trinitarian life in which he participates. Jesus’ life and human existence are the human expression of the mystery of the Son of God in relation to his Father. Jesus does not speak words of God but is himself the Word of God made flesh. As a result, the divine mystery can be expressed in human language resulting in a revelation with a depth that is unequalled. That is why Dupuis argues that the revelation in Jesus Christ has a qualitatively unique and unsurpassable character and why it is central and normative for Christian faith.213 But as we mentioned, the central role of Jesus’ human consciousness also entails a limitation. The revelation in Jesus Christ is not absolute, as no human consciousness can exhaust the mystery in its entirety. Even though Jesus’ consciousness is the personal knowledge and consciousness of the Word, it remains authentically human and therefore incapable of directly communicating divine knowledge to humanity. Despite being unsurpassable, the revelation in Jesus Christ remains unfinished until the completion of revelation in the eschaton. This “eschatological proviso” has been confirmed by Vatican II (cf. DV 8) as well as by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Fides et Ratio.214 Thus, the notion of qualitative fullness enables Dupuis to claim that “as long as the unsurpassable fullness of the revelation that has taken place in Jesus Christ is kept in mind, it can still be said that God continues to speak to our world to this day.”215 Because God speaks to humankind in various ways, three stages in the ongoing process of divine self-revelation can be distinguished that are not chronological but partially overlapping. Besides the decisive word in Jesus Christ (Christian stage) and the words spoken through the prophets of the Old Testament (Mosaic stage), God has also spoken to human beings belonging to different traditions (cosmic stage). Traces of these initial hidden words of God can be found in the sacred scriptures of other religious traditions.216 While these sacred scriptures of other traditions truly contain words of God, Dupuis concedes that they do not have the official character ascribed to the Old Testament or the significance and value attributed to the Christ event. Yet he also refuses to apply the terms “word of God”,” holy scripture”, and “inspiration” restrictively to the scriptures of the Jewish and Christian traditions. Dupuis argues that these terms are analogical concepts that should be applied differently to the various stages of a progressive, differentiated revelation. The history of salvation and revelation is one but consists of different stages that are all personally guided by divine providence. As a result, all the religious traditions contain “seeds of the Word” and bear in different ways the seal of the Holy Spirit. He quotes Thomas Aquinas who in turn quoting Ambrosiaster wrote: “Omne verum a quocumque dicatur a Spiritu Sancto est” (Every divine truth, no matter
213
Ibidem, 129-130. Ibidem, 130-132. 215 Ibidem, 132. 216 Ibidem, 133. 214
JACQUES DUPUIS’ TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
65
by whom it is said, comes from the Holy Spirit) (S.T. I-II, 109, 1, ad 1).217 On the basis of this understanding of revelation, Dupuis argues for a complementarity between revelation inside and outside the Judeo-Christian tradition and analogously for a complementarity between the biblical scriptures and other sacred scriptures. That does not imply that other traditions solely contain divine truths. For Christians, the event of Jesus Christ remains the normative criterion in distinguishing truths from untruths. Whatever is in contradiction with the Word of God cannot be a true word of God. Moreover, recognition of the complementarity of the diverse ways of revelation also does not imply a “lack” or a “void” in the revelation in Jesus Christ that needs to be filled or supplemented (that would contradict the unique fullness of this revelation). According to Dupuis, mutual asymmetrical complementarity forms the key in understanding the relation between the various moments in divine revelation. On the one hand, the non-biblical traditions and their scriptures are additional autonomous gifts from God to humankind; they represent authentic words of God. They contain more than mere natural knowledge of God and therefore may bring the Divine Mystery into greater relief than the Bible. Hence the plea for reciprocal complementarity. On the other hand, these “seeds of truth and grace” find their fulfilment in the revelation in Jesus Christ, who forms the apex, the centre, and the key for interpretation of all divine revelation.218 Thus, the Trinitarian approach leaves room for an economy of revelation that is differentiated, progressive, and complementary. §5. THE CHRIST EVENT AND THE OPERATIVE PRESENCE OF THE WORD AND THE SPIRIT Both in the discussion on salvation history and on revelation, the position and role of Jesus Christ forms one of the fundamental questions. This section will focus on the relationship between the universal saving value of the historic Christ event on the one hand and the continuing operative presence of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit on the other hand. Dupuis is convinced that a Trinitarian Christology contains the model and key to interpret this relationship. In the previous section we already noted that Dupuis conceives of the fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ in a specific sense. This revelation possesses “qualitative fullness”, which despite being unequalled and unsurpassable still remains “limited”. In discussing the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, Dupuis avoids speaking of “absoluteness” in reference to Jesus Christ or Christianity.219 Absoluteness is an attribute of the Ultimate Reality, who alone is infinite and necessary, while everything created, including the humanity of the Son-of-God-made-man, is finite and contingent. Jesus Christ is neither the “absolute” Saviour, who is God in himself, nor “relative”, as if he is merely one saviour 217
Ibidem, 133-135. Ibidem, 136. 219 Dupuis mentions a couple of theologians who use “absoluteness” in relation to Jesus Christ and Christianity. Among them is Karl Rahner, who as we have seen speaks of the “absoluteness of Christianity” and of Jesus Christ as “Absolute Saviour” (Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 138-139, 193-196, 318-321). 218
66
THE HANDS OF GOD
among other saviours. Dupuis maintains that Jesus Christ is unique and universal, but argues that these characteristics must be understood as constitutive and relational. They are “constitutive” insofar as Jesus Christ has saving significance for all of humankind and insofar as the Christ event is truly “cause” of salvation, and “relational” insofar as they are inserted in God’s overall plan salvific plan for humankind and its realisation in history.220 Jesus Christ constitutes the privileged channel of salvation, but at the same time the “way” in Christ stands in a relationship to various other “ways” within God’s single plan of salvation. Dupuis’ argument will be explained in the following. Dupuis grounds the constitutive uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ in his personal identity as the Son of God. We discussed the unsurpassable depth and closeness of this human experience already in the previous section. The event of Jesus Christ has universal significance, because it seals an unbreakable bond of union between the Godhead and the human race.221 Dupuis continues arguing that the universality of the Christ event must never be separated from the particular Jesus. It is the human existence of the historical Jesus that has become “transhistorical” in his resurrection and glorification. Consequently, “just as the human consciousness of Jesus as Son could not, by its very nature, exhaust the mystery of God, and therefore God’s revelation in him remains limited, likewise the Christ event does not – and cannot – exhaust God’s saving power.”222 Dupuis emphasises that God remains the ultimate source of revelation and salvation. Jesus cannot substitute God: his revelation is a “human transposition of God’s mystery” and his salvific action the “channel of God’s salvific will”. This opens the possibility of distinguishing other expressions of God’s salvific will: through the non-incarnate Word (Logos asarkos) and through the Holy Spirit.223 Dupuis states that the mystery of the incarnation remains unique: only Jesus’ human reality was assumed by the Logos and therefore only Jesus constitutes the “image of God”.224 In this mystery of Jesus Christ, the divine Word cannot be separated from the human flesh that it has assumed. Yet at the same time, divine Word and human existence also remain distinct, which leads Dupuis to distinguish between the action of the Logos asarkos (the nonincarnate Word) and the action of the Logos ensarkos (the incarnate Word). The human action of the Logos ensarkos is the universal sacrament of God’s action to save humankind. But the Christ event does not exhaust God’s saving action through the Logos. Dupuis argues therefore that there is a distinct action of the Logos asarkos which endures throughout history. This does not constitute a distinct economy of salvation parallel to the salvation in Jesus Christ, but rather the possibility of diverse paths to salvation within the single and universal salvific plan of God.225 Dupuis finds support of his position in the thought of two recent
220
Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 166. Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, 305. 222 Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 175. 223 Ibidem, 176. 224 Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, 298. 225 Ibidem, 298-299. 221
JACQUES DUPUIS’ TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
67
theologians. Claude Geffré warns against the identification of the historical contingent aspect of Jesus with the “Christic” divine aspect. He argues that it is possible to view the economy of the Son incarnate as a sacrament of the broader economy of the eternal Word of God.226 Edward Schillebeeckx in turn argues that if we no not want to deny Jesus’ humanity, we must assert as contingent historical being Jesus not only reveals but also conceals God. From this we learn that no individual particularity can be absolute so that God can be encountered in many ways, even outside Jesus.227 Thus, Dupuis argues that the centrality of the event of incarnation of the Logos must not obscure the enduring presence and action of the divine Word. Likewise, he also points out that a Trinitarian perspective should take into account the universal presence and action of the Spirit. This does not mean that there are various economies of salvation. Dupuis clearly states that “God’s economy of salvation is only one; the Christ event is both its apex and universal sacrament; but the God who saves is three-personed: each of the three is personally distinct and remains active distinctly.”
228
He explains the relation between the
pneumatological and the Christological aspects of salvation by referring to Rahner. As we have seen, Rahner argues that Word and Spirit mutually condition each other, and that the Spirit may properly be called the Spirit of Christ because the Christ event both derives from the work of the Holy Spirit (Spirit as efficient cause of Christ) and also gives rise to it (Christ as the final cause of the Spirit).229 Dupuis observes that this argument raises the question “whether after the Christ event the communication of the Spirit and his active presence in the world take place solely through the glorified humanity of Jesus Christ, or on the contrary, can also go beyond that limit”.230 In other words: is there a distinct activity of the Holy Spirit after the Christ event? In order to answer this question Dupuis appeals to Ireneaus’ famous image of the “two hands of God”, the Word and the Spirit who as paired hands produce the single economy of salvation. The Word and the Spirit are united and inseparable on the one hand, but distinct and complementary in their distinction on the other hand. While their actions are different, it is precisely in the “synergy” of the two distinct activities that God’s salvific action is effected. That means that neither the Word nor the Spirit can be reduced to a mere function of one another.231 Dupuis mentions in this regard that the Eastern Orthodox tradition has often accused the Western tradition of a “Christomonism” that results precisely in such subordination, making the Spirit a “function” of Christ. He cites Paul Evdokimov who emphasises the personal character of the Holy Spirit’s mission from the Father. Pentecost is not simply a continuation of the incarnation but has full value in itself, representing the
226
Claude Geffré, quoted in: Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, 299. Edward Schillebeeckx, quoted in: Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, 299-300. 228 Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 178. 229 Cf. Chapter 3 section 5. 230 Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions,178-179. 231 Ibidem, 179-180. 227
68
THE HANDS OF GOD
Father’s second act.232 He also cites Vladimir Lossky who argues that with the idea of filioque the Latin tradition subordinates the Spirit to the Son. The concept of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son reduces the Spirit to “a bond between two persons”. Lossky argues that because of this subordination the Spirit loses not only hypostatic independence, but also “the personal fullness of his economic activity”.233 Dupuis admits that these criticisms possess certain validity and that they should be taken seriously. Without giving details he states that “clearly no ‘subordination’ of the Spirit to the Son in the inner mystery of God may be assumed”, but he also concedes that there are various ways in which this might happen, for instance by identifying the Spirit with the risen Christ or by confining the action of the Spirit to the communication through the risen Christ.234 Dupuis clearly rejects the latter position. He recalls that Vatican II and Pope John Paul II have repeatedly reaffirmed the operative presence of the Spirit before the glorification of Christ (cf. Ad Gentes §4; Dominum et Vivificantem §53), while also acknowledging that the outpouring of the Spirit takes place “in view” of the Christ event (Redemptoris Missio §29). Reasoning in a way similar to the argument regarding the activity of the Logos asarkos, Dupuis argues that the Christ event does not necessarily exhaust the activity of the Spirit after the Christ. Both the Word and the Spirit have and keep their personal identity in God’s saving activity: the Word is the light “which enlightens everyone” (Jn 1:9) and the Spirit “blows where he wills” (Jn 3:8). The Christ event thus does not cancel out the distinct and personal saving activity of the Holy Spirit.235 §6. THE VALUE OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM After having established both the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ and the enduring operative presence of the Word and the Spirit, Dupuis finally comes to the consequences for a theology of religious pluralism. From the outset, the central issue at stake in his discussion has been the place and significance of religious pluralism in God’s salvific plan for humankind. He admits that traditional Christian thinking up until recently has been reluctant to recognise non-Christian religions as valid “paths”, “ways” or “channels” of revelation and salvation.236 Nevertheless, Dupuis argues that his Trinitarian Christological perspective “makes it possible to affirm a plurality of ‘ways’ and ‘routes’ toward human liberation/salvation, in keeping with God’s design for humankind in Jesus Christ; it likewise opens the way for recognizing other ‘saving figures’ in human history”.237 The mediation of God’s saving grace to humankind is simultaneously one and multifaceted, never unrelated
232
Paul Evdokimov, quoted in: Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 180. Vladimir Lossky, quoted in: Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 180. 234 Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 180-181. 235 Ibidem, 181. 236 Ibidem, 183-185. 237 Ibidem, 164. 233
JACQUES DUPUIS’ TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
69
to its highpoint in the Christ event but at the same time also not limited by the Christ event. The question that remains unanswered is to what extent the non-Christian religious traditions have a role in the different dimensions of the mediation of revelation and salvation. Dupuis sees three different possibilities: the inclusive presence of the Mystery of Christ, the universal power of the Logos and the universal presence of the Spirit. To begin with, Dupuis points out that the fulfilment theory fails to acknowledge the historic and social character of human being, by creating a division between the religious life of the individual and the community of faith in which that life is experienced. There is no religious life without religious practice, and as social beings human persons live their religious life as members of a particular faith community sharing particular religious traditions.238 Moreover, Dupuis argues that though subjective and objective religion are distinct, they cannot be separated. Considering the historic and social nature of human being and taking into account the assumption that every human being can have an authentic encounter with God, it must be concluded that religious traditions contain traces of the human encounter with grace. In short: Dupuis finds it impossible to hold that while individual people can attain salvation, religious traditions play no role in that process.239 The question is how these traditions are related to the mystery of Christ. Dupuis argues that “the order of faith or salvation consists precisely in this personal communication of God with the human being, a communication whose concrete realization takes place in Jesus Christ, and whose effective sign is the humanity of Christ”.240 Dupuis clearly states that the mystery of Christ is one. However, he argues that we must distinguish between various modalities of the sacramental presence of this mystery. This personal presence of God to human beings in Jesus Christ reaches its highest and most complete sacramental visibility in Christianity, through the word revealed in Jesus Christ and the sacraments based on him. So in the Christian church, the mystery of Christ is present to the community “openly and explicitly, in the full visibility of its complete mediation”. But taking into account the earlier discussion, every religious practice forms a visible element, a sign, a sacrament of human experience of God and expresses, sustains, supports and contains such experiences. Yet the religious practices of other traditions are not on the same level as the Christian sacraments. Nevertheless, the mystery of Christ is present in other traditions “hiddenly and implicitly, through a modality of incomplete, but no less real mediation”. In this particular sense of mediating the mystery of Christ, other religions are for their adherents a way and means of salvation.241 Even though the Christ event is inclusively present, it does not exhaust the power of the Word of God and the operative presence of the Holy Spirit. Through the combined and universal action of the Word and the Spirit, revealed truth and saving grace have been and 238
Ibidem, 186-187. Ibidem, 187. 240 Ibidem, 188. 241 Ibidem, 188-189. 239
70
THE HANDS OF GOD
continue to be present throughout the history of salvation. The Logos enlightens not only individuals, but human undertakings (such as Greek philosophy and Asian wisdom) as well: the Logos continually “sows” seeds or elements of truth and grace (AG, 9) among peoples and in their traditions.242 Likewise, the Holy Spirit continues to inspire people, thus affecting not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions (Redemptoris Missio, § 28). Taking this into account, Dupuis concludes that: Again we are led to recognize a saving function of those religions in communicating to their adherents the offer of God’s grace and salvation and in giving expression to their positive response to God’s gracious self-gift. The Word and the Spirit – God’s “two hands” (St. Ireneaus) – work together through their universal action to confer “truth and grace” on the religious life of people and to inscribe “saving values” into the religious traditions to which they belong.243 Thus, the superabundant riches and variety of God’s self-manifestation to humankind – through the Christ event, the Word and the Spirit – causes throughout history a variety of religious traditions mediating the human encounter with grace. On this basis, Dupuis concludes that religious pluralism can be affirmed “in principle”. “It forms part of the nature of the overflowing communication of the tri-personal God to humankind to extend beyond the divine life the plural communication inherent in that very life.”244 His approach holds in a dialectic tension the universal constitutive character of the Christ event in the order of salvation on the one hand, and the positive significance of the religious traditions within God’s single yet manifold plan for humanity on the other hand. Locating this approach within the debate on religious pluralism and applying the usual terminology, Dupuis calls it “pluralistic inclusivism” or an “inclusive pluralism”. Moreover, Dupuis is convinced that the history of God’s dealings with humankind contains more truth and grace than is available and discoverable in the Christian tradition. Despite the decisive character of the Christ event, Christianity neither possesses the entirety of truth nor monopolises grace. Because of the variety of God’s self-manifestation in history, we can discover in other saving figures and traditions “truth and grace not made explicit with the same force and clarity in the revelation and manifestation of God in Jesus Christ”.245 He argues therefore for “mutual asymmetrical complementarity” between Christianity and other religions. That means that the truth and grace in other traditions are not to be reduced to merely stepping stones or seeds. The Christ event does not complete these elements of grace simply by way of substitution or fulfilment (being unilaterally “integrated” or “absorbed” into Christianity and thereby losing self-consistency), but rather through 242
Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, 320. Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, 190. 244 Ibidem, 255. 245 Ibidem, 256. 243
JACQUES DUPUIS’ TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
71
confirmation and accomplishment. Standing in a relation of mutual complementarity, dynamic interaction should take place between Christianity and other traditions through interreligious dialogue, which involves giving and receiving by both parties.246 However, Dupuis is careful to stress that this mutual complementarity is asymmetrical. Since the Christ event constitutes “the fullness of revelation and the accomplishment of the mystery of human salvation”, God’s self-manifestation in Jesus Christ is in no need of true completion (unlike other traditions, which are destined to find their full meaning in the Christ event). But Dupuis clearly pleads to recognise that other religious traditions, endowed with their own intrinsic value, can contribute positively to the enrichment of Christianity.247 §7. RECAPITULATION In this chapter we have examined Dupuis Trinitarian theology of religious pluralism that seeks to find a middle way between Christocentrism and theocentrism. Dupuis perceives both in the history of salvation and in the history of revelation a Trinitarian rhythm. Awareness of this Trinitarian pattern results in attention for God’s enduring action through the non-incarnate Word and the Spirit both within and outside Christianity. However, although these are distinct divine actions they are not to be separated from the central and unique Christ event. Dupuis searches for a way to maintain both the uniqueness and universality of the Christ event and the continuing operative presence of the Word and the Spirit. For that reason, he argues for an understanding of Jesus Christ as both constitutive and relational. The human existence of Jesus Christ forms the key here. On the one hand, the historical Jesus, the human being who is the Son of God, forms the concrete and highest sacramental mediation of God’s salvific will. On the other hand, because of his human existence Jesus cannot exhaust God’s salvific power. This leaves room for other expressions of God’s salvific will by way of the Spirit and the Word. Rather than being a multiplication of divine economies of salvation, the distinct missions of the Son and the Spirit should be understood as two hands of God that work together in the single economy of salvation. Because Dupuis argues for a qualitative fullness of mediation in Jesus Christ, he perceives the possibility that truth and grace mediated by the Spirit and the Word can be found outside Christianity in other religions. The variety of God’s salvific self-manifestation throughout history makes that other religious traditions can contain elements of grace that are pointers of salvation for their adherents and enlightening gifts for Christianity. Consequently, rather than being mere stepping stones other religions can enrich Christianity by bringing the Mystery of Jesus Christ to greater clarity.
246 247
Ibidem, 257. Ibidem, 257-258.
CHAPTER VI
GAVIN D’COSTA’S CHRISTOCENTRIC TRINITARIANISM
§1. INTRODUCTION In this chapter we will review Gavin D’Costa’s contribution to the theology of religions. Like Dupuis, D’Costa also argues for a Trinitarian approach to the issue of religious plurality. It is good to note beforehand that D’Costa’s own position has changed over time. He has moved from an originally Rahnerian inclusivist position toward increased criticism of the threefold typology, arguing now that both inclusivism and pluralism are in fact simply different forms of exclusivism. Rejecting “overall” theologies of religions, D’Costa has adopted a tradition specific standpoint. He is convinced that for Christians a type of “Roman Catholic trinitarianism” forms the best particular approach to differing religions.248 But before we take a closer look at his Trinitarian approach to religious pluralism we will first sketch the general background of D’Costa’s theology and his methodological assumptions. §2. THE HIDDEN EXCLUSIVISM OF PLURALISM AND INCLUSIVISM In the introduction of The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity, D’Costa explains his uneasiness with the dominant model in the theology of religions and its threefold typology of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism.249 He notes pluralism’s recent growth of influence and the critique mounted against pluralism by authors like Kenneth Surin, John Milbank, and Gerard Loughlin. These authors argue that Christian pluralism is a species of Enlightenment modernity. Citing particularly his affinity with Alasdair Macintyre’s thought, D’Costa expresses his agreement with this line of critique. Most importantly, he argues that the Enlightenment and the pluralist position influenced by it strive to grant equality to all religions, but in the end (unintentionally) deny public truth to any and all of them.250 The first part of his book aims to show how both various forms of pluralism and inclusivism ultimately collapse into different tradition-specific forms of exclusivism. We will review this argument hereafter. In order to understand D’Costa’s criticism of pluralism and inclusivism, we must first attend to an important methodological presupposition underlying his approach. He starts from the essential assertion that no non-tradition-specific (exclusivist) approach to religions
248 Gavin D’Costa, “Theology of Religions” in David Ford (ed.), The Modern Theologians (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 637-638. 249 Cf. Section 2 of Chapter III. 250 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 1-2.
GAVIN D’COSTA’S CHRISTOCENTRIC TRINITARIANISM
73
and their truth claims can exist.251 D’Costa argues on the contrary that tradition-specificity must be taken seriously. This necessarily implies that all theologies of religions have a contingent point of departure. In the case of Christian positions on questions of the plurality of religions, this means that they must be “rooted in, and accountable to, an ecclesial community”. His own argument is therefore firmly rooted in (contemporary) ecclesial documents.252 It is on the basis of this negation of the possibility of non-tradition-specific approaches that he criticizes pluralist and inclusivist approaches and defends an exclusivist approach. Pluralism’s main weakness consists of the fact that that despite its claims of openness and tolerance towards different traditions, far from being neutral or non traditionspecific it actually is a strong form of modern liberal exclusivism.253 Furthermore, because pluralist theologies of religions are assimilated to modernity rather than to the Triune God, they end up denying or obliterating difference and Otherness.254 In developing his critique D’Costa reviews pluralist scholars from the Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist tradition. We will limit our examination of this critique by focusing on his discussion of the Christian theologians John Hick and Paul Knitter. D’Costa first sets out to show that John Hick’s pluralism, while claiming to be nontradition specific, is essentially an exclusivist form of secular agnosticism. He argues that Hick understands religious language purely instrumentally as mythical speech about the “Real”, without an ontological connection to this divine reality. Since no religious tradition can claim a privileged access to reality, they all must undergo a mythologizing hermeneutic.255 But this fails to take difference seriously; through the depriveleging of the particular, the “Other” is effectively neutralized and destroyed. Evaluating Hick’s mythologizing hermeneutic, D’Costa concludes therefore that: (...) it seems to ignore or deny the really difficult conflicting truth claims by, in effect, reducing them to sameness: i.e. they are all mythological assertions. (…) Underlying this form of pluralism is an implicit epistemology (that God cannot choose to reveal God’s self in the particular) and its concomitant ontology (God cannot be known in history, with its attendant deism or agnosticism), and its espousal of a universal ethic that should be followed by all rational men and women.256 Reasoning from this agnostic position, Hick catalogues all forms of religion into modernity’s code of time, space and history. As a result, the unique history and the particularities of religious traditions “evaporate”; they are drained of their power.257 Hick maintains that 251
D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 19. D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 12. 253 D’Costa, “Theology of Religions”, 638. 254 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 38. 255 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 26-27. 256 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 27. 257 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 28. 252
74
THE HANDS OF GOD
despite their differences the religious traditions are united in putting forward similar ethical principles: love, compassion, self-sacrificing, concern for the good of others, generous kindness and forgiveness. Yet he severs these principles from their tradition-specific narrative contexts, arguing that these ethical principles arise out of our human nature. The fact that they “happen to concur with the modern liberal outlook” forms a decisive indication for D’Costa that Hick has a tradition-specific starting point himself: the ethical agnosticism of liberal modernity.258 After this critique on John Hick, D’Costa proceeds by reviewing Paul Knitter’s pluralism. We will not discuss this criticism in its entirety but focus on the Christological theme that figures prominently in this critique. D’Costa labels Knitter’s Christology as representative: “Jesus does bring a universal, decisive, indispensable message, but there are probably other universal decisive, indispensable manifestations of divine reality besides Jesus”.259 Knitter’s representative Christology, in which God’s unbound and universal saving love is emphasized, is contrasted with the constitutive Christology adhered to by the Roman Catholic Magisterium, in which it is emphasized that Jesus is the constitution of God’s saving action. D’Costa is critical of the representative Christology and defends the constitutive Christology. He argues that Christ does not “represent” God, but “is” God’s very self-revelation as triune; the signifier is the signified. The danger of a representative Christology is that “the signified is possessed prior to Jesus, such that Jesus is seen to be an ‘embodiment or representation’ of what is already known prior to him”.260 D’Costa locates Knitter’s objection against a constitutive Christology in the fact that the particular is prioritized, which runs contrary to the spirit of global dialogue. But this implies that only liberal moderns agreeing on ethical universals can be admitted to such a dialogue. Religious traditions must be “baptized” into modernity before coming to the dialogue. The foundation of this position is formed by the Enlightenment’s denial of the possibility of God’s selfrevelation in the historically particular. According to D’Costa, both Hick’s and Knitter’s approach essentially amounts to a non-religious form of exclusivism.261 Although his critique is primarily focused on pluralism, D’Costa also takes time to reject inclusivism as a viable option for theology of religions. His argument is that inclusivism logically collapses into exclusivism in three particular ways. In the first place, inclusivism and exclusivism do not differ to the extent that they both hold that their tradition ultimately contains the highest level of truth. While inclusivists acknowledge truth elsewhere, they also maintain that this truth is always mitigated and inferior compared to the truth mediated by their own tradition. In the second place, exclusivists and inclusivists both hold that truth cannot be separated from the mediator (in case of Christianity: Christ and his church). In the third place, in so much as they both are committed to defend their position and engage in 258
D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 29. D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 35. 260 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 36-38. 261 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 37-39. 259
GAVIN D’COSTA’S CHRISTOCENTRIC TRINITARIANISM
75
debate to convince others, both inclusivists and exclusivists recognize the traditionspecificity nature of their enquiry into questions of truth. The only significant difference D’Costa perceives, is that inclusivists contrary to exclusivists seek to affirm other religions than Christianity as means to salvation.262 He illustrates this criticism by applying it to Rahner’s inclusivism. Although Rahner acknowledges the presence of operative grace in non-Christian religions, he retains the necessity of the beatific vision – the Trinitarian glory of God – as the final end of every man and woman. Thus, this Rahnerian inclusivism in the end requires the same as exclusivism: explicit confession to the Triune God.263 However, the similarities between exclusivism and inclusivism not withstanding, the latter must be rejected in favour of the former for two reasons. Firstly, inclusivism does not consider other religious traditions in their organic unity of practice and theory, but interprets traditions by singling out parts that are “affirmed” and parts that are “rejected”. Consequently, not the religion per se is included in the engagement with other religions but only parts of a tradition. Secondly, these elements are not interpreted in their original paradigm but through a paradigm of reinterpretation. That means that other religions are never affirmed in their own self-understanding by inclusivists. Rather, inclusivists tend to affirm elements that they regard as positive themselves, usually deriving from reflection on the positive elements of their own tradition.264 Thus, both pluralism and inclusivism finally collapse into some form of exclusivism. As an alternative, D’Costa proposes a form of Christocentric Trinitarian exclusivism which is better able to take difference and otherness seriously. To this proposal we will turn in the following section. §3. THE TRINITY AS KEY TO RECONCILE PARTICULARITY WITH UNIVERSALITY In an article written in 1990, D’Costa already proposed his idea that a Christian theology of religions should focus on the doctrine of the Trinity.265 At this time, he still considered his approach to be inclusivist, but as we have mentioned before he has moved more toward exclusivism since then. We will begin by examining this early framework of a Trinitarian theology of religions. D’Costa argues that one of the main advantages of a Trinitarian perspective is that it provides a way to reconcile the historical particular with the universal. More concrete, it enables the reconciliation of the exclusivist emphasis on the particularity of Christ and the pluralist emphasis on God’s universal activity in history. According to the doctrine of the Trinity God reveals himself as an utter and gracious mystery (the Father) in the Word incarnate (the Son) and in God’s indwelling sanctifying and prophetic presence
262
D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 22. D’Costa, “Theology of Religions”, 638. 264 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 22-23. 265 Gavin D’Costa, “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality” in Gavin D’Costa (ed.) Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religion (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1992). 263
76
THE HANDS OF GOD
(the Spirit). 266 Hereafter we will discuss how D’Costa defends both the constitutive uniqueness of the Son and the Christianity-transcending activity of the Spirit. Over against pluralists, D’Costa argues that “if the particularity of Christ discloses God then it [Christianity] must hold to the normativity (not exclusivity) of its own particular revelation, thereby maintaining its universal claims”. 267 Recognition of God’s universal action necessarily involves a normative Christology which takes the particularity of history seriously. Here we recognize D’Costa’s emphasis on due attention for particularity, which later evolves into a defence for the tradition-specificity of theological approaches of religious diversity. The doctrine of the Trinity clearly manifests that Christians cannot speak of the Father without the Son. The Father is revealed not through speculations or abstractions but in the particularity of history, principally through the story of Jesus. A story that is subsequently interpreted and understood through the illumination of the Spirit in a process that is never complete until the eschatological final times.268 This is the important second counterpart of the doctrine of the Trinity, which maintains not only the normativity of Jesus Christ, but affirms also that God is constantly revealing himself through history by means of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s activity is thus understood as the deepening and universalization of human understanding of God in Christ. 269 D’Costa argues that pneumatology forms the key to the question how people of different times and places can relate to Christ event. In other words, it makes it possible to relate the particularity of Christ to the universal activity of God in the history of humankind. In agreement with Dupuis, D’Costa asserts that there are no reasons to suggest that God’s saving activity is historically limited to Christianity. That would be contrary to God’s universal salvific will, revealed to us in Christ. The action of the Spirit makes it possible to conceive that “all history, both past and to come, is potentially a particularity by which God’s self-revelation is mediated.”270 To express it in Scriptural terms: The Spirit blows where it wills (Jn 3:8). This implies that divine revelation might have occurred in the non-Christian religions. However, it might have happened in a manner unrecognized or misunderstood by Christians. They must therefore not only be attentive to God’s activity outside the church, but also adopt an open approach to other religions.271 Christocentric Trinitarianism thus in D’Costa’s view facilitates an authentically Christian response to the world religions, firstly because it retains the normativity of Jesus Christ and secondly because it does not confine the activity of the Spirit to Christianity.272 On the one hand, it guards against a Christ oriented monopolization of God. As Dupuis argued too, the clear affirmation that the Father is disclosed through the Son and the Spirit prevents 266
D’Costa, “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality”, 17. D’Costa, “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality”, 16-17. 268 D’Costa, “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality”, 17-18. 269 D’Costa, “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality”, 17. 270 D’Costa, “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality”, 19. 271 D’Costa, “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality”, 19. 272 D’Costa, “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality”, 17. 267
GAVIN D’COSTA’S CHRISTOCENTRIC TRINITARIANISM
77
an identification of the Son with the Father. On the other hand, the retention of a normative Christology that rejects a non-identification of God and Jesus also avoids pluralist universalism. Holding to the centrality of the story of Jesus Christ means that the particularity of history is taken seriously. D’Costa recalls here the theological notion that Jesus is totus Deus (wholly God) but never totum Dei (the whole of God). Thus, while Trinitarian theology retains the normativity of Christ in the revelation of God, it also emphasizes that this revelation is not exhaustive or absolute.273 That brings us to the problem of understanding and identifying revelation in other religions. D’Costa envisions this to be a specifically ecclesial task, as we will see in section five. But first we will turn to the implications of the affirmation of the universal activity of the Holy Spirit. §4. NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS: VEHICLES OF REVELATION AND SALVATION? We now move to D’Costa’s more recent work in which his Trinitarian theology of religions moves to a tradition-specific exclusivist approach. Reasoning that all thought and practice is tradition-specific in nature, D’Costa chooses to adopt a method and orientation that takes tradition seriously. His approach is manifestly Roman-Catholic and consequently relies mainly on official church documents (primarily Conciliar and post-Conciliar documents) for its argumentation. Even though he is aware of the fact that these documents might have less or no authority for people who are not Roman-Catholic, D’Costa argues that “there is still a form of argument going on that can be assessed for its persuasiveness and for its fidelity to the biblical tradition that is shared by all Christians (even if differently)”.274 The previously discussed focus on pneumatology as key to relate historical particularity with God’s universal salvific will, rests fundamentally on Vatican II’s affirmation of the potential presence of God in non-Christian religions through the activity of the Holy Spirit. D’Costa therefore engages in a detailed discussion of the meaning of this fundamental assertion concentrating on two important questions. Firstly, the question whether religions per se can be considered as vehicles of revelation and salvation which will be treated in this section. Secondly, the question what consequences such an affirmation has in terms of the Trinity and the church (to be discussed in section five). In answering the question of the salvific status of religions, D’Costa first turns to the documents of Vatican II. He argues that the Conciliar documents remain ambiguous as to the question whether non-Christian religions per se can be mediators of revelation and salvation. They contain neither an explicitly negative answer nor an explicitly positive answer. This silence has been interpreted in two different ways. Theologians supporting a close relation between nature and grace usually affirm the possibility that non-Christian religions are means of revelation, whereas theologians who argue for a sharper distinction between 273 274
D’Costa, “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality”, 18. D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 100.
78
THE HANDS OF GOD
nature and grace tend to reject such a possibility. D’Costa argues that Pope John Paul II belongs to the second group, which leads him to the conclusion that the Catholic tradition up until now does not see other religions per se as salvific structures.275 D’Costa signals three points that are important in interpreting Vatican II’s silence on revelatory and salvific status per se of non-Christian religions. Firstly, the term “revelation” (revelationem) is only used in Nostra Aetate with regard to the Old Testament and not in the sections dealing with other religions. In addition to seeing here an indication of the sui generis relation between Christianity and Judaism, D’Costa concludes from this non-use of the term revelation with regard to other religions that the Council relates revelation here to Christian Scripture.276 Secondly and moving to Lumen Gentium, D’Costa notes that although this document acknowledges the possibility of salvation for non-Christians (LG 16), it remains silent on the matter of the status of non-Christian religions per se. What the document does state about other religions is: “Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel” (preparatio evangelica). D’Costa adds to this that Nostra Aetate distinguishes between the truth present in other religions and the “Truth that enlightens all men”. This implies that truths found in nonChristian religions can never outdo the Truth in Jesus Christ.277 Thirdly, D’Costa notes that the Council documents do not just affirm the presence of positive elements, but also signal the presence of negative elements in non-Christian religions. These religions are therefore “a complex mixture of both truth and error” and need to be perfected and healed respectively (AG 9; LG 17).278 On the basis of the foregoing argumentation, D’Costa suggests that the documents’ silences “could be read (…) as prohibiting any unqualified positive affirmation of other religions as salvific structures, or as containing divine revelation”.279 He concedes that this reading stands in sharp opposition to the interpretation of the majority of Catholic theologians. The main proponent of the plea for a positive affirmation of non-Christian religions in revelation and salvation is Karl Rahner. D’Costa first stresses that Rahner acknowledges too that the essential problem at hand has been left open in the Council documents.280 But whereas Rahner draws the conclusion from this silence that non-Christian religions are potential means to salvation, D’Costa chooses to interpret the silence as an intentional restraint. He explains Rahner’s positive affirmation of the religions as resulting from an intrinsicist view on the relation between nature and grace.281 In order to further extend his plea for a restricted interpretation of the role of non-Christian in revelation and
275
D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 99; 102. D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 103. 277 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 103-104. 278 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 105. 279 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 105. 280 Karl Rahner. “Über die Heilsbedeutung der nichtchristlichen Religionen” Schriften zur Theologie, Band XIII (Zürich – Einsiedeln – Köln: Benziger Verlag, 1978), 343. 281 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 105. 276
GAVIN D’COSTA’S CHRISTOCENTRIC TRINITARIANISM
79
salvation, D’Costa introduces two documents of Pope John Paul II, in which the Pope more sharply distinguishes supernatural grace in terms of the explicit Christian revelation. The papal documents that D’Costa discusses are Redemptoris Missio, an encyclical from 1990, and Crossing the Threshold of Hope, which represents a running commentary on Nostra Aetate. In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, the Pope positions NA 2 firmly within the tradition of the preparatio evangelica. Thus, the phrase “what is true and holy in the religions” is explained as a reference to the “seeds of the Word”. Moreover, the Pope also acknowledges that these seeds of the Word may be used by the Holy Spirit to mediate grace. However, D’Costa emphasizes that this does not amount to an endorsement of religions as salvific structures per se. The seeds of the Word are not so much related to the explicit structure of a religious tradition, but refer instead to the supernatural desire which is moved by grace and implanted by God within all creation. This supernatural desire is a common telos shared by all human beings. Although it forms the core of religion, it is not to be equaled with the religious structure as such.282 It is the Holy Spirit who is the very source of humanity’s supernatural desire states the Pope in Redemptoris Missio 28. Grace is mediated by the Spirit not only through this inner teleological search, but also through the contingencies of history. D’Costa notes that the pope here clearly acknowledges that history plays an important role yet one that cannot be predicted a priori. Nevertheless, D’Costa argues that this grace “is not the fullness of sanctifying and redeeming grace found in Christ’s eschatological Church”. Therefore the various religious quests inspired by the Spirit cannot be affirmed “as authentic in themselves, apart from Christ, the trinity, and the Church”.283 In support of this view he refers to the following quotation: This is the same Spirit who was at work in the Incarnation and in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and who is at work in the Church. He is therefore not an alternative to Christ, nor does he fill a sort of void which is sometimes suggested as existing between Christ and the Logos. Whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions serves as a preparation for the Gospel and can only be understood in reference to Christ, the Word who took flesh by the power of the Spirit “so that as perfectly human he would save all human beings and sum up all things”. Moreover, the universal activity of the Spirit is not to be separated from his particular activity within the body of Christ, which is the Church. (Redemptoris Missio, 29) What D’Costa intends to stress throughout his discussion of these documents, is that the Pope does not endorse religions in general, but only discerns the possibility of recognizing a posteriori through analysis of historical religions “rays of Truth” in mixture with error. Even 282 283
D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 106. D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 107.
80
THE HANDS OF GOD
though the Holy Spirit is active in religious traditions, they are no independent means to salvific grace. The grace mediated by the Spirit that can be found in the religions must be understood as preparatio evangelica, and must never be separated from either Christ, the Word incarnate, or the Body of Christ, the Church.284 We will return to this issue in the next section. Because of Vatican’s II silence and considering the teachings of the Magisterium, D’Costa refuses to acknowledge other religions per se as salvific structures. Inclusivism and pluralism are no options for a theology of religions that aims to be in agreement with Conciliar and post-Conciliar documents. Even though this amounts to a change from his previous inclusivist orientation, he does not deny that other religious traditions contain much that good, true, and holy (through the work of the Holy Spirit) and that Christians can learn from these religions. We have seen that in D’Costa’s earlier approach pneumatology formed the key to relate the particularity of historical event of Christ to the universal activity of God in the history of humankind. In the next section we will see D’Costa’s emphasis on the Spirit develops into an ecclesiologically oriented focus. §5. TRINITARIAN AND ECCLESIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT The second issue D’Costa intends to address is what the Conciliar and post-Conciliar documents say about the Trinity in relation to other religions.285 His discussion begins with an identification of the Conciliar parameters for the affirmation of the presence of the Spirit in other religions, proceeds then by developing an improved conception of the fulfilment theology, and ends locating this issue in the context of a Trinitarian ecclesiology. Starting with the Conciliar documents, he signals an important tension. On the one hand, the Council clearly acknowledges in Gaudium et Spes the active presence of the Holy Spirit in cultures outside the explicit and visible church: For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (GS, 22) Yet on the other hand, the Council also teaches in Lumen Gentium that the church is necessary for salvation (LG 14). According to D’Costa, this tension can be reconciled by recalling the Conciliar teaching that whenever God is present, it is the presence of the Triune God who is the foundation of the church. He concludes therefore that the Conciliar documents learn that the presence of the Holy Spirit in other religions is both intrinsically Trinitarian, referring the Holy Spirit’s activity to the paschal mystery, and ecclesiological, referring the paschal 284 285
D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 107-109. D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 100.
GAVIN D’COSTA’S CHRISTOCENTRIC TRINITARIANISM
81
mystery to its community-forming force which is guided by the Spirit. 286 However, in D’Costa’s opinion not all theologians have adhered to these parameters of the relations between the persons of the Trinity, the church, and the presence of the Triune God. We mention specifically his critique of the theologians whose work has been discussed earlier. While Dupuis has emphasized that Christ should be related to the presence of the Holy Spirit, D’Costa criticizes him for his argument that “it is not credible intrinsically to relate this to the church and the kingdom”. Rather than fruitfully engaging with all the Conciliar parameters so D’Costa argues, Dupuis removes one of the terms of the relations (the church).287 Rahner’s explanation of the Conciliar statements by way of the proposal of the anonymous Christian is mentioned by D’Costa as well. He praises Rahner for taking into account all the terms of the discussion: the affirmation of God in the religions and the relations between the Trinity, the kingdom and the church. Yet he criticizes Rahner for being unduly optimistic and for having a tendency to over-emphasize fulfilment and continuity. In concrete terms, “he is in serious danger of minimizing both the radical freedom of men and women and also the tragic effects and the extent of the ‘evil-mindedness of men’”.288 Undue attention to discontinuity through sin leads him to stress fulfilment in a sometimes historically insensitive fashion. In response to these other interpretations, D’Costa wants to stress that affirming the presence of the Spirit in the world implies a tacit acknowledgment of the ambiguous presence of the Triune God, the church and the kingdom. He seeks support for this assertion by referring again to Redemptoris Missio. The first point that he attends to, is that Redemptoris Missio clearly advocates a fulfilment theology that emphasizes the radical novelty of the Triune God and interprets the presence of the Spirit in the religions as a preparatio evangelica. However, although D’Costa agrees in general with the fulfilment theology, he questions its underlying unilateral understanding of fulfilment in which preparatio is in danger of domesticating the Other.289 He illustrates his own plea for an improved understanding of fulfilment by referring to Gaudium et Spes 44. D’Costa interprets this passage as an acknowledgment by the Council that elements of truth and goodness within Western modernity may be a preparation for the Gospel. Moreover, human cultures may have elements which can challenge and even change elements within the church, whereby the church can deepen its own understanding and practice of the gospel. The Council clearly states that this must not be understood as if the church does not know the fullness of God in the revelation in Jesus Christ through the Spirit. At this point it might be helpful to attend to D’Costa’s discussion of the Catholic teaching that revelation was closed with the death of the last apostles. At first sight, this assertion would seem to contradict the aforementioned possibility of receiving any gifts from 286
D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 110. D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 110. 288 Gavin D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), 108. 289 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 109-111. 287
82
THE HANDS OF GOD
the world. But at a closer look, this idea functions as a presupposition in the claim the God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ truly is God’s self-revelation, then the plenitude of God’s being is present in Christ so that we cannot expect “new” revelation. The notion of closed revelation “operates centrifugally to relate all truth as being present, hidden, disclosed, and concealed in Christ in so much as God is present in Christ”. Thus, while there is truth in cultures and religions, this truth is not a supplement but rather the unveiling of the truth present in Jesus Christ.290 So Gaudium et Spes 44 teaches us that the church has recognized that it may be transformed through encounter with the Other (modernity). Citing Congar, D’Costa notes the newness of this recognition of the possibility that the church may receive and learn from the world. 291 What D’Costa aims to make clear through this discussion is that it opens up the possibility of a different conception of fulfilment and preparatio that avoids the domestication of the Other. D’Costa explicates this further by turning to the structural and cultural dimensions of the Spirit’s activity in other religions. His aim is to show that this issue should be approached from a Trinitarian ecclesiology. In the previous chapter we already discussed that in Redemptoris Missio it is acknowledged that the Holy Spirit not only affects individuals, but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions.292 D’Costa signals that Pope John Paul II here aims for a reading of Gaudium et Spes that pushes beyond an individualism that focuses solely on the individual’s inner-self. However, this important affirmation does not facilitate pluralist or inclusivist theories that confer independent legitimacy on other religions. D’Costa argues that the Pope’s statement is a Christian theological recognition (hetero-interpretation), related to the Trinity and the church. In terms of its Trinitarian dimension, it is emphasized that the Spirit is “not an alternative to Christ, nor does he fill a sort of void which is sometimes suggested as existing between Christ and the Logos” (Redemptoris Missio, 29). In terms of its ecclesial dimension, it is stressed that while the inchoate reality of the Kingdom of God is present outside the church in other religions, this reality remains incomplete unless it is related to the historical church (Redemptoris Missio, 20). Thus, this document confirms D’Costa’s assertion that through the Spirit, the Triune God, the kingdom as well as the church are present within the religions. The Spirit “leads the church more deeply into a life with Christ”. Consequently, the church should be attentive to the possible presence of the Spirit in other religions, even though this presence is often hidden and mysterious.293 The notion of other cultures as preparatio in fulfilment theology however runs the risk of domesticating the activity of the Spirit in other religions. To prevent this from happening, D’Costa pleads for different understanding of fulfilment that is clearly influenced by his reading of Gaudium et Spes 44: 290
D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 38. D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 111-112. 292 Cf. Chapter V, section 5 and 6. 293 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 114; 116. 291
GAVIN D’COSTA’S CHRISTOCENTRIC TRINITARIANISM
83
In this sense, if one were to retain and utilize the category of fulfilment in a very careful sense, then it is not only the other religions that are fulfilled in (and in one sense, radically transformed) their preparatio being completed through Christianity, but also Christianity itself that is fulfilled in receiving the gift of God that the Other might bear, self-consciously or not.294 This understanding of fulfilment thus also takes into account the consequences of the Spirit’s activity in other religions for Christianity. It recognises the possibility that the Spirit in other cultures “may call for an even deeper penetration, understanding and application of the truth of God’s triune self-revelation entrusted to the church”.295 More specifically, D’Costa advocates that pneumatology is always ecclesiologically oriented in the sense that the Spirit works inside and outside the church to make the church more Christ-shaped. Here we see how D’Costa brings together the Christological (Trinitarian) and ecclesiological dimensions of activity of the Spirit. At this point in his discussion, he cites Redemptoris Missio 29 again: “the universal activity of the Spirit is not to be separated from his particular activity within the Body of Christ, which is the Church”. Awareness of the Trinitarian and ecclesiological orientation of the Spirit’s activity leads to a number of important insights. Firstly, analogous to the role within the church, the Spirit works in other religions to make women and men more Christ-like. Secondly, it calls to attention that the church must be attentive to the possible gift of God himself through the prayers, practices, insights and traditions of other religions. This encourages and facilitates the church to adopt a critical and reverential openness toward other religions. Thirdly, given the ecclesiological character of the activity of the Holy Spirit, “the discernment of the activity of the Holy Spirit within other religions must also bring the church more truthfully into the presence of the triune God”. Consequently, when the church fails to be receptive over against other religions, “it may be unwittingly practicing cultural and religious idolatry”.296 D’Costa reiterates the ecclesial dimension by pointing out that in Redemptoris Missio discernment of God’s gifts outside the church is seen as an ecclesial task and not that of individuals (theologians) alone. §6. THE TRINITY AND THE RELIGIONS D’Costa strengthens his argument for the intrinsic connection between the universal action of the Spirit, the Trinity, and ecclesiology through a theological exegesis of the Paraclete passages in John’s Gospel. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss this exegesis in 294
D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 114. D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 114. 296 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 115. 295
84
THE HANDS OF GOD
full. Instead, we will focus on one theme that recurs throughout D’Costa’s exegesis, namely his understanding of Christology and pneumatology as primarily ecclesiologically structuring doctrines. D’Costa argues that in John’s gospel the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and Pentecost are all part of the event of Jesus’ presence to his disciples in the Spirit. As a result, in John’s logic the Spirit is intrinsically related to the disciples who form the community of Christians, i.e. the church.297 However, this raises the question how we precisely understand the influence of the Holy Spirit? In other words, what are the criteria to recognise the presence of the Spirit? D’Costa finds these criteria by connecting pneumatology with Christology, pointing at the new commandment “to love one another as Jesus has loved his disciples, which is founded on the Father’s love for his son, and is reciprocated in Jesus’ love for the world”.298 The commandment to love is not an abstract idea but must be treated in close connection with a particular narrative: it finds its source and shape in the person of Jesus Christ. Here we can see the consequences of adhering to a constitutive Christology.
299
But D’Costa does not stop short of his connection of
pneumatology with Christology. He states that both must be understood to be essentially church structuring doctrines. In the first place, the new commandment asks Christians to engage in a creative imitation of Christ. In being the church, the Body of Christ, they are called to be “Christ to the world”. Thus, the identity and structure of the church are formed by the dynamic call to Christ-like practices. In the second place, such Christ-like practices (loving as God loves) are only possible by the indwelling of God’s love by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit thus enables the non-identical repetition of Jesus’ ministry, both inside and outside the church.300 Bearing the ecclesiological role of Christology and pneumatology in mind, D’Costa’s concludes with several remarks on the consequences of affirming the presence of the Holy Spirit in the world. Firstly, D’Costa warns against any abstract talk about the Spirit in other religions and advocates instead tradition-specific discourse in an ecclesial context. All talk of the Spirit is part of the church’s (theological) discernment of God’s hidden action in other cultures, so as to generate new forms of Christian practice within the church. Claims regarding the presence of the Holy Spirit in the world therefore are intra-Christian claims, and might be denied or interpreted differently by adherents to these traditions.301 Secondly, “there can be no question of ‘other revelations’ in so much as this might be understood as other ‘gods’, or a cancellation of how God has chosen to reveal God’s-self in Trinitarian form”.302 This statement does not restrict the activity of the Spirit, but rather is a claim that all truth will serve to make Christ known more fully to Christians and the world “without
297
D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 118-119. D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 119. 299 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 119. 300 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 119-120. 301 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 128. 302 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 129. 298
GAVIN D’COSTA’S CHRISTOCENTRIC TRINITARIANISM
85
understanding what this will mean in advance in practice and theory”. In close connection with the previous two points, D’Costa points out in the third place that “observing” the likeness of Jesus in others is precisely what is meant with the affirmation of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the world. He stresses that this requires an ecclesial act of discernment: “the Spirit in the church allows for the possible (and extremely complex and difficult) discernment of Christ-like practice in the Other, and in so much as Christ-like activity takes place, then this can also only be through the enabling power of the Spirit”.303 Thus, since the Holy Spirit fosters non-identical repetition of Christ throughout the whole of creation, Christians can experience “holy lives” outside the church. With these conclusions in mind, D’Costa finally puts forward his reasons for the claim that the Trinitarian orientation proposed by him provides a better approach in the theology of religions that takes other religions seriously. To begin with, there are three reasons why the Trinitarian approach has an orientation of genuine openness. Firstly, since the Trinitarian doctrine of God is only eschatologically “closed”, it allows Christians to maintain a real openness to God in history. The church acknowledges that God acts historically, first and foremost in the incarnation, but after this God continues to act inside and outside the church through the Spirit. Consequently, there is a firm theological basis for openness. The church must be open to other religions as God’s presence in them may lead the church into greater holiness, truth and goodness. 304 Secondly, although D’Costa reasons form an a priori commitment to the Roman Catholic Church, he rejects any a priori judgment with regard to what other religions may disclose. The church should be attentive to the auto-interpretation of the religions if she wants to remain open to history. Any judgments with regard to God’s action in the religion must be a posteriori, based on historical engagement with these traditions.305 Thirdly, D’Costa argues that “taking the reality of other religions seriously, either in their auto-interpretation or within Christianity’s hetero-interpretation (which may or may not overlap), means that the church is laying itself open to genuine change, challenge, and questioning”. Christian theory and practice may change through the encounter with other religions in ways that cannot be predicted beforehand. Turning to tolerance and equality, D’Costa first repeats his argument that equality of truth is impossible given the tradition-specific context of all truth claims. He therefore shows how the church in Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II’s declaration on religious freedom, applies the concepts tolerance and equality to other religions. The document neither advocates theological-religious indifferentism nor does it give judgments pertaining to the truth claims of other religions. What is does confirm, is that other religions have a “civil right” of freedom from coercion, (DH 2), which is based on universal human dignity. This universal (applying equally to each and every human being) notion of toleration is stated negatively and not 303
D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 129. D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 133. 305 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 133. 304
86
THE HANDS OF GOD
connected with the contents of religious faith, whereby the church maintained her old teaching that error has no rights.306 Dignitatis Humanae also forms a good example of how the church and its conception of truth are transformed and deepened through engagement with the Other. As D’Costa describes: “in grappling with question of other religions and civic society, we find a doctrinal development regarding the emergence of negative universal rights based on the revealed dignity of the human person and found in the objective moral order”.307 In conclusion, D’Costa argues that his Trinitarian approach facilitates a type of openness (taking history seriously), tolerance (negative civic religious rights) and equality (in terms of human dignity) that in engagement with other religions takes these religions seriously. Finally, on the basis of this tradition specific (Roman Catholic Trinitarian) orientation, genuine dialogue with Otherness and difference becomes possible.308 §6. RECAPITULATION D’Costa’s theology has evolved from an inclusivistic orientation toward a more traditionspecific exclusivism. We have seen explaining that some form of exclusivism is inescapable through his argument that both pluralism and inclusivism are hidden forms of exclusivism. However, what has been constant throughout his thought is his Trinitarian focus. The Trinity forms in D’Costa’s eyes the key to reconcile particularity with universality. The doctrine of the Trinity enables the retention of a constitutive Christology and openness for the universal active presence of the Spirit. However, D’Costa argues that the universal operative presence of the Spirit does not confer revelatory and salvific autonomy on other religions. In support, he develops an interpretation of Conciliar and post-Conciliar documents that reject the position that non-Christian religions are per se vehicles of revelation and salvation. In this respect D’Costa holds a notably different opinion than Rahner and Dupuis. D’Costa’s Christocentric Trinitarianism very much emphasizes the Christological and ecclesiological parameter within which the Spirit works in the world. Both within and outside the church the Spirit is at work to make people more Christ-like. However, the grace mediated by the Spirit does not have the fullness of the grace in Christ. For that reason, people of other religions must still find fulfilment in Christianity. Yet D’Costa stresses that fulfilment should be understood in a very careful sense. It is not just other religions that are fulfilled in Christ, but Christianity is also fulfilled in receiving the gifts of grace that are present in other religions through the Spirit. These Trinitarian insights enable a position of true openness toward other religions that takes the particularity both Christianity and other religions seriously.
306
D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 137. D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 137. 308 D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions, 138. 307
CHAPTER VII
DUPUIS AND D’COSTA REVIEWED
§1. INTRODUCTION Earlier we pointed out that Rahner did not develop himself a Trinitarian theology of religions, despite the fact that the Trinitarian orientation of his theology of revelation and his theory of the anonymous Christian provide a useful framework to start such a project. However, as we have seen in Chapter Five and Six, both Dupuis and D’Costa have taken up this task and have devoted themselves to the development of a Trinitarian approach in the theology of religions, thereby relying to a varying extent on the work of Rahner. Having discussed these approaches in detail, the question that we now attend to is how we should evaluate these contributions to the theology of religions. The work of Dupuis and D’Costa has certainly not gone unnoticed. Dupuis’ work shortly after being published caused an intense scholarly debate. The response of fellow theologians was varied: some were very positive in their assessment of the Dupuis’ contribution while others were more critical.309 Moreover, the CDF eventually published a Notification in which it referred to ambiguities and difficulties on important doctrinal points.310 Nevertheless, as Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen has pointed out Dupuis deserves praise for having developed the first full-scale Trinitarian theology of religions.311 D’Costa’s theology has been developed more recently. However, he has quickly earned an important place in the debate on religious pluralism, which is confirmed by the fact that various publications on this issue take into consideration D’Costa’s approach.312 Despite the fact that Dupuis and D’Costa share a Trinitarian orientation, their argumentations as well as their conclusions differ. This chapter will recapitulate the key elements of the two Trinitarian approaches and critically compare and evaluate them. One of the main positive contributions of these Trinitarian theologies of religions is that they provide a distinctly Christian approach to the plurality of religions that is based on the uniquely Christian doctrine of the Triune God. By stressing the two divine missions through which God communicates with humankind, it is pointed out that Christian identity and outlook cannot be confined to Jesus Christ alone. Since Christians confess belief in a Triune
309 Anne Hunt, “Back to a Way Forward: Jacques Dupuis’ Trinitarian Christology and the Invisible Missions of the Word and Spirit”, Pacifica 19 (2006), 126-127. 310 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism by Father Jacques Dupuis SJ. 2001. 311 Veli-Mati Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Religious Pluralism. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology of Religions (Aldershot – Burlington: Ashgate, 2004), 61. 312 Cf. Tilley, Religious Diversity and the American Experience; Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Religious Pluralism. Knitter, Introducing Theologies.
88
THE HANDS OF GOD
God, this concept of God should also inform their dealings with people from other religions. This idea in itself is not completely new, but up until recently it had not been translated into a theology of religions. Especially the role of the Spirit in relation to Jesus Christ had remained unclear. Dupuis and D’Costa have taken up this open question by attempting to clarify the role of the Spirit in other religions in a way that respects the centrality of the Christ event while also leaving room for a distinct personal mission of the Spirit and the Word. Guiding principles in their theologies are the implications of the Christian notion of Gods universal salvific will on the one hand, and the concern to remain faithful to the Christian tradition on the other hand. Section 2 will discuss and compare the elements of Dupuis’ and D’Costa’s theologies that are relevant for the theology of religions. Section 3 will explore what consequences these Trinitarian insights have for the theological valuation of non-Christian religions and for the relation between Christianity and other religions. Finally, section 4 will assess which possibilities and obstacles the Trinitarian theology of religions brings. §2. TRINITARIAN LEADS FOR A THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS Dupuis and D’Costa essentially try to steer a course between the Scylla of Christocentric particularism and the Charybdis of pluralist universalism by way of adopting a Trinitarian strategy. The crux of this Trinitarian approach is that it takes into account the two divine missions through which God communicates with humankind. Revelation and salvation occur in history according to a Trinitarian rhythm. Being attentive to this Trinitarian pattern of God’s dealings with humankind allows one to combine a normative Christology with due attention for God’s action through the Spirit and the Word. On the one hand, the active presence of the Spirit and the Word is emphasized so as to facilitate more openness toward other religions. It opens up ways to conceive of God’s presence in other religions which strengthens the plausibility of Christianity’s claim of universal relevance. On the other hand, the emphasis on the unique and universal mediation of the Son retains a normative, constitutive Christology. Retention of a constitutive Christology prevents dilution or relativization of Christianity’s particular identity. As a result, an authentically Christian response to the world religions becomes possible. The first important aspect of the Trinitarian approach is that it brings to light God’s active presence in the Word and the Spirit. GOD’S ACTIVE PRESENCE IN THE WORD AND THE SPIRIT We will start by evaluating Dupuis’ argument for the enduring universal action of the Word. In his discussion of the Trinitarian rhythm of the history of revelation and salvation, Dupuis perceives the possibility of expressions of God’s salvific will through the non-incarnate Word.
DUPUIS AND D’COSTA REVIEWED
89
At the origin of his argument for the enduring action of the non-incarnate Word lies a distinction between the two natures of Christ and their respective actions. Although the action of Jesus Christ in his human existence (action of the Logos ensarkos) has a unique and universal significance based on his personal identity as the Son of God, it does not exhaust God’s saving action through the Logos. Thus, both before and after the incarnation God continues to act through the non-incarnate Word (action of the Logos asarkos). Yet this position is not without controversies and has for instance been criticized by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The CDF writes in its Notification the following: On the sole and universal salvific mediation of Jesus Christ (…) It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith not only to posit a separation between the Word and Jesus, or between the Word’s salvific activity and that of Jesus, but also to maintain that there is a salvific activity of the Word as such in his divinity, independent of the humanity of the Incarnate Word.313 Hidden beneath the lines of this critique is the accusation of Logocentrism, voiced by some theologians critical of Dupuis’ approach. These critics argue that Dupuis essentially makes a personal distinction between the eternal Word and the historical Jesus of Nazareth.314 Dupuis has firmly rejected such critiques and has emphasized his concern “to preserve the personal identity of Jesus Christ with the Word of God”. Moreover, he has pointed out that throughout his writings he carefully avoids any use of the word “separation”. Yet the union of the human and divine nature in Jesus Christ notwithstanding, he still maintains that there remains a distinction between the divine and the human nature and related action. The infinite (God) cannot be constrained or limited by the finite (humanity) in its expression. Thus, there must be room for a divine action of the Word both beyond the human action of the risen Christ. There remains an action of the Word as such.315 In close connection with his argument for the enduring activity of the Word, Dupuis also develops his argument for the universal operative presence of the Holy Spirit. 316 According to Dupuis, the operative presence of the Spirit is not limited to its communication through the glorified humanity of Jesus Christ. Following the affirmations of Vatican II and Pope John Paul II on the universal work of the Spirit, he argues for the universal presence 313
CDF, Notification, I, 1-2. Cf. Gerald O’Collins, “Jacques Dupuis’s Contributions to Interreligious Dialogue”, Theological Studies 64 (2003), 393. 315 Jacques Dupuis, ”The Truth Will Make You Free. The Theology of Religious Pluralism Revisited”, Louvain Studies 24 (1999) 237-238. 316 It is beyond the scope of this study to explore this Christological issue of the relation between the two natures of Jesus Christ into more depth. Moreover, D’Costa does not take into account the potential influence of the nonincarnate Word but focuses on the influence of the Holy Spirit. For a fruitful comparison between the two Trinitarian approaches the element of the non-incarnate Word is therefore less relevant. Nevertheless, Dupuis’ argument for the distinct action of the Spirit is constructed in close parallel with the argument for the enduring action of the Word. That is why we have devoted attention to this element in his theology. In the following however, our discussion will be limited to the roles of the Spirit and Jesus Christ and how they are related to each other in the theologies of Dupuis and D’Costa. 314
90
THE HANDS OF GOD
and activity of the Spirit both before and after the incarnation. D’Costa is in agreement on this issue, arguing that God constantly reveals himself through history by means of the Spirit and that there is not reason to suggest that such activity would be historically limited to Christianity. The focus on the personal role of the Holy Spirit in revelation and salvation nonetheless has been received critically too. The CDF writes in the aforementioned Notification the following: On the universal salvific action of the Holy Spirit (…) It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith to hold that the salvific action of the Holy Spirit extends beyond the one universal salvific economy of the Incarnate Word.317 The pressing question at hand is: does Dupuis’ emphasis on the distinct action of the Spirit goes into this direction? In response to his critics, Dupuis stresses that he does not deny in any sense that the Spirit is communicated today through the glorified humanity of Jesus Christ, especially to the church. However, he also repeats his argument that an understanding in which the Spirit’s revelatory and salvific action takes places exclusively through the risen Christ could lead to a form of Christomonism and instrumentalization of the Spirit.318 Concerned not make the Spirit simply a function of Christ, Dupuis repeats his argument that the Christ event does not exhaust God’s saving power. Like the non-incarnate Word, the Spirit keeps a distinct and personal saving activity. To conclude this section, we can summarise the crux of Dupuis’ argumentation in his own words: “the inclusive universal saving mystery of the glorified Christ (…) does not prevent a wider action of the Word as such and of the Spirit”.319 On this basis he concludes to the possibility of God’s saving action in other religions through the Word and the Spirit in a way that avoids Logocentrism, Pneumatocentrism and Christocentrism. If we compare Dupuis with D’Costa, we can notice that D’Costa affirms the universal operative presence of the Spirit outside the church yet in a more restrictive way. D’Costa repeatedly emphasizes the intrinsic connection between the universal activity of the Spirit on the one hand and Christ and his church on the other hand. The Spirit is not an alternative to Christ and its presence outside Christianity always contains a relation to the historical church. As such, he aims to avoid the suggestion as if there would be an independent economy of salvation parallel to the one in Christ. D’Costa’s approach brings to light some of the concerns of critics who argue that the revelatory and salvific role of the Spirit might come at a cost of the constitutive uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the role of the church. Whereas Dupuis aims to leave more room for the extent of the personal activity of the Spirit, D’Costa favours a more restrictive approach and more firmly locates the role of the Spirit within 317
CDF, Notification, III, 5. Dupuis, “The Truth Will Make You Free”, 242-243. 319 Dupuis, “The Truth Will Make You Free”, 238. 318
DUPUIS AND D’COSTA REVIEWED
91
Christological and ecclesiological boundaries. We can see the tension here between the intention to truly affirm and respect the universal activity of the Spirit and the Word on the one hand, and the concern not to relativize the constitutive uniqueness of Jesus Christ on the other hand. Before we can attend to the question whether this tension can be reconciled, we address how Dupuis and D’Costa construct a constitutive Christology as part of their Trinitarian theologies. JESUS CHRIST: FULLNESS OF REVELATION AND UNIVERSAL SAVIOUR While Dupuis maintains a constitutive Christology, he chooses to use somewhat unorthodox terms in his explanation of this Christology. Only God the Father, who is the ultimate source of all revelation and salvation, is truly absolute. The universality and uniqueness of Jesus Christ must therefore be understood as constitutive and relational rather than in terms of absoluteness. However, the choice for this terminology has created some confusion. Especially his use of the term “relational“ has attracted criticism as it is deemed to be irreconcilable with the claim of Christ’s constitutiveness. Some people have even interpreted Dupuis as arguing hereby for a relative understanding of Jesus Christ.320 We recall therefore his line of argumentation for a qualitative understanding of God’s mediation in Jesus Christ, which aims to hold in balance both constitutiveness and relationality while rejecting absolutism and relativism. The Christ event is constitutive, having salvific significance for the entire human race. This is founded on the ontological sonship of Jesus, who is the only-begotten Son of God. As such, Dupuis holds Jesus Christ to be the fullness of revelation and the universal saviour. In Jesus Christ the Word has become flesh bringing a revelation with unequalled depth and in the person of Jesus Christ an unbreakable bond between the human race and God is sealed. However, despite these unique characteristics, Jesus also remains a historical human being. Dupuis therefore proposes to understand the fullness of revelation and salvation in Jesus Christ qualitatively which must be understood as follows. Jesus Christ is the unique and universal mediator between God and humanity, the universal sacrament and the apex in the divine economy of salvation. Thus, Christ is not just one mediator among other mediators but retains universal normativity for revelation and salvation. Yet at the same time, since Jesus Christ is a contingent finite human being, the revelation in him though unsurpassable, also necessarily remains limited or incomplete until the eschaton. Similarly, although Jesus Christ forms the privileged channel of God’s salvific will, his mediation does not exhaust God’s saving power. As such, Jesus Christ must also be viewed as being relational, i.e. as standing in relation to other expressions of God’s salvific will. And this makes it possible to
320
O’Collins, “Jacques Dupuis’s Contribution to Interreligious Dialogue”, 391-392.
92
THE HANDS OF GOD
conceive of a distinct action of the non-incarnate Word and the Spirit, without separating these actions from the inclusive Christ event. D’Costa, like Dupuis, intends to retain a constitutive Christology that does not collapse into Christomonism. His reasoning unmistakably bears close resemblance to Dupuis’ line of argumentation. D’Costa invokes the theological notion that Jesus is totus Deus but not totum Dei. This means that while Jesus as the Christ, the Word incarnated, is the normative revelation of God, his revelation is not be understood as exhaustive or absolute which leaves room for the action of the Spirit. Another way of explaining this central position of Jesus Christ, is to describe him as the one in whom the plenitude of God’s being is present and to whom is centrifugally related all truth. As such, there is no possibility of any “new revelation”. Truth outside the Christian tradition does not supplement the truth in Christ but rather unveils this truth. However, in his later work D’Costa takes care to emphasize the Christological and ecclesiological parameters within which the operative presence of the Holy Spirit should be understood. He shares with Dupuis a concern not to separate the Spirit from the Son, but his approach differs inasmuch as it also emphasizes the inherent link with the historical church. RELATING THE SPIRIT AND THE SON
The Trinitarian approaches of Dupuis and D’Costa seek to combine a constitutive Christology with the universal operative presence of the Spirit. However, these two elements do not go easily together. It is difficult to safeguard a personal and distinct action of the Spirit without separating the two divine persons and their actions altogether or relativizing Jesus Christ. Likewise, relying too strong on a normative Christology could lead to the very exclusive Christocentric orientation that the Trinitarian approach wants to avoid. In order to ascertain whether Dupuis and D’Costa succeed in reconciling these elements, we have to consider the ways in which they relate the Spirit to Jesus Christ. As we will see in the next section, this has in turn consequences for the theological valuation of other religions. We have already mentioned that Dupuis favours a qualitative understanding of the Christ event. One of his main concerns is that despite the unique and universal character of the incarnation, the operative presence of the Word and the Spirit should not be obscured by it. Dupuis explains this in a Rahnerian fashion by arguing for a relation of mutual conditioning between the Son and the Spirit: while the Spirit forms the efficient cause of Christ, Christ forms the final cause of the Spirit. As such, he maintains that the Spirit must be understood as being “relational” to the Christ event (which is the culmination of God’s plan of salvation). Said differently, the gift of the Spirit always takes place “in view of the Christological event”. Yet that does not negate that there is a distinct personal saving activity through the Spirit both before and after the Incarnation. The Son and the Spirit have their own distinct actions but at the same time work together as the “two hands” of God in the
DUPUIS AND D’COSTA REVIEWED
93
single economy of salvation. God’s salvific action in history occurs is in the synergy of the work of the Spirit and the work of the Son. It remains questionable however whether it is possible to support this “distinct” and “together” at the same time. D’Costa is more hesitant in attributing to the Spirit a distinct salvific mission. His approach does not differ from Dupuis in as much as they both stress that the Spirit cannot be seen apart fro the Son. But additionally to the central role of Christ, D’Costa also very much emphasizes the key role of the Body of Christ. Basically, it is through ecclesiology that he explains the relation between the Son and the Spirit. The presence of the Spirit in other religions for D’Costa is necessarily connected with the Son’s Paschal mystery. In this sense D’Costa is in agreement with Dupuis who also emphasizes that the Spirit is given in view of the Christ event. D’Costa regards the Spirit as working universally in hidden and mysterious ways to make people more Christ-like by inspiring them to creatively imitate the way Jesus Christ loved. However, this universal activity of the Spirit is not to be separated from his particular activity in the church. Even stronger, D’Costa argues that the activity of the Spirit is essentially a church forming activity. Discernment of the activity of the Spirit is an ecclesial task that should take place in the context of dialogue with other religions. Through this dialogue, the church can deepen its faith and be transformed so that it can follow Christ more truthfully. §3. THE STATUS AND VALUE OF NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS Dupuis’ and D’Costa’s Trinitarian theologies have certain consequences for how religions are viewed theologically. In this section we will first discuss whether other religions can be understood as vehicles of salvation and revelation. In the second place, we will attend to the broader question how religious pluralism should be valued and how Christianity relates to other religions. VEHICLES OF REVELATION AND SALVATION
Dupuis has argued that self-communication of the Triune God happens in varied ways: the Logos enlightens people and the Spirit inspires people throughout history. Like Rahner, he supports the possibility of a universal offer of grace to humankind. Moreover, Dupuis holds that such mediations of grace are not limited to the personal experience of the individual, but also affects human undertakings, particularly religious traditions. As social beings, human persons live out their religious life in a community sharing particular traditions. Given the social dimension of the human experience of grace, traces of the word of God can be found within the religious traditions that are brought about by the Spirit and the Word. Dupuis goes even further and affirms that these revelatory seeds of truth and grace present in other
94
THE HANDS OF GOD
traditions have saving value for their adherents. He therefore pleads to acknowledge other religions as (potential) vehicles of revelation and salvation. In contrast, D’Costa reaches almost the opposite conclusion. He argues that the documents of Vatican II and the post-conciliar encyclicals are silent on this matter. Although he rescinds from explicitly negating the possibility that other religions can be vehicles of revelation and salvation, D’Costa still interprets the silence of the documents of Vatican II as an intentional restraint rather than being an implicit endorsement of other religions. However, while he rejects the endorsement of other religions as he revelatory and salvific structures per se, D’Costa goes not so far as denying the presence of grace altogether in other religions. Clearly, that would go against his earlier affirmation of the operative presence of the Spirit outside the church. Yet he stresses that the grace found within other religions “is not the fullness of sanctifying and redeeming grace found in Christ’s eschatological church”; the grace in other religions cannot be separated from Christ and his church. Thus, he concludes that we cannot endorse other religions a priori as mediators of grace. Only through a posteriori analysis can the church recognize elements of truth and grace. So Dupuis and D’Costa defend very different theological conceptions of the status of other religions. At a closer look, their difference of opinion can be partially explained by their views on the relation between nature and grace. Dupuis in the line of Rahner defends a close connection between nature and grace. Because all nature is essentially graced nature, the history of the world is co-extensive with the history of revelation and salvation. The Christ event forms the apex of this history and this event finds its highest and most complete sacramental visibility in Christianity. Nevertheless, since every religious practice forms a visible element of the universal human experience of grace there is also room for the recognition of other traditions as mediators of grace. D’Costa holds a different opinion on nature and grace. While he maintains too that there is no clear and unambiguous nature apart from grace, he nevertheless rejects the close relation between nature and grace such as defended by Rahner and Dupuis. To be precise, he argues for a sharper distinction between some form of prevenient grace and the fullness of grace in Christ. D’Costa wants to maintain a clear distinction between God’s presence in grace through creation on the one hand, and the fullness of sanctifying and redeeming grace in Jesus Christ and his body, the church, on the other hand. Since the fullness of grace is only present within Christianity, the traces of truth that may be found in other religions must always be related to the church and therefore cannot confer any “independent” revelatory and salvific status on these religions. Both positions present some difficulties. Whereas Dupuis’ approach may lead to a relativization of the church, D’Costa’s approach in contrast could lead to ecclesiocentrism. We will return to this issue later on in this chapter.
DUPUIS AND D’COSTA REVIEWED
95
FULFILMENT, COMPLEMENTARITY AND TRANSFORMATION
Finally, the Trinitarian approaches to religious pluralism of Dupuis and D’Costa can be compared by looking at how they regard other religions and how they conceive of the relation between Christianity and other religions. Such a comparison brings together the previously discussed issues; the role of Jesus Christ, the role of the Spirit, the relation between Christology and pneumatology, and the theological status of other religions. The difference in opinion between Dupuis and D’Costa already becomes apparent when we compare how they label their respective approaches. Whereas Dupuis through application of his Trinitarian Christology advocates a model of “inclusivist pluralism”, D’Costa defends a form of “Christocentric Trinitarianism” which is a form of tradition-specific exclusivism. Hereafter we will recapitulate the key characteristics and theological consequences of these two approaches. Reasoning from an understanding of qualitative fullness in Jesus Christ, Dupuis finds a way to affirm other religions as mediators of God’s salvific grace through the Spirit and the Word before and after the Incarnation, inside and outside the church. Despite the unique and universal character of the Christ event, Christianity cannot be said to monopolize grace. Dupuis develops two important foundations for this assertion. The first foundation is a Christology that pays due attention not only to the unique and constitutive character of Jesus Christ, but also to his limitations associated with his human nature. Although the humanity of Christ forms the conditio sine qua non for him to be the universal sacrament of God, it also necessarily entails limitations so that Jesus Christ cannot be said to exhaust God’s activity. Only at the eschaton God’s self-revelation will be totally complete and finished. The second foundation is a Trinitarian perspective that brings to light the various ways in which God is present throughout history in his Word and Spirit. This leads him to the conclusion that on the basis of the “superabundant riches and variety of God’s self-manifestations to humankind in history” religious pluralism can be affirmed de iure. Within the one and single salvific plan of God, there are various “ways of salvation”. Having recognized other religions as potential ways of salvation, Dupuis proceeds by pleading for an understanding of asymmetrical mutual complementarity between Christianity and other religions. On the one hand, the elements of truth and grace contained in other religions are “additional and autonomous benefits” not present “with the same vigour and clarity in God’s revelation in Christ”. For the followers of these religions, these elements may serve as means of salvation, while for Christians these elements may bring the Divine Mystery in Jesus Christ to greater clarity. On the other hand, Dupuis also maintains that the other ways are ordained to Jesus Christ, because the mediation in Jesus Christ is complete without “lacks” or “voids”, while the mediation in other religions is incomplete and fragmentary. Thus, the Christ event remains the normative criterion in distinguishing
96
THE HANDS OF GOD
truths from untruths. From this understanding of asymmetrical mutual complementarity also results a new viewpoint on the theological notion of fulfilment. Dupuis rejects the view that sees the elements of truth and grace in non-Christian religions as mere stepping-stones, i.e. expressions of a natural religiosity that requires fulfilment in Christianity as the only supernatural religion. In contrast, he argues that the Christ event represents the supreme modality of the mediation of grace and as such fulfils what is found as imperfect – yet nevertheless truly present – in other traditions. That is why in Dupuis’ notion of fulfilment other religious traditions contain both a dimension of autonomy and a dimension of relationality. Consequently, there is a need for dialogue that is no monologue between Christianity and other religions. Even though the church alone has received from Christ the fullness of the means of salvation, it also has to acknowledge gratefully that Christians not only give, but may also receive from other traditions.321 Now we turn to D’Costa who argues for a different view on other religions in relation to Christianity. According to him, the tradition-specific approach of Roman Catholic Trinitarianism forms the best approach to questions of religious pluralism. Although D’Costa leaves room for the presence of the Spirit outside the church, he ultimately refrains from affirming other religions as vehicles of revelation and salvation. Reasoning from a sharper distinction between the “seeds of the Word” and the fullness of grace in Jesus Christ, he understands the grace mediated by the Spirit in other traditions as a preparatio evangelica. These elements of goodness and truth do not confer upon these traditions any revelatory or salvific self-sufficiency. Stressing the ecclesiological link, D’Costa argues that it is specifically an ecclesial task to discern the ambiguous presence of God (through the Spirit) in other traditions. Since the church as the body of Christ is the only genuine vehicle of salvation, the preparatio elements in other religions need to be completed through Christianity. At first sight, this seems to be a rather harsh verdict on the value of other religious traditions. However, it has to be emphasized that D’Costa chooses a more restrictive approach very much because he is concerned about taking a position of openness toward other religions that takes historical differences and otherness seriously. He is aware of the fact that a unilateral understanding of the preparatio evangelica model might result in a domestication of otherness and differences. He therefore emphasizes that the category of fulfilment should be utilized in a twofold way: not only other religions are fulfilled and thereby radically transformed, but Christianity itself is also fulfilled in receiving the gifts present in other traditions. In other words: the presence of the Spirit in other religions can help the church to know Christ more fully, thereby potentially transforming the church too. For the church, this forms a solid foundation to adopt a stance of openness and attentiveness toward other religions. Moreover, D’Costa also argues that this approach is better able to respect otherness and differences. He rejects a priori judgments with regard to what truth and 321
Dupuis, “The Truth Will Make You Free”, 245-250; 255-258.
DUPUIS AND D’COSTA REVIEWED
97
grace other religions may disclose and instead favours an a posteriori engagement with other religions through dialogue. D’Costa argues that this leaves more room for the autointerpretation of other religions. The important notion that he emphasizes throughout his discussion is that the Spirit gives rise to a dynamic process. The Spirit works both inside and outside the church to make people more Christ-like, i.e. non-Christians are put on the way of fulfilment in Christianity and the church is challenged to learn, receive, grow and change through the confrontation with otherness in the world. To recapitulate: both Dupuis and D’Costa strongly argue for the positive aspects of religious diversity. Whereas in the case of Dupuis plurality as such is even endorsed as part of God’s salvific plan, D’Costa sees in plurality primarily opportunities for the church to grow in its faith in Jesus Christ. Interestingly, both theologians propose a concept of fulfilment that stresses mutual enrichment in the engagement Christianity with other religions. Furthermore, they also both hold that Christianity’s mediation is complete. Christian revelation does not require new revelation, but can still be further clarified through contact with other religions. Yet their opinions start to diverge when it comes to the salvific status of non-Christian religions. Dupuis is willing to concede that since God is operatively present in other religions through the Word and the Spirit, these religions can be considered fragmentary yet valid ways of salvation willed by God. D’Costa on the other hand maintains that only the Christian church can be said to be a means of salvation. The elements of goodness and truth within other religions are always related to this church, and therefore must be understood as preparatio evangelica. §4. TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGION: POSSIBILITIES AND OBSTACLES Having analysed the Trinitarian approaches to the question of religious pluralism developed by Dupuis and D’Costa, we can finally attempt to make up the balance. What are the advantages and the disadvantages of these Trinitarian theologies? And what are the consequences for the prospects of a Trinitarian approach in the theology of religion? Which questions need further study? We will start by presenting the positive insights and problematic issues of the theologies of Dupuis and D’Costa. We must praise Dupuis for the fact that he simultaneously seeks to remain faithful to the Christian tradition, yet also does not avoid new or unorthodox consequences. His approach develops the affirmation of Vatican II that there are rays of Truth in other religions by connecting these rays with the action of the Word and the Spirit. The resulting Trinitarian shaped focus on Jesus Christ and the Spirit yields a new perspective in Christology, a new perspective in the theology of the non-incarnate Word and a new perspective in the theology of the Spirit. Taken together, these new insights open up alternative ways to appraise other religions in their distinct identity. The newness of Dupuis’ approach is that while retaining a
98
THE HANDS OF GOD
normative Christology, he dares to go as far as affirming the possibility of different paths of salvation mediated by the other religious traditions. Other traditions can be enlightened by the Word and inspired by the Spirit. Although they are not unrelated to Jesus Christ (who is the unsurpassable mediation of God’s salvific action), they nonetheless possess a certain degree of autonomy because they derive from God’s action through his Word and Spirit. Thus, other religions can be viewed as part of God’s plan of salvation which means that religious pluralism can be affirmed de iure. That means that Christians should value the otherness of different religions as a richness willed by God which enhances respect for other religions. This is probably Dupuis’ most important contribution to the theology of religions: the combination of de iure affirmation of religious pluralism with a normative Christology. However, it is not clear whether Dupuis ultimately succeeds in establishing this combination, because his theology also contains certain weaker aspects. To begin with, pluralists remain sceptical of Dupuis’ qualitative understanding of the Christ event and his plea for asymmetrical mutual complementary.322 Behind these concepts lies the fundamental conviction that Christianity represents the complete way of salvation whereas other religions represent fragmentary incomplete ways. Pluralists therefore argue that Dupuis ultimately does not affirm other religions as equal vehicles of salvation. Even though he rejects absolute language with regard to Jesus Christ and argues for qualitative fullness instead of quantitative fullness, there remains a difference in degree between the mediation in Christ and the mediation in the Spirit. The qualification of the relation between Christianity and other religions as asymmetrical enforces this standpoint. From the other side of the spectrum in the theology of religions, Dupuis can be criticized for defending a Christology that contains relativistic tendencies. His endeavour to affirm not only the constitutiveness but also the relationality of Jesus Christ also weakens the role of the church in God’s plan of salvation. Even though Dupuis rejects the accusations as if he either separates the historical Jesus from the eternal Logos or separates the Spirit from Christ, the fact that he repeatedly argues for a universal enduring action of the Spirit and the Word beyond the human action of the risen Christ at least problematizes his constitutive Christology. Because he allows for the possibility of salvation through other religions – even though in a less optimal way than through Christianity – Dupuis makes the church less relevant in the attainment of salvation. One could ask the question whether there remains any need to embrace the gospel if Islam or Hinduism can point the way to salvation too. Thus, although Dupuis’ approach is commendable for its universal outreach it is also problematic in the sense that it may lead to a relativization of Christianity’s particular truth claims. The question that follows upon this evaluation of Dupuis is whether the approach of D’Costa is more convincing. Interestingly, whereas Dupuis eventually seems to be too 322
Cf. Paul Knitter, “Catholics and Other Religions. Bridging the Gap between Dialogue and Theology”, Louvain Studies 24 (1999), 335-342.
DUPUIS AND D’COSTA REVIEWED
99
pluralistic, D’Costa’s Trinitarian approach becomes too particularistic or exclusivist. This can be explained as follows. D’Costa’s Trinitarian theology wants to affirm the presence of the Spirit outside the church as well as the normativity of Jesus Christ. As mentioned, ecclesiology forms the key concept linking these two elements in his theology. In D’Costa’s view, the primary function of the Spirit’s presence in other religions is to foster the formation of Christian community. This works in two ways. Adherents of other religions are endowed with preparatio evangelica elements, but with the clear intention that these elements of grace should find fulfilment in Christianity. Other religious traditions are therefore no salvific structures per se for their members. Christians on the other hand should be attentive to other religions in order to discern the presence of the Spirit in them, as this might unveil aspects of the truth that is present in Jesus Christ. As such, D’Costa favours an understanding of fulfilment that does not only require radical transformation of other religions but also of Christianity itself. The criterion in this process of transformation is Jesus Christ: the church must search for Christ-like practices in order to become more Christ-like itself. Thus, rather than eroding the centrality of Jesus Christ, D’Costa confirms the normativity of Christ both inside and outside the church. However, D’Costa’s approach also contains to certain problematic aspects. In the first place, it runs the danger of subordinating or minimizing the role of the Spirit. D’Costa stresses that the grace mediated through the Spirit in other traditions has not the fullness of the grace in Christ. Interpreting the grace of the Spirit as preparatio evangelica that does not in itself confer salvific efficacy on religious traditions makes one question to what extent we can talk of a distinct activity of the Spirit here. While it is affirmed that non-Christians can attain salvation, non-Christian religions per se are not mediators of such salvation. But is it possible to affirm God’s graceful presence through the Spirit yet to deny the efficacy of such grace? This seems to be a separation between subjective and objective religion. Such a separation has been criticized by Dupuis as being impossible given the social nature of human beings. If non-Christians can encounter grace in their lives, their traditions must contain grace as well as they are intrinsic part of human social existence. Moreover, the Spirit might hereby be made into a function of Christ, mediating some sort of prevenient grace that prepares people for the real salvific grace brought in Jesus Christ. Even though the roles of the Son and the Spirit might differ in God’s economy of salvation, such a sharp distinction in efficacy does not accord well with a Trinitarian theological approach that intends to respect both divine missions. Does this prevenient grace constitute revelation? If so, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that such revelatory grace is also salvific given the close connection between revelation and salvation.323 Thus, D’Costa’s distinction between two types of grace is not without problems.
323
Cf. Chapter I, section 1.
100
THE HANDS OF GOD
The second problematic issue in D’Costa’s theology concerns his openness toward other religions. He argues that his tradition-specific approach is better able to respect the differences of other religions than pluralism or inclusivism.324 D’Costa criticizes inclusivists for affirming or rejecting elements in other religions on the basis of their own particular epistemological and ontological truth claims. He argues that because his own approach refrains form a priori judgment regarding the truth and grace that might be present in nonChristians religions, it is more open to the auto-interpretation of non-Christians. However, he also maintains that the discernment of the gifts of the Spirit is an ecclesial task that requires necessarily non-Christian hetero-interpretation. Is ecclesial discernment of God’s presence in other religions via the normative criterion of Jesus Christ more open than the inclusivist option, merely because it refrains from affirming a priori that there are elements of grace in other religions? It rather seems as if D’Costa moves toward a form of ecclesiocentrism, since he connects the work of the Spirit so closely with the formation of Christian community. Whereas Dupuis very much sees the action of the Spirit as the realisation of God’s universal salvific will, D’Costa affirms this universal salvific will in principle without explaining how this works in practical reality. It is clear that he rejects Dupuis’ option of conferring a salvific role of the religions because of the Spirit’s presence. Thus, D’Costa’s emphasis on the ecclesiological dimension rather than on the salvific dimension of the Spirit gives his Trinitarian approach an ecclesiocentric character. Thus, it can be concluded that the Trinitarian theologies of Dupuis and D’Costa yield important insights for the theology of religions yet also contain problematic elements. The question that needs to be addressed now is to what extent the Trinitarian approach does indeed contribute to the development of a theological answer to the questions of religious pluralism that keeps in balance particularity and universality. This question will be addressed in the subsequent conclusion.
324
Since we have dealt mainly with inclusivist approaches to the theology of religions in this study, we will not discuss the pluralist approach here but only compare D’Costa’s approach with the inclusivist approach.
CONCLUSION
VALUE AND PROSPECTS OF A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
In the final part of this study we return to the central research question and evaluate to what extent Trinitarian theology can contribute to the development of an adequate theological response to the challenges of religious pluralism. A response that sacrifices neither Christianity’s particular identity nor its claims of universal relevance. We will answer this central question in a twofold way. In the first place, we will identify the main insights provided by the Trinitarian approach to the theology of religions. In the second place, we will formulate the most important questions and issues that have remained unresolved. The Trinitarian theologies of Jacques Dupuis and Gavin D’Costa form part of Catholic theology’s attempt to develop themes that were already articulated at the Second Vatican Council. At the Council an attempt was made to adopt a stance toward people from other religions that would be more open and respectful than the exclusive attitudes of the past. Yet at the same time, the Council also maintained the traditional teaching that Jesus Christ is the universal mediator of revelation and salvation. In these two central affirmations, the tension between universal relevance and historical particularity becomes manifest. Christianity’s truth claims are based on a historical event, yet are also deemed to be important for each and everyone throughout history. How can such a tension be reconciled, specifically in the context of the reality of religious pluralism and a consequent plurality of truth claims? Is it possible to maintain the universal relevance of a historically limited event? And what are the consequences of such a position for the theological valuation of other religions? Karl Rahner took up these difficult questions. We have discussed at length his theology of revelation, because it can be considered as an important foundation for Trinitarian theologies of religions. Although Rahner himself did not propose a Trinitarian theology of religions, he did develop several important notions for such an approach, including the transcendental dimension of revelation, the dual modalities of God’s self-communication and their mutual relation, and the concept of anonymous Christians. In Chapter Four we concluded that despite criticisms of being either too particular or not particular enough, Rahner deserves a lot of praise for his valuable contribution to the theology of religions. Yet ultimately, his approach fails to provide an adequate theological answer to the questions of religious pluralism. Although in his view non-Christian religions contain divine grace, they remain incomplete and as such mere preparations for Christianity as the absolute religion. Rahner’s position is certainly an improvement compared to more exclusivist positions that limit the possibility of salvation to explicit believers in Jesus Christ. But it falls short of a positive appreciation of non-Christians.
The dignity non-Christians precisely in their
particularity and otherness is not affirmed. We therefore continued by taking a look at the
102
THE HANDS OF GOD
contemporary Trinitarian theologies of religions of Dupuis and D’Costa. Hereafter we will discuss the main insights and the open questions that our investigation has yielded. TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS: VALUABLE INSIGHTS
The Trinitarian approach seeks to widen the scope of Christianity by taking into account the fact that the Triune God communicates with humankind not only through his Son but also through his Spirit. As such, Trinitarian theologies intend to remain faithful to Christian identity (by adopting the distinctly Christian doctrine of the Triune God) but also seek to go beyond the limitations of Christianity’s historical nature in order to account for a true universality. However, as we have seen both D’Costa and Dupuis have difficulties steering a course between the Scylla of exclusivism and the Charybdis of pluralism. The central issue concerns the fact that both try to uphold constitutive Christology and its related claims of epistemological and ontological truth claims. In the case of Dupuis, the centrality and normativity of Jesus Christ is reduced in favour of the role of the Spirit and the Word. For this reason he is criticized as being too pluralist. When one accepts his solution of a qualitative understanding of Jesus Christ and consequently a qualitative difference between the mediation of God in Jesus Christ and other mediations, the criticism comes from the other direction arguing that he is too exclusivist. In the case of D’Costa, the ecclesiological link between Christ and the Spirit ultimately also leads to a form of exclusivism. Does this mean that the Trinitarian approach is incapable to respect otherness while retaining the normativity of Jesus Christ? Such a conclusion would negate the possibility that the Trinitarian approach can contribute to an adequate theological answer to the question of religious pluralism. Despite the problems signalled above, we would like to propose on the basis on the insights gained in our study of Rahner, Dupuis and D’Costa that Trinitarian theology has the potential of contributing positively to the question of religious pluralism. At the same time, there also remain certain unresolved questions and issues that require further study. To begin with, the Trinitarian approach has brought to light anew the importance of a constitutive Christology. However, such a Christology forms not only the key but also in a way the obstacle for a Christian theology of religious pluralism. Let us first explain why the normativity of Christ is indispensable. As D’Costa has rightly pointed out, there cannot be neutral or non-tradition-specific approaches to religions and their truth claims. A theological account that intends to remain faithful to its own tradition and that intends to retain a particular identity therefore necessarily utilizes a set of epistemological and ontological truth claims. These claims function as a criterion to evaluate and judge other religions and their truth claims. For Christians, that criterion is found in the revelation in Jesus Christ. As the incarnate Word, Jesus is the unsurpassable highpoint in the history of God’s revelation. This
VALUE AND PROSPECTS OF A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
103
Christological key informs and guides Christian dealings with other religions and makes it possible to have a foundation for either affirmations or rejections. A Christian theology of religions therefore cannot renounce the normativity of Jesus Christ. Are we then in effect arguing straightforwardly for Christocentrism? The answer to this question is no. Examining the revelation in Jesus Christ, we learn that God is a Triune God who communicates himself in grace in two modalities: the Son and the Spirit. Being faithful to the normative revelation in Jesus Christ hence automatically widens the scope beyond Christocentrism. One cannot take Jesus Christ seriously without taking the Trinitarian nature of God and his self-communication seriously. Despite the uniqueness and centrality of the Christ event, God’s dealings with humankind are not limited to this particular historical event. As Dupuis has argued, the normativity and centrality of Jesus Christ must not obscure God’s operative presence in the Word and the Spirit. Thus, although the normativity of Jesus Christ might at first appear to be some form of monism, it actually draws itself attention to the varied and rich ways of God’s dealings with humankind through the Spirit. This Trinitarian focus makes it possible to affirm simultaneously the particularity and the universality of Christianity. Rahner’s theology of revelation provides a good example in this respect. The particular event of Jesus Christ forms the irrevocable and tangible expression of the reality of God’s universal self-communication in grace in the Spirit throughout the history of humankind. Thus, the Trinitarian concept of God revealed in Jesus Christ learns us to be attentive to the plurality of possible divine self-manifestations. Openness toward otherness and differences is fundamentally part of a Christian identity that seeks to be responsive to the twofold reality of divine self-communication. So far we have concluded that the Trinitarian approach not only sanctions the normativity of Christ as truth criterion, but also mandates a pneumatological awareness. This means that the challenge to balance particularity (the single revelation in Jesus Christ) with universality (the plurality of revelations in the Spirit) is basically inherent to Christianity’s identity. A constitutive Christology is therefore not as closed and exclusive as it looks on first inspection, but on the contrary contains in itself openness for religious pluralism. But does this mean that we should take every truth claim seriously on the assumption that it might be founded on God’s mediation in the Spirit? Or to ask another question, does this mean that non-Christians can attain salvation through the presence of the Spirit in their religions, without being unrelated whatsoever to Jesus Christ? At this point we must recall that for Christians Jesus Christ forms the normative criterion for the encounter with other religions and their truth claims. This means at least that truth claims that openly contradict the truth in Christ cannot be affirmed. Yet invoking the criterion of Jesus Christ here does not solve all the questions involved. Firstly, applying the normativity of Christ too strictly would result in a Christocentric domestication, subordination, or instrumentalization of the Spirit. If the Spirit has no mediation of God’s grace that is distinct of the mediation in
104
THE HANDS OF GOD
Christ, then it becomes difficult to continue speaking of a personal mission of the Spirit. Secondly, the Jesus Christ criterion does not answer to what extent the Spirit enables other religious traditions to be vehicles of revelation and salvation, and if so whether this involves a relation with the Christ event. Here we reach questions that the Trinitarian theology of religions has not yet been able to answer satisfactorily. TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS: OPEN QUESTIONS
To begin our discussion of the questions that remain open, it might be good to recall the fact that Vatican II formulated a task for theology that is not easily fulfilled: the reconciliation of the normativity of the Christian faith tradition with enhanced respect and recognition of people from other religions. Let us therefore in the first place reconsider the contribution of the person who was among the first theologians to attempt such a reconciliation. We have discussed at length the way in which Rahner sought to combine particularity with universality in the Christian account of revelation. Now at this stage in the discussion it might be fair to admit that his concept of anonymous Christianity – while certainly carrying deficiencies – has not been replaced by a better concept as of yet. Even more, this term aptly describes the insights that the Trinitarian approaches of Dupuis and D’Costa have yielded. On the one hand, Rahner does not speak of anonymous theists but rather of anonymous Christians. This reflects the importance of Christ as normative criterion for a Christian theology of religions. On the other hand, the element of anonymity indicates that Rahner is aware of the limitations of the historical Christ event and therefore seeks other ways to relate the entirety of humankind to this event. As we have seen, he conceives of this possibility by way of transcendental revelation brought about by the Spirit. Thus, the concept of anonymous Christians also contains the pneumatological openness toward other religions that is so much emphasized in the Trinitarian approach. So in retrospect, it can be argued that Rahner without developing an explicit Trinitarian theology of religions nonetheless already brought to light the key characteristics of such a theology. Does this then mean that no progress has been made since Rahner coined the idea of anonymous Christians? No, the work of Dupuis and D’Costa has contributed significantly as well. Their work has clarified and elaborated the elements that are present in Rahner’s theology, thus developing these seeds into a full scale Trinitarian theology of religions that explores ways to balance particular identity with universal relevance. One clear example is their discussion of fulfilment theory. Rahner argued for a rather unilateral concept of fulfilment, reasoning that other religions must find completion in Christianity. Dupuis and D’Costa are aware that such a viewpoint is at odds with true attention and respect for the presence of God in other traditions. Taking into account criticisms of Christian superiority and imperialism, they propose new and different understandings of fulfilment. But most
VALUE AND PROSPECTS OF A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
105
important for our discussion is the fact that in the theologies of Dupuis and D’Costa the difficult challenge of religious pluralism to Christianity becomes manifest with specific clarity. Both try to avoid the Scylla of particularist exclusivism and the Charybdis of universalist pluralism by proposing he Trinitarian approach as distinctly Christian strategy to meet this challenge. Even though Dupuis and D’Costa ultimately do not succeed entirely in balancing the particularity and universality of the Christian faith tradition, their attempts make manifest how difficult it is to deal with this tension that lies at the heart of the identity of the Christian tradition. Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate was a welcome recognition of the importance and value of the variety of other religious traditions. However, it might also have caused an overly optimistic view on this issue. The complex ways in which Dupuis and D’Costa argue for the constitutiveness of Jesus Christ in revelation and salvation show that it is not easy at all to respect otherness without losing your own normative criteria. To be clear, the theological task of reconciling particularity with universality set forward by Vatican II should not simply be abandoned as being impossible or undesirable. Yet the work of Dupuis and D’Costa shows that this task is not easily fulfilled and therefore requires continuing effort and attention. To end with, bearing in mind the important insights discussed above we are convinced that the Trinitarian approach has put the theology of religions on the right track to address the issue of particularity and universality. But we would also like to formulate two intrinsically related issues that require further study in order to improve theology’s capacity to deal with the tension of particularity and universality. Firstly, the central and unique position of the Christ event in the history of revelation and salvation needs further elaboration. We have discussed how D’Costa emphasizes that Christ is totus Dei but not totum Dei, whereas Dupuis understands the fullness and completeness of Christ in a qualitative rather than a quantitative way. The guiding concern behind these ideas is the attempt to leave room for the Spirit in other traditions (even though Dupuis and D’Costa disagree on the specificities of such a pneumatological role) while also maintaining the normativity of Jesus Christ. But in order to know the extent and nature of such normativity, notions such as “fullness” and “completeness” that are used to qualify the Christ event must be clarified. What do we mean when we say that Jesus Christ is the fullness of revelation? How is such fullness appropriated? Does the historical nature of the Christ event imply limits with regard to such fullness? And how are other divine manifestations and actions related to such a central and unique event? This last question brings us to the second issue that remains unresolved, namely the relation between the Son and the Spirit. The Trinitarian approach has made us conscious of the fact that true adherence to the normativity of Christ also involves an openness to the action of the Spirit. But is it possible to conceive of the role of the Spirit in a way that avoids either relativizing the Christ event or subordinating the Sprit to Christ? Improved
106
THE HANDS OF GOD
understanding of the relation between the two hands of God might hold the key to balancing the relation between Christianity’s particular and universal dimension. We will indicate some paths that could be explored to further such an understanding. Perhaps we should explore the possibility of adopting a spirituque in addition to filioque in order to think the relation between the Son and the Spirit in a truly Trinitarian fashion.325 Another hint in exploring this issue can be found in the thought of Rahner. We recall that Rahner explained the relation between the Spirit and the Son as mutually conditioning, inasmuch as the Spirit is the efficient cause of the Son and the Son is the final cause of the Spirit. Admittedly, such an argumentation heavily relying on scholastic philosophy will not convince everyone. But this notion of a dual yet different causality does allocate a role and a function to both missions that makes them distinct but not separate from each other. As such, Rahner’s thought might again contain a seed for further development of the Trinitarian theology of religions.
325
Cf. Ralph del Colle, “Reflections on the Filioque” in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34:2 (1997), 214-216.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CHURCH DOCUMENTS DEI VERBUM. Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. 1965. LUMEN GENTIUM. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. 1964. GAUDIUM ET SPES. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. 1965. NOSTRA AETATE. Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions. 1965 DIGNITATIS HUMANAE. Declaration on Religious Freedom. 1965 AD GENTES. Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church. 1965 JOHN PAUL II, Redemptor Hominis. 1979. JOHN PAUL II, Dominum et Vivificantem. On the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church and the World. 1986. JOHN PAUL II, Redemptoris Missio. On the Permanent Value of the Church’s Missionary Mandate. 1990. JOHN PAUL II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Knopf, 1994). CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Notification on the book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism by Father Jacques Dupuis SJ. 2001. LITERATURE BALTHASAR, Hans Urs von. “Catholicism and the Religions” Communio 5:1 (1976): 6-14. BALTHASAR, Hans Urs von. “Response to my Critics” Communio 5:1 (1976): 69-76. BALTHASAR, Hans Urs von. Neue Klarstellungen. Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag, 1979. BALTHASAR, Hans Urs von. “Geist und Feuer” Herder Korrespondenz 30:2 (1976): 72-82. BALTHASAR, Hans Urs von. The Moment of Christian Witness. Richard Beckley (tr.). San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994. BARTH, Karl. Kirchliche Dogmatik, I,1. Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag A.G. Zollikon, 1947. BEINERT, Wolfgang & Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (ed.). Handbook of Catholic Theology. New York: Crossroad, 1995. CONWAY, Eamonn. The Anonymous Christian. A Relativised Christianity? Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1993. D’COSTA, Gavin. Theology and Religious Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. D’COSTA, Gavin. “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality” in Gavin D’Costa (ed.) Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1992.
108
THE HANDS OF GOD
D’COSTA, Gavin. The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. D’COSTA, Gavin. “Theology of Religions” in David Ford (ed.), The Modern Theologians. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. DEL COLLE, Ralph. “Reflections on the Filioque” in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34:2 (1997): 202-217. DUFFY, Stephen. The Graced Horizon. Nature and Grace in Modern Catholic Thought. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992. DULLES, Avery. “Faith and Revelation” in Francis Schüssler Fiorenza & John Galvin (ed.), Systematic Theology. Roman Catholic Perspectives. Vol. 1. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. DUPUIS, Jacques. Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1997. DUPUIS, Jacques. “The truth Will Make You Free. The Theology of Religious Pluralism Revisited” Louvain Studies 24 (1999): 211-263. DUPUIS, Jacques. Christianity and the Religions. From Confrontation to Dialogue. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2002. FRIES, Heinrich. Revelation. New York: Herder & Herder, 1969. HAIGHT, Roger. Experience and Language of Grace. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1979. HAIGHT, Roger. “Trinity and Religious Pluralism” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 44:4 (2009): 525-540. HAIGHT, Roger. Dynamics of Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2001 HEIM, Mark. The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. HICK, John. God and the Universe of Faiths. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973. HICK, John. A Christian Theology of Religions. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. HILL FLETCHER, Jeannine. “Rahner and religious diversity” in Declan Marmion & Mary Hines (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Karl Rahner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. HUNT, Anne. “Back to a Way Forward: Jacques Dupuis’ Trinitarian Christology and the Invisible Missions of the Word and Spirit” in Pacifica 19 (2006): 125-143. KANT, Immanuel. Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der Bloßen Vernunft [orig. 1793]. Ditzingen: Reclam, 1986. KANT, Immanuel. Der Kritik der praktischen Vernunft [orig. 1788]. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1966. KÄRKKÄINEN, Veli-Mati. Trinity and Religious Pluralism. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology of Religions. Aldershot – Burlington: Ashgate, 2004. KNITTER, Paul. Introducing Theologies of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2002. KNITTER, Paul. “Catholics and Other Religions. Bridging the Gap between Dialogue and Theology”, Louvain Studies 24 (1999): 319-354.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
109
LATOURELLE, René & Rino Fisichella (ed.). Dictionary of Fundamental Theology. New York: Crossroad, 1994. LIVINGSTON, James C. & Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (ed.). Modern Christian Thought. Vol. 2 The Twentieth Century. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006. METZ, Johann Baptist. A Passion for God: The Mystical-Political Dimension of Christianity. Matthew Ashley (ed. & tr.). Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1998. METZ, Johann Baptist. Faith in History and Society: Toward a Practical Fundamental Theology. Matthew Ashley (ed. & tr.). New York: Crossroad, 2007. O’COLLINS, Gerald. Retrieving Fundamental Theology. The Three Styles of Contemporary Theology. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1993. O’COLLINS, Gerald. “Jacques Dupuis’s Contributions to Interreligious Dialogue” Theological Studies 64 (2003): 388-397. PANIKKAR, Raimundo. The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man: Person-Icon-Mystery. New York: Orbis, 1973. RAHNER, Karl. “Some Implications of the Scholastic Concept of Uncreated Grace.” [orig. 1939] Theological Investigations Vol. I. Cornelius Ernst (tr.). New York: Crossroad, 1974. RAHNER, Karl. “Concerning the Relationship between Nature and Grace.” [orig. 1950] Theological Investigations Vol. I. Cornelius Ernst (tr.). New York: Crossroad, 1974. RAHNER, Karl. “On the Theology of the Incarnation.” [orig. 1958] Theological Investigations Vol. IV. Kevin Smyth (tr). Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966. RAHNER, Karl. “The Concept of Mystery in Catholic Theology.” [orig. 1959] Theological Investigations Vol. IV. Kevin Smyth (tr.). Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966. RAHNER, Karl. “Nature and Grace.” [orig. 1960] Theological Investigations Vol. IV. Kevin Smyth (tr.). Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966. RAHNER, Karl. “Das Christentum und die nichtchristlichen Religionen” in Schriften zur Theologie, Band V (Einsiedeln – Zürich – Köln: Benziger Verlag, 1962). RAHNER, Karl. “Observations on the Concept of Revelation.” Pp. 9-25 in Karl Rahner & Joseph Ratzinger. Revelation and Tradition. W.J. O’Hara (tr.). New York: Herder & Herder, 1966. RAHNER, Karl. “History of the World and Salvation History.” Theological Investigations Vol. V. Karl-H. Kruger (tr.). Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966. RAHNER, Karl. “Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World.” Theological Investigations Vol. V. Karl-H. Kruger (tr.). Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966. RAHNER, Karl. “Theology and Anthropology.” [orig. 1967] Theological Investigations Vol. IX. Graham Harrison (tr.). New York: Crossroad, 1973. RAHNER, Karl. “Der dreifaltige Gott als transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte” in Johannes Feiner & Magnus Löhrer (ed.). Mysterium Salutis. Grundriss
110
THE HANDS OF GOD
Heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik. Band II. Einsiedeln – Zürich – Köln: Benziger Verlag, 1967. RAHNER, Karl & Adolf Darlap (ed.) Sacramentum Mundi. Theologische Lexikon für die Praxis. Freiburg – Basel – Wien: Herder, 1969. RAHNER, Karl. “Der eine Jesus Christus und die Universalität des Heils” in Schriften zur Theologie. Band XII. Einsiedeln – Zürich – Köln: Benziger Verlag, 1975. RAHNER, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith. An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity. William Dych (tr.). New York: Crossroad, 1978. RAHNER, Karl. “Über die Heilsbedeutung der nichtchristlichen Religionen” Schriften zur Theologie, Band XIII. Zürich – Einsiedeln – Köln: Benziger Verlag, 1978. RAHNER, Karl. I Remember. An Autobiographical Interview with Meinold Krauss. Harvey Egan (tr.). New York: Crossroad, 1985. RIKHOF, Herwi .“The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity. A Reconstruction” Bijdragen 70:4 (2009): 423-457. SCHWÖBEL, Christoph . “Particularity, Universality, and the Religions” in Gavin D’Costa (ed.) Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1992. TILLEY, Terrence et al.. Religious Diversity and the American Experience. A Theological Approach. New York – London: Continuum, 2007. TRACY, David. “Trinitarian Speculation and the Forms of Divine Disclosure” in Stephen Davis, Daniel Kendall & Gerald O’Collins (ed.). The Trinity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. VALKENBERG, Pim & Harm Goris, “In Hem is Gods volheid lijfelijk aanwezig. Jezus en de religies” in Tijdschrift voor Theologie 48 (2008): 403-421. WILLIAMS, Rowan “Trinity and Pluralism” in Gavin D’Costa (ed.) Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1992.