Karl Rahner, who lived and loved during the even year 1904 and the rather infamous -though due to different factors- year 1984, was one of those Germans who, like most other educated Germans, have something important to say. His profound and full of insight discourse earned him the reputation of one of the foremost Roman-Catholic theologists of the 20th century, which, mind you, is no small business, even among Germans. He died in Innsbruck, Austria, shortly after the USSR had gone home with most of the medals at the Winter Olympics in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia (what are the odds ? ). Rahner’s theology was highly influential at the Second Vatican Council, his spectrum of writings is large, the Pope loved him, his early influences were Heidegger and Kant.
What interests me most here, though, is Rahner’s view of the relation between Christianity and other religions, which he explains in his work Theological Investigations. Here, he expresses the view that Christianity is more the condition acquired through conduct than the cause of subsequent feats of religious bravery, which in consequence opens the gates of Christendom to any living sole.
Rahner does not consider all religions to be equal, nor that they are particular instances of common encounter with God. The Church is still the creation of Christ, and salvation can still be atained through it. Christianity has exclusive status, and the question is whether other religions give access to the same saving grace as Christianity. His approach allows him to suggest that the beliefs of non-Christian religious traditions are not necessarily true, while allowing that they may nevertheless mediate the grace of God by the lifestyles which they evoke – such as a selfless love of one’s neighbor.
Rahner still promotes the idea of Christianity being the absolute religion, founded on the unique event of the self-revelation of Christ. However, he admits that those who have had not the chance of coming in contact with God’s word are not excluded from salvation, that being contrary to God’s saving will. Non-Christian beliefs are valid and capable of mediating the grace of God, at least until the gospel is made known to their members. Therefore, he argues, the faithful adherent of a non-Christian religious tradition can succesfully be named an “anonymous Christian.”
Here is an excerpt from an interview with Karl Rahner concerning the matter of the anonymous Christian:
As any, Rahner met criticism to his view.
Rahner’s theory has been criticised by Hans Urs von Balthasar, a well-known theologist himself, who questioned “whether Rahner has evacuated Christianity of its categorial content in favour of a relationship with God not essentially mediated by the concrete content of faith.” (The Cambridge companion to Karl Rahner). His criticism disagreed of Rahner’s whole anthropological starting place, finding his theology too human-centered. Hans Metz, as far as he is concerned, becomes a bit concerned about the excessive stress put on self-affirmation in the human-God relation, which diminishes considerably Christianity’s social and historical role.
My question arises in the face of the same rapport between the privatism of religion on the one hand, and the social aspect of it on the other. Is Rahner entitled to affirm that righteousness earns the status of ‘Christian’, whether it is an anonymous manifestation or not ? Is the idea of an ‘anonymous Christian’ even viable, or reasonable ? In the context put forward by Rahner, does individualism prevail over the established professional ethics of secular tradition ? Does Rahner by his claims of universality relativise Christianity too much ? In the midst of this, when and where exactly lies the essence of being a Christian ?
