Christological Inquiry: Barth, Rahner, and the Identity of Jesus Christ

CHRISTOLOGICAL INQUIRY: BARTH, RAHNER, AND THE IDENTITY OF JESUS CHRIST HOW, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY asks, can we intelligently inquire into the identity of One we also aim to follow and glorify? The central issue at stake in this christological inquiry is whether " Christ is the adequate context of Christian theology " or whether this Christ can only be intelligible and practical in some prior conceptual, cosmic, social, liturgical, existential, or other context.1 This, it may tum out, is simply modernity's way of posing choices about the Chalcedonian " person " and " natures." But, insofar as a field can be identified by its essentially contested issues (i.e., those issues on which even a field's best practitioners disagree ), these different ways of inquiring into Jesus Christ constitute the essential divide of twentieth century theologya divide, I suggest, represented by Karl Barth and Karl Rahner.2 The case I aim to make is that Barth and Rahner, 1 See Walter Lowe, "Christ and Salvation" in Peter Hodgson and Robert H. King, eds., Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), p. 217. 2 The following are the abbreviations for the very select (but, I believe, representative) texts cited: CD = Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, eds. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans. G. W. Bromiley, T. F. Torrance, et al., Four Volumes (!IV ) with various Parts (I/1-IV/4) and Halves (IV/3,1), paragraphs (e.g., IV/3,1, # 69), and pages (e.g., IV/3,1: 1). (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, Ltd., 1936-1975). I use the revised translation of I/l (1975). CL= Karl Barth, The Christian Life: Church Dogmatics IV/4. Lecture Fragments, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981). DT =Karl Rabner and Herbert Vorgrimler, Dictionary of Theology, trans. Richard Strachen, et al., 2nd Edition (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1981). FCF =Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith. An Introduction 568 BARTH, RAHNER, AND THE IDENTITY OF JESUS CHRIST 569 despite stubborn differences on the context of christological inquiry , agree on doctrinal claims about Jesus Christ-although this agreement is seriously jeopardized by their theological claims about Jesus Christ. Because the risks of this enterprise are considerable, I do well to mention a bias that drives the essay. I am convinced that, if we focus our attention on thf well known, characteristic features of Barth's and Rahner's theologies (e.g., revelational versus transcendental theology), their christological inquiries will turn out to be irremedially opposed, if not incommensurable . Candor would require us to admit that they must engage each other across a divide of affections and worship, churches and traditions, schools and political institutions. However, my argument will suggest that a focus on the characteristic features of their individual theologies fails to deal with Barth and Rahner on their own terms. This means that the complexities of Barth and Rahner themselves will have to take priority over a rich body of secondary literature.3 Furto the Idea of Christianity, trans. William V. Dych (New York: The Seabury Press, 1978). Translation of GdG. GdG =Karl Rahner, Grundkurs des Glaubens: Einfuhrung in den Begriff des Ghristentums (Freiburg: Herder, 1976). Translated as FCF. SM= Karl Rahner with Cornelius Ernst and Kevin Smyth, eds., Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, 6 Volumes (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968-1970). SzT =Karl Rahner, Schriften zur Theologie, 16 volumes (Zurich: Benziger, 1959-1984). 14 volumes are translated as, for the most part, TI. TI =Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations. Various translators, 20 volumes (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1961-83; New York: Seabury , 1974-1983). Translation of SzT. I will take CD and TI to be Barth's and Rahner's central texts; in the case of conflicts within these texts, I will read the earlier volumes of CD in the light of later volumes and TI in the light of FCF. This hermeneutical presumption will generate a "hardest case" which could be scaled back depending on how we take Barth's claim that CD has "no important breaks or contradictions" (CD IV/2: xi) and Rahner's claim that FCF is not a synthesis of his theology (FCF xv; TI XIX...