Rain and the Rhinoceros

Karl Rahner’s theory of “Anonymous Christianity” is a thoroughly inadequate approach to the reality of religious pluralism. It is inadequate insofar as it is caught up in the standard modern myth of the ability to transcend particularity and difference for the sake of a new “universal” (inter-religious) global (capitalist?) community. In Rahner’s time and perhaps especially in our own, we are constantly being reminded of the fact that Christianity is merely one religion among many. As the recent upsurge in religious violence (i.e. Islamic terrorism) is commonly perceived to demonstrate, a claim to the absoluteness of any single religion almost invariably lends itself to violent conflict. Of course, the only reason why the Western “enlightened” mind can point a finger at so-called “Islamic fundamentalists” is precisely because it is more than conscious of its own shameful history of imperialism and colonialism in the name of religion.

Rahner’s “Anonymous Christianity,” like many other modern theological attempts to be “inclusive” of the “other” is driven by the distinctively modern impulse that particularity must and can somehow be transcended by a universal. To be fair, Rahner, quite unlike John Hick, wants to retain something of a traditional understanding of Christianity. That is, Rahner’s “inclusiveness” is always underscored by a sense of the uniqueness of Christianity and the church (which is, by the way, precisely the reason why the Hick camp concludes that his theory remains “lukewarm.”) Ironically, the attempt to transcend particularity effectively ignores the reality of difference altogether, only to reintroduce a new instantiation of enforced homogeneity—in short, a neo-imperialism.

The past few posts on atheism have generated some good discussion. I deeply appreciate all who have participated in this discussion and I encourage any bystander to jump on in. I have to say that I am especially happy about the diversity of opinions posted and the respect with which people have engaged in dialogue.We have noted that much of the popular atheist literature does not take the time to engage theology. But why should atheists engage theology? I think in order to answer this we have to have some understanding of what theology is all about. What is the task of the theologian? Why does her work matter so much that we insist atheists listen?I’m going to point you to a wonderful little reflection on the task of theology by my friend, Halden at Inhabitatio Dei. I’d love to hear your responses and so would he.   

Since my last post on O’Reilly vs. Dawkins has generated such a good discussion, I thought I’d continue to post on the subject of atheism. I thought I’d direct you to Terry Eagleton’s review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion in the London Review of Books. It is a somewhat lengthy review but well worth reading. I look forward to hearing people’s thoughts.But, first a little snippet from his introduction to whet your appetite, “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”    

Yuk. . . people like O’Reilly make atheism attractive.