Good Theology

True to my word, I will discuss four of my favorite theologians, and what makes them deserving of my fan-boy devotion.

I must begin with Karl Rahner (1904-1984), who, for me, is a template for good theology and outstanding theologians. I am not in this one alone, either - he is regularly considered to be one of the three most important theologians of the 20th century. He was the primary nuncio, or theological adviser, for Vatican II's influential German Bloc of bishops and theologians. He practically penned the modern understanding of Christianity (Nouvelle Theologie) that is the first major theological movement since medieval-19th century Scholasticism. He is at the heart of most cool things that the Church did (up until Liberation Theology). But it is not his reputation that makes me love him; his reputation is a reflection of his awesomeness.

Rahner never wrote systematic treatises (except, arguably, his Master's thesis and Doctoral projects, which are the first and last documents to be meta Rahner). Instead, each of his writings are specific, occasional. He writes to talk about education, about Mary, about reconciliation. Or he writes to define Grace, or define Freedom. I like that approach to writing theology because, before any words are read, it rejects the systematic ontology that plagued theology for centuries. That is to say, Rahner considers the work of theology to be limited, temporal, and context-specific, not general, universal, or infinite. And I don't even plan to discuss the really awesome parts of his theology, the things he writes about so occasionally. Also, his writing is terribly dense, and unapologetically complex. Indeed, to read Rahner you must totally blow your mind. Bam!

No list of Bad-ass theologians would be complete without Pierre Teilhard De Chardin (1881-1955). Where to start? Paleontologist/geologist first, theologian second, and a full-on mystic. Teilhard was a big-picture person, for sure. His understanding of Christ was Cosmic, all of creation, including other galaxies, for all of time. And, as a paleontologist, Teilhard knew something about time. He is a tremendous writer, in English or French (he regularly self-translated), with beautiful, personal accounts, descriptions, and explanations. His collected letters from Egypt and China (where he helped discover Peking Man, one of the first hominid skeletons) are themselves worth owning. Besides his scope, he is directed very firmly to the future, the Omega point of history, the Kingdom of God.

I also love Hans Kung (1928-), an old friend of Rahner's. Kung basically predicted all of the major movements of Vatican II in a from-nowhere book just as John XXIII declared the conclave. Now, Kung does write big books, but they are always written as if to a friend, or a parishioner. He attempts, in each large work, to start from square one. So, for example, On Being A Christian simply describes every aspect of being a Christian. Likewise, the 2005 book on theology and science explains the debate as if I had never heard of anything, or looked up on a clear night (and also introduces me to Mozart).

As I particularly love Rahner for his approach to writing, I love Kung for his tone when dealing with the Church. He is not afraid to punch, to speak truth. I love when someone challenges authority and has the chops to do so. "The Church clings to the Spirit, chases the Holy Spirit, not the other way around. The extent to which the Church fails to recognize the Spirit is the extent to which is fails to be Church." Courageous up against the Church. Oh, by the way, he and Ratzinger used to work together, but are no longer on speaking terms. His license to teach as a Catholic has been repealed (its complicated - his university created a department just for him). And what topics does he most frequently pull into focus? Papacy and infallibility, eternal life, education, and ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue.

Finally, lets get modern with Sallie McFague (1933-). She takes Ricoeur et al.'s intensive post-modern study of Metaphor and transforms it into Feminist eco liberation theology. Yeah, that's right: Eat it, hetero/anthro/andro/scholasto-orthodoxy. She is moving forward with the church-challenging work with massive theological, metaphysical chops(ala Kung). Also, and again, a pleasure to read - a narrative style that is defended to its essence in her call to post-modern narrative/hermeneutic philosophy.

All said, what do I like in a theologian? Chops, first and foremost. Nothing half-baked, everything well considered, well prayed, well researched. I like to draw from multiple fields and genres. I like it to be real and practical at the same time as it touches the ethereal. After all, that balance of transcendence and immanence is the essence of religion.

(I also like Jesuits, like Rahner and Teilhard).

790. Tomorrow, we'll either compare wine to beer or be ready to talk about affection.