Fun With Theology: Rahner and Swedenborg
Nov. 3rd, 2003 09:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
qosIt's 9:18pm, and it's almost my bedtime, but I just came home from a great class session, and am too fired up to go to sleep just yet.
In stark contrast to my current experience with my Swedenborgian class, my "Christian Anthropology" class is three hours of lively lecture and discussion led by a Catholic priest/theologian who is both highly intelligent and possessed of a great sense of humor, even where his own faith is concerned. I'm not just intellectual stimulated by this class, I have FUN.
Tonight's discussion was about Karl Rahner's theology of grace, followed by a discussion of original sin (it's not what most people think -- not where Rahner is concerned, anyway). It would have been a highly enjoyable session anyway, but it turns out that Rahner is very Swedenborgian in his thought. Like Swedenborg, he believes that our day-to-day choices shape who we are. After death, God does not judge us. We choose heaven or hell based on who our choices have made us and where we are going to be most comfortable.
Also like Swedenborg, Rahner believes that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus introduce a special kind of salvic grace to the world and human existence -- but a person does not have to believe anything about Jesus, or even know about him, in order to participate in that salvation. An individual can be open to the work of the Divine Spirit, and choose to act in the world with compassion, justice, truth, etc., and form a self who naturally becomes closer and closer to God. "Correct doctrine" can help this process, but there will not be a doctrinal quiz given at the pearly gates.
Catholicism is the last place I expected to find this kind of liberal (to my way of thinking) theology -- but I've had to revise some of my biases about Catholicism since starting this class. Like any other religious community, it has a range of beliefs. I've been pleasantly surprised -- and a bit humbled by my own broad-brushed negative judgement of the denomination. There is still a *lot* that I disagree with, but there's more there I can relate to and learn from than I had expected.
What's funny is that my professor has never heard of Swedenborg, so I'm a bit of an enigma to him. I'm looking forward to presenting him with an introductory volume of Swedenborgian theology.
In stark contrast to my current experience with my Swedenborgian class, my "Christian Anthropology" class is three hours of lively lecture and discussion led by a Catholic priest/theologian who is both highly intelligent and possessed of a great sense of humor, even where his own faith is concerned. I'm not just intellectual stimulated by this class, I have FUN.
Tonight's discussion was about Karl Rahner's theology of grace, followed by a discussion of original sin (it's not what most people think -- not where Rahner is concerned, anyway). It would have been a highly enjoyable session anyway, but it turns out that Rahner is very Swedenborgian in his thought. Like Swedenborg, he believes that our day-to-day choices shape who we are. After death, God does not judge us. We choose heaven or hell based on who our choices have made us and where we are going to be most comfortable.
Also like Swedenborg, Rahner believes that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus introduce a special kind of salvic grace to the world and human existence -- but a person does not have to believe anything about Jesus, or even know about him, in order to participate in that salvation. An individual can be open to the work of the Divine Spirit, and choose to act in the world with compassion, justice, truth, etc., and form a self who naturally becomes closer and closer to God. "Correct doctrine" can help this process, but there will not be a doctrinal quiz given at the pearly gates.
Catholicism is the last place I expected to find this kind of liberal (to my way of thinking) theology -- but I've had to revise some of my biases about Catholicism since starting this class. Like any other religious community, it has a range of beliefs. I've been pleasantly surprised -- and a bit humbled by my own broad-brushed negative judgement of the denomination. There is still a *lot* that I disagree with, but there's more there I can relate to and learn from than I had expected.
What's funny is that my professor has never heard of Swedenborg, so I'm a bit of an enigma to him. I'm looking forward to presenting him with an introductory volume of Swedenborgian theology.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Catholicism
Date: 2003-11-04 05:58 am (UTC)However, that being said, there have been interesting thinkers in the Catholic tradition, if only because for a long time it was the only game in western Europe. I have also met some profoundly spiritual people in the tradition. One of the most interesting with a man by the name of Hua Tran. I met him in my Tae Kwon Do class. He had come to Georgia Tech from Notre Dame to get a masters in Aerospace Engineering. Needless to say, he was a rather bright gentleman. We would have long and winding discussion on the nature of life with and without faith. When he finished Tech he entered the seminary, and unfortunately, I lost track of him at that point. He never did quite understand how I could handle the hassle of like without faith to rely on, and I never could find a way to articulate to him how that option worked.
viz9qdkw
Date: 2016-12-30 05:25 pm (UTC)