Hunting High and Low

Reflect on the Christologies of Karl Rahner and Albert Nolan. What similarities and what differences do you detect? What approach do you prefer, and why?

Rahner and Nolan’s Christologies are similar in that they are both reflecting on what they know and understand (or concede that they don’t know and don’t understand) about divinity and humanity, and using that understanding (or lack thereof) as a basis for exploring a fuller understanding of God, and Jesus as both man and God.

Their Christologies are different in that:

• Rahner is doing high Christology and approaching the question from the top down: starting with what he knows of God and the nature of divinity and working his way into understanding the meaning and implications of Jesus’ divinity for his humanity – i.e. because he is fully God, he is able to be most fully human and be loving and compassionate and everything that God is, as a human being; and
• Nolan is doing low Christology and approaching the question from the bottom up: starting with what he knows about Jesus’ humanity and working his way into understanding the meaning and implications of Jesus’ humanity for his embodiment of divinity – i.e. because we see Jesus the man being loving and compassionate and everything that he is as a person, we are able to understand something of the nature of God, whose divinity lives fully and is fully expressed in Jesus the man.

I prefer both approaches, I can’t choose just one! They’re completely complementary.

I hold fast to the notion that I myself am really only able to be loving by God’s spirit at work in me: left to my own very human devices I instinctively become selfish and mean, whereas in working at being open and available to God’s presence and love I am more able to see further than my own self­-serving agendas, and have mercy and compassion for other people, and do kind things for God’s sake that I would otherwise not do. At some point, if I let God’s spirit get enough of a foothold, I may even find that I will learn to be able to forgive! From this starting point, I like Rahner’s approach: if Jesus was fully human he must have had moments of human weakness and wilfulness – but because he was fully divine he was able to transcend his every weakness and be continuously present to the people around him, absolutely faithful to his mission, and always mindful of his Father’s presence in the depths of his very being. (We mere mortals can only aspire to this, and gaze in wonder and awe!)

At the same time, I am completely puzzled by the whole question of God, and some days I even wonder if there IS a God, or if I’m holding onto a lovely fantasy that makes it easier for me to get through the tough times and challenges. Religion is the opium of the … minorities, and all of that. Seriously, what can a person actually know about God?! Especially given how much scientific evidence there isn’t for his existence?! And from this starting point, I like Nolan’s approach: if Jesus was fully divine, then taking what I know of Jesus the man and how he lived and loved and got through his days, and extrapolating that to speak to me about divinity, then I begin to see God all around me in the people I encounter everyday. These are average folk, who are as loving and as kind as they are able to be, even in the midst of their struggles and heartaches. Wow. Finding God this close is enough to take your breath away! Amen.