HANS KUNG: BREAKING THROUGH
By Hermann Haring
(trans. John Bowden)
SCM. 375 pages (inc. bibliography). £19.95
ISBN 0 334 02739 X
A book on Hans Kung matters. A Roman Catholic theologian, he cannot be ignored by evangelical Protestants for a number of reasons: he has helped create the climate for current Roman Catholic/Protestant negotiations; he contributes significantly in current interfaith dialogue; he is influential among non-Christians; and he has been a clear voice calling for reform within the Roman Catholic denomination.
This book acts as a 'theological biography' of Kung. The details of Kung's life therefore do not emerge here, while details of his work do. The tone is markedly sympathetic, and presents a reasoned defence of Kung's position, although this is largely set in the context of Kung's Roman Catholicism and the question of whether his licence to teach was rightly revoked by the Roman hierarchy. It charts Kung's output from his early work on justification in the 1950s, through his examination of the church in the 1960s to his major accounts of world religions and global questions, largely the focus of his most recent major work. Haring helpfully comments on how Kung works at various points, as well as the underlying theological direction.
Ambivalence
As such, the picture that emerges is of an immensely industrious and conscientious theologian, striving to be academically rigorous, yet also accessible and usable at a practical level. Haring depicts a writer of enormous scope who listens carefully and charitably to those of different views. I find a likeable Kung in these pages.
I also find it a very thought-provoking book. The fate of Kung the theologian seems closely tied in the book to the fate of the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, to which Kung contributed, and the disavowal of Kung the theologian parallels the refusal to embrace various suggestions of Vatican II. It still remains hard to know, perhaps, what to make of Vatican II as an evangelical: one applauds some features (a renewed emphasis on the Bible) while remaining critical of others (a failure to bring denominational tradition clearly under the supremacy of the Bible).
For me, this ambivalence applies to Kung's theology too. Reading perhaps his greatest book of the 1960s (The Church), I warm to the attempt to use the Bible to interpret the church's role. Thinking of his work on justification, I am a little bemused by his method. The intention is, I think, sincerely eirenic, attempting to find honest common theological ground between Protestant and Roman Catholic. To do this, he focuses on reconciling the views of the Council of Trent with those of Karl Barth. Yet I am not primarily interested in what men and women say about the Bible but rather in what the Bible itself says, although naturally the various interpretations that are put forward may help me to reach my conclusions about what the Bible says.
World peace
The trajectory of Kung's thought presented here is also disquieting. The thesis is that there can be no world peace without peace between the religions, so a primary task is finding how such peace may be obtained. Although Kung insists he is a Christian theologian, it is precisely on the issue of Christ that misgivings arise. Thus in terms of the interaction between Islam and Christianity, Kung suggest that Muhammad was influenced by Jewish Christians who did not accept the divinity of the Lord Jesus. On this view, Muhammad is not 'anti-Christian' but merely appropriating a particular strand of Christian tradition, and hence there is no absolute opposition between Christianity and Islam. I have to say I find this profoundly unconvincing. Clearly it does nothing for the opposition between someone like me who does think Jesus is divine, and a typical Muslim who doesn't. And anyway, the question has now become whether those who denied the divinity of the Lord Jesus were still Christians. Did Muhammad appropriate a legitimate strand of Christianity?
At that point, one wonders whether Kung, despite his clear desire for truth to be pursued, has not allowed the question to become religion vs. no religion, rather than the more biblical question of true religion vs. false religion.
Not addressed
I find the book very valuable for bringing these questions more to the surface, but I find too legitimate evangelical questions are not addressed. In particular, Kung's view of sin and its effects are not clear here. But this is vital. If sin does have the effects that Paul describes in Romans 1, then the Bible is necessary for understanding God.
It is not just the first document in the church's history, but more normative than that (a criticism, of course, also made by Karl Rahner). I would have liked Haring to have dealt with this in more detail, not least because it affects the questions both of salvation and of religious truth in religions outside Christianity. Haring hints that Kung is impatient with the doctrine of total depravity. Given Kung's at times observational method, I find this surprising: the 20th century strongly suggests the inclination of man's heart is indeed towards evil. Kung does not seem to feel this.
I wonder if this points to a faith not just in God (which the book does attest), but also in humanity, which I find disturbing.
Michael Ovey
Oak Hill College
Home
Archives
Subscriptions
Adverts
Find a church
About us
Contact us
Site Map
Printable