First, in response to Johnson, I note that my rejection of the “discourse practice” of philosophy of religion does not have a primarily pedagogical concern; instead, it is a concern with a discipline which has shaped itself to work consistently on the ground staked out by skeptics. Second, in response to questions raised by all three critics, while I do not think that only committed religious believers can contribute to philosophy of religion I do think that the philosopher’s commitments play (...) a role in her or his engaging in the practice of doing philosophy of religion. Third, in response to Johnson and Godzieba, I indicate why I think the “ordinary believer,” as described, can be called prudent. Fourth, I note that we do not need to add a hermeneutics of suspicion to the practical philosophy of religion as I have described it because it is already there in practice for most believers. Finally, I note that the quest for wisdom is not abstract but is embodied and shared. (shrink)

This essay responds to Richard Lennan, “Faith in Context: Rahner on the Possibility of Belief ” (Philosophy & Theology 17 [2005]: 233–58). It suggests that some of the ills of religious belief in the United States were not those for which Rahner had prescriptions. The essay utilizes the fiction of Graham Greene, born in the same year as Rahner, and who had read much of Rahner’s work, to mobilize a critique of Lennan’s (and Rahner’s) views.

“Faith” is a central theme in Karl Rahner’s theology. While Rahner dealt at length with what classical theology names fides qua and fides quae, discussion of the context in which people came to faith was also crucial to his exposition of the Christian life. This paper has three aims: to examine Rahner’s understanding of the relationship between context and the possibility of faith; to outline and evaluate Rahner’s assessment of the ways in which people might appropriate and articulate Christian faith (...) in the modern world; and to explore whether Rahner’s approach to faith still offers a resource that the contemporary church might receive in a context that raises questions beyond those that confronted Rahner. (shrink)