Hans Kung


Kung challenges the easy assumptions of he simple faith but emphasises the need for a magesterium with which we can debate and seek clarity. For far too long we the laity have dodged responsibility for making choices by ceding that responsibility to priests and their bosses the bishops, curia and ultimately the pope. If we are to be responsible and eventually to accept an adult role within the church then we need the Kungs and the John Paul IIs of this world. They and their likes help us form our faith.

>>By Frank Dunne   (Wednesday, 12 Mar 2003 22:45)

I agree 100%. The laity is the Church. The Church is no longer an uneducated people led by the educated leaders of the Church.

>>By John Placette   (Wednesday, 26 Mar 2003 23:47)

The laity is part of the Church, not the entire Church. Laity, deacons, priests, and bishops all make up the Church. Each order has a role an very important role to play. The leaders of the early Church were the apostles. Should we not have leaders of the Church today? Is leadership within the Church necessarily a hostile entity? We need more critical thinking in here!

>>By Anonymous   (Sunday, 30 Mar 2003 18:19)

I agree with "Anonymous" that leadership within the church is absolutely necessary -- Even in the New Testament, the Church was not a total democracy. Individuals who possessed the spiritual gifts of administration, leadership, or pastoring were charged with the responsibility of church leadership. If you look at the early chapters in Kung's book, "Christianity - Essence, HIstory, and Future" I think it's clear that Kung accepts this. The issue that Kung stresses is: the entire Church (including its leadership) stands under the ONLY absolute authority--the Gospel of Jesus Christ--and the Church must be constantly critiqued and renewed by that same Gospel.

>>By Jeff Kahl   (Saturday, 19 Apr 2003 04:38)

'On Being a Christian' is overall I 'd have to say the finest book on Christian theology that I've ever read. Not that it doesn't ask and address alot of very difficult questions that are well outside the mainstream. For that reason alone I absorbed it and appreciated it, not without personal objection here and there. But I love his willingness to courageously strip away the driftwood but with a position of real faith and belief. His interpretation intuitively seems more plausable and less mythological.

>>By Phil Robertson   (Monday, 23 Jun 2003 02:53)

The discussion board is currently closed.