What I Believe by Hans Küng

What I Believe Reviews

• 
  Richard Magahiz

  This was my reading for Lent this year, a sort of summary by this famous theologian known for taking controversial opinions which the conservative hierarchy objected to. Most notably for casting shade on the doctrine of Papal infallibility which led to his authority to write and lecture as on Catholic doctrine in the 1960s. He remained a priest and faculty member at the University of Tübingen in Germany. Here he describes how he views the major elements of his belief, not strictly from a closely reasoned approach, but also drawing from a lifetime of experience. A lot of it points back to his major writings, which I have not read, and to that by others he respects. So this is not really a survey of all his contributions, but points to them in rapid succession. The book doesn't really constitute a memoir (he has written two volumes of those) but mentions significant things which happened during his time which focus on the crucial concepts forming the foundation of his belief.
  
  He is not afraid of saying where wrong decisions have been made on the other side, but avoids being excessively harsh in his assessments. He calls out entire strains of thought such as some on the nature of God as being unhelpful on an authentic spiritual path and describes why they are for him unpersuasive. He looks as the major world religions one by one and talks both about what is laudable at the core and ways they have gone into directions he deplores. Fundamentalism to him lacks nuance and produces interpretations contrary to the spirit of the primary works in most cases. I think he would say it is the job of the modern intellect to reach out to the texts and interpret them in context.
  
  Towards the end he looks at his legacy and speaks about how he wants to face his own end in a way consistent with his convictions. His personality is not cool or distant, and you can sense the drive toward taking action when necessary. To me he comes off not so much as a revolutionary but more a person who tries to understand everything that has come both inside and outside the Magisterium and find a way to reconcile these without doing violence to what is essential. I got the sense that continuing on in a pattern rooted in "medieval" structures is for him worse than adopting those measures to adapt to the modern world in substantial ways.
• 
  Jc

  For a long time, since the mid-1970s, Hans Kung was been my man to argue with. While I usually disagree with his understanding of religious and philosophical issues, I have always admired his intelligence, knowledge, and ability to formulate, express, and support his arguments. I have read just under half of his extensive published-in-English bibliography. Early on, pointedly with "On Being a Christian," I found his ideas compelling and instructive. Even that early on, however, his discussions (along with Dostoevsky's novels) were part of what drove me toward atheism (certainly not Kung's intent). But I remained a fan - arguing my way through one of his works has always been a strengthening adventure for me. All that praise being said, "What I Believe" just did not hold up to his previous intellectual heights. His arguments here seem simplistic and very un-intellectual. Full of cheap shots at non-believers, and supportive of a weak, unquestioning, overly-credulous christian viewpoint, even while still dismissing many aspects of religion that would bother many christians, Catholic or otherwise (e.g., prayer and miracles). Kinda-liberal but maybe believing R.C.'s might get something out of this, but I can not recommend it to anyone, other than a Kung-library completist.
• 
  Maurizio Manco

  "Ho discusso degli interrogativi fondamentali delle scienze naturali con molti fisici, chimici e biologi. [...] Di fronte alle dimensioni inimmaginabili del nostro universo, alla complessità del mondo subatomico e allo sviluppo imprevedibile della vita sul nostro pianeta, perfino di quella intellettuale, anche loro conoscono sentimenti quali lo stupore, il timore reverenziale, la gioia. E non chiudono gli occhi di fronte alle grandi domande della vita umana che sembrano andare oltre la loro scienza. Anche se non si condivide il terrore di Blaise Pascal di fronte allo spazio infinito, si dovrebbe riflettere sullo sguardo profondo che egli ha saputo gettare nella «grandeur et misère de l’homme». L’uomo, un nulla rispetto al tutto, un tutto rispetto al nulla: «Infinitamente lontano dalla comprensione di questi estremi, il termine delle cose e il loro principio restano per lui invincibilmente celati in un segreto imperscrutabile» (Pensieri, n. 223)" (p. 63)
  
• 
  Constance Groh

  This book served as my Lenten devotional reading for two years, 2019 and 2020. I would read a section of a chapter each day. I have now finished, on the Wednesday of Holy Week 2020, during a pandemic. Because my own spirituality is quite “intellectualized,” this book was a perfect devotional for me. Many years ago, Hans Kung’s writings helped me “make sense” of Christianity. He’s still helping.
• 
  Hucky

  Ein Buch eher für theologische Insider, doch - obwohl ich selber einer bin - für mich etwas zu rational und abstrakt gestrickt, zu wenig emotional ansprechend, jedoch mit einer starken ethischen, ökumenischen und weltpolitischen Vision.
  Auf jeden Fall redlich und glaubwürdig!
• 
  Maria Morfin

  Enjoyed every piece of it. Without agreeing with Küng on everything, I love the meticulous study of his own line of thought and the discovery of his own beliefs.
  He must have been a most interesting person to have a conversation with.
• 
  Pishowi

  Küng believes that religion's prospects depend on an ability to confront honestly its vulnerability to perversion and distortion, which often leads to the legitimation of violence. Is this a realistic hope? Can it be achieved through the unsentimental, rational scrutiny of historical traditions, through ecumenical dialogue, or through declarations? These actions may not be enough, but Küng would say that the prospect is bleak without them. Notwithstanding religion's shortcomings, Küng believes that it has virtues compared to the religionless life: it is nonelitist and broadly accessible, it speaks symbolically and emotionally as well as rationally, and it possesses continuity through its traditions. It addresses questions of origin and destiny, provides strength and security, and gives voice to an "unquenchable longing for a better world."
  
  It would also be interesting to know more about how Küng aligns his priestly vocation, his beliefs, and the contemporary Roman Catholic Church. He spends little time in this book on the details of his long-standing differences with the Catholic Church hierarchy—all well-documented in his autobiographies. Here he summarizes his opposition in simple terms: "My criticism of the church in particular comes most deeply from suffering over the discrepancy between what this historical Jesus was, what he preached, lived out, fought for and suffered for, and what is today represented by the institutional church and its hierarchy." His loyalty to the Catholic Church comes through clearly, but it would have been intriguing to glimpse more fully how that loyalty has endured decades of controversy.
  
  What I Believe is personal without being idiosyncratic, reasoned but not rationalized, judicious though not ponderous. Behind it lies decades of study and reflection, and they lend weight, unobtrusively for the most part, to what Küng has to say. Though one may not share some, or even many, of its author's interpretations, choices, or commitments, What I Believe remains an engaging, often eloquent, portrait of personal belief.
• 
  Mike

  One of the greatest Christian theologians of our day lays down in fairly simple language what he believes. This is not a heavy theological work but a very conversational writing. Of course he's a Christian theist, but he shows great respect for other faiths, agnostics and atheists.
• 
  Inke Meier

  Küng liegt mir leider gar nicht.
• 
  Tom Guise

  It is and will remain a shame that he was silenced.