Wolfhart Pannenberg, 'Introduction to Systematic Theology' (2)

By -
Wolfhart Pannenberg, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991).

Learn a little something about Pannenberg.

Chapter 2: Problems of a Christian Doctrine of God

I liked this chapter much more than I did the first one, so maybe my earlier distaste was simply part of my general distaste for prolegomena. In any case, I can’t deal with all the content packed into this chapter, so I’ll have to hit high points.
  • Theology, Philosophy, Metaphysics

    • Pannenberg argues that “the theologian is called to restate the doctrine of God in terms of rational argument” (23), and he makes two points related to this. First, he notes that “the concept of God which was developed by medieval and early modern theology in close contact with classical metaphysics is in need of rather radical revision” (ibid). But, he notes secondly that a significant difficulty in going about this ‘radical revision’ is “the desolate state of metaphysics in modern philosophy” (ibid). That is, the philosophers aren’t doing metaphysics, and therefore the theologians have little to work with as they go about this revision.

    Moving on, Pannenberg says a bit more about how theology and philosophy relate. “First, the theologian should not realy too heavily on a particular philosophical system, but she or he should critically participate in the dialog of contemporary philosophy…” (24). The goal of this ‘critical participation’ by the theologian is the refinement of the Christian doctrine of God and the demonstration of its “rational plausibility” (25). Indeed, Pannenberg thinks that this has always been the role of metaphysical considerations in the Christian doctrine of God, at least when properly pursued.

    Lest anyone (pay attention, ye Barthians!) should object to this work, Pannenberg takes the time to point out that this sort of work is not engaging in ‘natural theology,’ the rejection of which thinks “served as an excuse for not entering seriously at all into the dialog with philosophy” (ibid). Pannenberg is not (here at least) interested in proofs of God’s existence, but in the explication of the Christian doctrine of God in a way that makes sense. Thus, he states that
    “to engage in critical dialog with the tradition of philosophical theology is not to do what is called ‘natural theology,’ but serves the critical examination of theological language. The less attention has been paid to this requirement, the more subjective and irrational theological language has become, even if the subjectivism simply consists in taking over traditional formulas and phrases without sufficient awareness of their implications” (ibid).
    I say, “Amen,” and I’m sure that this gladdens the heart of my philosopher friend.

  • Paul Tillich vs. Thomas

    • Paul Tillich (you can access my mini series on him in the DET serials index) gets a bit of a beating in this chapter. Pannenberg notes how Tillich attempted to revise the doctrine of God. Tillich’s first problem, according to Pannenberg, is his “dislike for the idea of a purely transcendent God” (ibid). Though Tillich is not a pantheist, this dislike is what pushes him to speak of God as the ground of being. Pannenberg thinks that Tillich should have paid more attention to the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Second, Pannenberg discusses Tillich’s notion of God as ‘being’ and not ‘a being’. Thomas is the hero in this section because he was able to hold together the notions of God as the ground of all being and as a particular being, precisely what Tillich couldn’t do because he thought it impossible for a particular being to be the ground of all being. “What is different in the case of God, according to Thomas Aquinas, is not that he has no essence at all, but that his being and essence are one. Therefore Thomas Aquinas could still speak of God as the highest being” (27). In Pannenberg’s estimation, this is Thomas’ “superior sophistication” (28).

  • Process Theology / Philosophy

    • Pannenberg thinks that Whiteheadian process philosophy / theology has much to commend it to one’s attention. For starters, it does a much better job than Tillich in “describing…the cosmological function inherent in the idea of God” (29). Furthermore, it is one of few examples of a contemporary philosophy that takes God seriously. However, its problem is
    “that it does not allow for a concept of creation. The Whiteheadian God is but a partial factor in the constitution of actual existence, which is basically conceived as self-constitutive. Therefore, the God of Whitehead is not the biblical creator God. Furthermore, the Whiteheadian God is one actual entity among others, though distinguished from them by being everlasting. According to this philosophy all actual reality is finite, even God. It’s picture of the universe is that of a pluralism of finite realties.” (29-30).
  • God as “Father

    • Coming back to Tillich, Pannenberg discusses God’s fatherhood. He lands on a position that is similar to Tillich’s, but that resists the more contemporary movements to speak of God in only gender-neutral language. “‘Father’ is not an exchangeable metaphor,” Pannenberg states emphatically, “though otherwise it may be regarded as a metaphorical expression on the same footing with words like ‘mother’ or ‘friend’” (31). The reason that it is not exchangeable has to do with the fact that “the word ‘Father’ indicates that our way of talking about God and of addressing God relates to the same God whom Jesus talked about…the exchange of this name inevitably results in turning to another God” (32).

  • The Personhood of God

    • Pannenberg discusses the personhood of God and locating it within his broader discussion. He also mentions some ways in which this concept developed and, more importantly, was severely critiqued in the modern period. What happened was that God’s personhood became identified with his existence as ‘spirit’ which, in the German philosophy of the day, was equated with ‘mind’. The question then came to be how a particular mind could also be infinite, and other questions similar to those found in discussions of God as a being or as being itself. The result of this discussion is this:
    “The biblical God is personal in his elective will and action and as he is revealed as Father by his Son Jesus Christ. And because as Father he is related to his Son in all eternity, he is personal in eternity in the unity of Father, Son, and Spirit. In them, the unspeakable divine mystery is eternally concrete. Therefore, one cannot have one God as personal without the trinitarian persons” (35-6).
Previous Installments: Chapter One

Comments

Anonymous said…
I would take aim at "rational plausibility" (though I'm not a strict Barthian myself) if we are to constrict our doctrine according to our philosophical schemata. Of course, I'm sure this is not exactly what Pannenberg means, but, rather, that our presentation of Christian doctrine does not violate given criteria of non-contradiction or falsifiability or something along those lines. Hence, we have his scientific apologetic running throughout his 3 volume dogmatics -- "scientific apologetic" insofar as he is at pains to demonstrate that our doctrines do not contradict the best (as he deems it) of current science (not that such science "proves" anything of the Christian faith). Of course, to what extent does this prolegomena control his handling of doctrine? Clearly, for example, in his dealing with original sin, he makes his account cohere with evolutionary thought, so evil and death are not a result of human sin but simply something we are born into (and from which Christ frees us). Now, what does this do to our doctrine of sin, guilt, evil, Incarnation, atonement, and so forth? If we don't want to be Creationists, how can we retain a robust Pauline soteriology in the face of contemporary "facts"? Is theology to be beholden to science (or philosophy or history)? Is this not the risk of any sort of plausibility thesis?
November 06, 2007 4:06 AM
Post a Comment

Popular Posts

So You Want to Read….Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

By -
Image
"I fear that Christians who stand with only one leg upon earth also stand with only one leg in heaven." "The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community…may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door." "Since ethical thinking in terms of realms is overcome by faith in the revelation of the ultimate reality in Jesus Christ . . . there is no real Christian existence outside the reality of the world." "People who reject their bodies reject their existence before God the Creator." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Prelude Andreas Steinhoff [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons I envisioned having a lot of time for blogging this summer, but that simply has not been the case - the last month has been a crazy one, to say the least. For two weeks, I was working at a theology summer camp of sorts, the Duke Youth Academy, and s...
Keep reading

So, You Want To Read Karl Barth?

By -
Image
Every now and then I am asked for advice about studying Karl Barth. So, I thought that I would share some of my standard advice here. But, before I do that, let me just say that I am by no means a Barth expert as compared to the people whose books I will mention below. I would be thrilled to find myself in their league one day, but as of yet that remains a distant dream. Still, I have been reading Barth for long enough, and under the supervision of a number of the scholars that I will mention below, that I think I can provide a decent orientation. I have never read Karl Barth before. Which of his books should I read first? Barth’s most famous work is the monumental 13-volume Church Dogmatics . Reading the CD with understanding is not an easy thing, so you definitely do NOT want to start here. Luckily, there are two smaller works by Barth that serve as helpful introductions to his work. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction - Based on the lectures that Barth delivered duri...
Keep reading

Karl Barth on Hell, the Devil, Demons, and Universalism – A Florilegium

By -
Image
You know, all the most interesting topics. Although Barth often confessed that he didn’t find these questions particularly interesting. At best they might draw sideways glances, as it were, as one travels the theological road. But I found a number of places in the records of Barth’s later conversations that I thought folks might find interesting, so I’ve collected them here. And if you aren’t familiar with the term “florilegium,” here you go ! All these texts are from the first volume of Barth in Conversation , with pages numbers given in parentheses along the way. As usual, italics are in the text and bold is mine. Hell “Now we come to hell. You shouldn’t laugh! There is nothing to laugh at! What does hell mean? I think hell means to be in the place where you are once fore all damned and lost without ceasing to exist, without losing the image of God, being what you are but being damned and lost, separated from God, whose creature you are, separated also from your neighbor, from...
Keep reading

George Hunsinger’s gloss of the Christ Hymn in Philippians 2

By -
Image
I’ve been reading George Hunsinger’s (my doktorvater , for anyone who might be new around here) entry in the Brazos Theoloical Commentary on the Bible series on Philippians. Anyone who has studied with George will find this book to be a compendium and application of many of his most characteristic and beloved analytical tools and patterns, and I’ve been enjoying it immensely. But one of the things that really stood out to me was how he glossed the so-called “Christ hymn” of Philippians 2. George Hunsinger, Philippians , Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: BrazosPress, 2020). The gloss that Hunsinger provides is not a historical-critical interpretation. Rather, it is an ecclesial, ecumenical, and theological interpretation that attempts to fill in the blanks for how to understand this proto-liturgical formulation in light of the later formulations of the ecumenical creeds. In order to achieve this gloss, Hunsinger engages in “ecclesial hermeneutics” and makes “...
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 3, Day 1

By -
On the Monstrosity of Christ : Karl Barth in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek & John Milbank By Paul Dafydd Jones For a while, I hoped to frame this conversation in terms of a dramatic interchange – something along the lines of “A Slovenian philosopher, a British theologian, and a Swiss dogmatician walk into a bar…” Alongside an eye-wateringly hip assemblage of cinematic references, literary allusions, and comedic scenes – my early favorites being when Barth imagines a young adult novel, entitled Are you there God? It’s me, Žižek , and when Milbank waxes poetic about the Twilight movies – I wanted to engage some topics that would likely receive attention, were the authors to meet for drinks. Primarily, I envisioned an intense discussion of the logos asarkos and the logos ensarkos , with Milbank talking up the former category, Barth emphasizing the latter, and Žižek asking whether recent debates are but symptoms of secret puzzle, embedded in the Church Dogmatics – a puzzle that...
Keep reading