Wild Ideas about Pannenberg's 'Supposed' Hegelianism
This could be unique to me, but at some point between informal conversations, research, and classes I've gotten the impression that when it comes to Pannenberg, there is a ton of interest in how his work relates to Hegel. For example, it seems that people want an answer to the question “to what degree is Pannenberg’s system ‘Hegelian’?” In one of my courses a couple years ago my professor spent some time on Pannenberg, discussing sections of his Systematic Theology and the reasons for / the rationale behind Theology and the Philosophy of Science. He also took special care to note that while Pannenberg resisted being seen as a disciple of Hegel, the footnotes may have told a different story.
In the light of this interest, below is a lengthy quote from an interview with Pannenberg that I have not seen referenced elsewhere. Maybe later I can make an argument, but for now, here is part of his answer to the question put to Pannenberg: “What aspects of your thought do theologians continue to misunderstand?”
==================================
Follow @marisd
In the light of this interest, below is a lengthy quote from an interview with Pannenberg that I have not seen referenced elsewhere. Maybe later I can make an argument, but for now, here is part of his answer to the question put to Pannenberg: “What aspects of your thought do theologians continue to misunderstand?”
There are the wildest ideas about my supposed Hegelianism! I am not a Hegelian. I just happen to think that [Georg] Hegel was one of the outstanding minds in the history of modern thought, one whose work sets a high standard for us to follow. That is why I believe that theology after Hegel should strive to rise to his level of sophistication and rigor. But very few of my ideas did I actually get from Hegel—very few. I feel much more closely related and indebted to thinkers other than Hegel. His ideas for example, are not as good as those of Wilhelm Dilthey, to whose assumptions in the area of hermeneutics I am indebted. . . . Put differently, I do not follow the lead of any one person. I try to concern myself with the history of a problem and then make my own judgment in a systematic way. (pp. 47-8)
==================================
Follow @marisd
Comments
I need to think on it more, but I might apply what I've learned from Michael Welker and be "topic-focused," hoping that I can eventually make a larger claim out of the tiny studies.
For example, in his book on Pannenberg Grenz pointed out that many theologians wrongly accused Pannenberg of following Hegel in his understanding of "revelation as history." Grenz showed that Pannenberg was actually having a conversation with figures like Richard Rothe. While he documented this mistaken reading, Grenz only devoted a few pgs to it. My guess is that a more in-depth examination is possible and would be interesting.
I also think I should come clean. A large part of what motivated this little post was that I've recently become annoyed when discussions of Pannenberg become discussions of his relationship to Hegel. I've even read a commentator claim that Pannenberg "is trying to out-Hegel Hegel!"
I want to follow Ken on this (see LeRon Shults' bk on Pannenberg, if I remember correctly he discusses the importance of "the true infinite" for Pannenberg), so I find myself wanting to debunk the idea that "Pannenberg is a Hegelian." For some reason it bugs me, so at some point I'd like to do several studies on topics like the one I mentioned and see where it might take me.
I would agree with you in the idea that we need to debunk the Pannenberg is a Hegelian thing. It seems pretty clear to me that he is not. He uses Hegel's idea of self-distinction but alters it; he disagrees with Hegel's idea of spirit and its relationship to consciousness (part of P's general critique of the tradition where nous is equated with pneuma); completely disagrees with any necessary self-development in God; disagrees with Hegel's concept of sin as alienation; disagrees that a total perspective on history is possible other than proleptically in the figure of Christ; disagrees with any real fusion of divine being with history (and the so-called Pannenberg principle is really developed more in dialogue with Tertullian than it is with Hegel). To my mind the equation with Hegelianism is made simple because Hegel himself was so omnivorous as far as Christian sources go that when people simply don't have the extensive knowledge of the tradition that P has the path of least resistance is to claim he is picking up on Hegelian themes when in fact they are from Richard of St. Victor or Duns Scotus or Nicholas of Cusa, etc...
Now, it is perfectly fine if after a close and serious reading of Hegel one nevertheless comes away with criticisms.* That's only natural. But you can't dismiss the guy, and offering backhanded compliments or snide implications, without making yourself look bad. He is, quite simply, an impressive thinker.
*One would, of course, have to determine which Hegel one wants to deal with since there sometimes seems to be a dozen different versions of him running around in the secondary literature...