What do you think?
Rate this book
What Is Man? Contemporary Anthropology in Theological Perspective.
Book by Wolfhart Pannenberg, Duane A. Priebe
149 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1970
About the author
Wolfhart Pannenberg
106 books41 followersWolfhart Pannenberg, born in Stettin, Germany (now Szczecin, Poland), was a Christian theologian. His emphasis on history as revelation, centred on the Resurrection of Christ, has proved important in stimulating debate in both Protestant and Catholic theology, as well as with non-Christian thinkers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 3, 2021
I just finished "What is Man?," by Wolfhart Pannenberg.
The intro to this book states that the book, a theological anthropology, was originally German radio broadcasts. Think about that when you turn the radio on. Reminds me of that Lewis quote: "...like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
A bit out of context, but what are you listening to?
Pannenberg says that mans "openness to the world" is what sets man apart from the animals and lifts him above nonhuman nature. Man perceives their world in its rich fullness, unlike animals. Though I'm going to ask the question: how do you know. I agree with Pannenberg here but how does he establish this beyond just asserting it.
He states that we experience the world based on our choices: a logger in a forest and an engineer vacationing in the forest experience different things there because of their choice of vocation which could have been otherwise. Vocational choices are formed by us or chosen, and yet they form us. I agree with this, but isnt vocation to narrow a view, shouldnt it be our experience expressed by our acquired knowledge? Vocation is a powerful expression of experience but I still believe vocation alone is too narrow. For instance two people who share the same education and vocation will still experience life differently based on other perspectives. Primarily an Atheist and a Theist, or two different flavors of Theists, will see things in life differently in spite of their vocational similarities.
"What the environment is for animals, God is for man. God is the goal in which alone his striving can find rest and his destiny be fulfilled," p 13.
Mans humble reception of inspiration is the acceptance of God-as-source of mans creative power.
"God appears not only as the goal of mans striving in his openness to the world, but also the origin of mans creative mastery of the world," p 27.
"Only through trust can we attain a relationship to the unknown upon which we are dependent," p 29.
I like how his language focuses on relationship over law (or worse). He states that placing trust in another is a way of submission to the other.
"The trusting person abandons himself in a very literal sense," p 29.
Further, in placing trust in another is relinquishing power from self to the other.
"The object of trust must be known by experience, or else trust is not possible," p 29.
Pannenberg has a wonderful section dealing with mans hope. Specifically, here he says that you have the pagan concept of "when I die my soul will go to a place." And then he states that the Jewish and Christian concepts were ones about getting a new body which totally contradicted the Platonic disembodied soul. Man is so much united with the mystical part of him--his soul--that he cant be seen dualistic.
Pannenberg pulled from Freudian categories often speaking to the ego. I wish he would have sought a different way to state this concept. Maybe I should have paid more attention in psych.
He works from a Divine eternal now framework and just like everyone else I have ever heard posit an eternal now it sounded half baked; some superpower he believes God must have to be God.
Pannenberg goes on a pro Marxists rant for a few pages. It seems he is especially against the division of labor. I find this funny: a professional theologian is against the division of labor.
Really this was quite a boring book.
The intro to this book states that the book, a theological anthropology, was originally German radio broadcasts. Think about that when you turn the radio on. Reminds me of that Lewis quote: "...like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
A bit out of context, but what are you listening to?
Pannenberg says that mans "openness to the world" is what sets man apart from the animals and lifts him above nonhuman nature. Man perceives their world in its rich fullness, unlike animals. Though I'm going to ask the question: how do you know. I agree with Pannenberg here but how does he establish this beyond just asserting it.
He states that we experience the world based on our choices: a logger in a forest and an engineer vacationing in the forest experience different things there because of their choice of vocation which could have been otherwise. Vocational choices are formed by us or chosen, and yet they form us. I agree with this, but isnt vocation to narrow a view, shouldnt it be our experience expressed by our acquired knowledge? Vocation is a powerful expression of experience but I still believe vocation alone is too narrow. For instance two people who share the same education and vocation will still experience life differently based on other perspectives. Primarily an Atheist and a Theist, or two different flavors of Theists, will see things in life differently in spite of their vocational similarities.
"What the environment is for animals, God is for man. God is the goal in which alone his striving can find rest and his destiny be fulfilled," p 13.
Mans humble reception of inspiration is the acceptance of God-as-source of mans creative power.
"God appears not only as the goal of mans striving in his openness to the world, but also the origin of mans creative mastery of the world," p 27.
"Only through trust can we attain a relationship to the unknown upon which we are dependent," p 29.
I like how his language focuses on relationship over law (or worse). He states that placing trust in another is a way of submission to the other.
"The trusting person abandons himself in a very literal sense," p 29.
Further, in placing trust in another is relinquishing power from self to the other.
"The object of trust must be known by experience, or else trust is not possible," p 29.
Pannenberg has a wonderful section dealing with mans hope. Specifically, here he says that you have the pagan concept of "when I die my soul will go to a place." And then he states that the Jewish and Christian concepts were ones about getting a new body which totally contradicted the Platonic disembodied soul. Man is so much united with the mystical part of him--his soul--that he cant be seen dualistic.
Pannenberg pulled from Freudian categories often speaking to the ego. I wish he would have sought a different way to state this concept. Maybe I should have paid more attention in psych.
He works from a Divine eternal now framework and just like everyone else I have ever heard posit an eternal now it sounded half baked; some superpower he believes God must have to be God.
Pannenberg goes on a pro Marxists rant for a few pages. It seems he is especially against the division of labor. I find this funny: a professional theologian is against the division of labor.
Really this was quite a boring book.
Displaying 1 of 1 review