The Unity of Theology: The Contribution of Wolfhart Pannenberg

by Theodore James Whapham

In fact, when other theologians were retreating from the historical claims of Christianity because of the challenges of enlightenment thinking, Pannenberg—like Paul of Tarsus, Luke the Evangelist, Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, and numerous others before him—asserted that the essence of Christianity revealed a God who was active in the events of history. It may even be the case that Pannenberg provided the most important theology of history produced in the modern period.

Pannenberg traced the roots of his conversion to Christianity to a particularly memorable episode that occurred on January 6, 1945, when he was sixteen. During a long walk home from his music lessons in the neighboring town, “an extraordinary event occurred in which I found myself absorbed into the light of the setting sun and for one eternal moment dissolved into the light of the setting sun in the light surrounding me.”[1]

From Schlink, Pannenberg developed both an appreciation for the importance of ecumenical work in the life of the church and the significance of interdisciplinary study with the natural and social sciences.

However, after the publication of Revelation as History in 1961, the focus of his research and publication changed direction. The work engendered such a fervent discussion that he felt the need to first engage his critics and later expand the insights of this work in a number of areas. Beginning in 1963, he began to receive regular invitations to the United States, where he offered courses at the University of Chicago, Harvard Divinity School, and Claremont School of Theology.

At the risk of oversimplification, Pannenberg views history as the unfolding of God’s self-demonstration of his divinity to humanity. Theology is a human attempt to understand and articulate this divine self-disclosure in the form of praise. This praise—both in the life of individual Christians who dedicate themselves to the contemplation and glorification of God’s being and over the course of salvation history itself—grows increasingly adequate and appropriate over time as the kingdom is drawn towards its eschatological fulfillment. As the preceding chapters aim to show, this progress is not always evident or easy to observe, but through the eyes of faith Pannenberg articulates his reasons for believing in the underlying unity and progress of history toward its divine fulfillment.

While Pannenberg’s theology is perhaps best known for his emphasis on a theology of history and its eschatological shape, the fundamental intent is to provide a witness of how Christian faith can be lived in the contemporary world in an intellectually honest and satisfying manner. This theme was present in his work right from the beginning in the form of his insistence that God’s self-revelation in history is open to all rather than the province of a special revelation history only accessible to believers.

Along with Pannenberg’s work on anthropology, his philosophy of science underscores the seriousness and importance that he ascribes the diversity that God has willed in the world—particularly in the wonderful diversity of creation and the uniqueness of each human person and his or her life history. However, the ultimate expression of his treatment of this theme can be seen in the Systematic Theology, where the diversity in unity of the Trinitarian persons forms the undeniable logic and structure of his exposition of the coherence of Christianity.

First, in their studies with Gerhard von Rad, the group had come to see the importance of history as a theological category in Scripture. However, they found the treatment of this same biblical emphasis on God’s activity in the events of history lacking in the dominant theological systems of the day—especially in the work of Barth and Bultmann.

Second, the group was also concerned with what they described at the time as an authoritarianism in the theology of revelation found in these systems. This perceived authoritarianism could be found in the demands that an encounter with the Word makes on the human person that was beyond questioning.

However, it is precisely in regard to this emphasis on self-revelation that Pannenberg and his colleagues are most critical. In 1960, Pannenberg, Rolf Rendtorff, Trutz Rendtorff, and Ulrich Wilkens developed their response to the theology of revelation current at the time, merging scriptural and systematic studies in an effort to articulate a theology of revelation rooted soundly in the testimony of Scripture.[17] These studies suggest that the diversity of scriptural definitions of revelation point away from the concept of God’s direct self-revelation of his essence, despite the implications of the term “theophany.” Instead, Scripture studies developed by Rendtorff and Wilkens argue that throughout the biblical tradition divine manifestations never have God’s essence as their content. Rather, they insist that divine manifestations in Scripture always point directly to some definitive content and only indirectly to God’s essence.

Direct communication has in an immediate way just that content that it intends to communicate, whereas indirect communication initially has some other content than that which is actually to be communicated. Direct communication transmits content without a break from the sender to the receiver. In indirect communication the path is broken: the content first reveals its actual meaning by being considered from another perspective. Indirect is on a higher level: it always has direct communication as its basis, but takes this into a new perspective.[22]

The second thesis claims that the full comprehension of revelation can only be found in the future.[31] Pannenberg draws a close connection between the theology of history found in the prophets of the exile—particularly in apocalyptic literature—and the concept of universal history developed in the philosophies of Hegel and Marx. The full revelation of God can only be seen from the end point of history, which is the culmination of all previous historical manifestations.

Placing the full revelation of God in the future means the content of revelation itself has a history, and human knowledge of the divine must be understood as provisional prior to the eschaton. This position will have a significant impact on Pannenberg’s understanding of the nature and task of theology because the truth claims of the Christian community are in a constant process of refinement and purification over the course of history.

On the contrary, Pannenberg is able to say that “the essence of God is from everlasting to everlasting the same.”[34] Nonetheless, he argues that God is truly engaged in history and that the essence of God will not be fully revealed until the eschaton.

By emphasizing the full comprehension of divine revelation is only capable at the end point of history, Pannenberg simultaneously undermines the individualism and authoritarian claims of the theologians of the Word and upholds the biblical testimony that God is revealed in history. One consequence of this position is that all theological claims have a provisional quality as they await confirmation through the refining fires of history and the fullness of revelation in the eschaton.

Hegel’s work was highly influential on many theologians and can be seen in Pannenberg’s emphasis on God’s revelation in the entirety of history. However, Pannenberg critiques Hegel on several points.

Instead, Jesus’s life and fate is a summary and foretaste of the eschaton and the general resurrection of the dead. Prolepsis means that once humans receive the entire revelation of God in the eschaton, humanity will see and understand that all one needed to know was already present in summary form through Christ.

However, truth has already been revealed in Christ. In this sense, truth has a history in that it has already been made completely available in summary form, but the process of history and God’s ongoing relationship with creation means that our understanding of truth will be continually refined through history. This refining process points to the inner unity of revelation across time, since a study of doctrinal development (of any kind) can demonstrate the fundamental insights that have been present from the beginning in nascent form. Understanding revelation and truth in this way allows Pannenberg to join Vincent of Lérins in placing emphasis on believing that which has been taught always, everywhere, and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est).[36]

In his third thesis, Pannenberg puts forward another controversial aspect of his theology of revelation. He claims that in contrast to the special manifestations of the deity that take place in personal or prophetic appearances, historical revelation is open to all “who have eyes to see.”[37] Revelation is not a secret form of knowledge only available to a privileged few. Rather, he asserts that it is available to all. Such is the nature of truth—it lies open to all and its appropriation is a natural occurrence.[38]

For it to accomplish its task, this future revelation of God’s being and God’s salvation must in itself be open to all people in keeping with its historical character. And, since Pannenberg argues that the future revelation of God has already broken into history in the fate of Jesus, he likewise contends that the revelation of God in Christ is fundamentally available to all.[40]

This concept of revelation also differs substantially from the approach of Barth and others, who insist the acceptance of the gospel message is an event that completely surpasses human reason and natural preparation. For Barth, faith alone, against all reason, is the only possibility for acceptance of the true gospel.[42] Any reliance upon reason reduces the gospel message to religion, which can only lead to idolatry. Instead Barth, in a manner analogous to modern evangelicalism, insists the Word of God alone is sufficient, and no preparation for this Word by human reason is possible or necessary. Pannenberg argues against this fideistic approach because it, like Schleiermacher’s approach, walls revelation off from the world and history in contrast to the consistent message of Scripture. He is convinced that if the Christian God is a God of history for all humanity (indeed all of creation), then God’s act of self-revelation must be irrevocably open to all—both in its initial prolepsis and its future fulfillment.

The openness of revelation points to the compatibility of faith and reason. While Pannenberg rejects the possibility of knowledge of God apart from revelation along the lines of natural theology, he insists that the foundation of revelation is not suprarational. Instead, historical knowledge lies at the foundation of revelation and provides a basis for the proper relationship between faith and reason.

Instead, he is simply stating that God makes himself known through facts that are not in themselves beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend.

He argues, “every assertion of meaning rests upon a fore-conception of the final future, in light of which the true meaning of every individual event first becomes expressible in a valid way.”[45]

While Pannenberg emphasizes the compatibility of faith and reason against many of his contemporaries, he does not fall into the trap of conflating the two terms. He argues that “reason is always interested in present things in the first instance” because reason is always concerned with naming present realties in conversation with its presuppositions from the past. Faith, on the other hand, is always oriented primarily to the future, and to the fulfillment of divine promises and the consummation of the kingdom of God.

In this case, Pannenberg largely rejects the widely held position that the roots of the corruption of medieval Christendom can ultimately be traced to the second century, when the gospel message was radically distorted in its transmission from its first century Semitic context to its gentile context via engagement with Greek philosophy.[47] Instead, Pannenberg argues that the spread of the gospel message from its context in the ancient Near East into the language and culture of the Roman Empire was a necessary element of the historical process of God’s self-revelation to the world.

Pannenberg argues that there are no “brute facts” in history but only events that are understandable in their own historical and cultural context.[49] This history of interpretation is itself a series of events. Thus history and word are intertwined.

In contrast, Pannenberg argues that the proclamation of the event of revelation is not a separate act of inspiration or interpretation but an aspect of the eschatological event of revelation that activates a universal proclamation through which its meaning is also made explicit.[52]

promise

forthtelling,

kerygma)

In this regard, the Word of God as kerygma is best understood as a report of the event of revelation. Further, the proper response to this message of salvation is the continuation and spread of the report “in every language, culture, and situation as the decisive act of God’s salvation.”[54]

On the other hand, Pannenberg’s emphasis on the revelatory event over against the Word fails to appreciate the importance of the ongoing interpretation of the Christ event in various historical and cultural circumstances for the proper understanding of this revelation. This means that the hermeneutical reception of revelation in human history through language must also be seen ultimately as a part of the full revelatory event.

This matches a tendency in Pannenberg to balance the ontological presence of the divine, which is found ultimately in the eschatological fullness of time, with the epistemological reception of revelation in history. While this is unquestionably one the greatest achievements of Pannenberg’s work, one unfortunate consequence of this onto-epistemic back-and-forth is a certain lack of clarity. Greater clarity and precision might be garnered by drawing a distinction between received revelation—which is necessarily time-bound and provisional but nonetheless revelatory—and pure revelation, which is proleptically offered in the Christ event but is nonetheless shrouded to some degree in the cloud of eschatological mystery.

However, there are others who see Pannenberg’s dance between the trustworthiness of reasoned historical argumentation and the tentativeness of the revelation of God in the resurrection as strengths of Pannenberg’s treatment of the subject in the wake of recent critiques of foundationalism, which seeks to assert truth claims based on deductive reasoning from self-evident foundations that lead to absolute rational certainty.[65]

One element of Pannenberg’s thought that has given it such longevity and flexibility is the way that it has helped Christian theology begin the transition into the realm of postmodern thought and not shy away from the problems raised by historical and cultural consciousness. At the same time, it has avoided the great postmodern risk of relativism with its appeal to universal history.

Pannenberg, however, pointed out the implicit bias against the miraculous that was present in historical reasoning and in the process cut to the heart of modern claims of impartiality and objectivity. By moving the historical argumentation about the resurrection out of the realm of objective certainty and reestablishing it on the grounds of warrants and explanatory value, Pannenberg moved the discussion of history and revelation from a foundationalist to a postfoundationalist basis. In other words, Pannenberg’s argument for the historicity of the resurrection, and thus for God’s revelation in history, is based on probability instead of absolute certainty.

anticipation—the

While there are sound historical and rational supports for belief in the God of Jesus Christ and the claims of the Christian religion, these claims have not been established in such a way that all of humanity can be certain of their truth. The lordship of God is still to be established in history through the establishment of the kingdom. For those who witnessed the resurrection, there is empirical evidence that would leave no doubt about the power of God, but the rest of humanity must come to faith in a way that combines both faith and reason.

Theology, then, is an essentially public activity that has a valuable contribution to make to public discourse. As a result, the privatization of religion, which has been a powerful cultural influence in Western democracies, cannot be simply accepted. Instead, the practical relevance of theology for daily life in the public square needs to be addressed.

A common feature of many of these works was the rejection of miracles as inconsistent with the modern worldview. Assuming miracles and such dogmas as the resurrection to be irreconcilable with a modern sensibility, theologians such as Albrecht Ritschl and Adolf von Harnack found the summit of meaning in the New Testament to be Jesus’s preaching of the kingdom, particularly the moral teachings of Jesus at the Sermon on the Mount. As a consequence, a whole school of “liberal Protestant” theology developed that sought to reinterpret the gospel for the modern world without reference to the divinity of Christ or the salvation that Christ offered through the cross.

Pannenberg’s work should be seen in many regards as a direct response to the trend of eliminating the apocalyptic dimension of Jesus’s preaching from contemporary Christology and to the perceived hostility of historical Jesus research to traditional Christian faith. He insists that if scholars wish to take seriously the claim that Jesus is the revelation of God’s very self in history, then they must start from what can be learned about the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth—including the apocalyptic tone of his preaching of the kingdom of God. This apocalyptic tone relates to the resurrection, which gives meaning to his preaching and demonstrates the compatibility of historical Jesus research with traditional Christian views of Jesus and his unity with the Father.

A second major attribute of Pannenberg’s methodology concerns the relationship between christological and soteriological claims.

Given these examples, it is not hard to understand how historical Jesus research quickly came to be perceived as opposing genuine Christian faith. It is precisely this fact that makes Pannenberg’s use of historical Jesus research and a Christology from below so unique. Pannenberg’s aim was not to weaken traditional Christian faith nor to undermine the basis for all conversation about the Jesus of history. Instead, he was completely convinced these historical methods could be used to support traditional Christian faith in Christ. But to establish this claim, Pannenberg needed to investigate how the knowledge of Jesus’s divinity was first recognized.

As such, Jesus’s preaching centered on the call to immediate conversion, the forgiveness of sins, and the establishment of a fundamentally new relationship between God and humanity. However, this preaching involved an implicit claim to Jesus’s unity with the Father in that the eschatological message of the kingdom involved an audacious claim to authority. For example, the Gospel accounts make it clear that Jesus’s act of forgiving sins and subverting the commands of the Mosaic Law in the name of the kingdom were incredibly upsetting to the established religious order because only God had the authority to do such things. Moreover, the eschatological nature of Jesus’s preaching of the kingdom focused not only on the future element of the coming kingdom but also the establishment of a new eschatological kingdom that had begun in Jesus’s own preaching ministry.

In other words, the resurrection of Jesus acted as the epistemic ground for the earliest Christians.

Pannenberg argues that the widespread success of the spread of the gospel from its original Hebraic context to the larger social-cultural world of the Roman Empire was dependent upon the Jewish apocalyptic writings and the concept of resurrection. In other words, it is hard to imagine another social, cultural, and intellectual context that would be better suited to the spread of the gospel.[8]

Like a foreword or précis, a prolepsis gives a reader a condensed version of an argument at the beginning so that during the process of reading it is easier to trace the development of ideas. In a prolepsis, the whole truth of a book is laid out in advance in a way that will be developed with greater clarity, specificity and detail in the future reading of the entire work. However, if a prolepsis is well written, when readers look back to it after having finished reading the book, they will see that everything they needed to know was present from the very beginning and was always there.

The resurrection, then, is the hermeneutical key to understanding all of revelation and creation. It is the lens through which all of reality is to be read.

Each of these classic expressions of the saving nature of Christ’s life and death share the common presumption of the incarnation. Thus, when the idea of incarnation came under scrutiny, the foundation for these understandings of salvation eroded.