Pannenberg, the Positioning of Academic Theology and Philosophy of Science (Contributions to Philosophical Theology, 15) [New ed.] 9783631863244, 9783631868966, 9783631868973, 3631863241

Citation preview

Pannenberg, the Positioning of Academic Theology and Philosophy of Science

CONTRIBUTIONS TO PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY Edited by Gijsbert van den Brink, Joshua Furnal and Marcel Sarot

Advisory Board: David Brown Oliver Crisp Paul Helm Werner Jeanrond Eleonore Stump Alan Torrance Nicholas Wolterstorff

VOLUME 15

Katrin Gülden Le Maire

Pannenberg, the Positioning of Academic Theology and Philosophy of Science An Evaluation of his Work in the German Context

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

ISSN 1433-643X ISBN 978-3-631-86324-4 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-631-86896-6 (E-PDF) E‐ISBN 978-3-631-86897-3 (EPUB) DOI 10.3726/b19190 © Peter Lang GmbH International Academic Publishers Berlin 2022 All rights reserved. Peter Lang – Berlin ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙ Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

For Eric, Cosima and Luisa

Acknowledgements The tragedy of man is that of somebody who is starving while sitting at a richly laden table. [He] does not reach out with his hand, because he cannot see what is right in front of him. For the real world has inexhaustible splendour; the real life is full of meaning and abundance; where we grasp it, it is full of miracles and glory.1

Any study on Pannenberg deserves to be conducted in such a way that it not only echoes Pannenberg’s own earnest academic pursuit but also approaches the subject with the same intensity. Therefore, this thesis has been developed with W. Dilthey’s requirement in mind that ‘the ultimate goal of the hermeneutical procedure is to understand the author better than he understood himself.’2 Suffice to say, such a claim verges on the impossible.3 Yet, Dilthey’s demand sets the bar regarding my aim in seeking to contribute further insight into one of the most renowned 20th-​century German theologians. The renewed call for a theological interest in method due to its foundational importance and interdependence for university theology along with a desire to overcome denominational boundaries is driven by a concern for the larger interests of Christianity’s overall position in Europe; in particular, in a largely post-​Christian society such as Germany. It is up to us theologians to nourish the church, clergy and parishioners with deep, comprehensive and relevant insights in order to further examine enquiries and to pursue the Kantian request of sapere aude.4 It is equally our task to deal responsibly and, as Pannenberg would say, scientifically, with the tension brought about by personal faith commitments while at the same time scrutinizing Christian thought at the highest scientific niveau. Pannenberg unequivocally stated the 1 Hartmann, Nicolai, Ethik, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 19624, 11, TM. 2 Dilthey, Wilhelm, ‘The rise of hermeneutics’ in Dilthey, Wilhelm, Selected Works, Vol. IV: Hermeneutics and the Study of History, Makkreel, Rudolf A., Rodi, Fritjof (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989, 113. 3 This is a goal, which critics would refute due to their overall criticism of Dilthey’s hermeneutic. Cf. Kittler, Friedrich, Austreibung des Geistes aus der Geisteswissenschaft, Stuttgart: UTB der Wissenschaft, 1992. 4 Dare to know was originally used by: Horace, Epistles Book 1 (Cambridge: Greek and Latin Classics), Mayer, Roland (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. This phrase turned into an Enlightenment maxim following I. Kant’s use of it in Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment? Kant, Immanuel, Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung? und andere kleine Schriften (1784–​1796), Gut, Karl Maria (ed.), Berlin: Contumax GmbH, 2016.

8

Acknowledgements

prerequisites for this, in that the dialogue between the sciences and theology is possible only on the basis of philosophy.5 He demonstrated this earnestness and intellectual discipline through his life-​long vocation. Various opportunities arise amidst contemporary theological challenges that present themselves in particular to German theologians: the 45th anniversary of the publication of Wissenschaftstheorie in 2018 was one of them. More prominent was the centenary of the German state-​church contract set out in the Weimarer Reichsverfassung (Weimar Constitution) from 1919, which has come under scrutiny once again. If theological academia is to succeed in articulating theology’s overall public relevance rather than garnering specialist subscription-​based attention, then the reasoning and intellectual challenge of the discipline with the sciences (and, thus, with contemporary culture) can be successfully widened and become transsectoral across various systems and sectors.6 My earnest gratitude is extended to my supervisor, Dr. Graham McFarlane, who has taken much time to encourage and listen to me as well as critically engage with my thesis.

5 Cf. footnote 73. 6 Transsectoral implies a macro view transcending one particular sector and/​or system (such as business, politics or science) and an awareness of external factors that can produce implications for a discipline set within a particular sector.

Contents Abbreviations ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  11 Remarks �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  13 Chapter 1 Introduction ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  17

1.1 A rational mind in turbulent times: first impressions ���������  20



1.2 Approaching Pannenberg: theology on the basis of philosophy ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  27



1.3 Arguments and terms ��������������������������������������������������������������  32



1.4 Concluding remarks �����������������������������������������������������������������  38

Chapter 2 A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg �������������������  41

2.1 The historical backdrop �����������������������������������������������������������  45



2.2 Pannenberg’s main theological and philosophical influences �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  52



2.3 Deutsche Gründlichkeit: Pannenberg’s academic style �����������  63



2.4 Concluding remarks �����������������������������������������������������������������  67

Chapter 3 The making of the book ����������������������������������������������������������  71

3.1 The initial, life-​long academic and spiritual goal: Revelation as History ������������������������������������������������������  73



3.2 The German theological philosophy of science debate in the 1960s and 1970s �������������������������������������������������������������  78



3.3 The curious absence of I. Barbour and T. F. Torrance ���������  87



3.4 Concluding remarks �����������������������������������������������������������������  96

10

Contents

Chapter 4 Theology as a university subject �����������������������������������������  99

4.1 The educational-​historical and denominational backdrop  100



4.2 The educational-​political landscape in the 1960s and 1970s �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  112



4.3 German academic particularities �����������������������������������������  119



4.4 Concluding remarks ���������������������������������������������������������������  124

Chapter 5 Theology as the science of God ������������������������������������������  127

5.1 Pannenberg’s theological and philosophical context ���������  131



5.2 Pannenberg’s theorem ������������������������������������������������������������  136



5.3 The internal classification of theological subjects ��������������  154



5.4 Concluding remarks ���������������������������������������������������������������  158

Chapter 6 Pannenberg’s theological heirs ������������������������������������������  161

6.1 The contemporary theological debate on method �������������  163



6.2 The contemporary academic backdrop �������������������������������  175



6.3 A parity relationship: the German constitutional law on state-​church relations �������������������������������������������������������  188



6.4 Concluding remarks ���������������������������������������������������������������  192

Chapter 7 The future of theology in the German Academy �������  195

7.1 The public nature of the discipline ���������������������������������������  203



7.2 Epistemology as the basis of scientificity �����������������������������  208



7.3 The self-​conception of practitioners ������������������������������������  218



7.4 Concluding remarks ���������������������������������������������������������������  225

Bibliography ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  229

Abbreviations

Bd. Band BMJ British Medical Journal Association CDU Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands Cf., cf. Latin: Confer, conferatur (trsl.: compare) CIT Catholic Intellectual Tradition CSU Christlich-​Soziale Union in Bayern CSU Christlich-​Soziale Union Deutschlands CTNS Center for Theology amd the Natural Sciences DBK Deutsche Bischofskonferenz DFG Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DITIB Türkisch-​Islamische Union der Anstalt für Religion e.V. Dr. Doktor, Doctor Ed., eds. Editor, editors E.g. Latin: Exemplī grātiā (trsl.: for example) EKD Evangelische Kirche Deutschlands EKHN Evangelische Kirche Hessen Nassau Engl. English ETR English Translation-​reference page EUA European University Association FAZ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung FDP Freie Demokratische Partei GDP Gross Domestic Product GR German reference page I.e. Latin: Id est (trsl.: that is) IRAS Institute for Religion in an Age of Science LMU Ludwig-​Maximilians-​Universität München Ltd. Limited MA Massachusetts N.a. No author NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation NS National Socialist NSDAP Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei NZZ Neue Zürcher Zeitung OECD Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development PhD Doctor of Philosophy

12

Abbreviations

PNS Post-​Normal Science PR Public Relations R&D Research & Development RE Religious Education Prof. Professor TM Translation mine –​author Trsl., trsl. Translation U.a., u.a. und andere UK United Kingdom US United States of America VELKD Vereinigte Evangelisch-​Lutherische Kirche Deutschlands Vol. Volume

Remarks All German quotes are taken from the soft copy edition Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie, published in 1987.7 Where possible I have avoided quoting from Theology and The Philosophy of Science8 as in close comparison the English version lacks considerable accuracy and indeed, correct wording. My own translations are highlighted in the footnotes with TM; nevertheless, all references in the English translation are correspondingly marked with ETR. Similarly, GR marks the German reference page where the English translation is quoted. Cross references to other pages within this book are marked in those footnotes that refer to ‘page/​s’ only. The exchange between religion and science is described by various idioms (science-​religion debate, science and religion discourse/​dispute). It is referred to throughout the book as the religion-​science dialogue for reason of continuity and as a way of establishing that the ongoing discussions constitute a serious academic dialogue that has been initiated by practitioners of the theological discipline. Throughout the book, I also refer to the scientific nature of theology as scientificity as it is the closest corresponding term to the German noun Wissenschaftlichkeit. Just as scientificality, the substantive defines ‘the property or quality of being scientific’, as laid out in the Oxford Dictionary.9 The term ‘Anglo Saxon’ is widely used and generally incorporates various Western English-​ speaking countries. For the sake of argument when referring to Anglo Saxon, my focus has been mainly reduced to the US. In this sense, the term US predominantly refers to the geographical location of the relevant centres of research, journals and debate, rather than to the nationality of participating experts only (who, in fact, are also Canadian, Danish, South African, etc.). Scholars are

7 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie (Taschenbuch), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft, 1987. The original book was published in hard copy: Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1973. 8 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Theology & the Philosophy of Science, London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd., 1976. 9 N.a., ‘Scientificality’, English Oxford Living Dictionaries website (https://​en.oxf​ordd​ icti​onar​ies.com/​def​i nit​ion/​scie​ntif​i cal​ity; accessed May 2018).

14

Remarks

introduced with their abbreviated first names and full family names and thereafter only referred to by their family names.10

10 When referred to, scholars are mentioned by their family names only in the footnotes. This procedure excludes the bibliographical details.

newgenprepdf

Abstract A historical analysis of both the setting of Wolfhart Pannenberg’s 1973 publication, Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie and its reception in the light of educational-​political challenges concerning university theology in Germany contributes to a revival of a dormant theological debate on method during the last 10 years. The book was called a preliminary climax and concentrated on the epistemology of science, yet it remains one of Pannenberg’s least critiqued works. Throughout his life, Pannenberg was concerned to demonstrate the universality of theology and the indirect revelation of God through history in a rational manner; Wissenschaftstheorie supported this quest. Pannenberg was driven to develop a critical scientific basis by which to judge theology, due not only to scientific threats but also to educational-​political changes in German science policy. This thesis considers the scientific basis of Pannenberg’s theology, his academic background and its German historical and contemporary educational-​ political setting. Next, it turns to analyse the book’s reception, particularly in the US, before concluding by suggesting the contemporary requirement for theologians to recognize the interdependence between theological method and the discipline’s scientific setting within the Academy, both in state-​funded jurisdictions such as Germany and beyond. Theology should argue the inherent internal truth claims of the Christian faith and not just be an interdisciplinary exchange. Pannenberg held that it was to be understood as public theology itself. In order to evaluate Pannenberg’s demand, the transsectoral implications and effects have been extensively discussed. They provide an ‘enlarged’ hermeneutical perspective entailing non-​theological elements and factors that contributed to Pannenberg’s theory formation. The book thus provides a transsectoral insight to the subject of methodology rather than an indepth historical analysis of the various German and foreign participants. The argument and chapter set up have been developed with these considerations in mind.

Chapter 1 Introduction As the 45th anniversary of the publication of Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie11 passed in 2018, critics of W. Pannenberg continued to miss the educational-​ political relevance not simply of the work but of the overall subject within the Academy. The book remains a classic to be quoted and is included in relevant works and bibliographies, most notably within the vast field of the religion-​science dialogue, especially in the US. Yet, its overall use remains limited, a detail referred to by P. Clayton 15 years ago: [There are] factors [that] may have slightly muted Pannenberg’s influence on the subsequent religion-​science debate. But if so, their role was slight; Theology & the Philosophy of Science remains one of the great classics of the field up to the present day.12

In fact, when G. Newlands reviewed the English translation in 1976, he pointed out, even then, a perceived challenge for the subject matter: In assessing the book, I find myself torn between admiration for the intellectual feat of bringing into a coherent pattern the fruits of so many widely diverse philosophical, sociological, and theological debates, and scepticism about the concrete results for theology which emerge. Everything has been put in its place … but it is not clear that such organization of the data in fact advances discussion of the issues. Indeed, the cutting edge of some of the problems posed for theology by philosophy and the social sciences may in this way be avoided.13

Newlands may well have been right. Theologians reflecting the scientificity of their own trade have, in the last 45 years, been largely occupied with various aspects concerning the relationship of theology with several sciences: in particular, the overarching and now highly fragmented discourse of theology with the natural sciences. They have been less vocal in expressing theoretical method for their discipline and a unanimous definition to the question: What is theology? Two aspects especially are missing when Pannenberg’s work Wissenschaftstheorie is cited. The first concerns a particular content matter. Surprisingly, the epistemology regarding the scientific status of theology is a

1 1 For bibliographical details: cf. footnote 6. 12 Clayton, Philip, ‘Science, Meaning, and Metaphysics: A Tribute to Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 28, 4, 2003, 237–​240. 13 Newlands, George MacLeod, ‘Book Reviews’, Scottish Journal of Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 31, 1, 1978, 75.

18

Introduction

subject that, on the whole, is no longer articulated widely.14 While it is true that the subjects of philosophy of religion and philosophy of science deal with this matter, it is also equally true that these are mainly separate debates which, on the whole, are neither led nor driven by theologians. Indeed, in most academic publications the theory of knowledge (epistemology) or, indeed discussions on the nature of reality (metaphysics) of theology are now obsolete and declared a modernist relic such as, for example, by A. McGrath: As James Barr pointed out, Pannenberg’s entire approach seemed to rest on the notion of ‘plain history’ being ‘revelatory’. This is a characteristically modernist approach which I criticized earlier for failing to appreciate the difficulties created by the collapse of the Enlightenment project.15

Instead, contemporary theologians have strongly focused on contextualized approaches when applying theological insight to other scientific disciplines and subjects. The second aspect concerns the context in which those theological debates take place; indeed, in which any academic material is produced. Theology, as with other academic sciences, is not conducted in isolated intellectual research but is bound to academic standards, guarded by science policy and dependent on socio-​cultural, historical and financial developments affecting its university 14 Prominent exceptions are outlined in Chapters 5 and 6: Clayton, Philip, Explanations from Physics to Theology: An Essay in Rationality and Religion, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Murphy, Nancey, Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. Russell, Robert, J., Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega: The Creative Mutual Interaction of Theology and Science, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, Theology and the Justification of Faith: Construction Theories in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989. Also: Peacocke, Arthur R. (ed.), The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, Stocksfield: Oriel Press Ltd., 1981, 161–​206. Peacocke, Arthur R., Science and the Christian Experiment, London: Oxford University Press, 1971, 3–​28. Peters, Ted, ‘Hermeneutical Truth and Theological Method’, Encounter, London: Encounter Ltd., Vol. 39, 2, 1978, 103–​123. Russel, Robert J., Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega: The creative mutual interaction of theology and science, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. 15 McGrath, Alister, The Science of God, London: T&T Clark International, 2004, 216–​ 217. Shults, LeRon F., The Postfoundationalist Task of Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999, 3–​11. Peters and Shults alluded to critics: Peters, Ted, ‘In Memoriam Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928–​2014)’, DIALOG A Journal of Theology, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 53, 4, 2014, 367. Shults, LeRon F., ‘Theology, Science and Relationality: Interdisciplinary Reciprocity in the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 36, 4, 2001, 809–​825.

Introduction

19

environment. Nevertheless, theological debates on the subject of theology as a science are largely confined to the academic exchange;16 higher ranking issues concerning the university research environment, policies, financing and structures are generally not touched upon. On the whole, theological contributions are interdisciplinary but not transsectoral for reasons that are not entirely clear. In fact, those reasons are open to speculation rather than deductible from factual evidence. Surprising, though, is the fact that Pannenberg already addressed the necessity to include those facets in his work on theology as a science in 1973. He himself clarified the timing of the book: It cannot be a mere accident that a period of worldwide uncertainty in institutions of higher education should coincide with a breakthrough in discussions within philosophy of science to an intensity and influence it has not enjoyed in Germany since before the founding of the Berlin university. Not that the movement for university reforms and the activity in philosophy of science are completely parallel. The university reforms today are surrounded by the ruin of deceptive hopes which had been fastened on the power of the institutional changes and on the abolition of the professorial privileges which were claimed to be an obstacle to the free development of knowledge.17

Thus, Wissenschaftstheorie is a work of public theology18 in the true sense of the word, as the book’s publication came during a time when theology as a university subject was challenged once again on several levels. First, the subject of theology was threatened as a university discipline by impending university reforms. Pannenberg thus articulated a scientific response to external threats and reacted to the German educational-​political developments and science policy that were socio-​culturally fuelled. Overall, those developments resulted in comprehensive university reforms in the 1960s and 1970s of the last century. Second, at that time, sociology developed and turned into a competing discipline that appeared to replace theology as the source for answers regarding humankind. Additionally, militant philosophical atheists published their critiques on the perceived status of theology.19 This, in turn, posed actual financial and thus 16 E.g. Clayton, Philip, God and Contemporary Science, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997. McGrath, Alister, The Foundations of Dialogue in Science & Religion, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. Peters, Ted, Bennett, Gaymon, Bridging Science and Religion, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003, 24. Polkinghorne, John, Science & Christian Belief, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1994. 17 Pannenberg, Philosophy, 3–​4, GR7. 18 Grenz, Stanley, ‘ “Scientific Theology”/​“Theological Science”: Pannenberg and the dialogue between Theology and Science’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 34, 1, 1999, 161–​162. 19 Pages 107–​109.

20

Introduction

existential threats for the university status of the discipline of theology. Third, Pannenberg also addressed Wissenschaftstheorie towards the prevailing internal theological disputes concerning the definition of the subject. Indeed, theologians themselves were and still are at odds on what kind of scientific basis to evaluate theology on: this especially concerns representatives who hold to the self-​revelational character of God through the Scriptures. Furthermore, the 1970s German theological discussions were embedded in disputes concerning the overall construction of the syllabus for the subject.20

1.1 A rational mind in turbulent times: first impressions Pannenberg wrote and published the book after witnessing first-​hand the student revolts and subsequent science policy reform efforts in the West German educational system.21 In fact, against its background a larger societal paradigm shift was taking place whose knowledge proves invaluable for the assessment of his contribution in Wissenschaftstheorie. Tensions were rife: politics, values and culture were all undergoing radical changes in West Germany. They were heavily influenced by contemporary developments in the US and also by philosophical movements such as the Frankfurter Schule.22 The younger post-​war German generation rejected the previously accepted conservative leanings of society, the predominant sexual morality and the largely silenced bigotry concerning the Nazi past that to some extent affected all German families.23 Whether teach-​ins, love-​ ins (curiously, students regarded the removal of sexual taboos to profoundly

20 Rendtorff, Trutz, ‘Theologiestudium-​Ausbildung durch Wissenschaft’ in Rohls, Jan (ed.), Vernunft des Glaubens: Wissenschaftliche Theologie und kirchliche Lehre. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Wolfhart Pannenberg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988, 211. 21 The Grundgesetz was changed in 1969 (Artikel 91b); as of then, the university system became a common task for both the Bund (federation) and the Länder (regions). The Bund-​Länder-​Kommission für Bildungsplanung und Forschungsförderung was founded in 1970; a phase of co-​operative federalism started. The Hochschulrahmengesetz des Bundes was finalized in 1976. The exclusive decision-​making system of professors was changed for a participatory model at the beginning of the 1970s. For further reading: Hüfner, Klaus, Neumann, Jens, Köhler, Helmut, Hochkonjunktur und Flaute: Bildungspolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1967–​1980, Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta Verlag, 1994. 22 For further reading: Kraushaar, Wolfgang, Frankfurter Schule und Studentenbewegung. Von der Flaschenpost zum Molotowcocktail 1946–​1995, Band 2, Berlin: Rogner und Bernhard, 1998. 23 Schubert, Venanz (ed.), 1968. 30 Jahre danach, St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1999, 209–​242.

A rational mind in turbulent times: first impressions

21

shake the capitalist system), demonstrations, blockades, so-​called Störaktionen (interruptive activities), occupations of buildings or Vorlesungsstreiks (lecture strikes), the protesting students were creative, persistent, law-​breaking and sometimes violent.24 It is questionable whether Pannenberg witnessed all these radical protest expressions at his newly-​appointed post in Munich. It is a fact though that the inaugural festivities of the newly-​developed protestant faculty at the Ludwig-​Maximilians-​Universität (LMU) were canceled due to the unrest.25 Thus, Pannenberg wrote a book that was extraordinarily timely and urgent. Moreover, he continued to demonstrate the rationality of theology throughout his academic career; this pursuit remained remarkably consistent and Wissenschaftstheorie, his epistemology, was to be the one work substantiating this quest at the highest sophisticated academic level. Indeed: [The] dialogue with [the] science[s]‌has not been a marginal aspect of my thought, but is of central importance in my metaphysical and theological vision.26

Interestingly, Pannenberg was one of only a few scholars who dared to critically question the integrity of theology according to scientific reasoning. This earnest pursuit still secures him a place today as a global leader within the field of theology.27 Undeniably, for Pannenberg, the early 20th-​century dialectic Protestant theology was too removed scientifically and not sufficiently validated. Historically, this came as no surprise as his teachers, K. Barth and R. Bultmann, were equally but differently affected by the historical events of the Second World War, just as Pannenberg himself was. They published, in turn, their perceived theological answers to the threat of a Nazism that permeated and polluted German Christianity. However, while they argued for the revelational character of theological claims in order to protect (schützen) the subject from scientific criticism, Pannenberg aligned and subjugated theology to the same rigorous scientific parameters that any other science faced, in order to secure (sichern) its validity and place amongst the sciences. In fact, in Wissenschaftstheorie he summarized the centuries’ long theological and philosophical efforts to prove

2 4 Ibid., 209–​242. 25 Wenz, Gunther, ‘Vorwort’ in Wenz, Gunther (ed.), Kirche und Reich Gottes: Zur Ekklesiologie Wolfhart Pannenbergs, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017, 7. 26 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘A Response to my American Friends’ in Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988, 324. 27 Cf. footnote 779.

22

Introduction

theology as a science and climaxed in proposing an epistemology for theology as a science of God. According to G. Wenz, Wissenschaftstheorie formed the basis of Pannenberg’s dogmatic theology (Systematische Theologie) 20 years later while T. Peters regarded it as the substitute of a theology of reason that Pannenberg apparently thought to develop.28 Indeed, P. Hefner describes the magnitude of Pannenberg’s work as: Stunning in its own right … Pannenberg’s central core of contributed insight does attempt to throw light on the nature of all things, and it demonstrates its seriousness by suggesting hypotheses that cover broad ranges of biblical-​theological and scientific materials-​this concerns the overall body of Pannenberg’s work. 29

Even though major political, educational and cultural shifts have occurred since the book’s publication, the urgency of the subject matter has not ceased. In fact, history appears somehow to repeat itself in the 21st Century, especially theology as a university discipline in jurisdictions relying on state funding (which is the case in the majority of European countries, if not all)30 continues to be under severe, if not existential, threat. There are especially three corresponding contemporary academic and scientific challenges in Germany (indeed, in all of Continental Europe) to those faced by Pannenberg. First, due to the Bologna reforms (1999) there are now a large variety of theological subjects students can choose from. At the same time, the number of students choosing theology as a Hauptfach (major subject) rather than as a Nebenfach (minor subject) is in decline.31 This seemingly irreversible trend poses serious threats for both the Catholic and Protestant Church in terms of future clergy availability. Second, while sociology was considered to be the competing subject to theology in the 1970s, both in terms of student numbers,

28 Wenz, Gunther (ed.), Eine neue Menschheit darstellen-​ Religionsphilosophie als Weltverantwortung und Weltgestaltung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 37–​38. Peters, ‘Memoriam’, 368. Tupper, E. Frank, The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, London: SCM Press Ltd., 1973, 261. 29 Hefner, Philip, ‘The role of Science in Pannenberg’s Theological Thinking’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997, 111. 30 Pruvot, Enora Bennetot, Estermann, Thomas, Kupriyanova, Veronika, ‘Public Funding Observatory Report 2017’, European University Association website (http://​www.eua. be/​Librar​ies/​gov​erna​nce-​auton​omy-​fund​ing/​eua-​pfo-​rep​ort-​decem​ber2​017.pdf?sfv​ rsn=​2?utm​_​sou​rce=​webp​age&utm​_​med​ium=​publ​icat​ion&utm_​n​ame=​publ​icat​ion-​ webp​age-​12-​12-​2017; accessed April 2018), 7–​14. 31 Pages 145–​150.

A rational mind in turbulent times: first impressions

23

content and distributed university finances, the actively supported development of Islamic faculties by the German State could potentially pose a similar threat to the subject of theology in terms of competing budgets and judicial-​political attention.32 Finally, theologians still debate amongst themselves as to whether the subject of theology merits a place at university and, moreover, the relation of theological subjects to each other. There has still been no internal coherence or consensus reached by Protestant representatives; regrettably, neither do Catholic and Protestant theologians work jointly on the subject. Additionally, various further overriding societal changes and reasons have developed, threatening the subject of theology not only nationally but also internationally. Some were borne out of the significant challenges Pannenberg faced at the time of the publication of Wissenschaftstheorie, while others are more recent, having emerged in the last 45 years. First, centres of research have developed in the US rather than in Germany (as an example for much of Continental Europe), where university facilities and theological contributions have expanded widely.33 Much of this is due to the different financial set up, the sheer prowess and quantity of the various US divinity schools and seminaries, but it is also attributable to the hesitant internationalization and strong domestic focus of German theologians. Furthermore, the deep-​seated socio-​cultural changes that were accelerated by political and cultural developments in the 1960s and 1970s and which contributed to the post-​Christianization of large parts of Europe now seem equally irreversible.34 Surprisingly, since Pannenberg and his generation of post-​war heavy-​weight academics,35 no significant contemporary German,

32 This concerns especially governmental efforts to support the development of a compatible Islam in line with the Grundgesetz (cf. Chapter 4.3), such as in the case of the Deutsche Islamkonferenz founded in 2006. Those efforts, in turn, are not uncontested either as they potentially infringe on the stipulated separation between the state and the church or religious organizations. 33 I.e. Berkeley Divinity School (Episcopalian), Yale Divinity School (Ecumencial) or Harvard Divinity School (Nondenominational), Princeton Theological Seminary (Presbyterian), University of Notre Dame (Catholic). 34 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Letter from Germany’, First Things, New York: Institute on Religion and Public Life, Vol. 46, 3, 2003, 8–​11. N.a., ‘Kirchenaustritte Deutschland’, Kirchenaustritt website (http://​www.kirc​hena​ustr​itt.de/​statis​tik; accessed March 2017). N.a., ‘Kirchen verlieren mehr als eine halbe Million Mitglieder’, Die Zeit website (http://​ www.zeit.de/​gesel​lsch​aft/​2016-​07/​chris​ten-​kir​che-​mit​glie​der-​rueckg​ang; accessed June 2017). 35 For example, such as Jüngel, Moltmann or Rahner.

24

Introduction

Protestant, theological contribution36 apart from M. Welker has produced far-​ reaching, long-​lasting internationally resounding results or led to the creation of a new school of thought, as M. Root pointed out: Pannenberg’s relation to that German Protestant tradition tells us much about how his theology does and does not point toward new possibilities. The succession of German Protestant theology that runs from Kant through Schleiermacher and Hegel, Ritschl and Harnack, Barth and Bultmann represents a great intellectual achievement. Pannenberg seems to stand at the end of this tradition; no figures from the generation following him in Germany seem to be working at the same level.37

Equally, concerning Catholic circles U. Ruh has stated: Amongst the national noted intellectual great [personalities] in Germany there is at present no Catholic theology that can rival the public profile and influence of historians, social scientists, natural scientists, lawyers or economists.38

Yet, problems pertaining to the subject of theology do not appear to be confined to Continental Europe. Indeed, while the rest of the theological world might not be facing the same financial hazards, policy changes or declining student numbers,39 there are scientific-​political phenomena that now seriously endanger all university sciences alike. Thus, second, the presently-​named postfaktische Zeitalter (post-​factual age) sees scientists publicly confronted and challenged with debates on the credibility of their scientific results.40 Additionally, the privatization of intelligence41 leads to increasing social control by companies and governments, creating new ethical dilemmas, exacerbated by speedy communication in a hyper-​technological society. Last, pertaining in particular to the debate of theology as a science, is the location of the religious debate: there has been both the rise of a generation 36 Welker seems the only exception to this trend. Evers, Dirk, ‘Religion and Science in Germany’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 50, 2, 2015, 503–​533. 37 Root, Michael, ‘The Achievement of Wolfhart Pannenberg’, First Things, New York: Institute on Religion and Public Life, Vol. 55, 3, 2012, 39. 38 Ruh, Ulrich, ‘Herausgeforderte Theologie’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 66, 3, 2012, 109–​111, TM. 39 N.a., ‘Religious Organizations in the US Market Research’, IBIS World website (https://​ www.ibiswo​rld.com/​indus​try/​defa​ult.aspx?indid=​1743; accessed March 2017). 40 Bucher, Eva, ‘Der Untergang der Fakten’, Die Zeit website (http://​www.zeit.de/​2016/​ 46/​wisse​nsch​aft-​fak​ten-​poli​tik-​pos​tfak​tisc​hes-​zeital​ter; accessed June 2017). 41 Pages 177–​179.

A rational mind in turbulent times: first impressions

25

of communicatively antiatheistic natural scientists, especially biologists, who have become increasingly vocal since the 1970s.42 In fact, they have successfully communicatively revived the scientifically perceived conflict between theology and the natural sciences43 that already forced theologians in the past to retreat in the face of scientific progress. Furthermore, the discipline of theology continues to be threatened through internal, factious tendencies that have led to a growing compartmentalization and theological dissonance supported by political activism within more recent theological research. Remarkably, though, while the subject of philosophy of science and method is selectively raised in the religion-​science dialogue44 few theological experts assess the scientific and philosophical guidelines either for theology or for their potential educational-​political impact concerning the subject’s place in the university. Rather, the religion-​science dialogue has now predominantly moved to contextual approaches with subject particularities such as, for example, in cosmology, neurobiology or transhumanism.45 As such, G. van den Brink assessed that ‘many discussions about faith and science completely overlook the current state of affairs in the philosophy of science’.46 Moreover, W. van Huyssteen remarked that: Pannenberg’s views on truth, on justification, and objectivity –​as reflected especially in his monumental work Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie (1973) –​is not only important but also often sadly lacking from many discussions concerning his perspective on the significance of the sciences for theology as such.47

G. Clicqué echoed this sentiment that it would be advantageous for the discourse of theology and the natural sciences if it were to be based on philosophical scientific

4 2 The best-​known new atheists are: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. 43 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Notes on the alleged conflict between religion and science’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 40, 3, 2005, 585–​588. 44 For bibliographical details cf. footnote 13. 45 E.g. works such as: Murphy, Nancey, Did My Neurons Make Me Do It? Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Peters, Ted, Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom, New York: Routledge, 1997. 46 Van den Brink, Gijsbert, Philosophy of Science for Theologians, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Gmbh Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2009, 22. 47 Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, ‘Truth and Commitment in Theology and Science: An Appraisal of Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Perspective’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997, 360.

26

Introduction

reflections.48 Yet, further research concerning models of theory and the scientificity of theology is outstanding. Interestingly, however, Wissenschaftstheorie was declared to be a preliminary climax and an extremely comprehensive account of theological grappling with the subject of theology as a science.49 While Pannenberg firmly remained within the discipline of classical metaphysics he was one of the few theologians who meticulously scrutinized theology as a science. Methodologically, he did so by applying scholastic principles to his work. In fact, P. Cook pointed out that: Many will no doubt welcome his sturdy apologetic claims in the face of atheistic challenges. Many churchmen will no doubt welcome his stress on the unity of the truth, though they may be anxious to see what is in the small print when he comes to talk about ‘historicality’ of faith and knowing.50

Overall, though, the book remained one of his least critiqued publications and deserves to be brought to the detailed attention of readers once again. Therefore, a thorough reassessment in light of the above outlined deficiencies of the debate makes sense. Pannenberg as a historical figure is considered; the book seeks to build a profile of the person, in order to validate his approach, responses and critics accordingly. It aims to provide a historical and educational-​ political paradigmatic explanation of Pannenberg that in the context of this work alone has not taken place before. An analysis of the external educational-​ political circumstances and the German academic context enable the reader to assess responses to Wissenschaftstheorie in greater depth and to verify parallel developments; and, indeed, to assess prevailing symptoms and causes in contemporary society beyond Germany. The historical German theological philosophy of science debate in the 1970s is followed by a short analysis of the major themes in the book. Particularly challenging has been the task of limiting and selecting critiques to Wissenschaftstheorie due to the fact that Pannenberg’s overall life-​ time quantity of work made such a strong worldwide impact.

48 Clicqué, Guy M., Differenz und Parallelität. Zum Verständnis des Zusammenhangs von Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, am Beispiel der Überlegungen Günter Howes, Frankfurt: Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2001, 4. 49 Puntel, Lorenz B., ‘Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie: Zu Wolfhart Pannenberg gleichnamigen Buch’, Zeitschrift Für Katholische Theologie, Wien: Herder Verlag, Vol. 98, 3, 1976, 272. 50 Cook, Peter J.A., ‘Pannenberg: A Post-​Enlightenment Theologian’, Churchman-​A Quarterly Journal of Anglican Theology, Watford: Church Society, Vol. 90, 1, 1976, 261.

Approaching Pannenberg: theology on the basis of philosophy

27

As a theologian concerned with the subject of God, Pannenberg was convinced that he needed to be informed on all other subjects, as God was all-​ encompassing.51 So, where to start, let alone limit the choice of his critics? In fact, his own academic circle provided the first clue, as did his many contacts across the Atlantic. Surprisingly, a somewhat large number of Pannenberg’s students were North Americans (US-​Americans and Canadians), due to his early encounters with, in particular, J. Cobb, a representative of the Process theology movement.52 It is also fair to state that responses to Wissenschaftstheorie quantitatively elicited more theological academic output from US-​theologians. Yet, this choice is narrowed down further, due to the variety of theological aspects and discussions in which the book has been mentioned. It has to be acknowledged that this book cannot even marginally touch on the effects of works in the comprehensive decades-​long interdisciplinary debates, in particular in the religion-​science dialogue but also in philosophy of science, philosophy of religion or in natural theology. This book seeks, rather, a more nuanced approach. Consequently, responses are broken down further in Chapter 6. Finally, I argue for a return to method in light of the various transsectoral challenges and existential external threats. These concern in particular contemporary German university theology at the beginning of the 21st Century.

1.2 Approaching Pannenberg: theology on the basis of philosophy Tackling the legacy of Pannenberg, let alone one specific work, may prove to be as great a challenge as that posed by the Gordian knot. A sword, however, will not suffice. Rather, to understand Pannenberg’s thinking and its theological demands, critical reflection and further original thought (albeit very limited in comparison) is required. Furthermore, detailed background knowledge of German philosophy and its historical landscape is also presupposed. The strong philosophical and scientific basis of Pannenberg’s faith matured throughout more than 50 years of reasoning and application: from his teenage years, to his 5 1 Cf. footnote 60. 52 Cobb lectured as a Fulbright professor in Mainz in 1965–​66; cf. footnote 104. Griffin, David Ray, ‘John B. Cobb Jr.-​A Theological Biography’ in Griffin, David Ray, Jough, Joseph C. Jr (eds.), Theology and the University: Essays in Honor of John B. Cobb, Jr., Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991, 234. Oden, Thomas C., A Change of Heart: A Personal and Theological Memoir, Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2014, 98.

28

Introduction

subsequent encounter with a joyous Christian who aided his decision to study theology alongside philosophy, through his studies of medieval scholasticism, German philosophers such as F. W. Nietzsche or personal encounters with M. Heidegger.53 As such, any analysis of Pannenberg should be interdisciplinary, a demand he posed on and stringently adhered to himself: Because God is the creator of everything and will be the redeemer of everything, theology has to be concerned with everything. This doesn’t make theology interdisciplinary in a superficial sense. It is interdisciplinary because theology is concerned with only one thing, and that is God.54

Moreover, by witness of his personal and scientific engagement, the analysis has to be transsectoral since his theology was equally shaped by his biography and the historical and socio-​cultural concerns of his time. It would take a life-​time to read, understand and fully engage with Pannenberg’s legacy; his quest was outlined succinctly by S. Grenz: theology is ‘a public discipline related to the quest for universal truth.’55 As such, the discipline of theology has a bearing on all relevant subjects that concern life and the human being. In addition, theology for Pannenberg was the intellectual foundation of the church.56 It was to be undertaken as a rational quest (vernünftig), demonstrating that the end of history and the future of the world is realized through Christ by God. His whole 53 For a detailed biographical account: Wenz, Gunther, ‘Vorschein des Künftigen-​ Wolfgang Pannenbergs akademische Anfänge und sein Weg zur Ekklesiologie’ in Wenz, Gunther (ed.), Kirche und Reich Gottes: Zur Ekklesiologie Wolfhart Pannenbergs, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017, 13–​ 23, especially the footnotes. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘An Autobiographical Sketch’ in Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988, 11–​18. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘An Intellectual Pilgrimage’, DIALOG A Journal of Theology, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 45, 2, 2006, 186–​187. 54 Oord, ‘Pannenberg Dies, An Interview’, Thomas Jay Oord website (http://​thomas​ jayo​ord.com/​index.php/​blog/​archi​ves/​panne​nber​g_​di​es_​a​n_​in​terv​iew. Accessed March 2016). 55 Grenz, Stanley, Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Quest for Ultimate Truth, Chicago: The Christian Century, 1988, 795. In his quest, Pannenberg moved in the tradition of Aquinas who dealt with the scientificity of theology in his Summa Theologica. Von Aquin, Thomas, Über sittliches Handeln: (Summa Theologica I-​II q. 18–​21) Deutsch/​Latein, Schönberger, Rolf (trsl.), Stuttgart: Reclam Verlag, 2001. 56 Grenz, Stanley, Olson, Roger, 20th-​Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age, Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1992, 187–​188, 197–​198. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 266–​297, ETR265–​296.

Approaching Pannenberg: theology on the basis of philosophy

29

life and intellectual pursuits were set out to prove this hypothesis, attempting to leave irrationalism and decisionism aside in his quest against faith subjectivism. His thought represents a significant contemporary expression of the classical understanding of theology as the reasonable demonstration of the Christian truth-​claim and the Christian conception of God. As such, it entails both in its entirety and in its various parts an important challenge to theology today.57

Overall, this pursuit led him to publish more than 750 books and articles during his career.58 Pannenberg believed that the dominant school of dialectic Protestant theology was too focused on the life of faith itself. As he reflected in a 1988 autobiographical essay: I soon became persuaded that one first has to acquire a systematic account of every other field, not only theology, but also philosophy and the dialogue with the natural and social sciences before with sufficient confidence one can dare to develop the doctrine of God.59

As such, he sought to redirect attention to the proper subject of theology. His programmatic debut, Offenbarung als Geschichte (1961),60 was christologically grounded through Grundzüge der Christologie61 (1964). Anthropologically, he sought, on the whole, to evidence the rationality of faith through the openness and self-​transcendence of humankind towards God. He started so in 1962 (Was ist der Mensch? Die Anthropologie der Gegenwart im Lichte der Theologie)62 and

5 7 Grenz, Quest, 798. 58 Wenz, Gunter, ‘Ein Nachruf* Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Deutsches Pfarrerblatt, Westerstede: Verband evangelischer Pfarrerinnen und Pfarrer in Deutschland e.V., Vol. 114, 10, 2014, 593. 59 Sanders, Fred, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928–​2014), Theological Outflanker’, Scriptorium Daily website (http://​scrip​tori​umda​ily.com/​wolfh​art-​pan​nenb​erg-​1928-​2014-​theo​logi​ cal-​out​flan​ker; accessed March 2015). 60 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Offenbarung als Geschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19704. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Revelation as History, London: Sheed and Ward Ltd., 1969. 61 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Grundzüge der Christologie, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1964. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Jesus –​God and Man, Louisville: Westminster/​ John Knox Press, 1968. 62 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Was ist der Mensch? Die Anthropologie der Gegenwart im Lichte der Theologie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19765. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, What is Man? Contemporary Anthropology in Theological Perspective, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1970.

30

Introduction

expanded on it 21 years later in Anthropologie in theologischer Perspektive.63 The reason Pannenberg wrote a book on theology and philosophy of science at this particular time in 1973 is found in his implicit remark that ‘Christanity’s truth claim can only be discussed within a scientific framework, that focuses not just on Christianity but God’s reality to which the Christian faith refers.’64 That said, the statements of the Christian faith as a universal context of meaning still had to be verified. Indeed, with his insistence on philosophy as a basis for theology, Grenz succinctly summarized that: Pannenberg finds the bridge from philosophical theology to the religions in the original function of philosophy as a critical reflection on religious tradition.65

For Pannenberg, then, theology was to be based foundationally within the general debate of the philosophy of science in order to develop it as a rational theology. This was the connection that Pannenberg tried to establish: in fact, questions concerning God, reality and truth could not be separated. Therefore, theology as a science of God could not be isolated from other sciences that sought out what was true and real –​accordingly, theology immersed itself in contributions to the understanding of the world in a constructive and co-​operative manner.66 Pannenberg’s historical location is also of significance in the development of his theology. It is unlikely that his foreign critics fully comprehended the effects of the Second World War on him, let alone the physical restrictions at the beginning of his studies in a largely destroyed Berlin. Thus, externally, language constraints67 as well as the fact that few foreign scholars received as comprehensive an academic training often resulted in isolated critiques limited to the authors’ denominational boundaries, theological interest and pursued appropriation. As such, there are few comprehensive international cross-​disciplinary approaches regarding Pannenberg to date.68 Indeed, the stark contrast of 63 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Anthropologie in theologischer Perspektive, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Anthropology in Theological Perspective, Edinburgh: T&T Press, 1985. Wenz, ‘Nachruf*’, 594. 64 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 299–​300, TM, ETR298. 65 Grenz, Stanley, Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing, 20052, 26. 66 Hefner, ‘Role’, 275. 67 Clayton forms a rare US-​exception as he speaks fluent German. 68 Stewart evidenced this phenomenon in: Stewart, Jacqui, Reconstructing Science and Theology in Postmodernity, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000, 5–​6, referring to a survey of Ford, David, The Modern Theologians, Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Toulmin, Stephen, ‘The Historization of Natural Science: Its Implications for Theology’ in Küng, Hans,

Approaching Pannenberg: theology on the basis of philosophy

31

the German reality Pannenberg and his main theological contemporaries experienced is worth highlighting: they studied philosophy alongside theology, they were influenced by philosophical teachers and they engaged in frequent dialogue with German philosophers and, indeed, politicians.69 Whilst most critics were specialists in one discipline, Pannenberg, however, was a philosopher-​theologian. J. Moltmann put this poignantly: ‘Pannenberg was the best conversation partner I had in my generation.’70 Indeed, Pannenberg mentioned of himself that ‘I was to be a theologian for the rest of my life, although I continued philosophical studies with at least equal intensity.’71 Furthermore, he evidenced awareness of this academic difference between himself and other contemporary theologians in one of his rare interviews –​here, in regards to J. Polkinghorne: The problem with Polkinghorne is that he has no philosophical education. He admits that. It is difficult to do theology without philosophy. In all the history of Christian theology, the close cooperation between philosophy and theology –​though there were often tensions between the two –​has been essential. Without that, Christian theology could never have made its universal claims concerning God. Justifying these universal claims should not start with science, as it sometimes does in our day. Justifying universal claims started with philosophy, and it continues with philosophy. The dialogue between science and theology is possible only on the basis of philosophy. Therefore, it is regrettable that John Polkinghorne, for all his commitment to the dialogue between theology and science, has no appropriate philosophical education.72

Whilst Pannenberg was not particularly naming out theologians in his criticism, this phenomenon is a concern, especially when responses vis-​à-​vis his work come from theological institutions and academics tied to particular Christian denominations and traditions. Rarely has a theologian of the 20th Century Tracy, David (eds.), Paradigm Change in Theology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989, 233–​ 241. Bubner, Rüdiger ‘Paradigm Change: Some Continental Perspectives’ in Küng, Hans, Tracy, David (eds.), Paradigm Change in Theology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989, 242–​254. Jossua, Jean-​Pierre, ‘A Crisis of the Paradigm or a Crisis of the Scientific Nature of Theology’ in Küng, Hans, Tracy, David (eds.), Paradigm Change in Theology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989, 255–​258. 69 Pannenberg fostered a dialogue with German philosophers, most notably with von Weizsäcker and Gadamer. Moltmann was close to Bloch. 70 Moltmann, Jürgen, ‘Personal recollections of Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Theology Today, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 72, 1, 2015, 12. 71 Pannenberg, ‘Sketch’, 13. 72 Oord, ‘Pannenberg’. Pannenberg reiterated this view and the necessity of philosophical insight for scientific and theological discussions in his biographical account: Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 184–​190.

32

Introduction

displayed such an extensive knowledge of philosophy and theology and undertaken such a large task as writing a work on systematic theology. His search for the historicity and truth of Christianity was remarkable and, indeed, very productive.

1.3 Arguments and terms Interestingly, there has been no summary or analysis, to date, of the overall reception of Wissenschaftstheorie. Additionally, there is little comprehensive analysis in the English-​speaking world of the educational-​political setting and science policy that Pannenberg worked in, nor of the then relevant West German theological dialogue in philosophy of science as contributing factors at the time of the book’s publication.73 Pannenberg himself acknowledged that in due time the centre of the discussion moved, for various reasons, from Germany to the US.74 Therefore, a certain distinction needs to be made concerning critical contributions to his work by German theologians and philosophers in comparison to Anglo-​Saxon critics, especially regarding their different historical, academic and philosophical backgrounds and language constraints. Braaten75 inadvertently referred to these challenges in his memoirs.76 However, this appears indispensable for any in-​depth understanding of Pannenberg’s epistemology in Wissenschaftstheorie, especially since foreign critics often refer to his English works.77 Root serves as a good example. On the one hand, he commented that Pannenberg’s work was:

73 Clayton, Murphy, Peters and van Huyssteen are some of the named exceptions to this claim. 74 Oord, ‘Pannenberg’. 75 Braaten first met Pannenberg and his wife in Heidelberg in 1957. Braaten, Carl E., Because of Christ: Memoirs of a Lutheran Theologian, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010, 37. 76 ‘My knowledge of the German language was limited. I had taken a course in German at the University of Minnesota; I managed to pass a language exam for a Harvard Th.D. but that did not mean that I was proficient in German.’ Braaten, Christ, 35. Grenz, for example, wrote his doctoral thesis under Pannenberg in English. Grenz, Stanley, Isaac Backus-​Puritan and Baptist, München: Ludwig-​Maximilians-​Universität, PhD thesis, 1978. 77 Dillistone, Frederick W., ‘Theology and the Philosophy of Science’, Theology Today, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 32, 2, 1977, 218–​222. Turner, Geoffrey, ‘Theology and the Philosophy of Science’, New Blackfriars, New York: Wiley & Sons, Vol. 58, 686, 1977, 346–​348. Terry, Susan, ‘Guilty of reason’ in Time Magazine, New York: Time Inc., 08.03.1976, 46–​47.

Arguments and terms

33

Breathtaking in its audacity … Theology so understood seems to require a universal genius, a Leibnitz or Newton. Pannenberg’s range of knowledge is so extensive; one is tempted to believe the job possible. As Platcher noted, ‘It’s hard to think of anything he doesn’t know’.78

Yet, on the other hand, he pointed to the perceived limitations: The greater limitation in Pannenberg’s work is its continuing orientation to the German philosophical and cultural context. When Pannenberg began his career, the German dominance of Protestant theology, dating back to Friedrich Schleiermacher at the beginning of the 19th century, was still firmly established. That dominance has since faded. Pannenberg has been far more open than most of his generation of German theologians to the wider world, but he engages that world from the perspective of a German tradition increasingly foreign to American readers.79

In fact, Root displayed a hermeneutical gap,80 when he continued that ‘even by German standards, however, Pannenberg’s theology has an oddly old-​fashioned air.’81 This has the appearance of a particular Anglo-​Saxon criticism, one not mirrored by Pannenberg’s German critics. Rather, the overall academic sphere of the 1960s and 1970s differed substantially to the contemporary situation following the Bologna reforms in 1999. Indeed, F. Graf repeatedly criticized and referenced the comprehensive changes concerning theological faculties in the last few decades.82 While this book is an academic document that is based on such evidence, it also draws on anecdotal experiences and non-​academic secondary sources in order to arrive at a more accurate picture of the person and the environment.83 Furthermore, the detailed information provided also tests whether critics of his theology actually know their sources profoundly. Pannenberg has been called many things; the labels that are most persistently pursued are those of being Hegelian due to his use of a historical framework and totality in his theology84 7 8 Root, ‘Achievement’, 38. 79 Ibid., 39. 80 As outlined by Rorty, cf. footnote 546. 81 Root, ‘Achievement’, 37. 82 Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Ein Gott zum Kuscheln’ in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt: FAZ Verlag, 27.03.2011, 27. Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Kein steiles Zeugnis’ in FAZ Beilage/​ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt: FAZ Verlag, 22.10.2010, 21–​23. 83 Following Fox’s principle: Fox, Kevin W., Karl Löwith: A prosperous mind in a destitute time, Heidelberg: Ruprechts-​Karl-​Universität, PhD thesis, 2012, 11. 84 Olson, Roger E., ‘The Human Self-​Realization of God: Hegelian Elements in Pannenberg’s Christology’, Perspectives in Religious Studies, Waco: Baylor University Press, Vol. 13, 2, 1986, 207–​223. Westphal, Merold, ‘Hegel, Pannenberg, and Hermeneutics’, Continental

34

Introduction

and, more recently, that he was a pantheist or a panentheist.85 Both accusations are incorrect and fall short of the truth. He himself also answered to his use of modern philosophers:86 [T]‌here are the wildest ideas about my supposed Hegelianism! I am not a Hegelian … [V]ery few of my ideas did I actually get from Hegel. I feel much more closely related and indebted to thinkers other than Hegel.87

A closer look into Pannenberg’s background and teachers in Chapter 2 reveals why. The chapter also attempts to balance somewhat the often-​excessive focus on Barth alone in relation to Pannenberg and seeks, rather, to redirect attention to some of the most outstanding German theologians and philosophers who impacted him at the time.88 At times, the setting for Pannenberg’s biography and academic influences has been limited with special mention being given only to his studies under Barth in Basle89 in 1949. Yet, in this endeavour, in particular, foreign Protestant theologians tend to ignore Barth’s theological-​political monopolization of issues and his often-​one-​sided public comments of which Pannenberg and his generation of German academics were acutely aware.90 Philosophy Review, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Vol. 4, 3, 1971, 275–​293. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, The Idea of God and Human Freedom, Louisville: Westminster/​ John Knox Press, 1973, 144–​177. 85 Craig, William Lane, ‘Pantheists in spite of themselves? Pannenberg, Clayton, and Shults on Divine Infinity’, American Theological Inquiry, Chicago: American Theological Library Association, Vol. 5, 1, 2012, 3–​24. Cooper, John, Panentheism-​The Other God of the Philosophers, From Plato to the Present, Ada: Baker Academic, 2006, 259–​281. 86 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Basic Questions in Theology, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1971, 59–​62. Clayton, Philip, ‘Anticipation and Theological Method’ in Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988, 134–​136. 87 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg’ in Bauman, Michael (ed.), Roundtable-​ Conversations with European Theologians, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1990, 48. 88 The remark is not to limit the influence Barth had on Pannenberg; rather the focus of this book lies elsewhere. Pannenberg, ‘Pannenberg’ in Bauman, Roundtable, 46–​47. Tupper, Pannenberg, 24–​25. 89 Pannenberg received a grant from the World Council of Churches to spend the winter semester of 1949/​50 in Basle. He stayed there from 18.10.1949 to 10.03.1950 and struggled throughout financially; in fact, he supplemented his living expenses through piano lessons. Wenz, Kirche, 18. 90 For example, Barth’s comments in 1968 regarding his former teachers: Nottmeier, Christian, Adolf von Harnack und die deutsche Politik von 1890–​1930, Tübingen: Mohr

Arguments and terms

35

Indeed, Heidelberg and subsequently Munich appear to have been equally, if not more, formative for his theological vision and career. Barth and Basle certainly triggered Pannenberg’s intellectual journey but his teachers in Heidelberg were the ones who bestowed on him theses that developed into his foundational work Revelation as History and his subsequent lifelong quest.91 While being strongly influenced by Barth and Bultmann, Pannenberg has quoted at various times Barth’s perceived academic and intellectual limitations, a somewhat rare balancing assessment in a century of overwhelming Barth consent, approval and adoration: I greatly admired Barth and I never ceased to do so, but at Basel already I was dissatisfied by the lack of philosophical rigor in his thought. My teacher in philosophy at Basel, Karl Jaspers, did not excel in philosophical rigor either, but there was more intuitive evidence and no less breadth of vision.92

Among his actual teachers in philosophy shaping his thinking were N. Hartmann, K. Jaspers and K. Löwith.93 Formative theological professors were E. Schlink, H. Freiherr von Campenhausen and G. von Rad.94 Pannenberg was profoundly private; only a few pictures and, indeed, even fewer interviews with intimate information exist of him. An exception can be found in the personal recollections of Moltmann95 as well as two rather personal autobiographical articles.96 An additional problematic in assessing foreign Siebeck, 2004, 4–​5. Moeller, Bernd, ‘Adolf von Harnack-​der Außenseiter als Zentralfigur’ in Nowak, Kurt, Oexle, Otto Gerhard (eds.), Adolf von Harnack, Theologe, Historiker, Wissenschaftspolitiker, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001, 20. Holder, Rodney, The Heavens Declare, Conshohocken: Templeton Press, 2012, 13, 15–​54. 91 Pannenberg, ‘Sketch’, 13–​15. 92 Oord, ‘Pannenberg’. Ibid., 14. Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 186–​187. In defence of Barth’s philosophical rigour: Oakes, Kenneth, Karl Barth on Theology & Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 244–​265. 93 In this context only his then living teachers are referred to. 94 There are few sources recognizing all those influences: Chenu, Bruno, Neusch, Marcel, Théologiens d’aujourd’hui-​Vingt Portraits, Paris: Bayard Éditions Centurions, 1995, 53–​ 54. Polk, David Paul, On the way to God-​An Exploration into the Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Lanham: University Press of America, 1989, 8. Stewart, Reconstructing, 3. Tupper, Pannenberg, 23. 95 Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 184. The article was originally given as a plenary address during the American Academy of Religion annual meeting in Philadelphia, 18.11.2005. 96 Moltmann, ‘Personal’, 11–​ 14. Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 184–​ 191. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘God’s Presence in History: How my mind has changed’, Christian Century, Chicago: Christian Century Foundation, Vol. 98, 5, 1981, 260–​263.

36

Introduction

critics and reviews on Wissenschaftstheorie has been the minimum deferral of three years between the publication of the book in Germany and elsewhere in the Anglo-​Saxon theological world: the English translation was only published in 1976.97 By then, however, theological, historical-​political and sociological factors had changed further in Germany. This is, for example, a point that is especially true regarding criticism of perceived omissions in the book’s first chapter on the development of critical rationalism and Pannenberg’s subsequent application of it.98 Regarding the translation of the work, Clayton pointed out that: External and cultural factors not under Pannenberg’s control also affected his influence on the blossoming English speaking discussion in the following years. … The book was deeply influenced by the German concept of Wissenschaft, which stands much closer to the Latin scientia than to the English science. Finally, the book was abysmally translated; one finds scores of mistakes in the English text, and a number of sentences are completely incomprehensible. (A retranslation is thus devoutly to be wished).99

Additionally, P. Knitter referred to ‘the style [as] turgidly teutonic, not at all helped in translation; a highly significant study, but only for specialized readership’100 while E. Dobbin considered it as: A rather tedious dialogue … that breaks no significant new ground in Pannenberg’s theology but it does lay out in greater detail several foundational and methodological factors which have been operative in his impressive theological project.101

Careful consideration, therefore, is needed in scrutinizing Pannenberg simply on the basis of the English translation, verifying whether content, tonality and style have been transmitted correctly. Therefore, in Chapters 2 and 3, details on the setting of Wissenschaftstheorie, his methodology and Pannenberg’s initial lifelong academic goal of revelation as history serve to illuminate the debate further. Pannenberg left the German debate on theology as a science with the most internationally resounding results (mainly due to the quantity and impact of his

9 7 Cf. footnote 7. 98 Pages 113–​116. 99 Clayton, ‘Science’, 237–​240. 100 Knitter, Paul, ‘Pannenberg, Wolfhart-​Theology and the Philosophy of Science’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 11, 1, 1977, 611. This is echoed by Turner: ‘[the book] is addressed to professional theologians and as such to a rather restricted readership.’ Turner, ‘Theology’, 348. 101 Dobbin, Edmund J., ‘Seminar on Foundations: Pannenberg on Theological Method’, Catholic Theological Society of America Proceedings, Lander: CTSA, Vol. 32, 1, 1977, 202.

Arguments and terms

37

overall life-​time work). In actual fact, though, he contributed to an existing discussion at a timely moment; he did not initiate it. By then, G. Sauter had already published various works on the subject from 1970 onwards.102 Indeed, Pannenberg expressed this indebtedness to Sauter. Both theologians actively exchanged their ideas and publicly commented on each other’s works, even prior to their actual publication.103 Further contributing participants to the German discussion which was considerably triggered by polemics at the time are also outlined in Chapter 3. Additionally, the notable absence of Pannenberg’s engagement with his British contemporary T.F. Torrance and the American I. Barbour is highlighted. This is a fact that might, in particular, puzzle Anglo-​Saxon theologians. Furthermore, it is only appropriate that Chapter 4 addresses and conducts an analysis of the political urgency that led to the creation of the book, the educational-​political landscape and science policy, and the German academic setting and funding approaches that Pannenberg dealt with. Only a few English-​speaking (mainly American) authors who either studied in Munich under Pannenberg or held visiting-​lecturer posts in Germany are aware of the particularities concerning the educational and political setting of theology departments at German universities or personally know the LMU, the theological faculty, its historical development and effects on Pannenberg.104 Pannenberg’s visiting posts largely focused on the United States, despite several British and Irish universities bestowing on him honorary doctorates.105 There is, therefore, a particular bias especially 102 Sauter Gerhard, Vor einem neuen Methodenstreit in der Theologie?, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1970. Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971. Sauter, Gerhard, Wissenschaftstheoretische Kritik der Theologie. Die Theologie und die neuere wissenschaftstheoretische Diskussion, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1973. 103 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Im Fegefeuer der Methode. Wolfhart Pannenberg und Gerhard Sauter im Gespräch über Theologie als Wissenschaft’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 6, 1, 1973, 5. The article was based on an interview with both theologians on 28 to 29.10.1972, and referred to their then future work scheduled for 1973. 104 The following American theologians studied under or lectured alongside Pannenberg in Heidelberg or Munich: Braaten (Heidelberg 1957–​1958), Jensen (Heidelberg 1957–​ 58), Cobb jr. (Mainz 1965–​1966, guest lecturer), Peters (Heidelberg, 1967–​1968), Tupper (Munich 1968–​1969), Grenz (Munich 1978–​1980), Olson (Munich 1981–​ 1982) and Clayton (Munich 1981–​1983). 105 He held guest scholarships in various US universities such as Chicago, Harvard and Claremont (California). Honorary doctorates were bestowed on him by the following universities: Glasgow (1972), Manchester (1977), Dublin (1979), St. Andrews (1992), Cambridge (1997).

38

Introduction

towards North American theologians and scientists who joined him in the theological philosophy of science debate. Numerically, they were somewhat stronger in their responses to Pannenberg’s theology than their Continental-​European or British counterparts.106 Chapter 5 analyses the book and highlights the development of Pannenberg’s method and criticism towards Wissenschaftstheorie in detail. Chapter 6 is dedicated to assessing Pannenberg’s actual impact and the evolution of the subject of method by his theological successors; additionally, the chapter parallels contemporary challenges for German university theology in the 1970s. The concluding Chapter 7 argues for a renewed interest in the subject of method, due to its implications and interdependence with the scientificity of theology in jurisdictions with state universities and their educational-​political processes. The argument is based on Pannenberg’s norm that theology is a public and universal discipline;107 it is rational, based on reason and requires scientific grappling to articulate its own method. This has to be conducted, as within the last two thousand years, in serious exchange with philosophy. Additionally, rigorous academic procedure concerning the scientificity and normativity of theology aids in re-​establishing subject content in the larger public and pre-​political sphere.108

1.4 Concluding remarks The preceding section set the parameters for this indepth investigation on Wissenschaftstheorie; indeed, it highlights the vast scope and challenges as well as the limitations of the subject matter. By the mere fact that this document considers not just theological responses regarding Wissenschaftstheorie following its publication (1973) nationally and its translation (1976) internationally, but also attempts to trace its application in the subsequent 45 years, a careful selection, due to limited space, has been applied. This has been far from random;

106 Ritschl, Dietrich, ‘Die Wissenschaftsproblematik in der amerikanischen Diskussion-​ ein Überblick’ in Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971, 302–​313. 107 Cf. footnotes 984, 1013, 1063. 108 Sauter, Gerhard, Evangelische Theologie an der Jahrtausendschwelle, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2002, 100–​107. Sittler, Friederike, ‘Die Theologie-​im Alltag kaum gefragt, Erfahrungen fern der Universität’ in Becker, Patrick, Gerold, Thomas (eds.), Die Theologie an der Universität-​Eine Standortbestimmung, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2005, 31–​42.

Concluding remarks

39

rather, responses have been selected by personal and theological association with Pannenberg; and the analysis has been limited to focus especially on the theological philosophy of science debate and further research developments concerning reason. This, of course, means that the immense subject of religion and science that predominantly occupies theologians working at an interdisciplinary level has been left out. Critics might rightly ask why, and would have received the following answer from Pannenberg himself: If the scientific discussion is focused on the redefinition of the term science and of the system of the sciences, and with it [focused] on the foundations of an appropriate future renewal of the scientific institutions and education, then this cannot leave theology indifferent. Its [theology’s] institutional anchorage at the university is extremely precarious, [a place] where it only possesses the right of something factual.109

This study highlights the continued urgency of this danger and attempts to address it by doing theology on the basis of philosophy and in extensive consideration of the various paradigm settings surrounding the academic epistemological development of the theological philosophy of science debate. Certainly, E. F. Tupper considered that: Pannenberg conceives the relationship of theology to philosophy from the standpoint of revelation, which, if legitimate, is also determinative. When the revelatory standpoint is recognized and affirmed, the dialogue between theology and philosophy does not disintegrate but continues on a new level. Pannenberg indicates the basic structure of such a dialogue.110

The book, then, forms a possible paradigmatic articulation and justification of Wissenschaftstheorie, applying to this one work what Pannenberg stipulated as a necessity for the overall subject of theology and its future as a university discipline.

1 09 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 8–​9, ETR4–​5, TM. 110 Tupper, Pannenberg, 51–​52.

Chapter 2 A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg Theology and philosophy are never isolated topics. In fact, their content reflects their historical-​political and socio-​cultural surroundings on which they comment and to which they propose solutions. This awareness of the reciprocal impact between the cultural background of a scientist and the science undertaken continues, in practice and despite four decades of theological efforts to contextualize its research, to be underrepresented, as already poignantly expressed by Heidegger: ‘In jedem Verstehen von Welt ist Existenz mitverstanden und umgekehrt.’111 Hence, Pannenberg’s overall theology can only be understood in connection to the profound experiences of his life in Germany. For Wissenschaftstheorie this is also true in relation to the socio-​political and educational events and changes of the late 1960s and early 1970s.112 Therefore, a short personal sketch provides a better insight into his thinking and equally assists in assessing the validity of any critical reaction to Pannenberg.113 Furthermore, the German idiom that each person is ein Kind seiner Zeit114 rings true. This perceptive awareness will, of course, be crucial first, in the appreciation of Pannenberg’s political and societal insights and perception that subconsciously influenced him during the writing of Wissenschaftstheorie.115

111 Trsl.: Each understanding of [the] world contains [the understanding] of existence and vice versa, TM. Heidegger, Martin, Sein und Zeit, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 200619, 152. 112 Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 184–​185. Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Vernünftig glauben-​Der Theologe Wolfhart Pannenberg wird siebzig’ in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Zürich: NZZ Medienmanagement AG, 02.10.1998, 45. 113 Cf. recent historical research regarding the long-​neglected subject of the suffering and effects of the war on the German population: Bode, Sabine, Die vergessene Generation-​ Kriegskinder brechen ihr Schweigen, Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta Verlag, 2004. Bode, Sabine, Kriegsenkel-​Die Erben der vergessenen Generation, Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta Verlag, 2009. Huber, Florian, Kind, versprich mir, dass du dich erschießt: Der Untergang der kleinen Leute 1945, Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 2015. Huber, Florian, Hinter den Türen warten die Gespenster, Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 2017. Löwith, Karl, Mein Leben in Deutschland vor und nach 1933 (Neuauflage), Stuttgart: Verlag J.B. Metzler, 20072. 114 TM; trsl.: Each person is a child of their times. 115 Kuhn, Helmut, ‘Die Theologie vor dem Tribunal der Wissenschaftstheorie’, Philosophische Rundschau, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 25, 3, 1978, 267, TM.

42

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg

Second, it provides valuable historical insight for the development of a contemporary academic and professional response concerning the ongoing crisis about the status and state of German and also Continental European university theology. Foreign critics who did not study in Germany naturally possess limited insight into Pannenberg’s teachers and his philosophical influences, especially as German and North American philosophy has developed differently.116 Yet, for the critical assessment of responses to Pannenberg’s method and science of God, detailed historical background knowledge on the particular setting in which he lived and on which he commented is invaluable. On the one hand, the strongly analytical Pannenberg attributed extraordinary significance to his mystical conversion experience in January 1945 during a walk home from his piano lessons. On the other hand, there were the ensuing political events during the last months of the Second World War that contributed to shape his theology. Born as the eldest of four children on 02.10.1928, in the now Polish city of Stettin, Pannenberg, his three younger sisters and his parents117 moved to Berlin in 1942 after spending his childhood in various German border towns. Pannenberg, like a number of other German theologians,118 belonged to the Flakhelfer generation, a historical and biographical reality, as G. Essen stated, that substantially shaped their subsequent theological insights and developments and set them apart from the former generation to which, for example, Barth and Bultmann belonged.119 This assessment is reflected by Pannenberg himself: 116 Rosen, Stanley, ‘The Identity of, and the Difference between, Analytical and Continental Philosophy’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Abingdon: Routledge, Vol. 9, 3, 2001, 341–​348. Biletzki, Anat, ‘Introduction: Bridging the Analytic-​Continental Divide’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Abingdon: Routledge, Vol. 9, 3, 2001, 291–​294. Bieri, Peter, ‘Was bleibt von der analytischen Philosophie?’, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., Vol. 55, 3, 2007, 333–​ 344. Mulligan, Kevin, ‘The great divide’ in The Times Supplement, London: Times Newspapers, 26.06.1998, 6–​8. 117 His father was born 1898 in Stettin; his mother was born in 1904 in Mühlhausen/​ Thuringia. Wenz, Kirche, footnote 3, 14. 118 Küng, Moltmann, Ratzinger were all born between 1926 and 1929. Other members of the Heidelberg circle such as R. Rendtorff spent three years with the marines. His brother T. Rendtorff was too young to be called to service, having been born in 1935 (yet, he was interned by the British forces as a 14-​year old). There is no readily available public information on whether Elze, Rösler or Wilckens, the other members of the Heidelberg Kreis, received summons to become child soldiers. 119 Essen, Georg, ‘Ein ganz Großer unserer Zunft! Ein Nachruf auf Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Theologie und Kirche website (http://​www.theolo​gie-​und-​kir​che.de/​nach​ruf-​pan​ nenb​erg.pdf; accessed November 2014). Graf, ‘Vernünftig’, 45.

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg

43

One must understand why Barth reacted as he did. That reaction was most closely connected with the experience of the First World War. That conflict shattered so many liberal and optimistic readings of history.120

These historical particularities resulted in a critical distance to National Socialism and, in Pannenberg’s case, also to the social utopia of Communism. Luftwaffenhelfer (anti-​aircraft warfare helpers) was a term commonly used for German pupils deployed as child soldiers during the Second World War.121 The Luftwaffenhelfer Programm was the implementation of the Kriegshilfseinsatz der Jugend bei der Luftwaffe (the war auxiliary deployment of youth into the Luftwaffe) issued by A. Hitler on 22.01.1943. Pannenberg was 15 years old when he was drafted into the army on 12.02.1943. Hitler signed the edict to build the Deutsche Volkssturm (German population storm) in September 1944. Recruits for the frontline had, at this point, a life expectancy of four weeks, a fact that Pannenberg confirmed.122 He survived his deployment to Usedom due to scabies and was sent to hospital. Meanwhile, his family, along with thousands of other Germans, was driven out of Berlin and he himself was relocated to the countryside.123 Pannenberg spent a short time as a prisoner of war of the British forces124 and enrolled in 1947 at the Humboldt-​Universität zu Berlin in Eastern Berlin to study philosophy and theology. The city at that time can only be described as still largely bombed out and broken.125 He and his family were comprehensively

120 Neuhaus, Richard John, ‘The Christian West? Richard John Neuhaus interviews Wolfhart Pannenberg’, First Things, New York: Institute on Religion and Public Life, Vol. 43, 11, 1990, 27–​30. 121 Herwig, Malte, Die Flakhelfer: Wie aus Hitlers jüngsten Parteimitgliedern Deutschlands führende Demokraten wurden, München: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 2013, 77–​122. 122 Pannenberg, ‘Sketch’, 12. 123 For further reading: Piper, Ernst, 1945-​Niederlage und Neubeginn, Köln: Lingen Verlag, 2015. Kossert, Andreas, Kalte Heimat-​Die Geschichte der deutschen Vertriebenen nach 1945, Bonn: Pantheon Verlag, 2009. 124 Pannenberg was somewhat fortunate in comparison to some of his contemporaries. Fuß, Holger, ‘Jürgen Moltmann hat keinen Gott im Himmel-​das ist was für Engel. Er hat einen Gott auf Erden’, Chrismon, Frankfurt: Hansische Druck-​und Verlagshaus GmbH, Vol. 10, 4, 2009, 24–​27. Peters, Ted, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg’ in Musser, Donald W., Price, Joseph L. (eds.), A New Handbook of Christian Theologians, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996, 363–​374. 125 Cf. on the destruction of Berlin: Overesch, Manfred, Chronik deutscher Zeitgeschichte: Politik-​Wirtschaft-​Kultur, Band 2/​II: Das Dritte Reich 1939–​1945, Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1983. Stahel, Albert A., Luftverteidigung-​Strategie und Wirklichkeit, Zürich: vfd Verlag der Fachvereine an den schweizerischen Hochschulen

44

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg

affected by the occupation, in terms of living conditions as displaced people depended on food rations, as well as concerning his education. There was limited university equipment available126 and, indeed, professors either had not returned from the frontline, had their permission to teach revoked or were imprisoned as Nazi collaborators during the ensuing denazification programme.127 H. von Campenhausen referred in detail to the challenges after becoming principal at the Ruprecht-​Karls-​Universität Heidelberg in 1946.128 Pannenberg, as part of his philosophical studies, read K. Marx and M. Weber in depth. This was a frequent intellectual pursuit: the search for alternatives such as Socialism and Communism in a city that was occupied by the Russians after the atrocities of Nazism loomed large. Interestingly, Moltmann recalled his first encounter with Pannenberg: It was in the winter semester of 1948/​49, my first semester in Göttingen. He had come from Berlin. Having walked across the border separating the Russian and British occupation zone by night, he appeared in ragged clothes in Prof. Hans-​Joachim Iwand’s lecture course. … When we saw him again ten years later, he was wearing a three-​piece suit and had changed from a rebellious student into a conservative teaching assistant who worked for Prof. Edmund Schlink in Heidelberg.129

Pannenberg continued his studies until 1953. His profound knowledge reflected the academic heritage and excellence of his chosen educational institutions as he met all the contemporary scholars who influenced him at the various universitites he studied at. In addition, the Humboldt-​Universität zu Berlin was the Prussian academic institution founded in 1809 by W. von Humboldt, then educational minister in Prussia. Both G.F.W. Hegel and F.D. Schleiermacher taught at the

und Techniken AG, 1993. Kuby, Erich, ‘Die Russen in Berlin’, Der Spiegel website (http://​www.spie​gel.de/​spie​gel/​print/​d-​46272​516.html; accessed May 2015). 126 Moltmann Wendel, Elisabeth, Autobiography, London: SCM Press Ltd., 1997, 18–​27. 127 Heidegger was denazified on 19.01.1946 and reinstated after his habilitation on 26.09.1951. N.a., ‘Heidegger-​Rückfall ins Gestell’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​ Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 06.04.1950, 35–​36. Friedrich, Norbert, Jähnichen, Traugott (eds.), Gesellschaftspolitische Neuorientierungen des Protestantismus in der Nachkriegszeit, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2002, 9–​35. 128 Slenczka, Ruth (ed.), Die ‘Murrenʼ des Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen: ‘Erinnerungen, dicht wie ein Schneegestöberʼ, Norderstedt: Books on Demand GmbH, 2005, 276–​278. Vollnhals, Clemens, Evangelische Kirche und Entnazifizierung 1945–​1949: Die Last der nationalsozialistischen Vergangenheit, München: R.Oldenbourg Verlag, 1989, 103–​ 120, 133–​147. 129 Moltmann, ‘Personal’, 11.

The historical backdrop

45

university in their times. The university was re-​established by the Russians after the Second World War in January 1946; student selection, however, was driven by political preferences; curricula were developed in accordance with the allied forces.130 In addition, and up to this day, German theological studies are divided. Indeed, denominationalism determines and profoundly influences the respective Protestant and Catholic curricula. Overall, the 1950s and 1960s in Germany were a time that was marked by a generation of post-​war theologians daring to rise up against their teachers, critically asking questions. Academically but especially theologically, a paradigm change was about to set in.

2.1 The historical backdrop Since the conquered country was divided up by the four victorious powers, Pannenberg studied amongst the Russians (Berlin), the British (Göttingen) and the Americans (Heidelberg).131 The Potsdam Agreement (Potsdamer Abkommen) in August 1945 determined the decentralization of Germany and the introduction of federalism, with far-​reaching consequences for the national agenda, politics, education and the societal setting. The political and economic structures in West Germany were dominated by the Americans. In fact, the German State as it existed from 1871 to 1945, was no more. Yet, the three Western forces, including France, allowed German Protestant and Catholic Church members unobstructed worship as well as the provision of social services. Indeed, the churches were often the first point to which the displaced, ill and war-​torn citizens turned. The Protestant umbrella organization Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD),132 made up of twenty regional churches of various Protestant denominations, was founded in 1945 and tried to establish unity amongst the diverse interests of German Protestants.133 The occupational forces attempted, with the help of the churches, to employ local citizens for positions in organizations of civic life. This 130 Fallon, Daniel, The German University –​A Heroic Ideal in Conflict with the Modern World, Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press, 1980, 54–​59, 76–​77. 131 In order to understand the grave situation from a foreign (British) perspective against the bombing of German civilians: Bell, George Allan Kennedy, Bishop of Chichester, ‘Bombing Policy’, Commons and Lords Hansard website (http://​hans​ard.mill​bank​syst​ ems.com/​lords/​1944/​feb/​09/​bomb​ing-​pol​icy; accessed June 2015). 132 Smith-​von Osten, Annemarie, Von Treysa 1945 bis Eisenach 1948, Zur Geschichte der Grundordnung der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997, 165–​172. 133 One such example was bishop Dietzfelbinger. A strong conservative influence, he was also the chairman (Ratsvorsitzende) of the EKD from 1967—​to 1973 and involved

46

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg

proved to be a complex and, indeed, difficult task and challenge; especially since many Protestants had been regime-​obedient and were party members.134 Overall, church historians are divided as to the contribution of the Protestant Church to post-​war Germany. On the one hand, there are those who135 claim that the majority of its members stayed true to their pre-​war German anti-​democratic tendencies rooted in the Empire and Weimarer republic, thus analysing that, apart from the Barthian wing of the church, the main body of Protestants hindered the democratization of West Germany. On the other hand, newer research136 details information on the conservative Lutheran wing of the church called the Kronberger Kreis that positively affected church life, political and societal developments.137 In October 1945, the EKD published the Stuttgarter Schuldbekenntnis (Stuttgart declaration of guilt), followed in July 1947 by the Darmstädter Wort (equally, a declaration of guilt), written by the more conservative Bruderrat section within the EKD and developed, amongst others by, Barth and M. Niemöller.138 In line with these church developments, the fifth Moscow conference of the allies in the spring of 1947 failed to produce any results; tensions between Russia and the Western allies rose. While the US proposed the Marshall Plan with monetary reforms, a unanimous administration, free elections for Germany and aid for Southern Europe and the Middle East to avoid totalitarian communist regimes, the Soviet Union opposed it. The separation of Germany was within sight. In August 1949, the first elections after the Second World War took place, electing K. Adenauer in the Western part of Germany as chancellor. During his tenure, he in ecumenical efforts at the Vereinigte Evangelisch-​Lutherische Kirche Deutschlands (VELKD). 134 Vollnhals, Entnazifizierung, 33–​ 44. Friedrich, Norbert, ‘Die Erforschung des Protestantismus nach 1945-​ Von der Bekenntnisliteratur zur kritischen Aufarbeitung’ in Friedrich, Norbert, Jähnichen, Traugott (eds.), Gesellschaftspolitische Neuorientierungen des Protestantismus in der Nachkriegszeit, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2002, 9–​35. 135 Greschat, Martin, Der Protestantismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1945–​ 2005), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010, 16–​21. 136 Friedrich, Jähnichen, Neuorientierungen, 37–​63. 137 Sauer, Thomas, ‘Der Kronberger Kreis’ in Friedrich, Norbert, Jähnichen, Traugott (eds.), Gesellschaftspolitische Neuorientierungen des Protestantismus in der Nachkriegszeit, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2002, 37–​62. 138 Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Verhängnis der Theologie? Schuldwahrnehmung und Geschichtsanschauungen im deutschen Protestantismus unseres Jahrhunderts’, Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 4, 2, 1991, 482–​489.

The historical backdrop

47

pushed for the integration of West Germany with the West, and its rearmament. These issues were hotly discussed and contested within the Protestant Church which debated not merely its stance but its own political involvement in general. Pannenberg married his wife Hilke, a teacher, in 1954.139 In 1955, Germany became a NATO member state; Pannenberg took up his position as professor the same year140 and was ordained as a Lutheran minister in 1956. In 1957, Germany was severely shaken by the Sputnik Schock; the Soviets shot their first satellite into space, thus sorely reminding the West during the Cold War that they were as advanced in their military developments as their US-​counterparts. Additionally, from the 1950s onwards, whilst independent of his pursuit on the subject of epistemology, Pannenberg and his contemporaries141 participated extensively in the German religion-​science dialogue. They were acutely aware of the potentially fatal political outgrowth and consequences of developments in physics (nuclear weapons).142 Pannenberg witnessed this closely due to his proximity to C. von Weizsäcker143 who, together with W. Heisenberg, had been part of the German Uranprojekt (the German nuclear bomb project) from 1939 to 1945.144 Von Weizsäcker, with others, was consequently interned in the South of 139 Hilke Sabine Schütte married Pannenberg on 19.12.1954. Cf. Wenz, Kirche, 21. Pannenberg and his wife had no children. His obituaries repeatedly pointed out their devotion to each other and his wife’s unreserved support for his work. Levin, Christoph, ‘Gottesdienst zum Abschied von Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Ludwig Maximilians Universität website (http://​www.evth​eol.uni-​muenc​hen.de/​aktuel​les/​ unigo​ttes​dien​ste/​trauer​gott​esdi​enst​_​pan​nenb​erg.pdf; accessed March 2016). They created in 2012 the Hilke und Wolfhart Pannenberg Stiftung that develops and finances the Wolfhart Pannenberg-​Forschungsstelle at the Hochschule für Philosophie in Munich. Its ceremonial opening was in October 2013; he did not attend it though. 140 His habilitation from 1955 was only published in 2007: Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Analogie und Offenbarung-​Eine Kritik der Untersuchung zur Geschichte des Analogiebegriffs in der Gotteserkenntnis, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. 141 Exemplarily mentioned within various academic disciplines might be Heim, Heisenberg, Howe, Müller, Tödt, von Weizsäcker. 142 Rhodes, Richard, The making of the Atomic Bomb, New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1986, 134–​168. 143 Gregersen, Niels Henrik, ‘Introduction-​Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Contribution to Theology and Science’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart, The Historicity of Nature –​Essays on Science and Theology, Gregersen, Niels Henrik (ed.), West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press, 2008, viii. 144 N.a., ‘… Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung. Vom gespaltenen Atom zum gespaltenen Gewissen-​Die Geschichte einer menschheitsgefährdenden Waffe’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 08.05.1957, 45–​53.

48

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg

England (Farmhall) as part of the allied Alsos Mission.145 He, together with seventeen German acclaimed scientists, subsequently created the group Göttinger 18 who prominently published a manifesto in 1957 against the rearmament of the German army with tactical nuclear weapons; a move that, in turn, was publicly advocated by the German chancellor Adenauer. Pannenberg’s early activities and connections, especially with von Weizsäcker, form a poignant example on the interdependence for his underlying demands on theologians and their public function in relation to the subject’s status, as outlined further in Chapter 7.146 The anti-​nuclear movement of the 1950s and 1960s differed substantially from its corresponding social movement that gained momentum in the 1970s. A key function was held by philosophers in this dialogue.147 Back then, it was a scientific, political and ecclesial debate that was mainly conducted in writing; it was not yet a social programme performing large-​scale and spectacular actions. Concerns were not widely shared by the larger population but mainly expressed by academic participants.148 In 1958 (until 1961), Pannenberg’s first post led him to the Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal.149 It was also in the same year that the then general secretary W. Visser’t Hooft put the topic of a responsible society and the dialogue of theology with the natural sciences on the agenda of the World Council of Churches meeting in Bossey/​France.150 Equally, the EKD synod, conducted in Berlin that same year, came to be known as the Atomsynode (nuclear synod) as

145 Cornwell, John, Hitler’s Scientists. Science, War and the Devil’s Pact, New York: Penguin Books, 2003, 310–​340, 391–​404. 146 Pages 170–​174. 147 Hübner, Jürgen, ‘Naturwissenschaft und Theologie’ in Fahlbusch, Erwin, Mochman, Jan Milič, Mbiti, John, Pelikan, Jaroslav, Vischer, Lukas (eds.), Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992, 649. 148 Strübind, Andrea, ‘Das Tübinger Memorandum. Die politische Verantwortung der Nichtpolitiker’, Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte-​Internationale Zeitschrift für Theologie und Geschichtswissenschaft, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 24, 2, 2011, 360–​395. 149 The institution was founded in 1935 around the initiative of Niemöller (a vocal member with socialist leanings of the conservative Bruderrat within the EKD) and others. Its existence was initiated through the divestiture of the theological faculties in Germany by the Nazis, most notably the faculty in Bonn around Barth. 150 Schwarz referred to members of the Göttinger Kreis participating at the conference. Schwarz, Hans, 400 Jahre Streit um die Wahrheit-​Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012, 106. Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 190.

The historical backdrop

49

it dealt with the implications of the Cold War.151 Pannenberg was involved in the Karlsruher Physiker-​Theologen Gespräche der jüngeren Generation152 in the 1960s where natural scientists and theologians were exchanging and debating ideas. Von Weizsäcker, together with Heisenberg, G. Howe, G. Picht and others was also involved in 1961 in the Tübinger Memorandum, another manifesto denouncing the nuclear weapons rigging.153 The Berlin wall was built in 1961. Pannenberg witnessed these events closely as he participated in the Ostdenkschrift of the EKD in 1965 that dealt with the acceptance of the Oder-​ Neiße frontiers of the East.154 It stirred up enormous criticism in Germany, both from within and outside the church, and, in particular, from the organizations that represented the displaced Germans (Vertriebenenverbände).155 Parallel to this, the Second Vatican Council took place from 1962 to 1965, raising ecumenical hopes within the Protestant church. In 1966, the Bekenntnisbewegung (confessional movement), the Evangelical wing of the church, published a widely noted paper called Kein anderes Evangelium (no other Gospel) in response to the increasing focus on social action within the church; socialist and Marxist tendencies from young Protestants were being introduced into the church. These events also almost coincided with the start of the politicization of theology and the so-​called Dritte Welt Aktivitäten (Third World activities); political and ecclesial activists were heavily influenced by Socialist and Neo-​Marxist (utopic) ideas.156 Pannenberg continued as a lecturer at the Universität Mainz from 1961 to 1967 before becoming a founding member of the Protestant faculty at the LMU. In 1968, the World Council of Churches met in Uppsala, Sweden; for the first time it was discussed whether missionary activities or secular action improving living conditions of impoverished people were more pressing. 151 Greschat, Martin, Krumwiede, Hans-​Walter, Kirchen-​und Theologiegeschichte in Quellen, Das Zeitalter der Weltkriege und Revolutionen, Göttingen: Neukirchener Theologie, 1999, 236–​237. 152 They were the sequel to the Göttinger Physiker-​Theologen-​Gespräche; cf. footnote 323. Schwarz, Hans, Creation, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2002, 117. 153 Greschat, Martin, ‘Mehr Wahrheit in der Politik! Das Tübinger Memorandum von 1961’, Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., Vol. 48, 3, 2000, 491–​513. 154 Von Weizsäcker and others supported the acceptance of the Oder-​Neiße frontier in their Tübinger Memorandum which formed the basis for the EKD paper. 155 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Ist Versöhnung unrealistisch? Stellungnahme zur Vertriebenen-​ Denkschrift der EKD’, Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Vol. 10, 1, 1966, 116–​118. 156 E.g., such as the influence that Bloch’s philosophy had on Moltmann’s theology.

50

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg

Around this time, German Protestants became interested in political theology, and the Theologie der Hoffnung (Theology of Hope) was born: Moltmann’s identically titled book from 1964 set off the initial spark.157 Outwardly, the now 40-​year-​old Professor Pannenberg could not have looked and dressed more differently than his students; in fact, he was known to predominantly wear a three-​piece suit. The dissimilar fashion choice also signalled the much deeper underlying socio-​political differences that led him to declare: I did not suspect that my extensive reading in Marxist literature would prove useful in later years of my life, during the student revolution of the late 1960s and, afterwards, with the rising tide of liberation theology.158

In fact, Pannenberg personally witnessed the comprehensive student revolts that swept over from the Freie Universität Berlin in the mid-​1960s to other universities all over Germany. Somehow, he continued, as did his colleagues, as normal as possible with their day-​to-​day work. Much of the protest was triggered and politically motivated either through the Notstandsgesetze (emergency laws), the conservative media campaigns directed by the publishing house Springer Verlag, the death of the student B. Ohnsorg and the visit of the Persian shah in Munich in 1967 as well as the assassination of the student representative R. Dutschke in 1968 and was followed by further unrest and violence.159 All the while, the discussion concerning the extent to which West Germany had to give in to the Western forces’ demands of further integration and rearmament were hotly debated. The German Eastern border was ratified and acknowledged in the Ostverträge in May 1972, again an event that was strongly discussed and disputed within the EKD and the Protestant Church. W. Brandt, then Chancellor, received the Nobel

157 Moltmann, Jürgen, Theologie der Hoffnung, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 199713. Amongst Catholics, Metz was also considered a representative of the movement: Metz, Johann Baptist, Zur Theologie der Welt, Mainz: Matthias-​Grünewald Verlag, 1968. Jüngel, Eberhard, Gollwitzer, Helmut, ‘Müssen Christen Sozialisten sein?’ in Teichert, Wolfgang (ed.), Zwischen Glauben und Politik, Hamburg: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1976, 41–​49. Jüngel, Eberhard, Der Wahrheit zum Recht verhelfen-​Aus aktuellem Anlaß: Terrorismus, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, 1977. Moltmann referenced articles in both Newsweek (1967) and Time Magazine (1969) in Moltmann, Jürgen, A Broad Place: An Autobiography, London: SCM Press, 2007, 98–​99. 158 Pannenberg, ‘Sketch’, 13. 159 Fallon, University, 73–​78.

The historical backdrop

51

Peace Prize in 1971; he was well-​remembered for kneeling in Warsaw in 1970.160 In 1973, the International Monetary Fund canceled its mandate with Germany, the Bretton Woods agreement ended, and the currency Deutschmark was no longer tied to the US-​Dollar. Oil prices increased during that period; the unemployment rate in Germany also rose and the currency devalued by 7 % from 1969 to 1973. Germany’s post-​war Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) and growth years were stagnating. There were strikes in the metal industry and, in 1973, the liberal party Freie Demokratische Partei (FDP) published a church paper calling for the total separation of the state from religion, thus questioning the general raison d’être of the church itself. The German left wing terrorist organization Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) committed 34 murders from 1968 to 1977; its founders were inspired by the start of the student rebellion in 1967. The German political and media agenda was, for a long time, dominated by these topics. In fact, they left their mark on the population and determined the overall German culture and societal self-​awareness as well as that of the church. These historical developments sharpened not only Pannenberg’s theology but also significantly influenced the overall paradigms behind his reasoning and scientific research. The biographical details in contrast to the historical trajectory also outline to what extent Pannenberg was influenced by his external circumstances that led and aided the creation of Wissenschaftstheorie. The public perception of his function as a theologian and his involvement in theological, philosophical and political debate is visualized well through the above summary of events. Such effective involvement will also be called upon and referenced again in Chapter 7.161 The short historical recap further serves to contextualize the complex political, historical and ecclesial challenges and interplay that contributed to the development of Pannenberg’s theology and to the scientific norms and his self-​ conception as a theological practitioner. They aided to underline both the public nature of the discipline and the necessity for public discourse, overall, in society, 160 For further reading: Behrens, Alexander (ed.), Durfte Brandt knien? Der Kniefall in Warschau und der deutsch-​polnische Vertrag. Eine Dokumentation der Meinungen, Bonn: J.H. Dietz, 2010. 161 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 8–​9, 442, ETR4-​5, ETR440. Implicit in: Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Systematische Theologie Band 1 (Neuauflage), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 26. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Glaube und Wirklichkeit-​Kleine Beträge zum christlichen Denken, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1975, 135–​ 175. Pannenberg, Theologie und Philosophie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996, 11–​19, 359–​367.

52

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg

but with Wissenschaftstheorie especially in relation to the subject’s status at university.162 Indeed, the overview in this and the following sub-​chapter correspond to what T. Kuhn described in his emergence of scientific theories: ‘Crises are the necessary precondition for the emergence of novel theories.’163 Pannenberg’s public involvement in various church organizations and academic bodies is mirrored in his bibliography that documents the changing German church-​political and historical landscape well.164 A number of parallel (although dissimilar) developments in today’s society imply equal crises and can, indeed, be drawn in comparison to the historical recap that indicates the emergence of a paradigm shift as outlined by Kuhn.165 They are different but similarly tectonic and are further referred to in Chapter 7.166

2.2 Pannenberg’s main theological and philosophical influences Critics with denominational differences to the Lutheran Pannenberg who accuse him of holding liberal opinions due to his right-​wing Hegelian intellectual approach167 should remember that all of his below-​mentioned theological teachers, who marked his intellectual and theological development, were active members of the Bekennende Kirche (Confessing Church) during the Third Reich.168 While Pannenberg clarified that he sought to take seriously the tradition of philosophical theism he remained a conservative Lutheran Christian.169

1 62 Cf. footnotes 1001, 1058. 163 Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 20124, 77. 164 Burkhardt, Bernd, Nüssel, Friederike, Rose, Miriam, Dienstbeck, Stefan (eds.), ‘Bibliographie der Veröffentlichungen von Wolfhart Pannenberg, 1953–​ 2008’, Kerygma und Dogma, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 54, 3, 2008, 159–​236. 165 Kuhn, Revolutions, 66–​91, 135–​143. 166 Pages 175–​183. 167 Rohls, Jan, ‘Pannenberg und Hegel: Anknüpfung und Widerspruch’ in Wenz, Gunther (ed.), Eine neue Menschheit darstellen-​Religionsphilosophie als Weltverantwortung und Weltgestaltung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 196–​201. 168 This was also true for von Campenhausen, even though he signed the ‘vow of allegiance of the Professors of the German universities and high-​schools to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialistic State’ on 11.11.1933. He became a member of the Confessing Church in the spring of 1935. Slenczka, Murren, 156–​159. 169 Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 184–​185. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Systematische Theologie Band 3, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993, 12.

Pannenberg’s main theological and philosophical influences

53

Furthermore, his personal decades-​long involvement and stance in the work of the Protestant Church umbrella organization EKD spoke for his outlook as well as his unchanging public theological convictions.170 Indeed, the experiences and, therefore, biography and paradigms of Pannenberg’s generation in comparison to theologians such as Barth and Bultmann were profound: Barth’s students, the following generation of new and younger theologians, spent their early childhood in the Weimarer Republik, the first parliamentarian democracy in Germany. Pannenberg and his contemporaries witnessed the takeover of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) in 1933 amidst the world economic crisis. Pannenberg’s parents, as other German citizens, were excited by National Socialism and left the Protestant Church. Neither Pannenberg (his father was a customs officer), E. Jüngel nor Moltmann were born into or raised in religious families, let alone had fathers who were ministers; another formative difference.171 Thus, contrasting this background, the Swiss citizen Barth172 studied in Germany from 1904 to 1908 and lived most of his life in Switzerland, whereas the German citizen Bultmann was born, studied and lived throughout his life in Germany. Both grew up during the time of the German Empire with its constitutional monarchy and, theologically, with the Protestant liberalism of the outgoing 19th Century that later encouraged them to turn into the two dominant figures of the Wort Gottes Theologie (Word of God theology) in the early 20th Century, as in fact did the moral failure of their teachers with regard to the First World War. Indeed, some historians date the 20th Century as starting in 1914.173 The year constituted a turning point for German theology in general and, for Barth and his contemporaries such as E. Brunner, Jaspers and P. Tillich, in particular: in

170 Representatively mentioned is his involvement as the EKD legate for the World Ecumenical Council of Churches from 1975 to 1990. Separately, Pannenberg handed back in protest his Cross of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1987 in 1997: N.a., ‘Drucksache 13/​7221 vom 13.03.1997’, Deutscher Bundestag website (http://​dip21.bundes​tag.de/​dip21/​btd/​13/​072/​1307​221; accessed October 2016). 171 Cf. an analysis on the sociological and cultural implications of being raised in a German Protestant clergy home: Eichel, Christine, Das deutsche Pfarrhaus, Hort des Geistes und der Macht, Berlin: Quadriga Verlag, 2012, 11–​18. Barth’s father was a theology professor; Bultmann’s father was a pastor. 172 N.a., ‘Karl Barth –​Kunde vom unbekannten Gott’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​ Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 23.12.1959, 69–​81. 173 Schult, Maike, Im Banne des Poeten: Die theologische Dostoevskij Rezeption und ihr Literaturverständnis, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012, 117–​118.

54

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg

October 1914 the publication Manifest der Intellektuellen174 (Manifesto of the 93) was signed by 93 leading German academics and intellectuals. From that day onwards, the civic idealistic thinking of the 19th Century was dead. Barth dramatically declared: Personally, this day at the beginning of August, has stayed in my mind as the dies ater. 93 German intellectuals publicly affirmed Emperor Wilhelm II and his counsellors’ war politics. I also noticed, in horror, the names of almost all of my theological teachers who I had adored religiously until then. They had turned crazy in their ethos [and] I noticed that I could not longer follow neither their ethics and dogmatics, their Bible interpretations nor their historical studies. There was no future for me within the theology of the 19th Century.175

In fact, H. Zahrnt summarized: The theology of God could not continue as beforehand. It had to try a different, new approach in order to continue to speak of God responsibly and credibly.176

The different personal backgrounds and historical realities in which Barth and Bultmann lived are striking. They substantially shaped their subsequent theological work: neither man served as a soldier during the First or Second World War; they were members of the Confessing Church during the Nazi regime. Bultmann joined through its predecessor organization, the Pfarrernotbund.177 In fact, an awareness of the impact and participation within these historical developments helps to better understand the two radical points of view of both theologians: Barth, and his consistent theology from above, as well as Bultmann’s existentialist hermeneutical approach from below, were partly fuelled by actions to combat the inner church war and conflict between the Confessing Church and the Deutsche Christen.178 Externally, their theological development was equally 174 Härle, Wilfried, ‘Der Aufruf der 93 Intellektuellen und Karl Barths Bruch mit der liberalen Theologie’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 72, 2, 1975, 206–​224. 175 Barth, Karl, ‘Evangelische Theologie im 19. Jahrhundert’ in Barth, Karl, Theologische Studien H.49, Zürich: TVZ Verlag, 19576, 6, in Zahrnt, Heinz, Die Sache mit Gott, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1972, 14, TM. Barth mistakenly recalled August as the date. Nottmeier, Harnack, 4–​5. 176 Zahrnt, Sache, 14, TM. 177 For further reading: Niemöller, Wilhelm, Der Pfarrernotbund-​Geschichte einer kämpfenden Brüderschaft, Hamburg: Wittig Verlag, 1973. 178 The term Deutsche Christen refers to the regime-​obedient stream of the Protestant Church during the Nazi regime. Conway, John S., The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933–​1945, Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 20012, 45–​66. N.a., ‘Unbekannt’, 75–​80.

Pannenberg’s main theological and philosophical influences

55

affected through the political developments of their times. It explains, too, the consequent and radical cut with anything that was still perceived as liberal Protestant remnants from the 19th Century. Bultmann managed to stay in his academic office and avoided dismissal until his retirement as Professor Emeritus in 1951. He limited his public critique of the official regime and his civil disobedience. Barth received a call to Göttingen in 1921 and returned to Switzerland in 1935. He continued his theological activities during the Second World War from Switzerland and stayed politically active at a cross-​border level well into the 1960s of post-​war Germany. Equally important were Schlink, the Old Testament professor von Rad179 and the church historian von Campenhausen. They were, together with Löwith, Pannenberg’s lecturers in Heidelberg.180 Pannenberg recalled: I was most impressed by Gerhard von Rad’s approach, because he interprets the scriptures, not only as a historian, but as a theologian. … The Old Testament became real for me through the teachings of Gerhard von Rad. His thesis, that God is acting with Israel and with all humanity in history and that history is constituted by the acts of God, has influenced me more than any other thing that I learnt as a student.181

Indeed, this was also true for the other members of the Heidelberg circle and, even for Barth. Pannenberg summarized his approach as: ‘I discovered a new world, the traditions, and history of ancient Israel, because von Rad was unique in communicating to this audience its exotic charm.’182 The rediscoverer of Old Testament theology based his intensive research on analysing the anti-​Semite tendencies in the German Protestant Church during the Third Reich. This resulted in comprehensive lectures and essay engagements for the Confessing Church where von Rad strongly defended the Old Testament.183 Von Rad’s work and theological approach consisted of three central thoughts: First, [he was] an exegete who critically retold biblical texts. [He] dared to keep one ear close to the text, sometimes closing the other one. Second, von Rad pointed out the

1 79 Oord, ‘Pannenberg’. 180 Jaspers returned in the winter semester 1945–​1946. Von Campenhausen and Schlink both started with the reopening in 1946 whereas von Rad joined in 1949. Pannenberg arrived at the university in the autumn of 1950 and Löwith became a member of the faculty in 1952. 181 Oord, ‘Pannenberg’. 182 Pannenberg, ‘Sketch’, 14. 183 Oeming, Manfred, ‘Rad, Gerhard von (1901–​1971)’, Bibelwissenschaft website (http://​ www.bibelw​isse​nsch​aft.de/​wibi​lex/​das-​bibel​lexi​kon/​lexi​kon/​sachw​ort/​anzei​gen/​deta​ ils/​rad-​gerh​ard-​von/​ch/​b4f17​ba0f​c42e​115c​3eb6​08ea​d9d3​30c/​; accessed June 2015).

56

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg bigger transmission of the history of Israel by demonstrating how small, embedded testimonies and paragraphs in the Old Testament developed into a larger picture. Third, he focused on the inner-​biblical traditional history: [the] continuous new salvation settings of God that enlighten previous ones and thus regularly demand for further extrapolations.184

Yet, von Rad did not merely cover Old Testament studies: additionally, he engaged and commented on a variety of disciplines from history to cultural political activities.185 He certainly formed part of his students’ outlook that ‘the life of a German university professor is normally calm and without any [significant] external sensations. Its tensions, like in anybody else’s life, are more hidden.’186 Pannenberg’s social and political activities mirrored von Rad’s extensive interests and network throughout his career such as his extensive sermon activities, and his friendships with politicians and philosophers such as R. Huch. In addition, both men not only stayed in contact with each other but continued to work alongside one another after Pannenberg accepted his post in Munich where von Rad served as a guest lecturer. His effect and inspiration187 for and on his students is well described in the obituary by R. Rendtorff: The theological rediscovery of the Old Testament is undoubtedly one of the most important events in the history of the theological discipline in the 20th Century … This demonstrates an important element of von Rad’s effects. He opened up newer Old Testament research through his particular presentation … It was foremost the style of his lectures that had this strong effect. His unique often individual and poetical language fascinated his listeners –​and his readers –​as his words echoed very much his own voice. I myself, as many, noticed in von Rad’s lectures for the first time the greater context into which individual texts could be ranked.188

In addition, Schlink formed and supported the interest in ecumenical engagement in Pannenberg.189 He himself was a distinguished delegate at the Ecumenical 184 Schwabe, Uta, ‘Durchaus spannungsvoll-​Leben und Werk des Alttestamentlers Gerhard von Rad’, Universität Heidelberg website (http://​www.uni-​hei​delb​erg.de/​ pre​sse/​uni​spie​gel/​us3_​2​001/​rad.html; accessed June 2015), TM. 185 His attested friendship with the Bundespräsident (German Federal President) Heinemann paid tribute to this. Heinemann, a Protestant and active CDU politician also contributed to the EKD. 186 This was von Rad’s own observation. Schwabe, ‘Spannungsvoll’, TM. 187 As for his actual theological contribution: Graf, ‘Rad’, 81. 188 Rendtorff, Rolf, ‘Gerhard von Rad’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 4, 12, 1971, 728–​729, TM. 189 Plathow recalled that Schlink’s assistants were participating at committee and board meetings that he presided over such as at the Ökumenischer Arbeitsskreis evangelischer

Pannenberg’s main theological and philosophical influences

57

Council of Churches for 20 years and a commentator during the Second Vatican Council as well as publisher of the journal Ökumenische Rundschau. The professor for systematic theology also fostered the interest for medieval scholasticism in Pannenberg, being the supervisor for his doctoral thesis. He encouraged him to continue his academic work; Pannenberg later became his assistant in Heidelberg.190 Schlink’s assertion of the resurrection of Christ, of eschatology, of history, of science and of ecumenical engagement was picked up by Pannenberg in his own taught theology with insistent vibrancy.191 Edmund Schlink represented a university model of uniting research, teaching and [student] life. He went against the tendencies of the multiversity of the sciences and emphasized the university as a lively community made up of research and teaching. [He detected] unity in the plurality of the disciplines, [and facilitated] between faculty and students … [he was] against a fragmentation of the university.192

Furthermore, it was the approach and insight of the church historian and New Testament theologian von Campenhausen that complemented von Rad’s and Schlink’s insights in Pannenberg’s theological quest. Von Campenhausen’s work is ‘an exceptional example of church historical work in the tension between historical reconstruction and present orientation.’193 He himself expressed that: Church history is no scientific specialty in itself because its object –​the church –​is at all times linked with the world through the words that it addresses to that world. It is at all times linked to both spiritual and human events and concerned and moved in its

und katholischer Theologen or the Deutsche Ökumenische Studienausschuss. Pannenberg took over as his successor of the Protestant group in 1979. Plathow, Michael, ‘Persönliche Notizen zu Schlinks Heidelberger Jahren’ in Skibbe, Eugene M. (ed.), Edmund Schlink-​Ein Bekenner im Kirchenkampf-​Lehrer der Kirche-​Vordenker der Ökumene, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009, 170. 190 His close ties to Schlink were witnessed on several occasions: for example, he published a Festschrift for Schlink’s 60th birthday. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Joest, Wilfried (eds.), Dogma und Denkstrukturen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Skibbe, Schlink, 83. 191 Skibbe, Schlink, 136. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘The Resurrection of Jesus, History and Theology’, DIALOG: A Journal of Theology, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 38, 1, 1999, 20–​25. 192 Skibbe, Schlink, 136, TM. 193 Löhr, Winrich Alfred, ‘Kirchengeschichte zwischen historischer Rekonstruktion und Gegenwartsorientierung-​Hans von Campenhausen als Historiker und Theologe’ in Markschies, Christoph (ed.), Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen-​Weg, Werk und Wirkung, Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2008, 62. Ritter, Adolf Martin, ‘Hans von Campenhausen und Adolf von Harnack’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 87, 3, 1990, 338.

58

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg being through exactly those questions. Church history is no [negligible] history but the history of the whole of humanity in its encounter and debate with the Word of God.194

The three aforementioned scholars as well as three teachers on philosophy (mentioned in chronological order according to his studies) correspondingly added their mark to Pannenberg’s theology.195 They especially formed around Pannenberg what Kuhn would label a scientific community, the ‘producers and validators of scientific knowledge’196 that significantly shaped his theology. Pannenberg met Hartmann during two semesters at the Georg-​August Universität Göttingen in 1948 and 1949. Hartmann’s philosophical efforts were one of the last attempts to develop a comprehensive philosophy that embraced all classical categories throughout the whole history of philosophy. Indeed, Pannenberg voiced his respect for his teacher: [Hartmann was] probably the most knowledgeable German philosopher at that time, more so than Karl Jaspers and even Martin Heidegger. Hartmann gave the impression of carrying around with himself the entire history of philosophy. But I could not become a disciple of Nicolai Hartmann, for he was an atheist and I had come to think that the philosophy I was looking for should take the tradition of philosophical theism seriously and deal with the concept of God as the ultimate source of everything.197

Interestingly, Hartmann was one of the two most important 20th-​ century philosophers who, together with Heidegger, developed an extensive ontology. Other than Heidegger, who is widely quoted, Hartmann remains known to a few experts only, despite contributing significantly to ontological and epistemological philosophical insights. Yet, as Analytic philosophy and Existentialism became more popular in the course of the 20th Century it drove the subject of ontology into specialist domains. It is only within the last 15 years that Hartmann’s philosophy has been analysed in detail again.198 In fact, Hartmann found critical public acclaim in 1921 when he published his ideas regarding critical realism

194 Freiherr von Campenhausen, Hans, Weltgeschichte und Gottesgericht, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, 1947 in Markschies, Campenhausen, 9, TM. 195 Pannenberg dedicated Theologie und Philosophie to three of his teachers and repeatedly pointed out their significance for him. Pannenberg, ‘Sketch’, 14–​17. Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 184–​191. 196 Kuhn, Revolutions, 177. 197 Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 184–​185. 198 Buch, Hansen, Hüntelmann, Morgenstern and Renkert are select examples; the Nicolai Hartmann Gesellschaft was founded in 2009. The Deutsches Literaturarchiv Marbach acquired the literary estate of Hartmann in 2013.

Pannenberg’s main theological and philosophical influences

59

in Grundzüge einer Metaphysik der Erkenntnis199 and defended them against a logical and transcendental idealism. Hartmann also published Zur Grundlegung der Ontologie.200 M. Morgenstern described Hartmann as a very ‘scientific philosopher’ and credited him with being a predecessor of modern scientifically oriented philosophy.201 Nicolai Hartmann is, without doubt, one of the most important figures of contemporary philosophy. He is one of the pioneers in 20th-​century metaphysics next to Whitehead and Maritain. Less systematic than these two, his strength lies in the finesse of his analysis and –​with Germans not very frequently talented in this [area] –​[in the ability] to express his ideas clearly, compelling through their lucidity in content and depth. His work is a real example of level-​headed precision and scientific thoroughness.202

Pannenberg engaged with the philosophy of Hartmann, especially in his works on anthropology and ethics,203 and sought to answer the question of human freedom in connection to temporality and personality. Whilst Pannenberg concluded, within the history of theology and the relation of time and eternity, that creation constituted a temporary process, Hartmann developed his metaphysics as a timeless and unchanging system.204 T. Renkert pointed out, though, that even if references to Hartmann in Pannenberg’s works were not very comprehensive they appeared to have been constant over the years.205 Hartmann’s didactic left such an influence on Pannenberg that his method to develop theological problems in the light of their ideas-​ history, was apparently based on Hartmann’s way of teaching. Pannenberg also owed his knowledge of ancient philosophy

199 Hartmann, Nicolai, Grundzüge einer Metaphysik der Erkenntnis, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 19655. 200 Hartmann Nicolai, Zur Grundlegung der Ontologie, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 19654. 201 Morgenstern, Martin, Nicolai Hartmann-​ Grundlinien einer wissenschaftlich orientierten Philosophie, Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 1992, preface, TM. 202 Bochenski, Joseph M., Europäische Philosophie der Gegenwart, München: Lehnen Verlag, 19512, 218, TM. 203 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Grundlagen der Ethik. Philosophisch-​theologische Perspektiven, Stuttgart: UTB der Wissenschaft, 1996. For further bibliographical details cf. footnote 63. 204 Renkert, Thomas, ‘Zum Verhältnis von Personalität und Temporalität bei Nicolai Hartmann und Wolfhart Pannenberg’ in Hartung, Gerald, Wunsch, Matthias, Strube, Claudius (eds.), Von der Systemphilosophie zur systematischen Philosophie-​Nicolai Hartmann, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 2012, 310. 205 Ibid., 297.

60

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg to the interpretation of Hartmann who, as he described in 2006, ‘had made him immune to the rather arbitrary interpretation of Martin Heidegger.’206

While Hartmann focused on metaphysics and ontology, his contemporary Jaspers, psychologist, psychiatrist and existentialist philosopher, was influenced by the well-​known older philosophers. He met M. Weber and came to philosophy as a way to find out reality’s full complexity.207 Despite the fact that he was chronically ill for most of his life, Jaspers reached old age and was driven by his quest to find out what philosophy could become, in the light of the contemporary science, following I. Kant and S. Kierkegaard, albeit interpreting them afresh and was thus attested an: Intuition for the existential experience of humans; man is always more than he knows of himself. He made him aware of [his] transcendence that can explain the reason for his being. Jaspers himself lived as iatrōs-​philosōphos-​isōtheos, as a doctor, a philosopher and one who was connected to the divine.208

Admittedly, Jaspers was quite ‘unacademic’, a fact Pannenberg attested several times.209 In 1933, Jaspers, who had a Jewish wife, was suspended from the university administration; in 1937, he was forcefully retired and in 1938, he received a publication prohibition. That said, his three-​volume Philosophie210 was already published in 1932 and remains one of the main references on Existentialism today. Indeed: The fact that prominent theologians such as K. Barth, R. Bultmann, P. Tillich, W. Pannenberg dealt with the thoughts of Jaspers is evidence that his religious criticism, his concept of transcendence as well as his philosophical faith as a critical challenge for theology found considerate attention.211

206 Ibid., 298, TM, quoting: Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘An Intellectual Pilgrimage’, DIALOG: A Journal of Theology, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 45, 2, 2006, 185. 207 Jaspers, Karl, Wahrheit und Bewährung, München: Piper Verlag, 1951, 11. Weischedel, Wilhelm, Die philosophische Hintertreppe, München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag GmbH, 200332, 266. 208 Wisser, Richard, ‘Jaspers, Karl’ in Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), Neue Deutsche Bibliographie (NDB) Band 10, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1974, 365, TM. 209 Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 185; Pannenberg, ‘Sketch’, 14. 210 Jaspers. Karl, Philosophie I: Philosophische Weltanschauung, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 19734. Jaspers, Karl, Philosophie II: Existenzerhellung, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 20084. Jaspers, Karl, Philosophie III: Metaphysik, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 20084. 211 Salamun, Kurt, Karl Jaspers, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann GmH, 20062, 129, TM.

Pannenberg’s main theological and philosophical influences

61

Eventually, Jaspers became one of the refounders of Ruprecht-​Karls-​Universität Heidelberg in 1945212 and moved to Basle in 1948. The five mentioned scientists, with the exception of Hartmann, all suffered academic and personal disadvantages and reprisals due to their political stances during the time of the Nazis.213 However, Löwith’s academic career and personal experience was, without doubt, the most tragic and traumatic: Löwith’s fate as a Protestant with Jewish roots (having been classified as a jüdischer Mischling ersten Grades);214 his emigration to Italy in 1934 and then later to Japan and the US and his reinstatement into German academic service in 1952 as well as his continued intellectual battle with Heidegger,215 all demonstrate the challenge but also somewhat the perversity of German academia to deal with (former) Nazis and (surviving) Jewish colleagues in academic office in post-​war Germany.216 The philosopher and biologist Löwith dealt with the main body of 19th-​century Existentialism in his work. He was a sceptical philosopher, who focused on the secularization of Christian philosophy and the expected redemption through historical philosophy. Insofar, Löwith can be described as a critic of the newer metaphysics. His philosophy centred on the ever-​increasing trend in metaphysics and epistemology to solely concentrate on humanity as the only possible source of knowledge –​in rejection of a Christian God or a natural world. Indeed, Löwith attempted a justification of the gods inhabiting this world rather than God being

212 For further reading: Remy, Steven P., The Heidelberg Myth: The Nazification and Denazification of a German University, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. 213 Schlink’s licence to teach (venia legendi) was denied by the relevant ministry in 1935. He taught at the independent university in Bielefeld Bethel until 1939 and worked as a pastor for the Confessing Church. Von Rad got into conflict with the Deutsche Christen in 1934 at his post as Old Testament professor in Jena. Von Campenhausen only started his academic service in 1946; he served in the military during the Second World War. 214 Trsl.: first grade Jew. 215 Löwith, Karl, Denker in dürftiger Zeit, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. 216 Many former party members and followers continued their careers in post-​war Germany although the allied forces tried to establish the various levels of regime activity in their denazification programme. Von Campenhausen mentioned the difficulties in re-​establishing an academic faculty. Von Campenhausen, ‘Murren’, 258–​262. Löwith, Leben, 57–​60. Jaspers, Karl, Die Schuldfrage-​Von der politischen Hoffnung Deutschlands, München: Piper Verlag, 20122. Wolin, Richard, Heidegger’s Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Löwith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003, 70–​100.

62

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg

the world creator and thus developed a cosmology based on Greek mythology rather than on the concept of a theodicy.217 He understood the history of metaphysics with the help of three hermeneutical concepts: God, humanity and the world. His analysis of Christianity was somewhat drastic: his book Zur Kritik der christlichen Überlieferung dealt with his reflection on the Christian religion.218 In fact, Löwith considered that: Christianity, too, as a world religion, is a complete failure. The world is still as it was in the time of Alaric; only our means of oppression and destruction (and our reconstruction) are considerably improved and are adorned with hypocrisy.219

Concerning Löwith, Pannenberg conceded that: I attended the philosophical lectures of Karl Löwith on meaning in history. Löwith traced back the modern history of history to the Augustinian theology of history and to its biblical roots. Although he intended his argument to deconstruct the philosophy of history, I took it as positive evidence for the connection of the modern sense of history with the biblical theology of history.220

Löwith held that philosophy of history was robbed of the opportunity to argue its claims scientifically, through the secularization of historical thinking after 1800.221 Pannenberg relied heavily on an element of Löwith’s concept in Theologie und Philosophie, which Löwith initially built on Dilthey.222 In fact, Pannenberg argued for the world to be historically understood (Welt als Geschichte), away from the classical ahistorical interpretation of metaphysics.223 While none of the above teachers overtly influenced Pannenberg’s Wissenschaftstheorie, as for 217 Haga, Tsutomu, Theodizee und Geschichtstheologie: ein Versuch der Überwindung der Problematik des deutschen Idealismus bei Karl Barth, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991, 23–​24, TM. 218 Löwith, Karl, Zur Kritik der christlichen Überlieferung, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1966. Brumm, Dieter, Gumnior, Helmut, Dänicke, Heinz, ‘Wozu heute noch Philosophie? Spiegel-​Gespräch mit dem Philosophen Karl Löwith’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 20.10.1969, 211. Löwith, Karl, ‘War Jesus ein Gentleman?’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 03.04.1967, 65–​68. 219 Löwith, Karl, Meaning in History, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1949, 191. 220 Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 184–​187. 221 Muehleck, Cathleen, ‘Löwith, Karl’ in Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), Neue Deutsche Bibliographie (NDB) Band 15, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1987, 113. 222 As indeed, did Heidegger. 223 Pannenberg, Philosophie, 119–​141.

Deutsche Gründlichkeit: Pannenberg’s academic style

63

example in other works,224 their influence can nevertheless be traced. An apt example is Hartmann who was a precursor on critical realism.225 Wenz remarked that an analysis of the extent to which Hartmann’s critical realism influenced Pannenberg is still outstanding.226

2.3 Deutsche Gründlichkeit:227 Pannenberg’s academic style Pannenberg’s academic style profoundly shaped his epistemology; what is true for all of his works can also be applied to Wissenschaftstheorie. Theologically, the resurrection of Jesus, who is the prolepsis of the eschatological revelation of the meaning of universal history, was central to Pannenberg.228 Stylistically, he was firmly set in the tradition of scholasticism229 and within Patristics: As a student I was deeply impressed by the unity of faith and reason in patristic theology. Since then, I have considered the age of patristic theology as a mode of what Christian theology should achieve in our own time.230

His books and articles demonstrated a strong dialectical reasoning fuelled through his doctoral research on Duns Scotus,231 one of the most important medieval

224 Ibid., 119–​141. Cf. von Campenhausen’s influence on Pannenberg: Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 351–​352, ETR348. 225 Breil, Reinhold, ‘Hartmanns Beitrag zu einer Begründung des wissenschaftlichen Realismus’ in Hartung, Gerald, Wunsch, Matthias, Strube, Claudius (eds.), Von der Systemphilosophie zur systematischen Philosophie-​Nicolai Hartmann, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 2012, 23–​43. Dahlstrom, Daniel, ‘Zur Aktualität der Ontologie Nicolai Hartmanns’ in Hartung, Gerald, Wunsch, Matthias, Strube, Claudius (eds.), Von der Systemphilosophie zur systematischen Philosophie-​Nicolai Hartmann, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 2012, 358–​359. 226 Wenz, Kirche, footnote 8, 18. 227 Trsl.: German thoroughness. 228 Grenz, Stanley, ‘The Appraisal of Pannenberg. A Survey of the Literature’ in Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988, 23. 229 Grenz, Stanley, ‘Scientific’: Pannenberg and the dialogue between Theology and Science’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 34, 1, 1999, 161. 230 Pannenberg, ‘Response’, 316. 231 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Die Prädestinationslehre des Duns Skotus im Zusammenhang der scholastischen Lehrentwicklung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954. Pannenberg received the doctorate on 07.05.1954; cf. Wenz, Kirche, 20.

64

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg

philosopher-​theologians.232 Pannenberg himself testified to the strengths and weaknesses of his theology: These two things are very much bound up with the rational character of my theology, which both attracts and alienates. That is, it draws some, but it also limits the number of those who will appreciate what I am trying to do.233

He also pointed out that: ‘I am not the most popular theologian in Germany. I am found guilty for referring to reason.’234 In fact, Pannenberg generally preceded his thinking by deducing inferences; he tried to resolve contradictions through logical arguments. He developed, based on Hartmann’s approach, a style that Moltmann testified to: In 1958, I assumed a teaching position at the Kirchliche Hochschule (Protestant University) Wuppertal. Pannenberg arrived a year later, and we became colleagues in systematic theology. He was Lutheran; I was Reformed. Prior to my time in Wuppertal, I had been a pastor in Bremen-​Wasserhorst for five years and had acquired a preaching style. Having worked at the university in Heidelberg during this time, his style was that of an academic treatise.235

It is exactly this style combined with his vast cross-​disciplinary knowledge that calls for a comprehensive response informed by deep knowledge. In fact, Pannenberg alluded to this rigour in the foreword of the German paperback edition published in 1987: By the way, the text stayed unchanged. I do not see the necessity to revise the current development status of the philosophy of science debate through the addition of newer literature or further clarification of the mentioned issues.236

232 Hasel conducted a separate discussion concerning Pannenberg’s use of scripture: ‘this is done so functionally, with an elegant and coherent approach but … not [regarded] as a final norm or authority.’ Hasel, Frank, Scripture in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D.G. Bloesch, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Gmbh Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1994, 226–​242. Cross, Richard, The Medieval Christian Philosophers-​An Introduction, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2014, 164. Wöhler, Hans-​Ulrich, Dialektik in der mittelalterlichen Philosophie, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006, 116–​119. 233 Pannenberg, ‘Pannenberg’ in Bauman, Roundtable, 52–​53. 234 Terry, ‘Guilty’, 47. 235 Moltmann, ‘Personal’, 11–​12. Schönwälder-​Kuntze, Tatjana, Philosophische Methoden zur Einführung, Hamburg: Junius Verlag, 2015, 39–​61. 236 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 5, no ETR available, TM. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Theological Appropriation of Scientific Understandings: Response to Hefner, Wicken, Eaves, and Tipler’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997, 430.

Deutsche Gründlichkeit: Pannenberg’s academic style

65

The conceptual analysis and careful drawing of distinctions combined with Anselm of Canterbury’s credo credo ut intelligam and fides quaerens intellectum237 set the tone of Pannenberg’s research. This did not come as a surprise, since his lifelong goal was to demonstrate the rationality of faith throughout history culminating in the eschaton while conforming to the scholastic agenda to demonstrate the agreement of ecclesial accord with philosophical reasoning. Indeed, this pursuit included any tensions and disputes that would have resulted from this quest, in the light of their ideas history. Since a key element of scholastic thought is cross referencing on subject matter, both consensus and disagreement are always comprehensively spelt out. Pannenberg demonstrated this method in each chapter of Wissenschaftstheorie; he first laid out the historical background and various opinions held within each discussion.238 In fact, the dialectic art in scholasticism, to find a consensus on both sides of an argument and to avoid contradiction, was strengthened through his very rational approach and underlined with both philological and logical analysis.239 Wenz recounted that in close connection with his studies of scholasticism, Pannenberg came to reflect epistemological problems.240 Pannenberg consistently applied this method which is precisely so tiring for the reader and enticed Anglo Saxons to speak about the rather ‘Teutonic style’.241 As such, scholasticism served as the procedure to defend theology as a science.242 It was also within this line of argument that Pannenberg strongly applied Hegel’s scheme of dialectic, leading (wrongly) to the accusation that he was a Hegelian.243 Perhaps Pannenberg himself clarified the situation best:

237 The proslogion/​discourse on the existence of God written by Anselm of Canterbury in 1077–​1078 featured both of those Latin expressions. The first one was Anselm’s credo ‘I believe so that I may understand’, the second one is translated as ‘Faith seeking understanding’. Saint Anselm, Proslogion: With the replies of Gaunilo and Anselm, Williams, Thomas (trsl.), Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing, 2001, vii. Polk, God, 3. 238 E.g., Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 225–​255, ETR225–​255. 239 E.g., Pannenberg, Offenbarung, 132–​148, in particular, 135. 240 Wenz, Kirche, 22. 241 Root, ‘Achievement’, 42. 242 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 25–​26, ETR21–​22. 243 Steiger, Lothar, ‘Offenbarungsgeschichte und theologische Vernunft. Zur Theologie W. Pannenbergs’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 59, 1, 1962, 93. Rohls, ‘Anknüpfung’, 177–​202. Pannenberg, Idea, 144–​177. Grenz, Hope, 62–​63.

66

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg I never became a Hegelian, but I decided that theology has to be developed on at least the same level of sophistication as Hegel’s philosophy and for that purpose I studied his writings carefully and repeatedly.244

Interestingly, M. Westphal declared ‘[Pannenberg] may well be the most articulate anti-​Hegelian since Kierkegaard.’245 Essentially, Pannenberg reiterated the importance of Hegel: Christian theology has to thank Hegel for a lot: the thought of God as the real eternal, the renewal of Trinitarian doctrine, the Christian incarnational faith thinking, the comprehension of God’s revelation as self-​revelation and the connection to Trinitarian teaching. None of the idealist philosophers stood in such positive relation to Christianity as Hegel did.246

Moreover, he pointed out a US-​American particularity in that: In some areas of the discussion, and maybe especially in this country [the US], there is a lot of mythology concerning Hegel … the less you know about it, the more your prejudices have free rein.247

Equally, A. Galloway highlighted in 1973 the necessity of the close co-​operation between the historical, philosophical and theological disciplines so pertinent throughout Pannenberg’s career: Pannenberg brings traditional philosophy back into the picture … History, philosophy and theology ought to belong together. That they have gone their separate ways has not been of lasting benefit to any of them. In particular, the abandonment of the great philosophies of history such as those of Hegel, Marx, Dilthey, Troeltsch and others as theologically irrelevant has been a severe impoverishment. The cross-​fertilization of historical, philosophical and theological disciplines which such studies engendered is indispensable to the development of all three. In their isolation, history has become positivist; philosophy has become empty and formal; theology has become either subjectivist or authoritarian … Pannenberg’s success in bringing all three disciplines back to an effective degree of co-​operation is of strategic importance, not merely for theology, but for human culture generally.248

2 44 Pannenberg, ‘Sketch’, 16. Also: Pannenberg, Philosophie, 276–​285, 310. 245 Westphal, Merold, ‘Hegel, Pannenberg, and Hermeneutics’, Man and World, Pittsburgh: IPR Associates, Vol. 4, 3, 1971, 276–​293. 246 Pannenberg, Philosophie, 291, TM. 247 Oord, Thomas Jay, ‘Confessions of a Trinitarian Evolutionist’, Metanexus website (http://​www.metane​xus.net/​essay/​conf​essi​ons-​trin​itar​ian-​evolu​tion​ist; accessed December 2017). 248 Galloway, Allan, D., Wolfhart Pannenberg, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1973, 132–​133.

Concluding remarks

67

Effectively, the novelty and impact of Pannenberg’s approach were to be found in the state of the university curricula at that time: the Catholic systematic theological agendas during the 1960s and 1970s were dominated by works of the fundamental theologians K. Rahner and J. Metz whose ideas determined the subject of dogmatics. Meanwhile, the systematic theology of Protestant faculties, as already outlined, was strongly focused on the proponents of the Word of God theology.249 Pannenberg declared both insufficient though through: His insistence on the key importance of real historical events and their meaning for the Christian faith. Decisively with the German existentialist tradition in theology, which had been so influential since 1918.250

As such, Pannenberg went against the internalization and individualization that had defined German Protestantism since 1800 through Kant251 and, following on from that, since 1900 in particular, through the works of Kierkegaard.252 Rather, by means of his Hegelian affinity and strong emphasis on the present, Pannenberg emphasized the rationality of the Christian faith against the anti-​ historicity of dialectic theology. In fact, he claimed that everything historical had to be characterized by a tentativeness and openness towards the future. While this conclusion was new, the foundation for Pannenberg’s breakthrough, however, had been laid out almost 20 years earlier and was cemented with his publication Offenbarung als Geschichte.253

2.4 Concluding remarks Various influencing factors surround Pannenberg’s personal and academic life that should not be separated from either the results of his overall work or from Wissenschaftstheorie. It is advisable to reflect his theology more strongly in the light of his personal experiences as well as the political and socio-​cultural developments; this being a procedure Kuhn would obviously have regarded as contributing to the basic commitments of a scientist in the formation of his/​her 2 49 Essen, ‘Großer’. 250 Bradshaw, Timothy, Pannenberg: A Guide for the Perplexed, London: T&T Clark International, 2009, 21. 251 Kant, Immanuel, Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1781), Köln: Anaconda Verlag, 2009. 252 Kierkegaard, Søren, Journals and Papers (1848–​1855), Hong, Howard, Hong, Edna (eds.), Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1976. Kierkegaard, Søren, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments Volume I (1846), Hong, Howard, Hong, Edna (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. 253 Trsl.: Revelation as History. For bibliographical details cf. footnote 61.

68

A personal sketch of Wolfhart Pannenberg

paradigm.254 It is also within this assessment that the overall perception of his connection with Barth requires realignment in the light of the other influencing academics and teachers who shaped the foundations for his own theology. This is an insight that might not be altogether as clear abroad as it is in Germany but remains important, especially considering impressions such as Dillistone’s who remarked that: For a non-​Lutheran reader, too, there seems to be excessive attention on the works of little-​known Lutheran theologians of the past three centuries.255

Altogether, a towering and major theological figure, Pannenberg differentiated himself critically from Barth through his scholastic methodology, through his focus on historical hermeneutics and his development of a rational theology. Whereas the generation around Barth and Bultmann256 refuted elements that could imply any notion of a possible natural theology, due to their reaction against the Nationalist socialist regime claims and, in particular, the Protestant German churches’ unruly role during the Second World War, Pannenberg and his so-​called Heidelberg or Pannenberg Kreis approached the same challenge through the development of a universal history as a basis for theological claims. In fact, their war experiences and the subsequent Nachkriegsjahre257 (post-​war years) provided them with the necessary intellectual critical distance and discernment, due to their own direct forced experiences. Unlike their predecessors, Pannenberg and his generation of fellow theologians did not completely reject any pre-​war theology. Indeed, as Pannenberg expressed: ‘the necessary intellectual discipline for the accomplishment [of theology] has found in the claim for the scientificity of theology a concrete expression.’258 Therefore, Wissenschaftstheorie was to present theology as a science, proven with similar scientific approaches just as the natural sciences, firmly set within the university system. Moreover, it was to be an indispensable universal science to which other sciences refer. The closer scrutiny of Pannenberg’s style also serves to differentiate between serious critiques towards his epistemology and a possible distaste for his style. Interestingly, foreign critics with an analytical philosophical background sometimes bemoan 2 54 Kuhn, Revolutions, 42. 255 Dillistone, ‘Theology’, 218–​222. 256 Harenberg, Werner, ‘Ist Jesus auferstanden wie Goethe’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 25.07.1966, 42–​45. 257 Trsl.: the early years after the Second World War. 258 Pannenberg, Band 1, 30, TM

Concluding remarks

69

his Teutonic reasoning and the scholastic rigour in which his arguments were conducted. Yet, no one, to date, has achieved the depth and breadth in argument to completely replace Wissenschaftstheorie in the formulation of a theological rationality model.259

259 This opinion could be refuted by critics citing the subsequent works of Murphy and van Huyssteen on method in the 1980s and 1990s. However, it is questionable whether their scope and depth replaces Pannenberg’ contribution, since the authors derive part of their reasoning from his pioneering work. To that end, both Barbour’s and Torrance’s insights can also only be classified as then contemporary competing theories of method. They do not render Wissenschaftstheorie obsolete but rather co-​exist alongside it.

Chapter 3 The making of the book Chronologically, Wissenschaftstheorie was published five years into Pannenberg’s post as chair in systematic theology in Munich. It was the sole work Pannenberg wrote for the German scientific publication house, Suhrkamp Verlag, which reissued one edition. He based the book on a concept that he first explored in a Munich lecture in the summer semester of 1971, called Theologie als Wissenschaft (theology as a science).260 In fact, Peters261 claimed that Pannenberg planned to write a Theologie der Vernunft (theology of reason) but never completed that project and published Wissenschaftstheorie instead. Wenz’262 insights complement Peters; he added that Pannenberg already held lectures on a theology of rationality in Mainz in the winter semester of 1963/​1964, during the summer semester of 1967 and in Munich in the summer semester of 1969. Polk also referred to this endeavour.263 The overall German theological debate on the philosophy of science had been, at that point in time, somewhat dormant and only re-​emerged during the 1960s and 1970s. The Protestant Sauter264 and the Catholic H. Peukert265 formed prominent exceptions.266 It is undeniable, though, that in addition to the external factors threatening theology, internally the discipline suffered from an identity crisis.267 In fact, the debate was tied to the particular German political and

260 Daecke, Sigurd Martin, ‘Soll die Theologie an der Universität bleiben? Die Auseinandersetzung um eine Begründung der Theologie als Wissenschaft’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 5, 4, 1972, 199. 261 Peters, ‘Memoriam’, 368. 262 Wenz, Gunther, ‘Theologie der Vernunft. Zum unveröffentlichten Manuskript einer Münchner Vorlesung Wolfhart Pannenbergs vom SS 1969’ in Wenz, Gunther (ed.), Vom wahrhaft Unendlichen, Metaphysik und Theologie bei Wolfhart Pannenberg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016, 355–​377. 263 Polk, God, 37–​43. 264 For bibliographical details, cf. footnote 102. 265 Peukert, Helmut, Wissenschaftstheorie Handlungstheorie Fundamentale Theologie-​ Analysen zu Ansatz und Status theologischer Theoriebildung, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1978. Peukert, Helmut, Science, Action, and Fundamental Theology. Toward a Theology of Communicative Action, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984. 266 Both Sauter and Peukert also published their works with Suhrkamp. 267 Cf. footnote 305.

72

The making of the book

socio-​cultural context, over and above the Catholic controversy surrounding P. Teilhard de Chardin and H. Küng.268 It was actually 12 years earlier, in 1961, that a local project which began in the 1950s in Heidelberg with a group of young and ambitious theologians, the Heidelberg Kreis, turned into Pannenberg’s lifelong quest.269 Interestingly, it was Pannenberg who remained the most persistent lifelong proponent of this cause. In fact, his theology was to be a true and viable alternative to the dialectic subjectivism of the Word of God theologians. However, ‘unlike Karl Barth, it was not granted to Wolfhart Pannenberg to gather a large circle of like-​minded around him in church and theology’.270 This assessment might be also due to the fact that ‘his meticulous style of argument was too consistently demanding to attract very many readers without considerable academic training.’271 Moltmann shed further personal insight into the public tensions surrounding their academic output during those years: I think now that my criticisms of Pannenberg in The Theology of Hope were a bit one-​ sided. I might have been able to invite him into the movement of theological hope if I had not distanced him by overstressing his theology of history. In that light, I am aware that fifteen or twenty years ago, when debates raged between theological factions like the Barthians and the Bultmannians, we wrote too aggressively, too empathically. We said too many things just to make a point in the debate. When they are read now, outside that debate, our books seem too combative. I now try to write more relaxed.272

While L. Puntel remarked that theology looked back to a rich and long tradition of philosophy of science, it was Pannenberg who brought together, clarified and articulated an extensive scientific theory of theology.273 Pannenberg certainly had strong support from German Catholic theologians. Yet, in 1976, Puntel pointed out, ‘it is the more startling that the resonance to this publication is rather small, both in theological as well as in non-​theological circles.’274 Pannenberg himself

2 68 Cf. footnote 485. 269 Wenz, Günther, ‘Glaube, Geschichte und Vernunft’ in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Zürich: NZZ Medienmanagement AG, 10.09.2014, 27. 270 Wilckens, Ulrich, ‘Nachruf: Die Auferstehung Jesu ist eine historische Tatsache’, Idea Spektrum website (http://​www.idea.de/​nach​rich​ten/​det​ail/​spekt​rum/​det​ail/​die-​aufer​ steh​ung-​jesu-​ist-​eine-​hist​oris​che-​tatsa​che-​87850.html; accessed November 2014). 271 Sanders, ‘Outflanker’. 272 Moltmann, Jürgen, ‘Jürgen Moltmann’ in Bauman, Michael, Roundtable-​Conversations with European Theologians, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1990, 35. 273 Puntel, ‘Wissenschaftstheorie’, 272. 274 Ibid., 272, TM.

The initial, life-long academic and spiritual goal: Revelation as History

73

only referenced a couple of responses to Wissenschaftstheorie in the foreword of the soft copy edition; it seems fair to assume that this was not simply due to the fact that he considered some of them too inadequate to point out.275 It is of specific interest, then, that the above assessment from Pannenberg’s German contemporaries stands in contrast to the memoirs of his American colleagues such as Braaten, upon meeting Pannenberg in Heidelberg in 1957, or of T. Oden’s impression of him.276 It also helps to explain better Pannenberg’s position in predominant Protestant circles both within Germany and abroad. Braaten enthused that: ‘we did not know then that Pannenberg would soon become the most famous Lutheran systematic Theologian in the world.’277 In fact, by 1973, the US Christian Academy and media had already fêted Pannenberg with articles, such as in Time Magazine,278 due to his critical acclaim of Offenbarung als Geschichte.

3.1 The initial, life-​long academic and spiritual goal: Revelation as History German Theology, which has always enjoyed great influence on this side of the Atlantic, has been dominated in the 20th century by Barthian and existentialist approaches. But since the 1960s a quite different project, focusing attention again on the classical quest for ultimate truth in the midst of contemporary, post-​Enlightenment culture, has been developing as well.279

Thus, Grenz summarized Pannenberg’s life-​ long goal. It was only initially, though, that Pannenberg, together with Moltmann, was considered to be one of the prominent representatives of the Theology of Hope movement that developed from 1961 onwards.280 Yet, despite a lifelong friendship, both theologians stood in strong contrast to each other.281 Moltmann echoed this: 2 75 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 5–​6, no ETR available. 276 Oden, Heart, 97–​98. 277 Braaten, Christ, 37. 278 N.a., ‘Theology –​Revelation & History’ in Time Magazine, New York: TimeInc., 14.07.1967, 67–​68. 279 Grenz, Quest, 795. 280 He has been quoted as: ‘Next to Moltmann other German theologians have flown the flag of Christian-​revolutionary hope –​so did the young Mainz professor Wolfhart Pannenberg.’ N.a., ‘Moltmann-​Kinder des Protests’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​ Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 29.04.1968, 95, TM. Also: Schwarz, Hans, Theology in a Global Context: The last Two Hundred Years, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005, 541–​552. 281 Grenz, Quest, 795.

74

The making of the book We no longer wanted a ‘theology from above’, as in Barth, or a ‘theology from below’, as in Bultmann. Through Gerhard von Rad’s theology of the Old Testament, which appeared successively in 1958 and 1960, we became engaged in the areas of history, in memories and eschatological hopes. … However, our respective approaches to history were different: philosophically, he came from Karl Löwith (Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History), I came from Ernst Bloch (The Principle of Hope). He found himself more on the Hegelian right, I was rather at home at the Hegelian left. Those differences provided plenty of topics of conversation and occasions for disputes.282

In the light of the above, Pannenberg’s Offenbarung als Geschichte,283 published together with three friends284 from the Heidelberg circle in 1961, created a storm of critiques and constituted a turn in German theology that no one had dared to take on after the Second World War.285 The academic responses to their novel theology were strong. Indeed, L. Steiger commented dismissively that: Recently, a young group of theologians receive public attention because they appear to have formed a school through their development of a theological system … They seem to realize their claim and venture to become a third generation [of theologians] to drive forward and [attempt to] overcome already obsolete theological problems after a long time of preparation.286

2 82 Moltmann, ‘Personal’, 12. 283 For bibliographical details cf. footnote 61. 284 The authors of Revelation as History do not constitute the whole Heidelberg circle. Greiner, Sebastian, Die Theologie Wolfhart Pannenbergs, Würzburg: Echter, 1988, 15. Steiger, ‘Offenbarungsgeschichte’, 89. Polk, God, 17. Tupper, Pannenberg, 23–​25. 285 Pannenberg comprehensively addressed some of his critics in the afterword of the fourth edition of Offenbarung als Geschichte, most notably Althaus, Geyer, Klein and Steiger: Althaus, Paul, ‘Offenbarung als Geschichte und Glaube, Bemerkungen zu Wolfhart Pannenbergs Begriff der Offenbarung’, Theologische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Vol. 87, 1, 1962, 321–​330. Geyer, Hans-​Georg, ‘Geschichte als theologisches Problem’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 22, 6, 1962, 92–​104. Klein, Günter, ‘Offenbarung als Geschichte? Marginalien zu einem theologischen Programm’, Monatszeitschrift für Pastoraltheologie zur Vertiefung des gesamten pfarramtlichen Wirkens, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 51, [unknown edition], 1962, 65–​88. Steiger, ‘Offenbarungsgeschichte’, 89–​113. 286 Steiger, ‘Offenbarungsgeschichte’, 88, TM.

The initial, life-long academic and spiritual goal: Revelation as History

75

Equally, in 1967 various North American theologians grappled with this new approach.287 Braaten, who analysed an English review of various responses to Pannenberg’s Revelation as History did not follow their conclusions and, instead, exclaimed: It is rather odd that the editors should have chosen for this symposium American Theologians whose own theological commitments preclude any serious interest in theology as history and who thus scarcely welcome a theological option fully opposed to their own. Pannenberg’s ‘Response to the Discussion’ reflects justified disappointment at the performance of the American Theologians. … When the fuller profile comes into view it becomes clear that Pannenberg is the only one of the ‘new frontiers’ whose thought holds the possibility of developing a systematic theology on a grand scale.288

Yet, Zahrnt critically attested 10 years later from a German perspective that: In the meantime, the [theological] noise around Pannenberg and his circle of friends has died down. Their draft of a universal history seems to share the fate of similar concepts. … Pannenberg seems like an architect who simply presents the layout of a house and then hands over the key confirming that the construction is ready. All the while, the builders have not even started with the excavation of the base. Gottfried Benn’s quote applies to Pannenberg’s theology of history: ‘whoever articulates the word history has nothing to say to the present.’ God’s creature essence [Wesenheit] stays in the character of having been stuck in history [Gewesenheiten].289

What kind of insight made for such a national, and later, transatlantic intellectual outburst?290 In fact, the co-​authored study provided a foundation for Pannenberg’s lifelong theological pursuits and efforts by which to both secure the rationality of the Christian faith and to combat the potential anti-​historical faith and subjectivity of Barth (religionskritisches Offenbarungsdenken) as well as Bultmann (existenziale Hermeneutik): The alleged anti-​historical faith subjectivism of both dominant Word of God figures needs to be overcome through the re-​discovery of the universal history as the

287 Robinson, James McConkey, Cobb, John B. (eds.), Theology as History, New York: Harper & Row, 1967. This publication is mentioned representatively for a number of US theologians who responded on the subject. 288 Braaten, Carl E., ‘Truly a Frontier’, The Christian Century, Chicago: Christian Century Foundation, Vol. 84, 25, 1967, 1197. Braaten, Carl E., ‘The Current Controversy on Revelation-​Pannenberg and his Critics’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 45, 3, 1965, 225–​237. 289 Zahrnt, Sache, 314, 322, TM. 290 Pannenberg, ‘God’s Presence’, 262.

76

The making of the book comprehensive medium of God’s revelation and through the proof of a rationality that is superior to all irrationalism and decisionism (Dezisionismus).291

At this point, it suffices to point out that Pannenberg sought to reclaim certain aspects of the 19th-​century Protestant search for historicity without negating or falling into the trap of Liberal Protestantism on the one hand or referring back to the supra nationalism to which the Deutsche Idealismus (German idealism) referred on the other hand. Pannenberg and his co-​authors worked to clarify and arrive at a solution to Hegel’s self-​revelation of God as uniquely proclaimed in Christianity which Barth raised indirectly through the thoughts of the right-​wing Hegelian P. Marheineke.292 Yet, Barth stipulated that God revealed himself exclusively out of his own right and uniquely in Christ, not out of any human strength. In fact, he, God, was only visible through the Holy Spirit. Barth thus continued and sharpened the uniqueness of God’s revelation that Schleiermacher, Hegel and others had already attempted to articulate. Bultmann, in turn, separated faith and reason, confining God’s revelation to the Kerygma –​the subjective revelation through the word to each individual –​effectively moving God equally but differently out of the boundaries of history.293 However, Pannenberg and his co-​authors explained in Offenbarung als Geschichte the problem in seeking a biblical justification of God’s self-​revelation in the Old and New Testament, either via his name, by his word or by the proclamation of his law.294 The four authors of the book systematically laid out the problems surrounding the self-​revelation of God within history and offered their solution in seven theses:

1. God’s self-​revelation has, according to biblical witnesses, not taken place directly, as in the manner of a theophany, but indirectly –​through his historical acts. 2. This revelation did not take place in the beginning but [will take place] at the end of the [entire] history of revelation. 3. The history of revelation is accessible to everybody who has eyes to see, in comparison to particular appearances of the deity. This revelation is of universal character.

2 91 Wenz, ‘Vernunft’, TM. 292 Barth, Karl, Kirchliche Dogmatik I/​1, Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1932, 257. Marheineke, Philipp Konrad, Grundlehren der Dogmatik als Wissenschaft, Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1827. 293 Rendtorff, Trutz, ‘Das Offenbarungsproblem im Kirchenbegriff ’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart (ed.), Offenbarung als Geschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19704, 125. N.a., ‘Theology’ in Time Magazine, 61–​62. 294 Pannenberg, Offenbarung, 7–​20.

The initial, life-long academic and spiritual goal: Revelation as History





77

4. The universal revelation of the deity of the God of Israel is not realized in the history of Israel, but [it is] only realized in the aptitude of Jesus of Nazareth, in as much as that the end of all activities occurred beforehand. 5. The Christ event reveals not just an isolated occasion in the deity of the God of Israel, in as much as that it constitutes an element in the chain of history of God with Israel. 6. The universality of the eschatological self-​reference of God through the aptitude of Jesus is expressed in the development of revelational ideas outside of the Jewish tradition, in the heathen Christian churches. 7. The Word [Bible] refers to revelation as a prediction, as an instruction and as a report.295

Indeed, this focus on history and hermeneutics, strongly expressed in Offenbarung als Geschichte, was further expressed in the three tasks Pannenberg understood theology as necessarily needing to fulfil: These three tasks theology has to master –​if it wants to talk of God –​in the Christian context of transmission. Theology has to explicitly confront the topic of totality because this is always implied in the talk of God; it has to reflect its own point of view and its [possibility] to communicate it. Theology can especially revoke the aporetic scientific historical position of theology because of the historical nature of the subject matter.296

The Heidelberg circle thus set itself apart from the predominant Word of God theology and developed a hermeneutical interpretation and continuity between the Old and New Testaments. This approach was not merely a theological novelty; it also stood out methodologically and stylistically, as Galloway stated: Pannenberg’s approach to theology signals the end of the age of the great ‘prima donnas’ in theology –​the age of the multi-​volume monograph in which a whole system of theology was elaborated as the achievement of an individual.297

In fact, Offenbarung als Geschichte called for an understanding of a universal history; one that encompassed both history and the present and fulfilled itself in the eschatological future, as a serious alternative to mere biblical authority. For Pannenberg, a significant difference between the hermeneutical and the universal historical interpretations existed: while both disciplines were executed from the present, the universal historical interpretation went further, behind the text. It established the connection between what Pannenberg called the universalgeschichtlichen Bedeutungszusammenhang.298 Thus, a decade after 2 95 Ibid., 91–​114, TM. 296 Pannenberg, Sauter, ‘Fegefeuer’, 9, TM. 297 Galloway, Pannenberg, 133. 298 Trsl.: The universal historical hermeneutical context in connection to the reader’s present.

78

The making of the book

Revelation of History was published, Pannenberg turned to the subject of philosophy of science in order to substantiate this claim. S. Daecke explained this trajectory and development: Pannenberg develops Theology as a science of God against the revelational positivism that influenced not just Barth and his students but also Gerhard Ebeling and even the creator of this term –​Bonhoeffer himself. They all had considered critical revelation more (Bonhoeffer and Ebeling) or less (Barth and his students) to be something positively given, something that should not be questioned.299

Did he succeed? According to Puntel and various others: yes, and with critical acclaim.300

3.2 The German theological philosophy of science debate in the 1960s and 1970s Not surprisingly, the philosophy of science debate within theology in Germany was and remains driven by the denominational agendas of Protestants and Catholics –​their outcome each being dependent on their methodology. Even though the matter remains urgent, both debates were and are largely conducted in isolation, with the rare exception of Pannenberg: Also attractive to Roman Catholics was Pannenberg’s retrieval and reverence for tradition. Whereas the Reformation churches in general and Bultmannian existentialism in particular interpreted the hermeneutical question so as to jump from the biblical text to the contemporary context –​a jump that had become known as the hermeneutical gap leaving out two thousand years of church history –​Pannenberg sought ressourcement from this still living tradition.301

Yet, the German philosophy of science debate amongst theologians did not develop in a linear fashion, as Pannenberg himself pointed out.302 In fact, the discussion of what constitutes a Wissenschaft303 and the history of the university system is closely tied to the religious and political history of the country as outlined further in Chapter 4. Pannenberg observed that for Protestants, in particular, this debate was also rather restricted and reversed in terms of faith

2 99 Daecke, ‘Universität’, 199, TM. 300 Cf. footnote 559. 301 Peters, ‘Memoriam’, 369. 302 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 7–​26, ETR7–​22, 226–​298, ETR228–​296. 303 Trsl.: science.

The German theological philosophy of science debate in the 1960s and 1970s 79

conscience, due to a fixation on a particular devotional type brought about by the Reformation.304 Daecke’s poignant analysis in the early 1970s fit this assessment: Theology is now stuck in an identity crisis as people like to call it today. Traditional and pietistic circles within the Protestant Church have, since the 1950s, rejected the university education of theology students and have repeatedly and noisily claimed that young clergy ought to be taught in church-​own colleges. Theology’s position is mostly criticized in its own circles. [There is a] fear that a theology that understands itself to be a science because it is critical, self-​critical and addresses foundational quests potentially denounces the authority of the Bible and [any form of] revelation. This would … also give room to critical thinking.305

Daecke continued that: [Indeed, today’s] university theology is fighting on two fronts: on the one side, it is regarded as too scientific, too critical, and too faithless. On the other side, it has been given the verdict as being too unscientific and too unconditionally accepting faith. Both sides request church led colleges. One side, in order to build a secure enclosure against theology and, the other side in order to build a ghetto for theology. Theology, as a university science, is [figuratively speaking] stuck between those two chairs.306

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that in Germany the subject of theology as a science, has been mainly articulated in times of crises. It is debated largely within the classical theological disciplines of Dogmatik/​Fundamentaltheologie (concerning Catholic theology) and within Systematische Theologie (on the Protestant side).307 Therefore, it is not surprising to discover that German theologians deal with the subject in singular works. L. Scheffczyck provided an overview to the state of the debate as of 1978 and attested that theological participation in the philosophy of science debate remained moderate, despite strong attacks from other disciplines.308 Yet, whoever assumes that these distinct 304 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Wissenschaft und Existenz aus der Sicht des Theologen’, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Alterstumswissenschaft, Würzburg: Kommissionsverlag, Vol. 11, 1, 1985, 94. 305 Daecke, ‘Universität’, 196, TM. 306 Ibid., 196, TM. 307 Stock, Konrad, Systematische Theologie Teil 1: Erfahrung und Offenbarung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017, 367. Jeanrond, Werner, ‘Fundamentaltheologie’ in Betz, Hans Dieter, Browning, Don S., Janowski, Bernd, Jüngel, Eberhard (eds.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20004, 431. Arens, Edmund, ‘Zur Struktur theologischer Wahrheit’, Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie, Wien: Herder Verlag, 1990, Vol. 112, 1, 1–​17. 308 Scheffczyck, Leo, ‘Theologie und moderne Wissenschaftstheorie’, Münchner Theologische Zeitschrift, St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, Vol. 29, 2, 1978, 161–​188, here 161.

80

The making of the book

German debates are new and have only recently received attention is mistaken. Indeed, they were already being discussed in detail amongst academics before the publication of Wissenschaftstheorie. Separately, though, throughout his career Pannenberg touched on the subject of religion and science. In other works, he contextualized parts of this theology in relation to the natural sciences. He covered, for example, the subject of natural theology in The Historicity of Nature –​Essays on Science and Theology in 2008, which focused on the religion-​science dialogue.309 Clayton’s assessment thus has to be corrected doubly since it falls short of the complexity of Pannenberg’s involvement in the public German philosophical and theological debate. Clayton asserted in 2003 that: There was no field religion/​science in the early 1970s, how could Pannenberg have written a groundbreaking book on the topic? The answer is that Theology and the Philosophy of Science was a natural outgrowth of the critique of Karl Barth’s theology that he had already been developing for close to two decades.310

Quite the opposite is true as previously outlined.311 Pannenberg himself also attested in 2004 that: I was involved in these conversations since the 50s and 60s in Germany. At that time, there was an important center of such conversation with some of the leading German physicists, like Heisenberg and von Weizsäcker, who were involved. Since that time, the center of these conversations has moved to this country [the US]. America, with centers of dialogue between science and theology at Berkeley, Chicago, Princeton, and also in

309 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Toward a Theology of Nature-​Essays on Science and Faith, Peters, Ted (ed.), Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1993. Peters, Ted, ‘Pannenberg on Theology and Natural Sciences’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Toward a Theology of Nature-​Essays on Science and Faith, Peters, Ted (ed.), Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1993, 1–​14. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, The Historicity of Nature –​Essays on Science and Theology, Gregersen, Niels Henrik (ed.), West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press, 2008. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Theological Questions to Scientists’ in Peacocke, Arthur R. (ed.), The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, Stocksfield: Oriel Press Ltd., 1981, 3–​17. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Theological questions to scientists’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 16, 1, 1981, 65–​77. 310 Clayton, ‘Science’, 237–​240. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘An Intellectual Pilgrimage’, Kerygma und Dogma, Zeitschrift für theologische Forschung und christliche Lehre, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 53, 3, 2008, 157–​158. 311 Page 29. Von Weizsäcker, Christian Friedrich, Die Tragweite der Wissenschaft, Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Verlag, 1964. Heisenberg, Werner, Physik und Philosophie, Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Verlag, 20006.

The German theological philosophy of science debate in the 1960s and 1970s 81 other places, is now the center of the whole movement that brings science and religion, but especially science and Christian theology, closer together.312

First, German Christian scientists and theologians, as well as the EKD, extensively discussed religion-​science issues in Germany after the Second World War. However, as previously outlined, these discussions were often related to Germany’s political co-​operation with the Western allies during the Cold War, the nuclear upgrade, the country’s rearmament and ensuing ethical implications. It was a conversation driven by philosophers such as von Weizsäcker. Therefore, Clayton’s assessment is somewhat puzzling, as Pannenberg, together with the physicist K. Müller, equally had published the aforementioned book Erwägungen zu einer Theologie der Natur313 by 1970. M. Rothgangel referred to him as being a German exception in doing so; Peters also demonstrated awareness of it.314 In addition, certainly through Barbour’s influence on his fellow US-​theologians, information concerning German developments would have found their way across the Atlantic and, indeed, also into Great Britain. The physicist Barbour would have been familiar with Heisenberg, his theory of the uncertainty principle (Heisenbergsche Unschärferelation) from 1927 and, thus, possibly with some of his related works and debates in physics, philosophy and theology at that time in Germany. Moreover, Heisenberg and von Weizsäcker held The Gifford Lectures;315 the former on physics and philosophy (1955–​1956) and the latter on the reach and implications of the sciences (1959–​1961). M. Welker also pointed out that the science and theology dialogue at the Ruprecht-​Karls-​Universität Heidelberg had been well established since 1958.316 Yet, incidentally, McGrath made the same mistake as Clayton.317 3 12 Oord, ‘Pannenberg’. Oord, ‘Confessions’. 313 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Müller, Klaus A.M., Erwägungen zu einer Theologie der Natur, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1970. 314 Rothgangel, Martin, Naturwissenschaft und Theologie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999, 172. Peters, ‘Pannenberg’ in Pannenberg, Toward, 1. 315 N.a., ‘Overview’, The Gifford Lectures website (http://​www.giff​ordl​ectu​res.org/​ ; accessed June 2017). Incidentally, both Barth and Bultmann held The Gifford Lectures in 1936–​1938 and 1954–​1955 respectively, despite opposing natural theology. Link, Christian, ‘Natürliche Theologie’ in Fahlbusch, Erwin, Mochman, Jan Milič, Mbiti, John, Pelikan, Jaroslav, Vischer, Lukas (eds.), Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992, 633–​634. 316 Welker, Michael, ‘The Science and Religion Dialogue: Past and Future’ in Welker, Michael (ed.) The Science and Religion Dialogue, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Gmbh Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014, 15. 317 McGrath, Alister, Scientific Theology: Nature, Vol. 1, London: T&T Clark, 2006, 302.

82

The making of the book

Second, Pannenberg, whilst being active in the German religion-​science dialogue, did not originally participate in Wissenschaftstheorie as such in the debate, although this might be the first conclusion that comes to mind. He was acutely aware of the then scientific-​political changes impacting the discipline’s existence. Rather, he contributed to a scientific, and at that time mainly Protestant, debate that focused on the scientificity of theology. In fact, Pannenberg wrote Wissenschaftstheorie because of the ‘urgent actuality of discussions on the place of theology in a secular university.’318 Hence, it is too limited a perspective to describe his approach in Wissenschaftstheorie merely as a natural outgrowth of his critique on Barth or to solely locate it within the religion-​science dialogue. Curiously, though, participants within the larger German discussion appeared also to act amongst themselves in a somewhat insular manner. Overall, this phenomenon is true for German theology and philosophy.319 Pannenberg did not initially mention Barth’s contemporary K. Heim, whom H. Schwarz labelled the German outsider writing extensively on the subject.320 Yet, he did acknowledge him in later works.321 Likewise, Pannenberg did not refer to Hübner’s typology.322 This is equally true and similar for works by the mathematician and physicist Howe who originated the so-​called Physiker-​Theologen-​Gespräche in Göttingen (1949–​1961).323 Howe dealt with the ethical and political implications of modern weapons development in the light of theology and the natural sciences.324

3 18 Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 157. 319 Evers, ‘Germany’, 504. 320 Schwarz, 400 Jahre, 99–​101. Heim, Karl, Glaubensgewissheit: Eine Untersuchung über die Lebensfragen der Religion, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Verlag, 1923. Cf. also: Beuttler, Ulrich, Gottesgewissheit in der relativen Welt: Karl Heims naturphilosophische und erkenntnistheoretische Reflexion des Glaubens, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 2006. 321 Pannenberg, Philosophie, 32. Eerikäinen, Atso, Time and Polarity –​The Dimensional Thinking of Karl Heim, Helskinki: University of Helsinki, PhD thesis, 2000, 8. 322 For bibliographical details cf. footnote 797. Losch, Andreas, Jenseits der Konflikte-​ Eine konstruktiv-​kritische Auseinandersetzung von Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, 91–​104. 323 Schwarz, 400 Jahre, 105. Ratz, Erhard, Der interdisziplinäre Dialog: Die gemeinsame Verantwortung von Theologie und Naturwissenschaften, München: Herbert Utz Verlag Wissenschaft, 1997, 19. Pannenberg was introduced to the forum by Schlink. Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 190. 324 Howe, Günther, Atomzeitalter, Krieg und Frieden, Frankfurt: Ullstein Verlag, 1959. Von Weizsäcker, Carl Friedrich, ‘Gedenken an Günther Howe-​Mittler zwischen Ideologie und Naturwissenschaft’ in Die Zeit, Hamburg: Zeitverlag Gerd Bucerius GmbH, 08.11.1968, 14.

The German theological philosophy of science debate in the 1960s and 1970s 83

Pannenberg was not merely aware of his work but actively participated in those talks, whilst Barth apparently refused to join the meetings. However, those gatherings appeared to have run their course. Pannenberg subsequently founded a new commission with Howe concerning the relation between theology and anthropology.325 There was no direct mention in Wissenschaftstheorie of Howe’s works or the summits either.326 At closer inspection, this comes as no surprise as Pannenberg sought to clarify with Wissenschaftstheorie the question of the scientificity of theology in the light of the then profound changes within the university environment, rather than to set the subject in relation to the natural scientific disciplines. As already noted, Pannenberg acknowledged that he had joined an existing debate.327 On the Protestant side, G. Ebeling328 and E. Fuchs are remembered for their hermeneutical theology; the former dedicated substantial efforts to answer the question regarding the scientificity of theology.329 Hübner focused in his doctoral studies on the history of science (1967).330 F. Mildenberger published a Theorie der Theologie. Enzyklopädie als Methodenlehre (1972) and argued for theology as an ecclesial science.331 Hübner332 and K. Fikenscher333 equally wrote articles but did not focus on developing a blueprint for theological method. H.P.

325 Von Bülow, Vicco, Otto Weber (1902–​1966): reformierter Theologie und Kirchenpolitiker, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999, 360. 326 Rothgangel, Naturwissenschaft, 151. 327 Cf. footnote 345. 328 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 172–​176, ETR172–​175, 280–​286, ETR278–​284. Ebeling, Gerhard, ‘Leitsätze zur Frage nach der Wissenschaftlichkeit der Theologie’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 68, 2, 1971, 478–​488. 329 Beutel, Albrecht, Gerhard Ebeling –​Eine Biographie, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 396. 330 Hübner, Jürgen, Theologie und biologische Entwicklungslehre: Ein Beitrag zum Gespräch zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaften, München: C.H. Beck Verlag, 1966. Rauh, Fritz, ‘Hübner, Jürgen, Theologie und biologische Entwicklungslehre’, Münchner Theologische Zeitschrift, St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1967, Vol. 17, 2, 163–​165. 331 Mildenberger, Friedrich, Theologie als Theorie. Enzyklopädie als Methodenlehre, Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1972. 332 Hübner, Jürgen (ed.), Der Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1987. 333 Fikenscher, Konrad, ‘Kapitel A0: Gesamtdarstellungen des Verhältnisses von Theologie und Naturwissenschaft’ in Hübner, Jürgen (ed.), Der Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1987, 38–​121.

84

The making of the book

Hempelmann followed with a monograph in 1980;334 van Huyssteen mentioned the theologian and seemed to have overestimated Hempelmann’s overall theological impact on the subject.335 Besides, Dalferth and Stoellger presented a comprehensive overview of German-​speaking contributions.336 On the Catholic side, Puntel, A. Stock337 and P. Knauer338 all published either articles on the subject, or critiques of Wissenschaftstheorie. Pannenberg’s Catholic contemporaries, B. Casper, K. Hemmerle and P. Hünermann wrote Theologie als Wissenschaft-​Methodische Zugänge in 1970.339 Peukert, a student of Rahner and Metz, published his doctoral thesis on the subject in 1976. Casper also served as a member of the Katholische Akademie in Bayern (Catholic Academy in Bavaria) on the round table regarding science and theology from 1971 to 1978. In contrast to Pannenberg, and typical for most Catholic contributions, they qualified though that their goal ‘was not to develop a theological methodology but rather a reflection on the aspects that constitute theology into what it is.’340 In fact, the Catholic trio advanced a dogmatic-​hermeneutical response to the scientificity of theology: theology was the speaking of God and, thus, the terms and conditions concerning this speech had to be developed. Sauter pointed out that this Catholic approach was reciprocated in certain Protestant proponents such as Ebeling.341 Indeed, representatives of both denominations came close in their methods to the so-​called Verstehenslehre (teaching of understanding).342 In addition, Peukert 334 Hempelmann, Heinzpeter, Kritischer Rationalismus und Theologie als Wissenschaft: Zur Frage nach dem Wirklichkeitsbezug des christlichen Glaubens, Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1980. 335 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 73. 336 Dalferth, Ingolf U., Stoellger, Philipp, ‘Wahrheit, Glaube und Theologie, Zur theologischen Rezeption zeitgenössischer wahrheitstheoretischer Diskussionen’, Theologische Rundschau, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 66, 1, 2001, 36–​102. 337 Stock, Alex, ‘Theologie und Wissenschaftstheorie’, Verkündigung und Forschung, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, Vol. 41, 2, 1975, 2–​34. 338 Knauer, Peter, ‘Rezension W. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie, Frankfurt 1973’, Philosophie und Theologie, Freiburg; Herder Verlag, Vol. 49, 4, 1974, 602–​603. 339 Casper, Bernhard, Hemmerle, Klaus, Hünermann, Peter, Theologie als Wissenschaft-​ Methodische Zugänge, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1970. 340 Ibid., 121, TM. 341 Sauter, Theologie, 273–​ 274. Ebeling, Gerhard, ‘Leitsätze zur Frage der Wissenschaftlichkeit der Theologie’ in Ebeling, Gerhard (ed.), Wort und Glaube (Sammlung), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975, 137–​169. Ebeling, Gerhard, Studium der Theologie –​Eine enzyklopädische Orientierung, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20122. 342 Sauter, Wissenschaft, 10–​11.

The German theological philosophy of science debate in the 1960s and 1970s 85

argued for a fundamental theology developed from a communicative theory of action; in his opinion convergence existed between the Verstehenslehre and his Handlungstheorie.343 In summary, overall German theological epistemology did not generally engage in depth with works by foreign contemporaries critically reflecting on the subject, and only to a limited extent with each other.344 It was Sauter who extensively sought to clarify a model of theory for theology; an effort that Pannenberg highlighted: You, not I, first brought up the term philosophy of science in the debate. It was initially far [from my thinking], as the term is connected to the modern discussion of the [subject of] Analytic philosophy, while I focus more strongly on questions of history and hermeneutics. I have stumbled across the same two problems out of the just mentioned motivation, i.e. the problem of theological communication and that of enabling research.345

Sauter dedicated his attention to questions concerning the scientific character of theology and attempted to construct a serious method. Abroad, Sauter seemed less recognized; only van Huyssteen displayed an intimate knowledge of the theologian’s work.346 In Germany, H. Rieger compared Sauter’s and Pannenberg’s methods.347 Sauter identified for himself communication problems between the church and theology and within theological science as the catalyst for his research.348 While Pannenberg strove for ‘a “scientific theoretical examination even of the emergence of faith”, Sauter limited himself to an “examination of theological propositions” ’.349 This actual difference expressed itself in three aspects: in the valuation of hypotheses in theology, in the theological understanding of truth, and in the conception of what constituted a science.350 Sauter focused 3 43 Peukert, Wissenschaftstheorie, 67–​74. Scheffczyck, ‘Wissenschaftstheorie’, 173–​175. 344 This assessment excludes Peukert. Peukert, Wissenschaftstheorie, 114–​156. 345 Pannenberg, Sauter, ‘Fegefeuer’, 5, TM. 346 Van Huyssteen, Justification. Cf. footnote 55. 347 Rieger, Hans-​Martin, Theologie als Funktion der Kirche: eine systematisch-​theologische Untersuchung von Theologie und Kirche in der Moderne (Theologische Bibliothek Töpelman Band 139), Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 20122, 163–​179. 348 Sauter, Wissenschaft, 17. 349 Worthing, Mark William, Foundations and Functions of Theology as Universal Science: Theological Method and Apologetic Praxis in Wolfhart Pannenberg and Karl Rahner, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Gmbh Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1996, 23. 350 Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Die Begründung theologischer Aussagen wissenschaftstheoretisch gesehen’, Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Vol. 15, 1, 1971, 299–​308.

86

The making of the book

linguistically on the verification of universal theological Christian statements and the defence of truth claims within church life and praxis.351 However, he distinguished that: In my impression, Pannenberg’s and my concept differ in that he aspires to a scientific examination of the origins of faith while I restrict myself to the examination of theological statements.352

Pannenberg sought for an empirical qualification in each statement; for Sauter, the foundational connectedness of each statement was ultimately found in the church, its empirical location. Pannenberg, on the one hand, used a historical-​ hermeneutical approach to his truth claims and scrutinized the scientific self-​ understanding of theology as a science. Sauter, on the other hand, took his basis from Analytic philosophy and sought for linguistic verifications. Interestingly, both theologians took a different point of view concerning the scientific character of theology: Pannenberg distinguished theology in relation to other sciences. In contrast, theology, for Sauter, was a subject that was shaped and developed foremost from within the church context. Yet both theologians were interested in an argumentative rather than a Standpunkttheologie (dogmatic axiomatic theology).353 For both theologians, science had to be logical: it had to explain the processes of theory and hypothesis formation. Sauter linguistically questioned the basis of what constituted a theological statement. Pannenberg assumed any theological statement to be a preliminary consequent hypothesis.354 For Sauter, the linguistic logic of philosophy of science was paramount,355 while 351 Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Rechenschaft über das Reden von Gott-​Die verfängliche Frage nach dem Gegenstand der Theologie’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 7, 2, 1974, 79–​83. 352 Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Überlegungen zu einem weiteren Gesprächsgang über “Theologie und Wissenschaftstheorie” ’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 40, 2, 1980, 161, TM. 353 Pannenberg, Sauter, ‘Fegefeuer’, 5. Van Huyssteen, Justification, 73. 354 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Wie wahr ist das Reden von Gott?’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Sauter, Gerhard, Daecke, Sigurd Martin, Hans Norbert Janowski, Grundlagen der Theologie-​ein Diskurs, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1974, 29–​41, 71–​73. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Wie wahr ist das Reden von Gott? Die wissenschaftstheoretische Problematik theologischer Aussagen’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 4, 11, 1971, 629–​633. 355 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Sauter, Gerhard, Daecke, Sigurd Martin, Janowski, Hans Norbert, ‘Theologie als Wissenschaft-​ein Gespräch’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Sauter, Gerhard, Daecke, Sigurd Martin, Janowski, Hans Norbert, Grundlagen der Theologie-​ ein Diskurs, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1974, 58.

The curious absence of I. Barbour and T. F. Torrance

87

for Pannenberg universal statements were only ever preliminary in the way they contributed to the enlightenment of experiences.356 Pannenberg referred to historical hermeneutics and focused on the whole (das Ganze) whereas Sauter wished to create so-​called dialogue rules.357 Thus, Braaten assessed Pannenberg’s insights as: Language about God no longer becomes privy to faith or imprisoned in the church and its confessional theology. For this reason, [Pannenberg] argues that theology belongs as one of the academic disciplines of a university.358

3.3 The curious absence of I. Barbour and T. F. Torrance Anglo-​Saxon critics who hoped for a strong interaction and engagement between Pannenberg, the British academic Torrance and the American scholar Barbour might be curiously359 disappointed. It is not known why Pannenberg did not engage more thoroughly with either Torrance’s or Barbour’s work at the time of writing Wissenschaftstheorie.360 In Pannenberg’s case it could have been hardly due to language restrictions. Yet overall, Germany remained a net exporter of theology in the 1960s and 1970s, and theological participants focused on domestic debates.361 In the early two thousands, the German tendency for theologians to engage by and large in their academic exchange in German-​speaking countries continues.362 This theological isolation concerning Pannenberg may well be due to four inherent reasons located within German Protestant theology that are generally not referred to abroad: first, the ongoing repercussions and historical strain resulting from the abuse of natural theology by the Deutsche Christen and the ensuing downfall of German Protestantism during the Third Reich and then the rising dominance of dialectic theology.363 This first point is 3 56 Pannenberg, Sauter, ‘Fegefeuer’, 6. 357 Ibid., 10. 358 Braaten, Carl E., ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg’ in Marty, Martin E., Peerman, Dan (eds.), A Handbook of Christian Theologians, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984, 653–​654. 359 Worthing, Foundations, 23. McGrath, Scientific Theology, 303. 360 Pannenberg referenced Barbour in further detail in: Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Problems between science and theology in the course of their modern history’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 41, 1, 2006, 110. 361 In reverse reference to: Grenz, Hope, I. 362 Losch, Konflikte, 14. Evers, ‘Germany’, 503–​533. 363 Matuska, Peter, Natürliche Theologie in politischer Verstrickung, Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovaĉ, 2005. Rohls, Jan, Protestantische Theologie der Neuzeit: Das 20. Jahrhundert, Band II, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 404–​410. Gestrich, Christof, ‘Die unbewältigte

88

The making of the book

well illustrated in the subsequent debate that developed in post-​war Germany amongst theologians like Pannenberg or Müller who carefully re-​approached the subject but came to speak of a theology of nature (Theologie der Natur) in the early 1970s, in an attempt to avoid the negative connotations attached to natural theology (Natürliche Theologie).364 In comparison, the scientific subject of natural theology abroad developed without such hindrance, despite the Second World War, for more than a hundred years. In Great Britain, for example, it has received prominent public support and almost unobstructed attention through The Gifford Lectures since 1888.365 Additionally, Anglo-​Saxon theologians and natural scientists appear to have then, and continue to have now, a more uninhibited relationship with one another. Second, dissimilar cultural scientific approaches and understandings exist in different countries: Germany is a culture that considers the independent co-​ existence of both the humanities and the natural sciences subjects alongside each other, whereas abroad, in particular in an Anglo-​Saxon context, the academic interplay between various disciplines is more holistic and intertwined.366 Indeed, natural theology and monism were not demonized as in Germany, and Barth’s dialectic theology through Torrance influenced Anglo-​Saxon theology more moderately, as Daecke expressed.367 Thus, theologians abroad tend to engage faster and with greater ease with contemporary issues than in

364

365

366 367

natürliche Theologie’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 68, 1, 1971, 82–​120. Pannenberg, Müller, Erwägungen, 33–​80. Meyer-​Abich, Klaus Michael, ‘Zum Begriff einer praktischen Theologie der Natur’, Evangelische Theologie, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Vol. 37, 6, 1977, 3–​12. Hübner, Jürgen, ‘Schöpfungsglaube und Theologie der Natur’, Evangelische Theologie, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Vol. 37, 6, 1977, 49–​68. Dembowski, Hermann, ‘Ansatz und Umrisse einer Theologie der Natur’, Evangelische Theologie, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Vol. 37, 6, 1977, 33–​42. As a Catholic proponent: Schäfer, Philip, ‘Die natürliche Theologie als Aufgabe und Chance für die Gegenwartstheologie’, Münchner Theologische Zeitschrift, St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, Vol. 26, 4, 1975, 327–​344. Representatively shall be mentioned Alexander who held The Gifford Lectures from 1916–​1918 at the University of Glasgow during the First World War. During the Second World War, Kraus lectured at the University of Edinburgh in 1940–​1941. The lectures were resumed in 1946 with Barton Perry at the University of Glasgow. Daecke, Sigurd Martin, ‘Zur angelsächsischen Literatur’ in Hübner, Jürgen (ed.), Der Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1987, 33. Ibid., 34.

The curious absence of I. Barbour and T. F. Torrance

89

Germany.368 C. Link described the cultural difference in terms of the more realistic epistemology that dominates Anglo-​Saxon theology in comparison to nominalistic challenges concerning the newer sciences in Continental Europe.369 Additionally, as previously outlined,370 Clayton also referred to the variance in the understanding of science and Wissenschaft in Germany and abroad.371 This is not always picked up; McGrath, for example, negated these very points in his assessment on Pannenberg.372 In the context of Wissenschaftstheorie it is equally paramount to distinguish between the Anglo-​American comprehensions of the philosophy of science; as Turner clarified that ‘Pannenberg’s book has little to do with the philosophy of science as we understand it.’373 Rather, Scharlemann’s comprehension applies as he spoke of a ‘reflection on the theory of science’ as undertaken by Pannenberg.374 Third, as already outlined and linked to the two points above, 19th-​century German Protestant theology withdrew itself successively from interacting with the growing subject of the natural sciences. This tendency increased until the mid-​20th Century: theology emphasized that it spoke of something different and contrasting to the natural sciences; i.e., theologians talked of creation, whereas natural scientists referred to nature.375 In doing so, theologians distinguished theology from the natural sciences in such a way that the latter could not interfere in their truth claims concerning theological statements.376 Last, it could be argued that Lutheranism, in general, only provides a limited place for natural theology, a perspective that I. Karimies highlighted.377 P. Schäfer 368 E.g. In relation to Pannenberg and a contemporary subject such as feminist theology: Oden, A Change of Heart, 98–​99. 369 Link, Christian, ‘Die Wahrnehmung der Natur als Schöpfung. Zum Modell eines Dialogs zwischen Naturwissenschaft und Theologie im Anschluss an Viktor von Weizsäcker’ in Klinnert, Lars (ed.), Zufall Mensch? Das Bild des Menschen im Spannungsfeld von Evolution und Schöpfung, Darmstadt: WBG, 2007, 55–​71. 370 Cf. footnote 99. 371 Turner, ‘Theology’, 346. Clayton, ‘Science’, 237–​240. 372 McGrath, Scientific, 135–​138. 373 Turner, ‘Theology’, 346. 374 Scharlemann, Robert P., ‘Theologie was ist das? Edited by Georg Picht and Enno Rudolph’, Religious Studies Review, Houston: Council of Societies for the Study of Religion, Vol. 4, 4, 1978, 255. 375 Schwarz, 400 Jahre, 91. 376 Ibid., 91. 377 Karimies, Ilmari, ‘Lutheran Perspective on Natural Theology’, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Norwalk: Akademos Press, Vol. 9, 2, 2017, 132. Bultmann,

90

The making of the book

pointed out in 1975 that, for example, in Catholic German theology of the later 20th Century natural theology equally played a subordinate role, due to the fact that it had reminiscence of neo-​scholastic theology and the notion of natura pura –​where generally Catholic theologians preferred to conduct their subject in a rational-​deductible manner without clarifying its regard to faith and mercy.378 It was Howe, though, who remarked on the overall negative side-​effects of the above for Christian scientists within other academic disciplines: Theology has found itself in general with a natural naivité on the side of the humanities in the conflict between the natural sciences and the humanities … without really reflecting that for the physicist the important topic ‘the human within the cosmos’ was lost out of sight.379

Despite these potential implicit restrictions, Pannenberg was very aware of both Torrance and Barbour. He referenced the former in Wissenschaftstheorie in passing when discussing and rejecting Barth’s criterion of substantiality, while Barbour was not referred to at all.380 Torrance received critical acclaim for his Theological Science.381 Interestingly, and in turn, Torrance’s biographer McGrath, commented only superficially on the difference in impact made by both Pannenberg and Torrance, thus possibly highlighting the overall negligible effect Pannenberg, in turn, had in Great Britain after Wissenschaftstheorie was published in English in 1976.382 R. Holder and D. Klinefelter’s works, amongst others, shed further light onto the subject.383 It suffices to point out, for the Rudolf, ‘Das Problem der natürlichen Theologie (unveröffentlicht)’ in Bultmann, Rudolf, Glauben und Verstehen I, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 19582, 294–​312. 378 Schäfer, ‘Theologie’, 327. 379 Howe, Günter, Die Christenheit im Atomzeitalter, Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta Verlag, 1970, 81, TM. 380 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 270–​271, ETR270. 381 Torrance, Thomas F., Theological Science (Paperback), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Torrance, Thomas F., Theological Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. 382 McGrath, Alister, T. F. Torrance: An Intellectual Biography, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2006, xiii. Achtemeier, Mark Paul, ‘Natural Science and Christian Faith: The Thought of T. F. Torrance’ in Coyler, Elmer M. (ed.), The Promise of Trinitarian Theology: Theologians in Dialogue with T.F. Torrance, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001, 269. 383 Klinefelter, Donald S., ‘A Critique of the Theology of Thomas F. Torrance’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 53, 1, 1973, 117–​135. Holder, Rodney, ‘Thomas Torrance: “Retreat to Commitment” or a New Place for Natural Theology?’, CTNS Theology and Science Journal, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 7, 3, 2009, 275–​296.

The curious absence of I. Barbour and T. F. Torrance

91

purposes of this book, that Pannenberg’s and Torrance’s different interpretations of Barth’s comprehension of theology as a science led each to develop their own distinct methodology. Torrance remained a lifelong proponent of Barth. Indeed, Torrance, the Barthian, argued from the Christocentric, self-​revelational character of God. He stated his aim clearly: We must be concerned with the dialogue between science and theology, and between the philosophy of natural science and the philosophy of theological science in the common struggle for a scientific method on their proper ground and their own distinctive fields. It is not the intention of this book to engage in that dialogue, although it is naturally unavoidable, any more than it is the intention of the discussion to engage in apologetics, although that too cannot but arise. Rather it is my intention to clarify the processes of scientific activity in theology, to throw human thinking of God back upon Him as its direct and proper Object, and thus to serve the self-​scrutiny of theology as a pure science.384

Torrance’s scientific theology was dependent on a committed orthodox, Trinitarian dogmatic,385 a presupposition that, indeed, remains open to strong criticism: Klinefelter held that elements of Torrance’s methods were used ‘as bulwarks to protect a sophisticated Barthian fideism’;386 Holder differentiated with more nuance that: Torrance’s attitude to natural theology, namely his outright rejection of it outside main theological discourse, is clearly a Barthian theme. However, he differs significantly from Barth in two ways: (a) by reappropriating natural theology from within dogmatic theology; and (b) by his willingness to engage with the natural sciences.387

Pannenberg criticized the fact that Torrance ignored H. Scholz’ objections concerning Barth and did not endorse Scholz’ minimum requirements for science.388 Yet, B. Hebblethwaite remarked that one of Torrance’s most important advances was the recovery of the significance of natural theology within the Reformed and Barthian tradition in the Anglo-​Saxon world.389 Indeed, it cannot be denied that the possible ease with which foreign theologians make use of German theology 3 84 Torrance, Science (Paperback), xvii. 385 Ibid., 1–​25. 386 Klinefelter, ‘Torrance’, 128. 387 Holder, ‘Torrance’, 275. 388 Weightman, Colin, Theology in a Polanyian Universe: The Theology of Thomas Torrance, New York: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, 1995, 134. Holder, Heavens, 106. 389 Hebblethwaite, Brian, ‘Book Review’, The Scottish Journal of Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 53, 2, 2000, 242.

92

The making of the book

is proven to be an advantage for Anglo-​Saxon theology. The previously outlined historical inheritance and paradigm strains that bound Pannenberg academically did not and continue not to concern Anglo-​Saxons as such. Thus, they facilitate a broader, less encumbered theological reflection, while dialectic theology never experienced such a strong growth abroad as it did in Germany. Moreover, both Pannenberg and Torrance drew on different philosophical tenets for their theology: whereas Pannenberg referred to Kuhn, Torrance relied on the works of M. Polanyi.390 Their understanding of rationality equally varied with Peters noting a further difference in that for Pannenberg theology was scientific if it made hypotheses and sought to confirm them, while Torrance held that theology was scientific because it related to its object (knowledge of God) in the way that was appropriate to that object.391 It is, therefore, with a certain of amount of weariness that the author of this present study approaches theologians who have come to speak392 of the methodological debate as scientific theology (wissenschaftliche Theologie) since the term appears to connote a closeness and understanding relating to the theology of Torrance to which both men would have strongly objected. Rather, Pannenberg was concerned with the scientificity of theology (Wissenschaftlichkeit der Theologie), which insinuated for Pannenberg that theology was a scientific university subject that was judged by universally accepted scientific criteria; this definition thus being different from Torrance’s position outlined above.393

390 Torrance, Science (Paperback), 30, 115–​116, 163. Moleski, Martin X., ‘Polanyi vs. Kuhn, Worldviews Apart’, Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical, Macon: Faithlab, Vol. 33, 2, 2006, 8–​24. Pannenberg refers to Polanyi’s work only once in passing. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, footnote 433, 216–​217, ETR217. 391 Ibid., 337–​352. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 329–​348, ETR326–​345. Peters, Ted, Science, Theology, and Ethics, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003, 26. 392 E.g. Alvarez, Daniel R., ‘A Critique of Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Scientific Theology’, Theology and Science, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 11, 3, 2013, 224–​250. 393 Within the German language, a noun and an adjective describe different parameters. In the case of scientific theology, the adjective clarifies attributes given to the noun (clearly by theologians themselves). However, the noun Wissenschaftlichkeit bestowes the second noun (Theologie) with qualifying parameters developed within the overall scientific spheres (referencing scientific attributes developed within other sciences and referring to them). The point of reference is a different one: looking outwards versus looking inwards into the science of theology. The English language possibly does not separate this strongly enough. Peters differentiated it well: Peters, Ted, ‘Theology and Science-​where are we?’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​ Blackwell, Vol. 31, 2, 1996, 334–​337.

The curious absence of I. Barbour and T. F. Torrance

93

However, neither did Pannenberg refer to Barbour, the American theologian and scientist who was one of the Anglo-​Saxon pioneers in the interdisciplinary field of science and religion. Barbour is certainly regarded as the founder of the religion-​science dialogue with Issues in Science and Religion in 1966.394 Interestingly, Barbour’s classic was only as recently as 2003 published in German395 but Peters’ obituary clarified his overarching influence: By ‘dean’ here I refer to a non-​geographical university that was founded in 1966 and is now a worldwide collegium of scholars in the field of Religion and Science, sometimes called Theology and Science. The cornerstone of this invisible college was laid in 1966 with the publication of a crucial book by Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (1966). No one ever elected Dr. Barbour to his deanship. Barbour’s preeminent status has simply become a silent agreement adhered to by students and faculty for nearly a half century.396

Barbour developed a methodology of critical realism that was a thorough epistemological challenge to religion397 and remains widely accepted by scholars. He offered four options as to how theories are understood in science.398 J. Russell and K. Wegter-​McNelly stipulated that: Barbour’s crucial ‘bridging’ insight between science and religion is that these arguments in philosophy of science are parallel to arguments in the philosophy of religion: both

3 94 Barbour, Ian Graeme, Issues in Science and Religion, New York: Harper Collins, 19712. 395 Barbour, Ian Graeme, Wissenschaft und Glaube: Historische und zeitgenössische Aspekte. 2. Edition Religion, Theologie und Naturwissenschaft/​Religion, Theology, and Natural Science 1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 20062. 396 Peters, Ted, ‘In Memoriam: Ian Graeme Barbour (1923–​2013)’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, New York: Oxford University Press, Vol. 82, 1, 2014, 307. Yardley, William, ‘Ian Barbour, Who found a balance between faith and science, dies at 90’ in The New York Times, New York: New York Times Company, 13.01.2014, A19. Russell, Robert J., ‘Ian G. Barbour (1923–​2013): In Memoriam to the Pioneer of Science and Religion’, CTNS Theology and Science Journal, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 12, 2, 2014, 23–​128. 397 Barbour, Issues, 357–​364, 455. 398 Ibid., 161–​171. Barbour’s four models were: the conflict model, the independence model, the dialogue model and the integration model. Barbour, Ian, ‘On typologies for the relation of Science and Religion’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 37, 2, 2002, 345–​359. I.e. Polkinghorne follows Barbour on this.

94

The making of the book science and religion make cognitive claims about the world using a hypothetical-​deductive method within a contextualist and historicist framework.399

Whilst being influenced by A. Whitehead and process theology, Barbour differed from both in denying Creation ex nihilo,400 yet offering a thoroughly biblical foundation for his theology.401 In the same way that Pannenberg drew heavily on Popper and Kuhn, Barbour also focused on Polanyi.402 In fact, through his use of critical realism Barbour attempted: To hold together the scientist’s commitment to a correspondence between theory and an objective reality with recognition that science also requires interpretation … Critical realism serves to bridge the gap between a purely interpretive and purely objective understanding of reality.403

Schwarz estimated that Barbour offered a balanced view of the dialogue opportunities between theology and the natural sciences, including a necessary change in the understanding of it.404 Losch offered a further detailed insight into the origin of Barbour’s critical realism and outlined the general difference between the German and American typology.405 Pannenberg likewise only marginally alluded to the French Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin,406 the palaeontologist and geologist who played a role in the early 20th-​century religion-​science dialogue. German Protestant theologians widely discussed his research through the translation of K. Schmitz-​Moormann.407

399 Russell, Robert J., Wegter-​ Mc-​ Nelly, Kirk, ‘Science and Theology: Mutual Interaction’ in Peters, Ted, Bennett, Gaymon (eds.), Bridging Science and Religion, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003, 24. 400 Barbour, Issues, 373–​386. 401 Ibid., 447–​452, 458. Copan, Paul, Craig, William Lane, Creation out of Nothing, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2004, 12–​14. Oord, ‘Confessions’. 402 Barbour, Issues, 148, 151–​156, 179–​185. Russell, Robert J., ‘Polanyi’s enduring gift to “Theology and Science” ’, Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical, Charlottesville: Philosophy Documentation Center, Vol. 35, 3, 2008, 40–​47. 403 Hallanger, Nathan J., ‘Ian G. Barbour’ in Stump, Jim B., Padgett, Alan G. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, 2012, 603. 404 Schwarz, 400 Jahre, 131. 405 Losch, Konflikte, 105–​116. 406 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 128, ETR127. 407 Schmitz-​Moormann, Karl (ed.), Teilhard de Chardin in der Diskussion, Darmstadt: WBG, 1986. Schmitz-​Moormann, Karl, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: Evolution-​die Schöpfung Gottes, Ostfildern: Matthias-​Grünewald Verlag, 1996.

The curious absence of I. Barbour and T. F. Torrance

95

Pannenberg picked up on Teilhard de Chardin’s theology in 1971408 but similarly negated his works in Wissenschaftstheorie, due possibly to the fact that Teilhard de Chardin focused strongly on the metaphysics of theology, like Heim, whereas Wissenschaftstheorie mainly dealt with epistemology. In fact, Teilhard de Chardin outlined the unity of the cosmic process as a whole and its teleological orientation to the Cosmic Christ.409 Teilhard de Chardin and process theologians sought metaphorical and metaphysical correlations between the advances in the sciences and the symbols of Christian revelation.410 His writings and their actual scientific contribution were and remain disputed, mainly in Catholic circles. This was aptly depicted in the posthumous monitum (official warning) of the Holy Office from 1962411 as well as in his subsequently published journal entries.412 Yet, regardless of their differences, Barbour, Pannenberg and Torrance remain outstanding in their pursuit to develop theology at the highest objective scientific level. Their hermeneutical and mediational works sought to overcome the subject-​object dualism that threatened modernity: It is not surprising [to see] that contemporary hermeneutical or mediational theologians are emphasizing how the sources of Christian faith transform experience. This generally involves greater hermeneutical attention to the subjects and institutions mediating faith. Such theologians as Pannenberg and Barbour engage in detailed dialogue with contemporary philosophies of science in order to explicate more exactly the hermeneutical Wissenschaftlichkeit or scholarly heuristic of theology.413

408 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Geist und Energie. Zur Phänomenologie Teilhard de Chardins’, Acta Teilhardiana, München: Selbstverlag, Vol. 8, 1, 1971, 5–​12. 409 Barbour, Ian, ‘Teilhard’s Process Metaphysics’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 49, 2, 1969, 136–​159. 410 Lamb, Matthew L., ‘The Dialectics of Theory and Praxis within Paradigm Analysis’ in Küng, Hans, Tracy, David (eds.), Paradigm Change in Theology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989, 93–​94. 411 N.a., ‘Warning regarding the writings of father Teilhard de Chardin, Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office’, EWTN Global Catholic Network website (https://​ www.ewtn.com/​libr​ary/​CURIA/​CDFTE​ILH.HTM; accessed August 2017). Haught, John F., Resting on the Future: Catholic Theology for an Unfinished Universe, New York: Bloomsbury, 2015, 30–​41. 412 For further reading: Grumett, David, Theology, Humanity and Cosmos (Studies in Philosophical Theology), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2006. Haught, John F., In Search of a God for Evolution: Paul Tillich and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Woodbridge: American Teilhard Association, 2002. 413 Lamb, ‘Dialectics’, 94.

96

The making of the book

While both Torrance and Barbour were acknowledged for their pursuits –​with either an invitation to The Gifford Lectures and/​or the reception of the Templeton Prize respectively, Pannenberg received no international critical accolade for Wissenschaftstheorie.414 Interestingly, a detailed analysis comparing the three works alongside each other still remains to be conducted and could provide further insight as to why this was denied to him.415 Equally to Pannenberg, both academics were considered 20th-​century pioneers in the theological debate on the method in the US and the UK respectively.

3.4 Concluding remarks Contrary to foreign opinion, Pannenberg wrote Wissenschaftstheorie within a 20th-​century German environment that had engaged comprehensively in the religion-​science dialogue since the early 1950s. Yet, these discussions were mainly conducted in relation to the political circumstances in post-​war Germany, especially regarding the nuclear rigging and rearmament of the country in co-​ operation with the Western allies after the Second World War. In particular, theologians, philosophers and physicists engaged in their ethically motivated exchanges with the larger public and politicians, a fact that is little acknowledged. Wissenschaftstheorie was not an outcome of these decade-​long musings. Rather, it was one of few sophisticated works that related the philosophy of science to theology in order to prove the scientificity of the subject at a time of profound changes and reforms within the German university system. Moreover, next to his fellow theologian Sauter, Pannenberg was the only Protestant who sought to develop a comprehensive theoretical model for the scientificity of theology at that time.416 Possibly surprising for foreigners, he did so without referring to his respected contemporaries, Barbour and Torrance. The reasons for this are unclear, yet the fact remained that German theology at that point in time was conducted mainly domestically and was exported out of Germany rather than drawing on insights from foreign research. Analysing the

414 Torrance received the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 1978. Barbour held the Gifford Lectures in Aberdeen from 1989–​1991 and was the Templeton Prize Laureate in 1999. 415 Select articles exist but no in-​depth analysis. Leidenhag, Joanna, ‘Two Accounts of Scientific Trinitarian Theology: Comparing Wolfhart Pannenberg’s and T.F. Torrance’s Theological Methodology’, Heythrop Journal, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 57, 6, 2016, 935–​949. 416 Hübner went on to develop a categorization in his subsequently published PhD thesis, similar to Barbour. Cf. footnote 147.

Concluding remarks

97

book within the fifty-​year span of Pannenberg’s career and in the light of his later works, it is remarkable how consistent and linear he remained throughout his life with his theology, a fact Worthing referred to:417 There is very little in the later writings of Pannenberg which is not to be found, at least in seminal form, in his earliest writings. Major changes of direction of emphasis are also not to be found in his thought.418

Indeed, Pannenberg previously outlined his life-​long quest and set out his parameters to demonstrate the universality of Christianity through the revelation of history in his programmatic debut from 1961.419 It is, thus, only with the understanding of the wider theological context outlined in this chapter and the educational-​political particularities in the following chapter that responses to the book can be analysed to a greater and more thorough extent.

417 This life-​long consistency stands in contrast to some of his contemporaries, such as Rahner. Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), ‘Preface’ in The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988, 9. Murphy, Nancey, ‘A Lakatosian Reconstruction of Pannenberg’s Program: Responses to Sponheim, van Huyssteen, and Eaves’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997, 413. 418 Worthing, Foundations, 5. 419 For bibliographical details cf. footnote 61. Tupper, Pannenberg, 303.

Chapter 4 Theology as a university subject As outlined in Chapter 1,420 Pannenberg’s motivation for writing Wissenschaftstheorie was primarily educational-​political. This concerned the status of university theology in the light of external threats regarding state-​church relations; and, especially, the growing competition to the rising popular university subject of sociology which answered questions on humanity that the subject of theology equally dealt with: With the development of sociology as a scientific analysis and explanation to human questions, the theological-​religious and philosophical view of the world was principally overcome.421

Besides these external threats came heated internal discussions on a) whether theology was to be taught within a secular university setting and b) what kind of relationship theological subjects were to have amongst themselves; a matter that Pannenberg addressed in the last chapter of Wissenschaftstheorie.422 It is interesting to note that those discussions were not new in consideration of the larger historical German context within which Pannenberg was situated. In fact, they rose to prominence in both the 19th and 20th Centuries once significant scientific-​political changes were announced by respective governments. Generally, national considerations concerning science policy towards theology at university level appear to mirror and correspond to larger societal subjects at stake. D. Fallon pointed out that, first, public deliberations partly reflected the overall debate of religious freedom and ethical foundations within a particular jurisdiction.423 Religious freedom, as such, always remains a sensitive political subject, even though it might not be recognized as such. Second, a country’s science policy reveals its level of scientific freedom within its university system. Last, a science policy mirrors a country’s actual or perceived academic independence.424 Interestingly, Cobb serves as a rare foreign example who displayed 4 20 Page 3. 421 Honecker, Martin, ‘Theologie und Soziologie’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 2, 2, 1969, 501, TM. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 82–​105, ETR80–​102. 422 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 349–​442, ETR346–​440. 423 This can be applied, for example, to various levels of engagement concerning a topic such as stem cell research in different European countries and ensuing ethical, political and scientific public discussions. 424 Fallon, University, 28.

100

Theology as a university subject

knowledge and insight on the intricate science-​ political context in which Wissenschaftstheorie was set and, indeed, on the identity crisis to which Daecke alluded.425 His review of the book in 1977 stated that: The problem of the place of theology among the sciences is a perennial one, but it has come to fresh intensity recently in German discussions … Yet, the continuing superiority of German theology as a normative discipline –​as expressed once again in this impressive book –​is partly due to the fact that in Germany theology has retained its integral role in the life of the great universities. If it is to retain this important advantage, it must come to a new self-​understanding which justifies its place among the sciences. This book undertakes, and accomplishes, this task.426

The ensuing chapter seeks to clarify the historical backdrop, including some of the larger ensuing educational-​political challenges surrounding the overall debate on the scientificity of theology. Particular focus is placed on the Protestant theological debate concerning those developments, highlighting the difficulties and challenges tied to the scientific-​political implications for the subject. Pannenberg’s insights can thus be grasped with greater historical clarity in mind. They equally serve to crystallize potential parallels to the contemporary educational-​political climate, to demonstrate the ongoing urgency of the subject matter and, respectively, the continued timeliness of Pannenberg’s approach.

4.1 The educational-​historical and denominational backdrop ‘Religion is a considerable political power factor in the [German] state.’427 This general assessment by C. Bochinger, incidentally, does not simply concern countries where the state finances university education but is also transmittable to jurisdictions where private funding plays a significant role. In both cases, the influence, the interests at stake and the goals of the various stakeholders such as donor(s) as well as the judicial implications of the state-​church relations428

4 25 Daecke, ‘Universität’, 196. 426 Cobb, John B., ‘Theology and the Philosophy of Science’, Religious Studies Review, Houston: Council of Societies for the Study of Religion, Vol. 3, 4, 1977, 213. 427 Bochinger, Christoph, ‘Vielfalt der Religionen und religionswissenschaftliche Kompetenz-​ Die Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrats im Horizont säkularer Kulturwissenschaften’, Wissenschaftsrat website (https://​www.wisse​nsch​afts​rat.de/​ downl​oad/​arc​hiv/​Bochin​ger.pdf; accessed May 2018), TM. 428 Lüder-​Solte, Ernst, Theologie an der Universität-​Staats-​und Kirchenrechtliche Probleme der theologischen Fakultäten, München: Claudius-​Verlag, 1971. Christoph, Joachim

The educational-historical and denominational backdrop

101

were and remain the subject of (public and private) debate and dispute. Pannenberg demonstrated this multi-​ dimensional awareness with Wissenschaftstheorie. By displaying sensitivity to the educational-​political and economic interplay, he somewhat followed in the footsteps of Kant,429 Schleiermacher430 and A. von Harnack,431 although, unlike the latter two, he was not actively involved in nor held a quasi-​political office alongside his academic responsibilities.432 Rather, the assessment concerns their shared educational-​political interest, public commitment and attention devoted to the subject matter. This assessment does not apply to their theological content, as alluded to by T. Bradshaw: Pannenberg in his own way takes up the task set by Schleiermacher in this theological project of commending the faith to the cultured despisers of religion, the rationalists who rejected God as unreal and inconceivable … Pannenberg tells theology that it cannot avoid reasoned debate about its claims with the secular world and it cannot hide by claiming a special authority giving it privileged access to its own sphere of truth.433

E., Kirchen-​und staatsrechtliche Probleme der Evangelisch-​theologischen Fakultäten, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. 429 E.g. Kant, Immanuel, Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können (1783), Stuttgart: Reclam Verlag, 1989. 430 For bibliographical details cf. footnote 432, 443. Kant, Schleiermacher and von Harnack were all members of the Königlich-​Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin; the first was an Auswärtiges Mitglied (external member) whereas the latter two were registered as Ordentliches Mitglied (proper members). 431 For bibliographical details cf. footnotes 432, 456, 457, 458. Von Harnack was significantly involved in founding of the Kaiser-​Wilhelm-​Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften in 1911. 432 While von Harnack was predominantly a church historian, he nevertheless became an active political advisor and was the most important organizer of science in his time. Nottmeier, Harnack, 233–​377, 515–​521. Schleiermacher wrote on political science and was granted leave of absence from the Humboldt-​Universität zu Berlin in order to become secretary of the philosophical unit at the Königlich-​Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften in 1811. Reetz, Dankfried, ‘Staatslehre mit “politischer Tendenz”? Schleiermachers Politik-​Vorlesung des Sommersemesters 1817’, Zeitschrift für Neuere Theologiegeschichte, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., Vol. 7, 2, 2000, 205–​250. Vierhaus, Rudolf, ‘Im Großbetrieb der Wissenschaft. Adolf von Harnack als Wissenschaftsorganisator und Wissenschaftspolitiker’ in Nowak, Kurt, Oexle, Otto Gerhard (eds.), Adolf von Harnack, Theologe, Historiker, Wissenschaftspolitiker, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001, 419–​441. 433 Bradshaw, Pannenberg, 5.

102

Theology as a university subject

Pannenberg did not propose an actual educational concept. Yet, like Schleiermacher434 and von Harnack,435 Pannenberg436 was a member of the Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, cultivating the academic exchange between the various sciences. Overall, the German university system was famed beyond its borders and, for some time, held a quasi-​religious status. It traces its beginnings back to the aforementioned Humboldt-​Universität zu Berlin, founded in 1810, then in Prussia.437 Theology, as lectured on in universities, was not to be confused with religion and was not supposed to be religion itself. Rather, theology was the academic interpretation of religion. It was meant to be an attempt to articulate religious and sacred content as rationally as possible. However, theology, then the queen of the sciences, was subordinated and included into the philosophical faculties in the midst of the Prussian reform efforts and at the height of German idealism. Overall, the dictum Bildung, Freiheit und Wissenschaft (education, freedom and science) guarded the German university system.438 Indeed, von Humboldt followed Kant’s argument in Der Streit der Fakultäten439 and held that modern times necessitated that theological training took a back seat to philosophy.440 Nevertheless, Schleiermacher, the first dean of Berlin’s theological faculty in 1810, ensured that theology still joined the ranks of the other sciences, albeit with a sort of niche existence.441 Schleiermacher equally instigated an epochal and famous change in theological regard: theology was to be viewed as a positive science (next to jurisprudence and medicine), as a study of the subject God and his revelation, rather than just as a science of the Christian religion and its historical figures.442 For him, theology as a positive science was, therefore:

434 Schleiermacher was a corresponding member of the philological-​philosophical class as of 1805. 435 Von Harnack was a corresponding member of the historical class as of 1897 onwards. 436 Pannenberg joined the Akademie as a member of the philosophical-​historical class in 1977. 437 Fallon, University, 13–​21. 438 This dictum summarized von Humboldt’s concept for a model of higher education 439 Kant, Immanuel, Der Streit der Fakultäten (1798), Gierodanetti, Piero (ed.), Hamburg: Meiner Verlag, 2005. 440 Howard, Thomas Albert, Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, 127. 441 Fallon, University, 33. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 19, ETR15, 248–​255, ETR250–​255. 442 Ibid., 249–​255, ETR250–​255.

The educational-historical and denominational backdrop

103

The epitome of scientific information and artistic rules. Without their possession and use a suitable leadership of the Christian church, i.e. Christian church management, is not possible (§5).443

Pannenberg outlined this historical turn towards positivism; the main focus of theology became church praxis which, in turn, was then to be reflected in the subject’s university curricula.444 Indeed, he drew attention to the fact that: In a time, where the traditional hegemony of the three classic faculties, in particular, that of theology, was replaced by a [dominant] philosophy and its related sciences [Realwissenschaft], Schleiermacher managed to redefine the position of theology at university. [Schleiermacher did so] in close contact with the basic concepts of philosophy of science of idealistic philosophy and, by falling back on traditional elements of the self-​ conception of theology, such as the positive character of its teaching and the practical orientation of its question[s]‌.445

Yet, next to academic concerns, political reasons also played a strong role in the shift of understanding for theology as a university subject. Indeed, as the 19th Century continued, the rise of the Kulturprotestantismus (cultural Protestantism) as propagated by the Deutsche Protestantenverein (German Protestant organization) within the overall German society from 1860 onwards contributed to the demotion of theology as a Leitwissenschaft (leading science). It was a stream of religious thinking that propagated a national-​religious synthesis based on the socially harmonious co-​existence of industry, culture and the sciences.446 A development towards theological historicism with proponents such as Troeltsch was clearly recognizable.447 Graf mentioned that: 443 Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel, Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studiums zum Behuf einleitender Vorlesungen (1811/​1830), Schmid, Dirk (ed.), Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 2012, 63, TM. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 248–​249, ETR249–​ 250, TM. 444 Ibid., 249, ETR251. 445 Ibid., 249–​250, ETR251, TM. 446 Hübinger, Gangolf, Kulturprotestantismus und Politik: zum Verhältnis von Liberalismus und Protestantismus im wilhelminischen Deutschland, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994, 7–​19. Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Kulturprotestantismus-​Zur Begriffsgeschichte einer theologiepolitischen Chiffre’, Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, Vol. 39, 1, 1984, 214–​268, here 220. 447 Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Die antihistorische Revolution in der protestantischen Theologie der zwanziger Jahre’ in Rohls, Jan, Wenz, Gunther (eds.), Vernunft des Glaubens: wissenschaftliche Theologie und kirchliche Lehre. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Wolfhart Pannenberg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988, 377–​381.

104

Theology as a university subject

The inner-​theological conflicts between historicists and anti-​historicists are a particular radical expression of the general debate of the crisis of the historical world orientation that was led in all cultural scientific and humananities’ discussions as well as in the cultural discussions outside of the sciences.448

Pannenberg followed (albeit conservatively) in the footsteps of various liberal and dialectical theologians such as Troeltsch,449 Tillich,450 F. Gogarten,451 H. Iwand452 or Scholz453 who, between 1898 and 1935, wrestled with the subject of theology as a science and published on the subject. However, it was at the turn of the century that von Harnack’s famous lectures about Das Wesen des Christentums454 that culminated in the same named work, stirred up strong emotions at the University of Berlin. In his Rektoratsrede from 1901, which was decidedly Eurocentric and irrevocably shaped by the wilhelminische Kulturgeschichte und Gesinnungsreligiösität des kulturprotestantischen Bildungsbürgertums,455 von Harnack refuted the idea that religious history

4 48 Ibid., 381, TM. 449 Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Rückblick auf ein halbes Jahrhundert der theologischen Wissenschaft (1908)’ in Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft-​Aufsätze und Thesen, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971, 73–​104. Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Über historische und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie (1898)’ in Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft-​Aufsätze und Thesen, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971, 105–​127. 450 Tillich, Paul, Das System der Wissenschaften nach Gegenständen und Methoden, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923. 451 Gogarten, Friedrich, ‘Theologische Tradition und theologische Arbeit. Geistesgeschichte oder Theologie? (1927)’ in Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft-​Aufsätze und Thesen, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971, 176–​220. 452 Iwand, Hans Joachim, ‘Die Krisis des Wissenschaftsbegriffes und die Theologie (1935)’ in Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft-​Aufsätze und Thesen, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971, 279–​291. 453 Scholz, Heinrich, ‘Wie ist eine evangelische Theologie als Wissenschaft möglich?’, Zwischen den Zeiten, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 9, [unknown edition], 1931, 8–​ 35. Scholz, Heinrich, ‘Wie ist eine evangelische Theologie als Wissenschaft möglich (1931)?’ in Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971, 221–​278. 454 Von Harnack, Adolf, Das Wesen des Christentums: Sechzehn Vorlesungen vor Studierenden aller Fakultäten im Wintersemester 1899/​1900 an der Universität Berlin gehalten von Adolf v. Harnack, Osthövener, Claus Dieter (ed.), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. 455 Trsl.: Wilhelminian cultural history and religiosity of the cultural Protestant educated citizenship.

The educational-historical and denominational backdrop

105

should be part of the theological faculties but should rather be adjoined to the philosophical faculties. For von Harnack, the absoluteness of Christianity did not require scientific testing from and within the subject of religious history.456 Rather, theology at university level needed to remain a pure subject and the study of religion itself. In fact, von Harnack pointed out that: Theological faculties are condemned into a hopeless dilettantism if religious history is taught separately from the study of languages and history. The exemplary study of the Christian religion is sufficient for the knowledge of religion as such.457

The turn of the 20th Century, then, was signified by religious culture wars and conflicts between reformers and conservatives within German Protestant Christendom.458 Thus, while von Harnack significantly influenced Barth and his generation of conservative theologians, he did so with opposing results. Indeed, von Harnack’s public exchange with Barth in 1923 and their difference of opinion is well documented.459

456 Von Harnack, Adolf, ‘Die Aufgabe der theologischen Fakultäten und die allgemeine Religionsgeschichte nebst einem Nachwort (1901)’ in Von Harnack, Adolf, Der Theologe und Historiker aus: Adolf von Harnack als Zeitgenosse: Reden und Schriften aus den Jahren des Kaiserreichs und der Weimarer Republik, Teil 1, Nowak, Kurt, Picker, Hanns-​Christoph (eds.), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996, 797–​824. Nowak, Kurt, ‘Theologie, Philologie und Geschichte-​Adolf von Harnack als Kirchenhistoriker’ in Nowak, Kurt, Oexle, Otto Gerhard (eds.), Adolf von Harnack, Theologe, Historiker, Wissenschaftspolitiker, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001, 212–​213. 457 Von Harnack, Adolf, ‘Die Aufgabe der theologischen Fakultäten und die allgemeine Religionsgeschichte (Berlin 1901)’ in Nowak, Kurt, Picker, Hanns-​Christoph (eds.), Adolf von Harnack als Zeitgenosse, Reden und Schriften aus den Jahren des Kaiserreichs und der Weimarer Republik, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1996, 9, TM. 458 Clark, Christopher, ‘Der neue Katholizismus und der europäische Kulturkampf ’ in Clark, Christopher, Kaiser, Wolfram (eds.), Kulturkampf in Europa im 19. Jahrhundert, Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2003, 14–​37. Borutta, Manuel, Antikatholizismus. Deutschland und Italien im Zeitalter der europäischen Kulturkämpfe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010, 289–​325. 459 The public correspondence took place between 08.02.1923 and 24.05.1923: Von Harnack, Adolf, ‘Fünfzehn Fragen an die Verächter der wissenschaftlichen Theologie unter den Theologen’, Die Christliche Welt, Leipzig: Leopold Klotz, Vol. 37, 1/​2, 1923, [pages unknown]. Also in: Von Harnack, Adolf, ‘Fünfzehn Fragen an die Verächter der wissenschaftlichen Theologie unter den Theologen (1923)’ in Moltmann, Jürgen (ed.), Anfänge der dialektischen Theologie, Teil 1, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1962. Barth, Karl, ‘Sechzehn Antworten an Herrn Professor von Harnack’, Die Christliche Welt, Leipzig: Leopold Klotz, Vol. 37, 5/​6, 1923, [pages unknown].

106

Theology as a university subject

Barth and proponents of dialectic theology went as far as to reject the idea of Christianity as a religion at all: for Barth to speak of religion was to subordinate God’s reality methodologically to the reality of religion so that the subject of theology ended up with a misunderstood instinct for self preservation.460 Barth declared historical research to be theologically irrelevant and rewrote the articulated protest of Nietzsche and Gogarten in the 19th Century against historical liberal theology into a post-​critial interpretation of Scripture (nachkritische Schriftauslegung), with the aim to radically relativize everything historical (radikale Vergleichgültigung alles Historischen).461 In fact, Barth attempted to reconstruct a theory of the absolute subjectivity of God as a subject to one where God was to be totally autonomous, ultimately transcending the world and thus post-​historical.462 Any empirical history was to be transferred into an innergodly history (also: Heilsgeschichte), trying to disconnect God from history.463 Barth’s emphatic Nein! to Brunner’s theologia naturalis in 1934464 and his development on the absolute focus of the self-​revelation of God constituted his attempt to correct Schleiermacher’s subject emphasis of faith comprehension and feeling. Pannenberg commented on those historical developments: In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, philosophical theology fell on hard times. The intellectual climate turned against the metaphysical and, as noted, Protestant

Von Harnack, Adolf, ‘Offener Brief an Herrn Professor Karl Barth’, Die Christliche Welt, Leipzig: Leopold Klotz, Vol. 37, 9/​10, 1923, [pages unknown]. Barth, Karl, ‘Antwort auf Herrn Professor von Harnack’s Offenen Brief ’, Die Christliche Welt, Leipzig: Leopold Klotz, Vol. 37, 16/​17, 1923, [pages unknown]. Von Harnack, Adolf, ‘Nachwort zu einem Offenen Brief an Herrn Professor Karl Barth’, Die Christliche Welt, Leipzig: Leopold Klotz, Vol. 37, 20/​21, 1923, [pages unknown]. Also: Moltmann, Jürgen, ‘Ein Briefwechsel zwischen Karl Barth und Adolf von Harnack’ in Moltmann, Jürgen (ed.), Anfänge der dialektischen Theologie, Teil 1, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1977, 323–​347. 460 Barth, Karl, Gesamtausgabe: Die christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf Band 14 (1927), Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982, 302. 461 Graf, ‘Revolution’, 390. 462 Ibid., 391. 463 Ibid., 393–​396. 464 Brunner, Emil, Natur und Gnade-​Zum Gespräch mit Karl Barth, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 19352. Brunner, Emil, ‘Die Frage nach dem Anknüpfungspunkt als Problem der Theologie’, Zwischen den Zeiten, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 10, 1, 1932, 505–​ 532. Brunner, Emil, Ein offenes Wort, Band 1, 1917–​1934, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1934, 239–​267. Barth, Karl, Nein!: Antwort an Emil Brunner, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1934.

The educational-historical and denominational backdrop

107

theologians turned to the task of dehellenizing Christian thought. Karl Barth’s great Nein! to natural theology and its replacement by a neo-​orthodox theology of revelation alone was of enormous influence. Nor can we underestimate the role of Rudolf Bultmann and his program of demythologizing aimed at purging Christian theology of what he viewed as its philosophical accretions.465

Indeed, even Bultmann expressed: Theology, if it uses the exercise of philosophy for itself, has to consciously apply an exercise of unbelief. And only, if [theology] knows what it does and if it does not imagine it would do anything else than this exercise of unbelief, then it is right. This exercise of unbelief is only then justified.466

Yet, Barth did not succeed in correcting this form of subjectivism; rather, he moved the object of theological verification from the human subject back to the divine, and thus, effectively, based his claim on positivism. According to him, all theological arguments presupposed this act. This left Barth with theology as a science that could not be judged on the basis of verifiable objective criteria; a conundrum he, in turn, solved by declaring theology thus to be a Glaubenswissenschaft (faith science):467 The natural sciences occupy a free space beyond what theology calls the work of the Creator. And theology has and must move freely where the natural sciences … have their given boundaries.468

Barth went even further in his demands concerning the discipline of theology, as Daecke pointed out: Karl Barth described the sciences’ definition in our time as ‘… completely … unacceptable. We cannot give one [inch] without deceit towards theology; any concession would mean to deceive the topic of theology.’ [Indeed], Barth goes further in regards to the ‘paragraphs of these laws’ and explains that theology cannot but break them. And Barth summarizes: ‘this dispute with the definition of sciences can only be a dry explanation –​ it is not [a definition] for theology.’ (Church Dogmatics I/​1,7).469

465 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘God of the Philosophers’, First Things, New York: Institute on Religion and Public Life, Vol. 50, 6, 2007, 31–​34. Sauter, ‘Begründung’, 299–​302. Sauter, ‘Rechenschaft’, 79–​81. 466 Bultmann, ‘Problem’, 312, TM. 467 Barth, Karl, ‘Die Theologie und der heutige Mensch’, Zwischen den Zeiten, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 8, [unknown edition], 1930, 374–​396. 468 Barth, Karl, Kirchliche Dogmatik III/​1, Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1951, editorial, TM. 469 Daecke, ‘Universität’, 196, TM.

108

Theology as a university subject

While Pannenberg agreed with Barth’s assessment on Schleiermacher,470 he did not regard Barth as having developed a sufficient theological alternative.471 Indeed, Pannenberg considered Barth’s assumptions to be based on subjective decisions.472 Such an approach was, in fact, scientifically and theologically untenable for Pannenberg. Against this historical and theological backdrop, he held that the science of God and his revelation could have only happened within the historical realm via the reflection on Christian history. Wissenschaftstheorie theologically and philosophically answered the above outlined issues of theology as a science and as a university subject that had occupied theologians and academics in modern times for the previous two centuries.473 Thus, while Pannenberg was internally confronted with the conflict between historial and anti-​ historical theologians, externally he faced the university reforms that resulted in the abolition of the university system as created by von Humboldt (Ordinarienuniversität)474 after a 150-​year tenure.475 Both German Protestant and Catholic theology staff and curricula were affected alike. On the one hand, Schäfer pointed out the above historical changes with an assessment as to what he considered a Protestant particularity in those disputes concerning debates on theology (both natural and revealed). They, in fact, emerged when the overall truth consciousness within society changed. Indeed, the rejection of a dato (former) theology took place when a new truth consciousness developed.476 His thesis is underlined by the description of the socio-​cultural changes in the previous chapter and well illustrated through the Auschwitz-​Prozesse, personified through the chief public prosecutor F. Bauer. The trials received comprehensive

4 70 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 299, ETR297–​298. Greiner, Theologie, 212–​214. 471 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Reden von Gott angesichts atheistischer Kritik’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 2, 8, 1969, 442. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 266–​298, ETR265–​275, 328, ETR325. 472 Moving on from Barth and Bultmann, Ebeling redefined and clarified the term theology. Ebeling, Gerhard, Theologie und Verkündigung: Ein Gespräch mit Rudolf Bultmann, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962. 473 Brevity of space precluded inclusion, yet Pannenberg comprehensively traced the beginnings of theology as a science back to medieval times. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 11–​18, ETR7–​14. 474 No appropriate English translation exists: a university system run by professors. 475 The Humboldtian university system was recreated after the Second World War. Howard, Making, 378–​403. 476 Schäfer, ‘Theologie’, 328.

The educational-historical and denominational backdrop

109

media attention throughout the 1960s and were regarded as one such example of the shift in German truth consciousness.477 On the other hand, Catholic theologians have traditionally been strongly shaped by their interpretation of theology on a rational basis. Fikenscher outlined the philosophical influence that Catholic theology permeates in their dialogue with the sciences. Indeed, this dialogue is a necessary requirement with far-​ reaching consequences for the Catholic worldview, even towards complete paradigm changes.478 Moreover, the Catholic catechism refers to what can certainly be described as elements of a natural theology.479 This looks like an ideal starting point for any Catholic theological philosophy of science debate. Yet, historically, a reversal has taken place: originally Catholic scholars appear to have been more open to the subject than Protestant theologians, but this position changed from the late 19th Century to the mid-​20th Century. Haught confirmed this view and puts it down to three supporting historical developments: first, Pope Leo XIII.’s instructions in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893)480 not to look for scientific evidence when reading the Scriptures. Second, Haught alluded to the changing style and approach in the 19th and early 20th Centuries concerning biblical scholarship, with its transition to a historically conscious interpretation of the Bible. Third, he highlighted the traditional emphasis on the sacramental dimension of Catholic faith as being distinct from the Protestant emphasis on the Word of God. Yet, Haught concluded that: After 1950, Catholic thought, by gradually detaching itself from biblical literalism, grew more comfortable with the view that God creates continuously by way of evolutionary and other secondary natural processes.481

477 For further reading: Steinke, Ronen, Fritz Bauer oder Auschwitz vor Gericht, München: Piper Verlag, 2014. 478 Fikenscher, Konrad, ‘A: Gesamtdarstellungen’ in Hübner, Jürgen (ed.), Der Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1987, 30. 479 N.a., ‘Die Katechese über die natürliche Schöpfung’, Vatican website (http://​www.vati​ can.va/​arch​ive/​DEU0​035/​_​P1G.HTM#NK; accessed July 2017). 480 Pope, Leo XIII., ‘Providentissimus Deus’, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII. on the study of the Holy Scripture, Vatican website (http://​w2.vati​can.va/​cont​ent/​leo-​xiii/​en/​ency​ clic​als/​docume​nts/​hf_​l-​xiii_​en​c_​18​1118​93_​p​rovi​dent​issi​mus-​deus.html; accessed December 2017). 481 Haught, Resting, 30–​32.

110

Theology as a university subject

On the whole, it appears that German Catholicism today continues to avoid stringent, critical and methodological discussion on the scientificity of theology.482 Indeed, the subject remains enclosed within the realm of dogmatic theology and especially the discussion of the nature of philosophical foundations for theological scientific claims as well as the relationship of the various theological subjects to and with each other.483 Additionally, real scientific freedom within Catholicism continues to be debated484 and can be exemplarily doubted concerning the treatment of Teilhard de Chardin in 1963, Küng in 1979 or U. Ranke-​Heinemann in 1987.485 Incidentally, these dismissals were not solely a German phenomenon. Similarly, in the US, D. Tracy was found to have abandoned Catholicism in 1968 and was subsequently dismissed by the Catholic University of America.486 While Protestant faculties are less tightly controlled and characterized by a plurality of academic opinion, Catholic theology is framed by religious obedience expressed through dogmatic and moral-​theological assertions, also exemplified

482 This statement expressly excludes the Catholic debate of faith and reason, exemplarily displayed in Pope Benedict XVI.’s Regensburger Rede from 12.09.2006. Cf. Dohmen, Christoph (ed.), Die ‘Regensburger Vorlesung’ Papst Benedikts XVI: im Dialog der Wissenschaften, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2007. 483 Göcke, Benedikt Paul, ‘Glaubensreflexion ist kein Glasperlenspiel’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 71, 1, 2017, 33–​36. Kranemann, Benedikt, ‘Wer bildet das Zentrum?’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 71, 4, 2017, 20–​22. Striet, Magnus, ‘Wunderbar, man streitet sich’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 71, 2, 2017, 13–​16. 484 Kreß cited various scholars: Kreß, Hartmut, Theologische Fakultäten an staatlichen Universitäten, Kamen: Harmut Spenner Verlag, 2004, 28–​31, 64–​76. 485 Küng’s teaching retraction was, in particular, related to his critique of papal infallibility. Teilhard de Chardin received a post-​mortem monitum by the Holy Office in 1962 for his writing on original sin. Ranke-​Heinemann lost her faculty chair due to her official dismissal of the virgin birth as a Midrash on the TV show West-​3 on 13.06.1987. N.a., ‘Uta Ranke-​Heinemann’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 10.08.1987, 177. Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, Tagebücher I und II, Olten: Walter Verlag, 1974. Von Balthazar, Hans Urs, Deiseler, Alfons, Grillmeier, Alois, Kasper, Walter, Kremer, Jacob, Lehmann, Karl, Rahner, Karl, Ratzinger, Joseph, Riedlinger, Helmut, Schneider Theodor, Stoeckle, Bernhard, Diskussion über Hans Küngs “Christ sein”, Mainz: Matthias Grünewald Verlag, 1977. Geyer, Hans-​Georg, ‘Evangelische Gedanken zu einem katholischen Fall’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 40, 2, 1980, 143–​147. 486 Tracy legally objected to the dismissal and won the case but subsequently accepted a post at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

The educational-historical and denominational backdrop

111

through John Paul II’s Motu proprio/​Ad tuendam fidem Johannes from 1998.487 That said, German Catholic theologians successfully manoeuvre against Roman centrism and seem to be granted more academic and scientific freedom than their counterparts in other countries. This stance is repeatedly visible in history: whether it concerned exceptions such as the oath on anti-​modernism (sacrorum antistitum) that Pius X stipulated in 1910,488 or the Kölner Erklärung489 from 1989. German Catholic theologians attempt to articulate themselves somewhat independently of Rome. Interestingly, Pannenberg held a rather unique position among Catholic theologians. Essen, in his obituary to Pannenberg, referred this appreciation back to the fact that: It has, by the way, to do with the rationality of his theology (and less to do with his ecumenical engagement) that he was on the Catholic side as widely quoted as hardly any other Protestant theologian of his generation.490

Yet, both denominations, with their own academic particularities, seem to suffer from a Versäulung (pillarization) and a silo mentality rather than focusing on a Vernetzung (integration/​network) within their faculty settings.491 This setup might possibly prove fatal regarding the future for German theological faculties given their current size and subject diversity following the 1999 Bologna reforms and in comparison to other numerically stronger scientific faculties and subjects.492 Additionally, diminishing state funds impact research capacities 487 Pulte, Matthias, ‘Instanzen der Urteilsbildung’ in Söding, Thomas (ed.), Die Rolle der Theologie in der Kirche, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2015, 144–​171. Pope, John Paul II., ‘Ad tuendam fidem’, Vatican website (http://​w2.vati​can.va/​cont​ent/​john-​paul-​ii/​ de/​motu_​prop​rio/​docume​nts/​hf_​jp-​ii_​m​otu-​prop​rio_​3006​1998​_​ad-​tuen​dam-​fidem. html; accessed September 2017). 488 Pope, Pius X., ‘Sacrorum Antistitum* Quo Quaedam Statuuntur Leges Ad Modernismi Periculum Propulsandum (Septembris 1910)’, Vatican website (https://​w2.vati​can.va/​ cont​ent/​pius-​x/​la/​motu_​prop​rio/​docume​nts/​hf_​p-​x_​m​otu-​propri​o_​19​1009​01_​s​acro​ rum-​ant​isti​tum.html; accessed November 2017). 489 The Kölner Erklärung: Wider die Entmündigung-​für eine offene Katholizität was published by 220 German, Austrian, Swiss and Dutch Catholic theological professors on 06.01.1989. The initiative grew internationally and finally included more than 700 academics. 490 Essen, ‘Großer’, TM. 491 Schmitz, Herbert, ‘Zukunft katholischer-​theologischer Fakultäten in Deutschland’, Münchner Theologische Zeitschrift, St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, Vol. 40, 3, 1990, 297. Sauter, Jahrtausendschwelle, 98–​102. 492 Relevant examples within the humanities are Germanistik (German language and literature studies) or sociology.

112

Theology as a university subject

which, in turn, influence the syllabus composition and the creation of new or continuity of existing faculty chairs.493

4.2 The educational-​political landscape in the 1960s and 1970s Education in Germany was and remains Ländersache; to be precise; it lies within the responsibility of each individual federal state. There is no common national educational curriculum; rather, the (now) sixteen (then eleven) states organize their curricula individually. This educational political setting was instigated in the autumn of 1949 when the Kultusministerkonferenz (minister of education conference) was set up. As a result of the Nazi regime, the responsibilities, freedom and the political space of the Bund (the confederation) and the Länder (the federal states) were separated. It is based on the foundational charter of the German foundational law out of the conviction that: The totalitarian and centralistic culture politics of the most recent history contributed substantially to the fateful confusion and subjugation of the mind and to the susceptibility of many Germans towards the political demon. From then on, education was to be a regional and not a national agenda and curricula as well as funding were drawn up and to be accounted for by the federal states.494

Effectively, these educational political decisions directly refer back to the Potsdam conference (17.07. to 02.08.1945). The federal states are the main financial supporters of the university system in Germany; they finance around 80 % of the universities, while the Bund (federation) supports special projects. In addition, the remaining 10 % of financing is accounted for privately through scientific support and donations. A university place remains free of charge for a student, apart from the administrative semester fees of up to around 500 Euros in some regions.495 Unsurprisingly, the argument for the discipline of theology as a science plays a role in university politics, not merely for the subsidy but also in regards to the position of a theological faculty within the general university business and, 493 Cf. footnote 902 for OECD information regarding Germany’s R&D expenditure. Dicke, Klaus, ‘Zur (Zukunft der) Theologie aus Sicht einer Universitätsleitung’ in Krieger, Gerhard (ed.), Zur Zukunft der Theologie in der Kirche, Universität und Gesellschaft, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2017, 118–​131. 494 This legal setting remains unchanged: education remains Ländersache since 19.10.1948. N.a., ‘Wir über uns’, Kultusministerkonferenz website (http://​www.kmk.org/​wir-​ ueber-​uns/​gruend​ung-​und-​zusa​mmen​setz​ung.html; accessed June 2015), TM. 495 Yet, even those fees are politically and socially contested: Fels, Katja M., Schmidt, Christoph M., Sinning, Matthias G., ‘Für sozialverträgliche Studiengebühren’ in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt: FAZ Verlag, 05.06.2015, 16.

The educational-historical and denominational backdrop

113

in turn, for the funding of the various faculty chairs and research capabilities. Wissenschaftstheorie was thus published during a public sentiment that, for almost a decade, had already been fuelled by both facts and polemics alike.496 It started in 1964 when the theologian and philosopher Picht497 published the bestseller Die deutsche Bildungskatastrophe (The German educational catastrophe), an analysis that described an apocalypse for the whole educational system with a severe lack of teachers, too few students graduating from universities and social injustice in terms of access to education in general.498 The book triggered a strong public debate on the subject of national education. Germany was listed behind the then Yugoslavia in terms of school educational standards; bleak scenarios were painted. Picht’s book resulted in an important discussion during the 1960s and early 1970s. Effectively, major university reforms were incorporated and the discussion around the federal system was enlivened. His work, next to the second educational-​political prominent voice of R. Dahrendorf,499 also served as an indirect trigger to student protests. In fact, Dahrendorf proclaimed rather theatrically in response to Picht in 1965: The construction of a free German society has no foundation because, so far, this society has not developed an educational policy. The German educational revolution will have to become a planned revolution. Since revolutions often slip from the hands of their authors, it is more correct to speak of a radical education reform as a result of a pro-​active educational policy … A pro-​active educational policy as a realization of citizen rights is the largest task for national German legislation.500

496 For further reading: Fitschen, Klaus, Hermle, Siegfried, Kunther, Katharina, Lepp, Claudia, Roggenkamp-​Kaufmann, Antje (eds.), Die Politisierung des Protestantismus-​ Entwicklungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland während der 1960er und 70er Jahre, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 20142. 497 Picht was a contemporary and a friend of von Weizsäcker. His father was an acquaintance of Barth. Bergmann, Sven, ‘Die Diskussion um die Bildungsrefom in der Nachkriegszeit’ in Friedrich, Norbert, Jähnichen, Traugott (eds.), Gesellschaftspolitische Neuorientierungen des Protestantismus in der Nachkriegszeit, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2002,101–​126. 498 Picht, Georg, Die deutsche Bildungskatastrophe, Freiburg: Walter Verlag, 1964. N.a., ‘Georg Picht’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​ Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 18.08.1965, 24–​26. N.a., ‘Notstand-​Lücken der Nation’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 29.07.1964, 30–​31. 499 Dahrendorf was a German sociologist and politician (a member of the liberal party Freie Demokratische Partei/​FDP). Dahrendorf, Rolf, Bildung ist Bürgerrecht. Plädoyer für eine aktive Bildungspolitik, Hamburg: Nannen Verlag, 1965. 500 Dahrendorf, Ralf, ‘Eine aktive Bildungspolitik für Deutschland’ in Die Zeit, Hamburg: Zeitverlag Gerd Bucerius GmbH, 12.11.1965, 24–​25, TM.

114

Theology as a university subject

The decade-​long reorganization efforts culminated in further comprehensive university reforms in 1977. In contrast to Picht, both G. Heidtmann501 and C. Führ summarized in 1969 and 1974 respectively that the Bildungskatastrophe did not materialize as predicted.502 Yet, what started out as a German university movement soon gained larger political momentum and was influenced by overall global political changes: the US Peace movement against the Vietnam War was in full swing and the first landing of a human on the moon had been publicly documented in 1969. Cultural developments such as these significantly affected Germany, as they were partly transmitted through the social influence and proximity of and by the foreign occupying forces and especially through British and American soldiers. German students visibly demanded a university reform in May 1967 when they occupied a university hall in Hamburg and disrupted a ceremony through the display of a banner that read Unter den Talaren –​Muff von 1000 Jahren (the stench of 1000 years underneath academic gowns).503 J. Ratzinger, then a lecturer at the university in Tübingen, appeared to have been profoundly affected by some protests, as he himself attested: I myself have had no problems with the students. I have witnessed, though, that there was real tyranny exercised, even in [physically] violent forms.504

The student protests ultimately climaxed in the request for general societal reforms. The university revolts were initially organized against elitist structures and questionable outdated traditions at the universities. Students demanded participation and the overhaul and exposure of the lecturers’ participation in the

501 Heidtmann, Günter, ‘Langer Marsch mit kleinen Schritten-​Wo steht die studentische Protestbewegung heute’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 2, 9, 1969, 495–​500. 502 Führ, Christoph, ‘Die Bildungskatastrophe fand nicht statt’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 7, 9, 1974, 549–​551. 503 Nath, Dörthe, ‘Der NS Muff ist vertrieben’, Süddeutsche Zeitung website (http://​ www.suedd​euts​che.de/​karri​ere/​er-​revo​lte-​der-​ns-​muff-​ist-​ver​trie​ben-​1.355​603; accessed October 2014). N.a., ‘Muff im Talar’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 20.11.1967, 84. N.a., ‘Diese Professoren’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 19.02.1968, 34–​47. 504 Ratzinger, Joseph, Salz der Erde: Christentum und katholische Kirche im neuen Jahrtausend. Ein Gespräch mit Peter Seewald, München: Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, 20043, 82. Valente, Gianni, ‘Am Zielpunkt angelangt? Doch es kommt alles anders …’, 30 Giorni nella Chiesa e nel mondo, Rom: Trenta Giorno soc. coop. arl., Vol. 18, 8, 2006, [unknown page], TM.

The educational-historical and denominational backdrop

115

NS regime as well as a reform of autocratic structures. This request effectively questioned the basis of the Humboldtsche Bildungsideal (Humboldtian educational ideal)505 as a working model for universities: the Ökonomisierung der Universität (economization of the university) began. In the midst of these socio-​ cultural changes, Pannenberg’s exact thoughts were not publicly captured;506 yet his approach was decidedly Prussian. He was an academic following von Humboldt’s ideal in his idea of Allgemeinbildung, which was to be the holistic combination of studies across subjects and sciences. He summarized this approach clearly for the discipline of theology in the opening quotes of his book.507 The German Bildungsbürgertum (educated class) at the time of von Humboldt demanded greater general knowledge combined with unconditional academic freedom and a comprehensive education across disciplines, a call for the universitas litterarum based on classical antiquity with the artes liberales. All academic knowledge was to be presented with an increased range of subjects and a focus on interdisciplinary learning. Von Humboldt’s key aspect in his ideas was to nurture, educate and transmit knowledge, despite the disputes over the value of the individual disciplines. It was to be the state’s responsibility to provide general education and to leave vocational training to the professions; in fact, to practical experience. The division of tasks between state and commerce derived from their respective areas of competence and was clearly defined.508 It was hardly surprising that Pannenberg bemoaned the effects of the university reforms –​the increasing administration, economization and competition to which professors had to succumb: In the meantime, the institutional forms of Wilhelm von Humboldt’s Gelehrtenrepublik [scientific republic] are eliminated or fundamentally changed. But it cannot be claimed that science, having got rid of the privileges of the professors, manages to unfold itself

505 Von Humboldt, Wilhelm, Werke in fünf Bänden: Band 4-​Schriften zur Politik und Bildungswesen, Flitner, Andreas, Giel, Klaus (eds.), Darmstadt: WBG, 1960. 506 It is possible though that his estate which has been transferred to the Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften contains letters to his wife and/​or journal entries that might shed further light on those times. 507 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 7–​8, ETR3–​4. 508 Kern, Heinrich, ‘Humboldt’s educational ideal and modern academic education’, Danube Rectors Conference website (www.drc.uns.ac.rs/​presentations; accessed November 2015). Howard, Making, 222–​238. For further reading: Lecoq-​Gellerson, Ingrid, Die politische Persönlichkeit Wilhelm von Humboldts in der Geschichtsschreibung des deutschen Bildungsbürgertums, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Gmbh Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1985.

116

Theology as a university subject

powerfully. The multiplied strain of tasks of academic self-​administration and group fights happening at the universities have dramatically deteriorated the conditions and the climate for academic research. It was misguided optimism [to think] that the elimination of conventional institutional structures would lead to a life of an increasingly free development as if they had just been hindered by it through external chains. The difficulties that require elimination are generally deeper rooted; they lie in the complexity of problems within the sciences themselves.509

The changes did not bypass Protestant faculties either: theologians were grappling with the same issues for their discipline. Headlines such as Should theology stay at the university?, A system of clan duchies or Studying theology today –​the reform of theological education tackled the subject from various angles and expressed the inner-​theological tension concerning the development of the subject.510 There were inner church conflicts regarding the definition of theology as a kirchliche Wissenschaft (ecclesial science) and a Glaubenswissenschaft (faith science).511 Furthermore, the subject’s place at the university and amongst other sciences as well as the scope of the theological syllabus, theory and practicalities as a preparation for the students’ vocation, were disputed. On the one hand, H. Janowski highlighted the plea of theology students in 1971: The university reforms are currently in a phase that many participants would describe as a growth crisis … Many students are increasingly insecure concerning their studies and ask existential questions. Why study theology? … Certainly, a part is due to the high sensitivity that theology has always displayed towards developments within the sciences, the church and society … The main reason for this insecurity lies deeper, though. It is concerned with the understanding of theology as a science in comparison to the development of the other humanities, the natural and the social sciences. In addition, the concern is regarding the function of theology for ecclesial appointments and the search for confirmation and probation of the individual’s personal faith … Recently, this seems to have increased as other sciences’ claims also grow. This concerns especially the social sciences which force theology either to cooperate or to isolate, if it wishes to keep its identity. So, how can the right to

5 09 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 7, ETR3, TM. 510 Daecke, ‘Universität’, 196, TM. Schulze, Hans, ‘Ein System von Stammesherzogtümern’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 6, 1, 1973, 37–​38, TM. 511 Geyer, Bernhard, ‘Wahrheit und Pluralismus’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 40, 1, 1980, 76–​86. Stollberg, Dietrich, ‘Die Wissenschaften werden Theologie’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 7, 1, 1974, 17–​20.

The educational-historical and denominational backdrop

117

theological insight be then legitimated against individual insights, the church praxis and daily life as well as against competing sciences?512

On the other hand, H. Schulze pointed out in 1973 the changed requirements that: The social significance of a [university] chair has changed since the transition from a philosophical understanding to one that is stronger tied to a particular understanding of science in connection to an individual subject. The university is no longer a place of silent research but has turned, during the semester, into a witches’ cauldron of activities, meetings and panel sessions. When should he [the professor] actually research, when should he publish? Nights and holidays are used; those who possess the nerves and the highly skilled dispositions have an advantage. But what kinds of consequences have these results on the students if [the university setting] has become like this?513

Clayton alluded to those German disputes and discussions in 1988; this is a somewhat rare comment of such insight made from an Anglo-​Saxon perspective.514 While defendants like Pannenberg argued for theology’s place within a university setting, others saw the subject and vocation better placed in independent universities, the so-​called Kirchliche Hochschulen.515 These theological educational institutions increasingly rose to prominence after the Second World War. They were set up with the particular aim of being staatsfern, distant from the state and the government; additionally, they were to be highly vocational with a focus on the theological and diakonische (parochial) education of students. New faculties in Berlin, Bochum, Darmstadt, Hamburg, Ludwigshafen and Ludwigsburg were all founded in 1971, thus demonstrating the deep chasm the educational reforms created in Germany for the subject of theology at university level. Those state-​independent universities were mainly set up by the Protestant Church and, to a lesser extent by the Catholic Church, as well as by some Free Church establishments.516 Whilst the inner Protestant church conflict was broad 512 Janowski, Hans Norbert, ‘Theologie studieren heute. Zur Reform der theologischen Ausbildung’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 4, 5, 1971, 247, TM. 513 Schulze, ‘Stammesherzogtümer’, 39, TM. 514 Cf. footnote 607. 515 Harbsmeier, Götz, ‘Theologie als kirchliche Wissenschaft: Zum Problem einer theologischen Enzyklopädie heute’, Theologische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Vol. 78, 1, 1953, 9–​16. E.g. the Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/​Bethel was founded in 1935 with the support of Barth and Niemöller, after the former was forced to resign from his university post in Bonn. 516 The first Protestant Kirchliche Hochschule (ecclesial university) was set up in Bielefeld Bethel in 1905; a Catholic university emerged in 1980 from the Bischöfliche Philosophisch-​Theologische Hochschule Eichstätt, founded in 1924 but tracing its

118

Theology as a university subject

but lesser known to the wider public, it was debated in theological journals over a number of years. The timeliness of Wissenschaftstheorie against the above theatre of educational-​ political opinion was unique, as the book’s subject surpassed denominational boundaries and forced German theologians as a whole to reflect on their syllabus for the training and education of their future clergy in the light of the above outlined historical changes. In this, the Protestant theological faculty of the LMU played a large role in Pannenberg’s professional life. In 1967, the Lutheran Church and the free state of Bavaria, after long discussions and negotiations, formulated a Staatsvertrag (state contract) for the creation of a new Protestant theological faculty within the LMU. Wenz pointed out that, already in the 1950s and 1960s, voices were starting to articulate the need for a second Protestant theological faculty next to Erlangen in the predominantly Catholic state of Bavaria. Indeed, many Protestant Germans set up home in Southern Bavaria after the Second World War.517 This was met with strong resistance by the faculty in Erlangen518 but was advocated by members of the Protestant-​Lutheran Bavarian synod and finally led to the creation of the faculty in Munich. The Bavarian parliament approved the initial round of funding.519 October 1967 marked the inauguration of the new faculty which started with the summer semester of 1968. Pannenberg accepted a call to take up the post of systematic theology at the newly-​designed faculty as one of five professors, in the midst of the student rebellion. He witnessed the easily overlooked influence of this specific academic setting in the book’s introduction: Moreover, the goal is to win a new self-​understanding of the sciences in general and to set the ground for a categorization of the scientific disciplines and their methods … The continuation of theological faculties in universities of secular states has … degenerated into something factual … The participation of theology within the scientific theoretical discourse will prove itself to be more than life-​important for the future of theology

origins back to the Collegium Willibaldinum from 1564. A free-​evangelical theological academy Freie Theologische Akademie (now Freie Theologische Hochschule Gießen) was set up in 1974 in Seeheim. 517 Wenz, ‘40 Jahre Evangelische Theologie an der Ludwig-​Maximilians-​Universität München’, Ludwig Maximilians Universität website (http://​www.evth​eol.uni-​muenc​ hen.de/​fakult​aet/​ges​chic​hte/​index.html; accessed May 2015). 518 A Protestant faculty was created 1947 in Neuendettelsau/​ Bavaria at the Augustana-​Hochschule. 519 The development of a new faculty was strongly supported by the then bishop Dietzfelbinger.

German academic particularities

119

within the university … The theoretical scientific self-​definition of a discipline has to always happen with a double aspect in mind: it targets, on the one hand, the external relations concerning other sciences. On the other hand, it concerns the internal organization of the discipline itself.520

Effectively, Pannenberg himself was also affected by the revolts in Munich, which students first staged in a media-​savvy and effective manner in Berlin.521 D. Olive remarked that Pannenberg seemed somewhat sympathetic with the students’ plight.522 Interestingly, though, Moltmann recalled: Over time, Pannenberg became increasingly more conservative, especially after the student unrest in 1968. He began to react in a strictly anti-​communist manner whenever he met real or assumed Marxists. I was, therefore, surprised and pleased to see him at a political demonstration in Frankfurt against the emergency laws in 1968. I had traveled with Ernst Bloch and Prof. Walter Jens to Frankfurt and sat with Pannenberg amid the circles of the Frankfurt School. I mention this to liberate Pannenberg from the image of someone who was always and in all questions a conservative. He knew how to make his own judgements.523

4.3 German academic particularities Still, Anglo-​Saxon and German academic worlds differed then and continue to do so significantly in their approach to and understanding of academia. This was already alluded to in the explanation of the historical settings through the shaping of the German Gelehrtenrepublik524 by von Humboldt. Indeed, the concept of the classic understanding of the university varied substantially at the time of Pannenberg’s book from the concept of higher education as proposed by Anglo-​Saxon cultures, even though this has largely been sacrificed in Germany in the wake of the 1999 Bologna Process. Interestingly, though, Bologna, as it is colloquially called in Germany, has been regarded as a failure, at least for the

5 20 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 8–​9, ETR4–​5, TM. 521 Wenz, ‘40 Jahre’. 522 Olive, Don H., Wolfhart Pannenberg, Waco: Word Incorporated, 1973, 16. 523 Moltmann, ‘Personal’, 13. 524 The term Gelehrtenrepublik originally referred to an ideal German society in Klopstock’s utopian novel. However, von Humboldt, due to his involvement in educational policies, is colloquially credited with the foundation of the academic republic. Klopstock, Friedrich Wilhelm, Klopstock, Margareta, Klopstocks sämtliche Werke: Die deutsche Gelehrtenrepublik. Hinterlassene Schriften Gebundene Ausgabe-​1. April 1839, Band 8&9, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 2015. Korneffel, Dieter, Die Humboldts in Berlin: Zwei Brüder erfinden die Gelehrtenrepublik, Berlin: Elsengold Verlag, 2017.

120

Theology as a university subject

country.525 Continental Europe, similar to the US and the UK, now proposes a system that has transformed the university vocation away from a general human education through the sciences (allgemeine Menschenbildung durch Wissenschaften), towards a vocational education that looks to the employability of students.526 Historically, Germany focused on Bildung (learning/​the cultivation and refinement of the individual character), as opposed to the Anglo-​Saxon system that majors on Ausbildung (training/​formation).527 D. Lenzen described four parameters for lectures. First, they had to follow the principle to methodologically secure critical awareness and the application of radical doubt in students, a trait von Humboldt personified.528 Second, lectures had to be cognitively oriented without denying that cognition follows interests. Third, university teaching should be based on comprehension; and, fourth, the teaching should always be historical but serve to widen the historicity of seemingly certain knowledge.529 In comparison, the Anglo-​Saxon world has much more strongly separated disciplines semantically, and generally limits the definition of science to the natural sciences, whereas subjects such as theology are located in the section of humanities. D. Ritschl pointed out that this goes back to the fact that: The whole teaching and learning system in the Anglo-​Saxon world has not known a Humboldt reform but is still rooted in the categorization that stems from the Middle Ages and was originated by Cassiodor.530

In contrast, and because of a missing American state church, US-​theologians, for example, never experienced similar pressure to create a homogenous body and approach to theology. Indeed, church historical developments and the creation of numerous denominations and churches that in turn set up private denominational theological seminaries contributed to the fact that a quasi-​scientific 525 Lenzen, Dieter, Bildung statt Bologna, Berlin: Ullstein Verlag, 2014, 5–​57. Arnold, Rolf, ‘Bildung statt Bologna’ in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Zürich: NZZ Medienmanagement AG, 21.11.2014, 23. 526 Lenzen, Dieter, ‘Humboldt aufpoliert’ in Die Zeit, Hamburg: Zeitverlag Gerd Bucerius GmbH, 15.03.2012, 77, TM. Lenzen, president of the University of Hamburg, published extensively on university educational standards and (perceived) obligatory changes. N.a., ‘Hamburg Protocol’ Hochschulrektorenkonferenz website (https://​ www.hrk.de/​uplo​ads/​media/​fin_​H​TULC​_​Ham​burg​_​Pro​toco​l_​DE​_​01.pdf, accessed March 2017). 527 Ibid., 78. 528 Ibid., 77. 529 Ibid., 77. 530 Ritschl, ‘Wissenschaftsproblematik’, 297, TM.

German academic particularities

121

defence system against perceived dangers such as Darwinism, Puritanism and other denominations could be set up.531 Thus, the neo-​scholastic manner in which academic arguments in the US are constructed is not an intrinsic element of those arguments but serves as an aid for their particular apologetics and goals. Yet, as Ritschl clarified, by the mere fact that there were and are such a sizeable number of theologians, particularly in the US, their influence is considerable.532 He concluded: It is possible to say that, with certain restrictions in mind, in the whole American churchdom exists the tendency to regard theological studies as a necessary evil that aids theologians to express in their argument [a point] they know already. Because one is already in the possession of truth, one does not have to search for it anymore-​meaning, there is less focus on critical questioning about the accuracy and the sense of expressed claims and an increased focus on the results and expression of thoughts. But, despite this naïve categorization of the function of theology, there is a tendency to claim for it a kind of planning and foretelling function. This, however, is strictly focused on practical implications.533

In due turn, European education has increasingly been submitted to Anglo-​ Saxon standards, even in Germany, where various reforms over the last decades have been met with resistance. This change concerns especially the Bologna Process: the largest reform since von Humboldt that led to the abolition of the traditional German university Diplom in favor of Bachelor and Masters Programmes. It was done in order to drive forward the harmonization of European and global educational formats. Specifically criticized are the separation of research and teaching, the decrease in foundational research and the increasing Verschulung (schoollike teaching):534 A thousand-​year-​old concept of the university has been sacrificed in order to gain a cross-​Atlantic understanding of higher education.535

Clayton536 referred to this development but without locating the dissimilarities in academic approaches like Ritschl, while Bradshaw echoed this sentiment:

Ibid., 300. Ibid., 300. Ibid., 300, TM. The word expresses an approach based on ex-​cathedra teaching as in schools, which is to the detriment of academic independence, thinking and freedom. It also implies a decrease concerning both academic and personal maturity. 535 Lenzen, ‘Humboldt’, 77, TM. 5 36 Clayton, ‘Science’, 237–​240. 5 31 532 533 534

122

Theology as a university subject

This German intellectual background is now strange to the English-​speaking cultures with its dominant empiricist philosophical tendency. This was not always so and Hegel had considerable theological influence on English and Scottish philosophical theology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.537

J. Hough also remarked on the influence of German 20th-​century theologians in the US and mentioned, in particular, Barth’s role as having been different to Germany.538 It is also within this framework that the definition of philosophy varies in both academic spheres. The empirical emphasis of philosophizing is fundamentally different from any European orientation that focuses on questioning, which is also deductible from the responses to Wissenschaftstheorie.539 Indeed, Continental philosophy plays a subordinate role in Anglo-​Saxon sciences and, particularly, in their theologies. This phenomenon is, in particular, noticeable in the chasm between Analytic and Continental philosophy. Ritschl mentioned exceptions such as C. Sanders Peirce, the father of pragmatism, W. James or J. Dewey.540 Given that Ritschl wrote his article in 1971, yet in the last 45 years American theological and philosophical academic endeavours have evolved from this criticism.541 Contemporary philosophers such as S. Haack,542 H. Whitehall Putnam,543 N. Rescher544 or R. Rorty545 have been practising since the 1970s in the tradition of pragmatism. However, Rorty’s assessment regarding German academic methodology in comparison to their US-​counter parts was poignant: I have spent some time during the last decades at German universities and can testify that German academics in the humanities are not just better trained and formed than their American counterparts but they also work harder. They are proficient in more

5 37 Bradshaw, Pannenberg, 5. 538 Hough, Joseph C. Jr., ‘Theologie und Revolution in den Vereinigten Staaten’, Verkündigung und Forschung, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, Vol. 41, 2, 1975, 70–​71. 539 Ritschl, ‘Wissenschaftsproblematik’, 295–​297. 540 Ibid., 303–​310. 541 Merkel delivered an assessment on American philosophy of the 1970s and 1980s. Merkel, Reinhard, ‘Amerikanische Philosophie’, Merkur-​Deutsche Zeitschrift für europäisches Denken, Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta Verlag, Vol. 41, 465, 1987, 965–​982. 542 Haack, Susan, Lane, Robert (eds.), Pragmatism, Old and New, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 2006. 543 Putnam, Hilary Whitehall, Pragmatism: An Open Question. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. 544 Rescher, Nicolas, Realistic Pragmatism: An Introduction to Pragmatic Philosophy, Albany: SUNY Press, 1996. 545 Rorty, Richard, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.

German academic particularities

123

languages, better-​read and lecture about twice as much as [we] in the United States should do. Measured in international standards they are already overloaded [with their work].546

The reformed theologian Ritschl547 spoke in the context of US-​Protestant academic efforts; he most likely excluded US-​Catholic scholars with their separate educational heritage from the above assessment.548 R. Hofstadter’s insight that both anti-​intellectualism and utilitarianism were consequences, in part, of the democratization of knowledge in the US, is a further differentiating factor not to negate.549 These highlighted intellectual and academic particularities are reflected in some of the US-​American responses to Wissenschaftstheorie. A deeper analysis, aside from the book’s focus into this phenomenon and approach concerning the respective particularities of the academic discourse in both countries, is thus recommended.550 Pannenberg, in the meantime, was driven by ‘his belief that the theologian’s task includes showing the coherence of Christian teaching with all human knowledge. [This took him] … to take the dialogue with the sciences seriously.’551 This approach, however, collided at times with his understanding of disciplinary

546 Rorty, Richard, ‘Wissen deutsche Politiker, wozu Universitäten da sind?’ in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung website (http://​www.faz.net/​aktu​ell/​feu​ille​ton/​rich​ard-​rorty-​ wis​sen-​deuts​che-​politi​ker-​wozu-​uni​vers​itae​ten-​da-​sind-​1177​778.html; accessed November 2015), TM. 547 Ritschl was intimately acquainted with academic procedures in the Anglo-​Saxon world; he received his PhD in theology and philosophy from Edinburgh University and also lectured for some time both in Canada (Montréal), as well as in the US (New York). 548 Hellwig is quoted in Catholic US-​university circles as having articulated the Catholic Intellectual Tradition (CIT) expansively during her tenure as President of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (1996–​2005). Hellwig, Monika Konrad Hildegard, ‘The Catholic intellectual tradition in the Catholic University’ in Cernera, Anthony J. and Morgan, Oliver J. (eds.), Examining the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Fairfield: Sacred Heart University Press, 2000, 1–​18. 549 Hofstadter, Richard, Anti-​Intellectualism in American Life, New York: Vintage, 19632. 550 To that end, the OECD statistics concerning each country’s R&D allocation into education over the last 45 years highlight the differences (additionally to the different approaches in university financing). N.a., ‘Research and Development Statistics’, OECD website (http://​www.oecd.org/​inn​ovat​ion/​inno/​research​andd​evel​opme​ntst​ atis​tics​rds.htm, accessed March 2017). 551 Grenz, ‘Scientific’, 161.

124

Theology as a university subject

rigour and the faculty-​student relationship. Evidently, these were and are dissimilar in both countries, as Braaten testified: The next time we met the Pannenbergs was in 1965. Wolfhart became a visiting professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School … It was not a happy experience for Pannenberg. In Germany, Pannenberg was treated like a VIP; he was used to lecturing to hundreds of students and leading large seminars. At Chicago there was no welcoming host, no planned reception to meet other members of the faculty. Six students signed up for his seminar on Christology. Who is Wolfhart Pannenberg anyway? No one had heard of him and he was not accorded the respect due to a Herr Professor. Of the six students, three were auditors, and to Pannenberg’s dismay students thought nothing of missing a session. One student reported to Pannenberg that he would miss class to take his wife to the doctor. That sort of thing would never happen in Germany.552

The differences in the academic direction and the quality of research output of the next two generations of German theologians after Pannenberg (former students and their students respectively) are significant now. Graf has polemically lamented for a number of years about the degeneration of the German theological niveau.553 This, next to the continuing secularization of society, is one of the more visual effects of the degradation of theology to a university subject that primarily serves to train RE-​teachers, as stipulated by the Wissenschaftsrat.

4.4 Concluding remarks Little thought has been given to the socio-​cultural and educational-​political settings that fuelled the creation of Wissenschaftstheorie. Yet, this information is crucial in order to correctly assess the academic position and the interdependence of the subject of theology at university level to historical events and the pressures and challenges for faculty members. It equally serves to critically assess theological responses regarding Wissenschaftstheorie precisely against German educational-​political particularities. The decision-​making process of whether a discipline constitutes a science, its academic and scientific parameters remain, as in the case of the particular status of theology, a sensitive political question that Pannenberg was acutely aware of and acted upon with the book. Insight surrounding the background setting of Wissenschaftstheorie, therefore, significantly impacts any academic debate and should not be negated as such. It is a fact that, due to the different university settings, state-​church relations and funding structures are possibly not sufficiently emphasized abroad. Indeed, 5 52 Braaten, Christ, 38. 553 Graf, ‘Kuscheln’, 27. Graf, ‘Zeugnis’, 21–​23.

Concluding remarks

125

Sauter stated that ‘these concerns [regarding the scientific understanding of theology] are mainly due to the relationship between the state and the church.’554 Hence, insights about science policy have been largely missing in the overall religion-​science dialogue, let alone within the marginal debate on method since the 1980s. Yet, Pannenberg’s contribution to the theological philosophy of science debate was, as outlined, fuelled by political urgency at that time. He thus followed in the footsteps of other well-​known Germans who highlighted these concerns and were educationally and politically involved in the university system of their times, such as Kant, Schleiermacher and von Harnack.555 While their ideas and settings were politically and scientifically different, all theologians were driven by the urgency that theology as a scientific subject had to be secured. In fact, Pannenberg addressed the external challenges with the development of theology as a science according to universally accepted criteria and also focused on internal issues facing theology such as the structure of the individual theological subjects to each other. Yet, how did Pannenberg approach the subject in detail, since Puntel pointed out that: Theology has no constant tradition of critically dealing with the philosophy of science. [There were] times where [theologians] were profoundly occupied with methodological and/​or philosophy of science questions; followed by times where such problems were mostly neglected. … [Theologians] have thought that with the escape out of the scholastic ‘thinking fabric’ they could just turn to the Holy Scriptures, the pastoral … in order to fulfil their task and to regain strength in conviction.556

Chapter 5 thus turns to the content of Wissenschaftstheorie itself and analyses the book and some of its related criticisms in further detail.

554 Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Der Wissenschaftsbegriff der Theologie’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 31, 6, 1975, 283, TM. 555 After 1918 and 1933, tendencies prevailed to remove the subject of theology altogether from university curricula. Ritter noted that it was thanks to von Harnack’s and his contemporaries’ academic efforts that these sentiments did not materialize. Ritter, ‘von Campenhausen’, 338. 556 Puntel, ‘Wissenschaftstheorie’, 271–​272, TM.

Chapter 5 Theology as the science of God There has been no coherent, let alone comprehensive, theological debate on method in the last five decades in Germany and further afield.557 Overall, the subject of epistemology, as well as the development of method, have remained and continue to remain niche topics. The works of Popper and Kuhn and the collapse of positivism in the 1960s led theologians like Pannenberg to search for serious alternatives to develop models of theorization for their theology. In fact, van Huyssteen summarized the awareness shift: Less remarked upon, however, was the new challenge he [Kuhn] had created in theology. Kuhn’s conception of science would relativize the standard image of logical positivism even more than Karl Popper’s had done. The essence of that challenge lies in the new bearing given to crucial concepts such as rationality and objectivity, precisely because of a conscious methodological recognition of the indissoluble bond between the scientist’s basic commitments and the theorizing that eventually occurs in scientific reflection.558

In Germany, both Pannenberg and Sauter went on to confront this challenge respectively with their different epistemologies. Overall, though, efforts to develop alternative models of theory remained isolated exercises. Puntel possibly provided one answer as to why this was the case: It has to be admitted that the question of clarification concerning the methodological status –​the theoretical status of a discipline has become very difficult. Indeed, one has to deal with the rather chaotic situation [in the discipline] of today’s philosophy and philosophy of science. Rarely, one will be able to know and master the immense literature in order to develop one’s own superior concept … One of the few exceptions to this situation in Christian contemporary theology is the theological work of W. Pannenberg.559

It follows, therefore, that most of the commentary on Wissenschaftstheorie fell into the following categories: first, there were book reviews written in the 1970s.560

5 57 558 559 560

Pages 1, 57–​64. Van Huyssteen, Justification, 61. Puntel, ‘Wissenschaftstheorie’, 271–​272, TM. German examples were Knauer (1974) or Kuhn (1978), while in the US Dobbin (1977), Kolden (1978), Schreiter (1975), White (1982) published critiques. The British theologian Dillistone (1977) commented in an American journal while Turner’s review (1977) was printed in a UK theological journal. For bibliographical details cf. footnotes 338, 115, 101, 626, 77. Schreiter, Robert J., ‘Book review-​Wissenschaftstheorie Und Theologie’, Theological Studies, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 36, 2, 1975,

128

Theology as the science of God

Second, a select number of academics and former students, especially in the US,561 perceived the importance of further developments on the subject of method in the 1980s and 1990s and responded with their own modifications. Yet, these efforts were set within the larger context of the religion-​science dialogue; they were not triggered by educational-​political concerns. Third, some of Pannenberg’s contemporaries engaged in the subject of method in their wider occupation with his overall theology.562 Fourth, several contemporary German theologians focused their PhD theses or monographs563 on various aspects

363–​365. White, Harvey W., ‘A critique of Pannenberg’s Theology and the Philosophy of Science’, Studies in Religion, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 11, 4, 1982, 419–​436. 561 I classify and consider McFague and Tracy as pioneers in articulating their own method respectively. McFague, Sallie, Metaphorical Language-​models of God in Religious Language, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1982. Tracy, David, Blessed Rage for Order, New York: Seaburg Press, 1975. 562 German select examples would be Daecke (1972/​1974), Ebeling (1971), Janowski (1974), Scheffczyck (1978) or Stock (1975). In the US, there were amongst others McKenzie (1980), Peters (articles in the 1970s/​1980s), Polk (1989), Tupper (1975). In the UK, Pannenberg contributed to Peacocke’s efforts (1981). Hübner’s comprehensive overview summarized all major contributions to the religion-​science dialogue in various countries up to 1987. For bibliographical details cf. footnote 332. The examples expressly exclude the hundreds of contributions that arose in the wake of the new-​atheists’ threat and the ensuing phase of increased financial funding for the religion-​science dialogue as of the mid to late 1990s onwards. For general overviews on the religion-​science dialogue: Van den Brink, Philosophy. Clayton, Philip, Simpson, Zachary (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Manning, Russell R.E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Peters,‘Where’. Richardson, Mark W., Wildman, Wesley J. (eds.), Religion and Science-​History, Method, Dialogue, Abingdon: Routledge, 1996. Stump, Padgett, Companion, Schwarz, 400 Jahre. Welker, Dialogue. 563 Glimpel, Christoph, Gottesgedanke und autonome Vernunft-​ Eine kritisch-​ konstruktive Auseinandersetzung mit den philosophischen Grundlagen der Theologie Wolfhart Pannenbergs, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Leppek, Thorsten A., Wahrheit bei Wolfhart Pannenberg: Eine philosophisch-​theologische Untersuchung (Forschungen zur systematischen und ökumenischen Theologie), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Greive, Wolfgang, Die Glaubwürdigkeit des Christentums-​ Die Theologie Wolfhart Pannenbergs als Herausforderung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017.

Theology as the science of God

129

or themes of Pannenberg’s theology and mentioned Wissenschaftstheorie in passing.564 Wenz holds a unique position regarding the overall intimate insight, theological preservation and intellectual commemoration of Pannenberg.565 He has a long-​lived connection with Pannenberg, first as his student, then as his successor at the LMU and now as director of the Wolfhart Pannenberg-​Forschungsstelle. His personal access to Pannenberg’s family and estate grant him an unparalleled insight into his intellectual and personal legacy.566 On the whole, responses to Wissenschaftstheorie covered a wide range of concerns according to the authors’ own academic expertise, ranging from the superficial to in-​depth exchanges. Sauter formed an exception as he carried on to seriously converse with Pannenberg throughout the 1970s and 1980s, with both theologians earnestly engaging in their respective theories, discussing overlaps and pointing out differences in their attempt to further the overall theological debate on method.567 Equally, Pannenberg’s former student, van Huyssteen,568 continued to refine and build on Pannenberg’s work, first in South Africa and subsequently in the US. Wissenschaftstheorie was certainly highly regarded amongst his former domestic and international students; yet overall it only elicited a restricted number of responses (contrary to other works of his).569 In fact, Pannenberg’s influence concerning contextual subjects such as, for example, creation, cosmology or

564 Greiner (1988), Hasel (1996), Losch (2011), Rothgangel (1999), Worthing (1996). For bibliographical details cf. footnotes 284, 232, 322, 314, 349. 565 In Germany, several former students continue to contribute to Pannenberg’s legacy, such as Axt-​Piscalar, Mühlenberg, Nüssel, Rohls or Wagner. 566 Wenz focuses on the overall life-​time work of Pannenberg, of which Wissenschaftstheorie is but one endeavour. The series Pannenberg-​Studien is accordingly broad in their contributions. For bibliographical details cf. footnotes 25, 28, 167. 567 For bibliographical details cf. footnotes 102, 103, 350, 351, 352, 355. 568 Van Huyssteen is a South African citizen who was based at the University of Port Elizabeth from 1972 to 1991. Thereafter, he accepted a call to Princeton Theological Seminary (1992–​2014). He is, in this chapter, broadly identified as a participant in the US-​debate, which is a part-​truth only due to his particular setting and publications both in Dutch and English. For a differentiated insight on the changing contexts and developments of van Huyssteen’s interdisciplinary journey cf.: Gregersen, Niels Henrik, ‘J. Wentzel van Huyssteen: Exploring Venues for an Interdisciplinary Theology’, Theology Today, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 72, 2, 2015, 141–​159. 569 Examples would be his work on anthropology, pneumatology or his overall systematic theology.

130

Theology as the science of God

anthropology, was more substantial.570 Indeed, Wissenschaftstheorie shed light on the scientific rigour required to conduct the theological discipline but internationally it was the overarching influence of the American native Barbour and his developments on method that dominated the US debate.571 Due to the geographical distance as well as the overall theological focus and particularities, Wissenschaftstheorie received a more marginal academic US-​American reception than Barbour in the religion-​science dialogue.572 However, according to Grenz and Rausch Albright, his persistence and continuity were unique in that: Perhaps no modern theologian has engaged in a more unrelenting attempt to correct this situation than Wolfhart Pannenberg … to develop a new synthesis of theology and human scientific learning rivaling the great intellectual construction of the Middle Ages.573

This chapter seeks to analyse the content of Wissenschaftstheorie in light of select comments it has attracted. Due to the length of this book, this task will be undertaken in isolation of Pannenberg’s Christology574 and anthropology,575 two subjects he had already developed by 1973 and whose reflections have attracted considerable responses in separate debates, especially later on in his career.576

5 70 For bibliographical details cf. footnote 63, 64, 577. 571 Pages 65–​72. 572 The same can be held for Pannenberg’s reception in the UK and the domestic theological predominance of Torrance’s works. McGrath, God, 26. 573 Grenz, ‘Scientific’, 160. Rausch Albright, Carol, ‘Introduction’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997, 31. 574 For bibliographical details cf. footnote 86. 575 For bibliographical details cf. footnotes 63, 64. 576 Grenz, Hope, 137–​146. Grenz’ comments referred to the US-​reception of Pannenberg’s Anthropology in Theological Perspective in 1986 and the prior ‘meager’ responses to his earlier works on the subject. Sponheim, Paul, ‘To expand and to deepen the provisional: An Inquiry into Pannenberg’s Anthropology in Theological Perspective’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997, 378–​395. Shults, Postfoundationalist, 153–​164, 178–​236. Cobb, John B., ‘Jesus: God and Man’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 49, 2, 1969, 192–​201. McDermott, Brian O., ‘Pannenberg’s Resurrection Christology: A Critique’, Theological Studies, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 35, 4, 1974, 711–​721. Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Fragestellungen der Christologie’, Verkündigung und Forschung, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, Vol. 32, 2, 1966, 37–​73.

Pannenberg’s theological and philosophical context

131

This equally applies to Pannenberg’s pneumatology, which was comprehensively dealt with by critics in the religion-​science dialogue.577 Yet, even trying to dissect and analyse the various responses in regard to the many subject particularities touched on in the book is simply not possible due to the restricted length and scope of the thesis. Further select research would, therefore, be useful. Pannenberg’s German theological and philosophical context is shortly outlined, in order to more clearly position both the content of the book and its responses.

5.1 Pannenberg’s theological and philosophical context It has already been noted that Pannenberg responded equally to internal theological and philosophical challenges with Wissenschaftstheorie. These responses are outlined comprehensively in Chapters 2578 and 4579 of the book. Indeed, Pannenberg’s wider German theological and philosophical context framed the scientific setting of Wissenschaftstheorie. Careful differentiation is therefore required: as already demonstrated, it is undeniably too limited to solely reference the book as reaction contra proponents of dialectic theology. In fact, for van Huyssteen, it was clear that: Pannenberg’s own development of a philosophical model on the basis of the nature of systematic theology may be seen wholly as an attempt to meet Scholz’s demands for theology.580

Yet, the situation was even more complex. On the one hand, it is true that, theologically, Wissenschaftstheorie largely took up the German methodological debate on the scientificity of theology where the philosopher and logician Scholz left it prior to the Second World War in 1931.581 It was Scholz who, in 577 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Dulles, Avery, Robert, Braaten, Carl E. (eds.), Spirit, Faith and Church, Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1970. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘The Doctrine of the Spirit and the Task of a Theology of Nature’, Theology, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Vol. 75, 619, 1972, 8–​21. Kärkkäinen, Veli-​ Matti, ‘The Working of the Spirit of God in Creation and in the People of God: The Pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Vol. 26, 1, 2004, 17–​35. 578 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 126–​136, ETR125–​135. 579 Ibid., 226–​298, ETR228–​296. 580 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 83. 581 McGrath, Torrance, 207–​208. Schwarz, Hans, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg’ in Stump, Jim B., Padgett, Alan G. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, 2012, 612. Nüssel, Friederike, ‘Die Aufgabe

132

Theology as the science of God

relation to Barth, articulated three undisputed minimum scientific requirements as well two disputed minimum requirements concerning theology.582 Barth rejected these scientific requests583 on the grounds of affirming the revelational positivist character of theology. He did so, interestingly, without outlining the necessary detailed requisites himself, though.584 Scholz attempted to resume the debate in 1936 in an article called Was ist unter einer theologischen Aussage zu verstehen?585 However, Barth neither responded nor developed the argument any further.586 Overall, and understandably, the interest by representatives of dialectic theology to prove the actual scientific character of theology in accordance with other sciences was rather limited. While D. Munchin perceived that ‘other theologians have explicitly tried to meet Scholz’ criteria, most notably among them Pannenberg’,587 this assessment is rather incomplete. Pannenberg himself stated that:

der Dogmatik im Zusammenhang der Theologie’ in Dalferth, Ingolf U. (ed.), Eine Wissenschaft oder viele? Die Einheit evangelischer Theologie in der Sicht ihrer Disziplinen?, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006, 84–​85. 582 The undisputed requirements are the Satzpostulat (the assertion regarding the sentence), Kohärenzpostulat (the assertion regarding the coherence) and the Kontrollierbarkeitspostulat (the assertion regarding the verifiability) while Scholz regarded the Unabhängigkeitspostulat (the assertion regarding the independence) and the Konkordanzpostulat (the assertion regarding the concordance) to be questionable. Scholz, ‘Evangelische Theologie?’, 8–​35, in particular 19–​24. Scholz, ‘Evangelische Theologie?’ in Sauter, 221–​278. 583 Barth, Dogmatik I/​1, 6–​9. This was also the subject of Barth’s talk at the Göttinger Herbstkonferenz on 07.10.1925. Barth, Karl, ‘Kirche und Theologie (1925)’ in Barth, Karl, Vorträge und kleinere Arbeiten 1922–​ 1925, Finze, Holger (ed.), Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1990, 644–​682. 584 Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik I/​1, 6. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 266–​277, ETR265–​275. 585 Trsl.: What is to be understood by a theological claim? Scholz, ‘Aussage?’, 265–​278. The original was published in: Scholz, Heinrich, ‘Was ist unter einer theologischen Aussage zu verstehen?’ in Ernst, Wolf (ed.), Theologische Aufsätze-​Karl Barth zum 50. Geburtstag, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1936, 34–​47. 586 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 271–​275, ETR269–​275. 587 Munchin, David, Is Theology a Science? The Nature of the Scientific Enterprise in the Scientific Theology of Thomas Forsyth Torrance and the Anarchic Epistemology of Paul Feyerabend (Studies in Systmeatic Theology), Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2011, 17.

Pannenberg’s theological and philosophical context

133

We can preliminarily orientate ourselves on the formulated criteria by H. Scholz in his discussion with K. Barth (c.f. 71f.). The scientific minimum demands of Scholz have to be amended and differentiated after three decades of intense scientific philosophical discourse, but they are still valid as minimum requirements.588

Indeed, Pannenberg extensively explained his idea of the scientificity of theology which moved decisively over and above Scholz’ criteria, while attempting to fulfil them.589 Unfortunately, once again the English translation of Wissenschaftstheorie does not capture Pannenberg’s original meaning. Interestingly, D. McKenzie considered Pannenberg not to have fulfilled Scholz’ third minimum parameter and professed the ‘comparative aspect of Pannenberg’s work on a testing procedure for theological claims [to be] flawed’.590 For Pannenberg, though, Scholz’ ‘undisputed scientific philosophical minimum requirements served only to demonstrate more explicitly what had always been part of the logical structure of arguments.’591 Coming to his defence, van Huyssteen summarized how the third criterion had been fulfilled by Pannenberg through the testing of theological statements in the context of the historical religion and the history of their development.592 Meanwhile, Kuhn confirmed a similarity in both Scholz and Pannenberg in that: Both [theologians] are moved by the dual interest in theology and the philosophy of science (that took the form of mathematical logic in the case of Scholz). But with Scholz, this interest was fuelled by a personal and professional crisis and led to a continuous rejection of theology (yet, at no point, [did it lead him to be] closer to positivism). Meanwhile, P. is focused on reconciliation.593

On the other hand, it is equally true that the German philosophical debate in the 1970s was more intense and potentially damaging for the existence of theology as a university subject than can be deduced from any reading between the lines of Wissenschaftstheorie. Nonetheless, both foreign and national insights into Pannenberg ignore the fact that other German theologians and philosophers 5 88 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 329, ETR326, TM. 589 Ibid., 329–​348, ETR326–​345. 590 McKenzie, David, Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Religious Philosophy, Washington: University of America Press, 1980, 70–​72. 591 Pannenberg, ‘Reden’, 630, TM. 592 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 333–​ 348, ETR330–​ 345. Van Huyssteen, Justification, 87–​88. 593 Kuhn, ‘Tribunal’, 268, TM. Also: Molendijk, Arie L., Aus dem Dunklen ins Helle: Wissenschaft und Theologie im Denken von Heinrich Scholz, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991, 192–​195.

134

Theology as the science of God

contributed to the heated exchange. It was Scheffczyck who lamented that despite their polemic this genre of books was hardly acknowledged or even considered among the larger circle of German theologians.594 In fact, in 1965 W. Kaufmann wrote Der Glaube eines Ketzers;595 J. Kahl published in 1968 Das Elend des Christentums oder Plädoyer für eine Humanität ohne Gott,596 while R. Schäfer argued in Die Misere der theologischen Fakultäten. Dokumentation und Kritik eines Tabus597 (1970) for the exclusion of theological faculties from universities on the basis of their dogmatic bias, their faith basis and their dependency on a certain interest group (i.e., the church). Indeed, for Schäfer, theology did not possess the scientific minimum requirements of a university science.598 The German philosopher M. Gatzemeier equally judged: The self-​conception of theology qualifies this discipline as an ideology, not as a science. One gets the impression that it is a science like any other science through its existence at university level; [however, theology] can be viewed as a conscious or subconscious deception of the public.599

While Pannenberg continued theologically where Scholz left the debate,600 he did so, in particular, by referencing and answering two strikingly vocal philosophical critics, the American W. Bartley601 and the German H. Albert.602 It was the reaction of representatives of dialectic theology in the 1930s that triggered Bartley’s response 30 years later, when he came to speak of a generation of theologians characterized by their Retreat to Commitment,603 rather than by a desire to submit their claims to pan-​critical rationalism. Both academics generated considerable interest with their works in the 1960s. Bartley’s assessment on

5 94 Scheffczyck, ‘Wissenschaftstheorie’, footnote 4, 161. 595 Kaufmann, Walter, Der Glaube eines Ketzers, München: Szczesny Verlag, 1965. 596 Kahl, Joachim, Das Elend des Christentums oder Plädoyer für eine Humanität ohne Gott, Reinbek: Rowohlt Verlag, 1968. 597 Schäfer, Rolf, Die Misere der theologischen Fakultäten. Dokumentation und Kritik eines Tabus, Schwerte: Freistühler Verlag, 1970. 598 Scheffczyck, ‘Wissenschaftstheorie’, 160–​162. 599 Gatzemeier, Matthias, Theologie als Wissenschaft Band 2, Stuttgart: Verlag Frommann-​ Holzboog, 1975, 161, TM. 600 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘The Nature of a Theological Statement’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 7, 1, 1972, 6–​19. 601 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 45–​49, ETR44–​48. Pannenberg, ‘Reden’, 629. 602 Ibid., 185–​206, ETR185–​205. Van Huyssteen, Justification, 35. 603 Bartley, William Warren, Retreat to Commitment, New York: Knopf, 1962.

Pannenberg’s theological and philosophical context

135

the state of theology,604 aptly summarized in his book title, allowed Pannenberg to declare: Theology, according to Bartley, could always support its intellectual integrity through the following argument: the thesis that every position, regardless from which subject and each scientific procedure, finally relies on pre-​requisites that are unfoundedly accepted, i.e. certain foundational axioms on which any further argumentation is based. If this presupposition was to be true, a theologian would effectively proceed no differently to a mathematician or a physicist. All rely on final, foundational axioms that cannot be verified. The function of theology would be to attribute to an extra-​rational engagement and rationally based apologetic foundation.605

To date, various opinions exist concerning the extent to which Bartley’s claims actually drove Pannenberg’s arguments: while van Huyssteen regarded them as being the predominant motivational force despite attesting him to be deeply critical of Barth;606 Clayton attributed Pannenberg’s references to being further indirect and early criticism of Barth.607 Equally, Pannenberg comprehensively referenced608 the sociologist and philosopher Albert, one of Germany’s most famous critical realists,609 who declared theology to be ‘the professionalized and institutionalized abuse of rationality in the service of faith.’610 While Pannenberg accurately analysed Albert’s expressions to be the consequence of his anti-​theological sentiments rather than describing any plausible critical realist thinking, he did agree with Albert in that theology sought to save the idea of God through an ‘immunization strategy’.611 It was van Huyssteen who highlighted the ‘patent prescientific hostility’ that Pannenberg rightly pointed out in Albert that could not be justified in terms of the latter’s 6 04 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 45–​49, ETR43–​47. Van Huyssteen, ‘Truth’, 366–​367. 605 Ibid., 47, ETR45, TM. Bartley called this the ‘tu quoque argument’. Bartley, Retreat, 98–​100. 606 Van Huyssteen, ‘Truth’, 78, 364. 607 Clayton, Philip, ‘From Methodology to Metaphysics: The Problem of Control in the Science-​Religion Dialogue’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997, 398. 608 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 49–​51, ETR 47–​50, 126–​129, ETR125–​128, 137–​ 138, ETR135–​136, 191–​194, ETR190–​191, 205, ETR204–​205, 324, ETR321. 609 Albert, Hans, Traktat über kritische Vernunft, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968. 610 Albert, Hans, Das Elend der Theologie. Kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Hans Küng, Hamburg: Hoffmann & Campe, 1979, 57, TM. 611 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 47, ETR45, TM. Rothgangel, Naturwissenschaft, 132–​143.

136

Theology as the science of God

critical realism.612 Yet, Pannenberg bypassed this emotional deflection with his academic sophistication: What also makes Pannenberg’s confrontation with critical rationalism of cardinal importance is not only that he never takes a naïve and dogmatic stance against the Popper school, but also that he critically reviews those demands and exposes their limitations and even their untenability from the inside, as it were.613

This highest level of excellence enticed Albert almost 40 years later in 2012 to exclaim that Pannenberg had indeed been the only German theologian prepared to thoroughly scrutinize theology on a scientific basis.614 While being a fierce atheist critic himself, Albert granted Pannenberg the fact that the formulation of the existence of God as a hypothesis had to be validated with equal scientific rigour as was utilized by other sciences; moreover, he responded directly to it in 1982.615

5.2 Pannenberg’s theorem Criticism concerning Wissenschaftstheorie was not restricted to philosophers but also elicited by theologians. Wenz recalled an anecdote where Ratzinger, then theology professor in Regensburg, was supposedly overheard dismissingly judging Wissenschaftstheorie as two independent parts containing different subject matter simply connected by their book cover.616 That said, the book’s vast breadth of content begs the question as to how Pannenberg actually advanced his scientific argument concerning the concept of the universality of God. Pannenberg developed his model of theorization to demonstrate the truth claims of Christianity in systematic theology by dividing Wissenschaftstheorie into two parts, each consisting of three chapters. In the first half he critically

612 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 79. Pannenberg referred to the Ebeling/​Albert controversy. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, footnote 77a, 51, ETR49. Ebeling, Gerhard, Kritischer Rationalismus? Zu Hans Alberts “Traktat über kritische Vernunft”, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973. Albert, Hans, Theologische Holzwege. Gerhard Ebeling und der rechte Gebrauch der Vernunft, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973. 613 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 79, TM. 614 Albert, Hans, Kritik des theologischen Denkens, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2012, 28. 615 Albert, Hans, Die Wissenschaft und die Fehlbarkeit der Vernunft, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1982, 158–​ 161. Kellerwessel, Wulf, Religionskritik in der Perspektive theoretischer Philosophie: Einführung-​Überblick-​Diskussion, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2017, 110–​111. 616 Wenz, Gunther, Vom Sinn des Ganzen. Wolfhart Pannenberg über Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie (1973), unpublished manuscript, 2015, 2.

Pannenberg’s theorem

137

investigated the methods for the natural and human sciences and the definition of what constituted a science.617 Pannenberg did so in the larger context of both the then latest philosophy of science developments and also against the insights of theological hermeneutics, especially focusing on the difference between meaning (Sinn) and understanding (Verstehen).618 In the second half,619 he proposed his definition of theology as a science of God and the relation of the subject to other sciences. He sought to develop his model of rationality carefully adhering to his own particular methodology.620 Moreover, Pannenberg addressed the inner-​theological tension between scientific theory and ecclesial practice as well as the structure of the theological subjects in relation to each other in the last chapter of the book.621 Pannenberg’s academic style of writing and both his scholastic and patristic heritage as well as his theological and philosophical influences have already been discussed as contributing factors to his style and method.622 Similarly, his overarching framework of Revelation as History has been defined and, hence requires no further mention.623 Wide-​ ranging critiques of Pannenberg by various theologians were provided in comprehensive anthologies both by Braaten and Clayton624 and Rausch Albright and Haugen in 1997;625 they included responses to his theory model.626 Each of the chapters and concerned aspects opened with

6 17 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 27–​224, ETR23–​224. 618 Ibid., 136–​156, ETR135–​155. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Macht der Mensch die Religion oder macht die Religion den Menschen?’ in Rendtorff, Trutz (ed.), Religion als Problem der Aufklärung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980, 151–​157. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Hermeneutik und Universalgeschichte’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 60, 1, 1963, 90–​121. 619 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 225–​442, ETR228–​440. 620 Pages 11–​14. 621 Rendtorff, ‘Theologiestudium’, 210–​228. 622 Pages 34–​47. 623 Pages 53–​56. 624 Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988. 625 Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997. 626 Peters, Ted, ‘Book Notes-​The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg. E. Frank Tupper’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 55, 4, 1975, 486. Kolden, Marc, ‘Theology as the Science of God’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 58, 1, 1978, 67. Gregersen, ‘Introduction’, vii–​xxiv.

138

Theology as the science of God

an extraordinarily detailed and comprehensive summary of their surrounding historical debate, as Pannenberg stipulated that: In systematic theology, one should be concerned with the history of a problem, as well as its contemporary forms. That is, we must know when, how, and why a problem arose before we can adequately address ourselves to it. We should also concern ourselves with the more general requirements of coherence and consistency. By doing so, I hope that Christian theology will reobtain and pursue its task on the highest level of sophistication which is our best weapon against the present cultural marginalization of theology.627

Pannenberg comprehensively dealt with the subject of scientific methodology as a foundation for any science in the first part of Wissenschaftstheorie. He summarized the historical developments of the method before focusing on the unity and diversity of the sciences. Indeed, he did so with reference to the traditional demands that theologians held to be a science, with proponents using impetus from Analytic philosophy, logical positivism (A. Comte/​Wiener Kreis/​ R. Carnap),628 critical rationalism and Kuhn’s contextual turn.629 Certainly, the basis for Pannenberg’s choice in dealing with the aforementioned scientific methods was their relation to natural scientific and mathematical subjects. For Pannenberg, the parameters of logical positivism and the principle of verification were unsatisfactory: meaningful or meaningless propositions which made assertions about any state of affairs were open, only to a limited extent, to verification, falsification or testing of any sort, aptly also depicted in Barth’s revelational theology.630 Pannenberg, rather, turned in detail to Popper’s search for the logic of scientific enquiry and his principle of falsification.631 As a proponent of the unity of method, Popper stated that all theoretical sciences made use of the same method regardless of whether they were natural or social sciences.632 For Popper,

6 27 Pannenberg, ‘Pannenberg’ in Bauman, Roundtable, 46. 628 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 31–​44, ETR29–​43. Carnap, Rudolf, ‘Theoretische Begriffe der Wissenschaft. Eine logische und methodologische Untersuchung (Fortsetzung und Schluß)’, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, Meisenheim: Verlag Anton Hain KG, Vol. 14, 2, 1960, 209–​233. 629 Ibid., 45–​60, ETR43–​58. 630 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 266–​277, ETR265–​276. Pannenberg, ‘Reden’, 629–​630. 631 Ibid., 36, ETR35. Popper, Karl, The Poverty of Historicism (Re-​ edition), Abingdon: Routledge Classics, 20022, 143. 632 Ibid., 143. Popper, Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Re-​ edition), Abingdon: Routledge Classics, 20026, 66.

Pannenberg’s theorem

139

scientific discovery always included some sort of faith. Popper’s assessment633 refuted the general perception of the supposed scientific superiority of the natural sciences in relation to the humanities. In fact, according to Popper, ‘all observation involves interpretation.’634 Pannenberg thus pointed out: What has certainly become clear is that the question of truth cannot be separated from that of essence [of things], of the ultimate nature of things.635

Indeed, Popper’s critique of the law of verification was closely connected to his critique of the inductive principle.636 However, according to Popper, people could only learn through trial and error. Hence, the law of verification was thus to be replaced with the law of falsification. While Popper’s critique of verification was not new, his argument against it, however, was novel: This criterion excludes from the realm of meaning all scientific theories; for these are no more reducible to observation reports than the so called metaphysical pseudo-​propositions. The positivist criterion of meaning has thus proved itself just as destructive of science as it was of metaphysics (264).637

Popper’s method of falsification was ultimately untenable for Pannenberg because the underlying hypotheses of Popper’s basic sentences were assumed to be verifiable.638 Therefore, Pannenberg turned to Kuhn’s paradigm precisioning in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions639 that challenged longstanding linear 633 Küng, Hans, Der Anfang aller Dinge-​Naturwissenschaft und Theologie, München: Piper Verlag, 20067, 40–​45. Van Huyssteen, Justification, 24–​46. 634 Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutation: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Re-​edition), Abingdon: Routledge Classics, 20027, 21–​24. 635 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 42, ETR 43, TM. 636 Popper, Logic, 3–​7. Swinburne, Richard, The Existence of God, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 20042, 4–​ 22. Swinburne, Richard, ‘The Evidential Value of Religious Experiences’ in Peacocke, Arthur R. (ed.), The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, Stocksfield: Oriel Press Ltd., 1981, 182–​196. Bartley, William, ‘Theories of Demarcation between Science and Metaphysics’ in Lakatos, Imre, Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Problems in the Philosophy of Science, Amsterdam: North-​Holland, 1968, 40–​ 119. On the conflict between inductive and deductive methods: Bartley, William, ‘Achilles, the Tortoise, and Explanation of Science’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962, 15–​33. 637 Popper, Karl, Conjunctures, 261. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 39, ETR 38. 638 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 52–​60, ETR50–​57. Von Weizsäcker, Carl Friedrich, Die Einheit der Natur, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 20028, 124. Greiner, Theologie, 207–​208. Michalos, Alex C., The Popper-​Carnap Controversy, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971. 639 For bibliographical details cf. footnote 163.

140

Theology as the science of God

notions of scientific progress in their descriptive process of discovery. Kuhn’s theory that transformative ideas did not arise from the day-​to-​day, gradual processes of experimentation and data accumulation but that revolutions in science, those breakthrough moments that disrupted affected thinking and offered unanticipated ideas, occurred outside normal science.640 In fact, Kuhn attempted to explain the transfer of cognitive processes into the social processes of scientists’ work. Pannenberg thus established through Kuhn’s contextual methodology a link in that both the natural sciences and the humanities used some form of faith assumption (non-​linear notions).641 Therefore, the former disciplines’ presumed absolute objectivity was no longer tenable; the emancipation of the humanities from the natural sciences became therefore inevitable. Paralleling the plurality of existing approaches in the philosophy of science, responses were equally varied, depending on the individual scientific philosophical approach of each critic. In fact, Dillistone’s remark is particularly noteworthy in that ‘the scope of this book is so wide that it is scarcely practicable to raise questions about individual aspects of it.’642 Yet, critics did emphasize individual aspects of the book, which did indeed vary widely. Remarkably, the majority concentrated on Pannenberg’s underlying philosophical model of Popper’s and Kuhn’s theories in the first two chapters of the book. Disapproval regarding Wissenschaftstheorie elicited various concerns: that Pannenberg did not distance himself strongly enough from Popper643 but rather ‘endorses in a carefully nuanced discussion Popper’s notion of falsifiability’644 or that Pannenberg actually misunderstood Popper.645 Dillistone concluded that unfortunately: [Pannenberg] does not seem to have seen the important debate between Popper and Kuhn recorded in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Lakatos and Musgrave.646

6 40 Kuhn, 10–​11. 641 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 338–​348, ETR335–​345. In contrast, Murphy picked up on the notion of paradigms and history more vaguely: Murphy, Nancey, ‘Relations between Theological and Scientific Methodologies’, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Topsfield/​MA: American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 63, 1, 2011. Stewart, Reconstructing, 140–​143. 642 Dillistone, ‘Theology’, 220. 643 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 59, ETR57. 644 Foster, Durwood, ‘Pannenberg’s Polanyism: A Response to John V. Apczynski’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 17, 1, 1982, 75. 645 Schrader, David A., ‘Karl Popper as a Point of Departure for a Philosophy of Theology’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, New York: Springer Publishing, Vol. 14, 4, 1983, 193. 646 Dillistone, ‘Theology’, 219.

Pannenberg’s theorem

141

Peterson, in turn, considered Pannenberg to use an implied ‘soft falsificationism via Thomas Kuhn that allowed him to include the social sciences in his definition.’647 Yet, according to van Huyssteen, Pannenberg’s intentions were that: Pannenberg thus opts for a rationality model that shows strong correspondence with Popper’s critical rationalism and Kuhn’s paradigm theory. The theological model developed by him, however, shows clear signs of his close ties with critical rationalism. The principal consequence of that bond is that Pannenberg sees the concept of God as a hypothesis that has to be justified; a justification, however, that –​under Kuhn’s influence –​is bound up with its capacity for meaningful explanation and problem solving.648

Clayton, however, did not agree on the influence of Kuhn over Pannenberg,649 while Murphy refuted, in turn, Clayton’s assessment in that: On my reading of Pannenberg, he is indebted to Kuhn, but specifically for showing the inadequacies of Popper’s methodology. Yet he recognizes, with van den Brink, that earlier stages of philosophy still have positive contributions to make. What Pannenberg takes from Popper is the recognition that empirical conclusions can be disconfirmed by future experience. This endorsement of Popper’s position on the ‘anticipatory’ character of knowledge is quite important when Pannenberg turns to the role of Jesus’ resurrection as an anticipation of the end of history.650

In fact, Murphy further reproached Pannenberg for his omission of contemporary research in critical rationalism by I. Lakatos.651 Yet, when challenged on his omission and, in line with the evolution of his already outlined research on the topic since the early 1960s,652 Pannenberg simply responded that: When I wrote my book Theology and the Philosophy of Science … at that time, around 1970, the latest phase of discussion was represented by Thomas Kuhn.653

That said, Pannenberg did clarify his position vis-​à-​vis Lakatos in 1997:

647 Peterson, Gregory R., ‘Where Do We Go from Here?’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997, 139. 648 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 98. 649 Clayton, ‘Methodology’, 398. 650 Murphy,‘Relations’, 52. 651 Murphy, Theology, 19–​50, 176–​178, 208–​209. 652 E.g. footnotes 260–​263. Murphy acknowledged this insight later on: Murphy, ‘Relations’, 52. 653 Pannenberg, ‘Theological Appropriation’, 430. Murphy, ‘Relations’, 52. Stewart, Reconstructing, 140–​143.

142

Theology as the science of God

In terms of systematic structure, the framework of theological explanations as I envision it may be adequately described in Lakatosian terms … I tend to emphasize more strongly the unity of elements in a systematic interpretation [than Lakatos].654

However, he conceded in the foreword of the soft copy edition that he considered the critical rationalist debate at that time to be a polemically led discourse.655 Furthermore, Pannenberg only regarded Kuhn’s work as worthy of further development.656 This assessment is mirrored somewhat by van Huyssteen who equally esteemed Kuhn to have emerged as the ‘most prominent and notable theorist of his time.’657 Kuhn revolutionized the philosophy of science; indeed, he heralded a paradigm shift as his model broadened the concept of rationality in such a fashion that any ahistorical concept of rationality came to be illusionary. Kuhn’s idea was that truth had a local and provisional character that became more refined and functional as research on it continued.658 Kuhn thus effectively ‘destroyed’ the illusion of the all-​time application of Popper’s falsification criterion.659 Interestingly, one of van Huyssteen’s strongest criticisms concerning Pannenberg’s model was that while he partly shared Kuhn’s view of the paradigmatic determination of one’s thought, Pannenberg remained caught up in the critical-​rationalist demand of a personal non-​commitment in the evaluation of theories.660 Thus van Huyssteen concluded that: Ultimately, this provides no means of thematizing, and even less of resolving, the problem of the role of the professiong theologian’s subjective religious commitment.661

For van Huyssteen, Pannenberg thus ‘clearly defined but failed to resolve the problem of a fideistic axiomatic theology’662 as he failed to address the crucial question of the personal commitment in the act of theorizing that Kuhn referred to.

6 54 Ibid., 430–​431. 655 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 3, no ETR available. The soft copy edition was published in 1987. 656 Ibid., 5, no ETR available. 657 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 49. 658 Ibid., 60–​61. 659 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 59, ETR57. 660 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 90. 661 Ibid., 90. 662 Ibid., 98.

Pannenberg’s theorem

143

Other in-​depth criticisms663 concerning Wissenschaftstheorie were largely driven by specific leanings towards individual critical rationalist philosophical preference and by their attempt of applicability. Thus, the various philosophical scientific theories of Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Polanyi, Toulmin, Musgrave and also McIntyre received competing attention in theological theorizing.664 Murphy subsequently considered that Wissenschaftstheorie revealed Toulmin to be the philosopher to whom Pannenberg was most indebted.665 Kolden and Russell equally referred to Pannenberg following Toulmin advocating a systems approach; he clarified though that it coincided with the method of hermeneutics that Pannenberg applied.666 Remarkably, critique concerning competing philosophical theories within critical rationalism was much stronger amongst Anglo-​ Saxon responses to Wissenschaftstheorie. No German theologian proposed an alternative critical rationalist angle to Pannenberg’s work. This might possibly be due to the different US voices, as referenced by Losch: the work of Polanyi, even though it was based on the Gestaltpsychologie which had been referred to by Pannenberg,667 remains almost non-​existent in German theological research.668 663 E.g. Page, James Smith, ‘Critical Realism and the Theological Science of Wolfhart Pannenberg: Exploring the Commonalities’, Bridges: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, Theology, History and Science, Monkton: Bridges, Vol. 10, 1, 2003, 71–​ 84. Apczynski, John V., ‘Truth in Religion: A Polanyianism Appraisal of Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Theological Program’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 17, 1, 1982, 49–​73. Foster, ‘Pannenberg’s Polanyism’, 75–​81. 664 Lakatos, Imre, Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Feyerabend, Paul, Against Method, New York: Verso, 19933. Polanyi, Michael, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-​ Critical Philosophy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. McIntyre, Alasdair, ‘Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narrative, and the Philosophy of Science’, The Monist, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Vol. 60, 4, 1977, 453–​472. Toulmin, Stephen, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20032. 665 Murphy, ‘Relations’, 52. Murphy, Age, 28. 666 Kolden, ‘God’, 63. Russell, Robert J., ‘Ian Barbour’s Methodological Breakthrough: Creating the “Bridge” Between Science and Theology’, Theology and Science, Abingdon: Routledge, Vol. 15, 1, 2017, 32. 667 Pannenberg, Müller, Erwägungen, 33–​80. 668 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, footnote 433, 216, ETR217,. Losch cited exceptions. Losch, Konflikte, 173, Mutschler, Hans-​Dieter, Naturphilosophie-​Grundkurs Philosophie Band 12, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 2002, 118. Mutschler, Hans-​Dieter, Physik und Religion. Perspektiven und Grenzen eines Dialogs, Darmstadt: WBG, 2005, 120,

144

Theology as the science of God

Yet, this impression constituted a part truth only as Peukert discussed Polanyi.669 Interestingly, L. Shults located the modifications and the deficiencies in critiques of Pannenberg in the differently held philosophical traditions across the Atlantic: My desire [is] to bring into dialogue two traditions that historically have avoided (and often derided) each other: the analytic and continental streams of philosophical theology. Theologians influenced by the analytic tradition will be surprised that I see the problem with ‘foundationalism’ as larger than simply deciding how to (or whether it is possible to) justify beliefs. Thinkers embedded in the continental tradition may be put off by my occasional use of the tools of analytic philosophy … Many of the misinterpretations of Pannenberg as a foundationalist, on the one side, and many of the dismissals of postmodernity as mere foolishness, on the other, are a result of the chasm between these philosophical approaches.670

Curiously, Pannenberg’s wider theological course and his focus on hermeneutics as well as his internal structuring of theology in the proceeding chapters of Wissenschaftstheorie produced fewer detailed responses. Yet, the insights are indispensable as they provided Pannenberg with the grounds to reflect on the scientific nature of theological statements and to declare them to be hypotheses with God being the object of the problem. In the second chapter, Pannenberg thus led the reader in a vast historical sweep through the emancipation of the humanities from the natural sciences, demonstrating their parity relationship.671 Throughout this process he engaged extensively with the works of Dilthey, H. Rickert and Troeltsch, amongst others. The work of Troeltsch remained central in this section.672 Within the chapter, Pannenberg comprehensively explained the historical academic awareness, process and differentiation between the social and natural sciences, while affirming differences in their methodologies and striving towards an approach commonly accepted by both. In doing so, Pannenberg critically assessed the subjects of sociology and hermeneutics and their methodological independency. He disproved critics who stipulated that hermeneutics as a method would apply to the humanities alone.673 Pannenberg contrasted a unified scientific definition and a confident self-​understanding that was based on hermeneutical methodology in the 122. Ewald, Günter, Gehirn, Seele und Computer. Der Menschen im Quantenzeitalter, Darmstadt: WBG, 2006, 67–​71. 669 Peukert, Wissenschaftstheorie, 127, 148–​159. 670 Shults, Postfoundationalist, xi–​xii. 671 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 74–​156, ETR72–​155. 672 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 74–​156, ETR72–​155. 673 Ibid., 136–​156, ETR135–​155.

Pannenberg’s theorem

145

humanities, thus clearly setting historical natural scientific methods apart. He identified that those scientific definitions interfered most strongly in the area of social science, a discipline within which proponents dedicated considerable resources to clarify those interfering definitions.674 He went on to discuss the Frankfurter Schule of critical sociology and exemplarily outlined the conflict between J. Habermas and N. Luhmann.675 In doing so, Pannenberg demonstrated that the sociological development of theories was indeed dependent on meaning. This meaning, in turn, referred to a totality that was embedded in a historical understanding of the world in which contemporary understanding was already always incorporated.676 The totality of meaning, according to Pannenberg, was thus derived from the historical world (Sinntotalität der geschichtlichen Lebenswelt).677 Every part received its meaning only within the context of this total meaning. He clarified the concept of part and whole that he proposed in Wissenschaftstheorie further in 1978.678 According to Pannenberg, this art of meaningful understanding could happen in the humanities as well as in the natural sciences. McKenzie stipulated that: Pannenberg develops his theory of meaning more or less as an offshoot of this work on theological hermeneutics. Hence, in order to get hold of the basic ingredients of his contextualism, one must concentrate on his discussion of hermeneutics.679

This anticipation of the totality of meaning and the prolepsis680 of the whole formed Pannenberg’s foundation in Wissenschaftstheorie. Blanco considered 6 74 Ibid., 25, ETR21. 675 Ibid., 82–​104, ETR80–​102. 676 Ibid., 71–​72, ETR69–​70, 217–​221, ETR217–​221, 311–​318, ETR309–​316, 341–​345, ETR337–​342. Wenz, Sinn, 3. 677 Ibid., 105, ETR131. 678 Ibid., 131–​135, ETR129–​134, 214–​216, ETR214–​216, 307, ETR305. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Die Bedeutung der Kategorien “Teil” und “Ganzes” für die Wissenschaftstheorie der Theologie’, Theologie und Philosophie, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 53, 4, 1978, 481–​497. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘The significance of the categories “Part” and “Whole” for the Epistemology of Theology’, Clayton, Philip (trsl.), The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 66, 4, 1986, 369–​385. Peters, Ted, ‘Clarity of the Part versus Meaning of the Whole’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997, 289–​302. 679 McKenzie, Religious, 25. 680 Cf. also: Pasquariello, Ronald D., ‘Pannenberg’s Philosophical Foundations’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 56, 4, 1976, 338–​347.

146

Theology as the science of God

Pannenberg’s meaning in history as being grounded theologically in Löwith.681 For Pannenberg, this thought process was strongly guided by Dilthey, a fact he outlined himself concerning various misconceptions about him:682 [Hegel’s] ideas, for example, are not as good as those of Wilhelm Dilthey whose assumptions in the area of hermeneutics I am indebted to … 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.683

The fact that Pannenberg based his argument on the overarching description of the hermeneutical function of philosophical theory construction led to both appraisal and criticism alike. Van Huyssteen pointed out that this constituted: A patently argumentative theology … rather than any form of dogmatic axiomatic theology based on the preconceived and unquestionable certainties so typical of positivism.684

Nevertheless, it is possible due to specialist knowledge of the works of German theologians and philosophers such as Dilthey, Gadamer or Habermas, that fewer critiques focused on those chapters in the book.685 The British theologian J. Stewart pointed to and considered the lack of awareness of the impact that Gadamer had of Pannenberg to be ‘fairly characteristic for [the conversation] as it has proceeded in the US.’686 Considering Shults’ overall negative assessment687 on Stewart’s appraisal of Pannenberg, such a viewpoint would need careful clarification, even though it was somehow underlined by Clayton: He drew heavily, for example, on the field of hermeneutics and on the nineteenth century debate about the status of Theology among the sciences, with a particular debt to Schleiermacher. In fact, history played a significant role in the text, including coverage of topics such as Protestant Scholasticism that are outside the purview of many scholars in the field.688

681 Blanco, Carlos, ‘God, the Future and the Fundamentum of History in Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Heythrop Journal, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 54, 2, 2013, 307. 682 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 76–​82, ETR74–​80. Wenz, Sinn, 3. 683 Pannenberg, ‘Pannenberg’ in Bauman, Roundtable, 47–​48. 684 Van Huyssteen, ‘Truth’, 361. 685 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 159, ETR158. Polk, God, 12. 686 Stewart, Reconstructing, 140–​143. 687 Shults, ‘Relationality’, 809–​825. 688 Clayton, ‘Metaphysics’, 238.

Pannenberg’s theorem

147

Select scholars such as Turner689 (1972) and Peters690 (1975) had already prominently analysed Pannenberg’s hermeneutics; equally, McFague dealt with Gadamer.691 White pointed out that Pannenberg relied ‘heavily on the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-​Georg Gadamer’,692 while Peters commented that: The greatest contribution to our understanding of meaning, however, comes to us from the hermeneutical philosophers such as Wilhelm Dilthey, Hans-​Georg Gadamer and Jürgen Habermas. These hermeneuts recognize that all experience of meaning anticipates by implication the widest possible context of meaning –​that is, the whole of reality. God is the correlate to the whole of humanity. The idea of God –​defined as the all-​determining reality –​becomes the hypothesis raised by Pannenberg to provide the most adequate explanation for the experience of meaning.693

Kolden also positively acknowledged that Pannenberg’s historicizing of hermeneutics and his stressing of certain themes of Analytic philosophy helped overcome the subjectivization of so much hermeneutical theology.694 Indeed, Kolden stressed Pannenberg’s seriousness concerning the themes and claims of the Bible while at the same time proposing a historical approach that offered ways of relating that material to modern thought in non-​authoritarian ways.695 Pannenberg reinforced the profound significance of hermeneutics himself: My book on ‘Theology and the Philosophy of Science’ provides sufficient evidence that I consider a hermeneutical approach to the discussion of scientific method to be fundamentally important.696

Pannenberg constructively dealt with Dilthey to Schleiermacher, Heidegger and Gadamer, for a method of understanding. He especially Existentialism (as proposed by Heidegger and

and developed, in reference a hermeneutical foundation defended hermeneutics from his followers) and the rather

689 Turner, Geoffrey, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg and the Hermeneutical Problem’, Irish Theological Quarterly, Maynooth: St. Patrick’s College, Vol. 39, 2, 1972, 108–​129. 690 Peters, Ted, ‘Truth in History: Gadamer’s Hermeneutics and Pannenberg’s Apologetic Method’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 55, 1, 1975, 36–​56. Peters, ‘Truth’, 103–​123. 691 McFague, Metaphorical, 56–​65. Peters, ‘Truth’, 103–​123. Murphy, Age, 27–​28. Murphy, ‘Relations’, 52. 692 White, ‘Critique’, 423. 693 Peters, ‘Pannenberg on Theology and Natural Sciences’, 7. 694 Kolden, ‘Theology’, 66–​67. 695 Ibid., 67. 696 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Comments’ in Peacocke, Arthur R. (ed.), The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, Stocksfield: Oriel Press Ltd., 1981, 299.

148

Theology as the science of God

one-​sided interpretation and gap as propagated by L. Wittgenstein within linguistic analysis.697 Indeed, in Germany, Dilthey strongly impacted a generation of Protestant theologians and philosophers.698 Overall, Pannenberg, the theologian, attempted what Gadamer, the philosopher, endeavoured in his domain with Wahrheit und Methode699 a decade earlier. The philosopher equally sought to establish a connection between historical and hermeneutical challenges and developed a universal hermeneutic.700 In reality, Pannenberg drew heavily on Gadamer.701 Both scholars were influenced by Dilthey and evidenced this intellectual indebtedness.702 Both attempted to establish a systematic philosophy/​theology that sought to avoid the one-​sided methodologies of Schleiermacher and Dilthey as well as the idealism of Hegel. However, they had their differences: Gadamer dodges the issue of universal history and replaces it with a hermeneutic ontology in the horizon of language. Pannenberg develops it. He notes that universal history has its roots in Christianity, and he reformulates it on the basis of the eschatological message of Jesus. Unlike Hegel, he does not import an alien ontology and impose it on the history of Jesus, but he interprets this story on his own terms.703

Pannenberg, on the one hand, developed a universal frame of history with a possible future whereas Gadamer, on the other hand, described something that took place within the medium of language.704 Instead, Pannenberg sought to develop a historical and religious theology that regarded the revelation of 697 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 177–​184, ETR177–​184. Peters’ PhD thesis provides further insight into the topic as it dealt both with the philosophical hermeneutics of Gadamer and Pannenberg. Peters, Ted, Method and Truth: An Inquiry into the Philosophical Hermeneutics of Hans-​Georg Gadamer and the Theology of History of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: University of Chicago, PhD thesis, 1973. 698 Among them were Gadamer, Heidegger and also Habermas. Heidegger, Martin, Sein und Zeit, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 200619, 403–​404. Habermas, Jürgen, Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion-​Philosophische Aufsätze, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2005, 28. Greiner, Theologie, 35–​38. 699 Gadamer, Hans Georg, Wahrheit und Methode-​Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20107, 222–​230. 700 Pannenberg, ‘Universalgeschichte’, 96. 701 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 157–​ 224, ETR156–​ 224. Van Huyssteen, Justification, 96–​97. 702 Cf. footnote 698. Gadamer, Wahrheit, 5. 703 Eberhard, Philippe, The Middle Voice in Gadamer’s Hermeneutics, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004, 49–​52. 704 Gadamer, Wahrheit, 361–​465.

Pannenberg’s theorem

149

God both through Israel and in Jesus with the assistance of a historical critical method: Jesus –​through embracing the entirety of his life, death and second coming –​was to be understood within the historical context of Israel.705 While Murphy recognized Dilthey’s impact on Pannenberg,706 she constructed her argument in her critically acclaimed monograph Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning707 around the work of the Scottish philosopher D. Hume. In fact, she saw Pannenberg as failing to counter Hume’s alternative view of history as without a reference to transcendence, and so without the consequent reference to meaning.708 Holder contested Murphy’s interpretation709 and positioned Pannenberg closer to Carnap and R. Swinburne.710 Overall, Pannenberg proceeded by raising the discussion out of the Carthesian dualistic comprehension on evidence compilation to the hermeneutical level of interpretation.711 Pannenberg had already developed Dilthey’s ideas of hermeneutics and universal history in 1963,712 which might serve as an example for the prior-​mentioned linearity of his work, and led Dobbin to consider that: In summary, Pannenberg’s philosophy of science combines Dilthey’s contextual definition of meaning, explained in the language of systems theory, with Popper’s critical rationalist view of science as a systematic testing of hypotheses against data –​without Popper’s delimitation of scientific method to monotheistic, falsifiable hypotheses.713

Yet, Dobbin critiqued Pannenberg on his development of the meaning of reality as a whole as well as his philosophy of theology as a universal science, arguing

7 05 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 303–​313, ETR301–​312. 706 Murphy, Age, 27–​28. Murphy, ‘Relations’, 52. 707 For bibliographical details cf. footnote 13. Stiver, Dan R., ‘Felicity and Fusion: Speech Act Therapy and Hermeneutical Philosophy’ in Vanhoozer, Kevin, Warner, Martin (eds.), Transcending Boundaries in Philosophy and Theology-​Reason, Meaning and Experience, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007, 145. 708 Ibid., 50–​109. Murphy, Age, 34–​49. For sceptical assessments on Murphy: Avis, Paul, ‘Book Reviews-​Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning. By Nancey Murphy’, The Scottish Journal of Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 47, 2, 1994, 269–​271. Ratzsch, Del, ‘Book Reviews –​Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning by Nancey Murphy’, Faith and Philosophy, Grand Rapids: Society of Christian Philosophers, Vol. 12, 2, 1995, 277–​282. 709 Holder, Heavens, 110. Pannenberg, Theology, 336, GR339. 710 Ibid., 112. 711 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 76–​78, ETR74–​76. 712 Pannenberg, ‘Universalgeschichte’, 97–​107. Kuhn, ‘Tribunal’, 273–​274. 713 Dobbin, ‘Foundations’, 211.

150

Theology as the science of God

that the almost exclusive corroboration of universal hypotheses was one-​sided and inevitably tendentious.714 Likewise, Dobbin asserted that Pannenberg’s contextual definition of meaning at once seemed to transcend and to sublate meaning as contextual.715 But he also held that: A significant contribution of Pannenberg’s thought to contemporary theology is his emphasis on religious meaning as an intrinsic dialectically unfolding process of reality.716

Dilthey followed Schleiermacher in his thinking that every fact or insight was not isolated but developed out of preceding comprehension.717 Pannenberg, in turn, followed Dilthey in this matter and concluded that the common characteristic between philosophy and theology was to foster a process of unlimited reflection that had been limited by both mathematics and logic on the one hand and the humanities on the other. All sensory (here, meant in terms of awareness) assumptions had to be verified and checked on their immediate totality of meaning in terms of individual self-​awareness and awareness of the world. Hence, Pannenberg concluded that both philosophy and theology were well-​ placed to overcome such scientific restrictions, in that philosophy was the theory of the absolute, whereas theology was the science of God.718 Therefore, the aim of both disciplines was always to establish the meaning of the whole (Sinn des Ganzen).719 For Holder this meant that: Pannenberg believes that the engagement of science and religion in philosophical reflection on theory construction affects the process of scientific theory appraisal. This is somewhat stronger than Ernan McMullin’s view that theology should not interfere but help in constructing a broader view.720

7 14 Ibid., 217. 715 Ibid., 218. 716 Ibid., 219. 717 Dilthey, Wilhelm, Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften Re-​edition, Berlin: Holzinger Verlag, 20132, 61–​62. Dilthey, Wilhelm, Das Wesen der Philosophie (1907), Marix Verlag, 2008, 41–​53. Owensby, Jacob, Dilthey and the Narrative of History, London: Cornell University Press, 1994, 137–​171. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 249–​255, ETR250–​255. 718 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 305–​307, ETR303–​305. 719 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 125, ETR124. 720 Holder, Heavens, 124. Pannenberg, ‘Theological questions’, 3–​16. McMullin, Ernan, ‘How Should Cosmology Relate to Theology’ in Peacocke, Arthur R. (ed.), The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, Stocksfield: Oriel Press Ltd, 1981, 17–​57.

Pannenberg’s theorem

151

Thus, the first part of Wissenschaftstheorie focused on external non-​theological motives, such as Troeltsch’ foundation of theology in the humanities. In the second part, however, Pannenberg analysed opinions from a perspective driven by inner-​theological reasons, such as Barth’s definition of the positivity of revelation. The aforementioned Barth-​Scholz controversy concerning the self-​conception that theologians attributed to theology as a science occupied Pannenberg in Chapter 4 of his book. Hartmann’s academic influence can be well deducted concerning Pannenberg’s style in that: In dealing with any issue he [Hartmann] would start with discussing the proposed solutions from the entire history of philosophy before him. I was so impressed by this procedure, that I later on adopted it somehow for dealing with theological issues in the light of their history.721

Similarly, Pannenberg provided a broad overview from scholasticism in the Middle Ages to the newer understanding of theology as a positive science.722 Puntel regarded this chapter as ‘an indispensable critical clarification of the historical background of the contemporary problem situation.’723 Easily overread in Chapter 4, though, are the short allusions to the political requirements that contributed to Schleiermacher’s scientific-​political efforts.724 Pannenberg criticized, as did Barth, Schleiermacher’s concept of theology as a positive science to prevent theology from disintegrating;725 yet, he equally distanced himself from Barth’s subjective revelational positivism. Instead, Pannenberg held that the science of God and of his revelation could not be positivist and direct but could only reveal itself in the process of the Christian traditional universal history and within the religions.726 According to Pannenberg, this open process was anticipated through the resurrection of Jesus. Any scientific plausibility of this claim and self-​revelation of God would have to be supported by a universal hermeneutic that focused on total meaning and understanding. Without it, the idea of God would therefore not be graspable.727

7 21 Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 184–​185. 722 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 226–​298, ETR225–​296. 723 Puntel, ‘Wissenschaftstheorie’, 274. 724 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 249–​255, ETR250–​255. 725 Ibid., 252, ETR252. Wenz, Sinn, 4. 726 Wenz, Sinn, 4–​5. 727 Ibid., 4–​5. Van Huyssteen, Justification, 96–​97. Murphy, Age, 25–​34.

152

Theology as the science of God

Thus, theology is the science of God;728 this was Pannenberg’s résumé and bold claim. His statement automatically inferred that the subject was to be on a par with other scientific disciplines and thus merited its place at university. For Pannenberg, theological claims729 required rigorous testing due to their hypothetical character.730 He discussed the question of the truth of Christianity and its positive reality as a historical phenomenon that automatically led to the overriding question of the truth claim within all areas of human experience,731 on the grounds that Christianity was not a result of human thinking and imagination but asserted to consist of God’s self-​revelation. Therefore, the discipline of theology, according to Pannenberg, could only do justice to Christian religion if it claimed to be the science of God and not merely to be the science of Christianity. As the science of God, theology dealt with reality as a whole; it focused on the incomplete but entire context of the meaning of experience.732 This position of the discipline of theology naturally set parameters concerning its scientific integrity in that: Theology can only do justice to Christianity if it is not just the science of Christianity but if it is the science of God. And, as this science of God, it captures reality as a whole, even though this [reality] is the unfinished whole of the comprehension connection of experience towards an object.733

Thus, according to Pannenberg, God’s reality was not accessible through direct examination but has always been powerfully displayed in religious reflection and academia.734 Van Huyssteen735 acknowledged that Pannenberg, from the beginning of his career, developed this thought in Die Krise des Schriftprinzips (1967).736 Yet, for Pannenberg, God remained a hypothesis that was used to understand meaning and reality in its totality.737 He, God, was to be the actual 7 28 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 299, ETR297. 729 Ibid., 299–​348, ETR297–​345. Sauter, ‘Überlegungen’, 165–​168. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Antwort auf G. Sauters Überlegungen’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 40, 2, 1980, 175–​181. 730 Ibid., 163–​165. Ibid., 168–​173. 731 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 266, ETR265. 732 Ibid., 266, ETR265. 733 Ibid., 266, ETR265, TM. 734 Ibid., 349, ETR346. 735 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 74. 736 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Die Krise des Schriftprinzips’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Grundfragen systematischer Theologie: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967, 11–​22. 737 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 203–​205, ETR202–​205.

Pannenberg’s theorem

153

subject of theology, yet he was not a secure reality but a concept. Whether God existed as the One who determined all reality was a statement that could only be verified teleologically, in the future when the whole of reality is made present, at the end of history.738 This open, indirect process implied that it was for the discipline of theology to examine the religious transmissions according to their specific religious claims as Pannenberg summarized: Statements about God, about his words or actions, cannot be examined by direct comparison with the reality of God himself, since that reality is not at hand as a standard and also because it is controversial. Statements about God, thus, are testable only with reference to their implications for the understanding of reality, since God is supposed to exist as the all-​determining power. But the totality of experience that should be investigated for traces of being determined by that divine power is again not accessible in itself because it is not complete, as ancient philosophers in speaking of a cosmos assumed. The totality of everything real is given only in the form of an anticipation of the universe of meaning as implied in present experience.739

Interestingly, Sharpe did not consider that Pannenberg offered a universal theological method. He held that Pannenberg remained within traditions, not allowing for the development, exploration and multitude of God ideas.740 Yet, Pannenberg did not stop at his model of the science of God. Rather, in the last chapter of Wissenschaftstheorie he set out to stringently subjugate and apply his model of theory to various theological subjects, outlining for each subject perceived scientific standard and responsibilities. Rarely, however, did theologians tie the subject of method to the analysis of theological syllabus composition despite the fact that Pannenberg’s intentions seem to have clearly been understood, as, for example, by Polkinghorne: Here is the modern formulation of the scholastic concept of theology as the queen of the sciences, understanding ‘science’ in the medieval sense of scientia, all knowledge. Theology’s regal status, according to this concept, derives from its access to the deepest and most comprehensive ground of intelligibility rather than from a presumed prescriptive right to tell the other individual sciences what to think at the level of their first-​order enquiries. The critical question here is one of scope. Other particular sciences pursue a limited range of enquiry; theology is unlimited in the width of its considerations, for it is ‘not concerned with this or that being in its particularity, or with one area of reality

7 38 Ibid., 302–​317, ETR300–​316. 739 Pannenberg, ‘Theological statement’, 16. 740 Sharpe, Kevin, Science of God: Truth in the Age of Science, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006, 154.

154

Theology as the science of God

which can be separated from others [but] with reality in general’ (Pannenberg 1976, 303).741

5.3 The internal classification of theological subjects In fact, most theologians might have found it startling to see a whole sub-​chapter dedicated to the internal classification of theological subjects as part of an epistemological debate. Pannenberg devoted almost 25 % of the book’s content,742 the entire sixth and longest chapter of Wissenschaftstheorie, to this matter. This comes as no coincidence since he stipulated that: Only a concept of theology as a science makes it possible to determine which theological disciplines are necessary for theology to be practiced methodologically, that is, with scientific validity.743

Pannenberg especially highlighted the ‘double aspect’ that the scientific-​theoretical reflection entailed: first, the external relationship with other sciences on a general scientific foundation and second, the internal organization of the discipline.744 Again, within the chapter, Pannenberg tied the discipline to the underlying educational-​political developments and internal challenges concerning the plurality of the individual theological subjects and the scientific norms for their theological identity.745 Yet, especially in the US, Wissenschaftstheorie remained quoted in and thus confined to the interdisciplinary context of the religion-​science dialogue. Considering this academic particularity as well as the different scientific-​political and financial settings in Germany, the last chapter seemed therefore of little perceived importance for Anglo-​Saxon theologians.746 While theologians such as van Huyssteen criticized Pannenberg’s ‘deconfessionalized scientific theology of religions’747 and developed their own models, this chapter elicited almost no responses at all. Seldom did foreign theologians locate the interdependence in the issue of the origin of theological statements and models

741 Polkinghorne, John, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Engagement with the Natural Sciences’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 34, 1, 1999, 152, quoting: Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976, 303. 742 93 pages in total. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 349–​442, ETR346–​440. 743 Pannenberg, Theology, 14, GR18. 744 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 9, not ETR available. 745 Ibid., 362–​363, ETR 358–​360. 746 Cobb formed an exception to this assessment. Cobb, ‘Philosophy’, 214. 747 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 92.

The internal classification of theological subjects

155

as being foundational for the existence of the overall discipline within the university context. Hefner briefly alluded to it: Theology deserves a place in the university because of its contribution to knowledge, that is, because of its cognitive claims.748

Polk also voiced awareness of it749 and further rare insight came from Peterson who dealt with the existence of theology at (US-​American) universities: The issue of theology’s presence in the university may seem far removed from matters of the field of science and theology, but reflection shows that the two issues are inevitably intertwined.750

In Germany, select theologians meanwhile sought and continue to clarify the unity of the theological subjects and their university status due to the scientific-​ political relevance of syllabus composition, yet mainly without reference to either Pannenberg or the book.751 Nüssel referred to the scientific-​political reasons behind it by pointing to the successive overall implementation of the humanities into cultural studies in the 1970s as the reason for the increasing complexity and lack of clarity of the methodological basis for the classification of theological subjects.752 Pannenberg, in contrast, followed, in assignment if not in thought, Schleiermacher753 in this last chapter of Wissenschaftstheorie, in that he proposed a categorization and structure for the individual theological subjects, as well as outlining their perceived tasks.754 Indeed, he considered that the content of theological subjects had always been historically shaped, in the sense that theologians could study theology as a science of God and its subject (God)

7 48 Hefner, ‘Role’, 111. 749 Polk, God, 11, 18. 750 Peterson, Gregory R., ‘Theology, the University, Metaphysics, and Respectability. In Praise of Folly? Theology and the University’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 43, 3, 2008, 563–​577. 751 Kreß, Fakultäten, 8–​90. 752 Nüssel, ‘Dogmatik’, 88. Glotz, Peter, ‘Die drei Dimensionen der geisteswissenschaftlichen Krise’ in Keisinger, Florian, Seischab, Steffen (eds.), Wozu Geisteswissenschaften? Kontroverse Argumente für eine längst überfällige Debatte, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 2003, 43–​47. 753 Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel, Über die Religion. Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern 1799/​1806/​1821, Peter, Niklaus, Bestebreurtje, Frank, Büsching, Anne (eds.), Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2012. 754 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie.

156

Theology as the science of God

only ever indirectly through the study of religion. Moreover, the subjects were not merely meant to be historical but also dealt with the question of the truth of religious phenomena and the reality of God. Thus, he posed two important requirements for each subject: first, theology would not just have to be historical but also true and systematic.755 For him, this essence of truth was essentially systematic; reflections concerned with truth, therefore, had to be systematic in order to conform to the unity of truth and in accordance with all truths amongst each other. Theology and its sub-​disciplines had, consequently, to be systematic theology if theologians claimed the subject to be true in terms of its religious content transmission.756 Pannenberg demonstrated ‘convincingly’757 how every theological discipline, i.e., biblical exegesis and historical theology, biblical theology, church history, systematic theology and practical theology, could prove to be theological. Further, he pleaded that each sub-​subject had to expose its motives for its autonomization (spin-​off). Otherwise, theological subjects only existed in order to legitimize the logistical faculty set up.758 He aimed for a theology of religion which took seriously the religions’ claims to truth, testing how well they illuminated reality. This did not need to be dogmatic, he insisted, because the question of the true religion was still disputed.759 He extensively outlined this concept, its potential foundational and systematic function, Yet, he also pointed out its limitation in that: The general study of religion should not be restricted to the description of human religious experiences, its context concerning other experiences and its institutionalization within the human life context. Rather, it should enquire about the experienced reality within the religious life and history [of a person]. Such a question is blocked upfront, if in the sense of the more recent times privatization of religious subject matter, the truth of religious convictions is only attributed to the subjective faith decision of each individual.760

According to Pannenberg, Christian religion had to be characterized by a theology that was to be united in its historical and systematic work, in the form of a universal theory of a Christian transmitted history. All individual theological disciplines had to be aligned with this goal; otherwise, the internal unity of theology would be missed.761 In particular, Pannenberg underlined his point of view 7 55 Wenz, Sinn, 5–​8. 756 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 350, ETR347. 757 Puntel, ‘Wissenschaftstheorie’, 275, TM. 758 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 353, ETR350. 759 Kolden, ‘Theology’, 66. 760 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 366, TM, ETR364–​365. 761 Wenz, Sinn, 8.

The internal classification of theological subjects

157

in relation to the exegetical disciplines and the relation of Old Testamental and New Testamental science.762 Wenz summarized Pannenberg in that: Finally, it should be emphasized that Pannenberg wants to have the title of its sum to be understood literally. ‘The substance of dogmatics’ as mentioned in the introduction (STh I,7), ‘is to be carried out in all its parts as the unfolding of the Christian reflection on God.’ This corresponds with the programmatic principle of [his] theological philosophy of science, whereas theology overall is the science of God. Systematic theology is the theological discipline, where the science of God is practiced. The correlation of Christian doctrinal statements amongst themselves, demonstrate at the same time the correlation with everything upon which they legitimately impose truth claims.763

Moreover, Puntel underlined the continued validity of the sixth chapter of Wissenschaftstheorie: In particular, his [Pannenberg’s] attempt to discuss in depth the strict theological character of each individual discipline within theology and to define and to prove it, in order to go against the explicit and implicit transformation of those disciplines into ‘fields of research’ with undefined, yes schizophrenic methodological status. Only then would be demonstrated, that this book –​contrary to a first superficial impression –​not only does justice to the cause of theology but [that it] also gives to it new clarity and conviction.764

Pannenberg pleaded that religious studies (Religionswissenschaft) be renamed ‘theology of religion’; however, he articulated stringent requirements for this and clarified that as long as the religious studies had not developed into a theology of religion, the subject would be provisionally realized by systematic theology:765 It will be shown that the systematic task of theology as already demonstrated in [the works] of Schleiermacher, but pushed in the background with the influence of denominationalism and historicism –​will form the key for the understanding of the theological disciplines.766

He could not have been more poignant and contemporarily relevant in the light of the Bologna reforms and the recommendations of the Wissenschaftsrat.767 Today, each theological subject within the theological university syllabus is continually

7 62 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 350, ETR 347. 763 Wenz, Sinn, 8, TM. 764 Puntel, ‘Wissenschaftstheorie’, 292, TM. 765 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 361–​374, ETR 358–​370.. 766 Ibid., 26, TM, ETR22, TM. 767 Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Weiterentwicklung von Theologien und religionsbezogenen Wissenschaften an deutschen Hochschulen, Köln: Sutorius Printmedien, 2010.

158

Theology as the science of God

subject to its disposition and analysed concerning functionality, scientificity and moreover employability. Furthermore, inter-​academically, the subject of religious studies competes with theological subjects for student subscriptions and faculty funding.768 Yet, as Cobb stated, the challenge remains concerning the practical implementation of Pannenberg’s conclusions: Most theological faculties avoid issues of this sort. The question of what disciplines are represented and how they are related is a matter of custom, pressure from students and constituents, prestige, faculty politics, and chance.769

Indeed, he already outlined the continuous conundrum in 1977 that: We pride ourselves on our pluralism, which includes a pluralism of views of what constitutes a theological faculty. Somehow, in good Anglo-​Saxon fashion, we muddle through. But we pay a price. Pannenberg confronts us with a brilliantly articulated and consistent picture of what a theological faculty should be. How should we respond? … This will require the reversal of deep-​seated trends, a reversal which will certainly not come about without intense discussions and concentrated effort. If such response occurs, Pannenberg’s book could draw theology out of its present doldrums and set it on a new course of high adventure appropriate to our time in history.770

5.4 Concluding remarks Interestingly, Pannenberg’s theological context for Wissenschaftstheorie received some attention, most notably Scholz’ minimum requirements for a science; yet, there appears limited insight into the overall German philosophical setting of the 1970s. In fact, atheistic philosophical responses concerning the scientific subject of theology were no less severe than in contemporary society; however, the debate remained restricted to and within academic circles. Due to the technological limitations of that time, it was not broadly discussed in the mainstream media. Overall, Wissenschaftstheorie generated fewer responses in Germany than in the US. There were some theologians who conversed in depth with Pannenberg or developed their models following on from him. In Germany, this concerned Sauter; whereas in the US, various theologians, among them van Huyssteen, Clayton and Murphy received critical acclaim in the 1980s and 1990s. In total, the scope of engagement was captured well by Clayton:

7 68 Bochinger, ‘Vielfalt’. 769 Cobb, ‘Philosophy’, 215. 770 Ibid., 215.

Concluding remarks

159

The subsequent mixed reaction to Pannenberg in the secondary literature is somewhat ironic: he has been criticized for not doing theology in the traditional mode, for not contributing to dogmatics, and for being too traditional, too preoccupied with traditional dogmatic issues that the contemporary dogmatic theologian really ought to move beyond … Some allege that books such as Theology and the Philosophy of Science … are not really contributions to dogmatics or traditional theology at all.771

The actual novelty of Pannenberg’s undertaking was captured by T. Leppek and D. Schrader who outlined that it was most unusual in the 1970s for a German theologian to reflect consistently the scientificity of theology from a critical rationalist approach and to evaluate the existence of God as a serious hypothesis.772 Yet, for Pannenberg, the universal nature of the concept of God was true. Theology, as the science of God, was meant to explain the understanding of reality as the all-​encompassing totality of God’s creation.773 Therefore, to him, the hypothetical character of theological theses required rigorous testing. As a science of God, theology dealt with reality as a whole; it focused on the incomplete but entire context of meaning and experience. Thus, Pannenberg built his arguments in the two parts of Wissenschaftstheorie by critically and historically assessing what constituted a science before developing his own rational theological model. He came to the conclusion that as a true science, such an intellectual undertaking should be conducted within the university setting. Pannenberg led his arguments in a serious, systematic and rational manner at the highest level of academic excellence, even though a critic such as H. White surprisingly considered Wissenschaftstheorie to be ‘a far cry from any sense of scientific testing.’774 The preceding chapters demonstrated the ongoing ingenuity and continued timeliness of Pannenberg’s approach, despite van Huyssteen pointing out the failure of his theological model due to the abandonment ‘of any form of confessional or fideist theology.’775 Overall though, Hefner considered that: There is no other school of theological thought at work today that opens itself so fully to this dual falsification –​from the side of the sciences and also from the side of the biblical-​theological tradition. If one believes, as this writer does, that the primary challenge to theology in our epoch is to open itself to the greatest extent possible to both the contemporary world and to the Christian tradition, then Pannenberg’s premier position

7 71 Clayton, ‘Anticipation and Theological Method’, 125. 772 Leppek, Wahrheit, 423–​425. Schrader, ‘Popper’, 193. 773 Pannenberg, ‘Schriftprinzips’, 11. 774 White, ‘Critique’, 436. Grenz, Hope, 135. 775 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 91.

160

Theology as the science of God

vis-​à-​vis the dual falsification suggests that he has produced a research program in theology that surpasses any other current program.776

Pannenberg’s focus on the internal structuring of theological subjects was intimately tied up and considered by him a necessity for the coherent, scientific foundation and the educational-​political future of theological faculties. As will be demonstrated in Chapter 6, Hefner’s comprehension of ‘opening up to the contemporary world’777 implied a different engagement for North American theologians than for German scholars.

7 76 Hefner, ‘Role’, 284. 777 Ibid., 284.

Chapter 6 Pannenberg’s theological heirs The term ‘Pannenberg’s heirs’ can be misleading as Pannenberg never established a school of followers, even though a large number of contemporary theologians778 would declare that they have been influenced by him: Without question he has had a profound influence on some of the greatest theological minds of our generation: John Cobb and Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson in the early years, the famous fiery debates with Moltmann and Jüngel, the religion-​and-​science discussions with John Polkinghorne and Arthur Peacocke and others, and my fellow students in Munich, such as Stan Grenz and Roger Olson and E. Frank Tupper and Ted Peters. In the dozens and dozens of lectures in the United States over some 40 years, Pannenberg engaged in intense exchanges with virtually every great intellectual personality of our age. In this fiery furnace –​or in direct opposition to it! –​many of the greatest theological breakthroughs of the last decades were forged.779

Yet, very few scholars continued in line with Pannenberg’s thinking in Wissenschaftstheorie. His conviction that through his model of rational argument any notion of the underlying theological views and faith conviction of the theologian could be fully objectified was especially dismissed. Indeed, van Huyssteen assessed that: Bartley’s critical rationalism has taught us that the problem lies not so much with the theologian’s basic convictions or ultimate commitments as with the subtle effect that commitment, already theorized, may have on the shaping of theological views. Here, then, lies the real problem of the nature and limits of a theologian’s model of rationality.780

Since the 1970s the only coherence regarding theological contributions on method has been the incoherence with which it has been attended. Besides, this attention was not borne out of an internal recognition on behalf of theologians for the necessity to forward the epistemological discourse. Rather, as already outlined in the outgoing 18th-​century Germany with Schleiermacher, in the outgoing 19th Century with von Harnack or, indeed, in the 1970s of the 20th Century with Pannenberg, the subject-​matter was largely revived due to extrinsic factors. Theological paradigm shifts were, as in the case of the German Academy, 7 78 For a summary of critical acclaims: Leppek, Wahrheit, 11–​20, especially footnotes 1–​20. 779 Clayton, Philip, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg-​In Memoriam’, Patheos website (http://​ www.path​eos.com/​blogs/​tonyjo​nes/​2014/​09/​07/​wolfh​art-​pan​nenb​erg-​1928-​2014/​; accessed March 2015). 780 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 74.

162

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

triggered when representatives were confronted by seemingly insoluble problems. In the case of the subject of method and the development of rationality models, this was mostly due to external scientific-​political changes and risks concerning the theological discipline at state universities.781 Meanwhile, in the 1980s, in the US, the new atheists rose to media prominence. Thus, the perceived necessity concerning theological rationality models had different origins and foci: whereas in Germany, Pannenberg originally located it to ensure the discipline’s academic environment, Anglo-​Saxon theologians and philosophers developed their epistemologies further in order to address interdisciplinary concerns. The subject of method was in both cases used apologetically. However, since educational-​ political concerns play a different role in the US, the necessity to deal with larger scientific-​political issues is not perceived to be as urgent. Yet, this chapter demonstrates that such a stance is no longer viable in the early 21st Century as overriding technological and global financial interests are strongly imposing on all sciences alike. A renewed interest in method following Pannenberg’s foresight is therefore advisable. Chapter 6 provides select insight to responses782 and developments of and to Wissenschaftstheorie, complementary to the book’s analysis. Each deserves in-​ depth analysis in relation to Pannenberg and Wissenschaftstheorie, yet special attention can only be drawn to the work of van Huyssteen as: In many ways, van Huyssteen’s later Theology and the Justification of Faith from 1989 is an updated work in line with Pannenberg’s Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie from 1973 … In contrast to Pannenberg, however, van Huyssteen also focused on the question of the role of metaphors in theological language when presenting his version of a critical realism within theology.783

Equally, a variety of correspondent contemporary challenges, especially concerning the university discipline of theology, are outlined. This chapter thus offers a contemporary balance to the personal sketch on Pannenberg’s historical backdrop. It underlines the continued scientific-​political urgency for theologians to focus on the subject of method.

781 Van Huyssteen delineated such a paradigm shift for systematic theologians according to Kuhn’s model. Van Huyssteen, Justification, 63–​67. 782 UK-​participants in the global discussion on method, such as McGrath who based his Scientific Theology on Torrance, have deliberately been omitted due to the original restrictions concerning the length of this PhD thesis. 783 Gregersen, ‘Van Huyssteen’, 145.

The contemporary theological debate on method

163

6.1 The contemporary theological debate on method The adjective ‘contemporary’ concerning the debate on theological method is similarly deceptive as the main forays into rationality models were conducted during the 1980s and 1990s of the last century within the overall religion-​science dialogue. Participants sought to develop standards for the field, appropriate criteria and qualifications. Clayton characterized various aspects in a religion-​science field that shaped the last 50 years and within whose bounds any research on method was conducted.784 He assessed that at the beginning of the 1990s, the academic field of religion-​science expanded rapidly, most notably through the financial support of The Templeton Foundation; curricula and university courses were established and various programmes developed.785 Nevertheless, in the US, only select theologians focused on researching standards in the field. Generally, epistemology remained one of many sub-​ subjects. Due to the strong focus on contextualization and subject particularities within that area of research in the last 20 years, no recent significant developments from the new century can be added.786 No younger systematic theologians have internationally and prominently placed the subject of method on their research agenda. The lack of homogeneity within the overall theological community both in North America and Germany, the isolation of theological circles according to their geographical location, political orientation and denomination,787 and the now apparent generational disparity of numerically fewer younger theologians stepping into faculty positions of responsibility are further indicators that underline not just the indispensability and urgency to return interest on to the subject of method; they also highlight the difficulty due to a heterogenous theological

784 Clayton, Philip, ‘The Fruits of Pluralism: A Vision for the next seven years in Religion/​ Science’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 49, 2, 2014, 433–​434. 785 Ibid., 434. The article failed to highlight particular details concerning method. 786 Sharpe’s insights from 2006 did not trigger a new wave of research as his overall proposition remained limited and brief in explanation. It elicited few comments. Sharpe, Science, 237–​248. Kiblinger, William P., ‘Book Review –​Kevin Sharpe, Science of God: Truth in the Age of Science’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 89, 1, 2009, 157–​158. 787 Putnam, Robert D., Campbell, David, E., American Grace-​How Religion Divides and Unites Us, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010, 369–​418.

164

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

sector divided by many stakeholders, their perceived concerns and foci for the discipline of theology.788 Following on from Pannenberg, no German theologian developed a significant work following Wissenschaftstheorie either. Thus, Sauter’s disappointment789 in 1980 framed the state of the debate well: It is regrettable that responses up to date to Wolfhart Pannenberg’s book ‘Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie’1 and my editorial work ‘Wissenschaftstheoretische Kritik der Theologie’ have mainly focused on positioning both works in relation to each other. Our questioning has been subjugated to outdated, supposedly long proven schemata, rather than having even rudimentarily picked up our suggestions regarding the epistemological clarification of theological reasoning and research.790

Sauter’s evaluation mainly concerned representatives within German Protestant theology; yet, on the Catholic side, just as Puntel had expressed,791 no progress was made either. Prior to Küng’s teaching revocation in 1979, Ratzinger communicated in 1976 and in relation to the strong reaction to Küng’s book Christ sein,792 that: [The issue] still concerns those questions, indeed with increasing intensity, that have been voiced in the well-​known letter exchange between Barth and Harnack from 1923; and that actually neither of those two Grande Seigneurs was able to answer … At this point, an analysis of the meaning and boundaries of the historical method and, indeed, of scientific certainty would be necessary. It can be attempted here –​but theology should

788 This German development is not just a demographic problem but also due to special higher educational employment politics with the quantity of research students largely surpassing available academic positions (in particular in the humanities and philosophy). Sippenauer, Maximilian, ‘Ein Doktortitel fürs Widerkäuen’, Süddeutsche website (http://​www.suedd​euts​che.de/​bild​ung/​geiste​swis​sens​chaf​t en-​ein-​dokt​orti​tel-​ fuers-​wiede​rkae​uen-​1.3715​908; accessed June 2018). 789 Examples of what Sauter pointed out were: Bäumler, Christoph, ‘Praktische Theologie-​ ein notwendiges Element der wissenschaftlichen Theologie’, Praktische Theologie-​ Zeitschrift für Praxis in Kirche, Gesellschaft und Kultur, Vol. 9, 2, 1974, 72–​84. Jones, Hugh O., ‘Faith and Theology’, Theology, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Vol. 81, 680, 1978, 102–​103. Lenk, Hans, ‘Theologie als Metatheorie’, Man and World, Pittsburgh: IPR Associates, Vol. 11, 1, 1978, 3–​18. Schrofner, Erich, ‘Wissenschaftstheoretische Kritik der Theologie. Die Theologie und die neuere wissenschaftstheoretische Diskussion’, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, Würzburg: Echter, Vol. 97, 3, 1975, 345–​347. Stock, ‘Wissenschaftstheorie’, 2–​34. 790 Sauter, ‘Überlegungen’, 161, TM. 791 Puntel, ‘Wissenschaftstheorie’, 272. 792 Küng, Hans, Christ sein, München: Piper Verlag, 1974.

The contemporary theological debate on method

165

not hastily turn towards such a dispute, which I regard as one of its fundamental tasks right now.793

Neither did German Catholic theology, despite significant internal church conflicts, develop an uninterrupted or ground-​breaking dialogue on epistemology.794 Ensuing works either detailed the overall religion-​science contributions in bibliographical order, explanatory insights into the Catholic and Protestant German debate795 or overviews of foreign participants.796 Hübner added insight into the methodological debate in Germany with his typology and his own overview of five types of theological arguments in response to C. Darwin’s evolutionary theory.797 Puntel himself published a critical overview of epistemological debates in philosophy.798 Evers and Schwarz provided extensive overviews of the Protestant post-​war religion-​science dialogue in Germany; the above outline, therefore, remains brief.799 Yet, curiously, the subject of method has been similarly missing from their accounts; no contemporary rationality model has been further developed. In fact, Göcke systematically delineated the contemporary German Catholic debate800 regarding the scientificity of theology: Although one should expect that Catholic theology ought to display an active interest to demonstrate the scientificity of dogmatic and fundamental theology in relation to

793 Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘Wer verantwortet die Aussagen der Theologie’ in von Balthazar, Hans Urs, Deiseler, Alfons, Grillmeier, Alois, Kasper, Walter, Kremer, Jacob, Lehmann, Karl, Rahner, Karl, Ratzinger, Joseph, Riedlinger, Helmut, Schneider, Theodor, Stoeckle, Bernhard, Diskussion über Hans Küngs “Christ sein”, Mainz: Matthias Grünewald Verlag, 1977, 12–​13, TM. 794 The Deutsche Bischofskonferenz officially reprimanded H. Küng on 17.11.1977: N.a., ‘Erklärung zu dem Buch “Christ sein” von Professor Dr. Hans Küng’, Deutsche Bischofskonferenz website (http://​www.dbk.de/​filead​min/​redakt​ion/​vero​effe​ntli​chun​ gen/​deuts​che-​bischo​efe/​DB13.pdf; accessed December 2017). 795 Stock, ‘Wissenschaftstheorie’, 2–​34. 796 Fikenscher, ‘A: Gesamtdarstellungen’, 20–​32. Daecke, ‘Literatur’, 32–​36. Fikenscher, Konrad, ‘Zu Kapitel A3: Abschnitte in deutschsprachigen Lehrbüchern’ in Hübner, Jürgen (ed.), Der Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1987, 36–​175. 797 For bibliographical details cf. footnote 147. British works such as those by Peacocke are omitted on purpose due to the US-​focus. 798 Puntel, Lorenz Bruno, Wahrheitstheorien in der neueren Philosophie:Eine kritisch-​ systematische Darstellung, Darmstadt: WBG, 1978. 799 Schwarz, 400 Jahre, 99–​110. 800 Göcke, Benedikt P., ‘Theologie als Wissenschaft?’, Theologie und Glaube, Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, Vol. 107, 2, 2017, 113–​136.

166

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

contemporary debate and developments, [one] discerns, bar a few exceptions, only a distinguished silence by theology[ians]. It seems that Catholic theology has almost withdrawn from the philosophy of science debate since the failure of the verificational critique towards theology and metaphysics … But the question of the scientificity of theology has not been settled through the failure of the verificational critique. [Yet,] the philosophical scientific status of dogmatic and fundamental theology remains extremely important.801

To this day, in Germany, no other Protestant theologian since Pannenberg and Sauter has taken up the quest for the scientificity of theology with equal earnestness. That said, two different approaches in Germany did attract attention on a larger hermeneutical scale: a new kind of Kulturprotestantismus as proposed by Gräb with his religious theological cultural hermeneutic as well as Dalferth’s development of a theology of God’s reality.802 Dalferth developed especially the notion of truth and reality while Gräb focused on self-​consciousness theory and a transcendental religious understanding for a practical theology.803 Similarly, Göcke’s five-​ year project (Emmy Noether-​Nachwuchsgruppe ‘Theologie als Wissenschaft?!’ at the Ruhr-​Universität Bochum) is essentially the sole serious Catholic contemporary undertaking to establish the scientificity of theology in Germany that started in 2016 and works with the model of Lakatos.804 It is telling for the academic unease within Catholic theology to deliberate freely on the subject of method as the project is set within a faculty chair called Lehrstuhl für Philosophisch-​Theologische Grenzfragen.805

8 01 Ibid., 124, TM. 802 Rieger, Funktion, 242–​397. 803 Dalferth, Ingolf U., Religiöse Rede von Gott. Studien zur Analytischen Religionsphilosophie und Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1981. Gräb, Wilhelm, ‘Dogmatik als Stück der praktischen Theologie: Das normative Grundproblem in der praktisch-​ theologischen Theoriebildung’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 85, 4, 1988, 474–​492. 804 The Catholic project at the Ruhr Universität Bochum receives 1.6 million Euro from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through their Emmy-​Noether Programm over five consecutive years. N.a., ‘Darf sich Theologie Wissenschaft nennen’, Ruhr Universität Bochum website (http://​aktu​ell.ruhr-​uni-​boc​hum.de/​pm2​016/​pm00​068.html.de; accessed April 2017). Weiler, Julia, ‘Der Streit um Gott’, Rubin Wissenschaftsmagazin, Bochum: Rektorat der Ruhr-​Universität Bochum in Verbindung mit dem Dezernat Hochschulkommunikation (Abteilung Wissenschaftskommunikation) der Ruhr-​ Universität Bochum, Vol. 28, 1, 2018, 24–​25. 805 Trsl.: faculty chair for philosophical-​ theological borderline questions. N.a., ‘Dr. Dr. Benedikt Paul Göcke-​Lehrstuhl für Philosophisch-​Theologische Grenzfragen’,

The contemporary theological debate on method

167

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, a more active debate on method did indeed develop. There were efforts to widen the categorization of Barbour’s model –​ such as Peters who demarcated an expanded typology of eight different ways in which science and religion were thought to be related.806 Haught807 contrasted further elements in his typology, whereas M. Richardson and W. Wildman co-​ edited a volume with different religion-​science experts808 concerning various contributions on method. In 1998, Gregersen, together with van Huyssteen, outlined six models of the then contemporary dialogue between theology and the sciences.809 Significant impact was made especially through the work on theory formation by Clayton, Murphy, Russell and van Huyssteen.810 Russell summarized his decades’ long research in 2008.811 He is the founder of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS) and has been deeply involved and instrumental in the religion-​science dialogue in the US where he holds that theology can legitimately influence aspects of science, calling for a ‘creative mutual interaction’.812 There were and are many other theologians who contribute substantially to the religion-​science dialogue but only dedicate a limited amount of journal articles or monographs to the subject of method.813 In relation to the effect Wissenschaftstheorie left among US-​theologians, Peterson critically concluded on Pannenberg’s overall legacy in a Festschrift:

Ruhr Universität Bochum website (http://​www.kath.ruhr-​uni-​boc​hum.de/​ph-​th/​ team/​goe​cke/​index.html; accessed May 2018). 806 Peters, ‘Where’, 324. Cf. Peter’s subsequent widening: Peters, Ted, ‘Science and Religion: Ten Models of War, Truce, and Partnership’, CTNS Theology and Science Journal, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 16, 1, 2018, 11–​53. 807 Haught, John F., Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation, New York: Paulist Press, 1995, 9–​25. For Haught’s differentiation to Barbour, cf. 204–​205. 808 Richardson, Mark W., Wildman, Wesley J. (eds.), Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue, New York: Routledge, 1996. 809 Gregersen, Niels Henrik, van Huyssteen, Wentzel (eds.), Rethinking Theology and Science: Six Models for the Current Dialogue, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998. 810 For bibliographical details cf. footnote 14. Murphy and Clayton critiqued their respective works. Murphy, Nancey, ‘Response to Review by Philip Clayton of “Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning” by Nancey Murphy’, CTNS Bulletin, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 11, 1, 1991, 31. Clayton, Philip, ‘Review of “Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning” by Nancey Murphy’, CTNS Bulletin, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 11, 1, 1991, 29–​31. 811 Cf. footnote 14 for bibliographical details. 812 Russell, Cosmology, iv, 22. 813 Hefner, ‘Role’, 146–​148.

168

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

There are very few Pannenberg ‘disciples’. It would be safe to say that all the contributors to Beginning with the End have, to varying degrees, read closely and been influenced by Pannenberg’s theology. However, only Tipler and Peters could fairly be described as significantly following and developing Pannenberg’s thought, each in his own way. None of the other contributors significantly endorses any of the most distinctive claims of Pannenberg’s theology. Murphy and Hefner are able to describe Pannenberg’s project as a scientific one, but it is one in which they themselves do not partake. Clayton can describe Pannenberg’s approach as being developed from a substantive theological position, but it appears not to be Clayton’s own. Russell is willing to speak of an omega point, but he wants also to speak of an alpha point at the beginning of the universe, which seems immediately to oppose the emphasis on God’s futuricity.814

Yet interestingly, according to Peterson, no theologian focusing on philosophical theology actually challenged the core of Pannenberg’s methodological claims concerning rationality in the following years.815 In reality, they remained similar to those that Pannenberg posed. While the scope of contributions varied, especially two aspects in the search for method were dealt with. The first facet concerned the underlying epistemological philosophy that each participant focused on. According to van Huyssteen, this focus was especially due to the profound influence of the leading school of thought in modern philosophy of science on the then contemporary intellectual climate.816 Murphy,817 for example, proposed for her doctorate in the philosophy of science a Lakatosian interpretation of Pannenberg. Clayton’s work preceded Murphy; he equally developed his methodology on a Lakatosian approach, which was published in 1989 under the title Explanation from Physics to Theology: An Essay in Rationality and Religion.818 Murphy argued that theological research programmes could exhibit similar structures and development as natural scientific research programmes and thus qualified as mature science. Indeed, Hume’s scepticism could be refuted if theological programmes met the scientific standards of a Lakatosian programme which she qualified as: 8 14 Peterson, ‘Where’, 148. 815 Ibid., 144–​145. 816 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 33. 817 Murphy progressed in her work from the theory of Lakatos to McIntyre: Murphy, Nancey, Anglo-​American Postmodernity: Philosophical Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Ethics, Abingdon: Routledge, 1997. Hefner held, as Murphy, that Pannenberg’s work qualified as a research programme as proposed by Lakatos: Hefner, Philip, ‘The Role of Science in Pannenberg’s Theological Thinking’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 24, 2, 1989, 146–​150. 818 Cf. footnote 14 for bibliographical details.

The contemporary theological debate on method

169

The evaluation of a (putative) scientific theory, according to Lakatos, involves four considerations. Has it taken the form of a research program? Has it anticipated any novel facts –​is it progressive? If the answer is yes to both of these questions, it is scientific. (If it has the form of a research program but consistently accounts for data in a post hoc manner, it is pseudoscience.)23 Has it developed in accordance with a positive heuristic? If so, it is mature rather than immature science. And finally, is it more progressive than its rivals? If so, it is the theory to accept.819

However, as Reeves objected, Murphy remained ambiguous despite citing Pannenberg as a successful example. Yet, according to Reeves, Pannenberg did not prove his superiority to Hume with novel facts when reinterpreted according to a Lakatosian research programme, even though she alluded to them without assessing them.820 Furthermore, Reeves thought Murphy’s work did not demonstrate the stipulated empirical progress as it lacked examples; additionally, Lakatos himself held a pessimistic view on the rationality of religious belief.821 Indeed, he summarized that: Because Murphy offered a Lakatosian defense of the progressive nature of Freudian psychology while at graduate school in Berkeley, she has defended two of the three intellectual systems that Lakatos’ methodology had clearly designated as exemplars of pseudoscience. The way Lakatos’ philosophy is so easily turned to defend religious belief rather than condemn it, serves to indicate that whether or not one thinks a research program is progressive may depend on which Lakatosian is applying the analysis.822

Peterson was equally critical of Murphy’s consistency in that theology had not been a science but could be. He clarified the limitations in that: A Lakatosian approach aids us in seeing how we can say that theology can be a science. But currently, theology exists in a type of scientific netherworld. While we can say that some programs have a broadly scientific approach, the sheer diversity of approaches tends to cancel the effectiveness of theology as a field. The challenging task will be to see to what extent theology can be construed as a good science and what level of theological consensus and progress can be achieved in a world that seems to be increasingly global and increasingly fractured at the same time.823

819 Murphy, Age, 120. Reeves, Josh, ‘After Lakatos’, Theology and Science, Abingdon: Routledge, Vol. 9, 4, 2011, 402–​405. 820 Reeves, ‘Lakatos’, 404. Murphy, Age, 178, footnote of that page. 821 Ibid., 405. Lakatos, Imre, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’ in Lakatos, Imre, Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Feyerabend, Method, 91. 822 Reeves, ‘Lakatos’, 403. 823 Peterson, Gregory R., ‘The Scientific Status of Theology: Imre Lakatos, Method and Demarcation’, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Topsfield, MA: American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 50, 1, 1998, 31.

170

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

The second facet dealt with Pannenberg’s stringent areligious demand for a rationality model on behalf of the theologian that seemed incompatible with the subjective, personal faith convictions of each researcher that, according to Kuhn, were paradigmatically determined.824 At this point, van Huyssteen stepped in theologically and went on to develop a postfoundationalist concept of rationality that he matured further especially in three works of his. In Theology and the Justification of Faith (1989) he clarified the role of theory for systematic theology; 10 years later he articulated in The Shaping of Rationality (1999)825 his hermeneutical foundation and, indeed, orientation.826 As of 2000, Reynhout described van Huyssteen as having entered the last of three phases, extending the question of the origin of specific knowledge theories to the ultimate origins of human knowing in evolutionary history (Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology).827 His interdisciplinary rationality in the wake of the postmodern challenge was meant to include the possibility of shared rational resources that were identified and applicable to the sciences, theology and further forms of human intellectual enquiry.828 Van Huyssteen started to develop a form of realism that was closely connected to the developments in philosophy of science following Kuhn’s breakthrough in the 1980s. Indeed, he developed a rationality model that he himself labelled a weak form of critical realism,829 based on Pannenberg’s concept of rationality.830 Van Huyssteen pointed out that theology in a complex postmodern society did

8 24 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 98. 825 Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, The Shaping of Rationality-​Toward Interdisciplinarity in Theology and Science, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999. 826 Furthermore, van Huyssteen published in 1998: Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, Duet or Duel? Theology and Science in a Postmodern World, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998. 827 Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006. Reynhout, Kenneth A., ‘The Evolution of van Huyssteen’s Model of Rationality’ in Shults, LeRon F. (ed.), The Evolution of Rationality-​Interdisciplinary Essays in Honor of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, 2. 828 Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, ‘Pluralism and Interdisciplinarity: In Search of Theology’s Public Voice’, American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Champaign: University of Illionois Press, Vol. 22, 1, 2001, 67. 829 Ibid., 3. 830 It was originally published in Dutch. Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, Teologie van die Rede: Die Funksie van die Rasionele in die Denke van Wolfhart Pannenberg, Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1970.

The contemporary theological debate on method

171

not have any singular ultimate focus and no overriding concern that defined and shaped its task.831 As D. Brown outlined, for van Huyssteen: The alternative to modernism, however, is not an anti-​epistemological postmodernism that gives up on the pursuit of a defensible rationality. That kind of surrender is not only unnecessary; to let ‘rationality slip away’ (67) would also be to lose ‘that which gives us our [distinctive] identity as human beings.’ Instead of surrender, what is needed is a revisioning of the concept of rationality, and this what van Huyssteen has undertaken to do.832

He explicitly identified the problem of rationality as an essentially epistemological problem and stipulated that the ‘epistemological dimension must form the very foundation of all further methodological and thus also of all hermeneutical questions in theology.’833 His search for the origin of theological theory led him to focus on religious experience and religious language. According to him, both those facets work together to conceptualize theological models: Theologians can construct empirical and conceptual problems and seek appropriate answers to these problems by responsibly engaging the guidelines found in the Bible and in the historical tradition of dogma and creedal formation.834

In the 1990s, as he moved to the US, van Huyssteen explicitly developed his model further within the interdisciplinary context of religion and science and thus answered problems posed across contextual boundaries. Indeed, the Academy’s focus on postmodern relativism led him to demonstrate how postfoundationalist rationality could meet the demands within the religion-​science dialogue. His qualification of rationality ‘as the quality of an individual’s decision’835 in the ‘quest for intelligibility’836 aided his quest to substantiate the pre-​theoretical nature of rationality. Thus, van Huyssteen’s model of rationality progressed:

8 31 Van Huyssteen, Shaping, 240. 832 Brown, Delwin, ‘Public Theology, Academic Theology: Wentzel van Huyssteen and the Nature of Theological Rationality’, American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Champaign: University of Illionois Press, Vol. 21, 3, 2000, 89, quoting: Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, ‘Pluralism and Interdisciplinarity: In Search of Theology’s Public Voice’, American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Champaign: University of Illionois Press, Vol. 22, 1, 2001, 67. 833 Van Huyssteen, Justification, xii. 834 Reynhout, ‘Evolution’, 6. 835 Van Huyssteen, Shaping, 116. 836 Ibid., 113.

172

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

Rationality no longer resides first and foremost in the capacity to form statements and open up horizons, but in the capacity of rational agents to form responsible judgements and seek optimal understandings, give the specific context and the specific problems to be solved.837

There are structural overlaps of theology and rationalities in other sciences; van Huyssteen labelled them ‘transversality’.838 According to him, sources, methods and various other criteria of rational pursuit were not universal but transversal. Van Huyssteen thus legitimized theology as part of the discourses in contemporary postmodern society as, just like other sciences, theology displays interpretative functions of experience, existence and dimensions. Whereas Pannenberg located an epistemological answer scientifically-​politically on a macro level that, due to its implications of the location of theology as a university discipline, was intrinsically communal, van Huyssteen remained focused on the interdisciplinary exchange, focusing increasingly on personal intelligibility. His theology, therefore, displays a decidedly individual emphasis on micro aspects. He did mention the place of theology at the secular university in passing but did not develop the concept further.839 Interestingly, Brown dedicated more thought to it in relation to van Huyssteen’s concept of ‘public theology’.840 For Brown, theology’s place at a secular university depended on the comprehension of van Huyssteen’s term ‘public square’ which he refuted as he considered the public nature of the secular university to be limited.841 Rather, Brown stipulated that: Theology, in this view, is appropriate in the university only if it operates within the complex criteriological tradition of the secular Academy. Its presence in the university is not justified by the demise of modernist illusions of objectivity and universality … The fall of modernism not only undercuts our universalistic pretensions, it also heightens our awareness of the importance of particular traditions, their values and their goals. This is the point where postmodernism, or, as van Huyssteen prefers, postfoundationalism, is relevant for understanding the university...Theology is an appropriate inquiry in the university, therefore, not simply when it is public, as important as that may be, but when

837 Gregersen, Niels Henrik, ‘What Theology Might Learn (and not learn) from Evolutionary Psychology: A Postfoundationalist Theologian in Conversation with Pascal Boyer’ in Shults, LeRon F. (ed.), The Evolution of Rationality-​Interdisciplinary Essays in Honor of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, 309. 838 Van Huyssteen, Shaping, 135–​139; 246–​250. 839 Van Huyssteen, ‘Pluralism’, 82. 840 Brown, ‘Public’, 88–​102. 841 Ibid., 97.

The contemporary theological debate on method

173

it chooses to be responsible to the norms advocated by one voice to be found in the public square, namely, the norms of the secular society.842

While the model presented by Pannenberg in Wissenschaftstheorie falls short in terms of objectivity by the theologian’s faith bias, as van Huyssteen proved, it fulfilled Pannenberg’s demands of the public nature of theology through its macro-​ awareness thus superseding mere scientific criteria. Both Pannenberg and van Huyssteen were acutely aware of the problem of rationality affecting all academic disciplines. Yet, due to their different educational-​political paradigms and setting, the application of their rationality models focused on differently perceived targets: theology as a scientific discipline at university and theology as a scientific discipline in discourse with the natural sciences and in a postmodern complex culture.843 In fact, van Huyssteen proved that Pannenberg’s model was not sustainable in regard to fideistic theology: From a philosophy-​of-​science point of view I would put it as follows: the personal involvement of the scientist and therefore of the paradigm from which he lives and works, always plays a role, not only in the so-​called context of discovery but also in the context of justification.844

Nevertheless, Pannenberg articulated a similar awareness about the future implications of the subject of rationality that van Huyssteen had developed further: The real conflict in our day is over the nature of reason. A secular concept of rationality that is widely accepted today simply precludes the possibility of a historical event such as the resurrection of Jesus, just as it precludes the reality of a creator God and his presence and actions in the world of his creation. But this is not, first of all, a disagreement about the nature of reason.845

Indeed, for van Huyssteen the problematic was that: The problem of rationality … holds the real key to understanding the forces that have shaped so much of contemporary pluralism in theology … Rationality may turn out to have many faces, but rationality also ultimately defines who we are as a species, and rationality holds the important key to bridging the different domains of our lives responsibly.846

8 42 Brown, ‘Public’, 98. 843 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 7–​11, ETR3–​6. Van Huyssteen, ‘Pluralism’, 65–​87. 844 Van Huyssteen, ‘Truth and Commitment’, 365. 845 Pannenberg, ‘Philosophers’, 34. 846 Van Huyssteen, ‘Pluralism’, 65–​66.

174

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

Wenz regularly articulated Pannenberg’s primary focus to justify theology in the light of general human truth awareness and, anthropologically, to demonstrate the rationality of faith.847 In this sense, his model in Wissenschaftstheorie was no exception: the attempt to articulate the Christian faith as a hypothesis expressing a universal sense of meaning with an outstanding verification, based on the philosophy of science. Pannenberg might be perceived as having lacked the critical realism that van Huyssteen professes and adheres to; yet this is possibly due to the lack of research conducted on the influence that Hartmann’s critical realism had on Pannenberg, as already mentioned, and that Wenz alluded to.848 Interestingly, Pannenberg displayed wariness in 2001 concerning the development and perceived limitations of how the US-​debate on method had in fact developed since the creation of Wissenschaftstheorie: I hope that philosophy will not be exclusively identified by language analysis, as it has been in the past decades in this country [the US]. I hope that philosophy will pick up again the great tradition of philosophical thought and the history of metaphysics. I hope that philosophy will develop new approaches to those subjects of philosophical reflection.849

No correspondent material has been recorded concerning his estimate of contemporary German theologians. However, the lack of focus on epistemology becomes apparent in Evers’ conclusion: Their [German theologians] vision of the task of theology [is]: to transform religion in modernity in the tradition of the German Enlightenment, that is with regard to historical criticism, to the vanishing importance of institutional religion, to radical pluralism and to religious individualism. This led to a concentration on the conditions of culturally mediated religious self-​understanding as expressed in symbolic language and thus to a neglect of questions of creation and nature … Questions of divine action and the like are of no theological value because the symbolic notion of creation refers to the transcendental unity and depth of reality, which is empirically identical with the process of reality and does not refer to a creator.850

Curiously, Pannenberg already implicitly appeared to apply aspects of what J. Ravetz and S. Funtowicz identified in the 1990s as Post-​Normal Science, that is,

8 47 Wenz, ‘Nachruf ’, 593, TM. 848 Wenz, Kirche, footnote 8, 18. 849 Oord, ‘Confessions’. 850 Evers, ‘Germany’, 526.

The contemporary academic backdrop

175

the awareness of the social position and context of science (in his case: theology) in society and in policy processes.851

6.2 The contemporary academic backdrop While US-​theologians and philosophers especially dealt with current challenges concerning the perception of reality as posed by postmodernism and the growing scientism in the 1990s, the more recent trials of the 21st Century could not possibly have even been evoked. Overall, it is tempting to isolate the German historical-​political condition surrounding the creation of Wissenschaftstheorie in the late 1960s and 1970s as unique. It remains true that Pannenberg understood theology to be an academic public discipline based on questions concerning truth and obliged to the pursuit of truth.852 With this understanding, the ‘initiative was undoubtedly taken by Wolfhart Pannenberg’ to address the problems that specifically arose through research progress in the philosophy of science.853 However, contemporary science suggests that there are philosophical, educational-​political and societal parallels to the 1970s, ones that demand of the contemporary theologian an equal transsectoral perspective to that held by Pannenberg. As such Pannenberg’s warning still applies: In spite of a sometimes-​strong air of the esoteric, philosophy of science is in no sense an attempt to escape from the primary professional responsibilities of science into an unproductive narcissism. Its object[ive] is, rather, to reach a new self-​understanding of science in general, which will provide the basis for a new ordering of scientific disciplines and their methods.854

This being so, there may well be justification in concluding from the recent lack of focus on theological method a kind of ‘chronological snobbery’ as C.S. Lewis dubbed it.855

851 Ravetz, Jerome, Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems, Oxford: Clarenden Press, 19722. Ravetz, Jerome, ‘What is Post-​Normal Science?’, Futures, Amsterdam: Elsevier, Vol. 31, 5, 1999, 647–​653. 852 Pannenberg, Band 1, 62–​64. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Thesen zur Theologie der Kirche, München: Claudius Verlag, 1970, 16–​20. Leppek, Wahrheit, 17. Grenz, Quest, 311. Van Huyssteen, Justification, 76–​77. Grenz, Stanley, ‘Why Do Theologians Need to Be Scientists?’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 35, 2, 2000, 343–​345. 853 Van Huyssteen, ‘Truth’, 361. 854 Pannenberg, Theology, 3–​4, GR7. 855 Lewis, C.S., Surprised by Joy, Orlando: Harcourt Books, 1955, 206.

176

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

With a few exceptions, contemporary academic efforts are largely restricted to outlooks on the religion-​science dialogue;856 no parallel has been drawn between the subject of method and the clarification of the status of theology at university level so far, although Brown published extensively on the definition of what constitutes academic theology.857 K. Peters, most unusually, alluded to a certain awareness in 2015:858 The danger is that the scholarly activity can become an end in itself, sometimes carried out as a means to further someone’s career or reputation: ‘publish or perish’. Over intellectualization runs the risk of ignoring and becoming irrelevant for pressing social and environmental issues facing the wider culture.859

Equally, already 30 years ago, T. Rendtorff analysed the complexity and connection of theological theorization, personal devotion and, indeed, the role of the theological university degree. He also highlighted the underlying tensions between the scientific orientation and ecclesial praxis all tied within the scholarly activity of a theologian.860 In 2017, the Protestant theologian J. Greifenstein analysed the methodological assessment and considerations for the subject of practical theology in the light of the profound political changes surrounding

856 Examples would be: Gregersen, Niels Henrik, ‘Prospects for the Field of Science and Religion: an Octopus View’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​ Blackwell, Vol. 49, 2, 2014, 419–​428. Also: Raman, Varadaraja V., ‘Changing landscape in science-​religion dialogues’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​ Blackwell, Vol. 45, 1, 2010, 177–​191. Fredericks, Sarah E., Schweitz, Lea, ‘Scholars, Amateurs and Artists as Partners for the Future of Religion and Science’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 50, 2, 2015, 418–​437. 857 Cady, Linell C., Brown, Delwin (eds.), Shifting Paradigms: Religious Studies, Theology and the University: Conflicting Maps, Changing Terrain, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. Brown, Delwin, ‘Academic Theology and Religious Studies’, Council of Societies for the Study of Religion Bulletin, Sheffield: Equinox Publishing, Vol. 26, 2, 1997, 64–​66. Brown, Delwin, ‘Believing Traditions and the Task of the Academic Theologian’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, New York: Oxford University Press, Vol. 62, 4, 1994, 1167–​1179. 858 His paper was presented in the context of the 2014 Summer Conference of the Institute for Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS), “The Future of Science and Religion in a Globalizing World,” Star Island, New Hampshire, 02 to 09.08.2014. 859 Peters, Karl E., ‘The “Ghosts” of of IRAS Past and the Changing Cultural Context of Religion and Science’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​ Blackwell, Vol. 50, 2, 2015, 329–​360. 860 Rendtorff, ‘Theologiestudium’, 211.

The contemporary academic backdrop

177

1968.861 Responses to this monograph have not yet been elicited; its theological impact remains to be assessed. Amongst Catholic theologians, G. Krieger edited a recent monograph on the future of university theology.862 In January 2018, the apostolic constitution Veritatis Gaudium863 set out updated norms for ecclesiastical universities and faculties as well as for the theological discipline. This update of Pope John Paul II.’s Sapientia Christiana864 from 1979 to review the disciplinary, pedagogic and didactic organization of ecclesiastical studies was accompanied by a rumour in Germany that the Holy See would drastically reduce the number of Catholic faculties.865 While this is not (yet) the case for German universities and was repudiated by the Vatican, clergy seminaries will certainly be affected. No longer will there be a university and a seminary in the same city since the discipline of theology now largely takes in students who train to be teachers. Indeed, the Apostolic Constitution stipulated that theological faculties connect internationally, work more interdisciplinarily, more co-​operatively and more closely with each other: Today, in fact, ‘what is called for is an evangelization capable of shedding light on these new ways of relating to God, to others and to the world around us, and inspiring essential values. It must reach the places where new narratives and paradigms are being formed.’[44] From this follows the third fundamental criterion that I would propose: inter-​disciplinary and cross-​disciplinary approaches carried out with wisdom and creativity in the light of Revelation. What distinguishes the academic, formative and research approach of the system of ecclesiastical studies, on the level of both content and method, is the vital intellectual principle of the unity in difference of knowledge and respect for its multiple, correlated and convergent expressions.866

861 Greifenstein, Johannes, 1968 und die Praktische Theologie-​Wissenschaftstheoretische Perspektiven auf Funktion, Gegenstand und Methode einer Praxistheorie, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. 862 Krieger, Gerhard (ed.), Zur Zukunft der Theologie in Kirche, Universität und Gesellschaft, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2017. 863 Pope, Francis, ‘Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium on ecclesial universities and faculties’, Vatican website (https://​press.vati​can.va/​cont​ent/​sal​asta​mpa/​en/​bol​lett​ino/​ pubbl​ico/​2018/​01/​29/​1801​29c.html; accessed June 2018). 864 Pope, John Paul II, ‘Apostolic Constitution Sapientia Christiana of the Supreme Pontiff Pope John Paul II on ecclesiastical universities and faculties’, Vatican website (http://​ w2.vati​can.va/​cont​ent/​john-​paul-​ii/​en/​apos​t_​co​nsti​tuti​ons/​docume​nts/​hf_​jp-​ii_​apc​ _​150​4197​9_​sa​pien​tia-​chr​isti​ana.html; accessed June 2018). 865 Glenz, Tobias, ‘So bleibt die deutsche Hochschultheologie zukunftsfähig’, Katholisch. de website (http://​www.kat​holi​sch.de/​aktuel​les/​aktue​lle-​arti​kel/​so-​ble​ibt-​die-​deuts​ che-​hoc​hsch​ulth​eolo​gie-​zukunf​t sfa​hig; accessed June 2018). 866 Pope, ‘Apostolic’.

178

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

This Catholic ecclesial evolution comes as no surprise: almost 20 years ago, Ratzinger was drawn into a discussion and pointed to the fact that academic theology could be developed outside the secular university system, citing the example of France.867 The Catholic and Protestant churches might thus, in future, approach the subject of theology as a discipline at state universities with very different interests and outcomes. Where would such a Catholic future development render Protestant theology at German state universities? While, currently, US-​seminaries and divinity schools might (still) be spared financial challenges, declining student numbers and policy changes, theology’s status as a university subject has already reached a crisis point in Germany. Any German policy concerning education and science has a direct impact on theology as a university subject due to university funding structures based on the specific previously outlined state-​church relations. More recently, in the last decade, the German churches and their respective bodies have taken it on themselves to highlight the reduced numbers of students who choose ministry as a profession, resulting in a severe lack of both Catholic and Protestant trained clergy and thus a fatal future shortage.868 Curiously, there appears to be a communicative gap: no synchronized communication between the representative faculty organizations, the church organizations, the Evangelische Akademien869 (Protestant academies)

867 Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘Theologie an staatlichen Universitäten-​Eine Stellungnahme von Kardinal Joseph Ratzinger’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 53, 1, 1999, 49–​50. Ratzinger saw the overall internal renewal of the Catholic Church in the light of the Entweltlichung der Kirche (out of this worldness of the Church), exceeding the Aggiornamento of the Second Vatican Council. He first developed the concept in 1958: Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘Die neuen Heiden und die Kirche’, Hochland, München: Kösel Verlag, Vol. 62, 10, 1958, 4–​11. Bechina, Friedrich, ‘Herausforderungen der Kirche heute’ in Krieger, Gerhard (ed.), Zur Zukunft der Theologie in der Kirche, Universität und Gesellschaft, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2017, 89. Bochinger, Christoph, ‘Staatsaufgabe Theologie?’, Deutsche Universitätszeitung, Berlin: DUZ Verlags-​und Medienhaus GmbH, Vol. 72, 10, 2016, 24–​25. 868 Orth, Stefan, ‘Fakultäten suchen die Öffentlichkeit’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 69, 3, 2015, 117–​119. Ruh, Ulrich, ‘Katholische Theologie an deutschen Fakultäten-​Eine Landschaft in Bewegung’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 68, 3, 2014, 147–​ 151. Nastarowitz, Konstanze, ‘Quereinsteiger gesucht’ in Die Zeit, Hamburg: Zeitverlag Gerd Bucerius GmbH, 15.09.2017, 17. Kehler, Marie Lisa, ‘Pfarrermangel-​Neuer Studiengang soll Abhilfe schaffen’ in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt: FAZ Verlag, 13.02.2018. 869 N.a., ‘Über uns’, Evangelische Akademien website (http://​www.evang​elis​che-​akadem​ ien.de/​; accessed June 2018).

The contemporary academic backdrop

179

or the Gesellschaften (societies) that most German Protestant scholars are organized in, has been recorded.870 Yet the phenomenon of disproportionately large theology faculties871 and ageing faculty professors mainly belonging to the baby boomer generation872 are symptons that highlight the existential crisis of the German Academy. Additionally, the particular German financial funding structure of theological faculties offers opponents a welcome subject of continuous public criticism as by the Bund demokratischer Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler (The Alliance of Democratic Scientists) that highlighted in a report in 2013 what, in their opinion, was an unjustified tax provision: Everybody knows that, according to their definition, [referring to a Catholic definition of theology as a faith science (Glaubenswissenschaft)] theology is not a science that openly strives to search for new insights with scientific methods. While theology identifies itself as a science, [the subject] begins with and centres on faith. Scientific is [only] the research for sources or for the history of ideas. But even those, under Catholic prefixes, have to be subsumed unto the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Thus, theology cannot even be a scientific religious study, even if it holds elements of it.873

In the light of the contested scientific status of the subject and the multitude of theological subjects offered, the subject of theology becomes prey to spending cuts. The unresolved relationship and the competing status of the various theological subjects amongst each other and the lack of ecumenical accord have now led representatives into the unfortunate situation of being decided upon by the relevant scientific-​political organs. The developments and media activities surrounding the crisis of theology at university level only serve to highlight the continuous actuality and relevance of Pannenberg’s book for the contemporary context. Pannenberg already predicted those in relation to the scientific status of theology and its place at university: The continuation of theological faculties at universities of secular states has become something merely factual. It is due to a certain piety of society towards the origins of the

870 These are: Deutsche Paul-​Tillich-​Gesellschaft e.V., Ernst-​Troeltsch-​Gesellschaft e.V., Schleiermacher-​Gesellschaft e.V.. 871 Bund demokratischer Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler (ed.), ‘Bildung und Religion: Anachronistische Privilegien in der Diskusion’, Forum Wissenschaft, Marburg; BdWi Verlag, Vol. 35, 3, 2013. 872 Sekretariat der deutschen Bischofskonferenz (ed.), Katholische Kirche in Deutschland Zahlen und Fakten 2016/​2017, Meckenheim: DCM Druck, 2016, 20–​21. 873 Papendick, Astrid, ‘Paradiesisch dank staatlicher Zuwendung-​Theologische Fakultäten in Deutschland’, Forum Wissenschaft, Marburg: BdWi Verlag, Vol. 35, 3, 2013, 17, TM.

180

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

occidental university [system] and in regard for the societal standing of the large ecclesial organizations. This is in particularly true where denominational pluralism has led to the duplication of theological faculties at the same university. This condition, in concern to the institutional organization of university, is so obviously due to extraneous factors alien to science. They pose a not to be underestimated potential threat for the continuation of theology at universities.874

It is all the more telling, then, that neither the representative theological bodies nor the church organizations or individual theologians continue the task of proving the scientificity of their discipline through continued research on method. Generally, no parallels between the subject of epistemology and the scientific-​political raison d’être of the subject at university level are drawn. While Pannenberg had already alluded to the urgent necessity to clarify within the discussion of method875 and the relationship of the theological subjects amongst each other (a phenomenon further exarcerbated by the Bologna reforms), a more recent occurrence was unknown at the time of publication of Wissenschaftstheorie. Yet, since the 1970s, this problem has continually increased: the ongoing post-​ Christianization of Germany makes not only for fewer church members but also for lower student numbers studying university theology as a Hauptfach (primary subject).876 Indeed, this present existential threat is recognized by both the Protestant and Catholic German churches and their respective bodies, the EKD and Deutsche Bischofskonferenz (DBK). In 2012, the DBK commissioned a report on the Lage des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses in der katholischen Theologie877 (the state of affairs of the scientific offspring within Catholic theology) due to the impending severity of the shortage of future clergy, while the EKD started a PR campaign in 2016, called Das volle Leben (The Full Life)878 to attract A-​level graduates to study theology. At first sight, actual numbers of Protestant theological students appear to be on the rise. Yet, the majority of undergraduates either 8 74 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftsteorie, 8–​9, ETR4–​5, TM. 875 Ibid., 7–​9, ETR3–​5. 876 Greschat, Protestantismus, 215–​221. N.a., ‘Kirchenaustritte’. In comparison, statistics on the number of US Christians: Newport Frank, ‘Percentage of Christians in U.S. Drifting Down, but Still High’, Gallup website (http://​www.gal​lup.com/​poll/​187​955/​ per​cent​age-​chr​isti​ans-​drift​ing-​down-​high.aspx; accessed April 2017). 877 Edmunds, Bernhard, Lechtenböhmer, Silke, ‘Zur Lage des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses in der Katholischen Theologie’, Deutsche Bischofskonferenz website (https://​www.dbk.de/​filead​min/​redakt​ion/​dive​rse _​downloads/​presse/​2012-​036b-​ Studie_​Nachwuchs_​Katholische-​Theologie.pdf; accessed July 2017). 878 N.a., ‘Das volle Leben’, Das volle Leben website (https://​www.das-​volle-​leben.de/​das-​ volle-​leben.php; accessed July 2017).

The contemporary academic backdrop

181

study theology as a minor subject or decide against professional ministry. While the EKD publishes the number of students who indicate at the beginning of their degree their intention to choose a career in a parish church,879 the number of annual theological graduates as published by the Statistisches Bundesamt (Federal Statistics Office)880 as well as some select communication about clergy shortage by the member churches (Gliedkirchen), deviate from those.881 The journalist V. Schneider wrote in 2014 that: At the same time, many rectorates become vacant in the coming years. In the period between 2017 and 2027 the baby boomer post war generation retires; in many regions 50% of the clergy are retiring. There are, for example, in the EKHN [Evangelische Kirche Hessen Nassau] a total of 1,600 rectorates. In the already mentioned period around 1,100 ministers are going to retire. This retirement wave leads to a glaring gap. 882

Both denominations have put into place university faculty organizations; these are respectively, the Katholisch-​ Theologischer Fakultätentag e.V.,883 and the 879 This is possible as the EKD through its member churches (Gliedkirchen) keeps annual lists in order to evaluate the potential interest to become clergy. 880 N.a., ‘Hochschulen’, Statistisches Bundesamt website (https://​www-​gene​sis.desta​tis.de/​ gene​sis/​onl​ine/​data;sid=​00AE3​F1D4​192E​2433​AAA2​55CF​4F72​664.GO_​2_​3?operat​ ion=​sta​tist​iken​Verz​eich​nisN​extS​tep&lev​elin​dex=​0&leve​lid=​153682​5618​331&index=​ 4&str​uctu​rele​vel=​3; accessed April 2018). 881 N.a., ‘Evangelische Kirche sucht Tausende neue Pfarrer-​Nachwuchssorgen trotz mehr Studenten’, Domradio website (https://​www.domra​dio.de/​the​men/​%C3%B6kum​ene/​ 2017-​03-​06/​evang​elis​che-​kir​che-​sucht-​tause​nde-​neue-​pfar​rer; accessed December 2017). N.a., ‘Evangelische Kirche sucht Tausende neue Pfarrerinnen und Pfarrer’, Evangelisch.de website (https://​www.evan​geli​sch.de/​inha​lte/​142​490/​06-​03-​2017/​ evang​elis​che-​kir​che-​sucht-​den-​kommen​den-​jah​ren-​tause​nde-​pfar​rer; accessed December 2017). Wensierski, Peter, ‘Gottes junge Hirtinnen’, Der Spiegel website (http://​www.spie​gel.de/​leb​enun​dler​nen/​uni/​boomf​ach-​theolo​gie-​got​tes-​junge-​hirtin​ nen-​a-​608​097.html; accessed December 2017). N.a., ‘Zentralkomitee der Katholiken will Stellung von Laien in Gemeinden aufwerten’, Stern.de website (https://​www. stern.de/​news/​zen​tral​komi​tee-​der-​kat​holi​ken-​will-​stell​ung-​von-​laien-​in-​gemein​ den-​aufwer​ten-​7355​668.html; accessed December 2017). Nastarowitz, Konstanze, ‘Quereinsteiger gesucht’ in Die Zeit, Hamburg: Zeitverlag Gerd Bucerius GmbH, 15.09.2017, 15. 882 Schneider, Verena, ‘Von der “Theologenwelle” zur “Pensionierungsdelle” ’, Deutsches Pfarrerblatt, Westerstede: Verband evangelischer Pfarrerinnen und Pfarrer in Deutschland e.V., Vol. 114, 6, 2014, 328–​331, TM. 883 Edmunds, Bernhard, ‘Zur Lage des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses in der katholischen Kirche-​Neue empirische Ergebnisse unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Daten zu Theologinnen’, Power Point presentation, January 2017, slide 7, Katholischer

182

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

Evangelisch-​Theologischer Fakultätentag.884 They represent the 19 Protestant and 18 Catholic faculties in Germany and each holds a web presence. In general, awareness of the challenges does not appear to be new. Rather, it is likely that theologians of both denominations, as participants in an academic discipline, have not and predominantly do not strategically mediatize these developments. Again, Pannenberg already alluded to the potential problems arising from this denominational discrepancy: The denominational imprint and division of university theology impede the determination of theology’s place at university level or a location in connection to the sciences at a university. The effort [to solve this] and the participation of theology [ians] in the philosophical scientific discourse on method, however, proves to be vital for the future of theology in connection to the university.885

Clearly, then, Pannenberg connected the subject of method to the existence of the discipline at universities. There have already been the preliminary closures of the Catholic theological faculties in Bamberg and Passau in 2008 (the agreement has been described during 15 years as ruhend, put to rest),886 while the faculties in Essen and Trier send their student candidates to the faculties in Münster and Frankfurt respectively.887 Aachen and Duisburg closed their Protestant institutes for teacher-​training in 2002.888 These demographic changes, both of a generation of theologians retiring and a younger generation of students less interested in becoming clergy, hasten the decline of the university subject within the next couple of decades. This danger exists especially where overall faculties offer theological sub-​subjects that are regarded as Kleine Fächer.889 Pannenberg’s focus on the interconnectedness of the various theological disciplines in order to create overall a stronger theological

Theologischer Fakultätentag website (http://​kthf.de/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2017/​03/​ Praese​ntat​ion-​Nach​wuch​sstu​die-​2016-​KTF.pdf; accessed December 2017). 884 N.a., ‘Startseite’, Evangelisch-​Theologischer Fakultätentag website (http://​www.evth​ eol.fak​ulta​eten​tag.de/​; accessed June 2018). 885 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftsteorie, 8–​9. ETR4–​5, TM. 886 Trsl.: resting. 887 Deckers, Daniel, ‘Und vergib uns unsere Geduld’ in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt: FAZ Verlag, 22.10.2016, 4. 888 Kreß, Fakultäten, 85. 889 Trsl.: minor subjects. Kleine Fächer are university subjects with a limited number of faculty chairs; a derogatory German term used is also Orchideenfach (orchid subject). Examples are Christian Oriental Studies, Christian Archaeology, Religious Studies; but also Jewish Studies and (still) Islamic Studies.

The contemporary academic backdrop

183

unity among the various subjects in Wissenschaftstheorie890 was hence ingenious. Indeed, ultimately his theological argument could support educational-​political legitimation for the discipline’s university existence. The majority of contemporary German theologians belong to the generation of baby boomer theologians and are slowly reaching retirement age.891 Thus, hypothetically, no baby boomer lecturer will be left in his or her post after 2029, an estimate based on the consideration that the average retirement age of a civil servant is 65 years892 in Germany, presently. While scientific freedom is a foundational right in Germany’s Grundgesetz (Article 5/​Paragraph 3)893 as well as being anchored in the Rights Charter of the European Union (Chapter 2/​Article 13)894 there is no absolute security for the existence of theological faculties at university level. This is a fact, despite the legal arrangement where Germany has agreed Staatskirchenverträge (state-​ church contracts). Additional contemporary societal complexity is added since European law now overrides German law in many instances.895 This newer development poses potential further legal challenges to theological faculties which are now required to conform to various European anti-​discrimination guidelines in their employment procedures.896 8 90 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftsheorie, 349–​442, ETR346–​440. 891 Typically, the generation of baby boomers is defined as ranging from the mid-​1940s to 1960–​1964. 892 This is called the Regelaltersgrenze (legal age limit) and regulated by the Bundesbeamtengesetz (§ 51 Abs. 1, 2 BBG; § 132 Abs. 7 BBG; § 52 Abs. 3 BBG). The retirement age of 65 years concerns university lecturers born before 1964. 893 N.a., ‘Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Art. 5’, Bundesministerium der Justiz und Verbraucherschutz website (https://​www.gese​tze-​im-​inter​net.de/​gg/​ art_​5.html; accessed November 2017). This is based on the Verfassungsrecht of the Weimarer Reichsverfassung from 1919. Articles 135–​141 have predominantly found their way into the Grundgesetz from 1949. 894 N.a., ‘Article 13–​Freedom of the Arts and Sciences’, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights website (http://​fra.eur​opa.eu/​en/​chart​erpe​dia/​arti​cle/​13-​free​ dom-​arts-​and-​scien​ces; accessed November 2017). 895 N.a., ‘The Requirement of Religious Affiliation for a Post within the Church must be Amenable to Effective Judicial Review’, Court of Justice of the European Union website (https://​curia.eur​opa.eu/​jcms/​upl​oad/​docs/​appl​icat​ion/​pdf/​2018-​04/​cp1​8004​6en.pdf; accessed May 2018). 896 Cf. the verdict Vera Egenberger vs. Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V. at the Court of Justice of the European Union, N.a., ‘Legal case C44/​16’, Court of Justice of the European Union website (http://​curia.eur​opa.eu/​juris/​docum​ent/​ docum​ent.jsf?text=​&docid=​201​148&pageIn​dex=​0&docl​ang=​EN&mode=​req&dir=​ &occ=​first&part=​1; accessed June 2018).

184

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

Currently, the German State legally secures the faculty setting of theology at the university. Theological faculties at state universities are fully subsidized while universities that are ecclesially managed (Kirchliche Trägerschaft) receive up to 40 % of their funding from the state. Thus, the theological argument for independent ecclesial seminaries remains, in reality, a part truth. In general, financial flows are criticized,897 especially as perceived unsupervised academic efforts have led to sharp educational-​political conflicts in the case of Islamic seminaries such as the Türkisch-​Islamische Union der Anstalt für Religion e. V./​DITIB (Turkish-​ Islamic Union for Religious Affairs), one of the largest Islamic organizations in Germany that is part-​subsidized by the German interior ministry but linked to the Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs.898 Critics could and would therefore not hesitate to refer to the state’s supposed neutrality yet also to potential dangers for its democratic foundations due to support of private academies and seminaries.899 The underlying complexities certainly explain the efforts of the German State to channel Islamic studies and to facilitate the creation of faculties at state universities.900 The call for private Christian theological colleges, in the light of the overarching political construct between the state and the church in Germany and the complexities presented through other religions, such as Islam, therefore require further consideration. Negative illustrations can be deducted from US-​politics where ecclesial representatives of various denominations actively wield economic and political influence on the government.901

8 97 Papendick, ‘Anachronistisch’, 18. 898 Hür, Kemal, ‘DITIB-​ Ankaras Einfluss auf deutschen Moscheeverband’, Deutschlandfunk website (http://​www.deut​schl​andf​unk.de/​ditib-​anka​ras-​einfl​uss-​ auf-​deutsc​hen-​mos​chee​verb​and.724.de.html?dram:art​icle​_​id=​409​350; accessed May 2018). Gorzewski, Andreas, Die Türkisch-​Islamische Union im Wandel, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2015, 317–​325. 899 Bochinger, ‘Staatsaufgabe’, 24–​25. Also: Hoping, Helmut (ed.), Universität ohne Gott? Theologie im Haus der Wissenschaften, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2007. 900 This engagement itself could be open to criticism as it potentially judicially surpasses and violates the governing law of the state’s neutrality. 901 The appointment of Falwell Jr. as head of the White House education reform task force to the Trump administration in 2017 is such an example. Flory, Richard, Christerson, Brad, The Rise of Network Christianity: How Independent Leaders are Changing the Religious Landscape, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Riesebrodt, Martin, The Promise of Salvation –​A Theory of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2010, 37–​42.

The contemporary academic backdrop

185

Overall, however, the reality for all German academic disciplines is that university funding levels dropped in the early 2000s to a new low, as Sauter remarked in 2007.902 That said, the trend has since reversed, as communicated by the European University Association (EUA); funding increased by 33 %.903 However, the effect is invisible as overall the German university system remains under strain due to higher student intakes.904 As such, the funding query in itself is not a phenomenon pertaining only to the discipline of theology. As in previous decades, Germany’s expenditure on education remains lower than the median; in fact, the OECD ranks the country below average with an annual spending of 4.3 % (the median lies at 5.2 %) of its gross domestic product.905 The precariousness of the situation is especially highlighted when theological faculties are compared with the other humanities’ disciplines as they remain relatively well equipped in terms of lecturer-​student ratio, auditory space and library facilities.906 For faculties dependent on the state rather than on private funding, finance becomes a decidedly political affair on various levels. Externally, it is governed through policy settings by the Bundestag (federal parliament) and the relevant Bildungsministerium (education ministry), whilst internally, at university level it is managed through the dean and the heads of the individual faculties as well as the Mitspracherecht (right to co-​determination) of the churches. The Wissenschaftsrat (The German council of Science and Humanities), founded in 1957, is the most important educational-​political committee in Germany that advises both the federation and the individual federal states. Interestingly, no

902 Sauter, Evangelische Theologie, 98. Çopur, Burak, ‘Deutsch-​türkische Beziehungen im Spiegel außenpolitischer Paradigmenwandel der Türkei (1998–​2018)’, Zeitschrift für Außen-​und Sicherheitspolitik, Berlin: Springer Verlag, Vol. 11, 2, 2018, 135–​148. 903 In Germany, in 2016 the funding for universities was increased by 4.1 %, the highest increase in three years. Pruvot, Estermann, Kupriyanova, ‘Public’, 27. 904 Ibid., 7–​14. 905 N.a., ‘Education at a Glance 2017-​Country Note Germany’, OECD website (https://​ www.oecd-​ilibr​ary.org/​docser​ver/​eag-​2017-​48-​en.pdf?expi​res=​152​8378​108&id=​ id&accn​ame=​guest&check​sum=​9A316​32C5​7212​1154​54C8​2EB1​2AA6​C70; accessed June 2018). N.a., ‘Forschung und Entwicklung’, Statistisches Bundesamt website (https://​www.desta​tis.de/​DE/​Zahle​nFak​ten/​Gesell​scha​ftSt​aat/​Bil​dung​Fors​chun​gKul​ tur/​Forsc​hung​Entw​ickl​ung/​Forsc​hung​Entw​ickl​ung.html; accessed December 2017). 906 Christoph, Probleme, 158–​165. Orth, ‘Öffentlichkeit’, 117. Wiarda, Jan Martin, ‘Theologie im Paradies’, Die Zeit website (http://​www.zeit.de/​2012/​28/​C-​Theolo​gie; accessed March 2017).

186

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

Christian theologian907 is a permanent part of the commission although select representatives are sometimes invited to present insights on chosen topics. In fact, in 2010 the Wissenschaftsrat confirmed its recommendation of theology as a science that remains a university discipline.908 Furthermore, the organization that advises the Bundesregierung (federal government) in matters of academic development, attests Christian theological subjects their value for society.909 Yet, according to them, the subject mainly serves as a cultural science. Theological faculties could, therefore, become subject to potential financial cuts. Indeed, the restrictions proposed, if not imposed, by the Wissenschaftsrat include: [That] religion keeps its societal function; therefore, Christian theology remains important –​but not so much as in the development of clergy –​rather as a subjugated subject for the education of [school] teachers.910

Dependent on the member composition,911 and the political, religious or areligious convictions of the Wissenschaftsrat, theological faculties cannot expect any favourable outcome on their assessment. The same remains true for the support of theological faculties at the Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (German Rectors’ Conference). Overall, the future of university theology in Germany is less secure and the phenomenon of theological faculties experiencing difficulties continues,912 whilst Islamic faculties, for example, albeit very slowly, rise in numbers, and receive prominent political support.913 907 Krämer, Professor of Islamic Sciences at the Freie Universität Berlin and Director of the Berlin Graduate School Muslim Cultures and Societies, was appointed a member in February 2018. 908 For bibliographical details cf. footnote 767. 909 Ibid., 9, 14. 910 Wiarda, ‘Paradies’, TM. 911 N.a., ‘Mitglieder’, Wissenschaftsrat website (https://​www.wisse​nsch​afts​rat.de/​ueber-​ uns/​mit​glie​der.html; accessed January 2018). 912 Schmitz, ‘Zukunft’, 302–​306. For further reading: Rotermann, Stefanie, Wozu (noch) Theologie an Universitäten?, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2001. Schmiedl, Joachim, Hafner, Johann Evangelist (eds.), Katholische Theologie an der Universität, Mainz: Matthias Grünewald Verlag, 2009. 913 Hunger, Uwe (ed.), Staat und Islam: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven (Islam und Politik), Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2016. Also: N.a., ‘Islamische Theologie’, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung website (https://​www.bmbf.de/​de/​isl​amis​che-​theolo​ gie-​367.html; accessed August 2017). N.a., ‘Drucksache 18/​13059, Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Volker Beck (Köln), Kai Gehring, Luise Amtsberg, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion BÜNDNIS 90/​

The contemporary academic backdrop

187

In lieu of the above scenario, critics might assume that a consequential change to private seminaries, as exists in the US, might be a potential solution for Germany. However, as Fallon already highlighted in 1980: One should not be misled by the American model, which is unique in the world for the number and significance of its private universities.914

Large foundations similar to the The John Templeton Foundation915 in the US do not exist in Germany. The support of select European projects within the overall religion-​science dialogue continues but private funding does not constitute the norm; nor does it secure lasting finance in the German university system.916 In fact, German foundational support for scientific causes, particularly, those in favour of theology, is marginal and negligible. While a large majority of German university funding is conducted through the state, some particular research institutions exist. Among them is the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the largest research funding organization in Europe, founded after the First World War in 1920 that sustains, for example, Göcke’s project.917 Yet, on the whole, funding differences are largely due to the different funding structure of research and science in both countries but also due to the different entrepreneurial mindset and the economic approach to science by US-​Americans. In fact, in the US universities have their own investment management companies that successfully DIE GRÜNEN-​Drucksache 18/​12741’, Deutscher Bundestag website (http://​dip21. bundes​tag.de/​dip21/​btd/​18/​130/​1813​059.pdf; accessed August 2017). 914 Fallon, University, 23. 915 N.a., ‘Vision, Mission and Impact’, John Templeton Foundation website (https://​ www.temple​ton.org/​about/​vis​ion-​miss​ion-​imp​act; accessed December 2017). Bains, Sunny, ‘Questioning the Integrity of the John Templeton Foundation’, Evolutionary Psychology Journal, New York: Springer Publishing, Vol. 9, 1, 2011, 92–​115. Schneider, Nathan, ‘God, Science and Philanthropy’, The Nation website (https://​www.thenat​ion. com/​arti​cle/​god-​scie​nce-​and-​phila​nthr​opy/​; accessed April 2017). Nelson, Libby A., ‘Some philosophy scholars raise concerns about Templeton funding’, Inside higher ed website (https://​www.ins​ideh​ighe​red.com/​news/​2013/​05/​21/​some-​phi​loso​phy-​schol​ ars-​raise-​conce​rns-​about-​temple​ton-​fund​ing; accessed April 2017). 916 For example: at the Ruprechts-​Karl-​Universität Heidelberg the Templeton Award for Theological Promise (2007–​2011) or the three-​year project (2011–​2013) sponsored by The John Templeton Foundation at the Hochschule für Philosophie München. Russell, Robert J., ‘STARS: Science and Transcendence Advanced Research Series-​Completing the Grant, Continuing the Research’, Theology and Science, Abingdon: Routledge, Vol. 8, 4, 2010, 347–​355. 917 Cf. Zierold, Kurt, Forschungsförderung in drei Epochen:deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Geschichte, Arbeitsweise, Kommentar, Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag, 1968.

188

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

manage their endowments, such as the Harvard Management Company918 or The Yale Investments Office.919 However, German citizens neither possess the philanthropic nature of American university donors nor do they own a cultural understanding of education and science as being a purchasable commodity. Rather, education and science are a public good provided by the state. This understanding is founded on the Right to Education, based on Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948.920 While it is not explicitly mentioned in German foundational law, it is nevertheless derived from the right to human dignity and equality.921

6.3 A parity relationship: the German constitutional law on state-​church relations German constitutional law on state-​church relations is complex.922 This is already apparent in the academic office that Pannenberg held. He was not just a lecturer or a dean; rather, Pannenberg was a civil servant in an office of higher service (Höherer Dienst). The employment term signifies the highest possible career path for civil servants in Germany. The career path, responsibilities concerning the position, the remuneration, the retirement provisions and the title are all set out in the Bundesbeamtengesetz (civil service law) developed in 1953 and still apply today. Faculty members such as Pannenberg were and are part of a sensitive balance, a political and economic dependency. In fact, theological faculties were and remain state institutions: the state has the right to name professors (Ernennungsrecht) in accordance with either the Protestant or Catholic Church and supervises the educational institution.923 918 N.a. ‘About HMC’, Harvard Management Company website (http://​www.hmc.harv​ ard.edu/​; accessed March 2018). 919 N.a., ‘Home’, The Yale Investments Office website (http://​inve​stme​nts.yale.edu/​; accessed March 2018). 920 It is implicit in Articles 13 and 14 of the Grundgesetz and thus reflects the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Badura, Peter, Staatsrecht, München: C.H.Beck Verlag, 20125, 238–​251. 921 Kunze, Axel Bernd, Bildung als Freiheitsrecht: eine kritische Zwischenbilanz des Diskurses um Bildungsgerechtigkeit, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2012, 27–​44. 922 Albertz, Heinrich, ‘Körperschaft öffentlicher Pflicht’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 7, 1, 1974, 28–​29. 923 N.a., ‘Bundesbeamtengesetz § 10 Ernennung’, Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz website (https://​www.gese​tze-​im-​inter​net.de/​bbg_​2​009/​ _​_​10.html; accessed October 2018).

A parity relationship: the German constitutional law

189

However, the appointment of a (theological) university professor is dependent on the written consent of the responsible state church with the relevant state ministry taking into consideration any potential objections.924 Indeed, these two non-​scientific particularities, the Konfessionsklausel (confessional clause) and the kirchliches Mitspracherecht (ecclesial co-​determination) of academic appointments, differentiate academic theology from any other university subject and thus render the discipline more vulnerable to critique. Both of these Articles are problematic in terms of the academic freedom granted in the constitutional Article 5/​3.925 In Germany, the constitutional law guiding state-​church relations is identical with that from the Weimarer Reichsverfassung dating back to 1919. German religious freedom is founded on three columns: religious freedom, the separation of state and church and the right of self-​determination for the church. The constitutional Articles (Grundgesetz Artikel 4/​140) follow this setup and confirm the law from 1919 for today; moreover, it has been reconfirmed again after the reunification in 1989. Although the word separation is not explained further in German constitutional law, the fact remains that the state is not denominationally tied up to the church and nor is the church patronized or governed by the state. There is no state church in Germany; rather, a kind of parity relationship exists.926 Indeed, the constitutionally set-​out principle of the separation of the church and the state is overcome through religious education in schools and universities as well as through the taxation of church members and administered by the state. In Germany, it is therefore often colloquially named a hinkende Trennung (limping separation).927 It was exactly with this complex judicial setup in mind that Pannenberg addressed, in the foreword of Wissenschaftstheorie, the threat, 924 In Pannenberg’s case, Dietzfelbinger received his nomination for the relevant university posts; his office submitted them to the then culture minister Huber (CSU), who approved them. Pannenberg, subsequently, had to officially accept the vocation (den Ruf akzeptieren), which he did in November 1967. 925 Moos, Thorsten, ‘Theologische Aspekte der Wissenschaftsfreiheit’ in Grimm, Herwig, Schleissing, Stephan (eds.), Grüne Gentechnik-​ zwischen Forschungsfreiheit und Anwendungsrisiko, Baden-​Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2012, 41–​65. 926 Albertz, ‘Körperschaft’, 29. 927 Bochinger, ‘Staatsaufgabe’, 25. Kippenberg, Hans Gerhard, Schuppert, Gunnar Folke, Die verrechtlichte Religion: der Öffentlichkeitsstatus von Religionsgemeinschaften, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, foreword. Cavuldak, Ahmut, ‘Die Legitimität der hinkenden Trennung von Staat und Kirche in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ in Pickel, Gerd, Hidalgo, Oliver (eds.), Religion und Politik im vereinigten Deutschland, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2012, 307–​335.

190

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

not to be underestimated, together with a remnant of societal piety that allowed the existence of theological faculties at university level.928 Germany’s state neutrality in ecclesial matters thus differs from French laicism as the laïcité from 09.12.1905 set out to impose explicit boundaries of church activities in the public sphere.929 It is also unlike the United States,930 which equally strictly separates the state and the church; this law being deduced from the First Amendment dating from 15.12.1791.931 Moreover, the number of German Protestant and Catholic Christians is almost equal, another significant difference to most of its European counterparts.932 A. von Campenhausen pointed out that this legal clarification in Germany, again, is unlike others and has been viewed as an ‘element of freedom and not as a combat term to oust religion out of the public sphere.’933 As part of this agreement, the state and the church co-​operate in areas such as education, social matters, and the preservation of monuments as well as in terms of university education. Religious Education is the only subject in schools that is secured in the constitutional law (Grundgesetz Artikel 7/​3); it is declared an ordentliches Lehrfach (a proper discipline). In fact, the subject of Religious Education (RE) is a res mixta, a joint matter; while the

9 28 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftsteorie, 8–​9, ETR4–​5. 929 N.a., ‘Les collections du Musée des Archives nationales –​AE/​II/​2991 –​’, Ministère de la Culture website (http://​www.cult​ure.gouv.fr/​Wave/​image/​arc​him/​Pages/​04816. htm; accessed January 2018). 930 Hochgeschwender, Michael, Amerikanische Religion, Evangelikalismus, Pfingstlertum und Fundamentalismus, Frankfurt: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2007, 75–​76. In reality, this constitutes a hotly debated part-​truth: the discussion, for example, around the topic of financial school vouchers has been contested since the 2002 Supreme Court ruling Zelman v. Simmons-​Harris, which upholds the constitutionality of school vouchers. Belfield, Clive, Levin, Henry M., ‘Vouchers and Public Policy: When Ideology Trumps Evidence’, American Journal of Education, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Vol. 111, 4, 2005, 548–​567. Sauter, Gerhard, Protestant Theology at the Crossroads, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007, 131–​148. Noll, Mark A., The Work we have to do-​A History of Protestants in America, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, 128–​133. 931 Hamburger, Philip, Separation of Church and State, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004, 19–​108. 932 Von Campenhausen, Axel, ‘Staat und Religion nach dem Grundgesetz’, Humboldt-​ Universität zu Berlin (ed.), Humboldt Forum Recht, Berlin: Humboldt-​Universität zu Berlin, 2008, 124. 933 Van Campenhausen, ‘Staat’, 125, TM.

A parity relationship: the German constitutional law

191

state is neutral it nevertheless protects the exercise of religion.934 The state cannot stipulate the content of the subject; however, the subject of religious education itself is graded and contributes to the transfer of the student to the next class level, similar to other school and university subjects. According to the German school tradition, the state remains the entrepreneur of religious education: tuition is a task led by the state who leads and supervises public [here, meaning in the sense of state] schools. It remains an integrated component of the school. It, therefore, becomes apparent that [religious education] remains a state task despite the separation of the state and the church … The state, despite its neutrality in worldview, has its own interest in religious education –​that is to say [the school] is the essential place of the ethical education of the youth.935

As such, RE lessons are only taught by teachers who have passed the Zweite Staatsprüfung936 (Second State Examination), who are sworn in on the German constitution and have received an official admission by their denomination.937 RE-​teachers today, as stipulated in the constitutional law on religion and as part of a state institution, are part of the positive religious nurture and care for the Christian-​ shaped cultural realm within parts of the university they are active in. The particularity of theological faculties is that they, at one and the same time, are a state institution that expresses cultural responsibilities as well as serving to implement church tasks –​i.e. the training and education of servants of the spiritual office.938

These educational-​political considerations take on further meaning in the light of the fact that the majority of undergraduate students now choose to study theology with a view to become teachers. Thus, equally, the theological disciplines come under scrutiny for their employability939 and formation as well as interdisciplinarity rather than to further academic knowledge. Historically,

934 De Wall, Heinrich, ‘Die Evangelisch-​theologischen Fakultäten in der Hochschulreform-​ staatskirchenrechtliche Aspekte1’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 101, 2, 2004, 218–​225. 935 Von Campenhausen, Axel, De Wall, Heinrich, Staatskirchenrecht-​Eine systematische Darstellung des Religionsverfassungsrechts in Deutschland und Europa, München: C.H. Beck Verlag, 2006, 213–​214, TM. Also: Geyer, Bernhard, ‘Facultas theologica-​ Eine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, Vol. 75, 13, 1964, 133–​145. 936 The examination was called the Zweite Staatsexamen prior to the Bologna reforms. 937 Protestants call it Vokation; the Catholic Church speaks of Missio canonica. Fallon, University, 39–​40. 938 Von Campenhausen, De Wall, Staatskirchenrecht, 219–​220, TM. 939 Papendick, ‘Anachronistisch’, 18.

192

Pannenberg’s theological heirs

theological faculties were and remain responsible for the education of clergy and the systematic development of church doctrine; critics, therefore, note the privileged vocational position of theology compared to other university disciplines. In the light of the large scientific-​political and educational challenges that the subject of theology faces in German society and at university level, theory formation can and should play a significant role in the development of curricula. As outlined by Pannenberg, each theological subject and representative lecturer should be asked to clarify the scientificity and the added value of their discipline.940 This is to be a necessary exercise in order to preserve the overall discipline at university level and to demonstrate internal academic and theological coherence. Pannenberg rendered theologians responsible for developing and articulating the scientificity of their discipline, due to his theological claim of God being all-​encompassing. Such a large theological vision equally incorporated the response to scientific-​political challenges concerning the subject at university level.941

6.4 Concluding remarks Two different developments are highlighted in this chapter: while the content of Wissenschaftstheorie especially enticed US-​based theologians and philosophers such as van Huyssteen, Murphy and Clayton to develop the subject of method further, they did so particularly within the context of the religion-​science dialogue that received special financial stimulus through support of the The John Templeton Foundation from the 1980s onwards. At the same time, however, the topic of epistemology stagnated in Germany; no further significant research following on from Pannenberg or Sauter was conducted. Simultaneously in Germany, the role of theology as a university subject continues to be a theme that occupies theologians, jurisprudence academics and critics, whereas it seems that in the US this fact is rarely discussed due to the different logistical and financial setup of its Academy and seminaries. In Germany, though, the EKD, the DBK and their corresponding academic representative organizations are increasingly forced to confront the matter as demographic and societal changes have, in the last 45 years, strongly impacted the discipline.942 The Wissenschaftsrat published a widely noted recommendation in 2010 that attested the academic subject of theology has cultural relevance and functions as an 9 40 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 350, ETR347. 941 Cf. footnote 1013. 942 Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen, 21, 78.

Concluding remarks

193

example for other religious communities such as Islam.943 Overall, the scientific status of the discipline at university level remains a debated topic in Germany, with proponents for and against it. Increasingly, the consolidation of theological subjects into core subjects along with the abolition of ecclesial co-​determination of academic appointments is proposed by scientists such as Bochinger.944 Equally, secular scientific critics continue to bemoan the financing structure and close co-​operation of the state with regard to the funding of scientific research for the education and training of Religious Education teachers. Indeed, this setup, based on the Weimarer Reichsverfassung, has judicially remained in place since 1919. This arrangement is exacerbated by the fact that the German State spends less than the OECD-​average of its GDP on education while, at the same time, overall student numbers are on the rise. The trend then leads to competition at individual faculty level, leaving theological faculties vulnerable to financial cuts due to a comparatively high number of faculty chairs but low student intake, as well as the presumed vocationality of the degrees.

9 43 Cf. footnote 767. 944 Bochinger, ‘Staatsaufgabe’, 25.

Chapter 7 The future of theology in the German Academy Critics may well scrutinize the comprehensive historical and educational-​political analysis of the setting of Wissenschaftstheorie in this study and question its contemporary relevance since neither in Germany nor in the US do practitioners seem to be interested in dedicating further time and research to the subject of method or the book itself. In both countries contextual approaches to theology appear to prevail. Consequently, Evers, remarking on the overall effect of Pannenberg’s theology, commented that: Neither the theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg nor that of Jürgen Moltmann made a lasting impact on German academic theology. Pannenberg’s cognitive-​propositional theology of salvific history in close contact with science lost plausibility against postmodern criticism, with its reference to irreducible pluralism, and against the deconstruction of teleological views of history in the tradition of Troeltsch’s analysis of the problems of historicism.945

Van Huyssteen equally demonstrated Pannenberg’s lack of consideration of the faith assumptions of theologians in the process of theory formation to be a deficit in his theology.946 Similarly, Peterson summarized the overall response to Pannenberg’s legacy in the US in that: As a whole, I would argue that they reveal the current dominant response to Pannenberg’s theology: Fascinating! Thought-​provoking! Insightful! But does it work? 947

On the whole, theologians still do not remark on the close connection and interdependence between the scientific status of the discipline and its actual raîson d’être within its academic location despite the continued crisis within the German Academy. The fact that the scientific definition of any discipline, not simply of theology, determines its academic location is still largely ignored by theologians. Educational-​political circumstances determine the position of a science within the university context. Historically, this context has received special attention in Germany due to the particular state-​church relationship and the conception of university education as a public societal right. Besides, German theology continues to battle with the challenge of domestic discourse at the intersection of 9 45 Evers, ‘Germany’, 525. 946 Van Huyssteen, Justification, 72–​74. 947 Peterson, ‘Where’, 148.

196

The Future of theology in the German Academy

academia with society, churches, and ethics.948 Furthermore, the subject of academic theology has largely been relegated to the realm of cultural studies that provide orientation within an ever-​diversifying spectrum of religious, quasi-​religious, and non-​religious views of reality.949 Meanwhile, in the US, the religion-​science dialogue in whose bounds and by whose proponents the last serious debate on method was conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, is, in turn, now largely stuck in a rut. Since the bombing of the Twin Towers in 2001, the death of Sir John Templeton in 2008, and a twice-​elected Republican President (2000–​2008), a time of entrenchment seems to have set in, with religious fundamentalists expressing themselves strongly politically, and scientists, in turn feeling attacked by an increasingly medially vocal religious right.950 In 2014, Clayton remarked that the debate now appears characterized by warring factions951 who focus on ever smaller and different contextualized subject details. Four years earlier, Raman had already described the situation as being characterized by ‘increasing disillusionment’.952 The responsibility for the negative trend and development of theology as a university subject has been mainly located in and attributed to the socio-​cultural and religious changes within society.953 Interestingly, the self-​conception of theologians within their vocation, their responsibilities towards academia, science and the church, as well as towards their students in terms of syllabus construction, attitude and perceived responsibility for their discipline and sector, is rarely articulated. Yet, Pannenberg summarized: The subject of Theology found in the [articulation of its] scientificity a necessary intellectual discipline...Its various forms of executing this claim were historically bound and are obsolete today, due to the dependency of the definition of scientificity on Aristotle. But the foundational interest in the systematic unity of Christian teaching and, its agreement with the principles of rationality, stay relevant.954

The lack of critical introspection might be due to a generational difference to Pannenberg and his generation, as contemporary German theologians have enjoyed within the last 50 years careers that have been mostly unobstructed by

9 48 Evers, ‘Germany’, 532–​533. 949 Ibid., 532–​533. 950 Clayton, ‘Pluralism’, 434. 951 Ibid., 434. 952 Raman, ‘Landscape’, 182. 953 Evers, ‘Germany’, 526. 954 Pannenberg, Band 1, 30, TM.

The Future of theology in the German Academy

197

war within the country.955 Overall, in Germany, the current generation of baby boomers and subsequent students of 1968, have (rightly) been decrying their parents’ and the state’s shortcomings. They ‘marched’ through the institutions956 and changed the German landscape considerably. Criticism by younger voices towards this generation and their perceived shortcomings and societal impact remains, so far, restrained and subtle.957 It is not just the syllabus composition of an academic discipline that determines its existence but also the self-​conception of its representatives. A larger seemingly non-​reflected but existential effect of the dominant German contemporary liberal school of theology958 is that theologians de facto render their faculties redundant (albeit not their content) as the common understanding now seems to be: Religious interpretations are symbolic and not realistic, while theology is understood as a second-​order interpretation of religious symbolism. Rather than dealing with God, theology has to deal with religion as a cultural-​anthropological phenomenon.959

955 The subject of the German reunification is explicitly excluded from this assessment as a historical particularity that has not to the same extent affected West German theology and churches as it has impacted on East German theologians, who, overall, constitute a minority in Germany in comparison to their West German peers due to the different historical-​political and religious development after the Second World War. For further reading: Pollack, Detlef, Pickel, Gert (eds.), Religiöser und kirchlicher Wandel in Ostdeutschland 1989–​1999, Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 2000. 956 The slogan Der Marsch durch die Institutionen was a systemic socialist method developed by the student activist Dutschke in 1967. 2018 constituted the 50th anniversary of the student revolts which were mainly instigated by the so-​called Wohlstandskinder (socially and financially privileged children whose parents were able to afford their university degrees and living expenses at the time) rather than Arbeiterkinder (working-​class children). The contradiction between articulated capitalist critics, the subsequent economic growth politics and the widening of the welfare state is just one of the discrepancies of the movement. The epochal year has been documented in Germany with exhibitions, TV documentaries and news reportings. Cf. Bebnowski, David, Generation und Geltung, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2012, 79–​106. 957 Dobbins, Michael, ‘Mehr Partizipation wagen’, Forschung Frankfurt, Frankfurt: Goethe Universität Frankfurt, Vol. 36, 1, 2018, 94–​98. Daphi, Priska, Zimmermann, Jan, ‘1968 als Gründungsmoment’, Forschung Frankfurt, Frankfurt: Goethe Universität Frankfurt, Vol. 36, 1, 2018, 100–​103. 958 Gräb, Wilhelm, ‘Die Lehre der Kirche und die Symbolsprachen der gelebten Religion’ in Barth, Ulrich, Danz, Christian, Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, Gräb, Wilhelm, Aufgeklärte Religion und ihre Probleme, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2013, 137–​154, especially 145–​154. 959 Evers, ‘Germany’, 526.

198

The Future of theology in the German Academy

As outlined, especially in lieu of recent history with the Bologna reforms and the demographic changes in Germany, the employability of students increasingly takes precedence in educational policy. Not only is the former queen of the sciences not simply criticized by its critics but also by its practitioners. One major consequence is that it has thus been perceived as being irrelevant. An equal retreat, therefore, can be witnessed, in line with Bartley’s theory,960 with opposing effects though: whereas Barth’s theology from above focused on the retreat to commitment, neo-​liberal theology shows signs of a retreat from commitment through a non-​theological theology. The results are similarly reductive for theological research. For example, Gräb expressed that: The decisive task of religious and cultural hermeneutical theology is to be open [and] to support critical faith communication towards the contemporary conscience. This [kind of] theology hands over the rational questions to the philosophy of religion and understands itself as a practical model faith. As such, it regards its task to primarily make a symbolic inventory of the Christian faith transmission accessible to contemporary consciences in order that they become fit and appropriate offers for the religious self interpretation of contemporary [people].961

Yet, the conservative Lutheran Pannenberg considered transsectoral reflections strongly, even if only implicitly, in the creation of Wissenschaftstheorie. As outlined and applied in this thesis, his concern for the subject of method has not lost its actuality in the reflection of and to contemporary academic and educational-​political challenges. Rather, Pannenberg’s demands concerning the scientific parameters for the university context, the syllabus composition and the relationship of the various theological subjects with and to each other remain unique and relevant today. The contemporary German university context along with the educational-​political pressures on the discipline of theology still require solid answers to the challenges and the basic strategic questions concerning its identity, existence and motivation: What is theology? What purpose does the discipline serve? Chapter 7 proposes such insights in line with Pannenberg’s approach. It proposes a rationale for why the particular subject of method holds stronger existential and sectorial implications than most theologians realize. The internal clarification of the scientific status by practitioners and the articulation of a solid self-​conception of both the discipline and its status are indispensable for the future existence of (not simply) Protestant theology within state universities in

9 60 Cf. footnote 603. 961 Gräb, ‘Lehre’, 145, TM.

The Future of theology in the German Academy

199

Germany. Forty-​five years on from the publication of Wissenschaftstheorie, the necessity to re-​ignite a methodological debate and to re-​integrate the topic of epistemology in the syllabus composition of systematic theology at university level is as urgent and existential now as it was in the 1970s. Schulze’s diagnosis from 1973 concerning the precariousness of the subject continues unchallenged: It would help theology students in their desolate state if the relationship between the humanities and theology could be negotiated in a philosophical scientific way. Today, the first ones [students] start to enter the empty field of a method dispute from a theological point of view.962

The book set out to confirm the importance of the subject of method for the existence of the discipline of theology at university level through a thorough analysis of the historical and educational-​political setting in which Pannenberg wrote Wissenschaftstheorie. In turn, it also considered the influencing factors and personal paradigm concerning Pannenberg’s underlying approach towards the discipline of theology. Chapter 1963 detailed the close connection between theology and philosophy that he rendered indispensable. For Pannenberg, both disciplines developed throughout history in close relation to each other, with critical philosophical developments causing theological responses while philosophers were provided with a comprehensive understanding of humankind through a reasoned and methodological consideration of the Christian religion and its meaning.964 Moreover, the extent to which Pannenberg’s and Moltmann’s generation was likewise affected by their collective and personal suffering and political despair has also been highlighted. Thus, it was within such paradigms that they matured their theologies with passion, conviction, endurance and vision.965 The outlined personal sketch of Pannenberg and his teachers, as well as the difficulties in Germany mentioned in Chapter 2, supported this influence.966 The post-​war generation of theologians to whom Pannenberg belonged was acutely aware of the public function of theology in the construction of the young Federal Republic

9 62 Schulze, ‘Stammesherzogtümer’, 39, TM. 963 Pages 11–​14. 964 Pannenberg, Philosophie, 11, 367. 965 Welker, Michael, ‘Zukunftsaufgaben evangelischer Theologie. Nach vierzig Jahren “Theologie der Hoffnung” von Jürgen Moltmann’ in Moltmann, Jürgen, Rivuzumwami, Carmen, Schlag, Thomas (eds.), Hoffnung auf Gott-​Zukunft des Lebens. 40 Jahre “Theologie der Hoffnung”, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2005, 212. 966 Pages 34–​43.

200

The Future of theology in the German Academy

of Germany. For Pannenberg and his teachers this included active engagement in the public discourse with church organizations, philosophers and politicians. Moreover, Pannenberg, in the light of the university reforms and scientific-​political upheaval of the 1970s, set out to clarify the scientificity of the discipline with Wissenschaftstheorie.967 Chapter 3, in turn, framed Pannenberg’s overall theology and contextualized Wissenschaftstheorie within the then German theological philosophy of science debate.968 His programmatic debut Offenbarung als Geschichte was especially mentioned as he pursued the theme of relevation through history consistently throughout his half-​century career.969 With Wissenschaftstheorie, Pannenberg outlined the scientific epistemological explanation of his theological vision. Nationally, the book was set within a larger debate on method initiated by his Protestant contemporary Sauter. Internationally, in addition, Pannenberg did not write within an academic vacuum: his Anglo-​Saxon contemporaries Barbour and Torrance respectively developed their approaches.970 Surprisingly, no immediate exchange took place between the three at that time; rather, German theology, then and now, remains contained, by and large, within its linguistic boundaries to Germany, Austria and parts of Switzerland.971 This phenomenon has, on the whole, not changed despite the fact that centres of theological research and the significance of theological knowledge have moved in recent decades to the US.972 Chapter 4 widened the argument with background information concerning Pannenberg’s actual motivation in writing Wissenschaftstheorie.973 In fact, the existence of theology as a subject at German state universities was (once again) no longer guaranteed in the late 1960s and 1970s: societal, cultural and political changes led to comprehensive university reforms that were expounded on in terms of German academic particularities and the then educational-​political landscape.974 The chapter provided the necessary background information to Pannenberg’s setting but also articulated awareness of the public and

9 67 Pages 27–​33. 968 Pages 57–​64. 969 Pages 53–​56. 970 Pages 65–​72. 971 Evers, ‘Germany’, 532–​533. 972 Page 6. 973 Pages 87–​93. 974 Pages 77–​86. These were summarized in books such as: Solte, Fakultäten. Weth, Rudolf, Gestrich, Christof, Solte, Ernst-​Lüder, Theologie an staatlichen Universitäten, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1972.

The Future of theology in the German Academy

201

political dimension surrounding the subject of method concerning university theology. Chapter 4 equally highlighted the German theological and philosophical context of Wissenschaftstheorie, refuting the notion that Pannenberg wrote the book as a sole response to either Barth’s revelational theology or within the context of a German religion-​science dialogue.975 The insights listed concerning his exchange with atheist philosophers serendipitously mirror contemporary religion-​science conflicts in content, albeit not in mass media intensity and quantity, thus confirming Pannenberg’s contemporary relevance. In fact, disputes and arguments against theology were and are hardly new. Yet with Wissenschaftstheorie, Pannenberg provided a sophisticated scientific blueprint on which to reason philosophical arguments: i.e., through the development of a rationality model, an endeavour that was to be critically acknowledged by Albert 40 years later.976 Chapter 5 scrutinized the argument and content developed by Pannenberg in the book.977 The sheer breadth of historical, theological and philosophical insight required further differentiation. Overall, responses to Wissenschaftstheorie remained limited, due to the specialist nature of the subject and the complexity of its philosophical argument and historical insight. US-​American responses were especially considered as they were numerically stronger and, additionally, as a select number of former students further clarified parameters for the subject in the 1980s and 1990s. No corresponding scientific project was documented for Germany at the same time. These theological endeavours were analysed in Chapter 6; they were predominantly conducted in the US within the growing religion-​science dialogue that was fuelled by both the rise of medially articulate atheist natural scientists and an influx of funding within that area of research. The former Pannenberg student van Huyssteen’s978 theology received specific attention as he stood out both in quantity and quality of time and works dedicated to the subject of epistemology.979 Chapter 6 further provided insight into the contemporary judicial complexity of state-​church relations, a German particularity that sets the educational-​political parameters for the discipline of theology at universities.980 Indeed, the existence 9 75 Pages 94–​98. 976 Page 109. 977 Pages 101–​130. 978 Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, ‘A response to my colleagues’, Theology Today, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 72, 2, 2015, 208. 979 Pages 136–​142. 980 Pages 155–​158.

202

The Future of theology in the German Academy

of theology at state universities is due neither to societal piety nor to an overriding German religious worldview. Rather, it was and remains a contested political remnant that was stipulated in the Weimarer Reichsverfassung from 1919.981 Equally, the chapter drew attention to the contemporary academic challenges for German university theology in terms of the Bologna reforms (which, in fact, are open to future amendment and progress).982 Today, theology students at German universities predominantly study the subject of theology in order to pursue careers in education. This phenomenon results in both the Protestant and Catholic churches experiencing a severe shortage of current and future clergy; furthermore, it renders the discipline vulnerable to educational-​political changes, legislative restrictions and solely economic reasoning.983 Additionally, a numerically strong generation of theologians is due to retire within the next decade. Syllabus composition and parameters concerning theological subjects are increasingly externally determined; while, internally, theologians are still, on the whole, not concerned with a unified clarification of the scientificity of their own discipline nor in modelling up-​to-​date theoretical standards. Besides, denominational differences potentially threaten the overall academic position of the discipline further. As such, the Catholic Church communicated in early 2018 in its commission Veritatis Gaudium the possibility concerning the future privatization of university theology.984 Pannenberg’s approach to the challenges is well documented through his academic career in his book Wissenschaftstheorie and has been articulated in this book. In fact, he proved that essentially the subject of method carries much larger implications concerning the existence and self-​conception of the overall discipline and its practitioners. In his opinion, foundational macro and transsectoral reflections should never be left to external stakeholders but, rather, be pro-​actively developed by theologians themselves. Curiously, together with Sauter,985 he remained one of the few German proponents to highlight this necessity –​to the detriment of the overall academic discipline in the contemporary university setting. Van Huyssteen developed and applied this aspect further in his overall model of rationality as he spoke of ‘transversality’. Indeed, for van Huyssteen a part of transversality included that:

9 81 982 983 984 985

Albertz, ‘Körperschaft’, 29. Pages 143–​154. Pages 163–​176. Pope, ‘Veritatis’. Pages 69–​73.

The public nature of the discipline

203

Also, in the relationship between theology and other disciplines, transversality identifies different, but equally legitimate ways of looking at, or interpreting an issue, a tradition, or disciplines.986

Thus, certainly, Pannenberg’s but also van Huyssteen’s underlying requirements on theologians and the discipline provide invaluable insight into the modus operandi for future action. While Pannenberg’s demands were theologically grounded in his conviction that theology was the science of God, universal in its contribution and exchange with other sciences, there are convincing educational-​ political reasons that even critics and opponents to his theology can employ in order to arrive at the same result. These are, first, related to the preservation of the subject within the secular university setting and, second, concern the evaluation of the scientificity of the discipline. Yet, it could actually be the third prerequisite that proves the largest challenge in contemporary theology: the creation of a robust self-​conception of the discipline held by its practitioners that withstands external pressures. Chapter 7 finishes the book by setting out these criteria in further detail.

7.1 The public nature of the discipline The examination in this book suggests that the public dimension of Pannenberg’s scientific thinking surpasses theological reasoning, an assessment that exceeds, for example, Grenz’s or Jensen’s theological explanation of Pannenberg’s concept of universality.987 Whilst Pannenberg did not speak overtly of the public nature of theology in Wissenschaftstheorie, his life-​long theological commitment, his extra-​curricular engagement and insistence on the universal character of theology demonstrate this conviction personally and theologically. Besides, the timeliness of the publication of Wissenschaftstheorie and his intent underline this assessment. Grenz formulated it poignantly: As a public discipline, theology’s purpose is to give a ‘rational account of the truth of faith’, to cite a phrase Pannenberg found in his essay ‘Faith and Reason’.1 The orientation to ‘rational accounting’ lies at the heart of the mandate of the church itself, as he understands it. As a people of hope whose eyes are directed to the eschatological

9 86 Van Huyssteen, ‘Public’, 79. 987 Grenz, ‘Why’, 343–​345. Jensen, Robert, ‘Jesus in the Trinity’ in Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988, 188.

204

The Future of theology in the German Academy

consummation in the kingdom of God, the Christian community is called to remain in the world and to engage in the struggle for truth. This is Pannenberg’s calling as well.988

That said, to contextualize Grenz, his context referred to the provisionality of Pannenberg’s work that was indicative of the overall theological discussion. Yet, his ensuing resumé made almost 30 years ago remains: ‘despite his [Pannenberg’s] best efforts, the struggle of conflicting religious truth claims continues, and the God hypothesis remains contestable’.989 While this opinion might arouse further theological dispute, scientifically it should not pose a problem, as future theological research on the God hypothesis corresponds with the second scientific responsibility stipulated by the Wissenschaftsrat and the Europarat (Council of Europe). In fact, the Wissenschaftsrat assigned three particular responsibilities to university education practitioners and their practice: first, teaching and professional training; second, research activity and the generation of knowledge; and third, service to and for society.990 These demands correspond with what the Europarat references as the comprehensive definition of university educational goals.991 Effectively, the public nature of each university science has thus similarly been highlighted by the governing educational boards and councils and therefore has academically to be substantiated even by critics who would theologically disagree with Pannenberg’s concept of universality and his notion of theology being the science of God. Furthermore, in consideration of the historical struggles and academic endeavours within their own discipline, German theologians should be uniquely positioned and discerning concerning the subject of epistemology, also in relation to other disciplines. Indeed, Zahrnt pointed out that no other academic discipline apart from the natural sciences was subjected to such radical changes in the 20th Century as theology.992 Pannenberg, who followed the examples of his aforementioned teachers, used numerous opportunities to articulate his theological conviction through his wider academic and societal participation993 and thus 9 88 Grenz, Hope, 295. Grenz, ‘Scientific’, 161. 989 Ibid., 295. 990 Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen, 8. Bechina, ‘Herausforderungen’, 41–​108. 991 Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, ‘The Bologna Process 2020 –​The European Higher Education Area in the New Decade’, European Higher Education Area website (http://​media.ehea.info/​file/​2009​_​Leu​ven_​Louv​ain-​ la-​Neuve/​06/​1/​Leu​ven_​Louv​ain-​la-​Neuve_​C​ommu​niqu​e_​Ap​ril_​2009​_​595​061.pdf; accessed May 2018). 992 Zahrnt, Sache, 10. 993 His participation at the interdisciplinary Arbeitskreis Poetik und Hermeneutik whose topical discussion results impacted the development of methodology in the overall

The public nature of the discipline

205

demonstrated an overall public effectiveness and permeation of this thought. He postulated: As a Christian, we must not permit ourselves to be deluded by the fact that there are still scientists around that personally believe in God. This fact could be quite accidental. The decisive question is whether the natural world as described by modern science is open to an interpretation in terms of the Christian faith in the creation of this world.994

This approach had already been set out in his own assertions concerning the scope of his grasp of the theological function.995 This theological comprehension equally gave Pannenberg the foundation to speak against ‘the privatization of religious belief ’,996 and the validity to public comment.997 Peters underlined this commitment: His method places theological discourse in the arena of public discourse on the grounds that we all share in the common pursuit of truth. And truth must be one.998

Yet, claims concerning the public nature of theology and theological content require careful analysis and differentiation as to their actual content as theologians appear at times to confound public with political,999 such as J. Singhammer warned:

humanities in Germany in the 1960s and 1970s is an example (thereafter, criticism arose that the group stuck to the general university conference business and, as a result, lost their overall impact). Fuhrmann, Manfred, Jauß, Hans Robert, Pannenberg, Wolfhart (eds.), ‘Text und Applikation (25 to 27.05.1978)’, Forschungsgruppe Poetik und Hermeneutik, Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1981. 994 Pannenberg, ‘Theology and Science’, 300. 995 Cf. footnote 55. 996 Grenz, Hope, 290. 997 This view can implicitly be deducted from: Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Grundfragen systematischer Theologie: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967, 59. Gregersen, Niels Henrik, ‘Einheit und Vielfalt der schöpferischen Werke Gottes, Wolfhart Pannenbergs Beitrag zu einer trinitarischen Schöpfungslehre’, Kerygma und Dogma, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 45, 2, 1999, 102–​ 129. Olive, Pannenberg, 36. 998 Peters, Ted, ‘The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg’, DIALOG: A Journal of Theology, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 37, 2, 1998, 124–​125. Peters, ‘Memoriam’, 368. 999 Thieme, Daniel, Liedhegener, Antonius, ‘ “Linksaußen”, politische Mitte oder doch ganz anders? Die Positionierung der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (EKD) im parteipolitischen Spektrum der postsäkularen Gesellschaft’, PVS Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Baden-​Baden: Nomos Verlag, Vol. 56, 2, 2015, 240–​277.

206

The Future of theology in the German Academy

Hermann Ehlers, the first president of the Deutsche Bundestag, expressed in 1953 [that] the state does not live by the directions of the church but by the fruits of its spiritual existences. It makes sense if the churches assess their privilege in the public discussion and do not use it to interfere in small-​sized daily politics at a small price. At almost 400.000 church membership cancellations annually both the Catholic and the Protestant church should focus on reaching and taking with them people. It is unlikely that political lobbying is the right way to do so.1000

Especially in Germany, religion remains a public issue through its particular state-​church relations and the limping separation.1001 There are further arguments (besides mere theological reasoning) that deserve future research concerning the validity of the public nature of theology in connection to the subject of method. They correspond to the third aspect (i.e., service to society) as stipulated by the Wissenschaftsrat. For example, judicially and philosophically, the retired former judge of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court) E.W. Böckenförde, argued that the state did not create the moral foundations1002 on which it was based. His insight from 1986 seemed to be a foretaste of a much larger mediatized debate between Habermas and Ratzinger on the dialectic of secularization on 19.01.2004 at the Katholische Akademie Bayern (Catholic Academy of Bavaria) in Munich.1003 Unfortunately, theologians have not acted 1000 Singhammer, Johannes, ‘Kirche und Politik: Geht auseinander!’, Die Zeit website (http://​www.zeit.de/​2017/​08/​kir​che-​poli​tik-​trenn​ung-​saeku​lar-​staat; accessed April 2018), TM. 1001 Pages 177–​180. 1002 Manent, Alice, ‘Democracy and Religion in the Political and Legal Thought of Ernst-​Wolfgang Böckenförde’, Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Vol. 7, 1, 2018, 74. Böckenförde, Ernst-​Wolfgang, ‘Die Entstehung des Staates als Vorgang der Säkularisation’ in Forsthoff, Ernst (ed.), Säkularisation und Utopie. Ebracher Studien, Ernst Forsthoff zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1967, 75–​94. Böckenförde, Ernst-​Wolfgang, Staat, Gesellschaft, Freiheit, Studien zur Staatstheorie und Verfassungsrecht, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1976, 42–​64. Dirsch, Felix, ‘ “… lebt von Voraussetzungen, die er selbst nicht garantieren kann”. Lesarten und Interpretationsproblem der Böckenförde-​Doktrin als eines kanonisierten Theorems der deutschen Staatsrechtslehre’, Zeitschrift für Politik, Baden-​Baden: Nomos Verlag, Vol. 56, 2, 2009, 123–​141. Lüddecke, Dirk, ‘Der säkulare Staat und die Religion’ in Hidalgo, Oliver, Polke, Christian (eds.), Staat und Religion, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 2017, 349–​363. 1003 Schuller, Florian (ed.), Habermas, Jürgen, Ratzinger, Joseph, Dialektik der Säkularisierung-​ Über Vernunft und Religion, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2005. Horster, Detlef, Jürgen Habermas und der Papst: Gerechtigkeit und Vernunft, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2006. Werkner, Ines-​ Jaqueline, ‘Vorpolitische

The public nature of the discipline

207

and reacted efficiently to those insights, particularly in the media, much to the dismay of Welker and others who called them a Steilvorlage (steep pass) for the churches.1004 Again, Pannenberg, in his transsectoral understanding, also alluded to it around the same time: The dissolution of religion from the modern state as a benchmark leads, in consequence, as rightly recognized by Ulrich Matz, to the overall doubtfulness of the right to political control. This [leads to] a decay of the legitimization of the secular state and the different institutions within a secularized society.1005

More recently, in terms of a moral-​political concern, the prime minister of North Rhine Westphalia, A. Laschet, expressed the importance of ethical answers and impulses for companies strongly involved in technological advance through artificial intelligence activities.1006 For Pannenberg this would have come as no surprise. Rather to him it was clear that: Without a public conscience of the constitutional and inalienable significance of the religious matter for the subject of personhood, particular Christian statements about the human being rest culturally off the beaten track. They then owe their validity simply to the number of their followers, but not due to the weighting of their truth claim.1007

It is interesting to note then that van Huyssteen equally speaks of theology’s ‘public voice’.1008 Yet, where Pannenberg, as remarked above, located the public conscience of theologians over and above the Academy within the societal

Grundlagen des demokratischen Verfassungsstaates bei Jürgen Habermas und Joseph Ratzinger’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, Baden-​Baden: Nomos Verlag, Vol. 17, 2, 2007, 379–​392. 1004 This is a football-​specific expression has been utilized by various theologians, in response to the Habermas-​Ratzinger debate concerning the communicative opportunities for theologians to continue from the conversation to drive their ideas forward. Horster, Habermas, 42. Schuller, Dialektik, 10. Welker, Michael, ‘Habermas und Ratzinger zur Zukunft der Religion’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 68, 4, 2008, 31. 1005 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Religion und menschliche Natur’ in Wolfhart, Pannenberg (ed.), Sind wir von Natur aus religiös?, Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1986, 18, TM. 1006 The remarks were made in connection to the preservation of the Catholic faculty at the University of Bochum that is located in the region of North Rhine Westphalia. N.a., ‘Laschet: Katholische Fakultät in Bochum ist gesichert’, Katholisch.de website (http://​www.kat​holi​sch.de/​aktuel​les/​aktue​lle-​arti​kel/​lasc​het-​kath​olis​che-​fakul​tat-​ in-​boc​hum-​ist-​gesich​ert; accessed June 2018). 1007 Pannenberg, Anthropologie, 7–​8, TM. 1008 Van Huyssteen, ‘Pluralism’, 65.

208

The Future of theology in the German Academy

sphere, van Huyssteen outlines his definition of public to be within the interdisciplinary scientific context: In an open, postfoundationalist conversation, Christian theology –​for philosophical, theological, and scientific reasons –​should be able to claim a ‘democratic presence’ in interdisciplinary conversation. Theology’s public voice can be revisioned by locating theological reflection within the broader context of interdisciplinary reflection. On this view, theology will share in interdisciplinary standards of rationality, which, although always contextually and socially shaped, will not be hopelessly culture and context bound. On this view, too, theology could become an equal partner in a democratic, interdisciplinary conversation between theology and the sciences, where an authentic Christian voice might actually be heard in a postmodern, pluralist situation.1009

It would be interesting to assess the process by which both Pannenberg and van Huyssteen arrived at these different conclusions: van Huyssteen’s apparent caution to carefully articulate rationality in order to arrive at the lowest common denominator held by even the strongest critics is contrasted with Pannenberg’s apparent philosophical-​scientific boldness in claims. Van Huyssteen mentioned Rescher’s idea of ‘dissensus tolerance’1010 that should be applied when a cognitive agreement or consensus is unattainable. It would actually make a thought-​provoking study to analyse in depth the dissensus (in)tolerance that van Huyssteen experienced while developing his postfoundationalist rationality and differentiate it to the background of Pannenberg’s paradigms that were articulated in this book.

7.2 Epistemology as the basis of scientificity While Evers summarized1011 the negative theological response to Pannenberg´s cognitive-​propositional theology as having lost its plausibility in the light of postmodern criticism, D. Dennett highlighted, in turn, the absurdity of the effects of postmodernism on the sciences as a whole:

1009 Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, ‘Postfoundationalism and Interdisciplinarity: A Response to Jerome Stone’, The Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 35, 2, 2000, 434. 1010 Rescher, Nicolas, Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, 3–​4 in van Huyssteen, Wentzel, ‘Pluralism and Interdisciplinarity: In Search of Theology’s Public Voice’, American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Champaign: University of Illionois Press, Vol. 22, 1, 2001, 85. 1011 Cf. footnote 942.

Epistemology as the basis of scientificity

209

Postmodernism, the school of ‘thought’ that proclaimed ‘There are no truths, only interpretations’ has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for ‘conversations’ in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster.1012

Elsewhere, Dennett expressed that: There is no such thing as philosophy-​free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.1013

Interestingly, thus, Pannenberg’s assessment and prerogative was neither a German phenomenon nor one solely based on theological interest. Dennett’s remark essentially demands the kind of scientific remedy to academic absurdity and abuse that Pannenberg alluded to as being an inherent risk. For him this constituted that: This risk cannot be met on the level of scientific description itself but must be met first on the level of philosophical reflection on the work of science. It is on this level that the abstract form of scientific description must be considered with special attention to what it is ‘abstracted from’ and what is methodologically disregarded in the abstract formulas of science. It is on this level then that theologians should address their questions to scientists since God the creator and the nature of things as creatures belong to those aspects of reality that are abstracted from the mathematical language of science.1014

Murphy provided another example in her disclosure of the epistemological foundation of the new atheists’ arguments and in doing so underlined, once more, the necessity for method in scientific reasoning.1015 She mirrored Pannenberg’s timeless claim in regard to scientificity that could, however, only be achieved through the involvement of philosophy in dialogue with other sciences.1016 As underlined throughout this book, for Pannenberg the level of persuasiveness of theological interpretations of the world depended on the same criteria that comprehensive 1012 Dennett, Daniel, ‘Dennett on Wieseltier vs. Pinkett in The New Republic’, Edge website (https://​www.edge.org/​conve​rsat​ion/​denn​ett-​on-​wie​selt​ier-​v-​pin​ker-​in-​the-​ new-​repub​lic; accessed April 2018). 1013 Dennett, Daniel, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995, 21. 1014 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Theological Questions to Scientists’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997, 39. 1015 Murphy, Nancey, ‘Engaging Robert J. Russell’s Alpha and Omega’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 45, 1, 2010, 193–​212. 1016 Pannenberg, ‘Theology and Science’, 300–​301.

210

The Future of theology in the German Academy

philosophical interpretation had to meet. Altogether, the plea for a renewed interest concerning the subject of method amongst Protestant theologians thus surpasses individual theological particularities not simply because of the public nature and implications of theology on society but also because of its scientificity and, thus its location within the university. Pannenberg was acutely aware of the relation, the inextricable link and interdependence between the two: At risk are questions of broader relevance exceeding the theoretical discussion: the encyclopedic question concerning the position of the theological disciplines in connection to one’s theology has immediate consequences for the composition of theological faculties, theological studies and their set up. Any useful reform has to orientate itself on the question what theology actually is and what kind of knowledge and abilities one has to acquire in order to develop opinions concerning theology.1017

Furthermore, as previously outlined by Peterson, the underlying methodological core of Pannenberg’s work in Wissenschaftstheorie remains unchallenged and therefore provides a good basis on which to restart the debate on method.1018 Sharpe also perceived the magnitude of Pannenberg’s project in that he considered theology to be universal and to be the science of God in his same named monograph. He went on to develop a model of theory based on Barbour that he called ‘key-​theology’.1019 Equally, Gregersen appreciated the ‘guidelines for theological use of science and scientific self-​awareness that were found within the field of philosophy of science’1020 that he evidenced in the works of Clayton, Murphy or van Huyssteen. Yet, curiously, rather than promoting a meta-​subject such as epistemology further, he went on to warn that: Many pitfalls may hereby be avoided, especially the pitfall of adopting overly general metaphilosophies, which are grossly metaphysical more than concisely scientific in orientation. Scientists and other stakeholders in the field of science and theology may benefit from going deeper into the many forms of naturalism within current philosophy.1021

Quite the opposite appears to be true for Germany, if considered in relation to the overall existence of the discipline within the scientific sector and at university level. While Gregersen alluded to ‘stakeholders’ he failed to notice the previously

1 017 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 10, ETR5–​6. 1018 Peterson, ‘Where’, 148. 1019 Sharpe, Science, 195–​206, 238–​239. For a critique: Giostra, Alessandro, ‘Science of God: Truth in the Age of Science’, Theology, Ethics and & Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell, Vol. 14, 3, 2007,442–​445. 1020 Gregersen, ‘Octopus’, 427. 1021 Ibid., 427.

Epistemology as the basis of scientificity

211

outlined transsectoral implications at stake for the discipline or indeed for all the sciences. It was Pannenberg himself who alluded to the enlarged benefit in his comment on the subject of method: If at all, the fruit of such reflection is the renewal of the sciences. Actually, such a [comprehension would arise] out of the collective concentration on the foundational questions of scientific understanding. This could possibly one day also assist the university as the universe of the sciences to [reach] a new format. [Yet, this] could never gain as long as there are power struggles of so called ‘groups’ in the name of reforms.1022

In fact, while Pannenberg’s quest for universal history as a credible source of divine revelation with no difference between world history and salvation history was declared obsolete, the extent of his foundational claim regarding the universal scope of the subject of theology towards the sciences and world remain timely and timeless. Whereas in the 21st Century pluralism has led theologians to declare metaphysical visions such as Pannenberg’s a modernist relic, the aim to set normative standards and claims concerning the discipline of theology constitutes a contemporary response to capture the scope of theological impact on the larger world.1023 Indeed, Pannenberg somewhat displayed the normativity that Welker described later in his nine various levels for theologians in their effort to define theology.1024 The validity and affirmation of his approach could thus equally be argued and deduced further from a normativity concerning theology. Captivatingly, there are contemporary socio-​ cultural and technological developments and tendencies that point to another large paradigm shift, somewhat mirroring the unsettling times within which Pannenberg’s Wissenschaftstheorie was set and to which he responded in the early 1970s. Indeed, contemporary scientists (not just theologians) are confronted with different but corresponding risks which could be argued to be sufficiently strong to constitute a series of

1 022 Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie, 8, ETR7, TM. 1023 Welker, Michael, ‘What Makes Theology Theology?’, Theology Today, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 72, 2, 2015, 160–​169. 1024 These are: first, the concentration on integrating concepts of God; second, the respect for the weight of the biblical canon; third, the orienting power of specific theological topics; fourth, a purely academic theology; fifth, an academic theology in its educational and practical responsibilities; sixth, a practical theology in ecclesial and concrete cultural contexts; seventh, an institutionalized theology with a differentiated professional ethos; eighth, a theology with orienting power in existential situations and ninth, a theology that shapes the religious and theological mentalities respectively the dogmatic loci. Ibid., 162–​169.

212

The Future of theology in the German Academy

‘shocks’ in line with Kuhn’s model of the jettisoning of trusted theories.1025 These 21st-​century phenomena that threaten the normativity of all sciences alike especially take the form of the privatization of intelligence and science1026 and a move to regimes of post-​truth and post-​truth communication.1027 While these elements are not new,1028 they are accelerated through technological advances and globalization.1029 Moreover, they have received considerable media attention as they were brought prominently on to the political stage in the 2016 US-​elections.1030 Through the growing privatization of intelligence and science research results have become increasingly shareholder driven1031 rather than being determined by a desire to ‘further truth and theoretical curiosity’.1032 Currently, this phenomenon manifests itself gradually especially concerning technology related subjects.1033 Furthermore, scientific results are not merely privatized but are also 1 025 Kuhn, Revolutions, 62–​65. 1026 Boutin, Paul, ‘The secretive world of selling data about you’, Newsweek website (http://​w ww.newsw​eek.com/​secret​ive-​world-​sell​ing-​data-​about-​you-​464​789; accessed January 2018). 1027 Yarhi-​Milo, Keren, ‘After Credibility-​American Foreign Policy in the Trump Era’, Foreign Affairs, New York: Council on Foreign Relations. Vol. 97, 1, 2018. Pazzanese, Christina, ‘Politics in a post-​truth age’, Harvard Gazette website (https://​news.harv​ ard.edu/​gaze​tte/​story/​2016/​07/​polit​ics-​in-​a-​post-​truth-​age/​; accessed May 2018). Viola, Lora Anne, ‘US-​amerikanische Außenpolitik unter Trump und die Krisen der Globalisierung’, Zeitschrift für Außen-​und Sicherheitspolitik, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, Vol. 10, 3, 2017, 329–​338. 1028 Kraus, Elisabeth, Von der Uranspaltung zur Göttinger Erklärung: Otto Hahn, Werner Heisenberg, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker und die Verantwortung des Wissenschaftlers, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2001, 68–​111, 187–​347. 1029 Grinin, Leonard, ‘The Processes of Systemic Integration in the World System’, Journal of Globalisation Studies, Minneapolis: East View Information Services, Vol. 8, 1, 2017, 97–​118. 1030 Harsin, Jayson, ‘Regimes of Posttruth, Postpolitics, and Attention Economies’, Communication, Culture & Critique, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 8, 2, 2015, 327–​333. 1031 Jarmul, Katharine, ‘Deep Learning Blindspots’, Chaos Communication Congress website (https://​media.ccc.de/​v/​34c3-​8860-​deep_​lear​ning​_​bli​ndsp​ots; accessed January 2018). Stöcker, Christian, ‘Forschung der Tech-​Konzerne-​Die Privatisierung der Intelligenz’, Der Spiegel website (http://​www.spie​gel.de/​wisse​nsch​aft/​men​sch/​ ki-​forsch​ung-​die-​pri​vati​sier​ung-​der-​inte​llig​enz-​kolu​mne-​a-​1186​449.html; accessed January 2018). 1032 Von Weizsäcker, Einheit, 21–​22. 1033 Increasingly, tech giants such as Apple, Alphabet/​Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft or, in China, Alibaba and Tencent invest in research. In fact, their research budgets are often larger than those of actual countries as in the case of Amazon and

Epistemology as the basis of scientificity

213

prone to manipulation in order to reach political and/​or economic goals.1034 Disputes have especially become visible in the consumer products sector,1035 the pharmaceutical industry1036 or the environmental trade.1037 Objective scientific parameters are no longer a given prerequisite for science but become subject to political and economic agendas.1038 Overall, the mediatisation of the abuse the state of Germany. N.a., ‘Forschung und Entwicklung’, Statistisches Bundesamt website (https://​www.desta​tis.de/​DE/​Zahle​nFak​ten/​Gesell​scha​ftSt​aat/​Bil​dung​ Fors​chun​gKul​tur/​Forsc​hung​Entw​ickl​ung/​Forsc​hung​Entw​ickl​ung.html; accessed September 2018). N.a. ‘Annual Reports, Proxies and Shareholder Letters’, Amazon Corporate IR net website (http://​phx.corpor​ate-​ir.net/​phoe​nix.zhtml?c=​97664&p=​ irol-​report​sann​ual; accessed September 2018). Molla, Rani, ‘Tech companies spend more on R&D than any other companies in the U.S. Amazon is No. 1’, Recode website (https://​www.rec​ode.net/​2017/​9/​1/​16236​506/​tech-​ama​zon-​apple-​gdp-​spend​ ing-​produ​ctiv​ity; accessed December 2017). Amazon outlines its R&D as technology and content activities in its balance sheet. N.a., ‘Gross Domestic Spending on R&D’, OECD Data website (https://​data.oecd.org/​rd/​gross-​domes​tic-​spend​ing-​ on-​r-​d.html; accessed September 2018). 1034 Petticrew, Marc, Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal, Knai, Cécile, Cassidy, Rebecca, Hessari, Nason Maani, Thomas, James, Weishaar, Heide, ‘Nothing Can Be Done until Everything Is Done: the Use of Complexity Arguments by Food, Beverage, Alcohol and Gambling Industries’, Journal of Epidemiology and Communal Health, London: BMJ, Vol. 71, 11, 2017, 1078–​1083. 1035 Coca-​Cola funded the Global Energy Balance Network and most likely misled the public on obesity research. Kmietowicz, Zosia, ‘Coca-​Cola funded group set up to promote “energy balance” is disbanded’, British Medical Journal, London: BMJ, Vol. 351, 48, 2015, 6590. 1036 The UK-​based open access publisher BioMed Central uncovered academic journal publishing fraud through fabricated scientific peer reviews in 2014. Moylan, Elisabeth, ‘Inappropriate manipulation of peer review’, BioMed Central website (https://​blogs.biomed​cent​ral.com/​bmcb​log/​2015/​03/​26/​manip​ulat​ion-​peer-​rev​iew/​ ; accessed July 2018). 1037 Mercer, David, ‘Why Popper Can’t Resolve the Debate over Global Warming: Problems with the Uses of Philosophy of Science in the Media and Public Framing of the Science of Global Warming’, Public Understanding of Science, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 27, 2, 2018, 139–​152. Corbett, Julia B., Durfee, Jessica L., ‘Testing Public (Un)Certainty of Science: Media Representations of Global Warming’, Science Communication, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 26, 2, 2004, 129–​151. 1038 Stenhouse, Neil, Harper, Allison, Xiaomei, Cai, Cobb, Sara, Nicotera, Anne, Maibach, Edward, ‘Conflict about Climate Change at the American Meteorological Society: Meteorologists’ Views on a Scientific and Organizational Controversy’, Bulletin of the American Meterological Society, Boston: American Meteorological Society, Vol. 98, 2, 2017, 219–​223.

214

The Future of theology in the German Academy

of scientific results has increased,1039 while scientific freedom and truth have become more fragile.1040 The political and economic dimensions of these phenomena and their impact on civil societies have grown. Objective scientific parameters are no longer a given prerequisite for science but have become subject to political and economic agendas. Interestingly, Kuhn failed to pick up such phenomena in his theory. That said, in the early 1990s, a duo of scientists, J. Ravetz and S. Funtowicz, effectively called into question Kuhn’s view of the ‘ “tradition-​shattering complements to the tradition-​bound activity of normal science” ’; they maintained that science was an ‘essentially myopic and anti-​critical activity.’1041 The duo developed the theory of Post-​Normal Science (PNS) as an epistemological response to Kuhn’s concept of ‘normal science’.1042 Curiously, it has been discussed mainly in and confined to the environmental, technological and financial sector, in relation to the specific scientific, social and political management of risk.1043 Within the context of environmental studies, both scientists criticized the ‘shoddy sciences’1044 and their abuse through: Their professionalization, the greater short-​lived specialisations, the divisions of work within research and the industrialization of research that was underpinned by battles for grants and research where the quality of academic writing was subservient to attainment of funding and personal promotion.1045

1039 Wiarda, Jan Martin, ‘Wissenschaftsfreiheit’, DSW Journal, Berlin: Deutsches Studentenwerk, Vol. 9, 1, 2017, 12–​21. 1040 Cf. organizational activities such as The March for Science or the Philipp Schwartz Initiative grants given to persecuted academics by the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung. N.a., ‘Home’, March for Science website (https://​www.marc​hfor​scie​nce. com/​; accessed May 2018). N.a., ‘Gefährdete Wissenschaftler erhalten Schutz in Deutschland: Philipp Schwartz-​Initiative fördert 56 weitere Stipendiaten’, Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung website (https://​www.humbo​ldt-​fou​ndat​ion.de/​web/​press​ emit​teil​ung-​2017-​17.html; accessed May 2018). 1041 Ravetz, Jerome, ‘Usable knowledge, Usable ignorance: Incomplete Science with Policy Implications’ in Clark, William C., Munn, Robert E. (eds.), Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, 419. 1042 Kuhn, Revolutions, 23–​42. 1043 Turnpenny John, Jones, Mavis, Lorenzoni, Irene, ‘Where Now for Post-​Normal Science? A Critical Review of Its Development, Definitions, and Uses’, Science, Technology & Human Values, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 36, 3, 2011, 288. 1044 Ravetz, Knowledge, 247. 1045 Turnpenny, Jones, Lorenzoni, ‘Post-​Normal’, 289–​290.

Epistemology as the basis of scientificity

215

It was only as recently as 2007 that M. Hulme brought the theory to the attention of a wider audience in a newspaper article when he observed for disputes within environmental studies that: The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge –​its openness to change as it rubs up against society –​is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken. It has been labelled ‘post-​normal’ science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-​normal science focus as often on the process of science –​who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy –​as on the facts of science.1046

Remarkably, these phenomena extend to other scientific disciplines alike and are exacerbated through rapid global technological advancements and thus far, through a lack of corresponding legislation. Certainly, the scientific-​political changes and the potential judicial limbo in which German university theology is set equally qualify for the discipline as the ‘high stakes and large uncertainties’1047 to which Hulme referred. In fact, Hulme considered that the perspective of PNS for his respective discipline was needed, in order to ‘make sense’ of scientific contributions and their propositions.1048 While Hulme ascribed this to certain participants within the climate discussion, he observed global phenomena that could equally be argued to prevail amongst theologians: The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-​based policy will then follow … That is why … exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences. If the battle of science is won, then the war of values will be won.1049

Such an approach could, indeed, be an answer to what Murphy already identified: In philosophy of religion the important point of contention is still whether it is possible to be a rational theologian. Here the game is won by anyone who can show that theology is in the same ball park with science, and no points should be taken off if one cannot give sharp answers about when to give up on Pannenberg’s or the modernists’ programs.1050

1046 Hulme, Mike, ‘The appliance of science’, The Guardian website (https://​www.theg​ uard​ian.com/​soci​ety/​2007/​mar/​14/​sci​ence​ofcl​imat​echa​nge.climat​echa​nge; accessed, May 2018). 1047 Ibid. 1048 Ibid. 1049 Ibid. 1050 Murphy, Age, 208.

216

The Future of theology in the German Academy

Equally, Pannenberg previously rightly assessed this to be the source of the conflict: While there is no conflict in principle between reason and faith, Christian faith is in conflict with a truncated concept of reason that is itself not warranted by reason. Christian intellectuals need to more accurately locate the point of conflict with contemporary deformations of rationality, and more effectively contend for preserving and advancing a history of thought marked by greater confidence in the capacities and imperatives of reason itself.1051

Tendencies such as the aforementioned demonstrate that research on reason and method is rendered even more important through the possible detrimental implications that technological advances1052 and political as well as economic interests hold for the various disciplines. Epistemology thus remains a foundational and somewhat existential exercise that can result both in strong primary and secondary effects on society and politics. Establishing the scientificity and method of a subject holds wider political and societal implications, as the well-​ publicized example of the German Historikerstreit1053 in the 1980s demonstrates. In fact, the Historikerstreit displayed the kind of far-​reaching societal and political consequences that academic sovereignty of interpretation and usage of method produced and had in relation to the interpretation of the Second World War and the overall German societal comprehension of guilt.1054 Examples such as the above from Germany render the subject of rationality so important for contemporary theologians. Indeed, it is advisable to pick up where Pannenberg’s student van Huyssteen left the debate on rationality in the early 2000s on the matter of shared ‘rational sources’ of the various scientific disciplines but moreover in everyday life amongst humans in order to ‘empower’ theologians in their rational integrity.1055 For van Huyssteen:

1 051 Pannenberg, ‘Philosophers’, 34. 1052 Fuller, Michael, ‘Big Data: New Science, New Challenges, New Dialogical Opportunities’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 50, 3, 2015, 569–​582. 1053 Ringshausen, Gerhard, ‘Ein neuer “Methodenstreit”-​Zur Aufgabe der kirchlichen Zeitgeschichte’, Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 4, 1, 1991, 284–​292. 1054 Kailitz, Steffen, ‘Der Historikerstreit und die politische Deutungskultur der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, German Studies Review, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, Vol. 32, 2, 2009, 279–​302. 1055 Van Huyssteen, ‘Public’, 67.

Epistemology as the basis of scientificity

217

Rationality thus emerges as a deeply historical practice, always embedded in the experiences and narratives of our daily lives, and contextualized by the radical interpretative nature of all our experiences.1056

Yet, on the whole, the tendency by theologians in Continental Europe as well as across the Atlanctic to negate further work on models of theory might be due to what Peacocke already delineated in 1981: Acute and pertinent as these philosophical and sociological critiques of scientific knowledge undoubtedly are, they do not seem at the moment to budge the great majority of scientists (except perhaps particle physicists and cosmologists) from a sceptical and qualified realism, according to which their models and hypotheses are regarded ‘candidates for reality’ –​that is models of, hypotheses about, a real, but only imperfectly known, world to which the models approximate and the hypotheses genuinely refer … A sceptical and qualified realism is in fact the working assumption of practical scientists and this is something I think cannot be lightly set aside.1057

That this perception constitutes a part-​truth only has thus been effectively demonstrated through the research on PNS in the other mentioned sectors. Yet, a refocus on epistemology initially conducted by systematic theologians seems unavoidable in the light of external pressures such as the German educational-​ political agenda and economic demands on the sciences concerning faculty composition and syllabus construction as well as demographic changes concerning staff and financial-​political pressures. Only a robust scientifically articulated self-​conception and definition of their own discipline and theory formation allows German Protestant theologians to confront external pressures credibly and unanimously. Again, these are not new insights, as Daecke’s assessment concerning the legitimacy of theology as a university science in 1972 expressed: Should theology remain a university subject? It has to! A theological philosophy of science such as the one of Pannenberg and Sauter has to withstand all attempts from sides that wish to hand theology a special status or wish to dictate it. This is why those starkly neglected efforts are of most urgent priority.1058

Interestingly, the scientificity of theology is not a nationally isolated concern that is merely relevant for state-​run universities in jurisdictions such as Germany, as Dillistone equally assessed in 1976:

1 056 Ibid., 68. 1057 Peacocke, Arthur R., ‘Introduction’ in Peacocke, Arthur R. (ed.), The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, Stocksfield: Oriel Press Ltd., 1981, xi. 1058 Daecke, ‘Universität’, 201, TM.

218

The Future of theology in the German Academy

These questions [Pannenberg posed with Wissenschaftstheorie] are obviously of very great importance in view of the new situation that has developed in America and Great Britain over the past twenty-​five years. In general terms, the seminary (especially if situated in an isolated position) has declined in importance as a place of theological inquiry and research; universities and colleges have expanded their religious departments but more in terms of faculties of religious studies than of faculties of theology or divinity.1059

Yet, it is somewhat doubtful to expect US-​American theologians within the religion-​science dialogue to take up the subject of method on the basis of educational-​political pressures, as Peterson already commented on the state of the discipline across the Atlantic in 2008: Bringing theology back into the university currently may seem unachievable, even folly. But this need not remain the case, for theology may also be done by those who are not theologians, particularly by those who are in the cognate areas of their discipline where theological questions naturally arise … Perhaps theology does not need to enter from the outside as much as it needs to be reborn from within. Although theologians may decry their own importance, what is needed is for that importance to be recognized by those outside the field. Doing so will require the university to position itself in its broader, more proper horizon, concerned not merely with things that are useful and profitable but also with things that are ultimate.1060

7.3 The self-​conception of practitioners There was a third foundational parameter essential for Pannenberg’s theology. In line with the public nature of theology and its scientificity on the basis of epistemological research, he held on to a robust self-​conception of theological practitioners shaped through his historical situation. Overall, Pannenberg’s theology as the understanding of reality being the all-​encompassing totality of God’s creation was strongly influenced by his background, and his historical and educational-​political setting.1061 Additionally, he picked up on the larger societal paradigm shift in German society in the late 1960s and early 1970s, especially in the area of educational university policy; Wissenschaftstheorie bears witness to this sensitive comprehension. His early war and post-​war experiences, the construction of a democracy in West Germany, the grappling with ideas and prevalent theories and the encounters with his teachers impacted the self-​conception of the discipline of theology and his role as a theologian in the larger 1 059 Dillistone, ‘Theology’, 218–​219. 1060 Peterson, ‘University’, 563–​577. 1061 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Grundfragen systematischer Theologie: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967, 11.

The self-conception of practitioners

219

society. The sociologist D. Bebnowski mirrored S. Schlak when he noted that especially the Flakhelfer youth, which formed part of the 45er-​Generation, participated in the political and societal reconstruction of the Federal Republic of Germany like no other generation beforehand.1062 Parallel to the breakdown of the Fascist regime, especially this generation avowed and aligned themselves to the democratic state order as implemented through the occupying forces in West Germany.1063 Indeed, they constituted a quantitatively large German post-​war ‘intellectual aristocracy’1064 young enough to have escaped the war politically unencumbered. Moreover, as Habermas witnessed: ‘my generation received all the opportunities after the war and actually used them … [they] dominated the intellectual scene for an unusally long time.’1065 It is only with this larger socio-​ historical knowledge in mind that Pannenberg’s conduct and his self-​conception as a contributor to scientific research at an academic institution and as a theological participant within the larger public discourse within society can be fully understood.1066 Certainly, for him, it was true that: The tendency towards retreat from public discourse in questions regarding the truth of Christian affirmations, a truth that obliges not only the believer but also the world, seems to correspond to social commitments that avoid the specifically Christian profile but accept without much critical reflection what counts for a generally human cause, be it in a liberal or Marxist fashion. The promise of the gospel that the truth will make us free has been ‘inverted’, says Neuhaus (p. 230), and I certainly agree with him on that issue. The result is that the notions of freedom and equality have become shallow.1067

In the light of the developments within German theology in the last 45 years, the precarious position of theology at the university thus seems as much an internal as an external calamity, brought on by practitioners and opponents alike. It has already been acknowledged that Pannenberg’s self-​conception and comprehension of theology’s scientificity included, for him, the right and necessity to

1062 Bebnowski, Generation, 46. Schlak, Stephan, ‘Die 29er. Der deutsche Nachkriegsgeist wird 80 Jahre’, Magazin der Kulturstiftung des Bundes, Halle/​Saale: Kulturstiftung des Bundes, Vol. 11, 1, 2008, 7, TM. 1063 Moses, Dirk, ‘Die 45er: Eine Generation zwischen Faschismus und Demokratie’, Neue Sammlung-​Vierteljahresschrift für Erziehung und Gesellschaft, Seelze-​Velber: Friedrich Verlag, Vol. 40, 1, 2000, 233–​263. 1064 Schildt, Axel, Siegfried, Detlef, Deutsche Kulturgeschichte. Die Bundesrepublik-​1945 bis zur Gegenwart, Bonn: bpb Verlag, 2009, 62, TM. 1065 Habermas, Jürgen, Vergangenheit als Zukunft, München: Pendo Verlag, 1998, 86, TM. 1066 Cf. footnote 1013. 1067 Pannenberg, ‘Friends’, 334.

220

The Future of theology in the German Academy

contribute to other academic subjects with his own scientific predictions. He did so over the ensuing four decades on a large number of subjects in physics,1068 biology, and anthropology among others.1069 Grenz regarded this approach as a ‘mutually edifying dialogue’,1070 while Holder remarked that Pannenberg followed somewhat in the footsteps of Heim.1071 The comparison was limited, as Pannenberg expressed concerning Heim’s thinking: Yet even Karl Heim, for all his competence in conversations with scientists, was more concerned to relativize the level of scientific conceptualizing and description of nature in toto by presenting it as a form of thought, over against which theology presents quite a different form of thought. The two forms of thought are not ‘polarized’ but, as Heim said, ‘superpolar’. Therefore, even Heim did not enter into a logical appropriation and critique of the conceptual foundations of natural science. In order to do so he would have needed a clear perception of the interrelations between the history of philosophy and the history of the formation of scientific conceptuality; and in this area he did not employ the necessary information.1072

Rather, Pannenberg’s aforementioned theological teachers who, with their interdisciplinary and, indeed, transsectoral approach to academia, science and politics, their openness towards the world and their ability to hold and address intellectual tensions across subject matters, all supported the formation of Pannenberg’s theology.1073 They actually represented a generation of theologians 1068 Pannenberg, Theology of Nature, 37–​44, 123–​161. Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie Band 2 (Neuauflage), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 96–​138. Pannenberg, Historicity, 61–​72. Polkinghorne, John, ‘Fields and Theology: A Response to Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​ Blackwell, Vol. 36, 4, 2001, 795–​797. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Response to John Polkinghorne’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​Blackwell, Vol. 36, 4, 2001, 799–​800. Hefner, Philip, ‘Pannenberg’s Fundamental Challenges to Theology and Science’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​ Blackwell, Vol. 36, 4, 2001, 801–​806. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘A Dialogue: God as Spirit and Natural Science’, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Wiley-​ Blackwell, Vol. 36, 4, 2001, 783–​794. 1069 E.g. Pannenberg, Theology of Nature, 29–​49. Pannenberg, Historicity, 163–​174. Pannenberg, Band 2, 162–​202. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Theology and Science’, The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, Vol. 85, 3, 1992, 299–​310. 1070 Grenz, ‘Scientific’, 160. 1071 Holder, Heavens, 127. 1072 Pannenberg, Theology of Nature, 32. 1073 Pannenberg gave testimony to this in his biographical account. Pannenberg, ‘Pilgrimage’, 184–​191.

The self-conception of practitioners

221

who understood their office and position to be decidedly public; in awareness, active engagement in the pre-​political discourse and dialogue within civil society. However, for Pannenberg, this simply represented the intellectual discipline inherent to his vocation.1074 Indeed, he relayed on the basis of John 3:16 the individual responsibility of theologians: All humanity and the entire universe are created by the God of Israel who revealed himself definitely in Jesus Christ. True, this understanding is no longer shared by everybody in our societies; it therefore does not characterize the spirit of our public culture. It is viewed as an understanding peculiar to Christians. But it is nonetheless a Christian understanding that embraces all human beings. Christian ethics, then, is not limited to Christians but is related to the moral situation and calling of all. This is the connection between the particular and universal in Christian thought, and it is a connection that must be honoured also today in Christian moral reasoning. There can be no turning inward to the Christian community that excludes Christian claims and Christian concerns of human beings as such.1075

While scholars might not agree with Pannenberg’s theology, they are obliged, nevertheless, to keep in line with the aforementioned stipulations of the Wissenschaftsrat.1076 Even the scientific-​political parameters, in which German theology is set, prohibit any inward-​turning. Furthermore, the paradigm change to an increasingly technological civilization that is plagued by post-​truth communication, should entice all scientists alike to increase their communicative efforts in order to combat ignorance and lobbying interests. M. Lynas summarized Pew research results from 20151077 on the difference between scientific results and broader public opinion with the headline ‘Even in 2015, the public doesn’t trust scientists’. He went on to assess:

1 074 Pannenberg, Band 1, 30, TM. 1075 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘When Everything Is Permitted’, First Things, New York: Institute on Religion and Public Life, Vol. 42, 1, 1998, 26–​30. 1076 Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen, 8. Bechina, ‘Herausforderungen’, 41–​108. 1077 Funk, Cary, Rainie, Lee, Smith, Aaron, Olmstead, Kenneth, Duggan, Maeve, Page, Dana, ‘Public and Scientists Views on Science and Society’, Pew Research Center website (http://​www.pewi​nter​net.org/​2015/​01/​29/​pub​lic-​and-​sci​enti​sts-​views-​on-​ scie​nce-​and-​soci​ety/​; accessed September 2018). Pew’s newer reports, published within the last three years, have slightly different foci such as the perception of science as displayed in social media activities rather than confidence in scientific results and scientists’ credibility.

222

The Future of theology in the German Academy

Lobbyists and activists who promote their ideological agendas and financial interests over those of good science and public policy must take much of the blame for this situation. But scientists also have to be better communicators.1078

Lynas referred to the environmental and pharmaceutical sectors only, yet his assessment can be broadened to include scientists from all disciplines. Indeed, the contemporary tectonic shift to digital technologies as well as the privatization of intelligence and the strength of post-​truth regimes point to a similar strong paradigm shift to the historical-​political and scientific-​political one that Pannenberg faced in post-​war Germany. Pannenberg, the ecumenically-​minded conservative theologian, felt enticed to highlight the truth and meaning of Christ though. He considered himself to be accountable to the tradition of Christian thought.1079 He worked as a theologian with unusual competence on the issues of religious philosophy, and he approached these questions in the informed fashion of a historical theologian.1080 Indeed, Pannenberg stipulated that: The Christian faith is confronted with serious challenges in our times. It is therefore not very helpful to adapt traditional language to modern ways of thinking. One has to withstand the challenges and demonstrate that the Christian faith is not at all obsolete. Thus, theology has to counter widely spread convictions of our times. The wealth of the Christian teaching fascinates everybody who has studied its history and who thinks through the thereby imposed questions. There is nothing antiquarian to this. That is why the book connects historical and systematic considerations. In its core, the content of the Christian teaching is vastly superior to the intellectual fashion[s]‌of our secularized culture. It is important for the church to regain this awareness.1081

Clayton somewhat mirrored this opinion by pointing out the accountability of Pannenberg’s methodology to the history of religion and philosophy. According to Clayton, the continuing task of theology, namely, the unification of the study of the particular context of Christ within a universal philosophically adequate framework continues.1082 However:

1078 Lynas, Mark, ‘Even in 2015, the Public Doesn’t Trust Scientists’, The Washington Post website (https://​www.was​hing​tonp​ost.com/​gdpr-​cons​ent/​?dest​inat​ion=​%2fpos​ teve​ryth​ing%2fwp%2f2​015%2f01%2f30%2fe​ven-​in-​2015-​the-​pub​lic-​doe​snt-​trust-​ sci​enti​sts%2f%3f&utm_​t​erm=​.50527​55f8​a7e; accessed September 2018). 1079 McKenzie, Religious, 2. 1080 Ibid., 6. 1081 Pannenberg, Band 3, foreword, TM. 1082 Clayton, ‘Anticipation’, 150.

The self-conception of practitioners

223

This task remains an ideal for theology. If the task is as fundamental as I think it is, we may even consider it a guiding or regulative ideal for the discipline as a whole. 1083

It was also Clayton who estimated that Pannenberg’s methodological commitment in the interaction with other disciplines was, in fact, his most significant contribution to theology.1084 Indeed, Pannenberg’s perception concerning the overall intellectual task of theologians and their relationship with the discipline of philosophy has been outlined in this book already.1085 It is based on the understanding that: The dialogue between theology and science, then, always involves philosophy as a third partner. Consequently, the degree of persuasiveness of the theological interpretation of the world as the creation of the biblical God depends on the same criteria that a comprehensive philosophical interpretation has to meet.1086

This includes reflections on the philosophy of science and the scientificity of theology. Unfortunately, however, Pannenberg also appears to have foreseen a tendency in theological discourse that, while not critically articulated,1087 is now, on the whole, widespread: Theology today seems to me characterized in that it speaks solely expressively. [This] is non-​committing for everybody who decides to ‘own’ a point of view. Today, no generally acknowledged method exists any longer. [There] is only a decreasing awareness of a problematic that each theological expression should refer to. This is due to the fact that the responsibility to grapple with the theological tradition and to differentiate with reference to one’s own theological statements is no longer recognized by everybody. The consequence [of this] is positionality: everybody just speaks for themselves.1088

Pannenberg’s response to such a viewpoint became particularly clear in the last chapter of Wissenschaftstheorie where he captured the interplay of the various theological disciplines with and to each other. R. Schätzle’s assessment that ‘theology[ians] themselves have grown tired of meeting the challenges of contemporary times’1089 and at times only individual comment in the public discourse

1 083 Ibid., 150. 1084 Clayton, ‘Anticipation’, 125. 1085 Pages 11–​14. 1086 Pannenberg, ‘Theology and Science’, 300–​301. 1087 Clayton, ‘Pluralism’, 437–​440. 1088 Pannenberg, ‘Reden’ in Pannenberg, Sauter, Daecke, Janowski, Grundlagen, 60, TM. 1089 Schätzle, Robert, ‘Die Krise der Theologie’ in Becker, Patrick, Gerold, Thomas (eds.), Die Theologie an der Universität-​Eine Standortbestimmung, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2005, 14, TM.

224

The Future of theology in the German Academy

rings true. Even when doing so, this minority voice is restricted largely to moral-​ theological issues such as abortion and genetic technologies.1090 Yet, theological advocates who argue for the necessity of the discipline of theology within the university context need to develop a robust self-​conception, as Schätzle poignantly declared: Doing theology and not wanting to know anything about the responsibility for this precise world [that we live in], asks much more [of the theologian] than intellectual and spiritual acrobatics. It means cutting out the sting/​thorn of the Christian and ecclesial mandate.1091

Pannenberg’s comprehension of the responsibility of theologians stood in stark contrast to both Schätzle’s impression and Sittler’s lament of a largely contemporary generation of ‘silent theologians’:1092 It is my impression that theologians are split into two camps: there are those who swim on the spirituality wave and with production line speed produce pretty little soft cover books about ‘desire’, ‘the search for the essential’, ‘silence’, ‘meaning’ or ‘happiness’. [The subject of] ‘Angels’ also sells well but no longer seems a trend topic. Then, there are those theologians who obviously consider this all too stupid and refuse to commercialize [their work]. They produce beautiful large monographs on specialist problems within theology, if they still manage to do so in the light of all their university bureaucracy. Their language is lofty and difficult to understand. The print runs of their text books are small. Yet, where are all those women and men who publish their interesting research results [and] who also have an opinion on moral, social ethical problems and internal ecclesial procedures? Why do they not speak up?1093

Such a rare and unusual self-​critical assessment concerning the general self-​ conception of theologians provokes questions then: can potential future threats intrinsic to the part-​outlined contemporary technological paradigm shift affect a generation of younger theologians similarly to the way the actual war experiences did with Pannenberg and his contemporaries? What historical, societal, cultural or religious triggers would be necessary to reverse this trend and to entice a new generation to emulate similar public engagement to that of great theologians such as Pannenberg or Moltmann?

1 090 Ibid., 14. 1091 Schätzle, ‘Krise’, 14, TM. 1092 Sittler, ‘Alltag’, 37, TM. 1093 Ibid., 37, TM.

Concluding remarks

225

7.4 Concluding remarks This book set out to establish the continued relevance of the subject of method for the scientificity of theology as argued by Pannenberg in his work Wissenschaftstheorie from 1973. It has been done by focusing on the German macro educational-​political implications and in consideration of the interdependent particularities in state-​church relations that concern the discipline at university level. While Pannenberg’s theological universality in the light of salvific history has been considered obsolete by the following generation of German theologians,1094 the epistemology and public implications deduced from his perceived universality remain effectively unchallenged. In fact, the actual magnitude of Pannenberg’s pursuit was highlighted by Clayton: Pannenberg’s methodology makes theology accountable both to the history of religions and to philosophy … That is, if Christian theology is essentially the task of bringing a particular historical fate under the aegis of a universal conceptual framework that is satisfying to reason, then this project –​whether or not we can or do ever complete it –​ may define or constitute theology as a discipline. I believe Pannenberg has specified and contributed to this task as impressively as any theologian this century. He has given a philosophical explication of theology which strives for universality and rational acceptability at every point.1095

This thesis has offered a perspective into details concerning Pannenberg’s academic context, motivation and paradigm formation within the university environment of the 1970s, embedded in a wider yet at the same time particular historical-​ political context. This background information has served to broaden the subsequent focus on the following generation of US-​ theologians, who, on the whole, succeeded Pannenberg in the advance of their own theory formation. What was discovered is that their efforts were primarily conducted within the context of the religion-​science dialogue. The analysis, however, has highlighted the original context and intent of Pannenberg’s Wissenschaftstheorie as a work that was written in response to urgent scientific-​political developments that were impacting the overall viability and future existence of the German Academy. It is of particular interest that these threats and challenges have not ceased but rather increased since the book’s publication. Thus, over the last four-​and-​a-​half decades, cultural-​ societal and demographic changes have only heightened the precarious existence of the discipline in German universities. Both German Catholic and 1 094 Evers, ‘Germany’, 525. 1095 Clayton, ‘Anticipation’, 150.

226

The Future of theology in the German Academy

Protestant churches engage in various activities and try to contain as well as reverse the seemingly unstoppable trend of decreasing clergy numbers. The timeliness of Pannenberg’s book, therefore, his underlying threefold approach and demands on the overall discipline of theology: communally as being public in pursuit, academically as being scientific in nature and individually as being based on intellectual and philosophical rigour in earnest responsibility to the former two, remain highly applicable and relevant to the contemporary scene. Worrying, however, is the fact that since Pannenberg, no other theologian has consistently and successfully persisted to further establish or point out the interdependence between theory formation and the overall existence of the discipline at university level. Furthermore, the book has referenced equally alarming tendencies in contemporary society that would indicate as similar a significant paradigm shift as that in the 1960s and early 1970s in Germany –​in this case, not only for the subject of theology but for all the sciences alike. Indeed, as Chapter 7 pointed out with the example of the German Historikerstreit and current anti-​scientific, economically driven sentiments, the subject of method entails more substantial secondary implications for society and its citizens than theologians, at first sight, might realize. For Pannenberg, however, the effects were very clear: The question is no longer how long religion will exist or if it will die out altogether. Rather, today’s question is how long a secular society can survive once it has disassociated itself from its religious roots.1096

The task at hand, to address the practical and theological challenges, can therefore not be reduced to a sole responsibility for church practitioners such as clergy. Rather, all German university theology lecturers, and thus all university theologians, are legally bound to provide a service to society.1097 This surely must imply the recognition of the societal effects of their teaching beyond their classroom. As such, this endeavour certainly entails the transmission of scientific knowledge that assists in defining why the discipline of theology is a science and what purpose it serves. Theological syllabi in the German Academy should, therefore, more prominently include the subject of epistemology in order to equip students not only to articulate the raison d’etre of their profession but also to both detect and respond to scientific shortfalls from critics and practitioners alike. While the academic sophistication and density of argument that Pannenberg laid out in Wissenschaftstheorie might remain unattainable, his 1 096 Pannenberg, ‘Menschliche’, 20. 1097 Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen, 8, TM.

Concluding remarks

227

threefold approach outlined in this last chapter remains a timeless and appropriate style by which to conduct and perceive the discipline of theology. In fact, Pannenberg remained throughout his life: Unafraid of criticizing his traditions and being open to all others if they could support their claims rationally using liberal methods and … [reaching] conservative conclusions or as [exemplifying] the role of the public Theologian.1098

Consequently, in the same way that the Pannenberg Kreis declared Barth’s revelational theology from above to be insufficient in the 1960s, so the contemporary and profound technological paradigm shift taking place in worldwide society to a technological civilization with yet unknown consequences for democracies around the globe presents to a younger generation of contemporary theologians the challenge to call out the profound and existential threats surrounding the continued epistemological disregard for the discipline of theology in state-​ funded jurisdictions such as in Germany and further afield. Internationally, van Huyssteen seriously took up the subject matter and remains the last one to do so of a select few in the last 45 years. It would be regrettable if a directional shift is forcibly exercised through external factors only for Protestant theologians to realize that method is a meta-​topic with socio-​cultural, educational-​political and scientific-​technological relevance. For Pannenberg, such a perception was evident through his theological conviction. Essentially, this is mirrored in Wissenschaftstheorie as Wenz succinctly summarized: The question about God and the question about reality and truth cannot be separated. Thus, theology as a science of God belongs with all other sciences that determine to establish what is real and true. The foundational claim of Wolfhart Pannenberg about Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie can be summarized as just this.1099

For contemporary German theologians it should at least be equally so due to the scientific-​political obligations to which they assigned themselves and which are articulated by the Wissenschaftsrat.1100 As has been demonstrated in this book, Pannenberg repeatedly stipulated the importance of the subject of method for the scientificity of university theology. Theologically, Clayton pointed out every theologian’s continued mandate that evolved from Pannenberg’s legacy in that:

1098 Bradshaw, Pannenberg, 7. Mostert, Christian, God and the Future: Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Eschatological Doctrine of God, London: T&T Clark, 2002, in Bradshaw, Pannenberg, 238. 1099 Wenz, Sinn, 2, TM. 1100 Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen, 8.

228

The Future of theology in the German Academy

If theology cannot live without the particularity and the universality of its foundational story, then we will find ourselves pursuing the same path that Pannenberg has traversed, though perhaps with different conceptual means.1101

In 1991, Toulmin proposed that theologians reconcile themselves to be ‘paradigmless’ vis-​ à-​ vis a seemingly unreliable foothold in the natural sciences.1102 It is questionable whether such an endeavour would be at all possible and what kind of effects it would render on the whole discipline of theology. The fact is that the ongoing micro-​level contextualized discussions and disputes in the religion and science dialogue have resulted in the aforementioned fragmentation and stagnation amongst participants rather than in the promotion of theological unity to drive the discipline forward.1103 From a transsectoral perspective, such a theological approach appears almost careless in the light of the existential challenges for the discipline in countries such as Germany; and, globally, the challenges that all the sciences are confronted with in times of a profound technological paradigm shift. Besides, for Pannenberg, such a demand could never have been sufficient, as both his life and his theology testified his demand to further the discipline’s impact on public life. It was Peters who pointed to the implicit audacity of Pannenberg’s legacy when he declared: Pannenberg seems to be profaning what the Western Enlightenment culture has held to be sacred. He is brashly reentering the epistemological holy of holies and contending that loss of an awareness of God actually constricts what we learn about the nature of nature … The stakes are high for theologians...Up until now, theologians have made themselves feel reasonably secure by hiding behind the Kantian split between theoretical and moral knowledge and by consigning science to the former while reserving privileged access to the latter … No longer, says Pannenberg.1104

Considering the overall stakes at risk for the discipline of theology, the academic task to prove the scientificity of the subject once again seems more than just worthwhile –​not only within the German Academy but also abroad.

1 101 Clayton, ‘Anticipation’, 150. 1102 Toulmin, ‘Historization’, 237. 1103 Clayton, ‘Pluralism’, 434. Raman, ‘Landscape’, 182. 1104 Peters, Ted, ‘Editor’s Introduction-​Pannenberg on Theology and Natural Science’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Towards a Theology of Nature, Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1993, 2.

Bibliography Books and journals Achtemeier, Mark Paul, ‘Natural Science and Christian Faith: The Thought of T. F. Torrance’ in Coyler, Elmer M. (ed.), The Promise of Trinitarian Theology: Theologians in Dialogue with T.F.Torrance, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001. Albert, Hans, Das Elend der Theologie. Kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Hans Küng, Hamburg: Hoffmann & Campe, 1979. Albert, Hans, Die Wissenschaft und die Fehlbarkeit der Vernunft, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1982. Albert, Hans, Kritik des theologischen Denkens, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2012. Albert, Hans, Theologische Holzwege. Gerhard Ebeling und der rechte Gebrauch der Vernunft, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973. Albert, Hans, Traktat über kritische Vernunft, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968. Albertz, Heinrich, ‘Körperschaft öffentlicher Pflicht’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 7, 1, 1974. Althaus, Paul, ‘Offenbarung als Geschichte und Glaube, Bemerkungen zu Wolfhart Pannenbergs Begriff der Offenbarung’, Theologische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Vol. 87, 1, 1962. Alvarez, Daniel R., ‘A Critique of Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Scientific Theology’, Theology and Science, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 11, 3, 2013. Apczynski, John V., ‘Truth in Religion: A Polanyianism Appraisal of Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Theological Program’, The Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 17, 1, 1982. Arens, Edmund, ‘Zur Struktur theologischer Wahrheit’, Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie, Wien: Herder Verlag, Vol. 112, 1, 1990. Avis, Paul, ‘Book Reviews –​Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning. By Nancey Murphy’, The Scottish Journal of Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 47, 2, 1994. Badura, Peter, Staatsrecht, München: C. H. Beck Verlag, 20125. Bains, Sunny, ‘Questioning the Integrity of the John Templeton Foundation’, Evolutionary Psychology Journal, New York: Springer Publishing, Vol. 9, 1, 2011. Barbour, Ian Graeme, Issues in Science and Religion, New York: Harper Collins, 19712.

230

Bibliography

Barbour, Ian Graeme, ‘On Typologies for the Relation of Science and Religion’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 37, 2, 2002. Barbour, Ian Graeme, ‘Teilhard’s Process Metaphysics’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 49, 2, 1969. Barbour, Ian Graeme, Wissenschaft und Glaube: Historische und zeitgenössische Aspekte. 2. Edition Religion, Theologie und Naturwissenschaft/​ Religion, Theology, and Natural Science 1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 20062. Barth, Karl, ‘Antwort auf Herrn Professor von Harnack’s Offenen Brief ’, Die Christliche Welt, Leipzig: Leopold Klotz, Vol. 37, 16/​17, 1923. Barth, Karl, ‘Die Theologie und der heutige Mensch’, Zwischen den Zeiten, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 8 [unknown edition], 1930. Barth, Karl, ‘Evangelische Theologie im 19. Jahrhundert’ in Barth, Karl, Theologische Studien H.49, Zürich: TVZ Verlag, 19576, in Zahrnt, Heinz, Die Sache mit Gott, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1972. Barth, Karl, Gesamtausgabe: Die christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf Band 14 (1927), Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982. Barth, Karl, ‘Kirche und Theologie (1925)’ in Barth, Karl, Vorträge und kleinere Arbeiten 1922–​1925, Finze, Holger (ed.), Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1990. Barth, Karl, Kirchliche Dogmatik I/​1, Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1932. Barth, Karl, Kirchliche Dogmatik III/​1, Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1951. Barth, Karl, Nein!: Antwort an Emil Brunner, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1934. Barth, Karl, ‘Sechzehn Antworten an Herrn Professor von Harnack’, Die Christliche Welt, Leipzig: Leopold Klotz, Vol. 37, 5/​6, 1923. Bartley, William, ‘Achilles, the tortoise, and explanation of science’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Bartley, William Warren, Retreat to Commitment, New York: Knopf, 1962. Bartley, William Warren, ‘Theories of Demarcation between Science and Metaphysics’ in Lakatos, Imre, Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Problems in the Philosophy of Science, Amsterdam: North-​Holland, 1968. Bauman, Michael (ed.), Roundtable: Conversations with European Theologians, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1990. Bäumler, Christoph, ‘Praktische Theologie-​ ein notwendiges Element der wissenschaftlichen Theologie’, Praktische Theologie-​Zeitschrift für Praxis in Kirche, Gesellschaft und Kultur, Vol. 9, 2, 1974. Bebnowski, David, Generation und Geltung, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2012.

Bibliography

231

Bechina, Friedrich, ‘Herausforderungen der Kirche heute’ in Krieger, Gerhard (ed.), Zur Zukunft der Theologie in der Kirche, Universität und Gesellschaft, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2017. Behrens, Alexander (ed.), Durfte Brandt knien? Der Kniefall in Warschau und der deutsch-​polnische Vertrag. Eine Dokumentation der Meinungen, Bonn: J.H. Dietz, 2010. Belfield, Clive, Levin, Henry M., ‘Vouchers and Public Policy: When Ideology Trumps Evidence’, American Journal of Education, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Vol. 111, 4, 2005. Bergmann, Sven, ‘Die Diskussion um die Bildungsreform in der Nachkriegszeit’ in Friedrich, Norbert, Jähnichen, Traugott (eds.), Gesellschaftspolitische Neuorientierungen des Protestantismus in der Nachkriegszeit, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2002. Betz, Hans Dieter, Browning, Don S., Janowski, Bernd, Jüngel, Eberhard (eds.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20004. Beutel, Albrecht, Gerhard Ebeling –​Eine Biographie, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Beuttler, Ulrich, Gottesgewissheit in der relativen Welt: Karl Heims naturphilosophische und erkenntnistheoretische Reflexion des Glaubens, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 2006. Bieri, Peter, ‘Was bleibt von der analytischen Philosophie?’, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., Vol. 55, 3, 2007. Biletzki, Anat, ‘Introduction: Bridging the Analytic-​ Continental Divide’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Abingdon: Routledge, Vol. 9, 43, 2001. Blanco, Carlos, ‘God, the Future and the Fundamentum of History in Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Heythrop Journal, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 54, 2, 2013. Bochenski, Joseph M., Europäische Philosophie der Gegenwart, München: Lehnen Verlag, 19512. Bochinger, Christoph, ‘Staatsaufgabe Theologie?’, Deutsche Universitätszeitung, Berlin: DUZ Verlags-​und Medienhaus GmbH, Vol. 72, 10, 2016. Böckenförde, Ernst-​Wolfgang, ‘Die Entstehung des Staates als Vorgang der Säkularisation’ in Forsthoff, Ernst (ed.), Säkularisation und Utopie. Ebracher Studien, Ernst Forsthoff zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1967. Böckenförde, Ernst-​Wolfgang, Staat, Gesellschaft, Freiheit, Studien zur Staatstheorie und Verfassungsrecht, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1976.

232

Bibliography

Bode, Sabine, Die vergessene Generation-​Kriegskinder brechen ihr Schweigen, Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta Verlag, 2004. Bode, Sabine, Kriegsenkel-​Die Erben der vergessenen Generation, Stuttgart: Klett-​ Cotta Verlag, 2009. Borutta, Manuel, Antikatholizismus. Deutschland und Italien im Zeitalter der europäischen Kulturkämpfe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Braaten, Carl E., Because of Christ: Memoirs of a Lutheran Theologian, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010. Braaten, Carl E., ‘The Current Controversy on Revelation-​Pannenberg and his Critics’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 45, 3, 1965. Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), ‘Preface’ in The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988. Braaten, Carl E., ‘Truly a Frontier’, The Christian Century, Chicago: Christian Century Foundation, Vol. 84, 25, 1967. Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988. Braaten, Carl E., ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg’ in Marty, Martin E., Peerman, Dan (eds.), A Handbook of Christian Theologians, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984. Bradshaw, Timothy, Pannenberg: A Guide for the Perplexed, London: T&T Clark International, 2009. Breil, Reinhold, ‘Hartmanns Beitrag zu einer Begründung des wissenschaftlichen Realismus’ in Hartung, Gerald, Wunsch, Matthias, Strube, Claudius (eds.), Von der Systemphilosophie zur systematischen Philosophie-​Nicolai Hartmann, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 2012. Brown, Delwin, ‘Academic Theology and Religious Studies’, Council of Societies for the Study of Religion Bulletin, Sheffield: Equinox Publishing, Vol. 26, 2, 1997. Brown, Delwin, ‘Believing Traditions and the Task of the Academic Theologian’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, New York: Oxford University Press, Vol. 62, 4, 1994. Brown, Delwin, ‘Public Theology, Academic Theology: Wentzel van Huyssteen and the Nature of Theological Rationality’, American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Champaign: University of Illionois Press, Vol. 21, 3, 2000.

Bibliography

233

Brunner, Emil, ‘Die Frage nach dem Anknüpfungspunkt als Problem der Theologie’, Zwischen den Zeiten, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 10, 1, 1932. Brunner, Emil, Ein offenes Wort, Band 1, 1917–​1934, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1934. Brunner, Emil, Natur und Gnade-​Zum Gespräch mit Karl Barth, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 19352. Bubner, Rüdiger ‘Paradigm Change: Some Continental Perspectives’ in Küng, Hans, Tracy, David (eds.), Paradigm Change in Theology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. Bultmann, Rudolf, ‘Das Problem der natürlichen Theologie (unveröffentlicht)’ in Bultmann, Rudolf, Glauben und Verstehen I, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 19582. Bultmann, Rudolf, Glauben und Verstehen I, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 19582. Bund demokratischer Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler (ed.), ‘Bildung und Religion: Anachronistische Privilegien in der Diskussion’, Forum Wissenschaft, Marburg; BdWi Verlag, Vol. 35, 3, 2013. Burkhardt, Bernd, Nüssel, Friederike, Rose, Miriam, Dienstbeck, Stefan (eds.), ‘Bibliographie der Veröffentlichungen von Wolfhart Pannenberg, 1953–​2008’, Kerygma und Dogma, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 54, 3, 2008. Cady, Linell C., Brown, Delwin (eds.), Shifting Paradigms: Religious Studies, Theology and the University: Conflicting Maps, Changing Terrain, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. Carnap, Rudolf, ‘Theoretische Begriffe der Wissenschaft. Eine logische und methodologische Untersuchung (Fortsetzung und Schluß)’, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, Meisenheim: Verlag Anton Hain KG, Vol. 14, 2, 1960. Casper, Bernhard, Hemmerle, Klaus, Hünemann, Peter, Theologie als Wissenschaft-​Methodische Zugänge, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1970. Cavuldak, Ahmut, ‘Die Legitimität der hinkenden Trennung von Staat und Kirche in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ in Pickel, Gerd, Hidalgo, Oliver (eds.), Religion und Politik im vereinigten Deutschland, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2012. Cernera, Anthony J. and Morgan, Oliver J. (eds.), Examining the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Fairfield: Sacred Heart University Press, 2000. Chenu, Bruno, Neusch, Marcel, Théologiens d´aujourd´hui-​ Vingt Portraits, Paris: Bayard Éditions Centurions, 1995. Christoph, Joachim E., Kirchen-​und staatsrechtliche Probleme der Evangelisch-​ theologischen Fakultäten, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.

234

Bibliography

Clark, Christopher, ‘Der neue Katholizismus und der europäische Kulturkampf ’ in Clark, Christopher, Kaiser, Wolfram (eds.), Kulturkampf in Europa im 19. Jahrhundert, Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2003. Clark, Christopher, Kaiser, Wolfram (eds.), Kulturkampf in Europa im 19. Jahrhundert, Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2003. Clayton, Philip, ‘Anticipation and Theological Method’ in Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988. Clayton, Philip, Explanation from Physics to Theology: An Essay in Rationality and Religion, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Clayton, Philip, ‘From Methodology to Metaphysics: The Problem of Control in the Science-​Religion Dialogue’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​ God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997. Clayton, Philip, ‘The Fruits of Pluralism: A Vision for the next seven years in Religion/​Science’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 49, 2, 2014. Clayton, Philip, God and Contemporary Science, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997. Clayton, Philip, Simpson, Zachary (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Clayton, Philip, ‘Review of “Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning” by Nancey Murphy’, CTNS Bulletin, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 11, 1, 1991. Clayton, Philip, ‘Science, Meaning, and Metaphysics: A Tribute to Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 28, 4, 2003. Clicqué, Guy M., Differenz und Parallelität. Zum Verständnis des Zusammenhangs von Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, am Beispiel der Überlegungen Günter Howes, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Gmbh Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2001. Cobb, John B., ‘Jesus: God and Man’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 49, 2, 1969. Cobb, John B., ‘Theology and the Philosophy of Science’, Religious Studies Review, Houston: Council of Societies for the Study of Religion, Vol. 3, 4, 1977. Cornwell, John, Hitler’s Scientists. Science, War and the Devil’s Pact, New York: Penguin Books, 2003.

Bibliography

235

Conway, John S., The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933–​ 1945, Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 20012. Cook, Peter J.A., ‘Pannenberg: A Post-​Enlightenment Theologian’, Churchman-​A Quarterly Journal of Anglican Theology, Watford: Church Society, Vol. 90, 1, 1976. Cooper, John, Panentheism-​The Other God of the Philosophers, From Plato to the Present, Ada: Baker Academic, 2006. Copan, Paul, Craig, William Lane, Creation out of Nothing, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2004. Çopur, Burak, ‘Deutsch-​ türkische Beziehungen im Spiegel außenpolitischer Paradigmenwandel der Türkei (1998–​ 2018)’, Zeitschrift für Außen-​und Sicherheitspolitik, Berlin: Springer Verlag, Vol. 11, 2, 2018. Corbett, Julia B., Durfee, Jessica L., ‘Testing Public (Un)Certainty of Science: Media Representations of Global Warming’, Science Communication, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 26, 2, 2004. Craig, William Lane, ‘Pantheists in Spite of Themselves? Pannenberg, Clayton, and Shults on Divine Infinity’, American Theological Inquiry, Chicago: American Theological Library Association, Vol. 5, 1, 2012. Cross, Richard, The Medieval Christian Philosophers-​ An Introduction, New York: I.B.Tauris, 2014. Daecke, Sigurd Martin, ‘Soll die Theologie an der Universität bleiben? Die Auseinandersetzung um eine Begründung der Theologie als Wissenschaft’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 6, 4, 1972. Daecke, Sigurd Martin, ‘Zur angelsächsischen Literatur’ in Hübner, Jürgen (ed.), Der Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1987. Dahlstrom, Daniel, ‘Zur Aktualität der Ontologie Nicolai Hartmanns’ in Hartung, Gerald, Wunsch, Matthias, Strube, Claudius (eds.), Von der Systemphilosophie zur systematischen Philosophie-​Nicolai Hartmann, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 2012. Dahrendorf, Ralf, Bildung ist Bürgerrecht. Plädoyer für eine aktive Bildungspolitik, Hamburg: Nannen Verlag, 1965. Dalferth, Ingolf U. (ed.), Eine Wissenschaft oder viele?, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006. Dalferth, Ingolf U., Religiöse Rede von Gott. Studien zur Analytischen Religionsphilosophie und Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1981. Dalferth, Ingolf U., Stoellger, Philipp, ‘Wahrheit, Glaube und Theologie, Zur theologischen Rezeption zeitgenössischer wahrheitstheoretischer Diskussionen’, Theologische Rundschau, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 66, 1, 2001.

236

Bibliography

Daphi, Priska, Zimmermann, Jan, ‘1968 als Gründungsmoment’, Forschung Frankfurt, Frankfurt: Goethe Universität Frankfurt, Vol. 36, 1, 2018. Dembowski, Hermann, ‘Ansatz und Umrisse einer Theologie der Natur’, Evangelische Theologie, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Vol. 37, 6, 1977. Dennett, Daniel, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995. De Wall, Heinrich, ‘Die Evangelisch-​ theologischen Fakultäten in der Hochschulreform-​staatskirchenrechtliche Aspekte’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 101, 2, 2004. Dicke, Klaus, ‘Zur (Zukunft der) Theologie aus Sicht einer Universitätsleitung’ in Krieger, Gerhard (ed.), Zur Zukunft der Theologie in der Kirche, Universität und Gesellschaft, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2017. Dillistone, Frederick W., ‘Theology and the Philosophy of Science’, Theology Today, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 32, 2, 1977. Dilthey, Wilhelm, Das Wesen der Philosophie (1907), Marix Verlag, 2008. Dilthey, Wilhelm, Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften Re-​edition, Berlin: Holzinger Verlag, 20132. Dilthey, Wilhelm, ‘The rise of hermeneutics (1900)’ in Dilthey, Wilhelm, Selected Works, Vol. IV: Hermeneutics and the Study of History (1860–​1901), Makkreel, Rudolf A., Rodi, Fritjof (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Dobbin, Edmund J., ‘Seminar on Foundations: Pannenberg on Theological Method’, Catholic Theological Society of America Proceedings, Lander: CTSA, Vol. 32, 1, 1977. Dirsch, Felix, ‘ “… lebt von Voraussetzungen, die er selbst nicht garantieren kann”. Lesarten und Interpretationsproblem der Böckenförde-​Doktrin als eines kanonisierten Theorems der deutschen Staatsrechtslehre’, Zeitschrift für Politik, Baden-​Baden: Nomos Verlag, Vol. 56, 2, 2009. Dobbins, Michael, ‘Mehr Partizipation wagen’, Forschung Frankfurt, Frankfurt: Goethe Universität Frankfurt, Vol. 36, 1, 2018. Dohmen, Christoph (ed.), Die ‘Regensburger Vorlesung’ Papst Benedikts XVI.: im Dialog der Wissenschaften, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2007. Ebeling, Gerhard, Kritischer Rationalismus? Zu Hans Alberts “Traktat über kritische Vernunft”, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973. Ebeling, Gerhard, ‘Leitsätze zur Frage der Wissenschaftlichkeit der Theologie’ in Ebeling, Gerhard, Wort und Glaube (Sammlung), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975.

Bibliography

237

Ebeling, Gerhard, ‘Leitsätze zur Frage nach der Wissenschaftlichkeit der Theologie’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 68, 2, 1971. Ebeling, Gerhard, Studium der Theologie –​Eine enzyklopädische Orientierung, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20122. Ebeling, Gerhard, Theologie und Verkündigung: Ein Gespräch mit Rudolf Bultmann, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962. Eberhard, Philippe, The Middle Voice in Gadamer’s Hermeneutics, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Eerikäinen, Atso, Time and Polarity –​The Dimensional Thinking of Karl Heim, Helsinki: University of Helsinki, PhD thesis, 2000. Eichel, Christine, Das deutsche Pfarrhaus, Hort des Geistes und der Macht, Berlin: Quadriga Verlag, 2012. Ernst, Wolf (ed.), Theologische Aufsätze Karl Barth zum 50. Geburtstag, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1936. Evers, Dirk, ‘Religion and Science in Germany’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 50, 2, 2015. Ewald, Günter, Gehirn, Seele und Computer. Der Menschen im Quantenzeitalter, Darmstadt: WBG, 2006. Fallon, Daniel, The German University –​A Heroic Ideal in Conflict with the Modern World, Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press, 1980. Feyerabend, Paul, Against Method, New York: Verso, 19933. Fikenscher, Konrad, ‘A: Gesamtdarstellungen’ in Hübner, Jürgen (ed.), Der Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1987. Fikenscher, Konrad, ‘Kapitel A0: Gesamtdarstellungen des Verhältnisses von Theologie und Naturwissenschaft’ in Hübner, Jürgen (ed.), Der Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1987. Fikenscher, Konrad, ‘Zu Kapitel A3: Abschnitte in deutschsprachigen Lehrbüchern’ in Hübner, Jürgen (ed.), Der Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1987. Fitschen, Klaus, Hermle, Siegfried, Kunther, Katharina, Lepp, Claudia,Roggenkamp-​ Kaufmann, Antje (eds.), Die Politisierung des Protestantismus-​Entwicklungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland während der 1960er und 70er Jahre, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 20142.

238

Bibliography

Flory, Richard, Christerson, Brad, The Rise of Network Christianity: How Independent Leaders are Changing the Religious Landscape, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Ford, David, The Modern Theologians, Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Foster, Durwood, ‘Pannenberg’s Polanyism: A Response to John V. Apczynski’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 17, 1, 1982. Fox, Kevin W., Karl Löwith: A Prosperous Mind in a Destitute Time, Heidelberg: Ruprecht-​Karls-​Universität, PhD thesis, 2012. Fredericks, Sarah E., Schweitz, Lea, ‘Scholars, Amateurs and Artists as Partners for the Future of Religion and Science’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 50, 2, 2015. Freiherr von Campenhausen, Hans, Weltgeschichte und Gottesgericht, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, 1947. Friedrich, Norbert, ‘Die Erforschung des Protestantismus nach 1945-​ Von der Bekenntnisliteratur zur kritischen Aufarbeitung’ in Friedrich, Norbert, Jähnichen, Traugott, Gesellschaftspolitische Neuorientierungen des Protestantismus in der Nachkriegszeit, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2002. Friedrich, Norbert, Jähnichen, Traugott, Gesellschaftspolitische Neuorientierungen des Protestantismus in der Nachkriegszeit, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2002. Fuhrmann, Manfred, Jauß, Hans Robert, Pannenberg, Wolfhart (eds.), ‘Text und Applikation (25.-​27.05.1978)’, Forschungsgruppe Poetik und Hermeneutik, Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1981. Führ, Christoph, ‘Die Bildungskatastrophe fand nicht statt’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 7, 9, 1974. Fuller, Michael, ‘Big Data: New Science, New Challenges, New Dialogical Opportunities’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 50, 3, 2015. Fuß, Holger, ‘Jürgen Moltmann hat keinen Gott im Himmel-​das ist was für Engel. Er hat einen Gott auf Erden’ in Chrismon, Frankfurt: Hansische Druck-​ und Verlagshaus GmbH, Vol. 10, 4, 2009. Gadamer, Hans Georg, Wahrheit und Methode-​Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20107. Galloway, Allan D., Wolfhart Pannenberg, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1973. Gatzemeier, Matthias, Theologie als Wissenschaft Band 2, Stuttgart: Verlag Frommann-​Holzboog, 1975. Gestrich, Christof, ‘Die unbewältigte natürliche Theologie’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 68, 1, 1971.

Bibliography

239

Geyer, Bernhard, ‘Facultas theologica-​ Eine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, Vol. 75, 13, 1964. Geyer, Bernhard, ‘Wahrheit und Pluralismus’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 40, 1, 1980. Geyer, Hans-​ Georg, ‘Evangelische Gedanken zu einem katholischen Fall’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 40, 2, 1980. Geyer, Hans-​ Georg, ‘Geschichte als theologisches Problem’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 22, 6, 1962. Giostra, Alessandro, ‘Science of God: Truth in the Age of Science’, Theology, Ethics and & Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell, Vol. 14, 3, 2007. Glimpel, Christoph, Gottesgedanke und autonome Vernunft-​ Eine kritisch-​ konstruktive Auseinandersetzung mit den philosophischen Grundlagen der Theologie Wolfhart Pannenbergs, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Glotz, Peter, ‘Die drei Dimensionen der geisteswissenschaftlichen Krise’ in Keisinger, Florian, Seischab, Steffen (eds.), Wozu Geisteswissenschaften? Kontroverse Argumente für eine längst überfällige Debatte, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 2003. Göcke, Benedikt Paul, ‘Glaubensreflexion ist kein Glasperlenspiel’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 71, 1, 2017. Göcke, Benedikt Paul, ‘Theologie als Wissenschaft?’, Theologie und Glaube, Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, Vol. 107, 2, 2017. Gogarten, Friedrich, ‘Theologische Tradition und theologische Arbeit. Geistesgeschichte oder Theologie? (1927)’ in Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft-​Aufsätze und Thesen, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971. Gorzewski, Andreas, Die Türkisch-​Islamische Union im Wandel, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2015. Gräb, Wilhelm, ‘Die Lehre der Kirche und die Symbolsprachen der gelebten Religion’ in Barth, Ulrich, Danz, Christian, Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, Gräb, Wilhelm, Aufgeklärte Religion und ihre Probleme, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2013. Gräb, Wilhelm, ‘Dogmatik als Stück der praktischen Theologie: Das normative Grundproblem in der praktisch-​theologischen Theoriebildung’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 85, 4, 1988. Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Die antihistorische Revolution in der protestantischen Theologie der zwanziger Jahre’ in Rohls, Jan, Wenz, Gunther (eds.), Vernunft des Glaubens: wissenschaftliche Theologie und kirchliche Lehre. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Wolfhart Pannenberg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988.

240

Bibliography

Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Kulturprotestantismus-​Zur Begriffsgeschichte einer theologiepolitischen Chiffre’, Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, Vol. 39, 1, 1984. Gregersen, Niels Henrik, ‘Einheit und Vielfalt der schöpferischen Werke Gottes, Wolfhart Pannenbergs Beitrag zu einer trinitarischen Schöpfungslehre’, Kerygma und Dogma, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 45, 2, 1999. Gregersen, Niels Henrik, ‘Introduction-​Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Contribution to Theology and Science’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart, The Historicity of Nature-​Essays on Science and Theology, Gregersen, Niels Henrik (ed.), West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press, 2008. Gregersen, Niels Henrik, ‘J. Wentzel van Huyssteen: Exploring Venues for an Interdisciplinary Theology’, Theology Today, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 72, 2, 2015. Gregersen, Niels Henrik, ‘Prospects for the Field of Science and Religion: An Octopus View’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 49, 2, 2014. Gregersen, Niels Henrik, van Huyssteen, Wentzel (eds.), Rethinking Theology and Science: Six Models for the Current Dialogue, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998. Gregersen, Niels Henrik, ‘What Theology Might Learn (and not Learn) from Evolutionary Psychology: A Postfoundationalist Theologian in Conversation with Pascal Boyer’ in Shults, LeRon F. (ed.), The Evolution of Rationality-​ Interdisciplinary Essays in Honor of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006. Greifenstein, Johannes, 1968 und die Praktische Theologie-​Wissenschaftstheoretische Perspektiven auf Funktion, Gegenstand und Methode einer Praxistheorie, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Greiner, Sebastian, Die Theologie Wolfhart Pannenbergs, Würzburg: Echter, 1988. Greive, Wolfgang, Die Glaubwürdigkeit des Christentums-​Die Theologie Wolfhart Pannenbergs als Herausforderung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Grenz, Stanley, Issac Backus-​Puritan and Baptist, München: Ludwig-​Maximilians-​ Universität, PhD thesis, 1978. Grenz, Stanley, Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 20052. Grenz, Stanley, ‘ “Scientific”: Pannenberg and the dialogue between Theology and Science’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 34, 1, 1999. Grenz, Stanley, ‘ “Scientific Theology”/​“Theological” Science: Pannenberg and the dialogue between Theology and Science’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 34, 1, 1999.

Bibliography

241

Grenz, Stanley, ‘The Appraisal of Pannenberg. A Survey of the Literature’ in Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988. Grenz, Stanley, Olson, Roger, 20th-​Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age, Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1992. Grenz, Stanley, ‘Why Do Theologians Need to be Scientists?’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 35, 2, 2000. Grenz, Stanley, Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Quest for Ultimate Truth, Chicago: The Christian Century, 1988. Greschat, Martin, Der Protestantismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1945–​ 2005), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010. Greschat, Martin, Krumwiede, Hans-​Walter, Kirchen-​und Theologiegeschichte in Quellen, Das Zeitalter der Weltkriege und Revolutionen, Göttingen: Neukirchener Theologie, 1999. Greschat, Martin, ‘Mehr Wahrheit in der Politik! Das Tübinger Memorandum von 1961’, Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., Vol. 48, 3, 2000. Griffin, David Ray, ‘John B. Cobb Jr. –​A Theological Biography’ in Griffin, David Ray, Jough, Joseph C. Jr. (eds.), Theology and the University: Essays in Honor of John B. Cobb, Jr., Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. Griffin, David Ray, Jough, Joseph C. Jr. (eds.), Theology and the University: Essays in Honor of John B. Cobb, Jr., Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. Grimm, Herwig, Schleissing, Stephan (eds.), Grüne Gentechnik-​zwischen Forschungsfreiheit und Anwendungsrisiko, Baden-​Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2012. Grinin, Leonard, ‘The Processes of Systemic Integration in the World System’, Journal of Globalisation Studies, Minneapolis: East View Information Services, Vol. 8, 1, 2017. Grumett, David, Theology, Humanity and Cosmos (Studies in Philosophical Theology), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2006. Haack, Susan, Lane, Robert (eds.), Pragmatism, Old and New, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 2006. Habermas, Jürgen, Vergangenheit als Zukunft, München: Pendo Verlag, 1998. Habermas, Jürgen, Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion-​Philosophische Aufsätze, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2005. Haga, Tsutomu, Theodizee und Geschichtstheologie: ein Versuch der Überwindung der Problematik des deutschen Idealismus bei Karl Barth, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.

242

Bibliography

Hallanger, Nathan J., ‘Ian G. Barbour’ in Stump, Jim B., Padgett, Alain G. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, 2012. Hamburger, Philip, Separation of Church and State, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Harbsmeier, Götz, ‘Theologie als kirchliche Wissenschaft: Zum Problem einer theologischen Enzyklopädie heute’, Theologische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Vol. 78, 1, 1953. Härle, Wilfried, ‘Der Aufruf der 93 Intellektuellen und Karl Barths Bruch mit der liberalen Theologie’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 72, 2, 1975. Harsin, Jayson, ‘Regimes of Posttruth, Postpolitics, and Attention Economies’, Communication, Culture & Critique, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 8, 2, 2015. Hartmann, Nicolai, Ethik, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 19624. Hartmann, Nicolai, Grundzüge einer Metaphysik der Erkenntnis, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 19655. Hartmann, Nicolai, Zur Grundlegung der Ontologie, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 19654. Hartung, Gerald, Wunsch, Matthias, Strube, Claudius (eds.), Von der Systemphilosophie zur systematischen Philosophie-​ Nicolai Hartmann, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 2012. Hasel, Frank, Scripture in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D.G. Bloesch, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Gmbh Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1994. Haught, John F., In Search of a God for Evolution: Paul Tillich and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Woodbridge: American Teilhard Association, 2002. Haught, John F., Resting on the Future: Catholic Theology for an Unfinished Universe, New York: Bloomsburg, 2015. Haught, John F., Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation, New York: Paulist Press, 1995. Hebblethwaite, Brian, ‘Book Review’, The Scottish Journal of Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 53, 2, 2000. Hefner, Philip, ‘Pannenberg’s Fundamental Challenges to Theology and Science’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 36, 4, 2001. Hefner, Philip, ‘The Role of Science in Pannenberg’s Theological Thinking’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol, 24, 2, 1989. Hefner, Philip, ‘The Role of Science in Pannenberg’s Theological Thinking’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997.

Bibliography

243

Heidegger, Martin, Sein und Zeit, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 200619. Heidtmann, Günter, ‘Langer Marsch mit kleinen Schritten-​ Wo steht die studentische Protestbewegung heute’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 2, 9, 1969. Heim, Karl, Glaubensgewissheit: Eine Untersuchung über die Lebensfragen der Religion, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Verlag, 1923. Heisenberg, Werner, Physik und Philosophie, Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Verlag, 20006. Hellwig, Monika Konrad Hildegard, ‘The Catholic intellectual tradition in the Catholic University’ in Cernera, Anthony J. and Morgan, Oliver J. (eds.), Examining the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Fairfield: Sacred Heart University Press, 2000. Hempelmann, Heinzpeter, Kritischer Rationalismus und Theologie als Wissenschaft: Zur Frage nach dem Wirklichkeitsbezug des christlichen Glaubens, Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1980. Herwig, Malte, Die Flakhelfer: Wie aus Hitlers jüngsten Parteimitgliedern Deutschlands führende Demokraten wurden, München: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 2013. Hidalgo, Oliver, Polke, Christian (eds.), Staat und Religion, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 2017. Hochgeschwender, Michael, Amerikanische Religion, Evangelikalismus, Pfingstlertum und Fundamentalismus, Frankfurt: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2007. Hofstadter, Richard, Anti-​Intellectualism in American Life, New York: Vintage, 19632. Holder, Rodney, The Heavens Declare, Conshohocken: Templeton Press, 2012. Holder, Rodney, ‘Thomas Torrance: “Retreat to Commitment” or a New Place for Natural Theology?’, CTNS Theology and Science Journal, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 7, 3, 2009. Honecker, Martin, ‘Theologie und Soziologie’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 2, 2, 1969. Hoping, Helmut (ed.), Universität ohne Gott? Theologie im Haus der Wissenschaften, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2007. Horace, Epistles Book 1 (Cambridge: Greek and Latin Classics), Mayer, Roland (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Horster, Detlef, Jürgen Habermas und der Papst: Gerechtigkeit und Vernunft, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2006. Hough, Joseph C. Jr., ‘Theologie und Revolution in den Vereinigten Staaten’, Verkündigung und Forschung, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, Vol. 41, 2, 1975.

244

Bibliography

Howard, Thomas Albert, Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Howe, Günther, Atomzeitalter, Krieg und Frieden, Frankfurt: Ullstein Verlag, 1959. Howe, Günter, Die Christenheit im Atomzeitalter, Stuttgart: Klett Verlag, 1970. Huber, Florian, Hinter den Türen warten die Gespenster, Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 2017. Huber, Florian, Kind, versprich mir, dass du dich erschießt: Der Untergang der kleinen Leute 1945, Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 2015. Hübinger, Gangolf, Kulturprotestantismus und Politik: zum Verhältnis von Liberalismus und Protestantismus im wilhelminischen Deutschland, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Hübner, Jürgen (ed.), Der Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1987. Hübner, Jürgen, ‘Naturwissenschaft und Theologie’ in Fahlbusch, Erwin, Mochman, Jan Milič, Mbiti, John, Pelikan, Jaroslav, Vischer, Lukas (eds.), Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Hübner, Jürgen, ‘Schöpfungsglaube und Theologie der Natur’, Evangelische Theologie, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Vol. 37, 6, 1977. Hübner, Jürgen, Theologie und biologische Entwicklungslehre: Ein Beitrag zum Gespräch zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, München: C.H. Beck Verlag, 1966. Hüfner, Klaus, Neumann, Jens, Köhler, Helmut, Hochkonjunktur und Flaute: Bildungspolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1967–​1980, Stuttgart: Klett-​ Cotta Verlag, 1994. Hunger, Uwe (ed.), Staat und Islam: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven (Islam und Politik), Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2016. Iwand, Hans Joachim, ‘Die Krisis des Wissenschaftsbegriffes und die Theologie (1935)’ in Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft-​Aufsätze und Thesen, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971. Janich, Peter, Kambartel, Friedrich, Mittelstraß, Jürgen, Wissenschaftstheorie als Wissenschaftskritik, Frankfurt: Aspekte Verlag, 1974. Janowski, Hans Norbert, ‘Theologie studieren heute. Zur Reform der theologischen Ausbildung’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 4, 5, 1971. Jaspers, Karl, Die Schuldfrage-​ Von der politischen Hoffnung Deutschlands, München: Piper Verlag, 20122. Jaspers. Karl, Philosophie I: Philosophische Weltanschauung, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 19734.

Bibliography

245

Jaspers, Karl, Philosophie II: Existenzerhellung, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 20084. Jaspers, Karl, Philosophie III: Metaphysik, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 20084. Jaspers, Karl, Wahrheit und Bewährung, München: Piper, 1951. Jeanrond, Werner, ‘Fundamentaltheologie’ in Betz, Hans Dieter, Browning, Don S., Janowski, Bernd, Jüngel, Eberhard (eds.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20004. Jensen, Robert, ‘Jesus in the Trinity’ in Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988. Jones, Hugh O., ‘Faith and Theology’, Theology, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Vol. 81, 680, 1978. Jossua, Jean-​Pierre, ‘A Crisis of the Paradigm or a Crisis of the Scientific Nature of Theology’ in Küng, Hans, Tracy, David (eds.), Paradigm Change in Theology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. Jüngel, Eberhard, Der Wahrheit zum Recht verhelfen-​ Aus aktuellem Anlaß: Terrorismus, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, 1977. Jüngel, Eberhard, Gollwitzer, Helmut, ‘Müssen Christen Sozialisten sein?’ in Teichert, Wolfgang (ed.), Zwischen Glauben und Politik, Hamburg: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1976. Kahl, Joachim, Das Elend des Christentums oder Plädoyer für eine Humanität ohne Gott, Reinbek: Rowohlt Verlag, 1968. Kailitz, Steffen, ‘Der Historikerstreit und die politische Deutungskultur der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, German Studies Review, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, Vol. 32, 2, 2009. Kant, Immanuel, Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung? und andere kleine Schriften (1784–​1796), Gut, Karl Maria (ed.), Berlin: Contumax GmbH, 2016. Kant, Immanuel, Der Streit der Fakultäten (1798), Gierodanetti, Piero (ed.), Hamburg: Meiner Verlag, 2005. Kant, Immanuel, Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1781), Köln: Anaconda Verlag, 2009. Kant, Immanuel, Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können (1783), Stuttgart: Reclam Verlag, 1989. Karimies, Ilmari, ‘Lutheran Perspective on Natural Theology’, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Norwalk: Akademos Press, Vol. 9, 2, 2017. Kärkkäinen, Veli-​Matti, ‘The Working of the Spirit of God in Creation and in the People of God: The Pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Vol. 26, 1, 2004.

246

Bibliography

Kaufmann, Walter, Der Glaube eines Ketzers, München: Szczesny Verlag, 1965. Keisinger, Florian, Seischab, Steffen (eds.), Wozu Geisteswissenschaften? Kontroverse Argumente für eine längst überfällige Debatte, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 2003. Kellerwessel, Wulf, Religionskritik in der Perspektive theoretischer Philosophie: Einführung-​Überblick-​Diskussion, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2017. Kiblinger, William P., ‘Book Review –​Kevin Sharpe, Science of God: Truth in the Age of Science’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 89, 1, 2009. Kierkegaard, Søren, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments Volume 1 (1846), Hong, Howard, Hong, Edna (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Kierkegaard, Søren, Journals and Papers (1848–​1855), Hong, Howard, Hong, Edna (eds.), Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1976. Kippenberg, Hans Gerhard, Schuppert, Gunnar Folke, Die verrechtlichte Religion: der Öffentlichkeitsstatus von Religionsgemeinschaften, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Kittler, Friedrich, Austreibung des Geistes aus der Geisteswissenschaft, Stuttgart: UTB der Wissenschaft, 1992. Klein, Günter, ‘Offenbarung als Geschichte? Marginalien zu einem theologischen Programm’, Monatszeitschrift für Pastoraltheologie zur Vertiefung des gesamten pfarramtlichen Wirkens, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 51 [unknown edition], 1962. Klinefelter, Donald S., ‘A Critique of the Theology of Thomas F. Torrance’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 53, 1, 1973. Klopstock, Friedrich Wilhelm, Klopstock, Margareta, Klopstocks sämtliche Werke: Die deutsche Gelehrtenrepublik. Hinterlassene Schriften Gebundene Ausgabe-​1. April 1839, Band 8&9, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 2015. Kmietowicz, Zosia, ‘Coca-​Cola funded group set up to promote “energy balance” is disbanded’, British Medical Journal, London: BMA, Vol. 351, 48, 2015. Knauer, Peter, ‘Rezension W. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie, Frankfurt 1973’, Philosophie und Theologie, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 49, 4, 1974. Knitter, Paul, ‘Pannenberg, Wolfhart-​Theology and the Philosophy of Science’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 11, 1, 1977. Kolden, Marc, ‘Theology as the Science of God’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 58, 1, 1978.

Bibliography

247

Korneffel, Dieter, Die Humboldts in Berlin: Zwei Brüder erfinden die Gelehrtenrepublik, Berlin: Elsengold Verlag, 2017. Kossert, Andreas, Kalte Heimat-​Die Geschichte der deutschen Vertriebenen nach 1945, Bonn: Pantheon Verlag, 2009. Kranemann, Benedikt, ‘Wer bildet das Zentrum?’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 71, 4, 2017. Kraus, Elisabeth, Von der Uranspaltung zur Göttinger Erklärung: Otto Hahn, Werner Heisenberg, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker und die Verantwortung des Wissenschaftlers, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2001. Kraushaar, Wolfgang, Frankfurter Schule und Studentenbewegung. Von der Flaschenpost zum Molotowcocktail 1946–​1995, Band 2, Berlin: Rogner und Bernhard, 1998. Kreß, Hartmut, Theologische Fakultäten an staatlichen Universitäten, Kamen: Harmut Spenner Verlag, 2004. Krieger, Gerhard (ed.), Zur Zukunft der Theologie in Kirche, Universität und Gesellschaft, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2017. Kuhn, Helmut, ‘Die Theologie vor dem Tribunal der Wissenschaftstheorie’, Philosophische Rundschau, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 25, 3, 1978. Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 20124. Küng, Hans, Christ sein, München: Piper Verlag, 1974. Küng, Hans, Der Anfang aller Dinge-​ Naturwissenschaft und Theologie, München: Piper Verlag, 20067. Küng, Hans, Tracy, David (eds.), Paradigm Change in Theology, London: T&T Clark, 1989. Kunze, Axel Bernd, Bildung als Freiheitsrecht: eine kritische Zwischenbilanz des Diskurses um Bildungsgerechtigkeit, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2012. Lakatos, Imre, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’ in Lakatos, Imre, Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Lakatos, Imre, Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Lakatos, Imre, Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Problems in the Philosophy of Science, Amsterdam: North-​Holland, 1968. Lamb, Matthew L., ‘The Dialectics of Theory and Praxis within Paradigm Analysis’ in Küng, Hans, Tracy, David (eds.), Paradigm Change in Theology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989.

248

Bibliography

Lecoq-​Gellerson, Ingrid, Die politische Persönlichkeit Wilhelm von Humboldts in der Geschichtsschreibung des deutschen Bildungsbürgertums, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Gmbh Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1985. Leidenhag, Joanna, ‘Two Accounts of Scientific Trinitarian Theology: Comparing Wolfhart Pannenberg’s and T.F. Torrance’s Theological Methodology’, Heythrop Journal, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 57, 6, 2016. Lenk, Hans, ‘Theologie als Metatheorie’, Man and World, Pittsburgh: IPR Associates, Vol. 11, 1, 1978. Lenzen, Dieter, Bildung statt Bologna, Berlin: Ullstein Verlag, 2014. Leppek, Thorsten A., Wahrheit bei Wolfhart Pannenberg: Eine philosophisch-​ theologische Untersuchung (Forschungen zur systematischen und ökumenischen Theologie), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Lewis, Clive S., Surprised by Joy, Orlando: Harcourt Books, 1955. Link, Christian, ‘Die Wahrnehmung der Natur als Schöpfung. Zum Modell eines Dialogs zwischen Naturwissenschaft und Theologie im Anschluss an Viktor von Weizsäcker’ in Klinnert, Lars (ed.), Zufall Mensch? Das Bild des Menschen im Spannungsfeld von Evolution und Schöpfung, Darmstadt: WBG, 2007. Link, Christian, ‘Natürliche Theologie’ in Fahlbusch, Erwin, Mochman, Jan Milič, Mbiti, John, Pelikan, Jaroslav, Vischer, Lukas (eds.), Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Löhr, Winrich Alfred, ‘Kirchengeschichte zwischen historischer Rekonstruktion und Gegenwartsorientierung-​Hans von Campenhausen als Historiker und Theologe’ in Markschies, Christoph (ed.), Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen-​ Weg, Werk und Wirkung, Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2008. Losch, Andreas, Jenseits der Konflikte-​ Eine konstruktiv-​ kritische Auseinandersetzung von Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Löwith, Karl, Heidegger. Denker in dürftiger Zeit, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. Löwith, Karl, Meaning in History, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1949. Löwith, Karl, Mein Leben in Deutschland vor und nach 1933 (Neuauflage), Stuttgart: Verlag J.B. Metzler, 20072. Löwith, Karl, Zur Kritik der christlichen Überlieferung, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1966. Lüddecke, Dirk, ‘Der säkulare Staat und die Religion’ in Hidalgo, Oliver, Polke, Christian (eds.), Staat und Religion, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 2017. Lüder-​Solte, Ernst, Theologie an der Universität-​Staats-​und Kirchenrechtliche Probleme der theologischen Fakultäten, München: Claudius-​Verlag, 1971.

Bibliography

249

MacIntyre, Alasdair, ‘Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narrative, and the Philosophy of Science’, The Monist, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Vol. 60, 4, 1977. Manent, Alice, ‘Democracy and Religion in the Political and Legal Thought of Ernst-​ Wolfgang Böckenförde’, Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Vol. 7, 1, 2018. Manning, Russell R.E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Marheineke, Philipp Konrad, Grundlehren der Dogmatik als Wissenschaft, Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1827. Markschies, Christopher (ed.), Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen-​Weg, Werk und Wirkung, Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2008. Matuska, Peter, Natürliche Theologie in politischer Verstrickung, Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovaĉ, 2005. McDermott, Brian O., ‘Pannenberg’s Resurrection Christology: A Critique’, Theological Studies, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 35, 4, 1974. McFague, Sallie, Metaphorical Language-​Models of God in Religious Language, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1982.McGrath, Alister, The Foundations of Dialogue in Science & Religion, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. McGrath, Alister, Scientific Theology: Nature, Vol. 1, London: T&T Clark, 2006. McGrath, Alister, The Science of God, London: T&T Clark International, 2004. McGrath, Alister, T. F. Torrance: An Intellectual Biography, London: T&T Clark, 2006. McKenzie, David, Wolfhart Pannenberg & Religious Philosophy, Lanham: University Press of America, 1980. McMullin, Ernan, ‘How should cosmology relate to theology’ in Peacocke, Arthur R. (ed.), The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, Stocksfield: Oriel Press Ltd, 1981. Mercer, David, ‘Why Popper can’t resolve the debate over global warming: Problems with the uses of philosophy of science in the media and public framing of the science of global warming’, Public Understanding of Science, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 27, 2, 2018. Merkel, Reinhard, ‘Amerikanische Philosophie’, Merkur-​Deutsche Zeitschrift für europäisches Denken, Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta Verlag, Vol. 41, 465, 1987. Metz, Johann Baptist, Zur Theologie der Welt, Mainz: Matthias-​ Grünewald Verlag, 1968.

250

Bibliography

Meyer-​Abich, Klaus Michael, ‘Zum Begriff einer praktischen Theologie der Natur’, Evangelische Theologie, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Vol. 37, 6, 1977. Michalos, Alex C., The Popper-​ Carnap Controversy, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971. Mildenberger, Friedrich, Theologie als Theorie. Enzyklopädie als Methodenlehre, Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1972. Moeller, Bernd, ‘Adolf von Harnack-​der Außenseiter als Zentralfigur’ in Nowak, Kurt, Oexle, Otto Gerhard (eds.), Adolf von Harnack, Theologe, Historiker, Wissenschaftspolitiker, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Molendijk, Arie L., Aus dem Dunklen ins Helle: Wissenschaft und Theologie im Denken von Heinrich Scholz, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991. Moleski, Martin X., ‘Polanyi vs. Kuhn, Worldviews Apart’, Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical, Macon: Faithlab, Vol. 33, 2, 2006. Moltmann, Jürgen (ed.), Anfänge der dialektischen Theologie, Teil 1, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1977. Moltmann, Jürgen, A Broad Place: An Autobiography, London: SCM Press, 2007. Moltmann, Jürgen, ‘Ein Briefwechsel zwischen Karl Barth und Adolf von Harnack’ in Moltmann, Jürgen (ed.), Anfänge der dialektischen Theologie, Teil 1, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1977. Moltmann, Jürgen, ‘Jürgen Moltmann’ in Bauman, Michael (ed.), Roundtable-​ Conversations with European Theologians, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1990. Moltmann, Jürgen, ‘Personal recollections of Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Theology Today, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 72, 1, 2015. Moltmann, Jürgen, Theologie der Hoffnung, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 199713. Moltmann Wendel, Elisabeth, Autobiography, London: SCM Press Ltd., 1997. Moos, Thorsten, ‘Theologische Aspekte der Wissenschaftsfreiheit’ in Grimm, Herwig, Schleissing, Stephan (eds.), Grüne Gentechnik-​zwischen Forschungsfreiheit und Anwendungsrisiko, Baden-​Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2012. Morgenstern, Martin, Nicolai Hartmann-​ Grundlinien einer wissenschaftlich orientierten Philosophie, Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 1992. Moses, Dirk, ‘Die 45er: Eine Generation zwischen Faschismus und Demokratie’, Neue Sammlung-​Vierteljahresschrift für Erziehung und Gesellschaft, Seelze-​ Velber: Friedrich Verlag, Vol. 40, 1, 2000. Mostert, Christian, God and the Future: Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Eschatological Doctrine of God, London: T&T Clark, 2002.

Bibliography

251

Muehleck, Cathleen, ‘Löwith, Karl’ in Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), Neue Deutsche Bibliographie (NDB) Band 15, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1987. Munchin, David, Is Theology a Science? The Nature of the Scientific Enterprise in the Scientific Theology of Thomas Forsyth Torrance and the Anarchic Epistemology of Paul Feyerabend (Studies in Systematic Theology), Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2011. Murphy, Nancey, Anglo-​American Postmodernity: Philosophical Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Ethics, Abingdon: Routledge, 1997. Murphy, Nancey, Did My Neurons Make Me Do It? Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Murphy, Nancey, ‘Engaging Robert J. Russell’s Alpha and Omega’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 45, 1, 2010. Murphy, Nancey, ‘A Lakatosian Reconstruction of Pannenberg’s Program: Responses to Sponheim, van Huyssteen, and Eaves’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997. Murphy, Nancey, ‘Relations between Theological and Scientific Methodologies’, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Topsfield, MA: American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 63, 1, 2011. Murphy, Nancey, ‘Response to Review by Philip Clayton of “Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning” by Nancey Murphy’, CTNS Bulletin, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 11, 1, 1991. Murphy, Nancey, Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. Musser, Donald W., Price, Joseph L. (eds.), A New Handbook of Christian Theologians, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. Mutschler, Hans-​Dieter, Naturphilosophie-​ Grundkurs Philosophie Band 12, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 2002. Mutschler, Hans-​Dieter, Physik und Religion. Perspektiven und Grenzen eines Dialogs, Darmstadt: WBG, 2005. Neuhaus, Richard John, ‘The Christian West? Richard John Neuhaus interviews Wolfhart Pannenberg’, First Things, New York: Institute on Religion and Public Life, Vol. 43, 11, 1990. Newlands, George MacLeod, ‘Book Reviews’, Scottish Journal of Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 31, 1, 1978.

252

Bibliography

Niemöller, Wilhelm, Der Pfarrernotbund-​ Geschichte einer kämpfenden Brüderschaft, Hamburg: Wittig Verlag, 1973. Noll, Mark A., The Work we have to do-​A History of Protestants in America, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Nottmeier, Christian, Adolf von Harnack und die deutsche Politik von 1890–​1930, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Nowak, Kurt, Oexle, Otto Gerhard (eds.), Adolf von Harnack, Theologe, Historiker, Wissenschaftspolitiker, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Nowak, Kurt, ‘Theologie, Philologie und Geschichte-​Adolf von Harnack als Kirchenhistoriker’ in Nowak, Kurt, Oexle, Otto Gerhard (eds.), Adolf von Harnack, Theologe, Historiker, Wissenschaftspolitiker, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Nüssel, Friederike, ‘Die Aufgabe der Dogmatik im Zusammenhang der Theologie’ in Dalferth, Ingolf U. (ed.), Eine Wissenschaft oder viele? Die Einheit evangelischer Theologie in der Sicht ihrer Disziplinen, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006. Oakes, Kenneth, Karl Barth on Theology & Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Oden, Thomas C., A Change of Heart: A Personal and Theological Memoir, Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2014. Olive, Don H., Wolfhart Pannenberg, Waco: Word Incorporated, 1973. Olson, Roger E., ‘The Human Self-​Realization of God: Hegelian Elements in Pannenberg’s Christology’, Perspectives in Religious Studies, Waco: Baylor University Press, Vol. 13, 2, 1986. Orth, Stefan, ‘Fakultäten suchen die Öffentlichkeit’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 69, 3, 2015. Overesch, Manfred, Chronik deutscher Zeitgeschichte: Politik-​Wirtschaft-​Kultur, Band 2/​II: Das Dritte Reich 1939–​1945, Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1983. Owensby, Jacob, Dilthey and the Narrative of History, London: Cornell University Press, 1994. Page, James Smith, ‘Critical Realism and the Theological Science of Wolfhart Pannenberg: Exploring the Commonalities’, Bridges: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, Theology, History and Science, Monkton: Bridges, Vol. 10, 1, 2003. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Analogie und Offenbarung-​Eine Kritik der Untersuchung zur Geschichte des Analogiebegriffs in der Gotteserkenntnis, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.

Bibliography

253

Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Anthropologie in theologischer Perspektive, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Anthropology in Theological Perspective, Edinburgh: T&T Press, 1985. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Antwort auf G. Sauters Überlegungen’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 40, 2, 1980. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘An Autobiographical Sketch’ in Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Basic Questions in Theology, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, Pannenberg, Wolfhart ‘Comments’ in Peacocke, Arthur R. (ed.), The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, Stocksfield: Oriel Press Ltd., 1981. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘A Dialogue: God as Spirit and Natural Science’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 36, 4, 2001. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Die Bedeutung der Kategorien “Teil” und “Ganzes” für die Wissenschaftstheorie der Theologie’, Theologie und Philosophie, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 53, 4, 1978. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Die Krise des Schriftprinzips’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Grundfragen systematischer Theologie: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Die Prädestinationslehre des Duns Skotus im Zusammenhang der scholastischen Lehrentwicklung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘The Doctrine of the Spirit and the Task of a Theology of Nature’, Theology, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Vol. 75, 619, 1972. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Joest, Wilfried (eds.), Dogma und Denkstrukturen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Müller, Klaus A.M., Erwägungen zu einer Theologie der Natur, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1970. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Geist und Energie. Zur Phänomenologie Teilhard de Chardins’, Acta Teilhardiana, München: Selbstverlag, Vol. 8, 1, 1971. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Glaube und Wirklichkeit-​Kleine Beträge zum christlichen Denken, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1975. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘God of the Philosophers’, First Things, New York: Institute on Religion and Public Life, Vol. 50, 6, 2007.

254

Bibliography

Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘God’s Presence in History: How My Mind Has Changed’, Christian Century, Chicago: Christian Century Foundation, Vol. 98, 5, 1981. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Grundfragen systematischer Theologie: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Grundlagen der Ethik. Philosophisch-​ theologische Perspektiven, Stuttgart: UTB der Wissenschaft, 1996. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Sauter, Gerhard, Daecke, Sigurd Martin, Janowski, Hans Norbert, Grundlagen der Theologie-​ein Diskurs, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1974. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Grundzüge der Christologie, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1964. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Hermeneutik und Universalgeschichte’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 60, 1, 1963. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, The Historicity of Nature-​Essays on Science and Theology, Gregersen, Niels Henrik (ed.), West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press, 2008. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, The Idea of God and Human Freedom, Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1973. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Im Fegefeuer der Methode. Wolfhart Pannenberg und Gerhard Sauter im Gespräch über Theologie als Wissenschaft’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 6, 1, 1973. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘An Intellectual Pilgrimage’, DIALOG: A Journal of Theology, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 45, 2, 2006. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘An Intellectual Pilgrimage’, Kerygma und Dogma, Zeitschrift für theologische Forschung und christliche Lehre, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 53, 3, 2008. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Ist Versöhnung unrealistisch? Stellungnahme zur Vertriebenen-​ Denkschrift der EKD’, Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Vol. 10, 1, 1966. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Jesus-​God and Man, Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1968. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Letter from Germany’, First Things, New York: Institute on Religion and Public Life, Vol. 46, 3, 2003. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Macht der Mensch die Religion oder macht die Religion den Menschen?’ in Rendtorff, Trutz (ed.), Religion als Problem der Aufklärung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘The Nature of a Theological Statement’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol.7, 1, 1972.

Bibliography

255

Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Notes on the Alleged Conflict between Religion and Science’, The Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 40, 3, 2005. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Offenbarung als Geschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19704. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Problems between science and theology in the course of their modern history’, Journal of Religion & Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 41, 1, 2006. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Reden von Gott angesichts atheistischer Kritik’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 2, 8, 1969. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Religion und menschliche Natur’ in Wolfhart, Pannenberg (ed.), Sind wir von Natur aus religiös?, Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1986. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Response to John Polkinghorne’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 36, 4, 2001. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘A Response to my American Friends’ in Braaten, Carl E., Clayton, Philip (eds.), The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘The Resurrection of Jesus, History and Theology’, DIALOG: A Journal of Theology, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 38, 1, 1999. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Revelation as History, London: Sheed and Ward Ltd., 1969. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Dulles, Avery, Robert, Braaten, Carl E. (eds.), Spirit, Faith and Church, Louisville: Westminster Press, 1970. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘The Significance of the Categories “Part” and “Whole” for the Epistemology of Theology’, Clayton, Philip (trsl.), The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 66, 4, 1986. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Systematische Theologie Band 1 (Neuauflage), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Systematische Theologie Band 2 (Neuauflage), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Systematische Theologie Band 3, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Theological Appropriation of Scientific Understandings: Response to Hefner, Wicken, Eaves, and Tipler’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Theological Questions to Scientists’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 16, 1, 1981.

256

Bibliography

Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Theological Questions to Scientists’ in Peacocke, Arthur R. (ed.), The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, Stocksfield: Oriel Press Ltd, 1981. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Theological Questions to Scientists’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Sauter, Gerhard, Daecke, Sigurd Martin, Janowski, Hans Norbert, ‘Theologie als Wissenschaft-​ein Gespräch’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Sauter, Gerhard, Daecke, Sigurd Martin, Janowski, Hans Norbert, Grundlagen der Theologie-​ein Diskurs, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1974. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Theologie und Philosophie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Theology & the Philosophy of Science, London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd., 1976. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Theology and Science’, The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, Vol. 85, 3, 1992. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Thesen zur Theologie der Kirche, München: Claudius Verlag, 1970. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Toward a Theology of Nature-​Essays on Science and Faith, Peters, Ted (ed.), Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1993. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Was ist der Mensch? Die Anthropologie der Gegenwart im Lichte der Theologie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19765. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, What Is Man? Contemporary Anthropology in Theological Perspective, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘When Everything Is Permitted’, First Things, New York: Institute on Religion and Public Life, Vol. 42, 1, 1998. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Wie wahr ist das Reden von Gott?’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Sauter, Gerhard, Daecke, Sigurd Martin, Janowski, Hans Norbert, Grundlagen der Theologie-​ ein Diskurs, Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1974. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Wie wahr ist das Reden von Gott? Die wissenschaftstheoretische Problematik theologischer Aussagen’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 4, 11, 1971. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Wissenschaft und Existenz aus der Sicht des Theologen’, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Alterstumswissenschaft, Würzburg: Kommissionsverlag, Vol. 11, 1, 1985. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1973.

Bibliography

257

Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie (Taschenbuch), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft, 1987. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg’ in Bauman, Michael (ed.), Roundtable-​Conversations with European Theologians, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1990. Papendick, Astrid, ‘Paradiesisch dank staatlicher Zuwendung-​ Theologische Fakultäten in Deutschland’, Forum Wissenschaft, Marburg; BdWi Verlag, Vol. 35, 3, 2013. Pasquariello, Ronald D., ‘Pannenberg’s Philosophical Foundations’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 56, 4, 1976. Peacocke, Arthur R., Intimations of Reality, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 1984. Peacocke, Arthur R., ‘Introduction’ in Peacocke, Arthur R. (ed.), The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, Stocksfield: Oriel Press Ltd., 1981. Peacocke, Arthur R., Science and the Christian Experiment, London: Oxford University Press, 1971. Peacocke, Arthur R., The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, Stocksfield: Oriel Press Ltd, 1981. Peters, Karl E., ‘The “Ghosts” of of IRAS Past and the Changing Cultural Context of Religion and Science’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 50, 2, 2015. Peters, Ted, Bennett, Gaymon, Bridging Science and Religion, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Peters, Ted, ‘Book Notes –​The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg. E. Frank Tupper’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 55, 4, 1975. Peters, Ted, ‘Clarity of the Part versus Meaning of the Whole’ in in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997. Peters, Ted, ‘Editor’s Introduction-​ Pannenberg on Theology and Natural Science in Pannenberg’, Wolfhart, Towards a Theology of Nature, Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1993. Peters, Ted, ‘Hermeneutical Truth and Theological Method’, Encounter, London: Encounter Ltd., Vol. 39, 2, 1978. Peters, Ted, ‘In Memoriam: Ian Graeme Barbour (1923–​2013)’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, New York: Oxford University Press, Vol. 82, 1, 2014.

258

Bibliography

Peters, Ted, ‘In Memoriam Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928–​2014)’, DIALOG: A Journal of Theology, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 53, 4, 2014. Peters, Ted, Method and Truth: An Inquiry into the Philosophical Hermeneutics of Hans-​Georg Gadamer and the Theology of History of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: University of Chicago, PhD thesis, 1973. Peters, Ted, ‘Pannenberg on Theology and Natural Sciences’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Toward a Theology of Nature-​Essays on Science and Faith, Peters, Ted (ed.), Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1993. Peters, Ted, Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom, New York: Routledge, 1997. Peters, Ted, ‘Science and Religion: Ten Models of War, Truce, and Partnership’, CTNS Theology and Science Journal, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 16, 1, 2018. Peters, Ted, Science, Theology, and Ethics, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003. Peters, Ted, ‘The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg’, DIALOG: A Journal of Theology, Malden: Wiley, Vol. 37, 2, 1998. Peters, Ted, ‘Theology and Science –​Where Are We?’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 31, 2, 1996. Peters, Ted, ‘Truth in History: Gadamer’s Hermeneutics and Pannenberg’s Apologetic Method’, The Journal of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 55, 1, 1975. Peters, Ted, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg’ in Musser, Donald W., Price, Joseph L. (eds.), A New Handbook of Christian Theologians, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. Peterson, Gregory R., ‘The Scientific Status of Theology: Imre Lakatos, Method and Demarcation’, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Boston: The American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 50, 1, 1998. Peterson, Gregory R., ‘Theology, the University, Metaphysics, and Respectability. In Praise of Folly? Theology and the University’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 43, 3, 2008. Peterson, Gregory R., ‘Where Do We Go from Here?’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​ God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997. Petticrew, Marc, Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal, Knai, Cécile, Cassidy, Rebecca, Hessari, Nason Maani, Thomas, James, Weishaar, Heide, ‘Nothing Can be Done until Everything Is Done: The Use of Complexity Arguments by Food, Beverage, Alcohol and Gambling Industries’, Journal of Epidemiology and Communal Health, London: BMJ, Vol. 71, 11, 2017.

Bibliography

259

Peukert, Helmut, Science, Action, and Fundamental Theology. Toward a Theology of Communicative Action, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984. Peukert, Helmut, Wissenschaftstheorie-​Handlungstheorie-​Fundamentale Theologie. Analysen zu Ansatz und Status theologischer Theoriebildung, Düsseldorf: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1976. Picht, Georg, Die deutsche Bildungskatastrophe, Freiburg: Walter Verlag, 1964. Pickel, Gerd, Hidalgo, Oliver (eds.), Religion und Politik im vereinigten Deutschland, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2012. Piper, Ernst, 1945-​Niederlage und Neubeginn, Köln: Lingen Verlag, 2015. Plathow, Michael, ‘Persönliche Notizen zu Schlinks Heidelberger Jahren’ in Skibbe, Eugene M. (ed.), Edmund Schlink-​Ein Bekenner im Kirchenkampf-​ Lehrer der Kirche-​ Vordenker der Ökumene, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Polanyi, Michael, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-​ Critical Philosophy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. Polk, David Paul, On the Way to God-​An Exploration into the Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Lanham: University Press of America, 1989. Polkinghorne, John, ‘Fields and Theology: A Response to Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 36, 4, 2001. Polkinghorne, John, Science & Christian Belief, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1994. Polkinghorne, John, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Engagement with the Natural Sciences’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 34, 1, 1999. Pollack, Detlef, Pickel, Gert (eds.), Religiöser und kirchlicher Wandel in Ostdeutschland 1989–​1999, Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 2000. Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutation: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Re-​ edition), Abingdon: Routledge Classics, 20027. Popper, Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Re-​edition), Abingdon: Routledge Classics, 20026. Popper, Karl, The Poverty of Historicism (Re-​edition), Abingdon: Routledge Classics, 20022. Pulte, Matthias, ‘Instanzen der Urteilsbildung’ in Söding, Thomas (ed.), Die Rolle der Theologie in der Kirche, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2015. Puntel, Lorenz Bruno, Wahrheitstheorien in der neueren Philosophie-​ Eine kritisch-​systematische Darstellung, Darmstadt: WBG, 1978. Puntel, Lorenz B., ‘Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie-​Zu Wolfhart Pannenberg gleichnamigen Buch’, Zeitschrift Für Katholische Theologie, Wien: Herder Verlag, Vol. 98, 3, 1976.

260

Bibliography

Putnam, Hilary Whitehall, Pragmatism: An Open Question. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. Putnam, Robert D., Campbell, David, E., American Grace –​How Religion Divides and Unites Us, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Raman, Varadaraja V., ‘Changing Landscape in Science-​Religion Dialogues’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 45, 1, 2010. Ratz, Erhard, Der interdisziplinäre Dialog: Die gemeinsame Verantwortung von Theologie und Naturwissenschaften, München: Herbert Utz Verlag Wissenschaft, 1997. Ratzsch, Del, ‘Book Reviews –​Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning by Nancey Murphy’, Faith and Philosophy, Grand Rapids: Society of Christian Philosophers, Vol. 12, 2, 1995. Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘Die neuen Heiden und die Kirche’, Hochland, München: Kösel Verlag, Vol. 62, 10, 1958. Ratzinger, Joseph, Salz der Erde: Christentum und katholische Kirche im neuen Jahrtausend. Ein Gespräch mit Peter Seewald, München: Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, 20043. Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘Theologie an staatlichen Universitäten-​Eine Stellungnahme von Kardinal Joseph Ratzinger’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 53, 1, 1999. Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘Wer verantwortet die Aussagen der Theologie’ in von Balthazar, Hans Urs, Deiseler, Alfons, Grillmeier, Alois, Kasper, Walter, Kremer, Jacob, Lehmann, Karl, Rahner, Karl, Ratzinger, Joseph, Riedlinger, Helmut, Schneider Theodor, Stoeckle, Bernhard, Diskussion über Hans Küngs “Christ sein”, Mainz: Matthias Grünewald Verlag, 1977. Rauh, Fritz, ‘Hübner, Jürgen, Theologie und biologische Entwicklungslehre’, Münchner Theologische Zeitschrift, St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, Vol. 17, 2, 1967. Rausch Albright, Carol, ‘Introduction’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997. Ravetz, Jerome, Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems, Oxford: Clarenden Press, 19722. Ravetz, Jerome, ‘Usable Knowledge, Usable Ignorance: Incomplete Science with Policy Implications’ in Clark, William C., Munn, Robert E. (eds.), Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Ravetz, Jerome, ‘What is Post-​Normal Science?’, Futures, Amsterdam: Elsevier, Vol. 31, 5, 1999.

Bibliography

261

Reetz, Dankfried, ‘Staatslehre mit »politischer Tendenz«? Schleiermachers Politik-​ Vorlesung des Sommersemesters 1817’, Zeitschrift für Neuere Theologiegeschichte, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., Vol. 7, 2, 2000. Reeves, Josh, ‘After Lakatos’, Theology and Science, Abingdon: Routledge, Vol. 9, 4, 2011. Remy, Steven Paul, The Heidelberg Myth: The Nazification and Denazification of a German University, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Rendtorff, Rolf, ‘Gerhard von Rad’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 4, 12, 1971. Rendtorff, Trutz, ‘Das Offenbarungsproblem im Kirchenbegriff ’ in Pannenberg, Wolfhart (ed.), Offenbarung als Geschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19704. Rendtorff, Trutz (ed.), Religion als Problem der Aufklärung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Rendtorff, Trutz, ‘Theologiestudium-​ Ausbildung durch Wissenschaft’ in Rohls, Jan (ed.), Vernunft des Glaubens: Wissenschaftliche Theologie und kirchliche Lehre. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Wolfhart Pannenberg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Renkert, Thomas, ‘Zum Verhältnis von Personalität und Temporalität bei Nicolai Hartmann und Wolfhart Pannenberg’ in Hartung, Gerald, Wunsch, Matthias, Strube, Claudius (eds.), Von der Systemphilosophie zur systematischen Philosophie-​Nicolai Hartmann, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 2012. Reynhout, Kenneth A., ‘The Evolution of van Huyssteen’s Model of Rationality’ in Shults, LeRon F. (ed.), The Evolution of Rationality-​Interdisciplinary Essays in Honor of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006. Rescher, Nicolas, Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Rescher, Nicolas, Realistic Pragmatism: An Introduction to Pragmatic Philosophy, Albany: SUNY Press, 1996. Rhodes, Richard, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1986. Richardson, Mark W., Wildman, Wesley J. (eds.), Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue, New York: Routledge, 1996. Rieger, Hans-​Martin, Theologie als Funktion der Kirche: eine systematisch-​ theologische Untersuchung von Theologie und Kirche in der Moderne (Theologische Bibliothek Töpelman Band 139), Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 20122.

262

Bibliography

Riesebrodt, Martin, The Promise of Salvation-​A Theory of Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2010. Ringshausen, Gerhard, ‘Ein neuer “Methodenstreit” –​Zur Aufgabe der kirchlichen Zeitgeschichte’, Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 4, 1, 1991. Ritschl, Dietrich, ‘Die Wissenschaftsproblematik in der amerikanischen Diskussion-​ein Überblick’ in Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971. Ritter, Adolf Martin, ‘Hans von Campenhausen und Adolf von Harnack’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 87, 3, 1990. Robinson, James McConkey, Cobb, John B. (eds.), Theology as History, New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Rohls, Jan, ‘Pannenberg und Hegel: Anknüpfung und Widerspruch’ in Wenz, Gunther (ed.), “Eine neue Menschheit darstellen” –​Religionsphilosophie als Weltverantwortung und Weltgestaltung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Rohls, Jan, Protestantische Theologie der Neuzeit: Das 20. Jahrhundert, Band II, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Rohls, Jan (ed.), Vernunft des Glaubens: Wissenschaftliche Theologie und kirchliche Lehre. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Wolfhart Pannenberg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Root, Michael, ‘The Achievement of Wolfhart Pannenberg’, First Things, New York: Institute on Religion and Public Life, Vol. 55, 3, 2012. Rorty, Richard, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979. Rosen, Stanley, ‘The Identity of, and the Difference between, Analytical and Continental Philosophy’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Abingdon: Routledge, Vol. 9, 3, 2001. Rotermann, Stefanie, Wozu (noch) Theologie an Universitäten?, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2001. Rothgangel, Martin, Naturwissenschaft und Theologie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Ruh, Ulrich, ‘Herausgeforderte Theologie’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 66, 3, 2012. Ruh, Ulrich, ‘Katholische Theologie an deutschen Fakultäten-​Eine Landschaft in Bewegung’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 68, 3, 2014. Russell, Robert, J., Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega: The creative mutual interaction of theology and science, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.

Bibliography

263

Russell, Robert J., ‘Ian G. Barbour (1923–​2013): In Memoriam to the Pioneer of Science and Religion’, CTNS Theology and Science Journal, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 12, 2, 2014. Russell, Robert J., ‘Ian Barbour’s Methodological Breakthrough: Creating the “Bridge” Between Science and Theology’, Theology and Science, Abingdon: Routledge, Vol. 15, 1, 2017. Russell, Robert J., ‘Polanyi’s enduring gift to “Theology and Science” ’, Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical, Charlottesville: Philosophy Documentation Center, Vol. 35, 3, 2008. Russell, Robert J., Wegter-​ Mc-​ Nelly, Kirk, ‘Science and Theology: Mutual Interaction’ in Peters, Ted, Bennett, Gaymon (eds.), Bridging Science and Religion, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Russell, Robert J., ‘STARS: Science and Transcendence Advanced Research Series-​Completing the Grant, Continuing the Research’, Theology and Science, Abingdon: Routledge, Vol. 8, 4, 2010. Saint Anselm, Proslogion: With the Replies of Gaunilo and Anselm, Williams, Thomas (trsl.), Cambridge/​MA: Hackett Publishing, 2001. Salamun, Kurt, Karl Jaspers, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann GmbH, 20062. Sauer, Thomas, ‘Der Kronberger Kreis’ in Friedrich, Norbert, Jähnichen, Traugott (eds.), Gesellschaftspolitische Neuorientierungen des Protestantismus in der Nachkriegszeit, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2002. Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Der Wissenschaftsbegriff der Theologie’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 31, 6, 1975. Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Die Begründung theologischer Aussagen wissenschaftstheoretisch gesehen’, Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Vol.15, 1, 1971. Sauter, Gerhard, Evangelische Theologie an der Jahrtausendschwelle, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2002. Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Fragestellungen der Christologie’, Verkündigung und Forschung, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, Vol. 33, 2, 1966. Sauter, Gerhard, Protestant Theology at the Crossroads, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007. Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Rechenschaft über das Reden von Gott-​ Die verfängliche Frage nach dem Gegenstand der Theologie’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 7, 2, 1974. Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971.

264

Bibliography

Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Überlegungen zu einem weiteren Gesprächsgang über “Theologie und Wissenschaftstheorie”  ’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 40, 2, 1980. Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Verhängnis der Theologie? Schuldwahrnehmung und Geschichtsanschauungen im deutschen Protestantismus unseres Jahrhunderts’, Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 4, 2, 1991. Sauter Gerhard, Vor einem neuen Methodenstreit in der Theologie?, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1970. Sauter Gerhard, Wissenschaftstheoretische Kritik der Theologie. Die Theologie und die neuere wissenschaftstheoretische Diskussion, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1973. Schäfer, Philip, ‘Die natürliche Theologie als Aufgabe und Chance für die Gegenwartstheologie’, Münchner Theologische Zeitschrift, St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, Vol. 26, 4, 1975. Schäfer, Rolf, Die Misere der theologischen Fakultäten. Dokumentation und Kritik eines Tabus, Schwerte: Freistühler Verlag, 1970. Scharlemann, Robert P., ‘Theologie was ist das? Edited by Georg Picht and Enno Rudolph’, Religious Studies Review, Houston: Council of Societies for the Study of Religion, Vol. 4, 4, 1978. Schätzle, Robert, ‘Die Krise der Theologie’ in Becker, Patrick, Gerold, Thomas (eds.), Die Theologie an der Universität-​Eine Standortbestimmung, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2005. Scheffczyck, Leo, ‘Theologie und moderne Wissenschaftstheorie’, Münchner Theologische Zeitschrift, St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, Vol. 29, 2, 1978. Schildt, Axel, Siegfried, Detlef, Deutsche Kulturgeschichte. Die Bundesrepublik-​ 1945 bis zur Gegenwart, Bonn: bpb Verlag, 2009. Schlak, Stephan, ‘Die 29er. Der deutsche Nachkriegsgeist wird 80 Jahre’, Magazin der Kulturstiftung des Bundes, Halle/​Saale: Kulturstiftung des Bundes, Vol. 11, 1, 2008. Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel, Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studiums zum Behuf einleitender Vorlesungen (1811/​ 1830), Schmid, Dirk (ed.), Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2012. Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel, Über die Religion. Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern 1799/​1806/​1821, Peter, Niklaus, Bestebreurtje, Frank, Büsching, Anne (eds.), Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2012. Schmiedl, Joachim, Hafner, Johann Evangelist (eds.), Katholische Theologie an der Universität, Mainz: Matthias Grünewald Verlag, 2009.

Bibliography

265

Schmitz, Herbert, ‘Zukunft katholischer-​ theologischer Fakultäten in Deutschland’, Münchner Theologische Zeitschrift, St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, Vol. 40, 3, 1990. Schmitz-​Moormann, Karl, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: Evolution-​die Schöpfung Gottes, Ostfildern: Matthias-​Grünewald Verlag, 1996. Schmitz-​ Moormann, Karl (ed.), Teilhard de Chardin in der Diskussion, Darmstadt: WBG, 1986. Schneider, Verena, ‘Von der „Theologenwelle“ zur „Pensionierungsdelle“’, Deutsches Pfarrerblatt, Westerstede: Verband evangelischer Pfarrerinnen und Pfarrer in Deutschland e.V., Vol. 114, 6, 2014. Scholz, Heinrich, ‘Was ist unter einer theologischen Aussage zu verstehen?’ in Ernst, Wolf (ed.), Theologische Aufsätze Karl Barth zum 50. Geburtstag, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1936. Scholz, Heinrich, ‘Wie ist eine evangelische Theologie als Wissenschaft möglich (1931)?’ in Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971. Scholz, Heinrich, ‘Wie ist eine evangelische Theologie als Wissenschaft möglich?’, Zwischen den Zeiten, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 9 [unknown edition], 1931. Schönwälder-​Kuntze, Tatjana, Philosophische Methoden zur Einführung, Hamburg: Junius Verlag, 2015. Schrader, David A., ‘Karl Popper as a Point of Departure for a Philosophy of Theology’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, New York: Springer Publishing, Vol. 14, 4, 1983. Schreiter, Robert J., ‘Book Review –​Wissenschaftstheorie Und Theologie’, Theological Studies, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 36, 2, 1975. Schrofner, Erich, ‘Wissenschaftstheoretische Kritik der Theologie. Die Theologie und die neuere wissenschaftstheoretische Diskussion’, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, Würzburg: Echter, Vol. 97, 3, 1975. Schubert, Venanz (ed.), 1968. 30 Jahre danach‚ St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1999 Schuller, Florian (ed.), Jürgen Habermas Joseph Ratzinger-​ Dialektik der Säkularisierung: Über Vernunft und Religion, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 20118. Schult, Maike, Im Banne des Poeten: Die theologische Dostoevskij Rezeption und ihr Literaturverständnis, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Schulze, Hans, ‘Ein System von Stammesherzogtümern’, Evangelische Kommentare; Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 6, 1, 1973. Schwarz, Hans, Creation, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2002.

266

Bibliography

Schwarz, Hans, Theology in a Global Context: The last Two Hundred Years, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005. Schwarz, Hans, 400 Jahre Streit um die Wahrheit-​Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Schwarz, Hans, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg’ in Stump, Jim B., Padgett, Alan G. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, 2012. Sekretariat der deutschen Bischofskonferenz (ed.), Katholische Kirche in Deutschland Zahlen und Fakten 2016/​2017, Meckenheim: DCM Druck, 2016. Sharpe, Kevin, Science of God: Truth in the Age of Science, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006. Shults, LeRon F. (ed.), The Evolution of Rationality-​Interdisciplinary Essays in Honor of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006. Shults, LeRon F., The Postfoundationalist Task of Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999. Shults, LeRon F., ‘Theology, Science and Relationality: Interdisciplinary reciprocity in the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 36, 4, 2001. Sittler, Friederike, ‘Die Theologie-​im Alltag kaum gefragt, Erfahrungen fern der Universität’ in Becker, Patrick, Gerold, Thomas (eds.), Die Theologie an der Universität-​Eine Standortbestimmung, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2005. Skibbe, Eugene M. (ed.), Edmund Schlink-​ Ein Bekenner im Kirchenkampf-​ Lehrer der Kirche-​ Vordenker der Ökumene, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Slenczka, Ruth (ed.), Die “Murren” des Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen: “Erinnerungen, dicht wie ein Schneegestöber”, Norderstedt: Books on Demand GmbH, 2005. Smith-​ von Osten, Annemarie, Von Treysa 1945 bis Eisenach 1948, Zur Geschichte der Grundordnung der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Sponheim, Paul, ‘To Expand and to Deepen the Provisional: An Inquiry into Pannenberg’s Anthropology in Theological Perspective’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997. Stahel, Albert A., Luftverteidigung-​ Strategie und Wirklichkeit, Zürich: vfd Verlag der Fachvereine an den schweizerischen Hochschulen und Techniken AG, 1993.

Bibliography

267

Steiger, Lothar, ‘Offenbarungsgeschichte und theologische Vernunft. Zur Theologie W. Pannenbergs’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Vol. 59, 1, 1962. Stenhouse, Neil, Harper, Allison, Xiaomei, Cai, Cobb, Sara, Nicotera, Anne, Maibach, Edward, ‘Conflict about Climate Change at the American Meteorological Society: Meteorologists’ Views on a Scientific and Organizational Controversy’, Bulletin of the American Meterological Society, Boston: American Meteorological Society, Vol. 98, 2, 2017. Steinke, Ronen, Fritz Bauer oder Auschwitz vor Gericht, München: Piper Verlag, 2014. Stewart, Jacqui A., Reconstructing Science and Theology in Postmodernity, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000. Stiver, Dan R., ‘Felicity and Fusion: Speech Act Therapy and Hermeneutical Philosophy’ in Vanhoozer, Kevin, Warner, Martin (eds.), Transcending Boundaries in Philosophy and Theology –​Reason, Meaning and Experience, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Stock. Alex, ‘Theologie und Wissenschaftstheorie’, Verkündigung und Forschung, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, Vol. 41, 2, 1975. Stock, Konrad, Systematische Theologie: Teil 1: Erfahrung und Offenbarung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Stollberg, Dietrich, ‘Die Wissenschaften werden Theologie’, Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart: Kreuzverlag, Vol. 7, 1, 1974. Striet, Magnus, ‘Wunderbar, man streitet sich’, Herder Korrespondenz, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, Vol. 71, 2, 2017. Strübind, Andrea, ‘Das Tübinger Memorandum. Die politische Verantwortung der Nichtpolitiker’, Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte-​ Internationale Zeitschrift für Theologie und Geschichtswissenschaft, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Vol. 24, 2, 2011. Swinburne, Richard, ‘The Evidential Value of Religious Experience’ in Peacocke, Arthur R. (ed.), The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, Stocksfield: Oriel Press Ltd, 1981. Swinburne, Richard, The Existence of God, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 20042. Teichert, Wolfgang (ed.), Zwischen Glauben und Politik, Hamburg: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1976. Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, Tagebücher I und II, Olten: Walter Verlag, 1974. Thieme Daniel, Liedhegener, Antonius, ‘„Linksaußen“, politische Mitte oder doch ganz anders? Die Positionierung der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland

268

Bibliography

(EKD) im parteipolitischen Spektrum der postsäkularen Gesellschaft’, PVS Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Baden-​Baden: Nomos Verlag, Vol. 56, 2, 2015. Tillich, Paul, Das System der Wissenschaften nach Gegenständen und Methoden, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923. Torrance, Thomas F., Theological Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. Torrance, Thomas F., Theological Science (Paperback), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Toulmin, Stephen, ‘The Historization of Natural Science: Its Implications for Theology’ in Küng, Hans, Tracy, David (eds.), Paradigm Change in Theology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. Toulmin, Stephen, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20032. Tracy, David, Blessed Rage for Order, New York: Seaburg Press, 1975. Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Rückblick auf ein halbes Jahrhundert der theologischen Wissenschaft (1901)’ in Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft-​ Aufsätze und Thesen, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971. Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Über historische und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie (1898)’ in Sauter, Gerhard (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft-​Aufsätze und Thesen, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1971. Tupper, E. Frank., The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, London: SCM Press Ltd., 1973. Turner, Geoffrey, ‘Theology and the Philosophy of Science’, New Blackfriars, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Vol. 58, 686, 1977. Turner, Geoffrey, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg and the Hermeneutical Problem’, Irish Theological Quarterly, Maynooth: St. Patrick’s College, Vol. 39, 2, 1972. Turnpenny John, Jones, Mavis, Lorenzoni, Irene, ‘Where Now for Post-​Normal Science?: A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses’, Science, Technology & Human Values, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 36, 3, 2011. Valente, Gianni, ‘Am Zielpunkt angelangt? Doch es kommt alles anders …’, 30 Giorni nella Chiesa e nel mondo, Rom: Trenta Giorno soc. coop. arl., Vol. 18, 8, 2006. Van den Brink, Gijsbert, Philosophy of Science for Theologians, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Gmbh Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2009. Vanhoozer, Kevin, Warner, Martin (eds.), Transcending Boundaries in Philosophy and Theology-​Reason, Meaning and Experience, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006.

Bibliography

269

Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, Duet or Duel? Theology and Science in a Postmodern World, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998. Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, ‘Pluralism and Interdisciplinarity: In Search of Theology’s Public Voice’, American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Champaign: University of Illionois Press, Vol. 22, 1, 2001. Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, ‘Postfoundationalism and Interdisciplinarity: A Response to Jerome Stone’, The Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago: Zygon, Vol. 35, 2, 2000. Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, ‘A Response to My Colleagues’, Theology Today, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 72, 2, 2015. Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, The Shaping of Rationality-​Toward Interdisciplinarity in Theology and Science, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999. Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, Teologie van die Rede: Die Funksie van die Rasionele in die Denke van Wolfhart Pannenberg, Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1970. Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, Theology and the Justification of Faith: Constructing Theories in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988. Van Huyssteen, Wentzel, ‘Truth and Commitment in Theology and Science: An Appraisal of Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Perspective’ in Rausch Albright, Carol, Haugen, Joel (eds.), Beginning with the End-​ God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1997. Vierhaus, Rudolf, ‘Im Großbetrieb der Wissenschaft. Adolf von Harnack als Wissenschaftsorganisator und Wissenschaftspolitiker’ in Nowak, Kurt, Oexle, Otto Gerhard (eds.), Adolf von Harnack, Theologe, Historiker, Wissenschaftspolitiker, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Viola, Lora Anne, ‘US-​ amerikanische Außenpolitik unter Trump und die Krisen der Globalisierung’, Zeitschrift für Außen-​und Sicherheitspolitik, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, Vol. 10, 3, 2017. Vollnhals, Clemens, Evangelische Kirche und Entnazifizierung 1945–​1949: Die Last der nationalsozialistischen Vergangenheit, München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1989. Von Aquin, Thomas, Über sittliches Handeln: (Summa theologica I-​II q. 18-​21) Deutsch/​Latein, Schönberger, Rolf (trsl.), Stuttgart: Reclam Verlag, 2001. Von Balthazar, Hans Urs, Deiseler, Alfons, Grillmeier, Alois, Kasper, Walter, Kremer, Jacob, Lehmann, Karl, Rahner, Karl, Ratzinger, Joseph, Riedlinger, Helmut, Schneider Theodor, Stoeckle, Bernhard, Diskussion über Hans Küngs “Christ sein”, Mainz: Matthias Grünewald Verlag, 1977. Von Bülow, Vicco, Otto Weber (1902–​ 1966): reformierter Theologie und Kirchenpolitiker, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.

270

Bibliography

Von Campenhausen, Axel, ‘Staat und Religion nach dem Grundgesetz’, Humboldt-​ Universität zu Berlin (ed.), Humboldt Forum Recht, Berlin: Humboldt-​ Universität zu Berlin, 2008. Von Campenhausen, Axel, De Wall, Heinrich, Staatskirchenrecht-​Eine systematische Darstellung des Religionsverfassungsrechts in Deutschland und Europa, München: C.H. Beck Verlag, 2006. Von Harnack, Adolf, Das Wesen des Christentums: Sechzehn Vorlesungen vor Studierenden aller Fakultäten im Wintersemester 1899/​1900 an der Universität Berlin gehalten von Adolf v. Harnack, Osthövener, Claus Dieter (ed.), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Von Harnack, Adolf, ‘Die Aufgabe der theologischen Fakultäten und die allgemeine Religionsgeschichte (Berlin 1901)’ in Nowak, Kurt, Picker, Hanns-​ Christoph (eds.), Adolf von Harnack als Zeitgenosse, Reden und Schriften aus den Jahren des Kaiserreichs under Weimarer Republik, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1996. Von Harnack, Adolf, ‘Die Aufgabe der theologischen Fakultäten und die allgemeine Religionsgeschichte nebst einem Nachwort (1901)’ in Von Harnack, Adolf, Der Theologe und Historiker aus: Adolf von Harnack als Zeitgenosse: Reden und Schriften aus den Jahren des Kaiserreichs und der Weimarer Republik, Teil 1, Nowak, Kurt, Picker, Hanns-​Christoph (eds.), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996. Von Harnack, Adolf, ‘Fünfzehn Fragen an die Verächter der wissenschaftlichen Theologie unter den Theologen’, Die Christliche Welt, Leipzig: Leopold Klotz, Vol. 37, 1/​2, 1923. Von Harnack, Adolf, ‘Fünfzehn Fragen an die Verächter der wissenschaftlichen Theologie unter den Theologen (1923)’ in Moltmann, Jürgen (ed.), Anfänge der dialektischen Theologie, Teil 1, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1962. Von Harnack, Adolf, ‘Nachwort zu einem Offenen Brief an Herrn Professor Karl Barth’, Die Christliche Welt, Leipzig: Leopold Klotz, Vol. 37, 20/​21, 1923. Von Harnack, Adolf, ‘Offener Brief an Herrn Professor Karl Barth’, Die Christliche Welt, Leipzig: Leopold Klotz, Vol. 37, 9/​10, 1923. Von Humboldt, Wilhelm, Werke in fünf Bänden: Band-​4 Schriften zur Politik und Bildungswesen, Flitner, Andreas, Giel, Klaus (eds.), Darmstadt: WBG, 1960. Von Weizsäcker, Carl Friedrich, Die Einheit der Natur, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 20028. Von Weizsäcker, Christian Friedrich, Die Tragweite der Wissenschaft, Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Verlag, 1964. Weightman, Colin, Theology in a Polanyian Universe: the Theology of Thomas Torrance, New York: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, 1995.

Bibliography

271

Weiler, Julia, ‘Der Streit um Gott’, Rubin Wissenschaftsmagazin, Bochum: Rektorat der Ruhr-​Universität Bochum in Verbindung mit dem Dezernat Hochschulkommunikation (Abteilung Wissenschaftskommunikation) der Ruhr-​Universität Bochum, Vol. 28, 1, 2018. Weischedel, Wilhelm, Die philosophische Hintertreppe, München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag GmbH, 200332. Welker, Michael, ‘Habermas und Ratzinger zur Zukunft der Religion’, Evangelische Theologie, München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Vol. 68, 4, 2008. Welker, Michael (ed.), The Science and Religion Dialogue, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Gmbh Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. Welker, Michael, ‘The Science and Religion Dialogue: Past and Future’ in Welker, Michael (ed.), The Science and Religion Dialogue, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Gmbh Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. Welker, Michael, ‘What Makes Theology Theology?’, Theology Today, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 72, 2, 2015. Welker, Michael, ‘Zukunftsaufgaben evangelischer Theologie. Nach vierzig Jahren “Theologie der Hoffnung” von Jürgen Moltmann’ in Moltmann, Jürgen, Rivuzumwami, Carmen, Schlag, Thomas (eds.), Hoffnung auf Gott-​ Zukunft des Lebens. 40 Jahre “Theologie der Hoffnung”, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2005. Wenz, Gunther (ed.), Eine neue Menschheit darstellen-​ Religionsphilosophie als Weltverantwortung und Weltgestaltung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Wenz, Gunter, ‘Ein Nachruf* Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Deutsches Pfarrerblatt, Westerstede: Verband evangelischer Pfarrerinnen und Pfarrer in Deutschland e.V., Vol. 114, 10, 2014. Wenz, Gunther (ed.), Kirche und Reich Gottes: Zur Ekklesiologie Wolfhart Pannenbergs, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Wenz, Gunther, ‘Theologie der Vernunft. Zum unveröffentlichten Manuskript einer Münchner Vorlesung Wolfhart Pannenbergs vom SS 1969’ in Wenz, Gunther (ed.), Vom wahrhaft Unendlichen, Metaphysik und Theologie bei Wolfhart Pannenberg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Wenz, Gunther, ‘Vorschein des Künftigen-​Wolfgang Pannenbergs akademische Anfänge und sein Weg zur Ekklesiologie’ in Wenz, Gunther (ed.), Kirche und Reich Gottes: Zur Ekklesiologie Wolfhart Pannenbergs, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Wenz, Gunther, Vom Sinn des Ganzen. Wolfhart Pannenberg über Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie (1973), unpublished manuscript, 2015.

272

Bibliography

Wenz, Gunther, ‘Vorwort’ in Wenz, Gunther (ed.), Kirche und Reich Gottes: Zur Ekklesiologie Wolfhart Pannenbergs, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Wenz, Gunther (ed.), Vom wahrhaft Unendlichen, Metaphysik und Theologie bei Wolfhart Pannenberg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Werkner, Ines-​ Jaqueline, ‘Vorpolitische Grundlagen des demokratischen Verfassungsstaates bei Jürgen Habermas und Joseph Ratzinger’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, Baden-​Baden: Nomos Verlag, Vol. 17, 2, 2007. Westphal, Merold, ‘Hegel, Pannenberg, and Hermeneutics’, Continental Philosophy Review, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Vol. 4, 3, 1971. Westphal, Merold, ‘Hegel, Pannenberg, and Hermeneutics’, Man and World, Pittsburgh: IPR Associates, Vol. 4, 3, 1971. Weth, Rudolf, Gestrich, Christof, Solte, Ernst-​Lüder, Theologie an staatlichen Universitäten, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1972. White, Harvey W., ‘A Critique of Pannenberg’s Theology and the Philosophy of Science’, Studies in Religion, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Vol. 11, 4, 1982. Wiarda, Jan Martin, ‘Wissenschaftsfreiheit’, DSW Journal, Berlin: Deutsches Studentenwerk, Vol. 9, 1, 2017. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Weiterentwicklung von Theologien und religionsbezogenen Wissenschaften an deutschen Hochschulen, Köln: Sutorius Printmedien, 2010. Wisser, Richard, ‘Jaspers, Karl’ in Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), Neue Deutsche Bibliographie (NDB) Band 10, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1974. Wöhler, Hans-​Ulrich, Dialektik in der mittelalterlichen Philosophie, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006. Wolin, Richard, Heidegger’s Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Löwith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. Worthing, Mark William, Foundations and Functions of Theology as Universal Science: Theological Method and Apologetic Praxis in Wolfhart Pannenberg and Karl Rahner, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Gmbh Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1996. Yarhi-​Milo, Keren, ‘After Credibility-​American Foreign Policy in the Trump Era’, Foreign Affairs, New York: Council on Foreign Relations. Vol. 97, 1, 2018. Zahrnt, Heinz, Die Sache mit Gott, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1972.

Bibliography

273

Zierold, Kurt, Forschungsförderung in drei Epochen: deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Geschichte, Arbeitsweise, Kommentar, Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag, 1968.

News articles and websites Arnold, Rolf, ‘Bildung statt Bologna’ in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Zürich: NZZ Medienmanagement AG, 21.11.2014. Bell, George Allan Kennedy, Bishop of Chichester, George, ‘Bombing Policy’, Commons and Lords Hansard website (http://​hans​ard.mill​bank​syst​ems.com/​ lords/​1944/​feb/​09/​bomb​ing-​pol​icy; accessed June 2015). Bochinger, Christoph, ‘Vielfalt der Religionen und religionswissenschaftliche Kompetenz –​Die Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrats im Horizont säkularer Kulturwissenschaften’, Wissenschaftsrat website (https://​www.wisse​nsch​ afts​rat.de/​index.php?area=​&ptyp=​&year=​&keyw​ord=​Theolo​gie&suc​hen =​ suchen&id=​836&rpp=​&searchdata=​1&L=​0; accessed May 2018). Boutin, Paul, ‘The Secretive World of Selling Data about You’, Newsweek website (http://​www.newsw​eek.com/​secret​ive-​world-​sell​ing-​data-​about-​you-​464​789; accessed January 2018). Brumm Dieter, Gumnior, Helmut, Dänicke, Heinz, ‘Wozu heute noch Philosophie? Spiegel-​Gespräch mit dem Philosophen Karl Löwith’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 20.10.1969. Bucher, Eva, ‘Der Untergang der Fakten’, Die Zeit website (http://​www.zeit. de/​2016/​46/​wisse​nsch​aft-​fak​ten-​poli​tik-​pos​tfak​tisc​hes-​zeital​ter; accessed June 2017). Clayton, Philip, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg-​In Memoriam’, Patheos website (http://​ www.path​eos.com/​blogs/​tonyjo​nes/​2014/​09/​07/​wolfh​art-​pan​nenb​erg-​1928-​ 2014/​; accessed March 2015). Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, ‘The Bologna Process 2020-​The European Higher Education Area in the new decade’, European Higher Education Area website (http://​media.ehea.info/​ file/​2009​_​L eu​ven_​L ouv​ain-​la-​Neuve/​06/​1/​L eu​ven_​L ouv​ain-​la-​Neuve_​C​ ommu​niqu​e_​Ap​ril_​2009​_​595​061.pdf; accessed May 2018). Crouch, Andy, ‘The Future Shape of Theological Education’, Catalyst website (http://​www.cataly​stre​sour​ces.org/​the-​fut​ure-​shape-​of-​theo​logi​cal-​educat​ ion/​; accessed July 2018). Dahrendorf, Ralf, ‘Eine aktive Bildungspolitik für Deutschland’ in Die Zeit, Hamburg: Zeitverlag Gerd Bucerius GmbH, 12.11.1965.

274

Bibliography

Deckers, Daniel, ‘Und vergib uns unsere Geduld’ in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt: FAZ Verlag, 22.10.2016. Dennett, Daniel, ‘Dennett on Wieseltier vs. Pinkett in The New Republic’, Edge website (https://​www.edge.org/​conve​rsat​ion/​denn​ett-​on-​wie​selt​ier-​v-​pin​ker-​ in-​the-​new-​repub​lic; accessed April 2018). Edmunds, Bernhard, Lechtenböhmer, Silke, ‘Zur Lage des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses in der Katholischen Theologie’, Deutsche Bischofskonferenz website (https://​www.dbk.de/​filead​min/​redakt​ion/​divers​e_​do​wnlo​ads/​pre​ sse/​2012-​036b-​Studi​e_​Na​chwu​chs_​Kath​olis​che-​Theolo​gie.pdf; accessed July 2017). Edmunds, Bernhard, ‘Zur Lage des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses in der katholischen Kirche-​ Neue empirische Ergebnisse unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Daten zu Theologinnen’, Katholischer Theologischer Fakultätentag website (http://​kthf.de/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2017/​03/​Praese​ ntat​ion-​Nach​wuch​sstu​die-​2016-​KTF.pdf; accessed December 2017). Essen, Georg, ‘Ein ganz Großer unserer Zunft! Ein Nachruf auf Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Theologie und Kirche website (http://​www.theolo​gie-​und-​kir​ che.de/​nach​ruf-​pan​nenb​erg.pdf; accessed November 2014). Fels, Katja M., Schmidt, Christoph M., Sinning, Matthias G., ‘Für sozialverträgliche Studiengebühren’ in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt: FAZ Verlag, 05.06.2015. Funk, Cary, Rainie, Lee, Smith, Aaron, Olmstead, Kenneth, Duggan, Maeve, Page, Dana, ‘Public and Scientists Views on Science and Society’, Pew Research Center website (http://​www.pewi​nter​net.org/​2015/​01/​29/​pub​lic-​and-​sci​enti​ sts-​views-​on-​scie​nce-​and-​soci​ety/​; accessed September 2018). Glenz, Tobias, ‘So bleibt die deutsche Hochschultheologie zukunftsfähig’, Katholisch.de website (http://​www.kat​holi​sch.de/​aktuel​les/​aktue​lle-​arti​ kel/​so-​ble​ibt-​die-​deuts​che-​hoc​hsch​ulth​eolo​gie-​zukunf​t sfa​hig; accessed June 2018). Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Ein Gott zum Kuscheln’ in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt: FAZ Verlag, 27.03.2011. Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Kein steiles Zeugnis’ in FAZ Beilage/​Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt: FAZ Verlag, 22.10.2010. Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Vernünftig glauben-​Der Theologe Wolfhart Pannenberg wird siebzig’ in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Zürich: NZZ Medienmanagement AG, 02.10.1998. Harenberg, Werner, ‘Ist Jesus auferstanden wie Goethe’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 25.07.1966.

Bibliography

275

Hulme, Mike, ‘The Appliance of Science’, The Guardian website (https://​www. theg​uard​ian.com/​soci​ety/​2007/​mar/​14/​sci​ence​ofcl​imat​echa​nge.climat​echa​ nge; accessed, May 2018). Hür, Kemal, ‘DITIB-​ Ankaras Einfluss auf deutschen Moscheeverband’, Deutschlandfunk website (http://​www.deut​schl​andf​unk.de/​ditib-​anka​ras-​ einfl​uss-​auf-​deutsc​hen-​mos​chee​verb​and.724.de.html?dram:art​icle​_​id=​409​ 350; accessed May 2018). Jarmul, Katharine, ‘Deep Learning Blindspots’, Chaos Communication Congress website (https://​media.ccc.de/​v/​34c3-​8860-​deep_​lear​ning​_​bli​ndsp​ots; accessed January 2018). Kehler, Marie Lisa, ‘Pfarrermangel-​Neuer Studiengang soll Abhilfe schaffen’ in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt: FAZ Verlag, 13.02.2018. Kern, Heinrich, ‘Humboldt’s Educational Ideal and Modern Academic Education’, Danube Rectos Conference website (http://​www.drc.uns.ac.rs/​presen​tati​ons; accessed November 2015). Kubitza, Hans Werner, ‘Lehre unter Denkmalschutz’ in Der Tagesspiegel, Berlin: Tagesspiegel GmbH, 04.04.2015. Kuby, Erich, ‘Die Russen in Berlin’, Der Spiegel website (http://​www.spie​gel.de/​ spie​gel/​print/​d-​46272​516.html; accessed May 2015). Lenzen, Dieter, ‘Humboldt aufpoliert’ in Die Zeit, Hamburg: Zeitverlag Gerd Bucerius GmbH, 15.03.2012. Levin, Christoph, ‘Gottesdienst zum Abschied von Wolfhart Pannenberg’, Ludwig Maximilians Universität website (http://​www.evth​eol.uni-​ muenchen. de/​aktuelles/​unigottesdienste/​trauergottesdienst_​pannenberg.pdf; accessed March 2016). Löwith, Karl, ‘War Jesus ein Gentleman?’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​ Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 03.04.1967. Lynas, Mark, ‘Even in 2015, the public doesn’t trust scientists’, The Washington Post website (https://​www.was​hing​tonp​ost.com/​gdpr-​cons​ent/​?dest​inat​ ion=​%2fpos​teve​r yth​ing%2fwp%2f2​015%2f01%2f30%2fe​ven-​in-​2015-​the-​ pub​lic-​doe​snt-​trust-​sci​enti​sts%2f%3f&utm_​t​erm=​.50527​55f8​a7e; accessed September 2018). Mulligan, Kevin, ‘The Great Divide’ in The Times Supplement, London: Times Newspapers, 26.06.1998. Molla, Rani, ‘Tech Companies Spend More on R&D than any Other Companies in the U.S. Amazon is No. 1’. Recode website (https://​www.rec​ode.net/​2017/​9/​1/​16236​ 506/​tech-​ama​zon-​apple-​gdp-​spend​ing-​produ​ctiv​ity; accessed December 2017).

276

Bibliography

Moylan, Elisabeth, ‘Inappropriate Manipulation of Peer Review’, BioMed Central website (https://​blogs.biomed​cent​ral.com/​bmcb​log/​2015/​03/​26/​manip​ulat​ ion-​peer-​rev​iew/​; accessed July 2018). N.a. ‘About HMC’, Harvard Management Company website (http://​www.hmc. harv​ard.edu/​; accessed March 2018). N.a., ‘Annual Reports, Proxies and Shareholder Letters’, Amazon Corporate IR net website (http://​phx.corpor​ate-​ir.net/​phoe​nix.zhtml?c=​97664&p=​irol-​ report​sann​ual; accessed December 2017). N.a., ‘Article 13 –​Freedom of the Arts and Sciences’, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights website (http://​fra.eur​opa.eu/​en/​chart​erpe​dia/​arti​cle/​ 13-​free​dom-​arts-​and-​scien​ces; accessed November 2017). N.a., ‘Bundesbeamtengesetz §10 Ernennung’, Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz website (https://​www.gese​tze-​im-​inter​net.de/​bbg_​2​ 009/​_​_​10.html; accessed October 2018). N.a., ‘Darf sich Theologie Wissenschaft nennen’, Ruhr Uni Bochum website (http://​aktu​ell.ruhr-​uni-​boc​hum.de/​pm2​016/​pm00​068.html.de; accessed April 2017). N.a., ‘Das volle Leben’, Das volle Leben website (https://​www.das-​volle-​leben.de/​ das-​volle-​leben.php; accessed July 2017). N.a., ‘Dr. Dr. Benedikt Paul Göcke-​ Lehrstuhl für Philosophisch-​ TheologischeGrenzfragen’, Ruhr Universität Bochum website (http://​ www.kath.ruhr-​uni-​boc​hum.de/​ph-​th/​team/​goe​cke/​index.html; accessed May 2018). N.a., ‘Drucksache 18/​ 13059, Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Volker Beck (Köln), Kai Gehring, Luise Amtsberg, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion BÜNDNIS 90/​ DIE GRÜNEN-​ Drucksache 18/​12741’, Deutscher Bundestag website (http://​dip21.bundes​tag. de/​dip21/​btd/​18/​130/​1813​059.pdf; accessed August 2017). N.a., ‘Drucksache 13/​7221 vom 13.03.1997’, Deutscher Bundestag website (http://​ dip21.bundes​tag.de/​dip21/​btd/​13/​072/​1307​221; accessed October 2016). N.a., ‘Die Katechese über die natürliche Schöpfung’, Vatican website (http://​ www.vati​can.va/​arch​ive/​DEU0​035/​_​P1G.HTM#NK; accessed July 2017). N.a., ‘Diese Professoren’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 19.02.1968. N.a., Education at a Glance 2017-​ Country note Germany, OECD website (https://​www.oecd-​ilibr​ary.org/​docser​ver/​eag-​2017-​48-​en.pdf?expi​res=​152​ 8378​108&id=​id&accn​ame=​guest&check​sum=​9A316​32C5​7212​1154​54C8​ 2EB1​2AA6​C70; accessed June 2018).

Bibliography

277

N.a., ‘Erklärung zu dem Buch “Christ sein” von Professor Dr. Hans Küng’, Deutsche Bischofskonferenz website (http://​www.dbk.de/​filead​min/​redakt​ion/​vero​effe​ ntli​chun​gen/​deuts​che-​bischo​efe/​DB13.pdf; accessed December 2017). N.a., ‘Evangelische Kirche sucht Tausende neue Pfarrer-​Nachwuchssorgen trotz mehr Studenten’, Domradio website (https://​www.domra​dio.de/​the​men/​ %C3%B6kum​ene/​2017-​03-​06/​evang​elis​che-​kir​che-​sucht-​tause​nde-​neue-​ pfar​rer; accessed December 2017). N.a., ‘Evangelische Kirche sucht Tausende neue Pfarrerinnen und Pfarrer’, Evangelisch.de website (https://​www.evan​geli​sch.de/​inha​lte/​142​490/​06-​03-​ 2017/​evang​elis​che-​kir​che-​sucht-​den-​kommen​den-​jah​ren-​tause​nde-​pfar​rer; accessed December 2017). N.a., ‘Forschung und Entwicklung’, Statistisches Bundesamt website (https://​ www.desta​ t is.de/​ DE/​ Z ahle​ n Fak​ ten/​ G esell​ s cha​ f tSt​ a at/​ Bil​ dung​ Fors​ chun​ gKul​tur/​Forsc​hung​Entw​ickl​ung/​Forsc​hung​Entw​ickl​ung.html; accessed December 2017). N.a., ‘Gefährdete Wissenschaftler erhalten Schutz in Deutschland: Philipp Schwartz-​Initiative fördert 56 weitere Stipendiaten’, Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung website (https://​www.humbo​ldt-​fou​ndat​ion.de/​web/​press​emit​teil​ ung-​2017-​17.html; accessed May 2018). N.a., ‘Georg Picht’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 18.08.1965. N.a., ‘Gross Domestic Spending on R&D’, OECD Data website (https://​data.oecd. org/​rd/​gross-​domes​tic-​spend​ing-​on-​r-​d.html; accessed December 2017). N.a., ‘Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Art. 5’, Bundesministerium der Justiz und Verbraucherschutz website (https://​www. gese​tze-​im-​inter​net.de/​gg/​art_​5.html; accessed November 2017). N.a., ‘Hamburg Protocol’, Hochschulrektorenkonferenz website (https://​ www.hrk.de/​uplo​ads/​media/​fin_​H​TULC​_​Ham​burg​_​Pro​toco​l_​DE​_​01.pdf, accessed March 2017). N.a., ‘Heidegger-​Rückfall ins Gestell’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 06.04.1950. N.a., ‘Hochschulen’, Statistisches Bundesamt website (https://​www-​gene​sis.desta​ tis.de/​gene​sis/​onl​ine/​data;sid=​00AE3​F1D4​192E​2433​AAA2​55CF​4F72​664. GO_​2_​3?operat​ion=​sta​tist​iken​Verz​eich​nisN​extS​tep&lev​elin​dex=​0&leve​lid=​ 153682​5618​331&index=​4&str​uctu​rele​vel=​3; accessed April 2018). N.a., ‘Home’, March for Science website (https://​www.marc​hfor​scie​nce.com/​; accessed May 2018). N.a., ‘Home’, The Yale Investments Office website (http://​inve​stme​nts.yale.edu/​; accessed March 2018).

278

Bibliography

N.a., ‘Islamische Theologie’, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung website (https://​www.bmbf.de/​de/​isl​amis​che-​theolo​gie-​367.html; accessed August 2017). N.a., ‘Karl Barth-​Kunde vom unbekannten Gott’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​ Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 23.12.1959. N.a., ‘Kirchenaustritte in Deutschland’, Kirchenaustritt website (www. kirchenaustritt.de; accessed March 2017). N.a., ‘Kirchen verlieren mehr als eine halbe Million Mitglieder’, Die Zeit website (http://​www.zeit.de/​gesel​lsch​aft/​2016-​07/​chris​ten-​kir​che-​mit​glie​der-​rueckg​ ang; accessed June 2017). N.a., ‘Laschet: Katholische Fakultät in Bochum ist gesichert’, Katholisch.de website (http://​www.kat​holi​sch.de/​aktuel​les/​aktue​lle-​arti​kel/​lasc​het-​kath​olis​che-​ fakul​tat-​in-​boc​hum-​ist-​gesich​ert; accessed June 2018). N.a., ‘Legal case C44/​ 16’, (http://​curia.eur​opa.eu/​juris/​docum​ent/​docum​ent. jsf ?text=​&docid=​201​148&pageIn​dex=​0&docl​ang=​EN&mode=​req&dir=​ &occ=​first&part=​1; accessed June 2018). N.a., ‘Les collections du Musée des Archives nationales –​AE/​II/​2991 –​’, Ministère de la Culture website (http://​www.cult​ure.gouv.fr/​Wave/​image/​arc​him/​Pages/​ 04816.htm; accessed January 2018). N.a., ‘Mitglieder’, Wissenschaftsrat website (https://​www.wisse​nsch​afts​rat.de/​ ueber-​uns/​mit​glie​der.html; accessed January 2018). N.a., ‘Moltmann-​Kinder des Protests’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 29.04.1968. N.a., ‘Muff im Talar’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 20.11.1967. N.a., ‘Notstand-​Lücken der Nation’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 29.07.1964. N.a., ‘Overview’, Gifford lectures website (http://​giff​ordl​ectu​res.org; accessed June 2017). N.a., ‘Religious Organizations in the US Market Research’, IBIS World website (https://​www.ibiswo​rld.com/​indus​try/​defa​ult.aspx?indid=​1743; accessed March 2017). N.a., ‘Research and Development statistics’, OECD website (http://​www.oecd. org/​inn​ovat​ion/​inno/​research​andd​evel​opme​ntst​atis​tics​rds.html; accessed March 2017). N.a., ‘The Requirement of Religious Affiliation for a Post within the Church must be Amenable to Effective Judicial Review’, Court of Justice of the European

Bibliography

279

Union website (https://​curia.eur​opa.eu/​jcms/​upl​oad/​docs/​appl​icat​ion/​pdf/​ 2018-​04/​cp1​8004​6en.pdf; accessed May 2018). N.a., ‘Scientificality’, English Oxford Living Dictionaries website (https://​en.oxf​ ordd​icti​onar​ies.com/​def​i nit​ion/​scie​ntif​i cal​ity; accessed May 2018). N.a., ‘Startseite’, Evangelisch-​Theologischer Fakultätentag website (http://​www. evth​eol.fak​ulta​eten​tag.de/​; accessed June 2018). N.a., ‘Theology –​Revelation & History’ in Time Magazine, New York: Time Inc., 14.07.1967. N.a., ‘Über uns’, Evangelische Akademien website (http://​www.evang​elis​che-​ akadem​ien.de/​; accessed June 2018). N.a., ‘… Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung. Vom gespaltenen Atom zum gespaltenen Gewissen-​Die Geschichte einer menschheitsgefährdenden Waffe’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 08.05.1957. N.a., ‘Uta Ranke-​Heinemann’ in Der Spiegel, Hamburg: Spiegel-​Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH, 10.08.1987. N.a., ‘Vision, Mission and Impact’, John Templeton Foundation website (https://​ www.temple​ton.org/​about/​vis​ion-​miss​ion-​imp​act; accessed December 2017). N.a., ‘Warning Regarding the Writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin, Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office’, EWTN Global Catholic Network website (https://​www.ewtn.com/​libr​ary/​CURIA/​CDFTE​ILH.HTM; accessed August 2017). N.a., ‘Wir über uns’, Kultusministerkonferenz website (http://​www.kmk.org/​wir-​ ueber-​uns/​gruend​ung-​und-​zusa​mmen​setz​ung.html; accessed June 2015). N.a., ‘Zentralkomitee der Katholiken will Stellung von Laien in Gemeinden aufwerten’, Stern.de website (https://​www.stern.de/​news/​zen​tral​komi​tee-​der-​ kat​holi​ken-​will-​stell​ung-​von-​laien-​in-​gemein​den-​aufwer​ten-​7355​668.html; accessed December 2017). Nastarowitz, Konstanze, ‘Quereinsteiger gesucht’ in Die Zeit, Hamburg: Zeitverlag Gerd Bucerius GmbH, 15.09.2017. Nath, Dörthe, ‘Der NS Muff ist vertrieben’, Süddeutsche Zeitung website (http://​ www.suedd​euts​che.de/​karri​ere/​er-​revo​lte-​der-​ns-​muff-​ist-​ver​trie​ben-​1.355​ 603; accessed October 2014). Nelson, Libby A., ‘Some philosophy scholars raise concerns about Templeton funding’, Inside higher ed website (https://​www.ins​ideh​ighe​red.com/​news/​ 2013/​05/​21/​some-​phi​loso​phy-​schol​ars-​raise-​conce​rns-​about-​temple​ton-​ fund​ing; accessed April 2017).

280

Bibliography

Newport Frank, ‘Percentage of Christians in U.S. Drifting Down, but Still High’, Gallup website (http://​www.gal​lup.com/​poll/​187​955/​per​cent​age-​chr​isti​ans-​ drift​ing-​down-​high.aspx; accessed April 2017). Oeming, Manfred, ‘Rad, Gerhard von (1901–​1971)’, Bibelwissenschaft website (http://​www.bibelw​isse​nsch​aft.de/​wibi​lex/​das-​bibel​lexi​kon/​lexi​kon/​sachw​ ort/​anzei​gen/​deta​ils/​rad-​gerh​ard-​von/​ch/​b4f17​ba0f​c42e​115c​3eb6​08ea​d9d3​ 30c; accessed June 2015). Oord, Thomas Jay, ‘Confessions of a Trinitarian Evolutionist’, Metanexus website (http://​www.metane​xus.net/​essay/​conf​essi​ons-​trin​itar​ian-​evolu​tion​ist; accessed December 2017). Oord, Thomas Jay, ‘Pannenberg Dies; An Interview’, Thomas Jay Oord website (http://​thomas​jayo​ord.com/​index.php/​blog/​archi​ves/​panne​nber​g_​di​es_​a​n_​ in​terv​iew; accessed March 2016). Pazzanese, Christina, ‘Politics in a Post-​truth Age’, Harvard Gazette website (https://​news.harv​ard.edu/​gaze​tte/​story/​2016/​07/​polit​ics-​in-​a-​post-​truth-​ age/​; accessed May 2018). Pope, Francis, ‘Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium on ecclesial universities and faculties’, Vatican website (https://​press.vati​can.va/​cont​ent/​sal​asta​ mpa/​en/​bol​lett​ino/​pubbl​ico/​2018/​01/​29/​1801​29c.html; accessed June 2018). Pope, John Paul II., ‘Ad Tuendam Fidem’, Vatican website (http://​w2.vati​can.va/​ cont​ent/​john-​paul-​ii/​de/​motu_​prop​rio/​docume​nts/​hf_​jp-​ii_​m​otu-​prop​rio_​ 3006​1998​_​ad-​tuen​dam-​fidem.html; accessed September 2017). Pope, John Paul II., Apostolic Constitution Sapientia Christiana of the Supreme Pontiff Pope John Paul II on ecclesiastical universities and faculties, Vatican website (http://​w2.vati​can.va/​cont​ent/​john-​paul-​ii/​en/​apos​t_​co​nsti​tuti​ons/​ docume​nts/​hf_​jp-​ii_​apc​_​150​4197​9_​sa​pien​tia-​chr​isti​ana.html; accessed June 2018). Pope Leo XIII., ‘Providentissimus Deus’, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII. On the study of the Holy Scripture, Vatican website (http://​w2.vati​can.va/​cont​ent/​ leo-​xiii/​en/​ency​clic​als/​docume​nts/​hf_​l-​xiii_​en​c_​18​1118​93_​p​rovi​dent​issi​ mus-​deus.html; accessed December 2017). Pope, Pius X., Sacrorum Antistitum* Quo Quaedam Statuunturleges Ad Modernismi Periculum Propulsandum (Septembris 1910), Vatican website (https://​w2.vati​can.va/​cont​ent/​pius-​x/​la/​motu_​prop​rio/​docume​nts/​ hf_​p-​x_​m​otu-​propri​o_​19​1009​01_​s​acro​rum-​ant​isti​tum.html; accessed November 2017). Pruvot, Enora Bennetot, Estermann Thomas, Kupriyanova, Veronika, ‘Public Funding Observatory Report 2017’, European University Association website

Bibliography

281

(http://​www.eua.be/​Librar​ies/​gov​erna​nce-​auton​omy-​fund​ing/​eua-​pfo-​rep​ ortd​ecem​ber2​017.pdf?sfv​rsn=​2?utm​_​sou​rce=​webp​age&utm​_​med​ium=​publ​ icat​ion&utm_​n​ame=​publ​icat​ion-​webp​age-​12-​12-​2017; accessed April 2018). Rorty, Richard, ‘Wissen deutsche Politiker, wozu Universitäten da sind?’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung website (http://​www.faz.net/​aktu​ell/​feu​ille​ ton/​rich​ard-​rorty-​wis​sen-​deuts​che-​politi​ker-​wozu-​uni​vers​itae​ten-​da-​sind-​ 1177​778.html; accessed November 2015). Sanders, Fred, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928-​ 2014), Theological Outflanker’, Scriptorium Daily website (http://​scrip​tori​umda​ily.com/​wolfh​art-​pan​nenb​ erg-​1928-​2014-​theo​logi​cal-​out​flan​ker; accessed March 2015). Schneider, Nathan, ‘God, Science and Philanthropy’, The Nation website (https://​www.thenat​ion.com/​arti​cle/​god-​scie​nce-​and-​phila​nthr​opy; accessed April 2017). Schwabe, Uta, ‘Durchaus spannungsvoll-​Leben und Werk des Alttestamentlers Gerhard von Rad’, Universität Heidelberg website (http://​www.uni-​hei​delb​ erg.de/​pre​sse/​uni​spie​gel/​us3_​2​001/​rad.html; accessed June 2015). Singhammer, Johannes, ‘Kirche und Politik: Geht auseinander!’, Die Zeit website (http://​www.zeit.de/​2017/​08/​kir​che-​poli​tik-​trenn​ung-​saeku​lar-​staat; accessed April 2018). Sippenauer, Maximilian, ‘Ein Doktortitel fürs Widerkäuen’, Süddeutsche website (http://​www.suedd​euts​che.de/​bild​ung/​geiste​swis​sens​chaf​t en-​ein-​dokt​orti​tel-​ fuers-​wiede​rkae​uen-​1.3715​908; accessed June 2018). Stöcker, Christian, ‘Forschung der Tech-​ Konzerne-​ Die Privatisierung der Intelligenz’, Der Spiegel website (http://​www.spie​gel.de/​wisse​nsch​aft/​men​sch/​ ki-​forsch​ung-​die-​pri​vati​sier​ung-​der-​inte​llig​enz-​kolu​mne-​a-​1186​449.html; accessed January 2018). Terry, Susan, ‘Guilty of reason’ in Time Magazine, New York: Time Inc., 08.03.1976. Von Weizsäcker, Carl Friedrich, ‘Gedenken an Günther Howe-​Mittler zwischen Ideologie und Naturwissenschaft’ in Die Zeit, Hamburg: Zeitverlag Gerd Bucerius GmbH, 08.11.1968. Wensierski, Peter, ‘Gottes junge Hirtinnen’, Der Spiegel website (http://​www.spie​ gel.de/​leb​enun​dler​nen/​uni/​boomf​ach-​theolo​gie-​got​tes-​junge-​hirtin​nen-​a-​ 608​097.html; accessed December 2017). Wenz, Günther, ‘Glaube, Geschichte und Vernunft’ in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Zürich: NZZ Medienmanagement AG, 10.09.2014.

282

Bibliography

Wenz, Gunther, ‘40 Jahre Evangelische Theologie an der Ludwig-​Maximilians-​ Universität München’, Ludwig Maximilians Universität website (http://​ www.evth​eol.uni-​muenc​hen.de/​fakult​aet/​ges​chic​hte/​index.html; accessed May 2015). Wiarda, Jan Martin, ‘Theologie im Paradies’, Die Zeit website (http://​www.zeit. de/​2012/​28/​C-​Theolo​gie; accessed March 2017). Wilckens, Ulrich, ‘Nachruf: Die Auferstehung Jesu ist eine historische Tatsache’, Idea Spektrum website (http://​www.idea.de/​nach​rich​ten/​det​ail/​spekt​rum/​det​ ail/​die-​aufer​steh​ung-​jesu-​ist-​eine-​hist​oris​che-​tatsa​che-​87850.html; accessed November 2014). Yardley, William, ‘Ian Barbour –​Who Found a Balance between Faith and Science, Dies at 90’ in The New York Times, New York: New York Times Company, 13.01.2014.

Contributions to Philosophical Theology Edited by Gijsbert van den Brink, Joshua R. Furnal and Marcel Sarot

Vol.

1 Gijsbert van den Brink / Marcel Sarot (eds.): Understanding the Attributes of God. 1999.

Vol.

2 Marcel Sarot / Gijsbert van den Brink (eds.): Identity and Change in the Christian Tradition. 1999.

Vol.

3 Marcel Sarot: Living a Good Life of Evil. 1999.

Vol.

4 William Hasker / David Basinger / Eef Dekker (eds.): Middle Knowledge. Theory and Applications. 2000.

Vol.

5 Wybren de Jong: Identities of Christian Traditions. An Alternative for Essentialism. 2000.

Vol.

6 Eeva Martikainen (ed.): Infinity, Causality and Determinism. Cosmological Enterprises and their Preconditions. 2002.

Vol.

7 Gerrit Brand: Speaking of a Fabulous Ghost. In Search of Theological Criteria, with Special Reference to the Debate on Salvation in African Christian Theology. 2002.

Vol.

8 Guus Labooy: Freedom and Dispositions. Two Main Concepts in Theology and Biological Psychiatry, a systematic Analysis. 2002.

Vol. Vol.

9 Wilko van Holten: Explanation within the Bounds of Religion. 2003. 10 Santiago Sia: Religion, Reason and God. Essays in the Philosophies of Charles Hartshorne and A.N. Whitehead. 2004.

Vol.

11 Arjan Markus: Beyond Finitude. God’s Transcendence and the Meaning of Life. 2004.

Vol.

12 Gijsbert van den Brink: Philosophy of Science for Theologians. An Introduction. 2009.

Vol.

13 Sze Sze Chiew: Middle Knowledge and Biblical Interpretation. Luis de Molina, Herman Bavinck, and William Lane Craig. 2016.

Vol.

14 Timothy Weatherstone: Reconstructing Wonder. Chemistry Informing a Natural Theology. 2017.

Vol.

15 Katrin Gülden Le Maire: Pannenberg, the Positioning of Academic Theology and Philosophy of Science. An Evaluation of the Work in the German Context. 2022.

www.peterlang.de