Reconsidering the Doctrine of God 9780567660749

Citation preview

FOREWORD

IT IS A PLEASURE FOR ME to write a foreword to Charles Gutenson's book. for quite a number of years, I had the privilege of observing the growth of this work and of engaging in occasional exchange with the author on particular issues. I feel very satisfied with the final result of his investigations and with his presentation. Charles Gutenson not only provides an accurate presentation of my views with much detail and precision, but he also engages in critical discussions with their content, including the reactions of some of my critics. I agree with most of his conclusions. A particularly helpful element of Gutenson's discussion centers on the concept of eternity and its relevance to issues such as divine omniscience, especially to his extensive treatment of my proposal to interpret the biblical idea of God as spirit in terms of a field of power as suggested by the root meaning of the biblical term. Gutenson's treatment of this issue offers the best commentary presently available. He is correct that I use the term "field" in an analogical sense as compared to the various field concepts of the physicists. This should be clear already from the fact that the "field" of the divine spirit does not have waves that can be counted, as I repeatedly emphasize. Of course the divine spirit is not identical with any field of physics, not even with the universal fields of space-time and energy. The divine spirit is understood to be the ultimate source and comprehensive condition of all physical field effects. Furthermore, the divine spirit (as a

VII

CHAPTER 1

Introd uction

How DOES ONE PREDICT the significance that a theologian's career will have when his first few publications begin to appear? Interestingly, with the publication of Revelation as History (German: Offenbarung als Geschichte) in 1961, many suspected that one or more significant theological careers had been launched. The work was authored by a group of seven young German philosophers and theologians, sometimes referred to as the "Heidelberg Circle."1 The group had undertaken inquiry into a broad range of theological issues, as suggested by the different theses identified and defended in the final form of the work. At the time that the work started, all in the original group were in the midst of doctoral programs at the University of Heidelberg, and ten years would pass before Revelation as History would be published. The members of the group represented various fields and initially included Rolf Rendtorff (Old Testament), Klaus Koch (Old Testament), Ulrich Wilkens (New Testament), and Dietrich Roessler (New Testament). Added somewhat after the initial formation of the group were Trutz Rendtorff (systematic theology) and Martin Elze (church history).2 The other systematic theologian of the group, considered by many its leader, was Wolfhart Pannenberg. It was a fitting first step for Pannenberg, whose work would continually delight, challenge, and frustrate (depending 1. Later it would often be referred to as the Pannenberg Circle. 2. This information is from W. Pannenberg, Theology and the Kingdom of God (ed. R. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 16.

J. Neuhaus;

CHAPTER 2

Pannenberg and Theological Method

ONE OF PANNENBERG'S OBJECTIVES is to reestablish the intellectual credibility of the Christian faith. He believes that its credibility has suffered at the hands of Christian believers (theologians, pastors) who, though well intentioned, have often failed to adequately engage atheistic (or other) challenges to Christian truth claims. In fact, he has sometimes argued that Christian philosophers and theologians who do not take with adequate seriousness the criticisms of, for example, fichte and Feuerbach are still operating in a precritical mode. 23 As one might expect, then, a fundamental element of Pannenberg's method involves demonstrating that the Christian faith has the intellectual resources to secure a place in the marketplace of public debate by facing directly the challenges raised to it. Of course, in order to join the public intellectual marketplace, one must be willing to be guided in debate by some minimal set of shared, reasonably neutral presuppositions. Pannenberg believes that appropriate presuppositions are those that can be derived from reflections, at the philosophical level, concerning the sciences. Consequently, Pannenberg argues in some detail in Theology and the Philosophy of Science that theology is a science, specifically the science of God. Coupled with, and perhaps exacerbating, these matters is a datum of human existence that Pannenberg takes as fundamental: the debatability of 23. Related in personal conversation between December 1993 and February 1994.

13

CHAPTER 3

The Role of the Infinite in Pannenberg"s Doctrine of God

IN TilE PRECEDING CHAPTER, we saw how Pannenberg deployed the concept of the infinite as part of his justification of religious belief. However, given that Pannenberg is proposing to elevate the importance of the category of the infinite within the Christian doctrine of God and, hence, in his theology, we must attend to several of the concerns that arise with deployment of this notion in theological/philosophical contexts. It is not my intent to develop the concept of the infinite in exhaustive detaip40 or to examine all of the implications for Pannenberg's theology. Rather, the fundamental questions relate whether the concept of the infinite can reasonably be applied to God, and if so, how. Intuitions on these questions are deeply divided. The Christian tradition has not had a single voice on the relation of infinity to the doctrine of God. For example, Origen wrote: "We must maintain that even the power of God is finite, and we must not, under the pretext of praising him, lose sight of his limitations. For if the divine power were infinite, of necessity it could not even understand itself, since the infinite is by its nature incomprehensible."141 140. For a more thorough examination of these issues, see A. W. Moore, The Infinite (London: Routledge, 1990). 141. Origen, On First Principles (trans. G. W. Butterworth; Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1973), 129. We ought not immediately assume that Origen is seeking to "finitize" God; rather, what we see here is the tendency to conceive infinity as a negative category within the philosophical tradition to which Origen was heir.

59

CHAPTER 4

God. the Future. and Human Freedom

As WE EXTEND OUR EXAMINATION into the details of Pannenberg's doctrine of God, we will have the opportunity to explore a number of innovative proposals that are part of his attempt to move the theological enterprise in the direction of a "rather radical revision"197 to the classical doctrine 198 of God. In this chapter, I examine one of the proposals that has consistently engendered a great deal of critical response, specifically, his emphasis upon the futurity of God. Pannenberg expresses this in a variety of ways. For example, in several places he refers to God as the power of the future (die Macht der Zukunft). In others, he expands the notion somewhat to call God the power of the future that determines everything that exists. 199 Pannenberg's close connection between the idea of God and the future has a significant role to play in the manner in which his overall theological enterprise is understood. Some have gone so far as to argue that futurity is the fundamental category of his work, while others have used his orientation toward the future as the basis for grouping his work as part of the "theology of hope" movement. 200 However one characterizes Pannen197. W. Pannenberg, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 23. J 98. Again, I use this phrase for convenience, not because there is such a thing as the classical doctrine of God. 199. For a detailed discussion of these connections, sec W. Panncnherg, "The God of Hope," in Basic Questions in Theology (vol. 2; trans. G. II. Kehm; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971),234-49. 200. Sec, for example, S. ./. Grenz and R. E. Olson, 20th Century Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 170 n. 99.

91

CHAPTER 5

Father. Son. and Holy Spirit: The One God

WE LIVE DURING A TIME of resurging interest in the doctrine of the Trinity. What is perhaps more remarkable is the fact that recovery of Trinitarian doctrine has been necessary from time to time. Of course, the most significant objection to the Trinitarian conception of God, which has been raised by those inside as well as outside the Christian faith, is the challenge to the very coherence of the idea. How can one coherently affirm monotheism while at the same time affirming that this one God is constituted by three persons? To many, this has sounded like polytheism. The Cappadocian fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, and Basil the Great) are generally credited with working out the technical language of the Trinitarian doctrine: The Godhead is composed of three hypostases and one common substance. Yet the development of this language did not stave off all objections. from within the tradition, Erasmus once argued that while among the common people it could not be admitted that Christians worship three gods, it could be so admitted among the learned. 268 Additionally, the Socinians, in the sixteenth century, went so far 268. Erasmus wrote, "According to the dialectical logic it is possible to say there are three gods. But to announce this to the untutored would give offense.» Quoted in R. Bainton, Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus. 1SII-1 S.53 (Boston: Beacon, 1953), 30-31. In fact, Bainton cites others as well. In this work on the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus, he identifies certain anti-Trinitarian tendencies within the tradition. First, he cites Pierre D' Ailly, who said that "it is a special gift of God to believe correctly [in the Trinitarian doctrinej." John Major went a bit further, arguing that "on account of the infidels the saints did not admit a plurality of gods. Yet the case may be so understood among the experts."

131

CHAPTER 6

God as an Infinite Field of Power

ONE OF THE FREQUENT TERMS used to conceptualize God is "spirit." Of course, the term is applied both in relation to the Holy Spirit and in relation to the essence of God, as when the Scriptures record that "God is spirit." While "spirit" is a term used with great frequency within the tradition, the deployment of the term has not been always been clear. What does it mean to say that "God is spirit" or to claim that humans are composed of body and spirit? To make the difficulty explicit, consider the following thought experiment. Before you stand two rooms, say, room A and room B. The two rooms are exactly identical except that there is a spirit in room A and absolutely nothing in room B. Without simply using again the term "spirit," how can we explain the difference between the two rooms? Is there some analogy we can use to describe the difference? In other words, what exactly constitutes "spirit"? In this chapter, I will focus my attention specifically upon how Pannenberg's modifications to the doctrine of God relate to an understanding of the concept of spirit. As one might expect in light of earlier comments, Pannenberg intends to offer correctives concerning both conceptual clarity (what does "spirit" mean?) and conceptual adequacy (are there better ways to conceptualize "spirit" than those currently employed?). One of the first tasks to be undertaken as one develops the doctrine of God is a determination of the concepts, metaphors, and symbols that will be used to articulate it. for example, within the Christian tradition a wide 165

CHAPTER 7

The Doctrine of the Divine Attributes

UP TO THIS POINT, our examination has proceeded along the lines of an inquiry into four of the central themes of Pannenberg's proposed revision to the Christian doctrine of God: (1) the elevation of the concept of the infinite to primacy within the doctrine of God; (2) the claim that God is the power of the future that determines everything that exists; (3) the centrality of the claim that the one God exists as a differentiated unity, specifically, a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and (4) the reconceptualization of God as an infinite field of power. I have undertaken these topics in the preceding four chapters, and in each case, I have found Pannenberg's proposal plausible, coherent, and defensible. At the same time, I have recognized that intuitions are deeply divided at several points so that even in light of plausible and coherent arguments, Pannenberg's doctrine of God will undoubtedly face a number of challenges, the most significant of which we have considered. Several issues relating to the divine essence and the attributes that reveal it have arisen as they were relevant to the issue then at hand. For example, an important element of our discussion of God as the power of the future was Pannenberg's articulation of the divine eternity. While examining the doctrine of the Trinity, 1 commented briefly on such attributes as omnipotence and omnipresence. In particular, I attempted to show how the doctrine of the Trinity informs our understanding of these. Finally, in the last chapter, 1 examined Pannenberg's proposal that the concept of a field of

201

CHAPTER 8

Conclusion

TIIERE IS A SENSE in which one might characterize the history of theology, and an important part of philosophy as well, as the attempt to articulate an adequate concept of the Ultimate. Certainly this has been a major task of the majority' of the world's great religious traditions. However, as the history of philosophy and theology as well as the history of religious traditions demonstrate, finding such an articulation is not an easy task. Why this is the case is, no doubt, the subject of some debate, though surely the hidden ness of God and the incomprehensibility of the divine nature are major contributors. Once one recognizes the complexity and difficulty of the task, it should come as no surprise that virtually every generation has found reason to argue for modifications or corrections to the prevailing understanding of the divine. Consequently, the fact that a contemporary systematic theologian such as Wolfhart Pannenberg should find the need for what he has called a "rather radical revision" to the Christian doctrine of God is not surprising. The question that has appeared more than once in the course of this study, and that must now be finally given an answer, is whether the proposed "radical revision" yields improvements to the Christian doctrine of God adequate to justify its acceptance. Before we move directly to the set of issues that will enable us to draw our conclusions on the matter, a summary is in order. Our examination of Pannenberg's doctrine of God has proceeded along the lines of four different aspects of that doctrine. However, 233

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works by Pannenberg Anthropology in Theological Perspective. Translated by M. J. O'Connell. London: T&T Clark, 1985. (German: Anthropologie in theologischer Perspektive, 1983) Hasic Questions in Theology. 2 vols. Translated by G. H. Kehm. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. (German: Grundfragen systematischer Theologie. 3 vols., 1967) Christian Spirituality. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983.

"The Christian Vision of God: The New Discussion on the Trinitarian Doctrine," Asbury Theological Journal 46 (1991): 27-36. The Idea of God and Human l'reedom. Translated by R. A. Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973. (German: Gottesgedanke und menschliche Freiheit, 1971; and an essay from Terror und Spiel: Probleme der Mythenrezeption, 1971) An Introduction to Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Jesus: God and Man. 2nd ed. Translated by L. W. Wilkins and D. A. Priebe. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. (German: Grundzuge der Christologie, 1964)

245