Between the years of 1988 and 1991, Wolfhart Pannenberg published his three-volume Systematic Theology. In addition to being the crowning achievement of an already stellar theological career, the work has also been lauded as among the most important theological works of the twentieth century. It is therefore clear that the work stands among the few great systematic treatments of Christian doctrine in the second half of the twentieth century and it has cemented Pannenbergâs place among the most significant theologians in the past fifty years.
Because of its prominence, a number of outstanding summaries of its theological content already exist. Foremost among these are a pair of commentaries that have been published by two of Pannenbergâs best-known students. The first, A Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, was written by Stanley Grenz in 1990. The work is highly readable and focuses on Pannenbergâs development of the doctrine of the Trinity culminating in the Systematic Theology. Introduction to Wolfhart Pannenbergâs Systematic Theology, the second work, was published originally in 2003 (translated in English in 2012) by Gunther Wenz, who succeeded Pannenberg as Director of the Institute for Fundamental Theology and Ecumenics at the University of Munich. While more technical than Grenzâs work, this volume expands on Pannenbergâs systematic presentation of Christian doctrine by drawing on earlier works to fill out the presentation.
Rather than reproduce these efforts, the current chapter intends instead to emphasize the continuity and development in Pannenbergâs thought that can be seen most clearly in Systematic Theology. As a result, after a brief discussion of Pannenbergâs approach and intentions in the three volumes of Systematic Theology, the bulk of this chapter will focus on the ways the themes of the work develop out of and in relation to his major early treatises. These developments take several forms. First, substantial attention will need to be given to how this new presentation of familiar themes adds to earlier treatments by placing them in a new context and with a renewed emphasis on the coherence of Christian doctrine. Second, significant attention will be paid to Pannenbergâs interactions with earlier commentators. These developments are usually clarifications and nuances of issues presented in earlier works rather than outright reversals.
One development found in Systematic Theology will receive special treatment in this chapter. Pannenbergâs exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity plays a central role in the structure and overall logic of the work. In many regards it is at the very heart of his magnum opus and draws together many of the central themes of his career. As a result, the following discussion will not only give special attention to the explicit treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity in chapters 5â6 of Systematic Theology but will also draw attention to the ways in which the entire three-volume work is an exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity.
The final sections of this chapter will follow the pattern set in previous chapters. This includes a brief discussion of the critical reception of the work, which also favors discussions of Pannenbergâs Trinitarian theology. The final section once again returns to the themes of anticipation, public theology, interdisciplinarity, and unity and diversity and the ways these are developed in the crowning achievement of his career.
Historical Context
Systematic theology is the branch of theological inquiry that draws on biblical exegesis, historical research, and philosophical inquiry to organize the content of the Christian faith as a whole. It tends to focus on the interconnection between doctrines in order to provide a view of the whole of the Christian life. Its roots can be traced back at least to the early Middle Ages when monastic theologians such as Peter Lombard sought to provide a summary of the teachings of the fathers of the Church in an orderly fashion while at the same time addressing apparent inconsistencies in their teachings.
For pre-modern systematicians such as Lombard and the great scholastic writers of the thirteenth century, the unquestioned presupposition of the existence of God and Godâs relation to the world contributed to the desire to produce an intellectually consistent system that reflected the consistency and order of the divine. This concern for structure and order can even be found in the quaestio et disputatio method of investigation that proceeds by raising disputed questions and then responding to them while addressing contrasting positons.
As we have seen, however, the changed philosophical context in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries brought about significant challenges to the traditional method of theology. The emphasis on doctrine and desire for a consistent and authoritative system of beliefs that characterized the medieval approach came under criticism because of its authoritarian structure and the religious conflicts that it produced in the wake of the Reformation. Arguments over creedal and confessional statements led to the widespread sentiment that faith should be more focused on morality and less on the particularity of Christian doctrines that foster religious and cultural division and conflict.
Stephan Pickard traces at least part of this attitude to the work of the seventeenth-century English philosopher John Locke. Pickard argues that Lockeâs empirical realism sought to set human understanding on a solid foundation while at the same time demonstrating the reasonableness of the Christian faith. As a result, Locke âhad to ensure that what was assented to in faith did not âspill overâ into matters âcontrary to reason.ââ This method was clearly designed to undercut the âaccretion to Christianity associated with the development of particular creeds and systems.â In the process, detailed expositions of Christian doctrine became increasingly less popular, and more and more focus was dedicated to Scripture and moral teaching.
Since the time of Locke, empiricism and the privatization of religion have seeped into Western culture and have become cornerstones of our intellectual presuppositions. Even within theological circles, attempts to provide a systematic expression of the faith have frequently been met with suspicion. Theological doctrines were particularly suspect. Many believed that speculative doctrinal debates had no bearing on the ordinary faith life of Christians. Instead, arguments over nuanced presentations of doctrine were increasingly blamed for the political unrest and religious wars of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In more recent decades, this concern with doctrine has spread to encompass all intellectual systems. Jean-François Lyotard, for example, argued in the The Postmodern Condition that grand narratives that seek to make sense out of history and offer an overriding explanatory system for all knowledge are outdated. His concern was that such narratives, of which systematic theology is a prime example, might lead to rigidity in thought patterns, the closure to new ideas and experiences, and the totalitarian tendencies of earlier forms of Christianity.
Consequently, the genre of the theological system or summa, which was once quite popular, has been diminished, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century. This makes Pannenbergâs decision to offer a systematic treatise all the more significant.
The Need for Systematic Theology
In a 1991 lecture delivered at Western Theological Seminary, Pannenberg explained one of the key issues driving his desire to write Systematic Theology. There he grounds the basic motivation for his work in the essential pastoral question, Why should anyone be a member of the Christian church? He sees this question as not only driving the evangelical impulse of the church to share its message with the world but also the need of individual Christians to appropriate the intellectual content of their faith throughout their lives.
Pannenbergâs response to this fundamental question that every believer and nonbeliever must face is equally simple. The Christian faith should be believed because it is true. Everything after this simple response gets quite complicated quite quickly. The reasons for this complication should be clear given all that has already been said about Pannenbergâs approach and his understanding of the contemporary word. First, the very idea of truth in any significant sense of the word has come radically under question. Questions have arisen for many reasons; chief among them is appeal to authority and to the divine have become increasingly suspect as a way to explain central features of human existence since the start of the modern era. However, Pannenberg contends this modern secular bias against religious language and the insights of religion fails to take seriously the fact that religion has always been a part of human culture and society or the idea that religious experience is fundamental to what it means to be human.
The rise in appreciation for the contextual conditioning of the history of ideas has also had a significant impact on confidence in the durability of truth claims. A study of the history of ideas demonstrates the ways in which ideas that were foundational and essential presuppositions to knowledge continually change depending upon time and place (apart from a metaphysical grounding, which has become suspect in modern philosophy as well).
Pannenbergâs understanding of the nature and manifestation of truth are clearly developed in reply to both of these trends. First, in response to an increasingly secular view of the world, Pannenberg reasserts the philosophical and theological indispensability of God. For him, God as the ground of all being is the ultimate foundation of all truth, and the ultimate value of truth claims can only be measured in relation to this ultimate goal. Second, in response to the contemporary appreciation for historical consciousness and the conditioning of human ideas, Pannenberg develops an understanding of truth that is grounded in those ideas that are most consistent and durable. He describes these characteristics though two concepts: coherence and consensus. Each of these terms is used as a tool for judging the truth of a statement. Coherence refers to the idea that true sentences are internally coherent and make sense. Consensus refers to the idea that truth is determined by widespread agreement in society or culture.
Coherence and consensus have a uniquely historical or eschatological quality for Pannenberg. Unlike the approach to coherence in analytic philosophy, the internal consistency of an idea is not limited to its propositional expression. Rather, coherence points to the ability of an idea (or system of ideas) to explain the whole of human experience. This requires constant flexibility and adaptability in a hypothesis as it develops to explain new features of human experience. This development then points to the role that consensus plays in judging the validity of a truth claim. Thus, consensus is not limited to a particular culture, time, or place. Instead, consensus can only be established over the entirety of human history as ideas continue to develop, are tested, and subsequently confirmed or falsified.
Consensus and coherence were...
