the anthropological theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg

Here's a few snippets from my essay entitled "A critical account of the interpretation of the “image of God” for Wolfhart Pannenberg."

As a theologian, he saw anthropology as the testing ground on which the credibility of the Christian faith would be decided in the modern era. As Grenz says, the truth has tended to be validated, or not, by exposure to all the rigours scientific investigation (2005: 106), and theology according to Pannenberg, should be no different.His theology can in some ways be understood as a synthesis of the moral religion (with science as its arbiter) of enlightenment thinkers, and the faith-based theology of Karl Barth. He articulates a fundamental theology that sees God as the ground of all existence; this is achieved via the anthropological method, so that theology ‘would be acceptable by the modern standards of scientific thought.’ (Schwobel, 1985: 21)

Pannenberg starts constructing his theology from the bottom up, using cultural phenomena as a point of departure. (Galloway, 1973: 13) This means not assuming that the existence of God, or the authority of the Christian scriptures is a foregone conclusion for members of the public. Therefore he grounds all that he has to say upon the authority of trusted anthropological research. And it can easily be seen that if his theology is to have any benefit to society it must be articulated in terms accessible to it. The so-called ‘age of enlightenment’ had established new epistemological norms (empirical science) and Pannenberg accepts this new challenge head on. In doing so he sought to articulate a theology that would resonate as trustworthy with the average modern day person. And as with all science, no ‘truth’ becomes for Pannenberg a fundamental truth, but is instead open to the continued unfolding of new evidence; there is always a certain provisionality attached to anything he says. (Grenz, 2005: 14) This attitude very much aligns with a modern mindset and contrary to compromising historical Christian truth, he can be seen as instead appealing to the oldest form of truth, that of consensus. (Grenz, 2005: 15)
Following in the tradition of Ireneaus (130-202 C.E.) however, Pannenberg sees the image of god in human beings as something that is gradually attained throughout the course of one’s life, not as originally present and then lost through the fall, as the Athanasian tradition held and most subsequent manifestations of Christian faith. (Grenz, 2005: 122)

This rather unorthodox theory of ‘image’ would seem to be very appropriate for the modern day person, as it ties in with evolutionary theory. Indeed Pannenberg’s understanding of the Genesis creation narratives is as myths which served at the time to explain the pain inherent in the human condition (as regards work, pregnancy and death) by referring to sin, but they function as an articulation
the ultimate, evolutionary destiny of humanity. (Grenz, 2005: 123) Gone are the days when people were happy to assume the literal truth of the biblical accounts, and so Pannenberg’s reinterpretation of them shows how they can illuminate further the understanding of life garnered from scientific research.

However relevant this may be for the modern context, it still remains to be seen if in our period of ‘late-modernity’ the concept of the perfectibility of human nature, implicit in this theory, would have any resonance whatever. Recent world events have led to a prevalence of scepticism today as regards the concept of the progress of humanity; most are disillusioned of the notion of an upward trajectory of the achievements of modern men and women. Perhaps the perspective of open-endedness in process theology would offer a less constrictive view of the self for these days. Indeed, Grenz proffers that his thought is not that far removed from process theology in reality, a criticism often levelled at Pannenberg by conservative theologians. (2004: 280)

For Pannenberg, 'exocentricity' is the means by which as humans we ‘become’, or self-transcend; ultimately it is how humanity progresses towards its destiny. We are distinguished from the lower animals by our ability to ‘perceive an individual object as an individual object’. (Schwobel, 1985: 22) This is in essence the capacity to locate an object in its wider context. Ultimately, the wider context of these finite objects is the infinite. (Schwobel, 1985: 69) It implies “being-outside-of-oneself” (Grenz, 2005: 124), and “being present to the other” (1985: 71). It seems that we evolved this capacity over time, and so became distinctively human. This capacity for perception of the infinite, is Pannenberg a fundamental religious category. We therefore became in our very nature, religious beings. He maintains that this is the case long before we make the step of articulately expressing, or thematising the existence of God. (1985: 69)

In continuity with Herder, and in contradistinction from modern anthropology, he asserts the hopelessness of this quest for personhood when founded on self-reliance (Grenz, 2005: 124), and therefore core to this idea is the concept of trust (1985: 71). Galloway points out (1973: 23) the tension that exists between openness and centeredness with regard to trust. Openness is our capacity to respect and depend upon the other; this is facilitated by trust. By necessity it must be balanced against centeredness, so as to enable the individual to develop a sense of identity or self (Galloway, 1973: 24). However, when a person over-emphasises this, they are self-centred and seek to master everything, to bring things under their control. Treating the other (God or persons) in this way reduces its status to that of a thing and so mars the image of God in it. The effect of sin also extends to the individual committing it, because lack of trust impairs their progress towards the likeness of God (ibid: 20; Pannenberg, 1977: 43). Therefore it seems that the growing person is becoming more like Christ in the sense that they developing the capacity to trust, to a degree adequate to sustaining open and respectful relationship to the other.
However, the concept of centeredness in human nature does seem to be of great relevance for the world today. If we as creatures seek to master the Otherness of the divine and therefore reduce it to the status of an inanimate thing, then we are no longer in relationship with God, but with our static thoughts regarding God. We have idolised our finite belief system, esteeming to the status of the infinite (ibid: 21). Thus our fossilised, intransigent beliefs become points of conflict when their original form is threatened. Therefore, the failure to balance centeredness and openness in the human nature can be understood as the cause of many of the religious, fundamentalist wars of the last few centuries.