Wolfhart Pannenberg

            This world is our home. I have some reflections based upon the science of our time. I hope you will be patient with me. Even if you disagree with what I say about science, I hope the reflections on the providence of God and human responsibility and freedom will be challenging. The more scientists study the universe and the human body, the more aware we are that the human body truly belongs here.             The significance of this is that we often sense our separation and alienation from each other and from nature. Although we have good reason to sense this as well, we need to grasp the significance of the fact that this world is our home.             I want to discuss some science in this context. I know some elements of the Christian community want to argue with the science I am about to ...

             Life is not about us. My life is not about me. Your life is not about you. We are part of a web of relationships that shape us in ways that we often find difficult to analyze. The shaping influence of family, neighborhood, friends, and culture is profound. Tradition already shapes the way we live our lives. These relationships become part of us. They embed themselves in the way we reason, the things about which we become emotional, the beliefs we hold, and the values by which we live. Truly, if we view ourselves as solitary and isolated individuals, possibly fulfilling nothing other than a biological function, I grant that such questions do not arise. However, is it not self-evident that we are interdependent and interconnected?             Further, we are part of whole web of relationships with people whom we know intimately and with people whom we...

Someone I follow on Twitter, Moltmaniac, has posted some correspondence between Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg. You can find the letter here . The praise Barth heaps upon Pannenberg has its balance in his observation that they are likely "separated" people. He seemed to be looking for someone who could surpass his theological achievement, but alas, neither Pannenberg nor Moltmann could do so. In response, Pannenberg makes it clear that he is disappointed in the response because he had hoped Barth would see his indebtedness to Barth and his need to respond to a different set of intellectual challenges. While Barth largely responded to the theological issues of the 1800s, Pannenberg and Moltmann had the challenges of the post-war period to face. Calling them children of peace and promise, however, is not a bad thing, even if Barth thinks they did not fulfill their potential. In any case, the exchange is interesting. It shows that Barth could be harsh toward those wit...

            My reflections here are with theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg on the role of the affective life in understanding human openness to the world. In this case, he will use these reflections to re-think the classic notion of creation in the image of God as well as the classic notion of original sin.           We need to explore the theme of our identity and non-identity in the context of affective life. My attempt here is to provide an ontology of feeling. This notion moves against the tradition that offers the distinguishing mark of humanity as being rationality. As important as rationality is, we have good reason to suspect that the interior, affective life of humanity reveals far more than we think. The tension between identity and nonidentity is a theme of affective life. It shows itself in the antagonism individuals experience toward society. The quest for wholeness su...

My effort here is to explore with theologian the notion of human openness to the world as a way of re-thinking the classical notion of human creation in the image of God. I will do so primarily in dialogue with his Anthropology in Theological Perspective. The hint humanity may be more important than some science suggests lies in the openness of humanity to its world. [1] The ontological priority of humanity rests on the fact that humanity is the one species to whom its existence is a question to which, in the course of life, each individual must answer. Humanity is so open in fact, that we do not know the “end” for which it is here. In contrast, other animals have reached their evolutionary end. Such openness means that human beings do not “have” their human nature, but are on their way toward it. For this reason, as helpful as science is in helping us understanding the “selfish gene,” as Richard Dawkins put it, science will never define the nature and essence of humanity. Wi...