Confessions of a Trinitarian evolutionist: Thomas Jay Oord's interview of Wolfhart Pannenberg's
Part One.
St. Paul, Minnesota, March 9, 2001

Metanexus: Views 2001.05.19. 3350 words.

Here is the first of a two-part interview with Wolfhart Pannenberg, a German Lutheran theologian best known for his work in philosophy (or
theology) of history and philosophy (or theology) of science. These interests are reflected in such works as Revelation as History
(English: 1968) and Theology and the Philosophy of Science (English: 1976). In 1991, the first volume of his three-volume Systematic
Theology was published in English by Eerdmans. An overview of his life, works, and theological viewpoints can be found at
http://www.theology.ie/theologians/pannen.htm.

In the following quote, Pannenberg shows how his philosophy of time, and hence, of history, informs his notion of creation.

"I emphasize that eternity is not only the opposition to time, but it comprises the wholeness of life as possessed in one present that is
not going away. Eternity comprises time, but it is distinct from time....Given this view of eternity, it is not difficult to
understand that the eternal God also is engaged in the temporal process. God didn't have to create a world. But, after He decided
to create a world, He was bound to that decision."

In the next part of this interview, we will see how this notion of creation influenceÜs PannenbergÜs views of science, and why he
considers himself not a theistic, but a Trinitarian, evolutionist.

-- Stacey E. Ake

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Part One
Thomas Jay Oord's interview of Wolfhart Pannenberg
St. Paul, Minnesota, March 9, 2001

Thomas Jay Oord: As you enter the latter stages of your career, you've probably reflected some on your contributions as a scholar.
What experiences in your childhood or youth do you now see as particularly influential in shaping these contributions?

Wolfhart Pannenberg: As you may know, I was not raised in a Christian family. Although I was baptized as a child, I did not have
a Christian education.
But in 1945, I had a visionary experience at the occasion of a sunset. Light flooded all around and through myself, and I don't
know where I was or how long it lasted. It may have lasted for an eternity. Afterwards, I found myself a humble human being and was
just puzzled.
I thought I had to come to terms with that event and what it really meant to me. It happened on the sixth of January, 1945. I
didn't know at the time that the sixth of January is the feast of Christ's glorification of epiphany. Later on, I thought it was
significant that it was on this particular day. I became, so to speak, metaphysically awakened. But I didn't yet know the purpose of
this awakening.
I had read from Nietzsche and Kant before I was sixteen -- even before I had read the first line of the Bible. By my reading of
Nietzsche, I thought that I was perfectly informed about what I should think about Christianity. But I met some people who didn't
fit in that specter of guilt or obsessed parrotism. I met some Christians who seemed to be quite jolly and joyous human beings, and
I was puzzled as to how that could be so. This contributed to my decision to find out about Christianity by studying theology.
So, I started studying theology in 1945. I was increasingly attracted to the content of the Christian message and the profound
nature of Christian doctrine. I soon came to the conclusion that what happened to me on the sixth of January, 1945 was really the
light of Christ.

Oord: Much has been made of Karl Barth and Gerhard von Rad's influence upon your theology. On what areas of your thought do you
see them as having the greatest influence?

Pannenberg: Karl Barth was a towering figure in theology right after the war. In my early years as a student, I read through all
the volumes of his Church Dogmatics. In 1950, I went to Basel to hear his lectures. I got some very good recommendations from one of
Barth's former students, so I was received by Karl Barth very personally and invited to his home. I was impressed by his person
and by his teaching.
But, in the second semester I spent at Basel, there was a small group that would come together in Barth's home to discuss some
of his thoughts. We discussed one of his smaller works called, The Community of Christians and the State. There he developed some
analogical reasoning, including some conclusions for politics from Christology.
One of these conclusions was that there should be no secret diplomacy as a consequence of our belief that Christ is alive. I
didn't find this particularly persuasive. I thought that, perhaps, the world of politics would profit from some more secret diplomacy.
So, I criticized Karl Barth. Karl Barth just didn't like criticism. And, so, my relationship with Karl Barth got considerably cooler.
But, I always remained impressed by his emphasis that God has to come first in theology, and that the same should be said about
Jesus Christ. God, as revealed as Jesus Christ, comes first and should not be replaced by anything else. So, to this extent, I am
still influenced by Karl Barth.
Now to von Rad. One of the weaknesses of Karl Barth was that Barth didn't have a real appreciation of Biblical exegesis,
especially critical exegesis. Of course, he used the scripture quite a bit. But he had a very personal way of interpreting the Bible. I
found by involving myself in historical critical exegesis of biblical writings that this wouldn't do. Theology should be based on the
scriptures, of course, but it should be based upon a reading of the scriptures through historical interpretation. After all, the
scriptures are historical documents, notwithstanding their being the word of God. Even that has to be settled upon their content as
historical documents.
I was most impressed by Gerhard von Rad's approach, because he interprets the scriptures, not only as a historian, but as a
theologian. He was able to speak of the stories of the Old Testament as if they were about real life -- much more real than the secular
life that we experience otherwise. The Old Testament has become an experience of reality 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 learned as a student.

Oord: Early in your career, it was not uncommon for scholars to point out similarities between your thought and the process thought
of people such as John Cobb and Schubert Ogden. This practice is much less common today. Were you misunderstood early on, or have
your views changed?

Pannenberg: I think this affinity to process thought, which was propelled by some of my American friends, was due to the fact that I
emphasized history as the field of God's revelation and even as belonging to God himself.
We cannot speak about God's nature by disregarding God's action. God's nature and God's action have to be kept together. We
know about God's nature only through God's action in history. My understanding of God as involved in the history of humanity was
considered to have some relationship to process concerns. To this extent, this was true.
I also had to concern myself with the philosophy of Whitehead when I came to Chicago in 1963. This was my first experience in the
United States as somebody who is expected to teach theology. At Chicago, you couldn't survive intellectually at that time without
having read everything of Whitehead.
I was greatly impressed by Whitehead, but I was also critical of Whitehead. I never understood how my dear friend, John Cobb,
could reconcile Whitehead's philosophy with a Christian doctrine of creation. After all, Whitehead explicitly denies that his
philosophical God is the Creator of the world. He sees God and world in correspondence. I believe that everything comes from God in such
a way that God could have been God without creating the world. This is not something that Whitehead could have accepted. Thus, I have
always had some reservations with regard to Whiteheadian philosophy. Of course, process thought is much broader than Whitehead. I
often asked my friend John Cobb why the process thinkers should be so exclusively focused on Whitehead while disregarding, and even not
knowing about, Henri Bergson and Samuel Alexander. These are two great process thinkers before Whitehead who also offer alternative
views in process thought. There should be some discussion about what one should prefer within the camp of process thought. I also would
like to see process thought in the greater horizon of the development of metaphysical issues in modern philosophy - especially the
eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries.

Oord: Many scholars were impressed by your early arguments concerning the actual historical resurrection of Jesus. In what ways
have your views on that issue changed over the years?

Pannenberg: There was no reason to change my views, actually. I haven't seen alternative explanations with regards to the Christian
Easter tradition that would not be less plausible than the biblical accounts themselves.
I used to tell my students that you have to study the biblical texts critically, as you study other historical documents.
But, please, be also critical of the critics. There are many students who take their teacher's authority, especially when they are
so bold and critical with regards to the biblical texts. So, I prefer to be critical of the critics. Sometimes, alternative
reconstructions are almost ridiculous.
I never understood how, at Jerusalem, the place of Jesus crucifixion, a Christian congregation could be established a few
weeks after that event, proclaiming his resurrection, without firmly and truly being assured about the fact that the tomb was empty. Of
course, critics have different explanations for that fact. But, with regard to the tomb of Jesus being empty, the Christian proclamation
couldn't have persisted one day in Jerusalem. I often wonder why there are so many scholars whose imagination doesn't suggest to them
that this would be possible.

Oord: Early in your career, you insisted on the importance of doing theology against the background of the history of religions. How do
you reconcile the universal revelation of God in Christ with a world in which India, after 2000 years, remains largely Hindu and likely
will remain so for some time.

Pannenberg: Well, the Christian affirmation of the relation between God and Jesus Christ is constituted by anticipation of the
final outcome of all history. This is anticipation of what theologians call, "eschatology," i.e., the last future, when God's
kingdom will be definitively realized and Christ will come again and all the dead will raise. This was anticipated in the resurrection of
Christ, according to the early Christian proclamation. We have a claim to universal revelation, but this claim to will be finally
vindicated only in the future. Until that happens, there is room for different opinions, and some people think otherwise.

Oord: Some contemporary theologians, adopting the label "narrative theologians," emphasize the church as the primary source of and
audience for the stories of theology, thereby minimizing theology's place in public endeavor. What role should public theology have
today?

Pannenberg: Let me first comment on the concept of "narrative theology." The biblical stories are narrative. But you have many
kinds of narration, of narrative types, and some of the biblical narratives make historical claims. To speak of narratives without
mentioning that means to bypass these historical claims. It seems awkward to some theologians to raise these truth questions that are
connected to the Christian message. This is replaced by taking recourse to the role of the church, the social context of the
Christian message, and so on.
I think that, if Christianity had not dealt with truth questions, Christianity would never have become a world religion.
Christianity developed a universal mission to all human beings, because it raised universal truth claims concerning the God of Israel
as Creator of the world and as manifest in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christianity has to continue in defending these universal
truth claims that have been essential for Christianity and especially Christian missions from the very beginning.

Oord: One could interpret volume three of your systematic theology as a more Protestant (read "individualistic") view of the church than
a Catholic (read "communitarian") view. Would this be a fair reading?

Pannenberg: This might be a Roman Catholic reading. My Protestant critics say otherwise -- that I place far too much
importance on the concept of the church. But Christian theology has to keep these two aspects together.
The church is indispensable -- not only important -- but indispensable, because the tradition of the faith and the ongoing
proclamation of the gospel to new generations takes place only in the church. The church is commissioned with this responsibility.
But the individual believer is not completely dependent upon the authority of the church and its ministry. By the service of the
church's proclamation, the believer is led into an immediate relationship with the God that is proclaimed in the Christian gospel.
That immediate relationship is what we enjoy in faith. The mediating role of the church is indispensable, but,
still, each faithful Christian believer should have a relationship of immediacy with God, sharing in Jesus own relationship with the
father. I think this is Christian mysticism that we share in the inner Trinitarian communion of the Son with the Father. Paul himself
said so in Romans chapter eight.
So, this concern for immediacy is very important, but it is not an alternative to the mediation of the gospel through the
services and institutions of the church. The individual Christian believer also cannot exist without communion with the other
Christians who share the same body of Christ in receiving his sacraments.

Oord: What does it mean to say, "God is love?" And, is God free not to love?

Pannenberg: This central affirmation of the Bible in the Johannine letters is often misunderstood today. It is thought, "We
know what love is, and God has to be loving. Otherwise, we wouldn't accept him." This is a great mistake.
God, first of all, is the mystery that constitutes everything, surrounds us from all sides, and surpasses understanding.
Especially in experience, we can't understand this God who surpasses our understanding.
The Bible is full of sentences that speak of God's wrath and judgment. Why do people tend to overlook that fact? The judgment of
God on human injustice is more evident than the love of God. The prophets of the Old Testament have expressed this. The Jewish people
had to wrestle with this. This is not a thing of the past, it continues throughout time, through all of history.
It was not a matter of fact statement when Jesus proclaims this God to be the loving Father. It was, rather, a paradox. It is
the center of Jesus' message that God's true nature, the true nature of this mystery that surrounds our lives, is Fatherly love.
This was closely connected with his proclamation of the imminent kingdom of God that opens up to every believer, even now,
the presence of God, which means serving for all eternity. This was what was meant when Jesus spoke of God's love. We should learn about
love from the Bible. We shouldn't turn the Bible around into what we think is love.

Oord: If the kingdom of God has been universally and definitively established, as you've argued, why does evil still persist as the
most embarrassing reality the Christian gospel confronts? 

Pannenberg: In Jesus' message, the kingdom was, first of all, future. It is an immanent future, in the sense of urgency, that
makes everything else a secondary concern. That was the point of Jesus' message.
But the starting point isn't "the kingdom is future." Jesus also said, in a small number of words, that this future becomes
already present where God is accepted as King in the heart of the believer. When the message of the kingdom is accepted, God becomes
King in the heart of the believer now. But God is not King in the broad reality of the world, of political institutions, of social
structures, and so on. This hasn't changed, basically, since the time of Jesus' teaching.
Therefore, we still have evil persisting as an embarrassing reality. We expect that, finally, evil will be overcome by the
fulfillment of God's kingdom, the fulfillment of human history, the second coming of Christ, and the day of the last judgment.

Oord: How do you correlate divinely initiated and sanctioned violence in the Old Testament with the nonviolence of Jesus in the
New Testament? Is God violent?

Pannenberg: Like I said before, God is not that meekly love that many people say He should be. In the Old Testament, God is one who
elected Israel, and this did not always include peaceful relationship with other people. We see, at present, what the problems are in that
respect. That God elected Israel and that this would entail violence in relation to other nations was not the final aim of all of God's
actions. But God had elected Israel to become a witness of God's will to righteousness for all human beings. Violence is not the last
word. The last word of God will be the reconciliation and love. Looking at our present world, it is difficult to understand
that this is so. This is an experience that should prompt us, again and again, to adore the mystery of God that surpasses our
understanding. Following Jesus, we should believe against the experiences that occur. We should believe that, finally, God will be
the God of reconciliation and love. It will be finally evident that this is so.

Oord: Given your doctrine of eternity, to what extent is God essentially affected by historical occurrences? Does it just seem to
us that God is affected by history? Or is God essentially affected by what occurs?

Pannenberg: I emphasize that eternity is not only the opposition to time, but it comprises the wholeness of life as possessed in one
present that is not going away. Eternity comprises time, but it is distinct from time. In the course of temporal events, some are
already passed, they are no more, and some are not yet. In eternity, the whole of life is possessed in one present that is not to be
passed over by anything else.
Given this view of eternity, it is not difficult to understand that the eternal God also is engaged in the temporal
process. God didn't have to create a world. But, after He decided to create a world, He was bound to that decision. Given the fact
that the created world exists, God's divine nature is bound up with His kingdom over this world. Therefore, the final outcome of the
processes of this world is constitutive in our experience for the fact that the God we believe in really is the eternal God and creator
of the world.
If the final completion of the kingdom of God did not occur, we would have been in error for believing in this God. But from the
perspective of the eternal God Himself, that is not a problem! From the perspective of the eternal God, the reality of the world has to
be considered as one process which is complete from the end.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Stacey E. Ake, Ph.D., Ph.D.
Metanexus: The Online Forum for Religion & Science
P.O. Box 490
Unionville, PA 19375

cell: 215.601.0036
fax: 610.486.6897
email: sake@pc4rs.org
url: http://www.meta-lists.net

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

This list is hosted by Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science <http://www.metanexus.net>. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors. To comment on this message, go to the browser-based forum at the bottom of all postings in the magazine section of our web site at  http://www.metanexus.net/index2.asp?fc=/archives/searcharchives.asp?list=16listtype=Magazine. Metanexus welcomes submissions betwwen 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science <http://www.metanexus.net>". Please send all inquiries and submissions to Dr. Stacey Ake, Associate Editor of Metanexus at mailto:ake@metanexus.net. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 by William Grassie.

POWRÓT