Comments on: Feedback? Opening paragraphs from my book on Pannenberg

By: Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:08:17 +0000

Ah yes, the risk of general, summarizing statements raises its ever-present head. Surely the one to which you point isn't able to completely avoid the charges of reductionism or over-simplification. Yet, I think I might stand on fairly solid ground in making it considering that the sentence immediately following is actually Pannenberg's own summary, general description of his theological program: to ‘witness to the glory of Jesus Christ’ while remaining ever mindful of the ‘inconceivable majesty of God which transcends all our concepts’. My intention was simply to indicate the same insight you share in your comment: he "bridges the gap between transcendence and immanance without falling into the panentheism" or deism. Thanks for your interaction, and enjoy your extended theological conversation with Pannenberg through your PhD work. My doctoral work at the University of Aberdeen was on Pannenberg, and even when I didn't agree with him I found him to be a consistently challenging companion.

By: Mario Begner

Mario Begner — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:56:25 +0000

Hi I am doing PhD research on Pannenberg’s anthropology and the contribution it might make to current treatments for narcissism. I am a student at Trinity Collge at the University of Bristol in the UK. Your opening statement “Wolfhart Pannenberg’s entire theological program has been an attempt to navigate between this dynamic of God’s qualitative difference and his proximity.” seems to be reductionistic of Pannenberg. Richard John Neuhaus wrote an great introduction to one of Pannenberg’s early works, I think it was “What Is Man?” Neuhaus advised against blanket statements about Pannenberg because of the complexity of his thought. I don’t think his entire theological system can be summarized in one sentence. Although what you have said is true about Pannenberg. He successfully, in my reading of him, bridges the gap between transcendence and immanance without falling into the panentheism of John MacQuarrie. There are Pannenber scholars who read him through a grid of the Hegelian dialectic, although Pannenberg himself denies being a Hegelian.

By: Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:07:35 +0000

Good feedback Andrew. I will mull that over.

By: Andrew Esqueda

Andrew Esqueda — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:35:05 +0000

Kent, I think this is very well done. The only comment I could make that might be helpful would be concerning your use of “Emmanuel, God with us.” I wonder if it might be better–the second time you use Emmanuel–to simply say “Jesus Christ” in order to make sure that your reader knows that you mean God in Jesus Christ, when you speak of “Emmanuel” as God’s proximity to us.

I am a bit critical, but overall very very appreciative of Pannenberg, so I am really glad to see some good new scholarship on Pannenberg–I hope to see even more.

By: brettongarcia

brettongarcia — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:21:31 +0000

To me, to mention the “distinction between Creator and Creation,” and then say that God is everywhere, is in many theologies, a contradiction.

By: Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:59:28 +0000

That quote is from John Webster (Editorial” International Journal of Systematic Theology, 6/3 (July 2004), p. 231.)

I sure hope the rest of the book reads as easily, but no promises!

By: Arni Zachariassen

Arni Zachariassen — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:53:21 +0000

Great intro. Clear and understandable. Very easy to read. If the rest of book is similarly easy to read, I’m looking forward to getting my hands on it.

Oh, the “Reason is not foiled”-quote. Is it from Hilary?