Search This Web Site:

Craig L's Blog

Commonplace Holiness

Tag: Wolfhart Pannenberg

  • Pannenberg: The Cross & Resurrection

    Pannenberg: The Cross & Resurrection

    Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928–2014).

    The resurrection effectively reversed the charges against Jesus and confirmed his mission. We thus see that if he had saved his life at the cost of his proclaiming the divine lordship, he would have actually made himself independent of God and put himself in equality with him. ‘Whoever would save his life will lose it’ (Mark 8:35 par.). This was true of Jesus himself. He could not be the Son of God by an unlimited duration of his finite existence. No finite being can be one with God in infinite reality. Only as he let his creaturely existence be consumed in service to his mission could Jesus as a creature be one with God. As he did not cling to his life but chose to accept the ambivalence that his mission meant for his person, with all its consequences, he showed himself, from the standpoint of he Easter event, to be obedient to his mission (Rom. 5:19, Heb. 5:8). This obedience led him into the situation of extreme separation from God and His immortality, into the dereliction of the cross. The remoteness from God on the cross was the climax of his self-distinction from the Father. Rightly then, we may say that the crucifixion was integral to his earthly existence.

    — Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume 2. (1991) pp. 374, 375.

    So, what does this mean for us?

    The cross gives meaning to the resurrection, the resurrection gives meaning to the cross. Each is incomplete without the other.

    When we say Jesus was one with God we say this on the basis that Jesus fulfilled his whole mission — including death and resurrection. It is in this sense alone that Jesus was truly both fully human and fully God. Without the Cross we cannot make such a claim about Jesus. The Cross is integral to the message. “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him….” (Heb 5:8,9 NRSV)

    I think this fact reminds us that preaching the Gospel has to emphasize actually telling the story of Jesus more than teaching ideas derived from the story. It is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus that constitutes the Gospel. If part of it is left out, other parts lose their true significance as well. The theological claims that Christians make can only be asserted on the basis of the whole story.

    So, the preacher needs to ask: am I telling the whole story or just parts of it? Or: am I just giving advice, teaching some ideas, venting my frustrations, and never telling the story at all?

    Moral advice, good ideas, criticism of the world’s ideas and trends, political programs — all these things do not amount to the Gospel of Christ. We need to ever learn anew what it means to “tell the old, old story” to our current generation.

    It s wrong to suppose that people are too shallow and self-absorbed to hear it. Someone is always out there to complain that people today are too vacuous, ignorant, or unspiritual. Yes, people are exploring sexuality and gender in ways previous generations did not. Yes, there is sexual promiscuity. There are trends that have arisen in the realm of technology and the internet that are troubling.

    It doesn’t mean people are stupid or have lost the spiritual hunger for meaning and connection that is naturally constitutive of human nature. Sexual promiscuity and high intelligence often go together. Sexual searching and spiritual searching are not totally unrelated — one can substitute for the other.

    Yes, some young people are not satisfied with traditional answers. But, they are asking questions. And some may want serious and well-considered answers. Prevenient grace means that God’s Spirit is striving with even the most apparently unlikely people.

    Let’s learn to tell the story of Jesus in ways that are engaging, fresh, and faithful.

  • God as the Great AntiTyrant

    God as the Great AntiTyrant

    I recently posted on The Place of Human Beings in the Created Order. Now I want to look more closely at this and specifically at the concept of God implied by this perspective.

    First, I want to revisit a quote from Wolfhart Pannenberg that appeared toward the end of that blog post. It deserves a closer examination. And, I’d like to give it a little context.

    The idea that humans have a special place in the world because of their rationality has pre-Christian origin. He mentions Cicero’s statement of this idea. He goes on to say:

    Yet, Cicero did not link this dignity, as modern usage does, to the idea of the inviolability of human life in each individual. This thought arose only with the idea that we are under a supreme authority that releases us from obligation to other powers, and especially from being controlled by other people or by society. Rightly, then, the Christian tradition sought the basis of personal dignity in our creation in the image of God. Our destiny of fellowship with God forms the indispensable premise of the function of human dignity as the content of a supreme legal principle and a basis for individual human rights, e.g., in modern declarations of such rights.

    — Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 8, page 176, 177.

    Let’s stop and look at some of the details of this quote for a minute. The wording is important.

    (more…)
  • The Place of Human Beings in the Created Order

    The Place of Human Beings in the Created Order

    Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928-2014).

    In accord with the over-all future orientation of his theology, Wolfhart Pannenberg sees the dignity of the human race as being based on human destiny. It is less a matter of human status in the created world, than it is a matter of the destiny of the human race, which has been revealed in the Scriptures. I find this a very helpful perspective. He writes:

    Only from the standpoint of the religiously and biblically grounded awareness of their destiny of fellowship with God, the author of the universe, can we say assuredly, however, that all creation culminates in humanity.

    — Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 8, page 175.

    This intellectual move saves the theologian from saying that the status of the human race in the created world is rooted in inherent abilities that set the human creation apart from the rest of the created world — especially the animal world.

    (more…)
  • What Does It Mean to Take the Bible Literally?

    What Does It Mean to Take the Bible Literally?

    I keep hoping people will stop using the word “literal” to describe the Bible — as in: “take the Bible literally” “literal interpretation of the Bible” and so forth. It’s never going to happen, but I keep hoping.

    The reason I keep hoping for this is the fact that the term is over-used, wrongly used, and abused. What does it mean to take the Bible “literally“? What does the word “literal” mean in this context? It seems to be used rather loosely. I understand it to be the opposite of words like “symbolic” “figurative,” or “allegorical.” To take a thing literally is to take it at face value. It’s not that difficult a concept. Yet, the way the word is used would make you think otherwise.

    (more…)