Monday, December 01, 2008

Pannenberg on Anthropology

Christian theology has been suspected of being just a form of anthropology since the 19th Century, and the work of Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzche and so on. The danger is that God may be indeed eliminated from the study of theology! This was Barth's great worry, of course, and the root of his insistence that theology not be translated into anthropological terms. He was adamant that this not be the case: and critical of those theologians who he saw as collaborating in the anthropological reduction of theology.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, however , refuses to accept that theology can be cordoned off from other sorts of human knowledge. Or at least, it is a matter of theology's own self-authenticity that it not do so: it cannot park itself off the highways of human reason in a quiet little driveway and remain anything other than superstition. He writes:

If it can be shown that religion is simply a product of the human imagination and an expression of a human self-alienation, the roots of which are analyzed in a critical approach to religion, then religious faith and especially Christianity with its tradition and message will lose any claim to universal credibility in the life of the modern age. The Christian faith must then accept being lumped together with any and every form of superstition.

Without a sound claim to universal validity Christians cannot maintain a conviction of the truth of their faith and message. For a 'truth' that would be simply my truth and would not at least claim to be universal and valid for every human being could not remain true even for me. This consideration explains why Christian cannot but try to defend the claim of their faith to be true. It also explains why in the modern age they must conduct this defence on the terrain of the interpretation of human existence and in a debate over whether religion is an indispensable component of humanness or, on the contrary, contributes to alienate human beings from themselves. (Anthropology in Theological Perspective, p. 15)

Pannenberg argues that there isn't an option for Christian theology: it must

begin …reflection with a recognition of the fundamental importance of anthropology for all modern thought and for any present-day claim of universal validity for religious statements. Otherwise they will, even if unintentionally, play into the hands of their atheistic critics, who reduce religion and theology to anthropology, that is, to human assumptions and illusions. By narrowly focusing on the question of human salvation, theologians have undoubtedly forgotten in great measure that the Godness of God and not human religious experience must have first place in theology.

He goes on:

Theologians will be able to defend the truth precisely of their talk about God only if they first respond to the atheistic critique of religion on the terrain of anthropology. Otherwise all their assertions, however impressive, about the primacy of the Godness of God will remain purely subjective assurances without any serious claim to universal validity. p. 16

He maintains, furthermore, that rejecting this anthropological ground is in fact conceding the ground to anthropological suppositions – by reducing theology to mere subjectivity.

Which way are evangelicals going to swing on this?

2 comments:

lukeisham said...

Hey Micheal are you a fan of Van Til and have your read John Frame's cirical study of him? I just wondered because what your saying sounds very Van Tillian, that all knowledge in a sense has a theological basis, given that all truth is from God.

Mike Bull said...

Which way are evangelicals going to swing on this?

For anthropology, read HISTORY.

The compromise by most evangelicals on the historicity of great tracts of Scripture has left them bloodied and limbless, lying on the ground shouting "Come back here and I'll bite you to death."

Only a clear stand against pop-anthropology, pop-science and pop-history (a wholesale rewriting of man's past) will avoid the embarrassment of defending our faith with the sad rubber sword of the gnostic. Many of us are defending a book we don't really have the faith to believe.

The atheists have their physical 'history' as a foundation. Any compromise with it - against the clear teaching of the Bible - leaves us fighting it with no more than a philosophy disconnected from this perceived 'reality.'

No wonder they designate Christianity as superstition. At least these critics are consistent. Their 'history' supports their faith. For many evangelicals, this is not the case. Talking about the Godness of a God who gave us a book that apparently gets history wrong is idiocy. We kid ourselves to claim any validity for this legless hybrid.

He maintains, furthermore, that rejecting this anthropological ground is in fact conceding the ground to anthropological suppositions – by reducing theology to mere subjectivity.

This statement assumes their history requires Christian interpretation but is basically sound, and thus an outright rejection of 'history' concedes the debate. Fair enough.

But the assumption is flawed, and the attempt at reinterpretation futile. Let the Bible be the history it is and there is no debate. Only an ultimatum.