ABSTRACT
Pannenberg represents in many ways a paradigm shift in twentieth-century theology. The most characteristic element is the distance he places between himself and the dialectical theology (with Karl Barth at its head) and the so-called Bultmann school. Although Pannenberg was influenced by Barth, he did not accept his theological program, since Barth appears to lose every link between anthropology and faith. Nor did he find Bultmann’s theology “from below” a satisfactory starting point. According to Pannenberg, Bultmann transposes the center of gravity in theology from historical facts to the human person’s self-understanding, thus making the interpretation of human existence the framework that establishes the norms for theology. The result is an inappropriate individualization of faith. Pannenberg asserts that liberation theology likewise represented a theological one-sidedness. The endeavor to make the Gospel operative in contexts of societal oppression led to an accommodation of the Gospel to secular understandings of reality, and this ultimately sucked the power out of the liberating message of the Gospel. What then is Pannenberg’s program in the encounter with these challenges? The short answer is that he wants to overcome subjectivism by means of a theology that entails an intellectual obligation. In a period where the concept of God seems to have lost its meaning, and historical consciousness has made it impossible to believe on the basis of a formal scriptural authority (à la Barth), the only way for theology to recover its credibility is through an intersubjective justification of what it does. This inevitably means that we must investigate questions that lie in the point of intersection between theology and other sciences. It also obliges us to discuss theological universality. Few twentieth-century theologians took this task as seriously as Pannenberg, who entered into dialogue with sociologists, physicists, historians, and philosophers. For Pannenberg, systematic theology entails inter alia integrating the total reality of human experience into the discussion of the truth of faith. Only under these conditions is it possible to examine whether the God in whom one believes is a reality or an illusion.
