Pannenberg, the Positioning of Academic Theology and Philosophy of Science

As the 45th anniversary of the publication of Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie¹¹ passed in 2018, critics of W. Pannenberg continued to miss the educational-political relevance not simply of the work but of the overall subject within the Academy. The book remains a classic to be quoted and is included in relevant works and bibliographies, most notably within the vast field of the religion-science dialogue, especially in the US. Yet, its overall use remains limited, a detail referred to by P. Clayton 15 years ago:

[There are] factors [that] may have slightly muted Pannenberg’s influence on the subsequent religion-science debate. But if so, their role was slight; Theology & the Philosophy of Science remains one of the great classics of the field up to the present day.¹²

In fact, when G. Newlands reviewed the English translation in 1976, he pointed out, even then, a perceived challenge for the subject matter:

In assessing the book, I find myself torn between admiration for the intellectual feat of bringing into a coherent pattern the fruits of so many widely diverse philosophical, sociological, and theological debates, and scepticism about the concrete results for theology which emerge. Everything has been put in its place … but it is not clear that such organization of the data in fact advances discussion of the issues. Indeed, the cutting edge of some of the problems posed for theology by philosophy and the social sciences may in this way be avoided.¹³

Newlands may well have been right. Theologians reflecting the scientificity of their own trade have, in the last 45 years, been largely occupied with various aspects concerning the relationship of theology with several sciences: in particular, the overarching and now highly fragmented discourse of theology with the natural sciences. They have been less vocal in expressing theoretical method for their discipline and a unanimous definition to the question: What is theology?

Two aspects especially are missing when Pannenberg’s work Wissenschaftstheorie is cited. The first concerns a particular content matter. Surprisingly, the epistemology regarding the scientific status of theology is a ←17 | 18→subject that, on the whole, is no longer articulated widely.¹⁴ While it is true that the subjects of philosophy of religion and philosophy of science deal with this matter, it is also equally true that these are mainly separate debates which, on the whole, are neither led nor driven by theologians. Indeed, in most academic publications the theory of knowledge (epistemology) or, indeed discussions on the nature of reality (metaphysics) of theology are now obsolete and declared a modernist relic such as, for example, by A. McGrath:

As James Barr pointed out, Pannenberg’s entire approach seemed to rest on the notion of ‘plain history’ being ‘revelatory’. This is a characteristically modernist approach which I criticized earlier for failing to appreciate the difficulties created by the collapse of the Enlightenment project.¹⁵

Instead, contemporary theologians have strongly focused on contextualized approaches when applying theological insight to other scientific disciplines and subjects.

The second aspect concerns the context in which those theological debates take place; indeed, in which any academic material is produced. Theology, as with other academic sciences, is not conducted in isolated intellectual research but is bound to academic standards, guarded by science policy and dependent on socio-cultural, historical and financial developments affecting its university ←18 | 19→environment. Nevertheless, theological debates on the subject of theology as a science are largely confined to the academic exchange;¹⁶ higher ranking issues concerning the university research environment, policies, financing and structures are generally not touched upon. On the whole, theological contributions are interdisciplinary but not transsectoral for reasons that are not entirely clear. In fact, those reasons are open to speculation rather than deductible from factual evidence. Surprising, though, is the fact that Pannenberg already addressed the necessity to include those facets in his work on theology as a science in 1973. He himself clarified the timing of the book: