Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 11 - Kärkkäinen on the Pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg

The following post is a reflection on a journal article entitled “The Working of the Spirit of God in Creation and in the People of God: The Pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg” by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen.

Kärkkäinen writes that the most characteristic feature of Pannenberg’s pneumatology is his comprehensive and holistic approach in showing the critical role of the Holy Spirit in Creation, salvation, the Church, and the eschaton.[1] The section titled “The Spirit, Salvation, and Christian Community” (pages 25  - 28) is the part of the article that I enjoyed the most. I appreciate Pannenberg’s emphasis on salvation being “always mediated by the church, by its proclamation and administration of the sacraments.”[2] I found interesting Pannenberg’s explanation of how having a pneumatology that is integrally related to creation and eschatology guards against both the view that sees the work of the Holy Spirit as only in the fellowship of believers, as well as against a harmful enthusiasm, as manifested throughout church history in groups like the Montanists.[3]

An area that I am in agreement with Kärkkäinen is his caution towards Pannenberg’s use of field concept to depict the Holy Spirit as a force field.  Pannenberg uses field theory in his doctrine of the Holy Spirit to help explain how the presence of the Holy Spirit “pervades all of creation.”[4] Among other problems with this, Kärkkäinen states that this makes the Holy Spirit impersonal, which is a notion completely foreign to Christian theology.[5] He also questions the adequacy and appropriateness of borrowing ideas from the physical sciences to explain theology.[6] I agree. Scientists have a way of changing their ideas and concepts from time to time, and I find it difficult to see how something like field theory could be adequate to explain God in any kind of enduring way. Despite Kärkkäinen’s apprehension of Pannenberg’s use of field theory, he still writes that “its potential for building bridges between science and the public sphere is undisputed.” This sort of approach thinks that if we can just appeal to such and such a group enough, they will be so impressed with our openness that they will want to become Christians. This approach to evangelism is not helpful, and can even have the opposite effect. There is also very real potential for adopting ideas that can prove wrong, and even harmful.

Overall, Pannenberg is most enjoyable when he sticks to traditional theology. Although I am not convinced by his more innovative ideas, this article was interesting to read.

 ______________________________

[1] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “The Working of the Spirit of God in Creation and in the People of God: The Pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004): 25, 31.

[2] Ibid., 26.

[3] Ibid., 27.

[4] Ibid., 20.

[5] Ibid., 23.

[6] Ibid., 32.