Pneumatological Field and the Human Creative: Applying Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Mature Theological Science to Inspiration Considering the creative character of the Spirit that Wolfhart Pannenberg’s use of field theory is meant to convey, even if one grants Pannenberg’s distinction that the Spirit is not present in, but merely present to creation, the distance between created and creature has been significantly reduced. With the close presence of a creative and dynamic Spirit, interesting questions are raised regarding the nature of inspiration and creative human work. This paper is an exploration of who is responsible for creative beauty and in what way inspiration should be understood as a partnership between artist and Spirit in manmade creative works of art in light of Pannenberg’s description of the Spirit in terms of dynamic field. 1 A Brief overview of Field Theory Although it is difficult to provide an in depth exploration of what field theory is and its place within the contemporary world of physics, those familiar with Pannenberg’s work, especially his later writings, should have a broad understanding of his engagement with field, Pannenberg being particularly influenced by the philosophical histories of field offered by Max Jammer and William Berkson. Pannenberg openly admits his view is heavily influenced by Berkson and Jammer in Wolfhart Pannenberg, Metaphysics and the Idea of God, transl. by Philip Clayton, (Edinbrugh: T &T Clark, 1990), 108. A brief examination of his footnotes in his Systematic Theology, Towards a Theology of Nature, and most other works involving his discussion of field theory will confirm heavy reliance upon both Berkson and Jammer. Particularly William Berkson, Fields of Force: The Development of a World View From Faraday to Einstein, (New York: Halsted Press, 1974). However, because of its centrality to the current paper, I will attempt to offer the briefest of summaries. Simply put, Field Theory is primarily concerned with causal force between two objects over a gap of space. Pure Newtonian Mechanics fails to meet the criteria of ‘space’ because it uses the, now debunked, medium of Aether. Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, (edition consulted) transl. by I Bernard Cohen et al. (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), book 3 prop. 6, corollary 2.; The aether was thought to have the properties of and behave in most manners as matter and so it was essentially a matter on matter interaction. It was nonetheless an important precursor to field theory and moving beyond the explanations of causation that were entirely material and thus excluded God from the possibility of having causal force. Modern field theory began with William Faraday and his experiments using electricity and magnetism. He postulated that the field could change how it was manifest; For Faraday, this was observed as the interchange-ability of electric and magnetic fields. Faraday also hypothesized that field was actually force itself not merely the medium to transmit force, Berkson, Fields of Force, 2-3. even suggesting that matter is the concentration of force or field at a point; Ibid., 81. a notion that, according Jammer, is gaining acceptance in physics as mass is now considered less fundamental to the universe than energy. Max Jammer, Concepts of Mass in Classical and Modern Physics, (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1961), 215-221 The most well-known incarnation of field theory is Einstein’s relativity physics, whose relation of the field to mass can be expressed through the popular description E=mc2. Pannenberg regards this association between matter and energy as one of Einstein’s most significant contributions to physics as it concerns theology. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, transl. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1994), 81, hereafter ST2; Although it is interesting to note the focus on metric and non-Euclidean geometry (specifically Riemannian geometry) that Einstein takes for his description of space, it is best for our purposes to merely note the close association of space-time to field. This gives a good general introduction to field theory, Field theory is experiencing a revival and though often considered at odds with Quantum physics, Loop Quantum Gravity and M-Theory (popularly known as String Theory) are two more well known attempts to reconcile the filed and quantum physics to produce a Quantum Field Theory or Unified Theory (sometimes mistakenly referred to as a theory of everything). See Biplin, Desai, Quantum Mechanics with Basic Field Theory, (Leiden: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Heinrich Saller, Operational Spacetime, (Dordrecht: Springer, 2010); T. Padmanabhan, Gravitation: Foundations and Frontiers, (Leiden: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Yorikiyo Nagashima, Elementary Particle Physics, vol. 1, Quantum Field Theory and Particles, (Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2010); and Alexander Altland, Condensed Matter Field Theory, (Leiden: Cambridge University Press, 2010) and leads us to consider whether Pannenberg’s use of it means that he is a panentheist. 2 Panentheism and Pannenberg In recent years Pannenberg’s theology has been described by some of his critics as panentheistic. This stems in part from his eschatology, which Pannenberg readily admits is influenced by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point theory. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Faith and Reality, transl. by John Maxwell (London: Search Press, 1977), 29. However, the argument toward panentheism based upon his eschatology Roger Eugene Olson, “Trinity and Eschatology: The Historical Being of God in the Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg,” PhD Thesis, (Houston: Rice University, 1984), 327-353. is less convincing in light of the later developed description Pannenberg gives to his eschatology which Teilhard’s Omega Point description, and its pantheist/panentheist leanings, in order to maintain a necessary eschatological distinction between creature and created. Pannenberg, “Geist und Energie: Zur Phänomenologie Teilhards de Chardin,” (orig. 1971), in Beiträge zur Systematischen Theologie vol 2, Natur und Mensch—und die Zukunft der Schöpfung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1999), 61-62. The current basis for the critique of panentheism, particularly in John Cooper’s recent monograph Panentheism, has been Pannenberg’s use of field theory. John W. Cooper, Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006). Pannenberg uses field theory to describe the manner in which the Spirit acts, and specifically creates. The problem of divine causation is to reconcile an immaterial God with activity upon a physical world. Quantum mechanics, which is largely concerned with material particles down to the atomic, subatomic levels etc., fails to offer adequate resolution. Pannenberg proposes a possible solution by suggesting the Spirit creates as field, specifically as manifestations of the singularity of field. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith, ed. by Ted Peters (Louisville, KY: Westminister John Knox Press, 1993), 64-67. In other words, if matter is manifestations of field (as Faraday suggested), and the spirit creates as field, then creation would be understood as manifestations of the Spirit. This brings with it not only a different understanding of the Imago Dei, but also a seeming lack of distinction between creator and created, and thus the suggestion that Pannenberg is panentheist. Despite this, Pannenberg has repeatedly denied being a panentheist. See Wolfhart Pannenberg, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991) 45-46 hereafter IST; and various statements made by Pannenberg. While a former student of his, William Lane Craig, has made the assertion that not only is Pannenberg a panentheist, but all panentheism necessarily collapses into pantheism, William Lane Craig, “Pantheists in Spite of themselves: God and Infinity in Contemporary Theology,” in For Faith and Clarity: Philosophical Contributions to Christian Theology, ed. by John K. Beilby, (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Baker Academic, 2006), 135-156 Craig’s connection between pantheism and panentheism has been fully discredited by William Rowe. William L. Rowe, “Does Panentheism reduce to Pantheism? A Response to Craig,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 61 no. 2 (April 2007), 65-67 Instead, it is more likely that Pannenberg’s aversion stems from a desire to distance himself from the process theologians. For a survey of why process theology is antithetical to Pannenberg’s theology see, John B. Cobb, Jr. “Pannenberg and Process Theology,” in The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg: Twelve American Critiques, with an Autobiographical Essay and Response, (Minneapolis, MN, USA: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988), pp. 54-74. Pannenberg draws the distinction between his position and that of the panentheist by stating that the Spirit is present to creation not present in creation. IST, 46. However, this seems similar to the description of panentheism offered by Philip Clayton, another student of Pannenberg, who states: ‘to stress that the infinite God is ontologically as close to finite things as can possibly be thought without dissolving the distinction of Creator and created altogether.’ Philip Clayton, “The Panentheistic Turn in Christian Theology,” Dialog, vol. 38, no. 4, (Fall 1999), p. 289. Italics original; He goes on to say that this means that biblical statements about God being all in all are not discarded, while the framework for understanding those statements is. Although naive panentheism is defined as God present in everything, though not only in everything, mature developments can range from such a description to the suggestion that everything operates within God, as in the process theologians, or Clayton’s definition that there is no distance between God and creation. The danger of panentheism as giving an unclear distinction between God and creation is not a concern for Pannenberg, This is contrary to the position of Robert John Russell in “Contingency in Physics and Cosmology: A Critique of the Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg,” Zygon 23:1 (March, 1988), p. 25, who there suggests that the dependence associated with panentheism would preclude it in Pannenberg’s theology due to his use of contingency. However, later Pannenberg declares that God’s activity within creation’s history, ‘he has made himself dependent’ upon that history, in the first volume of his Systematic Theology, thus nullifying Russell’s earlier assertion; see Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, transl. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 329, hereafter ST1. who maintains that creation exists as singularities of the spirit resulting in simultaneous dependency and independency between creation and Creator in a contingent universe. However, Pannenberg nevertheless maintains a marked distinction between God the Father and creation, particularly in regard to the eschaton. It is reasonable to assume, then, that rather than an outright panentheism, Pannenberg’s later theology amounts to a pneumatological panentheism, which may avoid the perceived pitfalls of naive panentheism. Regardless of whether this is an accurate description, the point remains, with regard to creation, particularly human creation in ‘the image of God’ there is a considerable reduction of distance between creator and created. Thus, if created humans are essentially manifestations of the Spirit, who is traditionally understood as the person who “inspires,” in what sense is inspired work that of an individual and in what sense the work of God? In short, what does it mean for a piece of art or literature to be considered “inspired”? 3 Pannenberg on Inspiration The majority of what Pannenberg says directly about inspiration is, unsurprisingly, related to the doctrine of the inspiration of Scriptures. In the final volume of his systematic, Pannenberg understands the work of the Spirit as ‘always in some measure linked to an imparting of his dynamic’ and when received as a gift, such as in the Son, the Spirit takes on a fuller expression of this manifestation of the ‘dynamic’ of God. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, transl. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1998), 9-10, hereafter ST3. Additionally, the concept of specifically Scriptural inspiration is, for Pannenberg, distinct from the act of revelation. Rather than merely interpret or solidify the revelatory activity of God, Pannenberg suggests that, following Rothe, inspiration adds to the revelatory activity of God. ST1, 225-226. Thus, rather than limit the concept of inspiration to self-revelation, Pannenberg, in a shift toward Martin Kähler, In Wolfhart Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology, vol. 1, transl. by George H. Kehm (London: SCM Press, 1970), Pannenberg discredits this part of Kähler in his essay of “Kerygma and History”, 81-95. argues for a distinction between historical manifestation of God and inspiration that, particularly with the word of God, highlights a complex interaction. ST1, 226. In this view there is a distinct inspiration and revelation for all three Barthian senses of the word of God. ST1, 226-227. This also means that ‘inspired’ works not only convey beauty or something about God, but that they have, in some sense, a ‘revelatory value’. This, however, only serves to highlight the problem further. 4 Whose work is the Inspired Object? Pannenberg’s understanding of inspiration, coupled with his description of the creative activity of the Spirit creates a tension. When one is presented with an object of creative beauty, or conversely when one is presented with something completely devoid of creative beauty, who is responsible for beauty’s presence (or absence)? Drawing from Pannenberg’s commitment to the contingency of creation, a solution may be possible. Pannenberg seeks to maintain contingency while still arguing that creation is moving toward a definite goal, such as the Omega point; in doing so he posits the existence of ‘unified contingent series’ that necessarily results in a creation that is both dependent and independent of God and an ordered contingency to the universe. ST1, 386-387; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Kingdom of God, ed. by Richard John Neuhaus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 58. Pannenberg argues that God’s creative acts must necessarily be done contingently, Due to the self-fulfilled nature of God. and the resultant creatures, due to the nature of God’s creative love, will be contingent. ST1, 369; Wolfhart Pannenberg, ‘Theological Appropriation of Scientific Understandings: Response to Hefner, Wicken, Eaves, and Tipler,’ Zygon (24.2, June 1989), 269. Thus creation, which in one sense owes its existence to the contingent act of God, is itself contingently acting alongside, and independent of, God. ST2, 20. Rather than view the existence of creative beauty, at least human creative beauty, as the work of the human or God only, it should properly be understood as a partnership between God and human, while also done independently by both God and human. Indeed, it seems that this is what we mean when we declare something to be ‘inspired.’ Creative beauty of this sort is fully the work of a human and fully the work of God, yet also the partnership between the two. Due to the panentheistic nature of the spirit, this may be regarded as true regardless of the conscious awareness on the part of the human artist/creation. However, this may also address a classic theodicy. The absence of the creative beauty remains the responsibility of God, but is also, on this scheme, the responsibility of humanity, both together must address it. Because of the contingent and independent nature of creation, and particularly the ‘unique manifestation of field’ that the Spirit represents in humanity, there is a mutual obligation to address the absence of creative beauty or, to put it in more concrete terms, for the “ugliness” of the world. Thus the suffering in the world is not a problem for the theist, but a call to respond. In accusing God, the individual accuses her or his self. In this there is a call to partner with God to turn the evil in the world, into the inspired work of God with creation. Conclusion Using Pannenberg’s concept of field, and arguing that, despite Pannenebrg’s objections, his pneumatology at the least is observably non-distinct from panentheism, this paper has given a more detailed description of what inspiration means, as well as suggesting the potential responsibility for social action in those terms. Through the concept of contingency and creative love, which results in a dependent yet independent relationship between God and creatures, particular humans, the paper has argued that inspired work is simultaneously entirely the work of God, entirely the work of the involved human, and entirely the partnership between the two. From this, there is both an appreciation for all “inspired” work as well as a challenge to turn suffering in the world into what might be considered an “inspired” response. 9