Wolfhart Pannenberg

Hombre e Iglesia para el teólogo alemán Wolfhart Pannenberg son correlativos, el hombre es el sujeto y destinatario de lo eclesial, y a su vez la Iglesia es ese lugar de comunión como sinónimo de plenificación que lleva al hombre a ser-para-otros, y de esa manera ser- para-Dios en cuanto que es su imagen. En cuanto a la tarea de la eclesiología para el autor, es mostrar la función de signo que la Iglesia cumple con referencia al reino de Dios, dando a los hombres la certeza (sin confundirla con el reino de Dios), de ser partícipes de la salvación escatológica y proponiéndose ella misma, en una existencia vivida sobre todo en la liturgia y la predicación, como lugar de la presencia del Espíritu en vistas al cumplimiento escatológico. Aparece así la Iglesia en el contexto más amplio de la doctrina del Espíritu Santo (pneumatología) como don escatológico que lleva al cumplimiento de la salvación. Por ello la importancia que asume la Iglesia, valorada especialmente por su carácter unitario y comunional, para la autocomprensión de cada cristiano. De esta manera antropología, escatología, y eclesiología junto a la cristología y pneumatología que el autor elabora se conectan en un movimiento dinámico que comienza y termina en Dios. En el siguiente ensayo se toma en primer lugar el aporte antropológico teológico, luego el ámbito de lo escatológico, seguido brevemente por el aporte pneumatológico, para finalizar en lo eclesiológico propiamente.

Die Untersuchung der Rezeption und Beurteilung des Thomas von Aquin durch Wolfhart Pannenberg und Eberhard Jüngel ist zugleich ein Vergleich zwischen dem Scholastiker und den beiden führenden deutschen evangelischen Theologen des letzten Drittels des 20. Jh.s. Es zeigt sich dabei, daß Thomas und Pannenberg ein grundlegend anderes Verständnis von Apologetik haben und daß Pannenberg innerhalb der scholastischen Debatte Scotus gegen Thomas favorisiert.
Jüngel verkennt, daß bei Thomas die Metaphysik konstruktiv in die Heilsgeschichte eingearbeitet ist und daß diese auf die Schau der Substanz Gottes im Eschaton ausgerichtet ist.

This thesis loactes a Christian rationale for human well-being in relation to the doctrine of the triune God. Specifically, this theological inquiry examines the triune God’s work in, and for, creation with a view to identifying the characteristics and dynamics of divine well-being through the intra-trinitarian movement of gift and receipt. This gifting and receiving within the Godhead is identified as ‘Divine self-enrichment’ — defined as God enriching God in the perfection and fullness of God. The mode through which Divine self-enrichment occurs is essentially kenotic. The thesis provides an extended inquiry into the theological logic of kenotic-enrichment, and its implications for human well-being. In particular, the thesis argues that the pattern of kenotic-enrichment is to be discerned in the dynamic economy of God in creation and human life. When humanity exhibits characteristics of kenotic-enrichment identified in the economic Trinity, there we see intimations of the work of God. In this sense, the archetype of divine enrichment is antecedently operative in the creation; where kenotic-enrichment conditions created well-being. The thesis, therefore, argues that a theology of triune self-enrichment provides an alternate, and complementary, theological paradigm for Christian rationale and praxis of international development and humanitarian aid.

The term " person " has been important in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Modern uses of the word, however, have changed drastically its meaning and have raised serious questions about the lasting significance of the definition of the Trinity produced by the controversies of the patristic era. For this reason, some modern theologians have argued in favor of rephrasing traditional formulas, particularly the Trinitarian formula of one God in three persons. Others have contended that the term " person " should be retained in Trinitarian theology, because the modern notion of an individual center of consciousness and action helps to express the relationships among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This book analyzes and evaluates the Trinitarian theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928–) and the importance that he attributes to the term " person. " In addition, this study provides an overview of key themes in the systematic expression of his theology in general and summarizes his treatment of the term's use throughout the history of Trinitarian theology. The crucial discussion in the present work takes the form of an analysis of Pannenberg's Trini-tarian theology and his use of the term " person " with particular emphasis on the way this material is developed in his systematic theology. The final chapter evaluates the contribution, importance, and influence as well as strengths and weaknesses of Pannenberg's thoughts on the debate over the use of the term " person " in Trinitarian theology.

Wolfhart Pannenberg is one of the most important theologians of the second half of the twentieth century. This volume offers the first full historical and thematic survey of Pannenberg’s corpus, from his early work on the theology of revelation and Christology, to his writings on anthropology, theology, and the university, and the pivotal achievement of his systematic theology. In the process of this survey, it identifies the broad, consistent development in his work across his career, as well as several significant revisions to his positions. As such, the project makes a significant contribution to the theological assessment of his career and will be a useful text for students and scholars in modern and contemporary theology.

In addition to the historical survey of his career, The Unity of Theology identifies four key themes in Pannenberg’s theological system and traces their development. These themes of anticipation, interdisciplinarity, public theology, and diversity in unity also help to further articulate the importance of his contribution to contemporary theological approaches in light of the challenges of post-modernity. Pannenberg’s work is creative in its fidelity to the biblical witnesses and creative in its interaction with the key questions of the day.

The liberating work of God calls the oppressed out of oppression and the oppressor out of oppressing. The challenge in seeking a thorough liberation of oppressors is to help them understand their need for freedom and how to seek this freedom in their own contexts. Patrick Oden provides a holistic biblical, historical, and theological analysis that diagnoses the underlying motivations and inclinations that lead to oppression. Part one addresses the context of oppression, in which most participants in oppression do not actively seek to harm others but are caught up in systems that tend toward the diminishment of others. Part two examines the biblical and early Christian response to oppression, discovering a thread that avoids condemning participation in society generally while also cautioning the people of God about being co-opted by society. Part three discusses how oppressors can withdraw from oppression, through a constructive analysis of four contemporary theologians—Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jürgen Moltmann, Sarah Coakley, and Jean Vanier—each of whom contributes to a widening vision of liberated and liberating life in which the once-oppressed and former oppressor can find peace together in community.

Foreword written by Jürgen Moltmann

For Pannenberg, the resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christology, without which all Christological claims would crumble into dust. Starting from this basis, Pannenberg constructs a Christology that proceeds methodologically “from below” that succeeds in becoming a “high” Christology in terms of its theological content.
The paper begins by exploring the main facets of Pannenberg’s methodological bases: a historical approach to theology, and the central importance of the future hope for the arrival of the kingdom of God. The latter of these requires a survey of Pannenberg’s eschatology itself in order to proceed. In light of this methodological background, Pannenberg’s Christology itself is explored. Finally, critical engagements with the material are offered.

It is difficult to praise Karl Barth while earning the disfavor of his strongest (and latest) devotees, but this theological biography earned precisely that prize. The ripples of Barth's influence, especially in American circles, were at first a threat to conservative Protestantism's propositional and scholastic assertions of theological methodology, then the salvation of the Christian tradition's diminished influence in intellectual and cultural circles. Add to that Barth's counter-cultural fame as an opponent of traditional European liberalism and open critic of the German Church's acquiescence to the Third Reich, and it seems everyone wants to 'own' Barth, but on their own terms which they have come to confuse with his.

This theological biography first appeared in Walter Elwell's 2d edition of his Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, and as noted, made no one happy - especially at places such as Wheaton College (where the cool-factor of quoting Barth has never lost its appeal and Barth's traditional Reformed confessionalism have made him an example of opposition to postmodernity's antipathy toward the school's warmed-over modernistic response to all challenges.

The ethics of Wolfhart Pannenberg has a nomological dimension at its center. Based on the history of the natural law tradition, Pannenberg maintains the possibility of the natural law theory on the following five grounds. The theological ground is his understanding of the Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Pauline interpretation of the law. For its historical ground, Pannenberg articulates the natural law theories of Patristic theology and the theologies of Troeltsch and Brunner. The ontological ground is the order of the world, which God established in the process of history. The anthropological ground is the mutuality of human society. The latter two dimensions are related to the epistemological ground, which is based on the hermeneutics of universal history. Pannenberg attempts to combine the law, the gospel, and love in relation to the Kingdom of God. Thus, Pannenberg’s Kingdom ethics is nomological as well as eschatological.

The article begins from the affirmation that
there is a close bond between ecclesiology and ecumenism,
especially from the Second Vatican Council. It is presented
within the general framework of the reflection on the Church,
which the author ponders using the category of “sacrament”,
as a possible point of convergence for the development of
current ecumenical dialogues. If our understanding of the
Church affects the way we confront the question of Christian
unity, the author wants to respond to this question: would a
sacramental conception of the Church facilitate an ecclesiological coming together of orthodox and protestants, clearing
the way for full communion? In the author’s opinion the response will be positive, as the harmonization of the concepts
of “sacrament” and “communion” in current ecclesiology is
necessary so that the voices of theologians from all Christian
denominations be listened to and a convergent ecclesiology
be elaborated.

This chapter re-evaluates the sources and directions of twentieth-century eschatological thought, that is, of reflections on the Christian hope for 'the last things'. The chapter opens with a sketch of the sources of 20 th-century developments in the 19 th century. Although 19 th-century eschatology was dominated by assimilation to the age's general meliorism, the roots of early 20th-century eschatologies of crisis are found here, for example in the work of Franz Overbeck. A second section examines in depth the eschatological responses of theologians to the crisis of the First World War, both existential (Barth, Bultmann, Gogarten) and political (Peterson). A third section details the dominant eschatologies of the postwar years, particularly Moltmann's and Pannenberg's, which rethink the eschatological future as retroactive. A fourth and final section examines the shift of eschatological discourse from a speculative to a pragmatic register in confrontation with the 'eschatological' ambitions of biological and digital technology.

In examining the discipline of phenomenology and its relationship to the Christian concept of revelation, we enter into a paradigm study of the relationship between philosophy and Christian theology, if theology is defined as the study of revealed religion. In this necessarily short article, after introducing key terms and concepts,  I will argue that phenomenology can illuminate aspects of natural revelation and also clarify aspects of special revelation.  The starting point of phenomenology as a human activity is both necessary in terms of the limits of its discipline as an epistemology, yet also a limitation which points to the necessity of ‘outside’ help from special revelation.  I will treat in particular the theme of ‘consciousness’ in phenomenology as a potential subject matter of natural revelation and discuss to what extent phenomenology opens up or distorts this light.  The important insight that hiddenness is a condition for the reception of revelation is dealt with next, alongside its corollary of the inexhaustibility of revelation. Finally there is a brief exploration of how phenomenology’s treatment of ‘things themselves’ could help clarify an understanding of the relationship between the immanent and the economic trinity.

En este texto pretendemos dar cuenta de un diálogo entre una figura eminente de la teología del siglo veinte: Wolfhart
Pannenberg; y una forma particular de hacer teología, que se está abriendo camino desde finales del siglo pasado y durante
este siglo se está consolidando: la Teología del Pluralismo Religioso (TPR). Más que una relación forzada, queremos
presentar una introducción a Pannenberg y un ejercicio interpretativo en donde la TPR puede beber de la riqueza
argumentativa y teológica de conceptos tales como «verdad», «historia» y «religión», según el esbozo de una parte de la
obra de este insigne teólogo.

Is the Christ of faith the Christ of history? Is it even important that the two correspond? Wolfhart Pannenberg responded to attacks on the historicity of Jesus by approaching Christology from below. Pannenberg believed that the Christ of faith must be validated by the Christ of history. This paper examines and critiques Pannenberg's approach.

Does the notion of 'Trinitarian persons' have any practical value for the lives of Christians today? While theologians such as Karl Barth and Karl Rahner have famously argued that 'person' is an outdated term that can no longer adequately speak to contemporary Christians because of shifts in the term's meaning, others like Wolfhart Pannenberg are convinced that these shifts are the precise reason that the term 'person' is more valuable than ever for trying to understand God and the divine/world relation. This article seeks to set forward a clearer definition of Pannenberg's use of the term 'person' in contrast to the definitions set out by Barth and Rahner and will use this definition to demonstrate the significance of Trinitarian personhood for theology.

Prompted by the September 4, 2014 passing of a Continental titan of Protestant systematic theology, this article summarizes the life and thought of Wolfhart Pannenberg. A brief review is offered of his conversion from atheism to the Christian faith, student studies, and faculty positions along with his corpus of writings. An in-depth analysis is offered of Pannenberg's key theological commitments to creation, eschatology, Christology, Trinity, retroactive ontology, prolepsis, anthropology, and the relationship between time and eternity. The scale and complexity and subtlety of Pannenberg's worldview renders it vulnerable to charges of incoherence; but few can doubt the masterful achievement of the gift of this person's life—a gift from God—to the world of Christian theology.

Abstract This paper will examine the implications of an extended “field theory of information,” suggested by Wolfhart Pannenberg, specifically in the Christian understanding of creation. The paper argues that the Holy Spirit created the world as field, a concept from physics, and the creation is directed by the logos utilizing information. Taking into account more recent developments of information theory, the essay further suggests that present creation has a causal impact upon the information utilized in creation. In order to adequately address Pannenberg's hypothesis that the logos utilizes information at creation the essay will also include an introductory examination of Pannenberg's Christology which shifts from a strict “from below” Christology, to a more open “third way” of doing Christology beyond “above” and “below.” The essay concludes with a brief section relating the implications of an extended “field theory of information” to creative inspiration, as well as parallels with human inspiration.

“EKD Texte 57(1996)”과 판넨베르크의 글들은 동성애 문제에 접근하는 독일개신교 신학자들의 이해가 어떻게 대립되는지를 매우 잘 보여준다. 크게 세 가지 대조점이 있다.
첫째, 성경해석과 관련하여 차이가 난다. “EKD Texte 57”은 성경이 동성애 행위를 반대하고 있음을 인정한다. 그러나 예수 그리스도께서 가르친 사랑의 이중계명과 은혜의 원리에 따라 성경본문들을 읽는다면 오히려 교회는 동성애를 인정하고 포용해야 한다고 주장한다. 이에 반해서 판넨베르크는 성경을 윤리적으로 적용하는 데 있어서 그리스도의 중심성을 인정하지만, 이웃 사랑을 하나님 사랑보다 우위에 두어서는 안 된다고 강조한다. 판넨베르크는 동성애를 인정하는 것이 사랑의 이중계명의 중요한 취지를 놓치는 것이며, 성경의 명백한 가르침을 무시하는 처사라고 주장한다.
둘째, 성(性)과 결혼과 가정에 대한 이해에서 차이가 난다. “EKD Texte 57”은 성경적이고 신학적인 근거가 없음에도 불구하고 다양한 종류의 동거 방식들이 존재한다고 주장한다. 이것은 결혼을 한 남자와 한 여자의 결합이라고 보는 창조규례와 예수 그리스도 및 사도들의 일관된 가르침을 무시하는 처사이다. 하지만 판넨베르크는 예수께서 결혼을 일부일처제로 규정한 것을 강조하며, 그 원리는 모든 시대 모든 그리스도인들이 기억해야 할 결혼의 기초라고 주장한다. 그는 또한 문화인류학적이고 역사적인 탐구에 근거하여 다른 동거 방식들보다도 일부일처제가 인간의 성(性)을 가장 숭고하게 통합시킨다고 주장한다. 특별히 판넨베르크는 일부일처제가 가지는 종교적 기반에 대해서 강조한다.
셋째, 교회 내의 동성애 문제에 접근하는 방식에 있어서 차이가 난다. “EKD Texte 57”은 소수자의 권리를 보호하고 차별을 철폐하기 위해서 동성애 목사를 허용해야 한다고 주장한다. 하지만 그럼에도 불구하고 목사관(牧師館)을 동성애 목사에게 주어서는 안 된다든지, 동성애적 동거가 이성 결혼만큼 온전하다고 설교해서는 안 된다든지, 동성애자들을 특정해서 축도해서는 안 된다든지 하는 제한사항을 둔다. 무엇보다 “EKD Texte 57”은 동성애 문제가 “고백적 지위(status confessionis)”를 가진 문제는 아니라고 말하면서 이 문제의 중요성을 약화시킨다. 판넨베르크는 성경이 동성애를 아주 심각한 죄로 다룬다는 것을 지적한다. 또한 그는 동성애를 수납하려는 자들은 교회 분열을 야기하고 있으며, “하나의 거룩하고 보편적이며 사도적인 교회”에서 이탈하는 것이라고 주장한다.

** Summary **
“EKD Texte 57 (1996)” and the writings of Pannenberg show very well how conflicting are the understandings of German Protestant theologians in their approach to homosexual issues. There are three contrasting points.
First, they differ in their interpretation of the Bible. “EKD Texte 57” recognizes that the Bible opposes homosexual conduct. However, if one reads the related biblical texts according to the double commandment of love and the principle of grace taught by Jesus Christ, argues “EKD Texte 57,” one should be led to acknowledge and embrace homosexuality. On the contrary, Pannenberg acknowledges the centrality of Christ in the ethical application of the Bible, but emphasizes that believers should not place love of neighbors over love of God. Pannenberg argues that embracing homosexuality misses the important purpose of the double commandment of love and disregards the obvious teachings of the Bible.
Second, they differ about sex, marriage, and family. “EKD Texte 57” emphasizes the existence of various forms of cohabitation without biblical and theological grounds. In so doing, it ignores both the creation order for marriage as a union of one man and one woman, and the consistent teaching of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Pannenberg, however, stresses that Jesus defines marriage as a monogamy, and that principle is the foundation of marriage that all Christians through all ages should remember. He also maintains that, based on cultural-anthropological and historical studies, monogamy is a more noble integration of human sexuality than any other form of cohabitation. In particular, Pannenberg underscores the religious foundations of monogamy.
Third, they differ in the way they approach homosexual issues in the church. “EKD Texte 57” argues that homosexual ministers should be allowed to protect minority rights and eliminate discrimination. Nevertheless, it places restrictions on whether to give a rectory to a homosexual pastor, to preach that homosexual cohabitation is not as complete as heterosexual marriage, or to give a benediction to homosexuals. Above all, “EKD Texte 57” weakens the importance of the problem of homosexuality by saying that it is not an issue with “state of confession” (status confessionis). On the contrary, Pannenberg points out that the Bible treats homosexuality as a very serious sin. He also declares that those who want to accommodate homosexuality are causing divisions in the church and depart from “a holy, universal, apostolic church.”

Ob Theologie als Wissenschaft anzusehen ist, hängt natürlich davon ab, welche Kriterien für Wissenschaftlichkeit angelegt werden. Es werden zunächst die wissenschaftstheoretischen Ansätze des Logischen Empirismus und des Kritischen Rationalismus untersucht.Ich argumentiere dafür, dass trotz der kritischen Anfragen dieser Wissenschaftstheorien Theologie eine Wissenschaft ist. Dabei nehme ich Bezug auf das Verständnis von Theologie als Wissenschaft bei Pannenberg und Barth, auf Überlegungen von Thomas Kuhn und die Erkenntnistheorie von Alvin Plantinga.

Is it even legitimate to talk about scriptural authority in the postmodern context where metanarratives are rendered obsolete; or, do we need to rely on a circular appeal to scripture to validate its own claims? This essay grapples with the issue of revisioning the scriptural authority by challenging the epistemic presuppositions of foundationalist and nonfoundationalist methods to construct a postfoundationalist conception through a dialectical interaction between these suppositions. This thesis will argue that while Wolfhart Pannenberg’s theological methodology confines the scope of propositional revelation to only history (manifestational revelation), Nicholas Wolterstorff’s Divine Discourse limits propositional revelation to only divine speech (nonmanifestational), by reading them dialectically, we can arrive at a viable postfoundationalist position that enables us to understand scriptural authority without succumbing to foundationalist or nonfoundationalist binary.

Résumé : Pour mettre en honneur la dimension relationnelle et dialogique de la personne humaine, beaucoup d’exégètes et de théologiens, surtout depuis Karl Barth, refusent une interprétation structurelle de l’imago Dei. Ma contribution propose plutôt de montrer qu’une interprétation relationnelle de l’image doit être articulée avec une interprétation structurelle et que toutes les deux sont marquées par une tension téléologique. Edith Stein concrétise cette thèse dans sa réflexion sur l’individualité de la personne humaine qui, dans sa perspective, est condition d’un enrichissement mutuel qui ne concerne pas seulement la diversité des vécus, mais l’enrichissement par les personnes elles-mêmes. La thèse de Stein pourrait être énoncée de la manière suivante : pour valoriser une approche relationnelle et communionnelle, il faut en même temps valoriser une approche ontologique et structurelle de la personne humaine, plus particulièrement en ce qui concerne son individualité qualitative.

Abstract: To appreciate the relational and dialogical dimensions of the human person, many exegetes and theologians, especially after Karl Barth, have refused a structural interpretation of the imago Dei. My contribution proposes rather to show that a relational interpretation of the image must be articulated with a structural one and that both are marked by a teleological tension. Edith Stein concretises this thesis in her reflections on the individuality of the human person which, in her perspective, is a condition for the possibility of mutual enrichment, concerning not only the diversity of lived experiences, but also enrichment by other persons themselves. Stein’s thesis could be enunciated as follows: to valorise a relational and communal approach, one mustvalorise at the same time an ontological and structural approach to the human person, particularly with respect to qualitative individuality.

The article offers a critical appreciation of the Lutheran theologian Hermann Cremer (1834-1903), the leading figure of the so-called Greifswald School at the turn from the 19th to the 20th century. In particular, I consider Cremer’s essay on the doctrine of God’s attributes from 1897 in the context of his soteriology and theological epistemology, with a particular emphasis on his creative revision of the concept of God’s righteousness. According to Cremer, God’s grace is efficient precisely in and through God’s judgment. I also look at Cremer’s debate with Karl Friedrich Nösgen on the ‘righteousness of faith’ and the idea of justification by faith alone. Cremer’s thinking is then brought into conversation with several interpreters of his work in the 20th century. I conclude by raising some questions for further discussion, especially in regard to Cremer’s concept of conscience.

Revue thomiste 2018, 1 (118), p. 75-112
---------------------------
This article has two tightly related objectives. The first is to present the Trinitarian theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg by bringing out what makes its strength and originality. The second is to help one dialogue with Pannenberg and the tradition to which he belongs, and which was born in Germany after the deist shock of the 18th century. In this perspective, the author suggests being attentive to the manner of practicing Trinitarian theology. Nicene theology practices spiritual exercise, the theology of Pannenberg practices the vertigo of the intellect. The vertigo prompted by the latter is that of the infiniteness of the Trinitarian mystery, but it reflects more deeply a nostalgic search for the perfection of the divine act and the way to express it.
----------------------------
Cet article poursuit deux objectifs étroitement liés. Le premier est de présenter la théologie trinitaire de Wolfhart Pannenberg en faisant ressortir ce qui lui confère sa force et son originalité. Le second est d’aider au dialogue avec Pannenberg et avec la tradition à laquelle il appartient, celle née en Allemagne après le choc déiste du VIIIe siècle. Dans cette perspective, il est proposé de prêter attention à la manière de pratiquer la théologie trinitaire. La théologie nicéenne pratique l’exercice spirituel, la théologie de Pannenberg pratique le vertige de l’intelligence. Le vertige promu par ce dernier est celui de l’infini du mystère trinitaire, mais il reflète plus profondément une recherche nostalgique de la perfection de l’acte en Dieu et des moyens de la signifier.

RESUMEN: Este artículo trata de examinar la naturaleza conceptual del tránsito de la filosofía a la teolo-gía en la reflexión sobre la unidad y el sentido de la historia en el pensamiento de Wolfhart Pannenberg. Nos proponemos esclarecer si el movimiento que efectúa Pannenberg desde una perspectiva filosófica a una teológica en su tratamiento de la historia responde a una necesidad de la propia filosofía o si podría interpretarse, más bien, como una «deuda» contraída con sus presuposiciones teológicas.

Wolfhart Pannenberg and T.F. Torrance are amongst the most influential theologians of the 20th century.  This paper compares their theological-scientific methodology. It proceeds through a structure of the Trinity; Son, Father and Spirit. It is shown how despite many commonly held beliefs and starting points, the theological methodology T.F. Torrance and W. Pannenberg used to contrust 'theological science', is very different.

Wolfhart Pannenberg reproche à Karl Barth sa méthode de la théologie trinitaire qui postule un sujet divin antérieur à sa triple différenciation si bien que le fils et l’esprit sont « unilatéralement » dépendants du Père, et il se décide pour une autre méthode qui souligne une dépendance « réciproque » des trois personnes dans la révélation, afin d’affirmer leur unité eschatologique avec l’identité du Dieu en soi et du Dieu dans l’histoire. Revenant à la théologie de Thomas d’Aquin, notre étude formule deux modèles qui tiennent compte de la « réciprocité » et de l’« asymétrie » dans la relation divine. Les théologies pannenbergienne et barthienne sont analysées en tant qu’applications de ces modèles, cette dernière étant revisitée avec Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Les implications des deux modelés sont ensuite examinées à l’exemple de la mort du Christ qui « prend notre place sur la croix », la théologie barthienne étant encore développée avec une idée de Michel de Certeau : « faire place à l’autre ».

In this dissertation I address the question of personal identity from the perspective of Latino/a Theology and its contextual constructions within the United States of America, amid the overwhelming constraints of power relations in such context and in the global world. Thus, I examine the theological anthropologies of Latino/a theologians Miguel H. Díaz, Roberto S. Goizueta, Ada María Isasi-Díaz, and Eldin Villafañe in conversation with that of German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg to assess their understanding of the notions personal identity and praxis, and their view of the role of power. Their assertions portray the human person as social and relational, bound by culture and history, and personal identities are constructed through human action or praxis. For U.S. Hispanic theologians, identities are mostly related to cultural expressions; for Pannenberg they remain abstract; and their assessments of the effect of power are tangential. A Latino/a self whose personal identity is always in the making, in a process of toward a future of fellowship with God, must emerge.
Through a Foucauldian, postmodern critique I challenge the portrayal and essentialization of identities by the dominant culture as well as the reductive sociocultural categorizations asserted by many Latino/a scholars. A Latino/a self, the bearer of identity, inhabits the hybrid space of the U.S. Hispanic diaspora in which Latinos and Latinas share a common macro history. Therefore, an understanding of a U.S. Hispanic historical praxis, correlative with Michel Foucault’s conceptualization of care of the self, opens the possibility of resistance and freedom for individuals and communities to affirm their personal identities, which must remain open ended. Finally, a U.S. Hispanic historical praxis of resistance and solidarity is, then, a valid source for the construction of a Latino/a theological anthropology of becoming in which the self is in a journey toward fellowship with God and its personal identity remains provisional at any given point.

In the current debate in Trinitarian theology, the so called “communional” model emphasizes the reciprocal relations between the three divine persons working in the history of salvation because it has a one-sided view of the relations of origin of the Father to the Son and to the Spirit, which is the basis of the classical “generic”
model. The present study re-examines Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae as an exemple of the second model and its interpretations by Wolfhart Pannenberg and Gisbert Greshake, defenders of the first model. It then suggests a more operational and conceptual articulation: a “reciprocity” that is more than a simple symmetry, and an “asymmetry” which, being more than simply one-sided, does not contradict such a reciprocity. Two models are thus formulated which each in their own way take this double factor into account. This new typology of two models allows us to conceive the constitution of the three divine persons while paying as much attention to their common relationality as to what is proper to each of them.