Abstract
Hocknull’s recent study fills an overdue gap in Pannenberg studies. Namely, the critical assessment of Pannenberg’s earlier writings that he did not give enough weight to the problem of evil has never been updated in light of his mature theology, which Hocknull argues, views evil as an underlying assumption. Even so, Hocknull sets out not to write a theodicy (i.e., his work is not ‘an attempt to justify the ways of God to the world’, (p.1)), but instead to use Pannenberg as a fresh theological resource when it comes to answering two interrelated questions about evil and love: (1) ‘can we love God in the face of evil?’ and (2) ‘can we be sure, in the face of evil, that God loves us?’ (p.1). With these questions in view, Hocknull is for the most part successful in arguing for the continuing relevance of Pannenberg’s programme with regard to the allegedly floundering German theological tradition and the contemporary world situation, post 9/11, as a whole.
In framing evil as a ‘test case’ for Pannenberg’s overall programme, Hocknull’s six chapters could easily be read as something of an up-to-date introductory text to Pannenberg’s thought and its corresponding secondary literature. Beginning with a survey of the scholarly search for a ‘hermeneutic key’ to Pannenberg (ch. 1), Hocknull traces the theme of evil through the landscape of Pannenberg’s Trinitarian theology (ch. 2), cosmology (ch. 2), eschatological ontology (chs. 2, 4, & 6), theological anthropology (ch. 3), doctrine of divine sovereignty (ch. 4), Christology (ch. 5) and soteriology (ch. 5). The result is an original contribution to the conversations surrounding the problem of evil in general and Pannenberg studies that would be appreciated by those in the academy as well as those seeking a theological resource for pastoral ministry.
Though Hocknull helpfully covers much ground, echoes of Eastern Christianity go unrecognized throughout. As such, an engagement with the Christian East, perhaps with the thought of Maximus the Confessor (often seen as Augustine’s Eastern counterpoint) and with the theopaschite formula for the ‘suffering God’ discussion (ch. 5) would have made Hocknull’s argument more complete. Hocknull’s reading of Romans 8:20 (ch. 2), though referencing likeminded biblical commentaries, would have been bolstered by a more direct refutation of the more conservative viewpoints. In addition, in discussing original sin and guilt (ch. 3), the Augustinian tradition comes across as somewhat caricatured. These shortcomings aside, the volume overall achieves its aims.