Nature of Evil

Moltmann and Pannenberg Comparing and Contrasting theologies of Moltmann and Pannenberg Comparing and contrasting theologies of Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg: The nature of evil How is it possible for God to be good in a world full of evil? This is one of the most essential questions all theologians grapple with, including Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Although there are similarities between both thinkers, according to Kane (2005), both theologians have fundamentally different points-of-view of human freedom.

For Pannenberg, all human beings have the freedom to fulfill their human destiny in a positive or a negative fashion. "The ability to decide among possibilities of conduct is a high form of creaturely independence," but true freedom finds its fullest expression in the Trinity (Kane 2005: 41). Furthermore, although the creation may manifest imperfections, this is not a reflection upon God, who remains separate from his creations which are given free will and agency to choose evil (Kane 2005: 42).

In other words, if there is evil in the world, it is because of human origins, not because of God's imperfection. God could not give His creation all of is infinite wisdom and perfection without making the creation a rival God, hence the existence of evil in the world. "If the creator willed a world of finite creatures and their independence, then he had to accept their corruptibility and suffering and the possibility of evil as a result of their striving for their own autonomy" (Kane 2005:42).

In contrast, Moltmann suggests that suffering is a reality and suffering is an opportunity to understand God better. He acknowledges the challenge of believing in a good God given a world full of suffering innocents. But Moltmann points out that even God in the form of Jesus cries out against the injustice of suffering, indicating God's own awareness of this problem. "Although Jesus went willingly…he did not suffer passively…he cried out 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Mk. 15:34)." (Kane 2005: 44).

Despite these divergences in their emphasis, there are still common, resonant themes between the two theologians. Both "point to a future that for atheism is an impossibility: a good future without suffering" in the form of the future Kingdom of God (Kane 2005: 45). Although suffering may exist in this imperfect world given humanity's imperfection, God ultimately offers the promise of eternal redemption from suffering. Through resurrection in a physical, historical sense there is hope from a redemption from evil.

This point-of-view is seen as a fundamental shift from previous, common views of the hereafter. "Israel's religion of promise was eminently of this-worldly in orientation," before Christ, according to these theologians, "repudiating any notion of resignation to the beyond of epiphany religion. For Israel, death cuts one off from God and the promise" (Otto 1992: 81).

Regardless of whether one agrees with this view of Judaism, Moltmann and Pannenberg's perceived contrast underlines the importance of physical resurrection in the person of Christ as an essential solution to the problem of the existence of evil. Moltmann calls the resurrection of Jesus an event without precedent, and an example of God's true goodness, even though evil is a reality (Otto 1992: 83). The resurrection becomes a metaphor, a stand-in for a much larger historical transformation. Moltmann's conception.