Is there a Gnostic Tendency in Modern Theology?

If you want you can read this post as frustration over Tillich's loss in yesterdays game, or over the fact that I still have over 400 pages of Panneberg's system to read, and I am supposed to go on vacation today.

I think Pannebergs victory in his current game is clear enough so I can say this: I am yet to find one engaging idea in this work, that would be Panneberg's own. He borrows a lot of good stuff (Barth, Moltman, Rahner...) and brings it all together in a impressive synthesis. But what I lack is the feeling of blood, sweat and tears on the pages. It's all too cool, aloft, balanced and... well, boring.

But my point is not to criticize Pannenberg. The thing that got me thinking is why this way of doing theology seems to be so popular at the moment, while the kind of theology that wrestles with the Christian tradition, that turns it around, breaks it up, kicks at it, shouts at it, loves it, and makes it shine seem to be considered not worthy of attention.

Gnostic? Well, gnosticism is a million things to a million men. I am referring to the notion that to create is to form pre-existent matter.

Now, what we see in Panneberg is a theology that is completely sealed, it is presents the Christian tradition as a unified systematic whole that encompasses most of the results of modern theological research. But like the demiurge of the gnostics, Panneberg has not created this theology ex nihilo, he has simply taken what is already there, modified some bits to get it all to fit together, and presented it all as a system. Now, this is no doubt a great intellectual achievement, and I am not denying it's usefulness. But it is a kind of encyclopedic knowledge. It is not alive.

My question is: Is this really a Christian way of doing theology? It is my firm belief that to be a Christian involves cultivating one's creativity. We believe in a God who created heaven and earth out of the ouk on. Divine creativity, according to Christian doctrine, is not about systemizing pre-existent ideas, it is bringing into being that which previously was not.

Obviously, as creations we cannot create ex nihilo, but we are still called to be the likeness of God. Creativity is what we are called to.

The gnostic notion of creation is stable. It is perfect (and thus evil, even the gnostic recognized that). This is not the case of the Christian notion. Even when God creates the result is not perfect, but it is good. God's creation has this element of insecurity in it, something that makes it alive. Maybe this is a way of understanding evil - it has to be to make creation able to move. (I know, this is metaphysics, don't use this in counseling...) Anyway, this, too is the case of human creativity - its goal is not to make something perfect, it is to make something that is alive.

This, it seems to me, should apply also to theology. We are called to create theology that is alive. This will make it maybe easy to criticize, but it will be so much more beautiful than theology that strives at perfection.

(I have probably misinterpreted Panneberg completely, and I'm sorry for that. See the reason in the first paragraph...)

Now let's get the quarter-finals started.