posted
You've mentioned a couple of times that you have strong Tillichian leanings. I haven't read much Tillich (I think only The Courage to Be), but I have read a lot of Rollo May, a humanistic psychologist who was heavily influenced by Tillich. However, I think May is an absolutely awful theorist and I wasn't all that impressed the the one Tillich book I read. Could you explain a little bit of what Tillich was trying to say and why it resonates so stringly with you? I promise that I'm not looking to argue with you here. I'm interested to learn about this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd love to, but I'm on my way out the door right now. I'll get back to you tonight.
I will say, right now, that The Courage to Be is not one of my favorite books, though it's probably his most well known. I simply love Dynamics of Faith though. (And it's only 140 pages. Read it! Read it!)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, rather than try to do a whole summary of Tillich, I’m going to focus on a few of the areas I agree with the most. (There are areas I disagree with too, but that wouldn’t be answering the question you asked. )
The first is methodological. Tillich was writing at a time (early 20th century) when theologians were trying to figure out how to relate to modernity and the intellectual challenges posed by philosophy, psychology, science, etc. Some groups rejected these “new” teachings entirely. Others, while less hostile, claimed they were entirely irrelevant to the Christian message, which is derived solely from revelation and is the same at all times and all places. Others said no, theology needs to take seriously challenges from other disciplines, and needs to address the particular questions raised by society/culture/academia/etc. Tillich was one of the primary advocates of this last position. The way he set it out is known as the method of correlation – the primary task of theology is to correlate the truths found in revelation with the existential questions of human beings. As those questions are different at different times, theology too must change in response to new questions.
Religion becomes irrelevant when it’s answering questions that nobody is asking. I tend to think this is a problem with a lot of evangelical Protestantism. We’re still answering Luther’s question – How can I be sure I’m not going to hell? -- when the people we’re trying to evangelize aren’t really all that worried about going to hell. Which leaves two options – either we can try to scare everyone with the threat of hell so that they’ll want the answer we already have prepared, or we can figure out what their deepest questions really are, and see if there’s anything in Christianity that might answer those questions. Tillich believed in the latter approach. I do too.
The second thing I really like about his writing is the way he defines Faith -- faith as ultimate concern. For the purposes of this definition, the object of faith does not matter. Whatever a person’s ultimate concern is, that’s what they have faith in. It might be faith in a nation, or a leader, or in money, or in humanity, or in progress – whatever is ultimate to each person.
Faith can be “judged” in two ways – first, is the thing that the person claims to have faith in really their ultimate concern, or is there something else to which they give priority – and second, is the thing to which they give ultimate concern really ultimate? To have subjectively true faith (ultimate concern) in something finite like a nation, political leader, money, fame, etc, would be, in traditional language, idolatry.
The opposite of faith in this system is not doubt -- it’s indifference. According to Tillich every serious doubt implies faith –faith in the existence of truth. And when the person is ultimately concerned with truth, then God is present. Thus it’s possible that serious skeptics are actually more “faithful” – more ultimately concerned with God – than people who believe God exists, but don’t care all that much.
Hmm. There were a couple other areas I wanted to hit, but this seems long enough for now. Enough to start discussion, anyway. If the discussion doesn’t take off, I can add some more later.
(Edited for UBB code, capitalization, and spacing)
quote:The opposite of faith in this system is not doubt -- it’s indifference. According to Tillich every serious doubt implies faith –faith in the existence of truth. And when the person is ultimately concerned with truth, then God is present. Thus it’s possible that serious skeptics are actually more “faithful” – more ultimately concerned with God – than people who believe God exists, but don’t care all that much.
This makes a lot of sense to me. I think one correlary of this is that faith need not be blind.
Another thing I like about Tillich and a lot of other modern theology that I've read about (not actually having read the original sources in most cases), is that it embraces change. I think that irrelevance is a major danger for religions and one of the reasons that Christianity has thrived for so long is that it is adaptable to new circumstances and can provide relevant guidance not just on the ultimate questions, but for all aspects of a life. It's not the only religion (broad sense of the word) that can do that, but it is particularly well suited to it.
Unless the denominations become calcified.
I'm very interested in the processes by which denominations manage change. The goal, I think, for any religion would be to address new social phenomena in ways that inspire people to live within a particular code of behavior while, at the same time, avoiding the alienation of existing members of the group. I think there are some denominations who do this well, and others that do it poorly.
And I wonder if this is important for the survival (and thriving) of various denominations. And whether that is in turn important for the survival (and thriving) of Christianity.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The goal, I think, for any religion would be to address new social phenomena in ways that inspire people to live within a particular code of behavior while, at the same time, avoiding the alienation of existing members of the group."
That is what I see when a young(or not young, but just new) minister comes into a church and has to compromise with people who have been members in that church for decades. Change is not considered good, and must be handled with kid gloves. Everyones concerns cannot be met, but need to be heard.
In a sister church to ours, this actually came down to fisticuffs in the sanctuary, which spilled out onto the lawn for all to see. It was one of the saddest things I ever heard.
DKW, I have a question. How do you consider your role in your church? Our minister(and it is a Congo church) is pushing things to go her way, and the old guard feels that she is stepping on their traditions. How do you handle this? I get all nervous just thinking about it. I have, in fact, stopped going to the church because the tension is so thick you can cut it with a knife. I would actually PREFER a bout of fisticuffs to the backbiting that is going on.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you asked dkw...but I just have to ask:
What is a "Congo church"?
And fisticuffs??? Really!!! Pretty embarassing for all concerned.
My $.02 on traditions -- they're important and shouldn't be abandoned or jettisoned without careful thought. But some traditions are hurtful (the town of Sebring blows a town whistle every night -- it once was the signal for all the black people to get back to "their side" of the town. Now people want the whistle blown because it's "tradition."). Some are just plain wrong from a technical or theological point.
One would hope that a pastor (especially a new pastor) would be given leeway to try new things, but that the new pastor would be sensitive enough to retain the older traditions too, if they aren't harmful or dead wrong.
I've always wondered about church-sponsored Easter egg hunts, for example. I mean, the easter bunny thing is not exactly good theology, but does it hurt anyone to have a kid function like that? Some churches have decided against promoting ideas like the Easter Bunny (remember that thread about the Easter play where they beat up the Easter Bunny?)
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Congo is Congregational. (sometimes UCC_United Church of Christ, but to be honest, I am never QUITE sure of the difference-a bunch of different churches merged)
Yes, fisticuffs. Began in the sanctuary, moved to the vestiblule, then out onto th lawn, which is raised a bit above a main road, like a stage. Oh, very, very bad.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liz, I’m so careful about this one, that I don’t even refer to them as “my church”(es). They are the churches I serve. (‘Tis a helpful reminder to keep my ego in check.) My role is to resource, empower, inspire, and support the laity of the church as they serve God in the world and grow in their relationships with God and one another. I’m there to support their ministry.
Which means that if it’s a matter of personal preference – they win. If it’s something that I think needs to be changed, I first find out why they do it that way and what’s at stake for them if it’s changed. Then I try to find a way to allay my concerns without trampling theirs. Same thing if it’s a matter of disagreement within the congregation – find out what the root issue is for each side, what’s at stake (rarely is it solely about the surface issue) and then find a compromise that maintains the integrity of all parties.
posted
Thanks dkw, My local library didn't have the book, so I'm going to pick it up next ime I'm at the branch
A couple of thoughts. It sounds to me like Tillich was talking about faith as being an active, ongoing, creative process instead of a static, limiting one. Very cool.
I'm interested in how he viewed the relationship between faith and rationality or perhaps more precisely faith and science. Faith in it's static role has been seen as opposed to science, in that it purports to be a more or less complete true definition of the world, which science could only effect by proving wrong (as it has done many times). However, in it's creative aspect, I think faith still carries a bit of intrinsic opposition to science. If I recall correctly, in [i[The Courage to Be[/i] - I swear, I just saw my copy, but now I can't find it - Tillich asserts that act of choosing to be cannot be justified on purely rational grounds (I could be completely off and thinking of somebody else). If I'm right about that, do you have more informaotin as to how he saw these things going together? This is an issue that I stuggle with a lot.
One other thing, I remember reading some theologians who considered idolatry to be perhaps the most common sin in western culture and one of the few that was actively celebrated. The definition that I remember them using (i.e. a valuing of the work of humans over that of God) sounds a lot like Tillich's. One of the things with this was that at some points, there was a claim that the various temporal churches themselves were often the idols being worshipped. Is there any of this in Tillich's philosophy?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky, I can’t think of anything in Tillich’s work specifically about science right off hand – correction, not in his academic writings. I do remember a bit from one of his sermons, which wasn’t about conflict with science per se, but about the dangers of assuming scientific progress will solve all the world’s ills. If I had to guess, I’d guess that he held “science” as a-moral – not immoral, but usable for good or bad. (Or that might be me projecting my own beliefs. Like I said, I can’t think of any relevant quote of his.)
But if this is an issue you’re particularly interested in, have you read any of Ian Barbour’s books on the relationship of science and religion? He does a good job laying out various different paradigms for relating them. His Science and Religion includes sections on history, religion and the methods of science, religion and current theories, and philosophical and theological reflections.
On the other – I’d say that the idea that the church itself can be an object of idolatry is so common in liberal theology that it’s hard to point to it in any specific person’s work. It’s pretty much a universal assumption.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, I'm interesting the faith as ultimate concern thing. I've got the beginnings of an understanding about what it could mean, but I'm not sure if it matches up well with what was intended.
Is it a matter of talking about values? That is, the thing of ultimate concern is that which you value most highly, that which you are constantly aiming for or structuring the rest of what you do around. So, whatever you're doing, whenever you're doing it, you are doing it in relation to this thing of ultimate concern? You're in the store buying eggs, so you're buying eggs in relation to your ultimate concern, just as you'd be helping a stranger or cheating on your wife in relation to this concern. It's ever present. Is that accurate?
Also, if I'm right, does he view this as a concious mythological style creation? That is, it is something that a person can decide to pattern his life around or does it arise from more subtle factors? Or possibly both?
posted
Yes and both, I think. It’s not completely a conscious choice, though conscious choice can influence it. But just deciding that something is going to be your ultimate priority doesn’t necessarily make it so. It’s possible that you still, consciously or unconsciously, hold something else as a higher priority.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
If the discussion doesn’t take off, I can add some more later.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Pretty embarassing for all concerned.
