Last Blog
April 30, 2008
Congratulations to all who finished up the email seminar. Basically, you did very good work and I found the quality of your submissions very high. I anxiously await the day when our technology will permit you to upload directly to the Blog and to comment directly on each other’s work. I have learned something from all of you as we have struggled to read these texts carefully together. You can be proud of one thing: you have read many of the “sources” in the history of theology, and this puts you ahead of the game. Many scholarly interpreters have gone before you. Some may have done a better job than you and some may not have done a better job. The only way to decide is to read and decide for yourself which interpretation seems to you to most adequate to the material. The old rule, dating back to Catholic scholasticism, that one cannot believe what one doubts to be the case still holds.
This selection by Tillich is very challenging. I always struggle with Tillich’s analysis of the difference between mysticism and personal religion, but I tend to agree with him that authentic religion contains elements of both types of experience. That the One with whom we hope for Union is at the same time one who has a face, has a personality, and is not purely other is an affirmation that takes some struggle, but, at least to me, fits my own experience of the Sacred. Is the real God, God beyond God. Yes, of course, any God that could be neatly captured in thought would be worse than an idol. Karl Barth was right when he said that all theology was dialectical. Yet, revelation is also real. When Scripture tells us that God is love and just, it does not lie, even if Holy Writ speaks hesitantly and without the conceptual clarity that we might desire. God’s Word is at least true, even if it is not always The Truth, a typical Millerism that may take some meditation.
I find Tillich useful on the idea that for many people today the Gospel is that God accepts them just as they are and without conditions. It does not mean that God desires them to always remain where they are. The good God is the holy God who will remake and recreate us in the image of God’s own divine fire so that we rise ever higher. God wants us finally to be the holy, mature daughters and sons that God always intended us to be. And God will not be defeated. God has eternity to make and remake us and he will not rest (nor will we) until that recreation is complete. You are accepted, but partnership with God is a walk towards an eternal Emmaus, towards God’s dream for us, collectively and as individuals, and as part of a nature that will itself be filled with the Holy Spirit. (As Paul says, what we have here is only the down payment on what lies ahead.
Pray earnestly and hard.
Glenn
\
CH 1502
Christian Movement
Glenn Miller
April 30, 2008
Cathie Kimball
Thank you for a good semester. I will miss the various emails that students
have submitted. When we get better and more interactive
webware, I hope that you all will be able to post your own blogs and respond to
them as they are posted/
Do we need to converse about your second hour. You should be finished the Noll book and be ready to set out how you will finish that additional hour.
Paul Tillich
“Christian Principles of Judging Non-Christian Religions” is an intriguing title. This chapter was thought provoking in surprising ways. It seems at least in the modern day that Judgment is a foregone conclusion of many Christian groups. To hear Tillich’s account of the Christian position through the history of the church was fascinating.
He
starts by stating that individuals and social groups by their very nature
exhibit self-affirming and therefore offer also?-rejecting
characteristics. He then outlines the
three ways this is manifest – outright rejection, acceptance of certain aspects
of the other while rejecting certain ones, and a fusion of acceptance and
rejection that creates certain tensions and changes. He asserts that the latter is the path
followed by most of Christians in history.ity.
He starts in the Hebrew Scriptures, describing the Israelites attitudes toward the gods of the surrounding peoples – Jahweh was superior, yet these others were considered “competing realities”. Jesus then continues this line of thought, demonstrating the superior behavior of the Samaritan, an other, over representatives of the accepted religion in their treatment of the injured man. Paul then speaks of all people, Jew and non-Jew alike being in need of the salvation of Christ. Augustine continued by declaring that the true religion had always existed, but only became named Christian after the appearance of Christ. Other church fathers attempted to identify with and show how other religions of the time were sympathetic with and perhaps preparation for Christianity.
“Christian universalism was not syncretistic; it did not mix, but rather subjected whatever it received to an ultimate criterion.” If I understand this statement correctly, then it flies in the face of all we have studied in the last two semesters. Christianity has been singularly syncretistic, though only to a certain point. Tillich and I would disagree on this point, at least as a historical judgment. He is speaking of the 7th century, when Christianity was the predominant religion. It is in the 8th century with the rise of Islam that Christianity began to have to see itself as in competition on some level with this new and different religion. He describes this clash as also illuminating the otherness of the Judaism of the time. Christianity had exhibited some anti-Semitic sentiments prior to this time but there was a prevailing sense of inclusion of the Jews, and a waiting for conversion. In the face of this new conflict, anti-Judaism began to take on fanatical overtones. Note as sure here. Clearly, once Rome had declined, the older Roman laws providing some protection for Judaism were no longer in force and the local Lords and proto kings had less power to suppress local riots. They also often had non-religious motives for their own opposition to the Jews, since many were in deep debt.
Tillich goes one to describe how this divisive turn of events is then re-turned. “…it also worked slowly in the direction of a tolerant relativism”. There follow a whole slew of philosophers and theologians eager to demonstrate universalistic, all-inclusive attitudes. True, they continue to rank Christianity as the highest ideal. Next are a series of theologians typified by Karl Barth who developed a tradition of neo-orthodoxy, of particularistic and absolutist ways. They see Jesus Christ as The revelation. “All human religions are fascinating, but futile attempts of man to reach God…”
Tillich concludes with his argument on the attitude of Christianity toward what he calls quasi-religions – nationalist, socialist, and liberal humanist movements. He states that the Catholic Church is dogmatic in its rejections of the religious significance of these movements. Protestants, however, are able to “receive and transform the religious elements of the quasi-religions.” He describes it as a strength and part of the greatness of Christianity – that Christianity is not simply based on the rejection of other religions and quasi-religions.
It is an interesting twist to interpret Christian history is this way. Rather than seeing all the ways in which Christians can be divisive and judgmental, he chose to see all the ways that Christianity sought to find common ground, to explore the both/and. It is a fitting piece with which to conclude our semester. It is a reminder that, like God, it is possible to see things through new eyes. It is possible for transformation of individuals, social groups and even institutions to occur. And that God often leads us in unexpected directions and ways.
Kathleen M.
Batchelder
CH
1502—Online Seminar #12
Tillich
Essays—Part II
Tillich’s
essays in the second half of The Essential Tillich are again challenging
and thought provoking. His discussions
of sin and grace, of “Christianity Judging Non-Christian Religions,” and of his
own studies and career were most interesting to me.
Tillich
discusses sin in several aspects in these essays. One that spoke directly to me is on page 167
when he defines sin as “not the disobedience to a law which makes an act sinful
but the fact that it is an expression of man’s estrangement from God, from men,
from himself.” He completes the
definition of “sin” by including a definition for “love” as “the striving for
the reunion of the separated.. . . In faith and love,
sin is conquered because estrangement is overcome by reunion” (also page
167). To bring home his discussion of
“sin,” Tillich ties it to “grace” (pages 195-196). Tillich writes that “sin and
grace are bound to each other. . . .grace is more than
gifts. . .in grace something is overcome; grace occurs ‘in spite of’ something;
grace occurs in spite of separation and estrangement. Grace is the reunion of life with life, the
reconciliation of the self with itself.”
Now these are not unique definitions for “sin” and “grace;” however, the
beauty of “grace” deepens for me if I consider that it is not only a gift to be
received after my sin, but after my “separation” from God. Words carry power. Tillich’s
definition of the relationship between sin and estrangement is a very useful
one.
It surprises
me a bit when Tillich writes that the great words (like “sin” and “grace”) of
our religious tradition cannot be replaced.
Last week I was thinking so much about symbols’ “being born” and “dying”
that it seems even more powerful that he says
our words cannot be replaced.
Does Tillich have a “set” of irreplaceable words? That makes me think about the words we use. ( I was struck in Jacob Neusner’s book Judaism in Modern
Times which we used in Judaism Today by his repeated use of the word
“ineluctable.” I did not know that word
and found it to mean “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted” in Webster’s
dictionary. It seems to be a word
particularly applicable to Jewish reaction to oppression. I began to wonder
what are “our words.”)
Tillich’s statements about the permanent status of
words reminds me of the great importance of individual words. One of the great theological problems is the status
of words and their place in life.Again I would like examples from
Tillich. As a charismatic teacher and
presenter, Tillich probably enjoyed discussions and talk-back sessions with his
audiences, and I wonder if they sought clarification, examples, defense, or
debate.
Another
topic in Tillich’s essays which caught my attention was his discussion of
“Christianity Judging Non-Christian Religions” which Dr. Imes calls “the issue
of the next century.” Tillich gives an
interesting perspective on the topic by tracing from Old Testament times. He states (page 218) that early Christianity
did not consider itself as “a radical-exclusive, but as the all-inclusive
religion.” I hope we are able to keep
Tillich’s conclusion in mind as we explore ways to dialogue with rather than
tear down other religions. He writes,
“Christianity is not based on a simple negation of the religions or quasi-religions
it encounters. The relation is
profoundly dialectical, and that is not a weakness, but the greatness of
Christianity, especially in its self-critical protestant form” (page 227). I would like to hear him participate in
community dialogue panels. The essay that you read was written after his trip
to Japan and his conversations with Buddhist monk.s
Finally, I
am always intrigued by the lives and careers of writers, so I enjoyed Tillich’s
chapter “What Am I?” His preference for the atmosphere at Union Seminary where
the faculty community worshiped together and his last words were about the love
of Christ gave me a kindly feeling toward Tillich. For some reason, these descriptions ground
his writings for me, and I appreciate his statement: “Love is the power of the new in every man
and in all history. It cannot age; it
removes guilt and curse. It is working
even today toward new creation. It is
hidden in the darkness of our souls and of our history. But it is not completely hidden to those who
are grasped by its reality” (page 281). It is an interesting essay.
As we finish
our online seminars for Christian Movement, I thank all of you for sharing your
ideas. While the online seminar has
served the purpose of keeping us timely with our reading, it has also given us
a chance to ask questions of the texts and to hear the musings of
classmates. I think it would be a
valuable way to discuss lectionary readings for sermon preparation if it isn’t
possible to have face-to-face discussion with a ministerial group. I know there are large, denominational chat
groups, but I like the idea of a smaller group –maybe we ought to have a BTS
online seminar group. Thanks this is helpful.
Gary Cyr
Tillich—Ch.18-19
4/30/08
In being able to only read these two chapters this week, I come away from Tillich wondering where the theology is? In just these two chapters, I found a heavy layer of psychological jargon emulsified with religious symbols and theistic language. It appears that Tillich is changing the language of the religious community to be more expressive of the social context that faith is trying to survive in. Some of it I understand, but there is much that is too esoterical, and I find myself not always agreeing with what he postulates. Tillich is very much a very liberal or modernist theologian, despite his use of existential philosophy and some traditional language.
Classifying sin as not the violation of moral law or conduct is refreshing. The idea of sin as estrangement from the ground of being is not that far from my own theology of sin being a sign of our impaired relations with our Creator; sin as a sign of brokenness. Adding an adjective such as original or hereditary creates an unnecessary layer of guilt that deflects our responsibility in the act of estrangement. The whole question of anxiety being based in our nonbeing or the fear of meaninglessness carries, for me, one part Freud one part Eastern philosophy.Perhaps less eastern philosophy where nothingness is often seen as a good. For Tillich, it is a frightening prospect Not that I disagree with this, but could it be phrased in Christian jargon or would this defeat Tillich’s argument? There is a real sense that allowing one’s fear to overwhelm one’s being only adds to the sense of estrangement and meaninglessness. Relatedness is a key component here and I find his phraseology acute when he speaks of the ‘communion of healing’. Our sense of isolation and the anxiety that surrounds our death—our finitude—finds healing in communion with the source of our being—the infinite.
Tillich’s discussion of faith had me for a spell. Faith in the ‘unbelievable’ is not faith. The question is important for each of us to answer: What is faith? I’m not sure that I agree with Tillich when he says that it transcends ordinary experience. I’ve described faith as that which can’t be quantified empirically, but can be experienced. That doesn’t make faith only an experience, but the experience expresses what is otherwise unexplainable. Here I believe the mystics offer a hand and Tillich utilizes their experience of the Sacred to explain his position. He mentions that it is still more than that since the mystics don’t include skepticism or doubt. After reading Julian of Norwich, I would argue that doubt lies at the heart of a mystical encounter and that it makes it genuine and transcendent. ? Tillich states that absolute faith is faith as it includes doubt. God can’t be held in creeds or sacred writings, but aspects of God are expressed through these symbols. Symbols are the tools used to express God but are not God; God transcends cataloging or categorizing. I believe it is very mystical when he states that we are rooted in the God who appears when God has disappeared in the anxiety of doubt. The word mysticism, alas, can be a weasel word that gets away from all attempts to give ti concrete meaning
I’m not sure I fully grasped what Tillich may have been trying to express, but I do know that I have wrestled with these two chapters differently than with the previous ones. I not sure what to make of him! There is much in Tillich that is not helpful. His brilliance often makes it difficult to say, “but” or “on the other hand” to him. I find a more scriptural beginning point more useful as well as a more realist philosophy.
CH 1502 Phyllis
Merritt
Christian
Movement II
Glenn Miller week of May
1, 2008
The Essential Tillich
Sections VI and VII
I have a bad
habit when it comes to reading. I think
I am supposed to be able to understand everything I read the first time
around. Through the assignments for
Christian Movement, I am discovering that to understand it all on the first
read is an impossible task for me. That
which I am beginning to discover, however, has not yet changed my habit. As I hit a difficult passage, anxiety enters
the picture. So it was with this week’s
assignment. Of the two sections, chapter
19 “Courage and Transcendence” in Section VI was the most difficult for me to
understand.
I breezed
through chapter 18 and thought that I was going to hit it lucky on this
assignment. How foolish! I began chapter 19, but by the end of
sentence one, I knew I was in trouble. I didn’t understand “nonbeing” at all. With another note of thanks to Gary and Dr.
Miller, I checked my handy
I now had
something to help me understand sentence one, so bravely, I attacked sentence
two. I hate to admit it but…blank,
nothing, zero. I just cast that sentence
aside for the time being and tried number three. Success! “Courage always takes
a risk...” (168) I could understand the
first clause!
Joking aside,
this was a difficult chapter. It is indeed. Tillich is struggling in these lectures (I
cannot image listening to them read) with ideas that he will later clarify in
his systematic (or not,
depending on your reading of that work). I found myself
rereading immediately, reading aloud and returning to pages I had read
earlier. I did mark a few places in my
book, like the three types of anxiety, (168) but I also have question
marks. It wasn’t until I got to page
172, when Tillich begins to tie his comments to Martin Luther, that some of
this chapter started making sense. I agree that
the Luther illustration is one of the best parts of a complicated section.The
fact that we had discussed Luther’s anxiety and probable depression in class
helped me gain clarity in this section.
I was glad that Tillich used an example to ground what had been abstract
for me until this point. If I look at my
book from page 172, I can see check marks, underlined passages and notes to
myself in the margin…I know I was engaged in the reading. There were other sections in the chapter that
had me scratching my head (Theism), and there are sections that I have even
marked “reread,” but after Tillich gave me the concrete example, I felt as
though one of those cartoon light bulbs had been turned on in my head.
I thought
also of our class discussion of Tillich last week. I know every day that I am not perfect, but
here at the beginning of my seminary career, reading material by people who are
considered the “thinkers” of their time, I can get just a tad overwhelmed. While I don’t have to get eye strain reading
tabloid tales of any of these men and women, it helps me to know that they are
not perfect either. Our discussion of
Tillich sent me back to the Bible. I
thought of a murderer, some tricksters and several men and women who were quite
popular with the opposite sex, but who brought a great message or did a great
deed. Their conduct and their personal
lives may influence how we regard their message, but even the message itself
may also be a reminder to us of where our focus needs to be. I wondered if I would be one of the guests at
a meal with Jesus, or if I would be one of the townspeople horrified at “that
crowd” with whom he associated. In the
midst of my musings, I read: “Faith is not a theoretical affirmation of
something uncertain, it is the existential acceptance
of something transcending ordinary experience.” (180-181) “Something
transcending ordinary experience”…I like that.
The
historical section of chapter 23 tied right in with our studies this year. At last, firm ground on which to stand!
This final
reading assignment for the year was another heavy one. I enjoy thinking about those tough points and
talking them over with our class. Our
reading has been mostly difficult, but certainly worth it. I have enough “food for thought” to last a
while. I don’t, however, want to end my
final email entry of the year on that note.
I would rather end with a citation from Tillich of something historical,
futuristic and wonderful: “‘Sin’ and ‘grace’ are strange words; but they are
not strange things. We find them
whenever we look into ourselves with searching eyes and longing hearts. They determine our life. They abound within us and in all of
life. May grace more abound within us!” (202)
Congrats. We have finished a very full year. You should be set up well to go ahead with
things.
Enjoyed having you in
class.
Michael Kasevich
May 1, 2008
Christian Movement II
The Essential Tillich
Thanks for this last blog. All that is left is the final examination
For this, my last blog I chose to write on the concept if “You are Accepted.” Tillich asks the question: “Have the men of our time still a feeling of the meaning of sin?” (pp195)
He then, capsulated the word “sin” into meaning all of our sins. This tells me that “sin” is a verb and an action not a title of an event in our lives. Tillich goes on to explain that the action of “sin” is basically the action of separating our selves from God. I understand the three fold concept of sin that Tillich gives us in the reading. The concept of accepting is very important to Tillich. He feels that the traditional meaning of justification can no longer be recovered in this world, and that we need a new concept to express its reality. For him, this is the concept of being accepted, of being right with God and others. Being accept overcomes the alienation and estrangement that we experience.
First sin separates us from individual people and their lives. In my view, this comes down to values and morals. If we act inappropriately, separating ourselves from God, by lewd and licentious behavior many people who act different will not want to be around us. Their values and morals will mandate them to separate from us. Our sin of bad behavior that goes against the standards of God will keep us isolated and alone.
Second: sin will separate “man from himself.” We ask how that can be. I perceive this as being in conflict with God and the inner soul. Inside of us, we know what is right and correct. The Holy Spirit lives and dwells deep in our souls and we cannot deny this as Christian believers. How many people we know try to escape this palpable truth? I worked in the prison ministry for years and have seen this first hand. I have seen men of all nations and all faiths trying to hide from the deep sense of goodness inside their souls. They act out with immoral and illegal behavior to cover the sense of “bad” or “sin” or as Tillich says “separation” from what ever their deity is.
Third Tillich states that sin separates “men from the Ground of Being.”
I ask what is the ground of being. Roland Croucher[1] says it
is: One
of the sophisticated concepts used by great Christian theologians is that of
"The Ground of Being." This concept
indicates, not that God is the fact of things existing, but that God is the
basis for the existence of all things. God is more fundamental to existing
things than anything else. So fundamental to the existence of all things is God, that God can be thought of as the basis upon which
things exist, the ground their being. To say that God is The ground of being or
being itself, is to say that there is something we can sense that is so special
about the nature of being that it hints at this fundamental reality upon which
all else is based.
In my perception, Tillich and Croucher are telling us that through sin we separate our selves from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Creation. The three major religions of the world, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, all have the concept and belief in the God of Creation as we all share the stories out of Genesis through Deuteronomy, as in TORAH, and the overlapping theology of the Quran.
Barbara Chodkowski
Christian Movement II
Tillich II
Thanks for a good semester. You and Tillich see the world very
differently. You might want to think
about a dialectical or dialogical way of discussing his ideas that highlights
his ideas by way of contrast with your
own. Part of the fun in
theology is exploring the differences between the various position.
Tillich brings so much into his writings that it is hard for me to focus on any one concept, that is, until I read what he had to say in his section on The Future of Religions on biblical personalism. When he began talking about the “unconditional character of the biblical God”, he got my attention. Tillich writes: “The God who is unconditional in power, demand and promise is the God who makes us completely personal, and who consequently, is completely personal in our encounter with him.” It strikes me as so important that we realize that this perception of God is what we need to instill in the people who come to religious leaders for guidance because it is through this personal connection that God will speak to each of us. An explanation for unexplained events, a need for comfort in times of struggle, a command that we need to act a certain way or we will be punished some time in the future does not take us very far. God must have more of a role in our lives than these in order to substantiate faith.
The God of the Bible does establish the relationship that Tillich describes with the people in the writings. Throughout the accounts of Moses, most specifically in Numbers 12, God treats Moses as a friend. He even later buries Moses, an extremely personal act. In the Psalms, we read over and over the personal connection between the Psalmist and God. God even makes himself flesh to come to the people in Jesus – how more personal can you get? But most people will not make these connections if they are not told where they are. Unless an individual has had a personal experience with God, his or her own epiphany, it is often hard to find God in this world. We do not connect the gentle stories of God’s relationship with those of the Bible with God’s role in our lives. I firmly believe that this is a connection that needs to be made. For if God is made personal, if parallels can be made for people between the biblical writings and our own lives, if God can be made real for those who come to congregations around the world (Christian or otherwise), then religious principles also become real. Ethics become more pronounced. The reason to do or not to do something has a place within the individual coming from that uniquely personal relationship with God. We no longer do things in our lives to keep something bad from happening, we do things in our lives because we feel that we have a real reason. God is our friend, our companion, our confidant, and God will always be there for us no matter what we do. This kind of relationship fosters a ‘wanting to do something right’, rather than a ‘having to something right.’ It keeps religion real because God is real. You might note that this counterbalances with Tillich’s appreciation of the power of mysticism in his discussion of the courage to be, and his criticism in that essay of allowing the personal appreciation of God to be the only way that we approach the divine.
In this world of choice and skepticism, it is not enough to tell people that they should believe something, we need to show people that what they believe is valid. The Bible is the definitive tool for this. Making the connection between today’s believers and the personal nature of God is imperative to the survival and growth of religion. God’s unconditional love and acceptance is there for us all, but that has to be real for every individual. It is a relationship that normally does not happen overnight. We have to be able to give time to it and come to realize what it means to each of us. Pastors and churches need to understand this. God has to be real to the parishioner, or the parishioner is not going to take the time to get to know God. When I imagine a world where everyone knows God personally, I imagine a much more ethical world; I imagine a much more humane world.
Sandra Lucas
The Essential Tillich
– Part 2
I have read through most of the essays but like last week, it’s the sermons that resonate with me. Perhaps that’s because they’re more accessible with my limited ability to unravel complex concepts. I think I understand the Protestant principle. It’s the grace and liberation of justification by faith. But much of the essay is beyond my comprehension.
I’m making progress, however. About a decade ago I tried to read “The Courage to Be” and couldn’t get through it. This time, in its edited form, many facets of insight shone through. Tillich’s comprehension of the self and its angst seems ahead of its time, especially the wrestling with meaninglessness and anxiety. 50 years after writing this, self-help books line walls of bookstores yet according to Tillich, if I’m reading him correctly, they’re all off the mark (perhaps that why there’s always a market for new self-help books!). That is a vital insight. Finally, there is no self help
The courage to be – to be what we are created to be, to be a new creation – is “rooted in a being that is greater than the power of oneself and the power of one’s world” (168). In other words, “the courage to be has an open or hidden religious root.” (168). I understood more about the courage to be from his sermons, especially the “The New Being” and “You Are Accepted.” In the “New Being” Tillich speaks about accepting one’s self as “eternally important, eternally loved, eternally accepted.” (96) When this occurs, hatred of self and others and God disappears.
How does this occur? Can one just say, “Let me have the courage to know myself as eternally important, eternally loved, eternally accepted?”
According to Tillich, in “You Are Accepted,” this moment of surrender is the moment of grace. It occurs when we are in our darkest moments, in the valley, when despair has overcome us. He writes: “Sometimes at that moment a wave of light breaks into our darkness and it is as though a voice were saying: ‘You are accepted. You are accepted, accepted by that which is greater than you, and the name of which you do not know. Do not ask for the name now . . . . Do not seek for anything; do not perform anything; do not intend anything. Simply accept the fact that you are accepted!’ If that happens to us, we experience grace.” (201, his italics)
He is describing John Newton’s experience of amazing grace, the very reason “wretch” should not be changed in that hymn even though modern hymnals have done so. It is in our wretchedness, our separation (Tillich’s definition for “sin”) that we experience that amazing grace that redeems us, transforms us, and make us whole. Good point. We often weaken hymns by trying to make them contemporary as if our own time were the only one with access to God.
[1]
Rowland Croucher is a Baptist pastor/counselor who resides in