deeper faith

7/29/2019 Deeper Faith

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deeper-faith 1/23

PENDLE HILL PAM PHLET 99

A Deeper Faith:

The Thought of Paul Tillich

Carol Murp hy

PEND LE HILL PUBLICATIONSWALLINGFORD, PENNSYLVANIA



CAROL M URPHYA Deep er Faith

2

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Carol Murphy is a writer on religious

ph ilosoph y an d pa stora l psych ology. Sh e s tu died polit ical

s c i e n c e a t S w a r t h m o r e C o l l e g e a n d w a s a s t u d e n t i n

religiou s p h ilosoph y wh ile at Pend le Hill. Sh e is t h e au th or

of fou r p reviou s Pend le Hill pa m ph lets: The Faith of an Ex-

Agnos tic, Th e Min is try of Cou ns eling, Religion and Men ta l

Illnes s a n d The Exa m ined Life.

Pu blish ed 1 95 8 by Pen dle Hill

Repu blish ed electron ically © 20 05 by Pen dle Hill

h t tp: / / www.pen dlehi ll.org/ pen dle_h ill_pa m ph lets .ht m

em a il: p u blica tions @pen dleh ill.org




3

A Deeper Faith

“. . . All th e deep est , tr u est , a lon e rea lly fru itfu l

work a n d in sigh t in th ese greatest th in gs, app ears

a s a ch ieved in th is . . . cos tin gly wis e, . . . d ivin ely

blest , th orn-crown ed, ign ored, defeated, yet s ou l-

inspiring, l ife-creating fashion.”

Friedrich von Hugel

On e of th e str a n gest st ories of m a n ’s r eligiou s qu est , “Th e

Man Wh o Sa w Th rou gh Hea ven ,” by Wilbu r Da n iel Steele,

t e l l s o f wha t happened to the mind of a na ive ly p iousm i s s i o n a r y , t h e R e v . H u b e r t D i a n a , w h o v i s i t e d a n

observatory, wh ere h e was in trodu ced for th e firs t t ime to

the unimaginable dis tances and wheeling galaxies of the

universe. His s imple fai th unhinged, the f inal blow was

given by the a s t ron omer’s casu al su gges t ion th a t th ere ma y

be m ore th an one order of m agnitu de; th a t th e opa l r in g on

th e m iss iona ry’s fin ger m ay be a u n ivers e in its elf, an dour own universe merely an opal r ing on a Finger—but

Whose? The effect of this experience was catastrophic. To

the dismay of his fellow missionaries, the Reverend Diana

threw overboard all respectabili ty, even decency, in a sort

of intoxication of freedom from the all-too-watchful God of

h i s f a t h e r s . T h e n c a m e l o n e l i n e s s a n d f e a r , a n d h e

va n ish ed in to da rk est Africa, wh ere h is wife sou ght for h im .Mr. Dian a was n ever seen again; bu t h e left a t ra il beh in d

him of clumsily modeled mud figures , formless , best ial ,

m ons trou s, each with th e im pres sion of h is opa l r in g on its

tentacle or claw-images of the Bearer of the cosmic ring.




4

As h is p u rsu ers dr ew n earer to the en d of th e t ra il where

h e h ad died exhau s ted, th e su ccess ive c lay figu res b ecam e

more concrete—they were turtles, birds, bulls . At the very

end was the f inal f igure, in the image of man, head bent

over r in g-bearing h an d in a n “at t itu de of in terest cen tered

in tha t bau ble , in ten se an d s ta t ic , b rea th less an d e tern a l

a l l in one—pene t ra t ing to i t s bo t tom a tom, to the l as t

electron , to a h ill u pon it , an d to a two-legged m ite a bou t to

d i e . M a r k i n g ( y e s , I ’ l l s w e a r t o t h e i n c r e d i b l e ) t h e

s p a rr ow’s fa ll.”

In th is world where m an s ta n ds a lon e , qu es t ionin g the

universe , when the founda t ions of Bib l ica l fa i th seem

sh ak en b y as tron omical in fin it ies , on ly th ose can h elp th e

rel igious seeker for God who have known both doubt and

aff i rmat ion, who are unafra id to s tand in thought a t the

boundary between phi losophy and theology, his tory and

e te rn i ty , man and God, and rece ive the shock of the i r

encounter . I t requires a man of exceptional courage and

depth to do this , and there are many who fee l tha t Paul

Til l ich is such a thinker.

Til l ich has developed this courage through his own

persona l s t ruggle : f i r s t , to ga in independence f rom hi s

fa t h e r ’s Lu t h e r a n a u t h o r it a r ia n is m w it h o u t b r e a k i n g

relat ion s with h im , an d s econd , to recon cile th e va lid claim

b o t h o f r e l i g i o n a n d t h e c l a s s i c a l h u m a n i s m o f h i s

education. In autobiographical reflections written for the

Library of Living Theology, he writes: “The result of this

tension was ei ther a decis ion against the one or the other

side, or a genera l skepticism or a sp lit -cons ciou sn ess which

dr ove one to at tem pt t o overcom e th e con flict cons tru ctively.

The latter way, the way of synthesis, was my own way.”

Hence , he deve loped a hab i t o f mind which f i nds t he

elem en t of tru th of two opp osing viewpoin ts , an d lets t h em

wrest le dialect ically with each other in h is own m in d u n til

th ey bless each other. It is , to cha n ge th e figu re, a k in d of




5

binocular vis ion which crea tes the dimension of depth.

Su ch a m in d is n ot eas ily u n ders tood by those wh o are on e-

d i m e n s i o n a l , e i t h e r - o r f o l l o w e r s o f c o n s i s t e n c y — w h o

repu diate secu lar ism becau se t h ey are religiou s, or r eligion

because they are secularis ts , who deny Plato for the sake

of Pau l, or th e revers e. To th e eith er-or m in d, th e dialectical

m in d of a Tillich seem s confu sed an d d ou ble-deal in g. Bu t

to ad m irers of Tillich, th e eith er-or m in d s eems u n bea ra bly

narrow and fanat ica l , and the products of i t s thought too

m u ch l ike th e mythica l pa n cake wh ich was so thin it h ad

only one s ide. Su rely, the t ra gic an d m an y-splend ored tru th

can n ever be gras ped s o sim ply. As th e scien tist Niels Boh r

h as sa id: “Th ere are the t r ivia l t ruth s a n d th e great t ru th s .

Th e opp osite of a trivia l tru th is plainly false. Th e opp osite

of a great t ru th is a lso t ru e.”

Suppos e , t hen , t ha t T i l l i ch were t o t ake t he Rev .

Hub er t Dian a b y th e ha n d a n d expla in to him h is condi t ion.

“You are experiencing vividly the s i tuat ion of al l men,”

Tillich wou ld s a y. “You a re feelin g th e weigh t of th e a n xiety

o f t h e m o r t a l c o n d i t i o n . Y o u a r e a s k i n g t h e u l t i m a t e

qu es t ion of your own des t in y an d m ean in g; bu t you r reas on

cannot supply you with the answer. You are moving from

naive cer ta inty , through doubt , to the fa i th tha t inc ludes

an d overcom es dou bt .”

Not all of u s u n dergo so dra m atic an experien ce as th e

fict ional Mr. Diana, but most of us at some point become

awar e of ou r s itu at ion in a world we n ever m ad e. Begin n in g

with th e n aive won der of th e chi ld wh o as ks where h e wou ld

be if Mam a a n d Da dd y h ad n ever m et , to th e old or th e ill

person wh o ha s fears th a t h e ma y ceas e to be , we learn our

o w n c o n t i n g e n c y a n d e x p e n d a b i l i t y . I n t h e h i s t o r y o f

cu ltu res , a s in th e life of th e in dividu al , there is a pa rt in g

f rom the or ig ina l t r iba l o r fami ly consc iousness to the

awareness that “I am I , s tanding alone, wondering how I

can know other things or love other men.”




6

In Tillich ’s eyes, t h is is a st a te of sep a ra tion from God,

i n t h e s e n s e o f i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n . I n a u n i v e r s e o f

relat ionships , i t is necessary for i ts const i tuent beings to

be a pa rt a n d relatively self-ru lin g as well as pa rticipa n ts in

th e wh ole. On ly after sepa ra t ion can th ere be reun ion on a

deeper and more mature level of re la t ionship. Only the

pr odigal son can kn ow th e fu lln ess of th e fat h er’s love.

Hence in th e Chris t ian view, th e sepa ra t ion from God is as

necessary to the divine love as the reunion with him. The

God who is th e depth of our bein g mu st b ecome th e Th ou

wh om we encoun ter . Som ethin g of th is t ru th was glim psed

by a Hindu theistic sage, Umapati , who said: “The soul is

not merged in the Supreme, for i f they become one, both

disa pp ear ; if th ey rem ain t wo th ere is n o fru ition ; th erefore

there is union and non-union.” Here, too, is the note of

dialectic, of balancing forces, so congenial to Tillich, like

Heraclitu s’ crea tive ten sion of th e bow an d th e bowstrin g.

Bu t th ere is m ore to ma n ’s s itu a t ion th an th is . Wh y

cou ld n ot Mr. Dian a h ave fou n d h is way m ore eas ily back?

Wh y is m an a p rey to fear a n d ign oran ce? Wh y do we h at e

our fin itu de? Wh y does God s ometim es seem to be an En emy

rath er th an a Fa th er? Wh y, in deed, do we become enem ies

to ou rs elves? Th is a sp ect of m an ’s s epa ra t ion from God

Ti l l ich ca l l s es t rangement . I t means es t rangement f rom

self as well as from God, for God is our eternal ground to

which we belong an d every att i tu de toward h im is a n att i tu de

toward ourse lves . Es t rangement i s the r i sk God ran in

pr ovidin g m a n with th e freedom of sep ar a tion . He ha s given

us the f reedom to take our share and be prodigal sons .

Estrangement in theological language is “original sin”—a

term u n for tun ate ly bu rden ed with m oralis t ic con n ota t ions .

It is n o su rp rise to fin d th at in Tillich ’s m in d freedom

an d d est iny are polar to each oth er. Man ’s freedom is n ot

in deter m in a cy, an d it is n ot th e freedom of th e “will” bu t of

the whole man. By his f reedom man shapes his des t iny,




7

an d h is d es t in y sha pes h is freedom . You h ave m ad e your

pas t his tory and decis ions , and they have a lso made you

w h a t y ou a r e . Ma n ’s s e p a r a t io n fr o m G o d is m a n ’s

o p p o r t u n it y fo r fr e e d o m ; h is e s t r a n ge m e n t is m a n ’s

resp ons ibility, a resu lt a n d a lim ita t ion of th at freedom.

Su ch is t h e h u m an s i t u a t ion w ith which Tillich ’s

th eological th ou gh t b egin s , a n d which it m u st explore from

with in ; for th e theologian can n ot s ta n d ou ts ide, or preten d

to kn ow al l ab out God a n d to ju dge m an kin d from a bove.

This is what is meant by “existential” theology: that the

theologian a lso i s Mr. Diana , a f ini te man in the dark,

seek in g for God with th e res t of u s, s pea king of “revelat ion ”

n ot as its giver, bu t a s i ts im perfect receiver. He is n ot th e

ma n wh o has a ll the an swers , bu t h e shou ld be one wh o in

his own l i fe has been answered. And while he can point

toward th e an swer , he kn ows th a t you r an swer m u s t com e

to you in you r s itu at ion. “Th ere is on e, even Ch ris t J esu s,

th a t ca n sp eak to th y con dition ”—th is “open in g” of George

Fox’s s trikes t h e tru ly exist en tial n ote as well a s p oin tin g

to what t ranscends exis tence .

From such a humble posi t ion, Ti l l ich can tel l other

Dianas why we fai l to f ind our God at once ei ther in the

w h i r l i n g g a l a x i e s o r i n o u r h u m a n r e a s o n . I t w a s t h e

optim ist ic belief of som e eigh teenth -cen tu ry th in kers th at

the operat ions of nature revealed i ts Maker the way the

mechanism of a watch impl ied a watchmaker , and that i t

was pos sible to a rr ive a t a pr oof for th e exist en ce of God a s

a conclu sion from r eas oning, eith er from t h e notion of cau se

or a perfect idea or moral law. In the nineteenth century

there were ideal is ts l ike Hegel who wished to prove the

u n iverse a n ecess ary an d p erfect expression of th e ab solu te.

At the other extreme are some Calvinis ts—old and new—

to whom n atu re a pp ears bereft of divin ity an d God forever

h idd en from m an ’s reas on. Tillich can agree with n eith er;

bu t , a s u su a l, he can accept the spark of t ru th in each .




8

Ma n ’s r eas on is t oo br oken by estr an gem en t, Tillich

believes, to rea ch God u n aided. Cons ider, for in sta n ce, Mr.

Dia n a ’s b eh a vior before an d a fter h is ca ta st roph ic visit to

th e obs ervatory. As a p iou s fu n da m ent al is t , h e ha d grown

u p u n der a n extern al ly im posed th eology an d m orality. He

h ad proba bly n ever dar ed th in k for hims elf—h is m in d h ad

worn blin kers . He poss essed a vivid p ictu re of a J ehovah as

separa te and as rea l to him as his Bible- teacher—but no

more real; a set of moral absolutes of little flexibility; a

distru st of h is n at u ra l im pu lses . Afterward , in th e firs t flu sh

of ema n cipat ion from h is t r ad it ion, when h e para ded n ak ed

before h is sca n da lized fellows on sh ipb oard , h e was tes t ing

the dubious del ights of a self-made law, a repudiat ion of

external claims. His God had been too small—and i t had

bu rst a t th e seam s, leavin g h im (ap pa ren tly) with n othing.

Moral principles appeared to have no exis tence, impulses

n eed n ot be con trolled by reason. Su ch a bin ge resu lts in a

bad h an gover ; bu t h an govers se ldom m ak e men wiser . We

oscillate between bein g servan ts an d bein g prodigals .

Tillich h as s tu died the cou rse of h u m an th ought a n d

finds everywhere chronic conflict between the legitimate

dem an ds of in dividu ality an d t h ose of pa rticipa tion, wh eth er

seen as obedience vs . independence , the absolute vs . the

relat ive, universal principle vs . concrete s i tuat ion, form

vs . pass ionate energy. Par t icular ly important in thought

as well as in polit ics a n d in religion is th e con flict b etween

external author i ty and se l f - rule . The one demands pie ty

towa rd doctrine or lea der or s overeign d eity, th e other ju st ly

revolts in th e na m e of m an as m eas u re of al l th in gs toward

free th ou ght an d self-expres sion . Th oma s Kelly, in an ar ticle

on “The Dialec t ic of Humanism” comes upon this same

h u m an exper ience: “For ju s t when th e hu m an is t is p layin g

th e part of J ehovah . .. he is pret ty su re to fin d th at h u m an ity

h as , in its very depth s , e lemen ts of experience wh ich lead

ou t . . . in to a divin e MORE. . . . Th e beyond th a t is with in




9

passes over into the wi thin tha t i s beyond, and i t must

n e e d s b e b r o u g h t b a c k a g a i n . B e t w e e n t r a n s c e n d e n t

s epa ra t i on and immanen t d iv in i t y r e l i g ious t hough t i s

continually oscillating. To encompass the dialectic within

oneself requires an effort that great souls have manfully

m a de.” (An glica n Th eologica l Review, 1 930) Tillich feels t h a t

each polar d ema n d fin ds i t s t ru th only in th e depth where

both a re u n ited; bu t reason it se lf can n ot fin d a n an swer to

these di lemmas. Certainly, the his tory of the Society of

F r i ends has s hown tha t t he r e s o lu t i on o f e lde r i s m vs .

Rante r i sm, cons i s tency vs . compromise , rev iva l i sm vs .

ra t iona lism com es only th rou gh th e In ward Ligh t .

All ma n ’s ph ilosoph izin g end s on ly in qu estions —form s

of th e u lt im ate qu es t ion: wh at i s th e groun d of our own an d

a ll bein g? It d oes n o good to b rin g u p “pr oofs ” of God. A firs t

cau se is s t ill only a ca u se: wh at is th e grou n d of cau sa lity

its elf? A perfect Idea is st ill on ly an idea : wh a t is th e grou n d

of ess en tial bein g? A su pr em e Good is s till on ly a good: wh a t

is the ground of goodness? God is not one exis tent being

among others ; he i s not a non-exis tent be ing to cas t in to

th e t ras h can of h u m an illu sion s. Yet if h e app ears to recede

beh in d th e gu lf fixed b etween creat ed exis ten ce an d etern al

source of creat ion, he is also closer to us than breathing,

for h e is ou r groun d, an d h is h olin ess can gras p u s th rough

any finite symbol. Tillich in Reas on in Religion could well

u se San tayan a’s words :

G o d h a s n o n e e d f o r n a t u r a l o r l o g i c a l

wi tnesses , but speaks himsel f wi thin the hear t ,

b e i n g i n d e e d t h a t i n e f f a b l e a t t r a c t i o n w h i c h

dwells in wh a tever is good a n d b eau tifu l.

If th e mora l law with in an d th e s ta rry hea vens with ou t

cann ot prove God to u s , they can a n d do rou se in u s th e

u lt im ate con cern with wh at a lone can th rea ten or save ou r

be ing , and they can do th i s on ly by a fore tas te of the




10

u lt im at e itself. “Th ou cou lds t n ot seek Me, ha ds t th ou n ot

already found Me.” This is what the whirling galaxies did

for Mr. Dia n a . Tillich believes with Lu th er a s a gain st som e

rigid Calvin is ts th at th e in fin ite can be p resen t in t h e fin ite ,

tha t na ture i s the f ini te express ion of the ground of a l l

th in gs . Th e in fin ite cou ld th u s grasp Mr. Dian a a n d s h ak e

h is fou n da tions . Note tha t th e firs t effect was to m ak e h im

an a the i s t . T i l l i ch has a h igh respec t for the re l ig ious

funct ion of a t ruth-seeking a theism. He has sa id tha t the

h is tory of ath eism h as been th e h is tory of th e overcom in g

of blas ph emy—th e blas ph emy of m ak in g a du bious an d fin ite

thing of God. Through a theism, the ul t imate reminds us

that the name of God can symbolize only what is beyond

argu m ent , wha t is of u n con dit ional con cern .

Mr . Dian a’s exper ien ce in th e observa tory was an

encounter . Now every experience is an encounter of the

s e l f w i t h t h e w o r l d . W e a r e p a r t l y o b s e r v e r s , p a r t l y

part icipators in the world we encounter . The astronomer,

i n h i s s e a r c h f o r k n o w l e d g e , e m p h a s i z e d o b j e c t i v e

de tachment . To h im the s ta rs were th ings among o ther

th in gs, an d h e was n o dou bt b ewildered b y Mr. Dian a’s

rea ction . To Mr. Dia n a , h owever, pa rticipa tion was in fin itely

im porta n t. His own dest in y was in volved, an d th e kn owledge

h e needed was a n in sigh t in to the m in d of God in its b earin g

on h is d es t in y. In h is s ta te of u lt im ate con cern , he h ad an

encou n ter with th e Holy—th e u lt im ate groun d experienced

as th e Other , as both fas c in at in g an d fear- in spi r in g. Su ch

an en cou n ter fu lfils a n eed wh ich n o oth er experien ce can

fu lfil, so th a t we kn ow, “It is good for u s t o be h ere”; an d yet

i t b r ings the humbl ing awe which made Pe te r c ry out ,

“Depar t f rom me, Lord, for I am a s inful man.” In St .

Au gu st ine’s words, we trem ble an d we bu rn .

Th is en cou n ter can com e in m an y ways. Tillich s peak s

of experien cin g th e Holy in h is fat h er’s Goth ic chu rch , an d

in com m u n ion with n atu re . He ha s fe lt it in th e beau ty of




11

the Par thenon. He h as s een it in h u m an be in gs : wh en h e

m et Mart in Bu ber , h e felt “th e ra diation of a m in d ‘fu ll of

God’. . . . It was a cond en sed, a lm ost su bs ta n t ial presen ce

of the divine as I have seldom experienced it—at least to

such a degree—among Chris t ians .” (“Buber and Chris t ian

Th ou gh t,” in Commentary , 194 8) Th e exper ien ce is r eal an d

im m ediate. It is n o more to be dou bted th an is th e awareness

of oneself, and a faith built on its reality is founded on a

rock. In the encounter the ul t imacy of the experience and

th e u lt im acy of th at which is experien ced ar e one. (Perh ap s

i t i s to such a nondual is t ic moment tha t Zen Buddhism

points i ts s i lent f inger. ) But this t reasure is poured into

ear th en vesse ls , an d our u n ders ta n din g of it an d th in kin g

abou t it is a lways in ad equ ate a n d su bject to cr it ica l dou bt

an d d eep a n xiety. Like Mr. Dia n a’s t ra il of ab a n don ed clay

f igures , the road of humani ty i s s t rewn wi th d i sca rded

symbols and sys tems intended to por t ray the meaning of holiness. Beliefs perish while faith remains.

Sym bols p la y a n im port a n t role in Tillich ’s t h ou ght.

His u s e of th e word “sym bol” differs from th a t of th e logicia n

an d res em bles m ore tha t of a p sychologis t l ike C. G. J u n g.

A gen u in e sym bol bear s with it s om e of th e power of being.

We cann ot conscious ly con s t ru ct su ch a symbol as we do

ordinary words and s igns. To Mr. Diana the immensity of space powerfu l ly symbol ized the grea tness of God. To

eve ryone g rea t s paces b r ing awe , even when we know

b e t t e r t h a n t o w o r s h i p m e r e b i g n e s s . A h a r d h e a d e d

scient is t , J am es Fish er, wrote th u s of h is firs t s igh t of th e

Gran d Can yon :

The wor ld ended; began aga in e ight mi les

away. Between th e ends of th e world was a ch as m .

Th e cha sm was awfu l.

Awe. Time br ings awe to the t raveler less

often, no doubt, as t ime goes on; for t ime gives

h im , too, th e accu m u lated . . . experien ce of th ose




12

who have been before him. . . . Yet all of these

were, at th at firs t m omen t of sh ock, redu ced to a

whisp er, wh isp erin g, ‘Yes, th is is tru e; th is is rea l,

th is is it . . .’ . . . Never h a d m y awfu l frien d, a we,

st ood s o lon g at m y elbow, so close, as by th e rim

of the Grand Canyon. Never will it come so close

aga in .

Wild Am erica , by Peterson an d Fish er

Symbols do not live forever, but while they live theya re p owerfu l over th e sp irit of m an . “Th e divin ity th a t d oth

h edge a kin g” was for lon g a s ymb ol of God’s m a jes ty. Toda y

w e n e e d n e w s y m b o l s f o r G o d — t h e G r e a t P h y s i c i a n ,

perh ap s. A sym bol of th e divin e m u st poin t b eyon d its elf, for

th e sym bol is its elf fin ite, wh ile it p oin ts to th e in fin ite a n d

uncondit ioned. Hence i t is a lways in danger of becoming

a n idol wh en m en fa il to look beyond it . Mr. Dia n a’s fin a lfigu re of th e u ltim a te in th e form of a m a n did n ot litera lly

m ean th at God is a m an . We ma y pi ty Pope’s

Lo, th e poor In dian ! whose u n tu tored mind s ees

God in c loud s or h ears h im in th e win d.

But equally pitiable are those in a religious void for

whom n o n atu ra l thing is freigh ted with divin ity:

Th e world i s too m u ch with u s ; la te a n d s oon ,

Gett in g an d s pen din g, we lay was te our powers :

Lit t le we see in Nat u re th at is ou rs . . .

It m oves u s n ot.—Grea t God! I’d r a th er b e

A Pagan su ckled in a creed ou tworn . . .

As between idolatry and the void, we must bring to

every symbol the double att i tude: This is not Thou, even

this is Thou.

Religion lives b y its symb ols an d ca n sp eak in n o other

way; bu t symbols a re pe rce ived by minds en tangled in




13

es t rangement , so tha t the symbol i s a l lowed to usurp the

place of the ultimate, to point to i tself instead of beyond

i tse l f . The image of God becomes an idol , the inspi red

chu rch becomes a n in fal lible th eocracy. Su ch s ym bols , in

contr as t to mer ely dea d s ymb ols, reta in power—power wh ich

in i t se l f i s good unt i l separa ted and perver ted, when i t

becomes “demonic.” Men, too, made in the image of God,

reject their finitude, and so their creative power becomes

demonic. The power of a Hitler over the loyalty of others

was d em onic. Sa ta n , the fallen a n gel, is th e myth ical sym bol

of perverted power. Th e tra gedy of h u m an sinfu ln ess is th e

corru ption of ou r vir tu es , n ot th e in du lgen ce in ou r vices .

As Jesus saw, i t was the Pharisees , not the “sinners” who

manifested the resul ts of es trangement. In pol i t ical l i fe ,

the corrupt ion of vi r tue i s apparent in the his tory of a

m ovem ent like Com m u n ism . Origin al ly a p as sion for social

ju s t ic e in Ma r x a n d o t h e r id e a lis t s , it b e c om e s t h e

poss ession of a pa rty which iden tifies th e cau se of ju st ice

with i ts own fortunes, and truth with i ts own party l ine.

Fin ally, political su rviva l ra th er th a n th e good of th e workin g

classes becomes the avowed goal. Religious bodies are no

less liab le to corru ption ; in deed th eir b las ph emy is greater ,

for they speak in the name of God. The church tends to

sp eak a s God rath er th an for God, to work for the su ccess of

t he h i e ra rchy r a the r t han t he coming o f t he K ingdom.

Attem pt s t o esta blish th e good s ociety, th e good way of life,

the good fa i th , end in es tabl ishing an unfree socie ty , a

Pharisaic legal ism, a tyranny over the mind of man. No

wonder the free man prefers democrat ic plural ism, moral

autonomy and a skept ica l secular ism.

Est ra n gemen t , encoun ter , re ligious symbolism an d it s

h ist ory of overcoming an d b ein g overcome b y estr an gem en t:

su ch is th e com plex h is tory of Mr. Dian a an d of al l of u s , a s

Ti l l ich sees i t . Mr. Diana , i t must be remembered, had

entered the s tory as a confident missionary. His original




14

fai th was dou btless au th orita rian , over-litera l, Pha risa ical ;

bu t it h ad given h im cou rage to be what h e was , an d to be

pa rt of th e u n iverse. Th is cou ra ge h e lost , to be replaced b y

the primal anxiety of one who is threatened by the void,

th e cha os from wh ich crea t ion comes a n d to which crea ted

th in gs r etu rn . He regained h is cou ra ge to be wh en h e fin al ly

arrived at his new fai th in a God that accepted him into

r e u n io n . M r . D ia n a ’s o r igin a l c ou r a ge c a m e fr o m t h e

rel igious system his cul ture had provided him with, and

th is i s a m ain tas k of a h u m an cu ltu re—to em body a l ivin g

religiou s symb olism as an an swer to m an ’s an xiety over

his mortal condition. Till ich believes that religion is the

substance of cul ture, and cul ture the form of rel igion. He

h as also writ ten th at “al l h u m an life can be in terpreted a s

a continuous at tempt to avoid despair .” (The Courage to

Be) In pa gan tim es, th e pr im a l a n xiety took th e form of fear

of fat e an d d eath . Iron d estiny, blin d ch an ce, th e in elu ctab le

d e s c e n t i n t o t h e s h a d o w s o f t h e u n d e r w o r l d — t h e s e

ap pea red t o m en ace ma n ’s con t ingen t be in g. Th rou gh

Stoicism, man gained courage in feel ing himself part of

th e s t ru ctu re of th e u n iverse. In th e Midd le Ages, a n xiety

was directed towar d gu ilt an d m oral con dem n at ion. Fear of

Hell, th e in su fficien cy of pen a n ce to pres erve tru e pea ce of

conscience, grew as the Middle Ages waned, and f inal ly

produced Luther, whose sense of gui l t was overcome by

confidence in salvation by faith, and who could say, “Sin

br a vely, a n d b elieve m ore br a vely.” Fear of dea th is en dem ic,

fear of condemnat ion is s t i l l a fac tor in our moral is t ic

Western civilizat ion , an d ap pea rs in Mr. Dian a both in h is

origin al pu ritan ism an d in h is ch aotic revolt a gains t m orals ;

bu t th e ch ara cteris t ic fear toda y is th at of m ean in glessn ess .

“‘Th e s ta rs ,’ s h e wh is per s , ‘b lin dly ru n ,’” wrote Tenn yson .

Mat th ew Arn old’s “da rk lin g pla in , where ign ora n t a rm ies

c la s h b y n ig h t , ” Ka fk a ’s s t o r ie s o f a c a p r i cio u s a n d

inscrutable dream-world tes t i fy to the threat of meaning-




15

lessness . We are now await ing the bir th of a key symbol

which wi l l speak to the condi t ion of our t ime. We are ,

perhaps , in the same condi t ion as the l ighthouse keeper

from Maine of whom Louise Dickinson Rich tells . After

twen ty years alon e on th e s torm bou n d ledge of Pet it Man an ,

h e went to Flor ida on vacat ion. Wh en h e was as ked h ow h e

liked Florida , h e gazed dou rly at th e crowds of tou ris ts an d

repl ied, “Too damn lonely here in Flor ida .” Mrs . Rich

com m ents , “I see ju s t wha t h e mean t . On Titm ’n an h e kn ew

where h e was a n d wh y. So he was n ’t lone ly, bu t on ly

is ola ted . Th ere’s a d ifferen ce.” (Th e Coa s t of Main e) Toda y,

we again n eed a n as su ran ce of where we are an d why.

In the interplay of courage and despair can be seen

not only the resul ts of es trangement, but gl impses of the

w h o l e n e s s w h i c h c o u l d h a v e b e e n o u r s : a w h o l e n e s s

wherein every finite symbol remains united to i ts divine

m ean in g, the s ecu lar u n ited to th e h oly, obedience u n ited

to self-fulf i l lment , the eternal absolute to the his torical

relat ive, form to passion. This wholeness and unitedness

wi th the d iv ine ground i s ca l l ed by Ti l l i ch theonomy.

“Theonomy does not mean the acceptance of a divine law

i m p o s e d o n r e a s o n b y a h i g h e s t a u t h o r i t y ; i t m e a n s

au tonomou s reas on u n ited with it s own depth .” (Systematic

Theology , v. 1) In a word, i t is sonship, not servanthood:

“Th en th e son s ar e free.” (Mt. 17 :26) Is th is on ly a Ga rd en

of Eden, or a Messianic Age? Its perfection is not to be

achieved in t ime and space, but i t breaks into our Now to

give meaning to our lives, to our age, to history itself. It

sh one in Mr. Dian a’s face when h e h ad completed h is fin al

i m a g e a n d c a m e f o r t h w i t h a n e w f r e e d o m a n d a n e w

com m itm ent to kn eel in pra yer an d d ie .

In fee l ing the ul t imate concern, man t ranscends his

l imi t a t i ons t o t ouch the u l t ima te i t s e l f . God becomes

m an ifest a s Love, overcom in g estr an gemen t, t ra n sform in g

and i l luminat ing the human s i tua t ion. We, the re turning




16

prodigal son s , as k to be as h ired servan ts , bu t God comes

o u t t o m e e t u s a n d t o r e s t o r e o u r s o n s h i p . T h i s i s

revela tion —n ot a book of in fa llible in form at ion a bou t God,

bu t a n even t in defin ab le in word s, a fu lln ess of t im e givin g

sh ap e an d d irec tion to th is or a ll t im e, showin g us wh at a

th eonom ou s fu lfillm en t of th e age cou ld b e.

Mr. Dian a h ad h is own pers ona l reception of revelat ion;

b u t T i l l i c h w o u l d r e m i n d u s t h a t t h i s w a s n o t a n e w

revelation. It was a coming home to him of the revelation

which for a Ch ris t ian is n orma tive—th e revelat ion of J esu s

as the Chr is t .

Except tha t Mr . Diana had come f rom a Chr i s t i an

culture, the story of his search is l ike that of the religious

h is tory of m an kind. Man kind , like Mr. Dian a, is cau gh t in

the s t rugg le be tween the p re s s u re o f ho l ine s s and t he

in a dequ a cy of idols. Perh a ps every idol Mr. Dian a m a de, as

every rel igion man has conceived, had the power to pul l

th e sou l togeth er in to wh olenes s for a wh ile , bu t when god

becomes demon, the soul i s shat tered and se l f -es t ranged

a g a i n ; i t s n a m e b e c o m e s L e g i o n , i t i s s u b j e c t t o t h e

elemental spir i ts of the universe.

The revelation that says to man, “You are no longer

slaves bu t son s, an d if son s, th en h eirs ,” m u st b e received

i f i t i s to t ake t rans forming e f fec t . Mankind has been

prepared by “ the inv i s ib le process of reve la t ion which

secret ly m oves th rou gh h ist ory.” (Theologis che Blatter , 1923)

But this universa l pr inciple has concre te express ion in

J esu s received a s th e Chris t . Th is con crete revelat ion cam e

to t he Hebrews , who had been p repa red by a l oya l ty ,

sa fegu ar ded from idolat ry, to one God conceived a s a pers on

i n a n “ I = T h o u ” r e l a t i o n t o I s r a e l , a n d w h o w e r e i n

expectation of a Messiah.

Let u s ima gin e a Mr. Dian a a m ong th ose wh o firs t h ad

the opportunity of receiving the Christian revelation. He

was , pe rha ps , an ea rnes t J ew wh ose fa ith h ad b een sh aken




17

by Greek m etap h ysical specu lat ion, an d who h ad firs t flu n g

as ide t he burden o f t he Law, t hen s ough t i n f ea r and

trem blin g to kn ow if an d h ow God cou ld be m in dfu l of h im .

He would s ta n d in the m u lt itu des gath ered a rou n d a s t ran ge

n ew teacher from Galilee wh o was certainly not p reach in g

what the Pharisees preached. How could this experience

be r evelat ory to him ?

Did th e “h is torical J esu s”—th e m an from Nazareth —

h ave savin g power? Not all who sa w J esu s a s a factu al reality

sa w h im as th e Ch ris t , ju s t as th ere are dou bt less tour is ts

who cha t ter of in an it ies a t th e edge of th e Gran d Can yon.

An a tole Fra n ce’s st ory of h ow th e aged Pon tiu s Pila te cou ld

no t r eca l l t he name o f J e s us i nd i ca t e s how fa r human

imperceptiveness might go. Today, Till ich reminds us, we

h ave in th e Gospels , n ot a fac tu al photograp h of J esu s , so

to speak , bu t a n in terpre t ive por t ra it , givin g an in n er t ru th .

He is now to be seen only through the eyes of those who

sa w him a s a figu re fre igh ted with h olin ess . Th e J esu s

who saves mus t be more than Jesus , though the fac tua l

J esu s was ind ispens able .

Did th e teach in gs a n d a u th or ity of J esu s h ave sa vin g

power? It h as a lways been easy to present th e teachin gs of

J e s u s a s a n e w a n d l o f t y e t h i c , a p e r f e c t i o n i s m m o r e

bu rden some th an th e J ewish Law it was s u pposed to replace.

“It is n ot too ha rd for th ee. . . . It is in th y mou th an d th y

h ear t tha t thou m ayes t do it , ” sa ys Deuteronomy; bu t J esu s

sa ys, “be ye th erefore p erfect. . . .” For a Mr. Dian a , a lrea dy

in revolt a gain st th e Law, alread y in a st at e of en m ity towar d

the God whom men suppose to require endless appease-

m ent , a vis ion of J esu s a s a n other m oral au th or ity would

have no reconcil ing power. He who saves must be more

than J e s us an d more t han a new mora l deman d .

Did or does any doc t r ine about Jesus have sav ing

power? Those who received the revelation found words to

express the i r ins ight : they ca l l ed Jesus the Chr i s t , the




18

Savior, Lord, Logos. But h ow could teach in gs ab ou t J esu s,

thrus t upon o thers who had not had the encounte r wi th

the h oly in J esu s , do m ore than im pose u pon th e hones ty

of th e ir in te llect? He wh o saves m u st b e more th an J esu s ,

or n ew dem an d, or n ew doctrin e, or n ew religion . “We wou ld

tu rn down His ca ll with h at red if He called u s to th e Chr istian

rel igion or to the Chris t ian doctr ines or to the Chris t ian

m orals . . . . J esu s is n ot the creator of an other rel igion, bu t

th e victor over religion . . . .” (The S ha k ing of the Found ations )

J esu s a s th e Ch ris t ca n only sa ve if h e is a n ew real ity.

Tillich calls t h is r eality th e New Bein g. J esu s a s t h e Ch rist

is received as Godm an h ood, m an ’s n at u re as i t wou ld b e if

uni ted to God ins tead of es t ranged f rom him, and hence

tra n sp ar en t to God wh o in th is New Bein g dra ws all creation

to reunion. In the Chris t tha t which conquers es t ranged

exis tence makes i t s appearance under the condi t ions of

ex i s tence . The Bib l ica l p ic ture of the Chr i s t has “ two

ou tsta n ding cha ra cteris t ics : h is m ainten an ce of u n ity with

God and his sacrifice of everything he could have gained

for h im s elf from th is u n ity.” (S y s tem atic Theology , v. 1 ) It is

n atu ra l th a t th e hopes of a J ewish Mr. Dian a m igh t cen ter

a roun d J esu s a s a h oly figu re , an d see h im as Mess iah . A

Mess ia h is a powerfu l figu re, an d on e wh o is a ckn owledged

th e An oin ted of God m ight well cla im power a n d wors h ip for

h im self; bu t when th at h app ens , u n ity with God is b roken

and Mess iah becomes Demon. Therefore i t i s necessary

for a s ymb ol of Godm a n h ood to be self-sa crificin g. J esu s a s

the Chris t sacr i f iced the Jesus who was merely Jesus on

th e Cross , a n d s o cou ld b e portra yed a s sa yin g, “Believe n ot

in m e, bu t in Him wh o sent m e.”

When a Mr. Diana asks, “How shall I be saved?” the

answer i s tha t he mus t be t rans formed f rom hi s s t a te of

es t rangement . His ser ious concern wi th the ques t ion of

s a lva t i on i s t he f i r s t s t ep . Nex t comes r econc i l i a t i on ,

overcom in g m an ’s h os t ility to God. Hence J esu s a s th e




19

Chris t i s por t rayed as forgiving s inners and l i f t ing the

bu rden of th e Law, an d fin al ly as sh ar in g in th e desp air of

th ose wh o are free to wreck th eir own n at u res b y reject in g

th e God wh o created th em . On t h e ba sis of recon ciliat ion ,

r e u n i o n c a n t a k e p l a c e . T h e m a n w h o a c c e p t s t h e

forgiveness of God is able to forgive himself, and responds

to God with love—a des ire for reu n ion . He is a lso r eu n ited

wi th h i s f e l l owmen in t he communi ty o f t he r eun i t ed .

R e u n i o n m e a n s h e a l i n g , p h y s i c a l , m e n t a l a n d s o c i a l

wh oleness . Th u s J esu s as th e Ch ris t is p ic tu red as h im self

an u n dis ru pted n atu re , an d h im self a h ealer . He sh ows in

himself the promise of the reunion of obedience and self-

ru le in sons h ip, the u n iversa l and th e concre te in persona l

love, form an d en ergy in ps ych ological wh olen ess . Fin a lly,

Chr is t a s resur rec ted sh ows th a t th rou gh reun ion with the

eterna l life of God, Godm an h ood is n ot con qu ered b y death

n or al iena ted b y the h ost ility of es tra n ged crea t ion.

The man who i s saved par t i c ipa tes in the sp i r i tua l

com m u n ity of th ose wh o are an im ated b y th e sam e Abba -

cryin g Spirit of reu n ion th at was in J esu s a s th e Ch ris t . As

th e la ten t chu rch, th is com m u n ity in c lu des th ose wh o h ave

felt th e real ity of th e Chr is t th ou gh th ey h ave never h eard

his name. The explici t ly Chris t ian church is composed of

those who have received the revelat ion of the Chris t and

h ave been u n ited by a com m on body of m yth an d s ym bolism

carrying the power of this revela t ion. These myths and

s y m b o l s k e e p f a i t h a l i v e — t h r o u g h t h e m t h e u l t i m a t e

con cern can gra sp th e fai thfu l. “With ou t s ym bols in which

the holy is experienced as present , the experience of the

h oly va n ish es.” ( Dy nam ics of Fa ith ) Th ese sym bols n eed n ot

be “chu rchy” ones , bu t th ey m u st h ave power .

The Mr . Diana of the s tory was in a deeper sense

unchurched, even though he had belonged to a re l igious

organization; yet at his death, though physically far from

his fellow-believers, he was truly a member of the church




20

when h is las t pra yer took th e an cien t Chr is t ian form : “Ou r

Father, which art in heaven. . . .” Ironically, the African

vi l lagers overheard this as “Our Father Witch,” a good

an alogy for wh at h ap pen s to th e idea of th e hea venly Fath er

a m o n g e s t r a n g ed m e n . Fo r t h e c h u r c h a s h u m a n

communi ty i s as subjec t to es t rangement as i s any other

com m u n ity. It t r ies to ins is t on th e u lt im acy of its pa rt icu lar

sym bols, or it ten ds to cla im in fallibility. Only a cont in u in g

se l f -cor rec t ing pro tes t to a l l such c la ims can keep the

church f rom becoming idola t rous : th is Ti l l ich ca l l s the

Protesta n t p rin ciple.

H e n c e t h e c h u r c h r e p r e s e n t s b u t n e v e r w h o l l y

em bod ies t h e Kin gdom of God. Bu t if Tillich s ees th e dem on ic

elemen t as well as th e divin e in th e chu rch , he is a lso ab le

to see the divine element as well as the demonic in “the

world.” In The Interpretation of History , he wrote: “. . . The

church is the perpetual gui l ty conscience of society, and

soc ie ty the perpe tua l gu i l ty consc ience of the church .”

Till ich crit icizes extreme neo-orthodoxy because it has no

place for the occurrence of the infinite in the realm of the

f in i t e . He h imse l f was a pa r t i c ipant in a movement of

“rel igious social ism” in Germany, and so is sympathet ic

with the idealist concern for the coming of the Kingdom.

True to his binocular vision, Tillich refused either to exile

God from th e polit ical sp h ere as did Barth , or to cons ecrate

an y polit ical order as did on e Germ an th eologian enth u sias t

for Nation a l Socialism . Here, a s everywh ere, Tillich st an ds

in the bou nd ary s itu a t ion .

What, then is the relation of the Kingdom of God to

tem pora l society? Perh ap s th e story of th e prod igal son will

best i l lustrate some of the basic principles of society as

th ey ap pear to Tillich an d th e tens ions am ong them which

can only be resolved by their unity in God. The father is

h e a d o f t h e f a m i l y — h e r e i s t h e s t r u c t u r e o f a h u m a n

com m u n ity with a h ierarchy of power . Each m emb er ha s a




21

cer ta in cap acity to as ser t h im self, an d th e fa th er , becau se

of his matur i ty , has a cer ta in natura l author i ty over his

son s. Every fath er kn ows h ow h ar d i t is to be powerfu l an d

u se comp u lsion with ou t im pa irin g the ind ividu al ity of th e

children h e mu st p rotect by th at p ower. Every son h as kn own

the suspic ion tha t his fa ther i s us ing power on his own

beha l f ra the r than for h i s ch i ldren , and tha t the fami ly

smothers ra ther than fos te rs h i s own powers . Thus the

prodigal son asked for his inheri tance and left home. The

elder s on d id n ot qu est ion h is fat h er’s p ower at th at t im e,

b u t f e l t h i s s e n s e o f j u s t i c e o f f e n d e d . H e d e m a n d e d

treatment according to an invariable principle of giving

every ma n h is d u e. Th e fat h er’s welcome to th e prod igal

s e e m e d m e r e s e n t i m e n t a l p a r t i a l i t y t o h i m . H e w o u l d

doubt less have approved of the s tern Roman judge who

sentenced his own son as harshly as any other cr iminal .

So the fa ther was presented not only wi th the di lemma

between weakn ess a n d d es t ru ct ive coercion, bu t with th a t

between rigidity and partiali ty.

Th ese dilem m as of power an d ju st ice were resolved by

th e fath er th rou gh love. Love ena bles power to b e u sed on

behalf of reunion, and raises just ice above retr ibut ion or

par t ia l i ty to heal ing forgiveness . The fa ther was of the

Kin gdom, b u t th e son s fell ou t of th e divin e u n ity of power

an d ju st ice with love. Th u s r econcilia tion is a lways a t work

in the midst of es trangement. The Kingdom of God is a

c rea t i ve and ene rg i z ing p roces s , bu t i t i s no t a s t a t i c

perfect ion in a tangible Utopia. Condit ions change, new

conflicts arise in the l iving process of history. From this

point of view, Tillich criticizes pacifism for assuming too

easily the desirability of achieving a conflictless, untragic

u n i t y a m o n g m e n w h e r e i n g r o w t h i s s a c r i f i c e d t o

agreement , and too easi ly condemning the confl ictful and

tra gic workin gs of love, power an d ju st ice in secu lar society.

There is , to be sure, a demonic pacifism—that of avoiding




22

confl ict or dissent so that peace is corrupted to passivi ty

an d con sen su s to “group th in k.” In The Organization Man ,

William H. Wh yte, J r . as ks : “Mu st con sen su s p er se be th e

overridin g goal? It is th e pr ice of pr ogres s th a t th ere n ever

can be comple t e cons ens us . A l l c r ea t i ve advances a re

essen tial ly a d epa rtu re from agreed-u pon ways of looking

at things.…” Religious pacifists , who have not sought to

avoid con flict an d n on coopera tion with “th e world,” can agree

with Til l ich that they must be prepared for i t a lso among

th em selves. The fa m ily of m a n will always h a ve its pr odigal

son s. Th e h ist ory of th e Society of Frien ds , with its ten sions

between the unity of the Inward Light and the formalism,

ra t iona lism an d m oralism th at h ave often obscu red it an d

caused d i suni ty , the in te rp lay be tween consc ience and

comp rom ise in Penn ’s “h oly exper im en t” - th ese wou ld

i l lus t ra te for T i l l i ch the growth and c ruc i f ix ion of the

Kin gdom of God, which com es n ot lo h ere! in th e pa st , or lo

th ere! in th e fu tu re , bu t wears it s c rown of th orns am ong

an d with in u s n ow.

Here, a s everywh ere, Tillich ’s t h ou gh t is p owerfu l in

energizing the mind to wrestle in inner conversation with

h is views. His s ystem h as u n dou bted gran deu r, even th ough

it is s t i ll in com plete at im porta n t p oin ts—th e n at u re of th e

Holy Spirit an d t h e sa n ctifica tion of th e in dividu a l’s life.

He m ay illu m in at e for you th e modern s i tu at ion of m an in

s ea rch o f f a i t h , p rov ide i ns igh t on your own pe r s ona l

pr oblem s of religiou s b elief, or, like Mr. Dia n a , you m a y be

jolt ed ou t of a n u n exa m in ed belie f to con s t ru ct a deeper

fa ith . Let Tillich ’s las t word to u s b e th is :

“To live serenely and courageously in these tensions

an d to d iscover fin al ly their u lt im at e u n ity in th e depth of

ou r own sou ls a n d in th e depth of th e divin e life is t h e tas k

and the digni ty of human thought .” ( Biblica l Religion and

the S ea rch for Ultim ate Rea lity )




23

Reading Suggestions

Th ere is m u ch m ore to Tillich ’s s ystem of th ou ght t h ancan be covered in a b rief essa y. Only fu rth er read in g can do

ju s t ice to it ; bu t th e rea der will fin d h e n eeds a ll h is powers

of concentration, for Till ich makes no concessions to the

slower-movin g min d. His s tyle h as th e m ajestic brevity of a

m a t h e m a t i c a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n . M u c h o f t h e e s s e n c e o f

Tillich will be found in his Dy nam ics of Fa ith . From this

book, the sch ola r ma y tu rn to the S y s tem atic The ology , th esk eptic to The Courage to Be , an d th e religiou s pers on to the

Biblical language of his books of sermons, The S ha k ing of

the Found ations a n d The New Being .

Oth er b ooks by Tillich a re: The Religious S itua tion , Th e

Interpreta tion of His tory , The Protes tan t Era , Biblica l Religion

and the Search for Ultimate Reality , and Love, Pow er and

Jus tice .About Tillich, the best book is The Theology of Paul

Tillich , edited b y Kegley an d Br eta ll.

La tes t upd a te: 1 0 / 2 9 / 0 5

deeper faith

Documents