The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Tillich - Systematic Theology

Theology Philosophical
#1

I’m starting a voyage of discovery. I’ll be reading Paul Tillichs’s Systematic Theology for an hour each morning that I am able. I asked Jason if I could post a short paragraph after each study session, mainly to help me clarify my understanding of that session, and perhaps a couple of people here might enjoy it and get something out of it as well. Writing that paragraph will be a pain, but really it is the only way I will retain anything.

PLEASE - if you already know all about Tillich, keep it to yourself for now? I don’t want to read about Tillich; I want to read - Tillich. The thread will certainly be open for discussion, like all the other threads here, but I hope to focus on what the man himself is saying, so that we can respond to that.
Thanks for your consideration. :smiley:

What I have read of Tillich - his History of Christian Thought; Dynamics of Faith; and The Courage to Be, made me a little uncomfortable; though I thought the History was very good, and did enjoy the other two works, it was obvious to me that I needed to read his larger thought to see where he was coming from.

I don’t expect this to be a popular thread, but I hope it will be worthwhile. I intend on having some good intellectual fun. :wink:

#2

I look forward to it Dave.

Steve

#3

Good!

#4

Table of contents for volume 1. There are 3 volumes, but they are not massively long.

#5

Some light reading!

#6

Heck, we can handle it… :smiley:

#7

I’m gonna take a Mulligan on this - instead of inflicting my studies on this Forum, I will continue them for my own use, perhaps post a comment now and then. But the subject matter for the most part is dry and abstract (like me) and perhaps not of great interest to most of us.

Another book I’m starting (again) is the Beauty of the Infinite, maybe I’ll try to get something going on that. I’ve read it once, and it opened my mind to Christian aesthetics.

#8

Your original intention would be a good thread. Any book which has a profound impact or insight would be a worthy contender. I am currently reading Heavenly Intrigue, which is intriguing. It is good to share the gems you have discovered and how they impact on your views and understanding. Think about doing the same with a different book.

Steve

#9

Ok, Tillich it is.
I will follow the table of contents (above) ; for instance, V1,P1 would map to Part 1: Reason and Revelation.
I will use " " for direct quotes; the thoughts I am putting into my own words will be the main part of my text; questions I am placing for myself and others, or that I mean to come back to, will be in italics. Thus:

“The ‘situation’ to which theology must respond is the totality of man’s creative self-interpretation in a special period. Fundamentalism and orthodoxy reject this task, and, in doing so, they miss the meaning of theology.” (A direct quote)

Tillich stresses the ‘poles’ that theology is located between - the ‘situation’ in a particular time, and the eternal truth of its foundation. (My paraphrase of a paragraph)

Do we shape truth to fit a cultural situation? Isn’t the message paramount, stands on its own, and the cullture must march to it? (a question that I would throw out for thought experiments and such, any one can respond if they like)

#10

That’s a good paraphrase, and a good analogy of the “‘poles’ that theology is located between.” This is probably true also for fundamentalists and orthodox, but only in ways that they see do not impinge on “eternal truth”. For everyone, I think, the poles are prone to contradictions between the two. Unintentionally, but a skeptic will always try to leverage the contradiction to the greatest extent possible.

Again, I think we all do this in degrees. Will those degrees suffice for all people? No. That’s why we have a million denominations. I don’t think it is all that relevant as long as we seek God with the same motivation that the cross was intended for. That’s my thought experiment.

S.

#11

Here we go.
V1, Intro,A:the point of view

In this section T is setting the stage for his Systematic Theology (ST). Theology is meant to serve two needs of the Church: “the statement of the truth of the Christian message and the interpretation of this truth for every new generation.”

Think of ST as moving between two poles, I’ll call them P1 and P2.
P1: “the eternal truth of its foundation”
P2: the particular ‘situation’ in time to which the truth must be received.

Hard to balance the two. (I realize now he is talking about the age-old question of Christ and Culture, or Christ against Culture, or Christ in Culture. I’ll let him say it in his own way though)

For instance, if our focus is on P1 only, we “confuse eternal truth with a temporal expression of this truth”. ‘Fundies’ try to present the Truth as something above all times and places, but try to impose statements from a situation in the past onto the current situation and thereby fail to connect with the present.
(Is T correct in this? “Elevates something finite and transitory to infinite and eternal validity”

P2 refers to the culture (science, art, economics, politics, morality) trying to make sense of existence. “Theology is neither preaching nor counseling” - that statement also relates to P1, P2.
T is working toward his method of ST, which he hopes will balance P1,P2. Or better, harmonize them, (seeing them holistically? or as a Gestalt?) He wants to be able to stop the oscillation between ‘orthodox fixation’ and genuine Kerygma.

KEY FOR T IS: Kerygmatic theology needs APOLOGETIC theology to be complete.
-end of section 1-

#12

Why does “our focus” need to be either one or the other. Cannot it be both?

#13

That’s what T is going for. The next section is ‘Apologetic Theology’ - which is ‘answering theology’ - and will then lead to his method of ‘correlation’ which is where the fun begins. :slight_smile:

#14

V1, Intro, A

  1. Apologetic Theology - this is interesting. I can sum it up with a quote from the section: “The following system is an attempt to use the ‘method of correlation’ as a way of uniting message and situation. I tries to correlate the questions implied in the situation with the answers implied in the message. It does not derive the answers from the questions as a self-defying apologetic theology does. Nor does it elaborate answers without relating them to the questions as a self-defying kerygmatic theology does. It correlates questions and answers, situation and message, human existence and divine manifestation.”

The intro is over 70 pages long, I’ve read it, and I think our purposes are better served by putting on our speedos and just jumping into the deep end, i.e., V1, Part 1, Ch 1.

A few quotes to give the flavor of the rest of the intro.
“Philosophy and Theology ask the question of being. But they ask it from different perspectives. Philosophy deals with the structure of being in itself; theology deals with the meaning of being for us” “The theologian is not detached from his object but is involved in it…with passion, fear, love”

An important concept to grasp as we go forward: Ultimate Concern : “Our ultimate concern is that which determines our being or not-being. Only those statements are theological which deal with their object in so far as it can become a matter of being or not-being for us”

One last item from the Intro: "It seems paradoxical if one says that only that which is absolutely concrete can also be absolutely universal and vice versa, but it describes the (Christian theological - DB) situation adequately. Something that is merely abstract has a limited universality because it is restricted to the realities from which it is abstracted. Something that is merely particular has a limited concreteness because it must exclude other particular realities in order to maintain itself as concrete. Only that which has the power of representing everything particular is absolutely concrete. And only that which has the power of representing everything abstract is absolutely universal. This leads to a point where the absolutely concrete and the absolutely universal are identical. And this is the point at which Christian theology emerges, the point which is described as the “Logos who has become flesh”.

Okay onto the first chapter. What I have skipped over in the intro will come back in spades as we go along.
Anyone with me so far?

#15

V1 Part 1 Ch1
The structure of reason. T brings out the interesting idea that epistemology (The theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion - web) cannot provide a foundation for philosophy or theology.
That’s surprising. In college, a number of professors made the point that epistemology is fundamental to everything else - we have to know HOW we know so that we can reject anything that claims to be knowledge but is outside our capabilities. Those capabilities are established by epistemology.
T says that epist is actually only a part of the larger reality of ontology (The branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being - web). “Knowing is an event within the totality of events.” So we should examine the question of Being before that of epist.
BUT - if the ontological answer is questioned, seen to be doubtful, then it is natural to question the epist basis of that ontology.

The reason T starts here is that he is starting the epistemological part of his ST - Reason and Revelation.
First, Reason: two concepts here, the ontological and the technical. Classically, up to Hegel (?) “reason” is the structure of the mind that enables it to grasp and work with reality. Thus it is not "reasoning’, it is a structure. Reason is the structure of the mind that enables us to do reasoning. That’s the classical view.
LOGOS - classical ‘reason’ (aka ontological reason) - cognitive, aesthetic, theoretical and practical. To deny Reason in this sense is “antihuman because it is anitdivine”.

In addition to the classical concept of reason, the technical concept also exists. In this case, Reason is reduced to ‘reasoning’ - a cognitive function ONLY. Main point here is that ontological reason grasps ends and goals and goods, with the ‘means’ being secondary; technical reason provides the means but imports the ‘ends’ from elsewhere.
Technical reason has been the dominant type for the past 150 or so years, AND ontological reasoning has been relegated to ‘pure subjectivity’ and thus irrelevant.
Result - dehumanizing.
Technical reason REDUCES things and people to LESS than their true reality.
Technical reason alone cannot deal with the existence of the true God - it can only go so far in its ‘reasoning’.

Here is an important quote for the furtherance of T’s ST:
“Religious objects, seen in terms of the universe of discourse constituted by technical reason, are objects of superstition subject to destructive criticism. Wherever technical reason dominates, religion is superstition and is either foolishly supported by reason or rightly removed by it”

is this why Sam Harris and other lightweight philosophers are so - unconvincing?

Next time the type(s) of reason in the question of Reason and Revelation will be discussed.

#16

Perhaps a minor point - but I discovered today that the best way to read Tillich is: seat yourself comfortably in the garden on the side of the house, beneath some pine trees, and close to some oaks that are dropping colorful leaves with every small breeze; light up a Vallejuelo 5x50 cigar, have a good mug of Peet’s Holiday Blend close to hand, and settle in for a good read to ready yourself for tomorrow’s post on the EU forum.
Continue in your reverie, enjoying the peace and the smells of Autumn, the flavor of the coffee and the cigar, giving thanks for the good things, until your cute Kitty, who has been hiding in a bush close by, decides to dart out and grab your foot.
Some of the coffee fell back in the cup. :slight_smile:

#17

LOL. Good for you Dave!

#18

This next section is packed. I read almost all books with a pencil in one hand, like a lot of us do, but here I wanted to underline everything. I’m working on picking out the main points for a post.

#19

Good section, really packed, so I’ll have to severely condense but hope to keep the presentation flowing.
2. Subjective and Objective reasoning.

Repeat: ontological (subjective) reason is “a STRUCTURE of the mind which enables it to grasp and shape reality.” LOGOS
objective " is the rational structure of reality. Has a logos structure.
But the relationship between them must be defined. From Phil 101:
-Realism: it is actually reality that shapes the mind; reality has the power to do that.
-Idealism: Objective reason is created by subjective reason as the latter actualizes itself on unstructured matter.
Like this: Any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of
mind. Or more radically:
(philosophy) the philosophical theory that ideas are the only reality.
(Lots of history of philosophy could be mentioned here)
-Dualism: web def: A theory or system of thought that regards a domain of reality in terms of two independent principles, esp. mind and matter.
-Monism: web def: the doctrine that reality consists of a single basic substance or element

Why all the fuss? T wants to draw from all the above, and come up with a general definition that he will be using; keep us all on the same page. But he adds a ‘twist’ that we will get to in a minute.

The mind receives AND reacts - subjective and objective ‘reason’. In receiving, it ‘grasps’ the world; in reacting it ‘shapes’ its world.
Grasping: seeing into the essence of a thing or event, understanding it
Shaping: transforming the material that is grasped into a Gestalt, a structure “that has the power of being” (that’s a tough nut to crack)

The twist: “In both types of rational acts,the grasping and the shaping,…an emotional element is present.”
Key passage: “…THE FACT THAT IN SOME (RATIONAL ACTS) OF THEM THE EMOTIONAL ELEMENT IS MORE DECISIVE THAN IN OTHERS DOES NOT MAKE THEM LESS RATIONAL. MUSIC IS NO LESS RATIONAL THAN MATHEMATICS. THE EMOTIONAL ELEMENT IN MUSIC OPENS A DIMENSION OF REALITY WHICH IS CLOSED TO MATHEMATICS.”

Math and music each have a rational structure. "This is the meaning of PASCAL’S sentence about THE REASONS OF THE HEART WHICH REASON CANNOT COMPREHEND.
Why - because ‘reason’ is used in the double sense we’ve talked about. The ‘reasons of the heart’ are aesthetic and communal - beauty and love; the ‘reason’ that cannot understand them is the ‘technical’ reason mentioned much earlier.

That’s the first of two posts on this section.

#20

Good section, really packed, so I’ll have to severely condense but hope to keep the presentation flowing.
2. Subjective and Objective reasoning.

Repeat: ontological (subjective) reason is “a STRUCTURE of the mind which enables it to grasp and shape reality.” LOGOS
objective " is the rational structure of reality. Has a logos structure.
But the relationship between them must be defined. From Phil 101:
-Realism: it is actually reality that shapes the mind; reality has the power to do that.
-Idealism: Objective reason is created by subjective reason as the latter actualizes itself on unstructured matter.
Like this: Any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of
mind. Or more radically:
(philosophy) the philosophical theory that ideas are the only reality.
(Lots of history of philosophy could be mentioned here)
-Dualism: web def: A theory or system of thought that regards a domain of reality in terms of two independent principles, esp. mind and matter.
-Monism: web def: the doctrine that reality consists of a single basic substance or element

Why all the fuss? T wants to draw from all the above, and come up with a general definition that he will be using; keep us all on the same page. But he adds a ‘twist’ that we will get to in a minute.

The mind receives AND reacts - subjective and objective ‘reason’. In receiving, it ‘grasps’ the world; in reacting it ‘shapes’ its world.
Grasping: seeing into the essence of a thing or event, understanding it
Shaping: transforming the material that is grasped into a Gestalt, a structure “that has the power of being” (that’s a tough nut to crack)

The twist: “In both types of rational acts,the grasping and the shaping,…an emotional element is present.”
Key passage: “…THE FACT THAT IN SOME (RATIONAL ACTS) OF THEM THE EMOTIONAL ELEMENT IS MORE DECISIVE THAN IN OTHERS DOES NOT MAKE THEM LESS RATIONAL. MUSIC IS NO LESS RATIONAL THAN MATHEMATICS. THE EMOTIONAL ELEMENT IN MUSIC OPENS A DIMENSION OF REALITY WHICH IS CLOSED TO MATHEMATICS.”

Math and music each have a rational structure. "This is the meaning of PASCAL’S sentence about THE REASONS OF THE HEART WHICH REASON CANNOT COMPREHEND.
Why - because ‘reason’ is used in the double sense we’ve talked about. The ‘reasons of the heart’ are aesthetic and communal - beauty and love; the ‘reason’ that cannot understand them is the ‘technical’ reason mentioned much earlier.

That’s the first of two posts on this section.