Tillich’s Misstep
I have a great admiration for the work of Paul Tillich. I consider him one of the greatest modern theologians. However, I do think that Tillich made a misstep in his core ontology that destined his theology to be less than adequate for the 3rd millennium.
Tillich adopts a version of the Greek ontology that dates at least back to Plato. Plato’s allegory of the cave is a good example of this ontology. In this allegory Plato uses the illustration of shadows on the cave wall that are created from eternal forms or ideas but in this world they are distorted. This creates an ontology where there is a “perfect” essence but an imperfect existence to things. Tillich adopts something similar to this where he summarizes the flow of being from essence to existence (and estrangement) to return to the divine ground (essentialization).
Now this may seem like a reasonable ontology given the evil we find in our world. But the consequences of this ontology is that it places a negative connotation on existence as estrangement. In Tillich’s theology in existence we are estranged from the ground of our being and find ourselves in ambiguous life where we only fragmentarily participate in the divine. While it is true that life is ambiguous, what does this mean? If it is framed under the rubric of estrangement this colors all the subsequent theology in negative ontological terms. With this and Tillich’s method of correlation, there will necessarily be a core rejection of existence as it is and the need for a “new heaven and earth”, one with unambiguous life. But what would such a life be like? It is on this point that I find some confusing theology from Tillich concerning blessedness which I think he would attribute to this “new heaven and earth” he writes:
“This leads to a fundamental assertion: The Divine Life is the eternal conquest of the negative; this is its blessedness. Eternal blessedness is not a state of immovable perfection — the philosophers of becoming are right in rejecting such a concept. But the Divine Life is blessedness through fight and victory.” Systematic Theology, Vol 3, p. 405
If the Divine Life is blessedness through fight and victory this necessarily entails an eternal conflict, not an ultimate resolution. Tillich states elsewhere that the negative is a necessary component of life. If this is so then it is hard for me to understand Tillich’s soteriology.
Over at God in a Shrinking Universe. Patrik quotes Tillich:
The paradox of the Christian message is in one personal life essential manhood has appeared under the conditions of existence without being conquered by them. Systematic Theology II, 94.
This is truly a fundamental assertion in Tillich’s theology. Here we see Tillich’s reliance on the Greek paradigm of essence and existence, with existence being some distorted type of being. But is this the only way to view the importance of the life of Jesus and the subsequent profound theology that ensued? Does Jesus overcome estrangement or is it possible to frame his extraordinary life in a different way? I think there is. In my view, the event of the life of Jesus is not a one time unique event that is the center of history as Tillich states. Rather individuals like Jesus are with us always, embracing the depth of their being in the divine life and creating victory in the face of the negatives they experience. Today in 3rd millennium theology we can no longer embrace a one time unique event of one human being as the focal point of “salvation”, but instead we should see blessedness in the ubiquitous events in everyday life by everyday people who face the struggles of life, draw on the depth of their being in God, and freely choose the good.
Existence is not estrangement from God but God engaging in existence, as it eternally and beautifully is. Perhaps the paradox that Tillich posits is not really a paradox but a seamless flowing of God’s self as a Living God. Tillich was profoundly influenced by existential thought and he experienced the great horrors of war first hand as a chaplain in World War I. I have to wonder if this background, his intimate familiarity with Greek thought, and his ties to Christian theology made this line of thinking inevitable. I also wonder what Tillich’s theology would have been like if he had opted for a more positive ontology.
I’m not sure I understand what your criticism is, it seems to me that this is a question of what your general experience of life is. People have always regarded Tillich too pessimistic, but I think this is something that makes him especially relevant in our age where a lot of people, in theology and elsewhere, tries to imply that the world and human society is in a much better state than it really is. Existence as estrangement makes a lot of sense to me in a world where humans continue to drive bigger and bigger cars in spite of the very clear consequences carbon emissions have on our environment. That truly is to be estranged from the ground of our being.
I don’t agree that Tillich’s ontology implies a rejection of existence. Actually I think he addresses this issue somewhere in the beginning of the system, but I don’t have that volume with me right now. In the New Being the estrangement is overcome as essence and existence is reconciled. Salvation is not the escape from existence, it is existence beyond estrangement.
Could you maybe clarify a bit exactly what you are saying with “Today in 3rd millennium theology we can no longer embrace a one time unique event of one human being as the focal point of “salvation””? Do you mean that Theology should give up the notion of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ? That is not a Christian theology I guess. But remember that Tillich too emphasizes that the New being is present in all times in history, however fragmentary. Christ is just the only symbol we have where the reconciliation of estrangement in existence is completely overcome. That’s why he claims that everyone (regardless of the year) who does not participate in the New Being lives “before Christ” and every one who does lives after Him.
Actually, I think the whole point of Tillich’s ontological approach is not so much to describe a metaphysical reality - if this were the case, it would be correct to assess if his description is right or wrong. Rather I think what he tries to do is to create a language in which the gospel can be proclaimed today. Then to actual background and philosophical stringency of that ontology becomes secondary. What is important is if that language does enable a religious discussion. And I think it does.
Comment by Patrik —
Hi Patrik,
Thanks for commenting.
Patrik:
This raises a great question. What does experience tell us about the ontology of reality? As we experience the problem of evil and the problem of “sin” (driving cars too big) is this best characterized as estrangement from God or is there another way to look at it? The characterization of estrangement sets up a barrier between us and God that must be breached. Now according to Tillich the New Being resolves the issue of estrangement. However, the New Being as found in Jesus as the Christ is a concrete manifestation in history. But estrangement also implies a state of affairs that, one would think, needs some ultimate resolution in complete reunion. Is this ultimate resolution in New Being supposed to occur in history? According to Tillich, No. Tillich claims the non-fragmentary side of the Kingdom of God is above history. As he says:
Tillich:
Patrik:
Tillich would seem to disagree that “Salvation is not the escape from existence, it is existence beyond estrangement”. I tried to be careful in my first post when I said that Tillich rejects existence, as it is, not per se. But if the Kingdom of God is not to be found in a history then what is Tillich saying about existence, within which history occurs? This is where it seems to me that Tillich if not rejects existence, as it is, casts it in a negative connotation.
This also raises the question for me of the significance of the historical event of Jesus as the Christ in existence. If there is no ultimate resolution in existential history then what is the significance of the New Being appearing in existential history.
Patrik:
It depends on what you mean by “uniqueness”. Of course, Jesus was an incredibly unique individual. But if by unique you mean a one time universal event in history, then I would say that theology must give this up. I’m working on another post about Jesus where I’ll spell out my reasons for coming to this conclusion. You are probably right that this is not Christian theology. However, recent writings by Marcus Borg in _The Heart of Christianity_ seem to be leaning in this direction.
Patrik:
I agree this is Tillich’s theology.
Patrik:
I disagree. While it is true that Tillich said the only non-symbolic, non-metaphoric statement one could make about God is that God is Being-Itself, surely any systematic theology has to characterize metaphysical reality. Certainly the Bible does this. In fact, I think that is the first part of the method of correlation. Here Tillich uses the language of Greek metaphysics to describe the existential situation.
Patrik:
True but the very statement of “New Being in Jesus as the Christ” cares thoroughgoing metaphysical baggage. Surely if Tillich chose a different ontology the proclamation could also be very different.
To me an alternative way of characterizing our experiences of reality overagainst estrangement falls under the rubric of life-itself. If our lives are part of the divine life then they need not be in a state of estrangement. Instead the ambiguities we face are an intrinsic element in life. This also means that the potential for evil is also an intrinsic part of life and not an ontological “problem” to be fixed. Instead if God is a Living God then as Tillich suggests the blessedness of the divine life is not the elimination of the negatives but the fight and victory over them. In my view, we are not estranged from God but a living aspect of God’s life. As such existence, as it is, is affirmed with no longing for some time of existence without struggle and victory. If that is even an existence, it is not life. Is that something someone would even want? Instead the struggle of life is to be engaged with utmost urgency and resolve. Evil wherever it appears must be fought, drawing on the divine depths within us. Blessedness is not to be found some unambiguous realm, but here and now in everyday life.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
I think one problem in your interpretation of estrangement according to Tillich is that you emphasize estrangement from God. This is not the aspect of estrangement that is immediately experienced by us. Rather we experience estrangement from ourselves and from our world. Now, the point is that estrangement in this sense, the experience of not being true to oneself, not being secure in one’s identity, feeling lost in the world, alienated from other human beings, in fact is to be estranged from God, who is the ground of our being. Not that the one causes the other, but so that the one is “manifested” in the other. Or if you will, the theological interpretation of our estrangement from ourselves and our world is that it is an estrangement from God.
This means that whenever we do experience “contact” with ourselves “however fragmentary” as Tillich likes to say, this is participating in the New Being. The existential estrangement is overcome within existence, but only fragmentarily. Christ is the symbol for this reconciliation, and he is so exactly because he lived within history. It is precisely because Christ lived essentially, that is without being estranged from himself, the world and God, under the conditions of existence, that is, within history, that he becomes the symbol for the New Being. So I can’t agree with the notion that Tillich rejects existence, in fact the opposite is true. He rejects the - perhaps Greek idea - of salvation in an other world and instead speaks of a salvation that is experienced in this world, though fragmentarily. So basically I think you agree a lot more with Tillich than you think!
I think we use the word metaphysics in different ways, so I have difficulty understanding what you mean. My point is just that the core of Tillich’s system is not the ontological structure he describes, but the experiences he is able to describe by using this structure. I’m sure Tillich would agree that different language could be used (and should be used in a different time), he just chose the language that he felt was most adequate for his time.
Comment by Patrik —
Patrik,
Well estrangement is one way to characterize our experience but not the only one. Is this truly an expression of what we feel about experience or one that comes from an a priori commentment to a metaphysic. Tillich was heavily influenced by existential philosophy and with it its notion of estrangment or alienation. But existentialism adopts the essentialist/existentialist ontology. This is not the only ontology that fits experience.
Our experience could also point not to an estrangement but to the dynamics of what it means to live. Life need not be a corruption of an essential self but rather the inherent interplay in the good and created structures of life where those structures play out in the freedom of the created. I think this is what people really feel about their experiences. They feel the struggle within themselves not between an essential authentic self and an existential distortion but between the complex of what Tillich calls the polarities of being (i.e. freedom/destiny, form/dynamics, individuation/participation) Is the goal to be free from that struggle in essentialized being or to engage in life as it is and seek the victory that comes from striving for balance in these polarities at each moment? For myself I cannot imagine a being I would want without those very struggles. Unambiguous being to me sounds like a death to all the things we prize so highly about life even with the negativities that are also ever present.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Well, I can not argue with your experience of what people experience - my experience is different, but I just want to repeat that salvation for Tillich is not a mode of life were those polarities have seized to exist, but one where the polarities are not experienced as estrangement. The struggle is there, but not in the form of a sense of falseness.
Comment by Patrik —