Reading Tillich 11: Human Creativity

This is the background of what is called "human creativity". If creativity means "to bring the new into being", man is creative in every direction - with respect to himself and his world, with respect to being and with respect to meaning. However if creativity means "to bring into being that which had no being", then divine and human being differ sharply.
Systematic Theology I, 256.

A while back I wrote a couple of posts (I, II) on creativity, the latter based on Tillich but not on this quote. My point then, and this is what Tillich writes in this text too, is that the form of creation that involves "bringing into being that which had no being" is a very special form of creation and not the most important one for theology. The kind of creation Tillich describes as bringing the "new" into being is much more important, and here man and God is deeply related. In creativity both God and man finds identity, being and meaning. This is another important way to understand our existence.

The Limited Ministry of the Ordained

Chris at "Even the Devils Believe" has a good quote by Gene Robinson about ministry.

Here's the part that struck me:

I think in some sense becoming a priest actually limits your ministry. What I mean is that the real ministry is to the world, but as a priest and as a bishop, you limit yourself to be minister to the ministers.

I think this is what we see a lot in practice: Priest feeling that their job is to minister to the people in the pews. But unless we see this perspective, that the priest have this limited task, and that the proper ministry is to the world, the Church tends to become turned in on itself.

Reading Tillich 10: Being Created

Nevertheless, the term ex nihilo says something fundamentally important about the creature, namely, that it must take over what might be called the "heritage of nonbeing". Creatureliness implies nonbeing, but creatureliness is more than nonbeing. It carries in itself the power of being, and this power of being is its participation in being-itself, in the creative ground of being. Being a creature includes bot the heritage of nonbeing (anxiety) and the heritage of being (courage).
Systematic Theology I, 253.

It is interesting how Tillich kind of hides his intent in this text, by putting the key to the quote in parenthesis. I'm not sure if this interpretation of the ex nihilo-formula holds the scrutiny of historical methods, but that is hardly Tillich's point. He connects a central human experience, the tension between anxiety and courage, to the Christian doctrine of creation. To be created is to on the one hand carry within oneself a spark of divine might, but also the tendency to neglect this spark. This is what it is to be human. What Tillich is discussing in this passage is not primarily the philosophy of being but human ethics at a very fundamental level.

The Mini MEme

Byron tagged me, so here goes.

A Piece of Art that you Love
Im not a art expert, byt I used to have this Kandinsky painting on my wall for a few years.
A Line in a Song or Line of Poetry that Reaches Your Core
Oh, that's a difficult one, many to choose from. Radiohead got many mantra-like lines that I tend to find very meaningful, maybe: "It's the devild way now, It's no way out. You can scream and you can shout. Because you have not been paying attention".

An Experience in Nature that was Really Special and/or Spiritual
I remember traveling through Finland by bus during a night many years ago. I was sleeping and the kind of half-awoke. It was a dawn of spectacular beauty, and every one else was sleeping. It was like it was a moment there just for me.

The Movie that Changed the Way you saw the World.
That's a tricky one. My strongest film-experiences tend to be about recognition rather than change. The Matrix, I guess, really made me into more or a rebel than I was before. Weird that.

A Piece of Music That Makes You Cry
Oh, many of the hymns sung at a special day in the liturgical year. There is a hosanna sung in Swedish speaking Churches on Advent, and one that (translated) says "the day has arrived, love is triumphant" sung on Christmas morning. Gets me every time. But I cry a lot in church.

On Tillich, Theology and Change

Steve has some interesting thoughts on the relevance of professional theology for parish theology, asking for example if TIllich has made an impact on the religious life of "ordinary" believers.

Reading Tillich 9: God and Existence

It would be a great victory for Christian apologetics if the words "God" and "existence" were very definitely separated except in the paradox of God becoming manifest under the conditions of existence, that is, in the Christological paradox. God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.
Systematic Theology I, 205.

The last part of this famous quote is often used to discredit Tillich and make him out to be some kind of radical ultra liberal blasphemer. What Tillich is actually trying to do here is to describe God in a way that later will make the talk of Incarnation understandable. To appreciate the mystery of the Incarnation one has to understand in what way God is fundamentally different from creation. In Tillich's terms this difference consists of the fact that God is beyond essence and existence, that is things as the "should" be and things as they are. When he says that God does not exist, his point is that we cannot reach God by adding things to the finite. That way we will only end up with Idols. as he says later on: concerning God all superlatives are diminutives.

Reading Tillich 8: Destiny and Meaning

To lose one's destiny is to lose the meaning of one's being. Destiny is not a meaningless fate. It is necessity united with meaning. The threat of possible meaninglessness is a social as well as an individual reality. There are periods in social life, as well as in personal life, during which this threat is especially acute. Our present situation is characterized by a profound and desperate feeling of meaninglessness. Individuals and groups have lost any faith they may have had in the destiny as well as any love of it.
Systematic Theology I, 201.

Meaning of life, for the individual as well as society, is found in context. As Tillich wrote in yesterday's quote, destiny is "the indefinitely broad basis of our centered selfhood". Life loses meaning when one is separated from one's environment, from one's "world". Meaning is found in communion. As I suggested in the beginning of this series, the meaninglessness is maybe not as acutely felt today as a few decades ago, but this is only because we have numbed ourselves with entertainment to a much deeper degree. At the same time the estrangement has just increased.

What does Tillich mean by "to love one's destiny"? It is to be united with one's personality, to be at home an responsible for oneself. There is a desperate need in our world for activities that help people to find such a love.

Reading Tillich 7: Destiny and Freedom

Our destiny is that out of which our decisions arise; it is the indefinitely broad basis of our centered selfhood; it is the concreteness of our being which makes all our decisions our decisions. When I make a decision, it is the concrete totality of everything that constitutes my being which decides, not an epistemological subject. This refers to body structure, psychic strivings, spiritual character. It includes the communities to which I belong, the past unremembered and remembered, the environment which has shaped me, the world which has made an impact on me. It refers to all my former decisions. Destiny is not a strange power which determines what shall happen to me. It is myself as given, formed by nature, history and myself. My destiny is the basis of my freedom; my freedom participates in shaping my destiny.
Systematic theology I, 185.

The problem of human freedom has caused much confusion throughout the ages and continues to do so today. Those that deny freedom today refer more to biology and "neuroscience" than strange forces, but there still seems to be a very poor understanding of what man's freedom actually means. A Finnish philosopher, Hannes Nykänen, has written that trying to prove the freedom of the will is a bit like trying to sneak a peak of oneself in a mirror. The fact is that we experience ourselves as free, and when one is denying our freedom on the basis of "science" one is simply addressing a different matter. Much confusion, yes.

The genius of Tillich's polarity of freedom and destiny is that it explains and acknowledges the limits of our freedom. This idea returns later in the system when Tillich treats Original Sin.

Based on this description of the structure of being, it seems reasonable to try to use the limited freedom one has to increase one's freedom. Obviously one can not escape one's destiny, but the choices we make "participate" in the forming of this destiny. This is valid on a cultural level too. What we are doing when we change the climate and use up the earth's resources is reducing our freedom.

Br. Roger and the Catholic Church

Controversy has arisen over the supposed "conversion" of Brother Roger of Taizé to the Catholic Church. On September 6th, Le Monde published an article suggesting that Brother Roger secretly converted to the Catholic Church, thus implying that his ecumenical stance was built on fraud. Today the Taizé community has responded by publishing four articles on their website, explaining the relation between Brother Roger and Rome and his own ecumenical position.

Do read them, its my conviction that Brother Roger's way is the only way forward for the ecumenical movement. Ecumenism has to happen in persons, not between institutions.

The Taizé Community states: http://www.taize.fr/en_article3864.html

Interview with Brother Alois: http://www.taize.fr/en_article3865.html

Bishop Gérard Daucourt: http://www.taize.fr/en_article3875.html

The French Protestant Federation: http://www.taize.fr/en_article3871.html

Reading Tillich 6:Religious nationalism

The Old Testament certainly is full of Jewish nationalism, but it appears over and over as that against which the Old Testament fights. Religious nationalism is the mark of false prophets. The true prophets threaten Israel in the name of the God of justice who is able to reject his nation because of its injustice ... As the god of justice he is universal, and, if justice is violated, he rejects any claim on the basis of a special relation to his nation. The term "elected nation" is by no means an expression of national arrogance. To be elected includes the permanent threat of rejection and destruction and the demand to accept destruction in order to save the covenant of election. ... Empirically speaking there is no happy ending for the elected nation - or for the elected one of final revelation. But "empirically speaking" is not the prophetic form of speaking.
Systematic Theology I, 143.

On this day, I think I will let this stand without a comment.

Chrisendom: An Audience with the Küng

Is there anything you always wanted to ask Hans Küng? Now's your chance, thanks to Chris Tilling. Go to Chrisendom to find out more.

No, I can't think of anything, really.

Reading Tillich 5: Symbolical Language

A long one today:

The knowledge of revelation, directly or indirectly, is knowledge of God, and therefore analogous or symbolic. The nature of this kind of knowing is dependent on the nature of the relation between God and the world and can be discussed only in the context of the doctrine of God. But two possible misunderstandings must be mentioned and removed. If the knowledge of revelation is called "analogous," this certainly refers to the classical doctrine of the analogia entis between the finite and the infinite. Without such an analogy nothing could be said about God. But the analogia entis is in no way able to create a natural theology. It is not a method of discovering truth about God; it is the form in which every knowledge of revelation must be expressed. In this sense analogia entis, like "religous symbol", points to the necessity od using material taken from finite reality in order to give content to the cognitive function of revelation. ... The phrase "only a symbol" should be avoided, because nonanalogous or nonsymbolic knowledge of God has less truth than analogous of symbolic knowledge. The use of finite materials in their ordinary sense for the knowledge of revelation destroys the meaning of revelation and deprives God of his divinity.
Systematic Theology I, 131.

This immensily important realisation, that talk about God must be symbolical in order to protect the truth about God, in one stroke makes fundamentalist and traditionalist theology impossible. This is why theology, to be theology, must change. I cannot remain the same, it cannot use the same formulas and concepts as before because human language is constantly in flux. In that situation, to hold on to traditional formulas in theology, without trying to explain them with current language will lead to lying about God.

Of course, it is this realisation that leads Tilich to develop theology with the "method of correlation", as an attempt to find new form to the eternal truth contained in the Christian gospel.

I have had great use of this method not only in my few and far between sermons, but espeically in my reading of Christian litterature, especially in my case the fathers. To always keep the "existential question" they are trying to answer in the back of my head while reading has helped me, I think, to appreciate an aspect about the fathers that go beyond theological polemics, the main trap of any reader of patristic literature.

Clearly this is not an uncomplicated matter, for it leads over to the very tricky question of what remains the same and what changes in the human condition over the ages.

Reading Tillich 4: Sainthood

The term "saint" has been misunderstood and distorted; saintliness has been identified with religious or moral perfection. Protestantism, for these reasons, has finally removed the concept of sainthood from religion. But sainthood is not personal perfection. Saints are persons who are transparent for the ground of being which is revealed thorough them and who are able to enter a revelatory constellation as mediums. Their being can become a sign-event for others. This is the truth behind the Catholic practice of demanding miracles from every saint.
Systematic Theology I, 121.

I have often wondered what a person belonging to a tradition where saints play a central role feels about this definition. It strikes me as very accurate. I have met a few person in my life and read the works of several others that I would consider saints. What Tillich points to is exactly it: the encounter which such a person become a revelation of the divine that grabs me and transforms me. It has little to do with moral perfection, although to be transparent for the ground of being, that is to be truly genuine and at ease with one's identity, tends to lead to a certain moral solidity I would think.

I one's had a long discussion with one of the brothers in Taizé about saints in today's world. We were both of the opinion that people look for something different in holy people today that a hundred years ago. Whereas earlier people looked for something removed from the human situation in a saint (i.e. moral perfection) today we look for deep honesty in holy people. An honest that involves the realisation that moral perfection is impossible in this world. This realisation becomes a point of connection between us and the saint, which lets us appreciate the honesty, the "transparency
for the ground of being".

The saint also seem to be a person that has been able to create a unified narrative of his or her life. The saint has been able to reconcile the negative experiences with the positive and seen a sense, a meaning in it all.

Which leads me to think that what the world needs today more than anything else is more saintly people.

Ben Myers on Being Human

Ben's Theology for Beginners series has reached its 12th installement, and it discusses what it is to be human.

I'm not 100% sure about the "priests of creation" symbol today, the notion of priests carries so many connotations, some of which are not really that useful, but I think what Ben is aiming at is very sound. Do check it out!

Reading Tillich 3: Mystery

"Mystery" in this proper sense, is derived from muein, "closing the eyes" or "closing the mouth". In gaining ordinary knowledge it is necessary to open one's eyes in order to grasp the object and to open one's mouth in order to communicate with other persons and have one's insights tested. A genuine mystery, however, is experienced in an attitude which contradicts the attitude of ordinary cognition. ... Mystery characterizes a dimension which "precedes" the subject-object relationship. The same dimension is indicated in the "closing of the mouth". It is impossible to express the experience of mystery in ordinary language, because this language has grown out of, and is bound to, the subject-object scheme. I mystery is expressed in ordinary language, it necessarily is misunderstood, reduced to another dimension, desecrated. This is the reason why betrayal of the content of the mystery cults was a blasphemy which had to be expiated by death.
Systematic Theology I, 108-109.

The main reason I love Tillich's theology so much is because it is so intensely spiritual. While many more traditional theologians shy away from talk about the divine in our life, Tillich says extremely bold things about things like miracles, prophecy, ecstasy and, as here, mystery. Again, his isn't a theology of cool reflection, it is all the time a theology in the face of despair, a theology that struggles to make life meaningful.

The etymological background to the word mystery is well-known, but it is seldom taken to this breathtaking conclusion. Tillich is secretly very polemical, only he very seldom bothers to name those he argues against. Here I think he is at the same time addressing fellow theologians, as well as preachers in the churches. He is attacking the tendency to say things about that which cannot be said. And in what way! "If you would have been members of an ancient mystery cult and talked about the divine the way you do, they would have killed you!"

I think this may be the reason that I, as student of the church fathers, feel so at home in Tillich's theology. They too knew where the line should be drawn for what could be said, and they never tried to go beyond that. And we all know what happens when humans try to formulate that which cannot be formulated: this is when churches split, people are anathematized and religious wars are fought.

Tillich's warning is still very much needed.

10 000 visitors

I had my visitor number 10 000 to this blog today. From Thailand, it seems. So now you know.

Reading Tillich 2: New Theonomy

Autonomy and heteronomy are rooted in theonomy, and each goes astray when their theonomous unity is broken. Theonomy does not mean the acceptance of a divine law imposed on reason by a highest authority; it means autonomous reason united with its own depth.
Systematic theology I, 85

Ok, today's quote is a bit cryptic if one isn't familiar with Tillich's language. Tillich is talking about reason, and how the way we think can vary. Autonomous reason is thinking that strives to be independent, not influenced by outside forces. It strives to be faithful to its own inner structure. Its opposite is heteronomous reason. That is when an outside authority conditions the way we think, be it in the form of a tradition, an institution or a person.

What Tillich is trying to do is to point out the shallowness of the collectivism-individualism discussion. In a rather amusing one-paragraph history of the world, Tillich shows how heteronomy and autonomy has battled each other through-out the ages, with brief periods when a theonomy has been created.

What does Tillich mean with theonomy? Theonomy is reason that is united with the "ground of its being", that is has realized that the identity of the individual is rooted in God. This is not a state that can be reached in this life fully.

Today, of course autonomous thinking reigns supreme. Tillich's analysis of the situation is still valid:

Under the guidance of technical reason autonomy conquered all reactions but completely lost the dimension of depth. It became shallow, empty, without ultimate meaning and produce conscious or unconscious despair. In this situation powerful heternomies of quasi-political character entered the vacuum created by an autonomy that lacked the dimension of depth. The double fight against an empty autonomy and a destructive heteronomy makes the quest for a new theonomy as urgent today as it was at the end of the ancient world.

The way forward from a situation where individualism has reached its full course is not to turn to a "safe" orthodoxy or to put one trust in formal authority (like all those that think democracy isn't really that important today.) What we need is a cultural climate that connects our sense of who we are with a way to be in communion. For this we need a new theonomy. We cannot recreate an old one.

Global Dimming. You need to know about this.

You can watch this excellent but extremely scary BBC documentary free (legal) online. Follow this link, chose "get this film". You do not need to register, just chose to "view the sample movie HERE".

Global warming may be much worse than we thought.

Reading Tillich 1

It is not an exaggeration to say that today man experiences his present situation in terms of disruption, conflict, self-destruction, meaninglessness, and despair in all realms of life. This experience is expressed in the arts and in literature, conceptualized in existential philosophy, actualized in political cleavages of all kinds, and analyzed in the psychology of the unconscious. It has given theology a new understanding of the demonic-tragic structures of individual and social life. The question arising out of this experience is not, as in the Reformation, the question of a merciful God and the forgiveness of sins; nor is it, as in the early Greek church, the question of finitude, of death and error; nor is it the question of personal religious life or of the Christianization of culture and society. It is the question of a reality in which the self-estrangement of our existence is overcome, a reality of reconciliation and reunion, of creativity, meaning and hope.
Systematic Theology 1, 49.

Tillich was even back in the fifties criticized because of this description of the experience of modern man. Many Americans asked were he got this gloomy outlook from, and it was suggested that he was describing the experience of living in Germany in the 20's rather than living in America in the 50's. Maybe it was an exaggeration to claim that this was what "man" experience, rather than just artists, philosophers and psychologists, as Tillich actually says.

55 years on, in what way do we need to modify this description? First of all, unlike in the fifties I think it is completely impossible to suggest that there is one experience that could be claimed to be even to a small degree universal. Our world has become much more fragmentized. We do not experience together any more, rather we experience as individuals.

Secondly, a major change compared to the world Tillich was addressing is that today the vast majority of people, in the western world anyway, actually very seldom encounters "reality" in the way Tillich seems to suggest. We are entertained into oblivion, and generally prefer to be fooled into believing that everything is OK.

What kind of question arises out of this situation? Well, I think Tillich's suggestion still holds up pretty well, there is still a deep self-estrangement at the core of our lives, but most of the time we do not experience it - we have found an antidote: television. Today theology needs to start with the question of responsibility, I think. The lack of responsibility over one's own life, the fear of taking charge of one's identity.

New series: Reading Tillich

After finishing my Ideas for a Theology of Decline, I will have to think of something else to fill this space with. I go to work by bus every day and today I started to re-read Tillich's system. It's been a few years since last time, but I still think that the introduction is one of the greatest theological texts written.

So I will share some of my thoughts while reading trough this system in the coming weeks. Here are some preliminary remarks.

First of all, If one wants to take Tillich seriously, one has to recognize that the system is now over 50 years old. This means that the "situation" has change quite a bit. This should mean, if Tillichs approach is correct - and I think it is - that large parts of the system is outdated. Our generation need to again formulate the Christian message for our time, just like he did. It won't look the same. This will be one of my guiding principles when reading and commenting on passages from the system.

A second principle will be that I will look for stuff in the system that I feel still speaks to us in our situation - that is the culture in decline. So I will keep up the general theme of this blog in this new series also.

As an introduction to this series I will post my text on why I love Tillich that I wrote for Ben Myer's "For the love of God" series back in May.

Why I love Paul Tillich

My first encounter with Paul Tillich was within the first weeks of my theological studies. Obviously this was not a course I was supposed to take, but I had bluffed my way in. One of the texts we worked with was the final chapter of Tillich’s The Courage to Be. This is not an easy text, especially taken out of its context like that. But something made me read it again and again. A few years later I read the whole book and I decided to write my Master’s thesis (or pro gradu as we call it in Finland) on Tillich and the Systematic Theology.

Many people find Tillich’s language difficult. All this talk of “being,” “ultimate concern,” “self-alienation.” But for me, then completely fed up with conventional religious language, this was enlightenment. It was like I had been given back my faith.

Reading the system was an overwhelming experience. It was as though Tillich put into words every vague notion I had ever had. Suddenly everything made sense. The genius of Tillich’s method is that it creates meaning. Everything becomes relevant. The system is based on experience. It is not the product of cool reflection; it is about getting involved in the world and in the revelation.

I think this was what made me “fall in love” with Tillich: he completely rejected the notion that being Christian meant existing on some higher plane than the rest of the world. He showed that culture and religions are two sides of the same coin: only a false religion separates them.

Tillich’s reinterpretation of the Christina doctrine enabled me to see that theology is a way of life, not a body of information. There are no limits whatsoever to what theology can be or what can be theology.