Tillich on the Church
April 14, 2008
I’ve been reading (or rather, supposed to be reading) lots of Tillich for my Tillich course this spring. But rest assured that over the next two weeks I’ll be reading skimming a lot of Tillich to put together my journals for the class. But for my film class, we had to read some from Tillich’s Theology of Culture. In the conclusion of Theology of Culture, Tillich wrestles with the question of communicating the Christian message, the Gospel. He focuses on our communication of the Gospel being genuine, and not something we are simply doing so that others will accept it. He also says that in order to have proper communication, we must have participation as well: “Where there is no participation there is no communication.” I think this has important implications for evangelism and how we go about sharing the good news of the Gospel today. Finally, after discussing his theology of sin and what New Being in Christ looks like - he has a message for the church.
Tags: Church, Ecclesiology, Paul Tillich, Theology“The Church is the Community of the New Being. Again and again, people say, ‘I do not like organized religion.’ The Church is not organized religion. It is not hierarchical authority. It is not a social organization. It is all of this, of course, but it is primarily a group of people who express a new reality by which by which they have been grasped. Only this is what the Church really means. It is the place where the power of the New Reality which is Christ, and which was prepared in all history and especially in Old Testament history, moves into us and is continued by us.”
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: I am a 28 yr old 
April 14th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Great quote. I have always loved Theology of Culture and find that it continues to speak volumes to us today.
What film class are you taking? Is that in Berkeley?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I’ve got to be honest, I have often wondered why the emergent conversation has not focused more on Tillich. I mean, Volf, Moltmann, etc - wonderful folks, but Tillich seems to me to be the finest theologian of the last century and the one who has (I think) the most to offer in terms of honest philosophical theological inquiry and its transfer to everyday living.
He is also one of the better theologians to read if one is interested in the philosophical aspects of liberation.
I’m stoked that you’re taking this course. Dynamics of Faith is the other I would highly recommend.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Tillich is pretty sweet and should definitely be part of an open and progressive theology. All Tillich posts will be read and enjoyed.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
The quote from Tillich on the Church is pretty non-controversial. Generally benign, I’d say. Of course the Church is the New Being, etc. Of course the Church consists of being grasped by the New Reality which is Christ, etc. The problems come when you start trying to figure out just what those words mean in the greater context of Tillich’s spooky theo-logy…. Does it really matter for Tillich if Jesus Christ was Jesus of Nazareth. I’m honestly not sure how to answer that question! Are you?
He focuses on our communication of the Gospel being genuine, and not something we are simply doing so that others will accept it.
Weird dichotomy. I want cake AND I want to eat it. How about this: communication of the Gospel so that others will believe just is what it means to be genuine in our communication of the Gospel! You can’t communicate the Gospel to others unless you know why it should be communicated to them. And the reason it ought to be communicated to them is because it will save them. And you don’t communicate something that saves others to other people unless you really do want them to believe it! Now that’s something Justin Martyr can buy into.
But I don’t suppose you’ll find Justin Martyr lurking in the footnotes of Dynamics of Faith, except perhaps to take a pretty heavy beating….
April 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Grace and peace, William.
The greater context of Tillich’s theology makes perfectly clear what he means by “the New Being.”. I’m at a loss to see how it os “spooky” in the slightest.
Tillich is like Calvin in this respect: he has no interest in proving anything about God - either God’s existence (a la Calvin) or whether Jesus as the Christ is synonymus with Jesus of Nazareth (which is an absurd argument to make, and you’d be better served yto drop that talking point).
Tillich is an existential theologian so the “proof” of God is found in our experience, not in our pronouncements. Hence, the quote about genuiness. If we are not genuinly expressing the reality of newness of being THAT is when we feel the need to convince.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Just to pick a page (honestly!) at random from Systematic Theology, vol. II:
“Is it not imaginable that historical skepticism could come to the judgment that the man Jesus of Nazareth never lived? Did not some scholars, though only a few and not very important ones, make just this statement? And even if such a statement can never be made with certainty, is it not destructive for the Christian faith if the non-existence of Jesus can somehow be made probably, no matter how low the degree of probability? In reply, let us first reject some insufficient and misleading answers. It is inadequate to point out that historical research has not yet given any evidence to support such skepticism. Certainly, it has not yet! But the anxious question remains of whether it could not do so sometime in the future! Faith cannot rest on such unsure ground. The answer, taken from the ‘not-yet- of skeptical evidence, is insufficient. There is another possible answer, which, though not false, is misleading. This is to say the the historical foundation of Christianity is an essential element of the Christian faith itself and that this faith, through its own power, can overrule skeptical possibilities within historical criticism. It can, it is maintained, guarantee the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and at least the essentials in the biblical picture. The problem is: Exactly what can faith guarantee? And the inevitable answer is that faith can guarantee only its own foundation, namely, the appearance of that reality which has created the faith. This reality is the New Being….” (ST II, 113)
This is pistism: faith in faith itself. I don’t belief in faith. I believe in the God who raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.
Further along:
“By analogy, one must say that participation, not historical argument, guarantees the reality of the event upon which Christianity is based. It guarantees a personal life in which the New Being has conquered the old being. But it does not guarantee his name to be Jesus of Nazareth. Historical doubt concerning the existence and the life of someone with this name cannot be overruled. He might have had another name” (ST II, 114).
I’m afraid to say, Landon, that I’m not going out on a limb by suggesting that for Tillich, it is immaterial whether the “New Being” comes through Jesus or Ghandhi, so long as it gets to you. I don’t know what that means. It is under the influence of two much pluralism to be recognizably Christian to me. But I don’t love John Hick….
April 14th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I think we should first acknowledge that we’re mostly likely not going to agree. I’m okay with that, but I am a bit disturbed by what I perceive as your need to pick a fight. Youare obviously well read, but the lack of graciousness to a major theological figure is a bit much. ie - I’m not the largest fan of Barth, but I have striven to honor his context and intent. No one is smart enough to be 100% wrong. So, in addition to this discussion we are having, might I ask where you see Tillich hitting the nail on the head?
I’d also like to know a bit more about who you are, if you don’t mind. You have no link on your comment. Are you a pastor, teacher, divinity/seminary student, or simply a Christ follower trying to engage theology?
My books are at the church, so I’ll just be commenting based on the random quote you pulled (which I agree is quite apropos!).
I’m afraid you’ve forgotten the context in which Tillich was writing and the intent of his project: Along with Bonhoeffer, Tillich crusaded against the Nazi regime, and stood at odds with his fellow churchmen, who pledged allegiance to Hitler. Tillich made it his life’s work to develop an explication of the Christian faith that would not allow anyone to co-opt it. He wanted to ensure that no one could ever do what Hitler did with Christianity again.
Part of that was the tying of Christian theology to the historical past. He wanted to ask the question (which is what the snippet you provided shows) “If our faith is tied to something that we are staking on being bale to historically prove, what happens to our faith if X is disproved?” For instance, I believe Tillich’s response to the Da Vinci Code “controversy” of a few years back would have been “If that book/movie can harm your faith then you have no faith.”
Tillich, rather, decides to fall in line with Paul in Romans: “Faith makes faith known.” Like him or lump him, he’s no slouch when it comes to the…ahem…dynamic of faith.
And to your second quote: Yes, actually, it is going out on a limb to suggest that it can be Jesus as the Christ or Gandhi. It is neither an honest extrapolation of his thought, nor an accurate read of his writing. I can’t remember what he’s analogizing in the quote, but the point he tried to make with this line of though is that if the power of God in Christ that has arrested your very being is predicated on the fact that that power was once in a man named Jesus of Nazareth, then you have no faith. If your participation in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as the Christ does not guarantee his life, death and resurrection, then historical argument will be a paltry substitute. It is the experience of the power of Christ NOW that is evidence of the power, not thoughts and concepts you can think of in your brain - ideas that you can hold at arms length.
If you believe that Tillich is not “Christian enough”, then move on and let those of us who are thankful for his life and thought engage one another. If you want to see how Tillich can enhance your life of faith, then let’s have a honest conversation.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I’d agree wholeheartedly that Tillich’s absence from the emergent conversation is unfortunate. With Kierkegaard, Tillich’s insights in the nature and function of faith have tremendous potential resonance among those who look out at existence and see only meaninglessness and relativism. Existentialism and existential theology are sorely missed in our pomo conversations..they provided a framework for understanding the role of faith that both recognized the role of the self and yet retained an awareness of the fundamentally unifying character of our engagement with God.
I have beef with Tillich myself, but it’s mostly around his uncharacteristically sniffity dismissal of mysticism. Tillich’s theology intellectualizes the engagement of the self with the Spirit, and posits faith as primarily a courageous act of the self over and against the inherent despair of being. That a theologian who emphasizes ontology should make faith itself ontically bounded by an act of the self and not a movement of the Comforter is…well…unfortunate.
It’s nothing that couldn’t be discussed over a friendly beer or two.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Hey Adam,
I enjoyed reading this chapter from Tillich as well. That quote is excellent, in that I think it sums up Tillich’s answer to what he says is the main struggle in our culture: meaninglessness. What’s the Christian answer to that? That there is meaning to be found in the New Reality of Christ and the church. I also thought it was interesting in the reading how Tillich said something about, “What do we do when cultures are asking questions for which Christianity is not the answer?” I think this is definitely something that the emergent church is trying to deal with. Basically, does Christianity provide the answer to meaninglessness for all cultures/subcultures? How do we live and explain the gospel in such a way that it speaks to the buried questions of each person in each culture? How do we allow the New Being to speak life through us into people’s despair?
Tillich is awesome! Wish I could’ve taken the Tillich class, too, but at least we get to read a bit of him for the film class.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:18 am
@David:
I agree that Tillich would offer a lot to the current generation and their experience with meaninglessness. I would quibble with you, though, on one point.
You wrote: “…and posits faith as primarily a courageous act of the self over and against the inherent despair of being.”
My read is that faith is being grasped by an ultimate concern (ie - God), and the courageous act of the self over and against nonbeing is both a response to that faith as well as God’s actualization of that faith within in us. I think Tillich assumes the activity of the Spirit as a given.
Say more about what you understand to be his dismissal of mysticism. I’ve never read him that way.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Landon,
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I want you to know I don’t think Tillich was an exceptionally bad man (though there certainly seems to be plenty of evidence remaining of his more venial sins, at least if the testimonial lore of Hyde Park means anything). Simul justus et peccator, and God can speak through Balaam’s ass, no doubt! But here are my thoughts:
So, in addition to this discussion we are having, might I ask where you see Tillich hitting the nail on the head?
Oh, I don’t know. I suppose his attempts to work out the faith in existential terms, for all their shortcomings, do indeed constitute a generally valuable project in the modern world. The difficulty is that such a project seems so much more interesting in places where the objective pole of divine revelation is more systematically decisive.
He wanted to ensure that no one could ever do what Hitler did with Christianity again.
If that was his goal, then it seems to me he would have been better off adopting the objective reality of historical revelation in the man Jesus rather than letting our “experiences” tell us who God is. The “experience” of the Third Reich certainly had a lot to say about who God is, as does the “experience” of the current American establishment. Experience is indeed an important dimension of faith, but it does not and cannot tell us who God is. Our experiences do not identify God. There is only one man Jesus, the Word of God, only one Father whom that Word identifies, and only one Spirit he promises for the aid of that Word’s identification for us.
It is the experience of the power of Christ NOW that is evidence of the power, not thoughts and concepts you can think of in your brain - ideas that you can hold at arms length.
First of all, my “experience of the power of Christ NOW” is what I would call the Holy Spirit. And yes, the Holy Spirit is the promised helper of revelation in the present. But that is not to speak of christology. That is to speak of pneumatology, a distinct locus in theology I’m sure you will agree. As long as we’re speaking of christology, I think Tillich’s screws are a little bit loose.
If you believe that Tillich is not “Christian enough”, then move on and let those of us who are thankful for his life and thought engage one another. If you want to see how Tillich can enhance your life of faith, then let’s have a honest conversation.
Not so fast with the charity card! I’ve put in my time paying my respects to the Chicago school with all its “correlation” — just not here in your electronic presence. I’m thankful that Tillich was a thinker and a theologian, etc., but being thankful for a theological life entails evaluation of that theological life’s product, it’s thought. Augustine would surely excuse me from his table if I were to “maul the lives of the absent,” but criticizing peculiar thought is another matter.
So I’m open to exploring how Tillich is helpful. But can’t we also have an “honest conversation” about Tillich’s particular failures? With all due respect to Saint Tillich, am I not entitled to argue that he was sorely misguided when it comes to christology? (Most theologians I know would quickly concede it’s the weakest aspect of his system.) I mean, like him or lump him, the otherSaint Paul is no slouch when it comes to the resurrection and the necessity of its historical actuality for Christian faith. I always wondered how Tillich reconciled his thought with Paul’s on this point….
**
By the way, just so you’ll know I’m not being cheeky in all of this, if some archaeologists found Jesus’ bones, I’d say I’ve got two options: either become Jewish or become a hedonist. I’d opt for the former if it came to it, against my strongest inclinations.
I went to seminary. I’m still in school. I love experiencing God in worshipful thought, thoughtful worship, and a loving life. I don’t think for a second that my experience tells me who God is. God tells me who God is in the man Jesus, and my life in the Holy Spirit of that man tells me who I am, an adopted son of God.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:29 am
@William:
While I don’t see it the way you do, I want to say thanks for the extensive reply. Grace and peace to you.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
There are actually many things I actually appreciate about Tillich’s christology. For him, Christ is not merely an objective event in history, nor is Christ merely a subjective reality in the heart of a person of faith. Christ is at once both and neither. Christ-in-history holds meaning for the community of faith only if people recognize him in faith. On the other hand, the Christ in whom we have faith holds meaning only if he were a historical reality. That is to say, christology is a matter of holding together the existence and the meaning of Christ in such a way that we transcend both (mere) history and (mere) faith claims.
For Tillich, you definitely need both the fact and the reception of Christ in order for Christ to be meaningful. He reminds us that “the New Testament represents the receptive side of that event and provides, as such, a witness to its factual side.” I don’t think it is heretical to assert that the factual and receptive elements surrounding the Christ event work together, both influencing and interpreting each other. A purely historical Christ has no saving power; a purely imagined Christ has no substance. You cannot have fact without interpretation, nor can you have interpretation without fact. Both are important to the Christ event.
So in terms of speaking of the person of Christ, especially in relationship to God, I think Tillich does a good job.
I think that his discussion of the atonement is a bit more difficult. It makes sense, and I can find both coherence and meaning in what he says about the atonement, but I think that here he strays farther from orthodoxy. I think that Tillich’s discussion of the person of Christ can line up quite well with orthodox affirmations of the humanity and divinity of Christ, but his discussion of the atonement is much more difficult to reconcile with more orthodox atonement theologies (Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin Luther, etc.).
I’d be interested to hear more about what people think about the strengths and weaknesses of Tillich’s christology - it looks like we have a great conversation going on already about this!
April 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Just so folks are clear, here are Tillich’s six principles of atonement (p 173 in Sys II, for those of you following along at home):
1) The atoning processes are created by God and God alone.
2) There are no conflicts in God between [God's] reconciling love and retributive justice.
3) The divine removal of guilt and punishment is not an act of overlooking the reality and depth of existential estrangement (experience of sin).
4) God’s atoning activity must be understood as [God's] participation in existential estrangement and its self-destructive consequences.
5) In the Cross of the Christ the divine participation in existential estrangement becomes manifest (effectively expressed).
6) Through participation in the New Being, which is the being of Jesus as the Christ, [humanity] also participate[s] in the manifestation of the atoning act of God.
Certainly, this does not reflect a substitutionary atonement understanding. Tillich does not (thankfully) see God as an ogre who cares more about “the rules” than us, but principles 4 & 5 (especially) strongly reflect Calvin’s understanding of “Christ as Mediator”, no?
April 17th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Tillich does not (thankfully) see God as an ogre who cares more about “the rules” than us.
Who does? Sure, bastardizations of good theology abound, but can you really find this in the tradition?
Regarding (3), do we experience sin, Landon, or do we sin? There is a difference. I don’t understand Tillich’s need to term sin as something that we experience as such - a terminology which suggests it’s not something that actually or really happens, but something at the level of perception. In order to get this right, it seems to me we have to claim that we really do offend God with all our impudence and proud claims to self-justification - not that we experience sin, as though that may or may not be the way things are in truth.
…so many problems with existentialism, so little time!
April 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I don’t consider it to be a bastardization, but the logical conclusion of Anselm’s theory of atonement. God set up “the rules”, we violated them, therefore someone must pay. We can’t pay because we are full-on sin, so God in Christ must pay for us.
The image of God presented by Anselm’s theory is this: God cares so much about the rules, that someone’s gotta pay. Sorry friend - that’s not a god I want to serve. I’ll renounce my ordination before I have to proclaim that god.
Regarding (3), I think you have a limited understanding of sin. Romans 5 and 6 seem to suggest that “sin” is a power that holds dominion over creation, but that in Christ we are no longer subject to that power. To quote NT Wright, when Paul asks “Shall we go on sinning?” is like asking “Shall we continue to live in France?” with the understanding being that, if we do, we will continue to speak French. So our behavior that is loosely named “sin” is the result of our experience of “living in sin.”
…so many problems with existentialism, so little time!
Good theology develops a good ethic. I’m not feeling like I’m on the receiving end of a good ethic here, William.
I’m really disturbed by your lack of graciousness. Could you explain why you feel the need to place yourself in a position of power on this? I’d really like to continue a discussion, but I’m finding myself teetering towards that edge where I’ll be unable to be kind, and I just don’t want that. Could you help me out here?
April 17th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Why did I suspect you would invoke the name of that British Saint? Yours doesn’t sound like a very charitable interpretation of Anselm, Landon. There are other ways to read him: “Substitutionary atonement then, seen in historical context, provided the exact opposite of what its modern/postmodern critics claim - liberation from guilt and shame.”
Romans 5 and 6 seem to suggest that “sin” is a power that holds dominion over creation, but that in Christ we are no longer subject to that power. To quote NT Wright, when Paul asks “Shall we go on sinning?” is like asking “Shall we continue to live in France?” with the understanding being that, if we do, we will continue to speak French. So our behavior that is loosely named “sin” is the result of our experience of “living in sin.”
Totally agreed on all points. My claim is that Paul Tillich’s existentially termed “experience of sin” cannot account for just the sort of cosmic sin the Apostle illustrates - a sin which occurs in reality, not only in human experience. We don’t simply perceive that we are God’s enemies - we ARE God’s enemies. I’m not sure why that means I “have a limited understanding of sin.”
I’m really disturbed by your lack of graciousness.
You’re disturbed by my lack of graciousness because I said a philosophical school is fundamentally problematic? I don’t really know how to reply to that.
Could you explain why you feel the need to place yourself in a position of power on this?
What does this mean? Is dissent a position of power?
April 17th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
No, I’m disturbed because of the way you decided to mock it (”…so little time!”). Mockery and dissent are two radically different things.
I don’t have any more time for this. Have the last word if’n you want it.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
…that was an attempt to use humor, something which, unfortunately, doesn’t translate well on BLOGS.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
See, Adam, you missed your opportunity: you could’ve just blogged an excerpt from each day’s reading, and then us commenters could have provided the content for your journals! And c’mon…when I took Tillich, I definitely started a separate blog as my vehicle for writing reflections. I would’ve expected something like that from you! :)