Paul Tillich on Being (ὄντα), Theos (θεός), and Idolatry (εἶδος)

“It is a dreadful saying that the gods blind those whom they want to ruin…But who are these gods? They are the evil instincts that are in every nation with whose help the Nazis came to power…God opens the eyes of those whom he wants to save, however terrible this awakening may be.”

-- “Against The Third Reich,” Paul Tillich’s Wartime Addresses to Nazi Germany 1942 to D-Day 1944 (pdf.) p.149, passim.

About old Symbols…

There was once a Japanese woman that  gave thankful prayer everyday to the tiny wooden Shinto shrine above her entrance door. Knowing little about the Shinto religion, she ritually claps her hands together and bows her head in acknowledgement of the infinite, to the power of being, and then offers a finite grain of rice as a symbolic gesture of this mediated recognition of the infinite, of the infinite in the finite.

In the process of moving to a bigger house she packed away the shrine that was absentmindedly never unpacked until many decades later when it was accidentally discovered. Symbols die. We must search for and retrieve those dormant Christian symbols in its vast reservoir of multi-dimensional mythic meanings collected over the centuries within its orthodoxy. But the task cannot be one of simply re-presenting symbols that have lost the depth of reason, that has lost the power of logos, and are now impotent signs. For Tillich a symbol points to something beyond itself. The historical experience of Christian theology encoded within its orthodoxy must be re-interpreted using the conceptual tools of today to retrieve their authentic Christian Pattern so as to make them relevant to life in modern advanced industrial society.

I forgot to mention another philosopher, Paul Tillich (1886-1965), who also borrowed heavily from Friedrich Schelling (1775-1854).[1] Just like Wittgenstein, Schelling is a good philosopher to “borrow” from because his thought is both systematic in structure yet open-ended. It seemed that everybody took inspiration from Schelling, but each time the system changed hands it was improved until it was a finely tuned machine—maybe too finely tuned. Christian Socialist Paul Tillich was the first non-Jewish professor to be forced out of the University of Frankfurt in 1933.[2] Tillich had been Professor of Theology at the University of Marburg (1924-1929), Dresden University of Technology, and of Leipzig (1925-1929), and University of Frankfurt (1929- 1933) where in addition to professor he was the Dean. Tillich expelled some disruptive Nazi students, which was the last straw for Nazi officials. And the troublesome Professor had published “Ten Theses: The Church and the Third Reich" (1933). In Thesis Seven he wrote, “Protestantism set the cross against the paganism of the swastika…the cross was against the ’holiness’ of nation, race, blood and power” (Ibid., p. 6). That statement nearly got him arrested, but an alert Reinhold Niebuhr quickly urged Tillich to join the faculty at the New York City’s Union Theological Seminary where he was accepted. America was greatly enriched by receiving many highly educated German refugees including physicist Albert Einstein, but the Social Sciences also benefited by a rich collection of world-class philosophers many of whom were Jewish. Paul Tillich was one of these philosophers, but it took time for him to learn English and construct a new paradigm shifting Christian Systematic Theology. He was best known by his work, “The Courage to Be,” (1952) which is a synthesis of Kierkegaardian Christian Existentialist Philosophy and Heideggerian Phenomenological Existentialism.

Tillich’s written works in whole can be categorized as theology (systematic theology, and sermons); theology of culture (philosophy, ontology, politics); inter-religious dialogue on Buddhism, natural science, psychology, feminism, and postmodernism. Tillich said, “First, Read my sermons!” His sermons appeared in America as The Shaking of the Foundations, The New Being, and The Eternal Now.  Tillich said that all of his writings could be burned expect those on the demonic, The Courage to Be, and his theory of Christian apologetics in, “Justification and Doubt (1924).”

Being

The Greek term for “being” is (ὄντα) meaning the being of things, of reality and what actually exists. Tillich’s theology can best be understood as a relevant theology giving close critical attention to the human creations of science, economics, politics, and art. Tillich begins with spirituality shaped by material existence, a theological stance influenced by Hegel (teleo-phenomenological historical road to experience), Marx (historical materialism), Schleiermacher (“ ...no world without a God, no God without a world.”), and Schelling. Schelling is known for his “positive philosophy” to provide some systemic balance to Hegel’s absolute idealism. Schelling draws the distinction between “negative philosophy” which is the symbolic world of concepts and essences (What something is) whereas “positive philosophy” is about existence, or nature (That something is). Existence cannot be deduced from thought. Ideas can be deduced from other ideas, but we cannot deduce a That from a What which only says how a thing is.

Tillich’s theology is a synthesis of negative philosophy and positive philosophy by concentrating on the concrete socio-historical world referred to as the “Theology of Culture” which “includes also a normative vision of what an authentic religion or a fair society should be”(“Tillich’s Analysis of the Spiritual Situation of His Time(s)” by Jean Richard in “The Cambridge Companion to Paul Tillich, Ed. by Russell Re Manning, Cambridge University Press, 2009, Pdf., p. 123, referred to here on as “CCPT”). Tillich distinguishes between Chronological time, or Chronos, (the Ancient Greek word, Χρόνος,) is linear time, or clock time of science contrasted with the other Greek word for time, kairos, meaning lived time. Chronos is quantitative time, but Kairos is qualitative time. It is lived historical time. Personal psychological lived time is just as valid as scientifically measured time. Kairos also means for Tillich a time of revolutionary change in which he hoped to synthesize Christianity and socialism to create a new kind of personal life and civil society. After serving as a Chaplin in WWI, Tillich came to a decision in favor of socialism so as to “…experience the divine in everything human, the eternal in everything temporal.” (The Socialist Decision, 1933). The Christian socialist has a “prophetic attitude,” and is watchful for Kairos in anticipation of revolutionary transformation of life and society in which human beings no longer suffer existential estrangement.

Some have criticized Tillich for having a worldly theology and this is true in the sense that he recognized that theology is in the world, in culture, in science, and in art. This is a paradigm shift from a Neo-Platonist Christian theology that is oriented to transcendent super-naturalism. Students (and some professors like Edmond Husserl and Bertrand Russell) often fall in love with the Platonic Socrates of invisible Eternal Forms because Platonic ontology solved so many epistemological issues. This transcendent realm of the Forms, however, only exists in language as symbols, and meaning. Heidegger investigated a completely de-mythologized Christian Theology by reducing it to a philosophic essentialist-reductionist form in his work, “Being and Time,”(1927) that is entirely Schleiermachian. Schleiermacher sought to re-mythologize Christian theological universal principles with a new language to enhance intelligibility for persons of a particular historical era. Paul Tillich is continuing the same hermeneutical project as Schleiermacher with language adopted from existential Phenomenologist Heidegger and pre-Socratic philosophy. De-mythologization and Re-mythologization is a massive project since religious language is laden with spiritual and nonspiritual meanings collected over the centuries. And yet, Tillich is able to recapture, or re-energize multidimensional Christian symbols that complexly relate to issues in systematic theology, apologetics, culture, education, phenomenology, academia and ecclesial concerns with a new theological language (see, “Tillich on God,” by Martin Leiner in CCTP).

The ontologies of emergence and emanation either have θεός (God) in the world, or above the world— both the immanent (particular), and the transcendental (universal) are merely spatial metaphoric symbols. Tillich points out that medieval philosophers defined “transcendental” as “beyond the universal and the particular” and should be understood as “the power of being in everything that has being”(Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology Vol. II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1951, 1957 & 1963. p.11). Tillich means “the power of being” in a second Heideggerian sense as (ὄν) often written as “Being,” as opposed to (ὄντα) “beings” that mean "things that are." This distinction is difficult to see in the English language. Tillich instead of using imminence and transcendent, he prefers the spatial metaphor “depth of being.”

“God is immanent in the world as its permanent creative ground and is transcendent to the world through freedom. Both infinite divinity and finite human freedom make the world transcendent to God and God Transcendent to the world…The infinite is present in everything finite, in the stone as well as in the genius” (ST, Vol. I, p. 162).

“God above God”

Tillich is known for two redefinitions, or reinterpretations of the theological concepts of theism (“God above God”), and religion (“Ultimate concern”) making them more encompassing and universal for dialogue with other world religions.

Positivistic science only gives us a scientifically ordered world so the language of science is inappropriate for analyzing normative questions of religion, ethics, and aesthetics. Science and language-in-general is designed only for application to the world of experience—not the metaphysical. Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein accepted the metaphysical, but not metaphysics. Tillich believed,

“Both the concept of existence and the method of arguing to a conclusion are inadequate for the idea of God. However it is defined, the “existence of God” contradicts the ideas of a creative ground of essence and existence. The ground of being cannot be found within the totality of beings…The scholastics were right when they asserted that in God there is no difference between the essence and existence. Actually, they did not mean “existence.” They meant the reality, the validity, the truth of the idea of God, an idea which did not carry the connotation of something or someone who might or might not exist…”(ST., Vol. I, p. 205.)

The God above existence and essence is the non-objective “God above God.” This is not a personal God, nor a theistic anthropomorphic God.  Tillich rejected proofs of the existence of God as being on the same plain as the fundamentalist atheist’s thinking—both are arguing an absurdity. Tillich believed the apologist's task of theology is its only task. The theistic debate of the twentieth century use the “argumentum ex ignorantia” by searching for gaps in "scientific and historical knowledge to find a place for God in an otherwise completely mechanical universe"(ST.,Vol. I, p. 6). Such apologetics only “reduced God to a stopgap”(CCTP, p. 20). Ernst Bloch wrote, "Only an atheist can be a good Christian; only a Christian can be a good atheist."

Tillich wrote, “It would be a great victory for Christian apologetics if the words “God” and “existence” were very definitely separated except 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”(ST., Vol. I, p. 205).

God as the "highest being" among beings, or alongside other beings, lacks theological refinement by merely transforming the concept of God into a finite object co-existing with other finite objects. Theism is a spatial-temporal concept of an objective God that makes the divine just another causal entity alongside other causes. Accepting this framework finally results conceptually in a dichotomy between the "natural" and the "supernatural." Paul Tillich rejects this division and argues going beyond religious symbolism of naturalism and super-naturalism. Tillich agrees with Naturalism's rejection of super-naturalism. There are no sound "proofs" (meaning both consistent and true) for the existence of an objective Supreme Being. Kant has established this truth in his “Critique of Pure Reason,”(1781) under “The Ideal of Pure Reason, Sec. III: Of the Arguments of Speculative Reason in Proof of the Existence of a Supreme Being. “ Kant shows how these arguments fail.

God as "transcendent" does not mean we must establish a "super world" of divine objects. God as transcendent means that the finite world, a world of objects, point beyond itself and is "self-transcendent." The use of the words “in” and “above” relies on a spatial metaphor to express the relationship between God and the world. Yet, if God were not an object, then everything we say about the divine would be symbolic, but if we make a non-symbolic statement about God we rejected the idea of God as "transcendent." This is a limitation of our ability to know and our existential situation to be separated--barricaded--from the infinite. Tillich accepts “being- itself” as a non-symbolic term for God:

“…the question arises as to whether there is a point at which a non-symbolic assertion about God must be made. There is a point, namely, the statement that everything we say about God is symbolic. Such a statement is an assertion about God which itself is not symbolic. Otherwise we would fall into a circular argument. On the other hand, if we make one non-symbolic assertion about God, his ecstatic-transcendent character seems to be endangered. This dialectical difficulty is a mirror of the human situation with respect to the divine ground of being. Although man is actually separated from the infinite, he could not be aware of it if he did not participate in it potentially. This is expressed in the state of being ultimately concerned, a state which is universally human, whatever the content of the concern may be” (ST. Vol. II, p. 5).

Tillich distinguishes between “sign” and “symbol.” A sign stands for something known just as any word corresponds, or refers to an object. A symbol also points beyond itself, but to something unknown or ethereal, but allowing participation in an otherwise inaccessible "depth dimension of reality itself."

Religion can become an “ism”? The Greek root “ism’ means any “action, or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence.” But what is the essence of religion? Tillich argues that all ideologies have in common an “ultimate concern.” Ultimate concern can be for truth (realism), or reality (science), or even non-truth (nihilism), or non-reality (absolute skepticism). For if anyone says that a certain proposition, or belief, existence or non-existence of an entity, or doctrine is true, or even false as in the case of anti-intellectualism they are postulating that reality is structured a certain way and not another—that is an “ism.” 

Tillich says, “He is a theologian in the degree to which his existential situation, and his ultimate concern shape his intuition of the universal logos of the structure of reality as a whole is formed by a particular logos which appears to him on his particular place and reveals to him the meaning of the whole. And he is a theologian in the degree to which the particular logos is a matter of active commitment within a special community” (ST., Vol. 1, p. 24-25).

Tillich wrote, “There is hardly a historically significant philosopher who does not show the marks of a theologian. He wants to serve the universal logos.” Issac Newton viewed himself as more a theologian than a scientist. This is because any “ism” is saying that the world is one way and not another, that a certain practice is compatible and corresponds with the structure of the world rather than not. In this sense, Tillich says, they are religious. The word “religion” comes from "re-ligare", means "to tie back, tie fast, tie up" meaning to connect to truth, the actual state of affairs, and not error. 

An epistemological problem occurs with “ism” represents ideological dogmatism. When an “ism” pre-defines the world in a certain way, experience no longer counts. Dogmatic orthodoxy defines science as one thing and religion as something else so this division becomes a self-evident truth when it is only an ideological definition that often become either a tautology, or a traditional aphoristic truism. Tautologies are easy to argue such as “the truth is true” or “reality is real,” “ the physical is really real,” or “religion is religious belief.” The non-theist, Paul Tillich, openly redefined the meaning of religion as “ultimate concern.” With this new broader definition of religion, Tillich believed that “Genuine atheism is not humanly possible, for God is nearer to a man than that man is to himself.” Today, there is a special kind of scientific dogmatism called “scientism” that is really naive realism that parasitically binds to the complexity of scientific theory, epistemology, and metaphysics which all schools of science commit themselves whether they admit it or not. Ultimately, all “isms,” scientific or non-scientific, are based on some unjustified belief. Believers in scientism are as dogmatic and intolerant as any religious cult could be. 

Idolatry

The Greek word eidos (εἶδος) means “that which is seen,” to which the derived word eidolon (εἴδωλον ) as in “ideology,” means interestingly, “idea,” “phantom,” or “idol.” In an effort to retrieve some old Christian symbols that have lost the power of logos, I want to review Paul Tillich’s Voice of America broadcasts that read like sermons to the German people as they were being bombed by WWII American and Allied Forces.

^[1] Paul Tillich's dissertation in theology was titled, 'Mysticism and Consciousness of Guilt in Schelling's Philosophical Development' (1921).

^[2] The term “socialism” was very popular in Europe during the late 1800s so it became the name of many political parties for both the left-wing and right-wing in Germany much like “democracy” is popular today such as the conservative “Free Democratic Party” (Germany), or Kim Jong-un’s national title “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” The “National Socialist German Workers' Party,” or “National Socialism,” often shortened to “Nazi” was a right-wing political party greatly admired by the industrial magnate Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, William Randolph Hearst, and JFK’s Father Joseph Kennedy (The Rise of American Fascism).

Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto, “...we could not have called it a socialist manifesto…. In 1847, two kinds of people were considered socialists… the various utopian systems…On the other, the manifold types of social quacks who wanted to eliminate social abuses through their various universal panaceas and all kinds of patch-work, without hurting capital and profit in the least…. Socialism in 1847 signified a bourgeois movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, quite respectable, whereas communism was the very opposite...we were very decidedly of the opinion as early as then that we could have no hesitation as to which of the two names we should choose. Nor has it ever occurred to us to repudiate it” (Marx, and Engels, Communist Manifesto, 1847, p. 11)(Not Copyrighted Material).

She

She caught a hole in the fence and she ran.

She left her troublesome prison behind.

She didn't wanna fuel the fire.

She didn't wanna lose her desire.

She, she.

She, she.

She looked out to the horizon.

She didn't have much left to see.

Greed had taken the trees away.

She had taken the bees away.

She, she.

She, she.

She don't know where she gonna go now.

She looked up to and it should've been stars.

She said I wanna go to Mars.

This planet, it ain't ours...