Der Evangelische Theologe

Remembering Calvin’s Birthday

2009-07-10T06:32:00.000-05:00

Lots of things have happened on July 10th. For instance: Dublin, Ireland was founded on July 10th, 988 CE; Death Valley, CA (USA) recorded the hottest temperature ever recorded in the United States on July 10th, 1913; John D. Rockefeller III died on July 10th, 1978; and Jessica Simpson (yes, that Jessica Simpson) was born on July 10th, 1980. Still, of all the things that have occurred on July 10th, the one for which I’m most thankful is the birth of John Calvin in 1509.

As those of you who have been readers of DET for any significant length of time know, I’m a big Calvin fan. This doesn’t mean that I consider myself a “Calvinist” in the usual sense of the term (I suspect that most “Calvinists” wouldn’t want to include me in their club, anyway), my theological thinking has been deeply impacted by Calvin. I have only become more interested in him as I have studied him over the past 8 years or so, and every new facet of him that I become acquainted with – whether it is his commentaries, his sermons, his biography, his civic accomplishments, etc – only serves to pull me in deeper.

There are a number of conferences and events taking place this summer to commemorate this 500th anniversary of Calvin’s birth. Information on such things is not hard to find. For my own part, I have written two pieces on Calvin and preaching for the two most recent issues of Homiletics, which I – of course – would be most vainly gratified if you happened to look up in your local theological library. But, I also wanted to take this opportunity to point you to some of the resources on Calvin to be found here at DET:

There is, of course, the Calvin tag.

One of my favorite posts on this blog has to do with what Calvin might say about celebrating the Lord’s Supper with Mountain Dew and Doritos!

Then there is my sermon that deals with Calvin, the church, the government, and swords.

My series on Reading Scripture with John Calvin cannot be forgotten. The entirety of Calvin’s commentary on 1 Peter has been examined. More in this series is coming sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Finally, there is my post offering suggestions on how to go about beginning to study Calvin for yourself – entitled, “So, You Want to Read John Calvin?”

I look forward to posting more about Calvin in the future. For now, let’s all be sure to take some time out today and raise a glass of wine in Calvin’s memory!

P.S. My friend and colleague Darren is posting a series on Calvin’s christology in commemoration of this event. Be sure to check it out.

Reinhold Niebuhr on Religion

2009-07-06T08:17:00.000-05:00

I'm not a huge Reinhold Niebuhr fan. I think the reason for this is that, by and large, he strikes me as similar to the early Barth - primarily interested in critical and negative endeavors rather than positive. Maybe with RN it is more that he is just best (as far as I'm concerned) at the negative stuff, not that he doesn't try to be more positive. But, such reflections are based on my very limited engagement with his corpus.

In any case, every now and then I come across a bit of his text that has some good traction. This is one such bit on religion, and the way in which can become the occasion and fruit of sin.

Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man: A Christian Interpretation, vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1942): 200-3

“[R]eligion is not simply as is generally supposed an inherently virtuous human quest for God. It is merely a final battleground between God and man’s self-esteem. In that battle even the most pious practices may be instruments of human pride. The same man may in one moment regard Christ as his judge and in the next moment seek to prove that the figure, the standards and the righteousness of Christ bear a greater similarity to his own righteousness than to that of his enemy. The worst form of class domination is religious class domination…The worst form of intolerance is religious intolerance, in which the particular interests of the contestants hide behind religious absolutes. The worst form of self-assertion is religious self-assertion in which under the guise of contrition before God, He is claimed as the exclusive ally of our contingent self…

“Christianity rightly regards itself as a religion, not so much of man’s search for God, in the process of which he may make himself God; but as a religion of revelation in which a holy and loving God is revealed to man as the source and end of all finite existence against whom the self-will of man is shattered and his pride abased. But as soon as the Christian assumes that he is, but virtue of possessing this revelation, more righteous, because more contrite, than other men, he increases the sin of self-righteousness and makes the forms of a religion of contrition the tool of pride.

“Protestantism is right in insisting that Catholicism identifies the church too simply with the Kingdom of God. This identification, which allows a religious institution, involved in all the relativities of history, to claim unconditioned truth for its doctrines and unconditional moral authority for its standards, makes it just another tool of human pride. For this reason Luther’s insistence that the pope is Anti-Christ was religiously correct. A vicar of Christ on earth is bound to be, in a sense, Anti-Christ…

“But as soon as the Protestant assumes that his more prophetic statement and interpretation of the Christian gospel guarantees him a superior virtue, he is also lost in the sin of self-righteousness. The fact is that the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of all believers may result in an individual self-deification against which Catholic doctrine has more adequate checks. The modern revival of Reformation theology may be right in regarding the simple moralism of Christian liberalism as just another form of pharisaism. But the final mystery of human sin cannot be understood if it is not recognized that the greatest teachers of this Reformation doctrine of the sinfulness of all men used it on occasion as the instrument of an arrogant will-to-power against theological opponents. There is no final guarantee against the spiritual pride of man. Even the recognition in the sight of God that he is a sinner can be used as a vehicle of that sin…

“Religion, by whatever name, is the inevitable fruit of this spiritual stature of man; and religious intolerance and pride is the final expression of his sinfulness. A religion of revelation is grounded in the faith that God speaks to man from beyond the highest pinnacle of the human spirit; and that this voice of God will discover man’s highest not only to be short of the highest but involved in the dishonesty of claiming that it is the highest.”

2009 Barth Blog Conference: Update

2009-06-30T08:43:00.001-05:00

I've been very busy with non-blog stuff lately, but that doesn't mean that the 2009 Barth Blog Conference is not making progress. Here is the schedule as it now stands:

Day 1: Introduction (yours truly)

Day 2: Calvin and Barth on the Exegesis of Romans 1.18-20 (yours truly; response by Jason Ingalls)

Day 3: Exegeting Romans 1: A Critical Appraisal (title tentative: Shane Wilkins)

Day 4: Barth’s Exegesis of Romans 1 in his 2nd Edition of Romans (title tentative: David Congdon; response by Halden Doerge)

Day 5: Resurrection in Barth’s Rejection of Natural Theology: Romans 1.4 in Barth’s 2nd Edition of Romans (title tentative: Nathan Hitchcock, University of Edinburgh; Response by John Drury)

Day 6: Barth’s Exegesis in the Shorter Commentary on Romans (title tentative: Shannon Smythe, Princeton Theological Seminary)

I'm planning on holding the conference in late August. But, there are still a couple slots open for responses. If you are interested in supplying a response, please contact me ASAP, whether by e-mail or by a comment on this post. Remember that responses are very minimal commitments - all I ask is 500-750 words - so don't hesitate to sign up.

I'm looking forward to another great Barth Blog conference!

PTS Barth Conference: Over

2009-06-24T12:54:00.003-05:00

And, that's a wrap! Another successful Barth conference. Clifford Anderson and his team of mis-fit conference organizers (who did a great job, despite being misfits!) have done it again, and deserve our thanks. Next year's theme will be Barth and Mission.

In terms of this morning's activities, Boulton's presentation this morning was especially well done, and provocative in its own way. I am looking forward to reading his book (mentioned in the previous post) sometime later this summer. Perhaps Darren will provide some comments on his talk. The closing pannel discussion unfortunately produced no real fireworks, but it did provide a context for the various speakers to address each other (and be addressed by the conference attendance as a whole) and find some common ground.

As has been the case every year, the part of this conference that will endure with me is that time spent with others outside of the organizes sessions (although those sessions are necessary to get such a great group of people together). It is great to have an opportunity like this to meet and spent time with scholars from around the world. Aside from the usual PTS crowd, I was happy to spend some time with Matthew Boulton, Mark Lindsay, Ben Myers, Paul Nimmo, and others.

PTS Barth Conference: Day 4 Dawns

2009-06-24T08:05:00.002-05:00

The last day of the conference is upon us. I dropped the ball yesterday in terms of substantive coverage, at least for the most part. Luckily for all of us, Darren as a couple of posts` up covering such things. One thing that Darren wasn’t able to cover was Mark Lindsay’s talk last evening. I was there, but I was in charge of audio recording the talk and so did not take notes. But, here are a few recollections.

Mark’s talk was on Markus Barth’s treatment of Israel, with tangential reference to Karl as well. Mark showed that Markus (fun with alliteration) advocated a position of critical solidarity of Christians with Jews and with the modern state of Israel. Markus held this position for exegetical and theological reasons, which boiled down finally to the fact that Jesus was a Jew. But, Markus’ solidarity was highly critical, and Mark related a number of political and military events in the life of the state of Israel that Markus condemned. The Q&A saw, among other things, an interesting exchange between Mark and Ben Myers, the latter of which pushed the former on whether the holocaust can be considered as the bearer of greater theological significance than any other historical event. Mark thought that it did, considering the theological significance of who this historical event happened to. In any case, this is an important question to consider, and an especially interesting one from a Barthian perspective.

I’m currently in Princeton Theological Seminary’s Cooper Conference room, waiting for the morning session to begin. It will feature Matthew Myer Boulton, who recently published a book on God Against Religion. More to come before all is said and done.

Photos from the Barth Conference

2009-06-23T17:15:00.005-05:00

In lieu of another substantive update today, here are some picture that I took this morning after Katherine Sonderegger's session. Time for a rousing game of "Name That Theologian!" It will be a little tricky because some of the shots are from behind or the side, etc. But, let's see what you - the collective readership of DET - can do! I'll tell you when you are right or wrong, or if no one really participates, I'll give out the answers in a week or so. Name tags may help you some if you zoom in.

Barth Conference Day 3: Mid-day Update

2009-06-23T12:45:00.002-05:00

I missed Katherine Sonderegger’s session this morning because I was at my son’s 9-month doctor visit, but it must have been good since the Q & A went about 15 minutes over the allotted time. So, her paper will be something in particular to look forward to when the volume from this conference finally hits the shelves. The second session this morning was by Richard Fox Young, a professor of the history of religions here at Princeton Theological Seminary, and opened with some personal reflections on his early interaction with Barth’s thought. Some of this reflection centered on Young’s time in India, where an Irish Presbyterian rekindled his interest in Barth. In general, Young seems to see some development in Barth on the topic of religion, contrasting what Barth had to say in §17 with some later statements in Barth’s Gesprache (part of the Gesamtausgabe). For a fuller account you will, as with Sonderegger, want to consult the published volume when it becomes available.

Young distributed a handout with a number of quotes reflecting on Barth from a number of personages with which he engaged. Here are the first two, which form a nice pair. The first is an anecdote from a Sri Lankan Tamil thinker, and the second explains what Barth was on about in this anecdote, although not addressing this episode in particular (at least as far as I know).

Daniel Thambirajah Niles, “Karl Barth—A Personal Memory,” The Journal of South East Asia Theology 11 (Autumn, 1969): 10-11.

I can recall one item of conversation in this first meeting [in Basel, 1935] which may be of some interest. Barth talked to me about our Christian communities in Asia living in the midst of men of other faith. In the course of the conversation, he said, “Other religions are just unbelief.” I remember replying with the question, “How many Hindus, Dr. Barth, have you met?” He answered, “No one.” I said, “How then do you know that Hinduism is unbelief?” He said, “A priori.” I simply shook my head and smiled.

David Lochhead, The Dialogical Imperative: A Christian Reflection on Interfaith Encounter (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988): 34.

Barth’s judgment is not about Hinduism but about ‘Religion.’ It applies to Christianity as much as it does to Hinduism and has nothing to do with whether or not there are godly or saintly individuals who are Christians, Hindus, Muslims, or anything else. The point is not an empirical one but a theological judgment about all human activity.

Latest from the PTS Barth Conference

2009-06-22T19:51:00.002-05:00

The after-dinner talk on day 2 of the conference has concluded. It was delivered by Charles West, an emeritus professor here at PTS, and was entitled, “Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Kraemer on Religion.” He took as his main task comparing the polemical answers of these three figures to the 20th century question, “What is religion?” This is to be contrasted to the 21st century question of, “How do we engage with the myriad of religious expressions that surround us?” Although his commentary on these thinkers was insightful and thought provoking, I will not go into detail on that portion (read: I was too busy listening to take notes!). Here are some of the payoff points.

What can we learn from these thinkers?

We should recognize, with Bonhoeffer, that it is possible and even natural in our increasingly technological would to be irreligious.

To understand the world in this way is a theological statement. A non-religious world is in reality possible because despite human sin, God in Christ is its judge and redeemer. This is reality whether the world knows it or not. God makes the world secular and gives it historical direction and purpose. Mission is therefore an urgent calling. The world depends on the faith and witness of believers. In this, Kraemer is right.

Barth is the theological powerhouse behind this mission. He provided, and still provides, for Christians the copious exposition of revelation that guides and corrects the church in its encounter with religious temptations throughout the world.

Watch for more from the conference tomorrow.

PTS Barth Conference: Update

2009-06-22T13:07:00.003-05:00

So, we are in day 2 of this year's PTS Barth conference. Day 1 was given over to registration, an opening banquet, and Clifford Anderson's brief opening remarks. Day 2 is still in via, but so far we have had a very interesting presentation from Gerrett Green on, among other things, some bits of the material that Barth excised from CD 3.1 before publication. Next came Ben Myers speaking on nature and paganism. I have it on good authority that Ben didn't finish his presentation until shortly before he gave it, although those hearing it would never have known this. One great line that stood out to this author was as follows: "Nature may sound eloquent, but she speaks with a forked tongue."

As announced previously, I had the pleasure and honor of introducing Ben at the conference. What follows is my introduction:

Good morning. My name is Travis McMaken, and I am a doctoral student here at Princeton Theological Seminary. It is my distinct pleasure this morning to introduce to you my friend Benjamin Myers. I first made Ben's acquaintance via e-mail after having come across his blog, Faith & Theology, which is one of the highest regarded and most frequently visited theology blogs out there in what some of us call the "theo-blogosphere." Having met in person a couple of years ago during a research trip Ben made to the Barth Center here at PTS, Ben and I got to know each other better last Fall when Ben was again in Princeton, this time as a resident scholar at the Center for Theological Inquiry. Ben is the author of articles on Barth's theology as well as that of related thinkers like Rudolf Bultmann, Tom Torrance, and Wolfhart Pannenberg. In 2006 he published a book on Milton's Theology of Freedom, he has a project on Rowan Williams forthcoming with T & T Clark, and his subject of study during his time at the CTI had to do with discerning the influence of Paul's apocalypticism on Barth's doctrine of election. Please join me in welcoming Ben Myers.

More to come as the conference continues!

Recent and Upcoming

2009-06-20T18:24:00.001-05:00

So, as you might have gotten a sense of from my last post, it has been busy around DET headquarters. Things are continuing apace. Here are some things you might want to note and look forward to:

On Friday I added three new bits of content to the Center for Barth Studies Website:
1. A review of Mangina’s Karl Barth: Theologian of Christian Witness by Jason Ingalls.
2. A conference report on the 2007 PTS Barth Conference.
3. A conference report on the 2008 PTS Barth Conference

The 2009 PTS Barth Conference is starting tomorrow. The schedule is available online, although there have been some minor changes. I’m planning to blog some bits and pieces of it, so stay tuned for that.

One tidbit from the upcoming conference that may interest some of you is that I will be introducing illustrious theo-blogger Ben Myers. I’ll be sure to post my introduction once I’ve had a chance to do it live. Ben, if you’re reading this and didn’t know this yet, surprise! :-)

Also, shortly after the conference you can expect an update on DET’s own Barth Blog Conference. So, stay tuned for that!

Lot’s going on - keep an eye on your DET RSS feed!

Quick Update

2009-06-15T15:40:00.003-05:00

So, its been an interesting few weeks.

My Wings lost, and I had a very pleasant discussion about it with Derek.

I finished the first 2 of 4 qualifying exams for my department. Two more in October, then an oral, then hello dissertation proposal!

After finishing those two exams, I've been taking care of my son full-time. Anyone who has done such a thing knows that it is simultaneously immensely enjoyable, rewarding, and tiring.

Along the way, I've been doing what little I can to help get things ready for the upcoming Barth Conference here at Princeton Theological Seminary. It starts on Sunday. Maybe I'll see a few of you there...maybe...

I've got a huge back-log of book reviews to write for various publications, and along the way I hope to post some interesting tid-bits here. So...stay tuned for that.

If I ever get my feet under me this summer, I hope to write the next batch of posts on Reading Scripture with John Calvin, with help from my good friend and occasional DET contributor, Jason Ingalls.

Finally, and very importantly, this year's Barth Blog conference is still in the works. Stay tuned to hear what to expect and to learn of opportunities to be involved.

Wish me luck!

Summer is Here

2009-06-01T06:58:00.000-05:00

Spring semester 2009 was a hard one for me. I took my last required seminar (on Paul Tillich, hence the recent series) as well as my first two qualifying examinations (one in ethics and one in history of doctrine). On top of that, I served as preceptor for the intro to theology course. As if this demanding schedule wasn’t enough, I ended up needing to spend my afternoons at home taking care of my son (which I loved, though it took a lot of time away from work) and – even worse – I spent about half the semester under the weather with one illness after another.

But, all that is over. Summer is here. I get to spend a couple weeks at home with my son, tinkering away on various projects and – most importantly – watching the Red Wings try to win another Stanley Cup. So far, so good! For my money, as long as the Pens have Crosby running away from Zetterberg - trying to get ice-time away from good ol' #40 - it is an implicit concession concerning who is the better player. But, enough about hockey...for now...except to say that the Pens better hope that Datsyuk doesn't finally get healthy.

Hopefully I’ll generate some more material to post, as well as post an update about how the 2009 Barth Blog conference is coming along. So, stay tuned.

Theses on Paul Tillich's "Systematic Theology" - Thesis 6

2009-05-28T06:55:00.000-05:00

Thesis 6: Spiritual Presence is manifest not only in human spirit but in history, which has to do with people groups rather than simply with individual people. Here (A) it is expressed unambiguously although fragmentarily. Three modes of this manifestation in history can be distinguished: (B) anticipation (the religions), (C) criterion (Jesus as the Christ), and (D) consequence (the Spiritual Community).

Explanation: (A) Unambiguous life is New Being, or the reunification of the self with its divine ground of being both under and after the conditions of existential estrangement. As life unambiguous, New Being provides the remedy to the ambiguities of life under the conditions of existential estrangement. Spiritual Presence is the impetus for self-transcendence and is manifest in human spirit. Insofar as spirit is driven outside of itself and into the self-transcendent moment by Spirit, unambiguous life – New Being – is present. But, “The divine Spirit’s invasion of the human spirit does not occur in isolated individuals but social groups” (139). The reason for this is that every aspect of human life in the spirit-dimension is necessarily communal: morality, culture, and religion are inexplicably linked to the encounter between self and other and, in more specifically human terms, between the ‘I’ and the ‘Thou’. Furthermore, the Spirit is present in all history, but history is not itself the Spirit’s manifestation. One discerns the Spirit’s presence in a particular social group by noting whether the group possesses symbols of its openness to the Spirit and to its fight against the profanization and demonization of such symbols. Tillich identifies the history of Israel as a particularly clear instance of this pattern.

Despite his talk about how to identify the Spiritual Presence in particular people-groups, Tillich affirms that there is no time or place bereft of this presence. “[M]ankind is never left alone…[I]t is continuously under the impact of the Spiritual Presence…[T]here is always New Being in history. There is always participation in the transcendent union of unambiguous life” (140). Lest his readers wonder precisely how life can be ambiguous while also participating in this un-ambiguity, Tillich presses on: “But this participation is fragmentary.” Tillich’s choice of the term ‘fragmentary’ is interesting in that it implies a quantitative notion rather than a qualitative one as implied in the language of ambiguity and un-ambiguity. This leads to the idea that the qualitative is manifest quantitatively. Manifestations, then, vary not in degree (either it is there or it is not - qualitative) but in scope (it is here and not there - quantitative). The corollary of this would seem to be that there are particulars within the spirit-dimension of human life – morality, culture, religion – that are unambiguous. I think I’m pushing Tillich a bit on this point (and would be happy to be corrected), but it seems consistent with his statements. In any case, this is Tillich’s way of getting at the already-but-not-yet character of New Being. Final fulfillment of the transcendent union that conquers existential estrangement is eschatological, but we are even now able to participate in life as healed in this union (unambiguous life) even if only fragmentarily and in the mode of anticipation.

(B) The anticipatory mode of the Spiritual Presence refers, however, to a different mode of anticipation, one which is more linear – whether conceptually or chronologically considered. This anticipatory mode of Spiritual Presence is found wherever the experience of that presence is not controlled by the criteria found in Jesus as the Christ (cf., 144). This leads Tillich to a brief discussion of the religions, which he accounts for in two basic types: the “original mana religion” and its substantial orientation, and “the great mythologies” (141-2). Mythic religion is an important precursor to Christianity insofar as its myths reveal the ecstatic nature of Spiritual Presence, and thus all religion is fundamentally mythic in character. The mythic elements of religion should never be removed since they are expressions of Spiritual Presence, but they ought not to be taken literally. In mythic religion, demonization of Spiritual Presence occurs with the introduction of dualism – Satan as a counterpoint to God, for instance – and it is to the credit of mysticism and ‘exclusive monotheism’ that they fight against this tendency.

(C) Tillich suggests by his discussion of ecstasy in mythic religion, as well as the fight against demonization of Spiritual Presence by mysticism and exclusive monotheism, that the manifestation of New Being in Jesus as the Christ is not unrelated to the manifestations of Spiritual Presence that preceded and followed him. For Tillich, “Jesus, the Christ, is the keystone in the arch of Spiritual manifestations in history. He is not an isolated event…[Instead, there obtains] an organic relation between the appearance of Jesus and the past and future” (147; this might be taken to support my argument by extension concerning the evolutionary character of New Being). Precisely what it means to be such a keystone involves being the criterion by which experience of Spiritual Presence is assessed. This is an epistemological point, but we know that for Tillich the epistemological and the ontological go together (ST1.19). The ontological basis for this epistemological move is found in Tillich’s Spirit christology.

Tillich attributes both faith and love to Jesus as the Christ, but it is how he accounts for Jesus as the Christ’s faith that moves his discussion forward. “The faith of Christ is the state of being grasped unambiguously by the Spiritual Presence” (146). This is not grasping in the usual sense that we have encountered, however. It is the same process, but it occurred to a greater degree. Jesus’ “spirit was ‘possessed’ by the divine Spirit” (144). This possession is what made Jesus into the Christ, and this “implies that the Spirit…became his Spirit” (147). Insofar as Jesus was the Christ, ‘possession’ language is revered: the Spirit possesses Jesus’ spirit, but the Christ possesses the Spirit. This latter possession is so complete that there is an identification made between – in traditional Trinitarian language – the divine Son and the Spirit: “the Son is the Spirit” (148; Tillich’s italics). This identity makes perfect sense in Tillich’s system where the Christ is the definitive manifestation of New Being, New Being is unambiguous Spiritual Presence, and Spiritual Presence is characterized by the divine Spirit ‘grasping’ or ‘driving’ human spirit into an ecstatic state that transcends the subject / object, essential / existential split. Thus, the ontological basis for Tillich’s epistemological move – identifying Jesus as the Christ as the criterion of Spiritual experience – is, ultimately, the self-identity of the divine Spirit. Jesus as the Christ is the criterion of Spiritual experience because he is the manifestation of the divine Spirit. For Spiritual Presence to differ from the criterion of Jesus as the Christ would be to suggest that Tillich’s account of the human plight and its solution is erroneous. Or, at the conceptual level, and perhaps more convincingly, it would mean that the Spirit is not self-consistent. Interestingly enough, this is the same argument that Calvin uses to maintain the close relation between Scripture and the Holy Spirit: the Spirit spoke in Scripture, why would the Spirit contradict itself by speaking otherwise elsewhere?

(D) We have already encountered Tillich’s notion that Jesus would not be the Christ if he had not been received as such. This is not only a counter-factual conditional statement, and thus of limited conceptual value, but it also runs against the grain of Tillich’s account of ecstasy. If the Spiritual Presence was truly manifested in Jesus as the Christ, then there can be no question as to his reception as such. In any case, Tillich seeks to maintain a relationship of mutual dependence between Jesus as the Christ and the Spiritual Community: “As the Christ is not the Christ without those who receive him as the Christ, so the Spiritual Community is not Spiritual unless it is founded on the New Being as it has appeared in Christ” (150). That the Spiritual Community is founded upon the New Being manifest in Jesus as the Christ means that this community is a creation of the Spirit. It is as such New Being unambiguously – though fragmentarily – manifest.

Tillich describes the Spiritual Community’s character through a conceptual analysis of Pentecost, and this analysis recalls a number of concepts that we have already encountered. The Spiritual Community has an ecstatic character and is defined by the presence of faith (certainty that overcomes doubt), love (mutual service), unity (reunion of humanity’s estranged members), and the drive toward universality (mission) (cf., 151). The Spiritual Community does not exist only in a fully manifest manner, however. It also has a latent form. The Spiritual Community’s latency is the form it takes before encountering the central manifestation of New Being in Jesus as the Christ. This ‘before’ functions both definitively and derivatively – before ~30 C.E. (‘basic kairos’) and before the continuously recurring encounter with that central event (‘derivative kairoi’). However, it is important for Tillich that this latency is not simply the potential for New Being and Spiritual Community resident within the ambiguities of human life. If this were the case, the category would have little meaning. Rather, the latent form of the Spiritual Community contains some actuality, and Tillich discusses this in terms of faith and love. Those among whom the Spiritual Community is latent have some measure of faith and love, but they are not fulfilled by their ultimate criterion found in Jesus as the Christ (cf., 153). It is on this basis that Tillich applies the latent category to groups such as (but not limited to) ancient and contemporary Judaism, Islam, the eastern religions, and communism.

Thus, in both its latent and manifest forms, the Spiritual Community is characterized by faith and love. These are its primary marks, and through them the Spiritual Community participates in the holy. Unity and universality are derivative marks. Universality corresponds to love in that it expresses the notion that the many forms of love are united within the Spiritual Community under the principle of agape without eradicating their diversity. This principle likewise applies to the individuals found within the community. Unity corresponds to faith in that it expresses the notion that the great diversity in conditions that lie behind the diversity of individual faith within the community does not rupture the collective faith of the community. Tensions abound in this unity because of its fragmentary character, but this unity is also unambiguous – a manifestation of the New Being – and therefore assured (cf., 155-7).

It was noted previously that morality, culture, and religion – the forms of Tillich’s three life-processes (self-integration, self-creativity, and self-transcendence) under the spirit-dimension – are essentially indivisible although distinguishable. Under the existential ambiguities of life, however, they separate from each other and thus remain truncated. These three functions are reunited within the Spiritual Community and freed from their ambiguity, and Tillich provides an account of their proper integrated relations. Morality is the most basic function insofar as it is here that the ‘I’ encounters a ‘Thou’ and is thus constituted as a self, all of which was previously discussed. The religious aspect, dependent as it is upon human spirit being grasped by divine Spirit, “presupposes self-establishment of the person in the moral act” (158-9). In return for supplying this presupposition, as it were, religion gives to morality its imperatival force, which it does in the mode of grace rather than law. This is love (agape) as new being rather than as law, to recall a previous discussion (cf., thesis 3.A). Though morality now has its imperatival form, it still lacks content. This is provided by the constructions of culture, in return for which morality supplies culture with seriousness. From the standpoint of the Spiritual Community, culture is not viewed with aesthetic detachment but with a desire to interact with being and meaning in their cultural forms. The content that culture supplies to morality shares in the relativities of that culture, but is ultimately governed by the organizing structure implied in the ‘I’ / ‘Thou’ encounter, namely, love.

Western Conference Champions

2009-05-27T21:34:00.004-05:00

Once again the Detroit Red Wings are the NHL Western Conference champions. Bring on the strange birds in the tuxedos.

The photo is of Darren Helm working hard tonight, as he did all game. This guy is amazing, and ridiculously fast; one of the Wings' "black aces" this year, expect to see him on the regular season roster next year. He scored the game-winner in OT tonight.

Theses on Paul Tillich's "Systematic Theology" - Thesis 5

2009-05-26T06:53:00.000-05:00

Thesis 5: As we have seen, Tillich conceives of a close relation between human spirit and divine Spirit while intending to maintain a distinction. To this end, he speaks of the Spirit’s manifestation within human spirit, elaborating on this notion both (A) formally and (B) materially.

Explanation: (A) Tillich broadly conceives human spirit – and this is the point at which Tillich has been driving in his analysis of life in the dimension of spirit – as a dimension of human life that “unites the power of being with the meaning of being” (111). It is human awareness of this spirit-dimension that enables symbolic speech about God as Spirit and God’s Spirit. What then is the relation between divine Spirit and human spirit? Insofar as Spirit manifests itself in spirit{O’Neill describes the relation between Spirit and spirit as one of mutual indwelling. See Andrew O'Neill, Tillich: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T & T Clark, 2008), 88.}, it instigates an outward movement in spirit. It is this movement that enables spirit’s self-transcendence, and Tillich uses the language of spirit as ‘driven’ and ‘grasped’. Here is the basic notion behind Tillich’s language of ‘ecstasy’. The force behind speaking of ecstasy in terms of being grasped or driven is the notion that the manifestation of Spirit in spirit is not something that spirit can bring about, but something that must come from the side of Spirit – and Tillich is adamant on this point. Tillich is also adamant that, although ecstasy means that spirit is engaged in a movement outside of itself, this movement does not run counter to or do away with the basic structures of humanity: “God does not need to destroy his created world, which is good in its essential nature, in order to manifest himself in it” (114). Rather than a movement contrary to the structures of human life and being, ecstasy should be understood as a movement whereby human spirit reconnects with its ‘dimension of depth’ (cf., 113), that dimension in which it is rooted (ground of being).

At the center of Tillich’s thinking about ecstasy and the relation between spirit and Spirit is Paul’s notion of ‘being in Christ’ (cf., 117). Tillich understands Jesus as being ‘in the Spirit’, and so our being in Christ is ecstatic participation in this state of affairs. Agape and gnosis are forms of morality and knowledge that derive from this ecstatic participation. In both of these cases, a unity is maintained between ecstasy and the structures of human life (another gloss on the preceding discussion of life in its spirit-dimension) – which is to say that a union between subject and object has occurred. The example that Tillich uses to elucidate this occurrence is prayer, wherein God prays to himself through us. Prayer is thus “a possibility only in so far as the subject-object structure is overcome; hence, it is an ecstatic possibility” (120). The media through which the Spiritual Presence is manifests, as Tillich relays the theological tradition, are Word and sacraments.

(B) The manifestation of the Spirit in the spirit carries with it specific material content, which Tillich discusses under the rubrics of ‘faith’ and ‘love’. These two terms are ways of describing the self-transcendence of spirit in the ecstatic moment where union occurs between subject and object: “faith is the state of being grasped by the transcendent unity of unambiguous life—it embodies love as the state of being taken into that transcendent union” (129). It is clear from this “that faith logically precedes love,” and it is further clear that faith and love are properly understood as mutually inherent. To have one without the other is the reintroduce ambiguity to self-transcendence.

Describing faith more fully, Tillich is careful to avoid identifying it with assent to certain doctrinal affirmations (intellect), certain moral orientations (will), or certain feelings (emotions). Faith is not to be identified or derived from human mental function, although it does not occur apart from these functions and in its occurrence it unites and subjects them to transformation in the power of Spiritual Presence (cf., 133). Positively, faith contains three aspects: (1) being opened by the Spiritual Presence, (2) accepting this opening despite the gap between spirit and Spirit, (3) the expectation of final participation in unambiguous life. Tillich calls these the ‘receptive’, ‘paradoxical’, and ‘anticipatory’ aspects of faith, and maps them onto his discussions (in ST2) of regeneration, justification, and sanctification (cf., 133-4).

Love is identified as “participation in the other…through participation in the transcendent unity of unambiguous life” (134). As with faith, love is not to be identified with intellect, will, or emotions, although all these mental processes are involved. The love in question – agape – is a love that seeks to overcome separation, and such love is “an ecstatic manifestation of the Spiritual Presence” (137). There are other forms of love, but the ambiguity of these forms is transformed by this agapic Spiritual Presence. Finally, although faith logically precedes love from our point of view under the conditions of existential estrangement, love is ultimately greater than faith. The reasoning behind this is that, while faith characterizes the New Being, agapic love characterizes the divine life (138).

Theses on Paul Tillich's "Systematic Theology" - Thesis 4

2009-05-21T06:51:00.000-05:00

Thesis 4: The search for unambiguous life gives rise to the symbols of its anticipation, primary of which are the symbols of ‘Spirit of God’ – redefined as ‘Spiritual Presence’ – ‘Kingdom of God’, and ‘Eternal Life’.

Explanation: It is here that Tillich rehashes his discussion thus far as well as gives us a very important new piece of the puzzle. In redefining ‘Spirit of God’ to ‘Spiritual Presence’, he explains that “The Spirit of God is the presence of the Divine Life within creaturely life” (107). This presence symbolizes revelation’s answer to humanity’s search for unambiguous life as it corresponds to the ambiguities of life inherent within life’s spiritual dimension. Such divine presence within the creaturely world, although particularly related to the dimension of spirit in humanity, includes all the ‘lower’ dimensions that provide the preconditions for that dimension and thus we must understand Spiritual Presence to be found there as well.

The other two symbols – ‘Kingdom of God’ and ‘Eternal Life’ – occupy the same place with reference to life’s historic dimension. They will thus be important for the fifth section of Tillich’s Systematic Theology and need not concern us here. It is important to note, however, that Tillich conceives of these three symbols as mutually immanent – that is, where one is found the other two are also present. Their distinction is a matter of emphasis, not exclusivity of meaning.

Theses on Paul Tillich's "Systematic Theology" - Thesis 3

2009-05-19T06:50:00.000-05:00

Thesis 3: The actualization of life as found under the conditions of existence is never without ambiguity. This is true for each dimension in life’s multidimensional unity, but it is especially true for the aspects of human life under the dimension of spirit where it leads to a search for unambiguous life. The three basic functions of life are (A) self-integration, (B) self-creativity, and (C) self-transcendence.

Explanation: (A) Self-integration is the life process that seeks to maintain an individuated being’s centeredness. Such maintenance is carried out in the face of the possibility of ‘disintegration’, which can occur either through the ossification or the dissolution of centeredness. Disintegration is a threat and maintenance is necessary because centeredness is not a static reality but a dynamic life process “of outgoing and returning” (33). The individual encounters manifoldness in the course of its life, and this manifoldness must be integrated into the individuated being’s centeredness. Thus, self-integration has as its goal concentration and fusion (integration), but these impulses are countered by opposing movements of expansion and division (disintegration). Tillich maps these concepts onto the organic realm generally in terms of health and disease, but the dynamic achieves a higher level in human being due to the fully developed presence of self-awareness – emerging from less sentient animal life and giving way in turn to the dimension of spirit – which allows for human being to have not simply an environment but a world. This is facilitated by the capacity for remembrance and anticipation.

Considered at the level of the dimension of spirit, self-integration is characterized by the moral act, wherein the essentially given potential centeredness of human being is actually given as one “actualizes it in freedom and through destiny” (38). It is through this actualization that the dimension of the spirit comes into existence by means of a human life achieving the level of personality within community, that is, centeredness amidst manifoldness. Because humanity has a world and not an environment, we can question and be questioned by this word. Morality consists in responding to valid commands that come to us from our world. These commands arise from “the essential structures of encountered reality, in man himself and in his world” (40), and thus constitute a sort of natural law (although Tillich is critical of traditional accounts of natural law, cf. 47). The most fundamental command-encounter occurs between two people, where one is forced to acknowledge the other’s personhood. In order for such an encounter to take place, one must participate in the world, more particularly in one’s community, and even more particularly in the other’s self. Such participation of one’s self in another “is the core of love in the sense of agape” (45). Agape is the norm of morality, and is beyond the distinction between formal and material norms. It is the path beyond the ambiguities that haunt self-integration under the condition of existential estrangement in the moral sphere because it includes the principle of justice and applies it to changing situations. Such application is always ambiguous and risky because ventured under the conditions of existential estrangement – one can never be entirely sure that one is correctly applying the “law of love” (47) – and so humanity embarks on the quest for agape as new being rather than law (50).

This ambiguity is ultimately tied to the necessity of self-sacrifice engendered by the process of self-integration. In this process of the self’s outgoing and returning, certain potentialities are actualized and others are not. As Tillich puts it, we must sacrifice “the possible for the real, or…the real for the possible” (43). The actualization of certain realities rules out other potentialities – when we chose to attend Princeton Theological Seminary, we ruled out the possibility of spending these years in, say, Cleveland Ohio, and all the possibilities for the actualization of our lives that we might find there. Clearly, we made the right choice. But each choice is always a risk, and this is the ambiguity of the self-integration process.

(B) Self-creativity is the process of life that seeks to maintain the proper balance between dynamics or growth and form. Tillich explains, “growth is the process by which a formed reality goes beyond itself to another form which both preserves and transforms the original reality. This process is the way in which life creates itself” (50). Such a notion seems right at home in Tillich’s evolutionary account of life’s multidimensional unity and could even be taken as a summary statement. The counterpoint to this dynamic process of growth is the notion of decay or destruction. Whereas growth takes a step forward, destruction takes a step backwards; whereas growth is the epitome of life, death is the epitome of destruction. In this process of self-creativity, the self moves outside of itself in two ways: by ‘labor’ and by ‘propagation’ (54). Both modes of movement are ambiguous, however, for they presuppose the finite individual and – for humanity at any rate – “existential awareness of one’s finitude…poses the question of whether the continuation of finite existence is worth the continuation of it” (57). This ‘death instinct’ is balanced by the ‘life instinct’ inherent in the process of self-creativity, and it in this balance that the ambiguity of this process is rooted.

Considered under the dimension of spirit, self-creativity is expressed in culture. Culture, at its most basic level, is the transference of humanity’s process of self-creativity to the object. Rather than growth of the self, culture is concerned with growth of the other. But, in so interacting with the other, humanity does not leave it unchanged, and herein lies the root of culture’s ambiguity. The first aspects of culture that Tillich considers are language and tool-making, and while these two are termed ‘basic’, language is the most basic. Humanity only has a world insofar as it has language (and vice versa, cf. 58), and our encounter with reality is mediated by language such that different languages facilitate different encounters with reality (cf., 60). The basic point here is that there is a gap between subject and object, and this gap haunts humanity’s cultural endeavors even in attempts to bridge this gap, and even in the relative success of these attempts (aesthetic undertakings, for instance). With reference to tool-making, the gap seems to lie between means (tools) and the ends they are made to achieve. If the production of means itself becomes the end, distortion has been introduced. On top of the language / tool-making layer Tillich adds the corresponding layers of ‘theoria’ and ‘praxis’ which, in their own ways, reproduce the gaps and distortions present in the first layers – the distance between subject and object, whether in epistemological or ethical terms (cf., 68).

(C) If the centeredness of self-integration is a circular movement and the growth of self-creativity is a horizontal movement, self-transcendence is a vertical movement executed by the actualization of freedom in relation to destiny (cf., 86). Life’s self-transcendent actualization is seen only in the mirror of humanity’s self-transcendence where the dialectic of holiness and profanity takes the form of greatness and tragedy. Greatness is human life reaching beyond its finitude – this is its dignity - and tragedy is the fear or failure to do so, or the structures of life forcing one back within proscribed limits (cf., 93). Religion is this movement of self-transcendence under the dimension of spirit.

There is a complicated relationship between the spiritual dimension of the three life-processes considered (morality, culture, religion). Considered essentially, “morality, culture, and religion interpenetrate one another. They constitute the unity of the spirit, wherein the elements are distinguishable but not separable” (95). In the movement from potential to actual – the movement from essence to existence – these three elements separate and are thereby distorted in ways which Tillich lays out (cf., 95-8). If this existential estrangement had not occurred, there would be no need for the religions: the religious aspect of life under the dimension of the spirit would be operative in morality and culture. They necessarily arise, however, under the conditions of existential estrangement and are plagued by ambiguity insofar as they labor under the dialectic of the holy and the profane, and face the dangers of profanization (treating the holy as a finite object among others) and demonization (elevation of the conditional to unconditional status) (cf., 98).

The religions arise as responses to revelation, and are thus founded “on the manifestation of the holy itself, the divine ground of being” (99). Insofar as a religion is grounded on revelation and this revelation is expressed in the resulting religion, that religion is unambiguous; but, insofar as religion is the receiving answer to revelation, it is ambiguous. “This is true of all religions, even those which their followers call revealed religion. But no religion is revealed; religion is…the distortion of revelation” (104). Here again is the dialectic between the holy and the profane, as well as the danger of the demonic. It is precisely because of this dialectic and the resultant ambiguities of the religions that those religions cannot serve as an answer to humanity’s quest for unambiguous life, even though the answer to this quest must be mediated by them as the existential manifestation of humanity’s self-transcending life-process.

Still Savoring Last Night's Win

2009-05-15T07:18:00.002-05:00

I'm still euphoric over the game last night. It feels so good to be done with the Ducks and looking forward to the Hawks. Now I'm beginning to wonder if the cup final may not just be Wings on Pens again...which would have to be really weird for Hossa.

In any case, I'm hoping to see more offense from Detroit's big guns in the next series. Franzen has been doing his part, and Hossa put a few in, but it would be great to see Pav get a few as well. Also, I love watching Zetterberg score and - while he has been playing amazing defense and creating all kinds of offensive chances, to wit, Cleary's game winner last night - there has been far too little of him scoring - excepting his knack for hitting an empty net to seal the deal, which is not insignificant.

In any case, since I'm talking about Hank, here is my favorite play from this year's regular season. This happened on Feb 25th against San Jose. Go to about 2.10 into the video to see Hank make the poor Sharks look a bit foolish...

UPDATE: The following from the Freep this morning...

"The Wings' depth never was more apparent than in this 4-3 heart-stopping victory, one that down to the last minute showed that while the Pittsburgh-Washington series was about which team had the best player in the NHL, the Detroit-Anaheim series was fought between the best teams in hockey, and that the better one won."

Bye-Bye, Duckies

2009-05-14T20:40:00.004-05:00

We finally put those Anaheim thugs to rest. I'm looking forward to a great series with the Blackhawks, a team with whom the Wings have a longstanding rivalry, but a team that knows the meaning of the term "sportsmanship".

The picture is of Red Wings veteran goalie Chris Osgood making a spectacular save early in tonight's game (before the fans decided they were going to stand for the rest; it was actually hard to hear the announcers on the live radio feed I was listening to because the fans were cheering so loudly in the Joe). Ozzie has performed marvelously both against the Ducks and against the Blue Jackets. He has been perhaps the most consistent aspect of the Red Wings team this post-season. Who would have thought?

Go Wings!

Theses on Paul Tillich's "Systematic Theology" - Thesis 2

2009-05-14T06:46:00.000-05:00

Thesis 2: Exercising great care in the selection of terminology, Tillich envisages (A) life as a (B) multidimensional (C) unity. (D) ‘Spirit’ is the penultimate dimension thus far actualized.

Explanation: (A) Tillich’s selection of the term ‘life’ is carried out in opposition to the term ‘process’. Although ‘life’ is a term with many meanings, it is superior to ‘process’ for two reasons. First, ‘life’ is inextricably linked with the concept of death. Thus, whereas ‘process’ applies equally to things living and dead, ‘life’ applies to the dynamic aspect of being that is engaged in overcoming its negation expressed in the concept of death. Second, given this notion of life as engaged in the overcoming of death, ‘life’ is open to ontologization in a way that ‘process’ is not. When ontologized, ‘life’ becomes ‘actuality of being’, the individual actualization in time and space of potentialities resident within beings. Language of ‘life’ as the ‘actuality of being’ achieves a level of generalization that ‘process’ is not capable of, thus freeing the notion of ‘life’ “from its bondage to the organic realm and elevating it to the level of a basic term that can be used within the theological system only if interpreted in existential terms” (12).

(B) Although life as the actuality of being must be understood in existential terms, this is not meant to imply that life lacks an essential aspect. Indeed, Tillich understands life as a “‘mixture’ of essential and existential elements” (ibid), a reasonable conclusion given that life is concerned not simply with potentialities resident within being(s) (essence), but with their actualization in space and time (existence). Given this twofold aspect of ‘life’, Tillich undertakes to provide two kinds of analysis: one preoccupied with the essential and one preoccupied with the ambiguities introduced by the existential.

Tillich’s analysis of life’s essential character is characterized by his conception of multidimensional unity. He takes the unity for granted (more will be said shortly), noting that the very fact of diversity compels us to look for unity. The language of ‘multidimensional’ is directly opposed to a notion that the diversity of life can be properly characterized by the notion of levels. Such a hierarchical conception confounds the relation between the organic and inorganic, and between the organic and spiritual. In each case, the temptation is to reduce one pole into the other. A ‘level’ conception also complicates the relation between religion and culture, tempting one to attempt the domination of the other. Finally, it is out of the question that the relationship between God and humanity be understood in terms of two levels of being. The use of such mythical imagery is acceptable, as long as it is not taken literally (Tillich wants to ‘demythologize’ – or, better, de-literalize – religious language).

Positively, language of ‘dimension’ – and its related notions of ‘realm’ and ‘grade’ – is aimed at providing a “changed vision of reality” (15). ‘Dimension’ is a spatial notion suggesting that varying aspects are able to converge without conflict, as with the relationship between depth and breadth. A ‘realm’ is a social term that designates the actualization of a dimension. ‘Grade’ is an evaluative term. Tillich’s rejection of ‘levels’ is not meant to imply that all dimensions of life are equal. Valuation of grades depends on quantity of potentialities actualized.

(C) At first glance, this notion that the dimensions of life can be graded or ranked, if you will, looks for all the world like a reintroduction of ‘levels’ into Tillich’s scheme, but he is right to distinguish between them. The conceptual underpinning for distinguishing between them is the way in which Tillich conceives of unity behind the multidimensionality of life, namely, as the interplay between the potential and the actual. Having introduced the notion of ‘dimension’, Tillich briefly returns to a discussion of his rejection of ‘levels’. The former captures the unity of life better than the latter because it can account for the fact that there are great tracts of life where certain ‘levels’ are entirely absent – think of a lava field; all that inorganic (although, admittedly dynamic) rock and no trace of the organic to be found. On the other hand, ‘dimension’ indicates that all dimensions of life are potentially real in any given instance, even if only a limited number are actually present. So, for instance, the lava field has all the potential of the highest dimension of life yet achieved – historical humanity – even if only the inorganic dimension is actualized. Those who see in such a conception an evolutionary understanding of the world are correct. Tillich understands each ascending dimension of the multidimensional unity of life as emerging from the former given the presence of a certain “constellation of conditions” (25). The presence or absence of the necessary constellation results from the dynamic interplay betwen freedom, destiny, and God’s directing creativity.

(D) Tillich seems rather uninterested in undertaking the taxonomical task of identifying and parsing the relations between all the various dimensions in life’s multidimensional unity, but this much can be gleaned (I’m extrapolating): the basic dimension is the inorganic, out of which the organic emerges; the organic dimension can be envisaged as a continuum of ascending complexity including, at the top end, the emergent psychological, spiritual, and historic dimensions – the highest we have yet encountered. These latter dimensions are found only in humanity, although less developed forms of the psychological aspect would likely be resident in non-human animal life that exhibits self-awareness (cf. 21, 27). The historic dimension is addressed in section five of Tillich’s Systematic Theology; his present concern is spirit.

Desirous of maintaining a clear typographical (although perhaps not conceptual {Paul W. Newman, "Humanity with Spirit," Scottish Journal of Theology 34 (1981): 415-6. For a developmental account of Tillich’s understanding of spirit prior to the Systematic Theology period, see Jean Richard, "Espirit, Sens Et Histoire D’après Paul Tillich," Laval théologique et philosophique 52, no. 2 (1996).}) distinction between spirit in its created forms and divine Spirit – that is, the capitalization is important – Tillich speaks favorably of concept of spirit found in the “Semitic…[and] Indo-Germanic languages” where it is understood as “the power of life” or “the power of animation itself” (21). This is not what Tillich means by the term, however. His conception is more specific, and limited to actualization by humanity. Although he resists a strict identification between ‘mind’ and ‘spirit’, the actualization of spirit certainly has a cognitive aspect – as well as a moral and (as will be seen later) a religious one. What this actualization involves is a certain sort of self-transcendence. Tillich has in mind the ‘personal center’ of a human individual making use of biological and other resources but without being bound to those resources in the process of self-actualization. Here again is the negotiation of freedom and destiny, which implies some discerning and deliberating process that introduces a certain distance between the self (‘personal center’) and the other. Speaking of this process of actualizing the dimension of spirit, Tillich notes in summary fashion that “the act, or more exactly the whole complex of acts, in which this happens has the character of freedom, not freedom in the bad sense of the indeterminacy of an act of the will, but freedom in the sense of a total reaction of a centered self which deliberates and decides” (28).

Extension: (A) Tillich’s discussion in the material covered by this thesis was called to mind during our last session together wherein we discussed Tillich’s christology. We discussed then how it could be that “essential being—i.e., the power of being conquering nonbeing—appears within and under the conditions of existence” {Previous presenter}. A related question immediately occurred to me: Is it the case that Tillich’s New Being can be (ought to be?) understood as the definitively emergent (in Jesus as the Christ) but still emerging apogeal dimension of human being? Is New Being a new dimension of human life beyond even the historical? In lieu of an extensive exploration of the matter, I would like simply to draw a few parallels between Tillich’s discussion of New Being’s emergence and his discussion of the evolution or emergence of life’s dimensions. Two such parallels will suffice: first, emergence in both cases is attributed to the interplay of divine directive creativity (providence), freedom, and destiny (ST2.130, 134; ST3.25); and second, the shared language of actualizing potential, albeit less clearly in Tillich’s discussion of New Being than in his discussion of the dimensions (ST2.119, which passage Will pointed out last week). These parallels are not sufficient to argue that Tillich worked consciously with the notion of New Being that I have suggested, but they do serve to suggest such a reading of Tillich’s systematic whole.

(B) The unity underlying the multidimensionality of life is the notion that all the potentials of essential being are always present, although they are actualized to varying degrees in each instance. Following Tillich’s penchant for ontologization, would it be fair to call the essence in which these potentialities are embedded, the ‘ground of being’? If so, the cosmos is simply actualization of divine being’s potential to varying degrees. Still, this potential is never fully actualized everywhere – except perhaps eschatologically (whatever this ‘symbol’ finally means for Tillich) – and so the divine remains transcendent. Granted, I am pushing Tillich here and drawing conclusions. But, if it is fair to push Tillich in this way and these conclusions are plausible, then it looks like Tillich might – by way of drawn consequence – be caught affirming precisely the pantheism he earlier rejected (ST1.236).

Theses on Paul Tillich's "Systematic Theology" - Intro and Thesis 1

2009-05-12T06:39:00.000-05:00

Some of us here at PTS have been reading through Tillich's Systematic Theology this semester with Bruce McCormack. As part of the seminar, we each had to write a set of 'theses' explaining and interacting with a portion of Tillich's text. Mine was ST volume 3, pages 1-161. Given that I have posted on Tillich before, I thought that I would post my theses. I'll do one thesis at a time over a series of posts. Footnotes have been moved into brackets like these - {}. Enjoy!

=============================

Thesis 1: The ‘Introduction’ to volume three of Tillich’s Systematic Theology {Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951-63).} constitutes [A] a brief apology for the work that emphasizes the strengths of a systematic theological approach while also [B] describing the theology contained therein as the contextually or culturally attentive interpretation of the meaning embedded in Christian symbols.

Explanation: [A] As one engaged in the study of systematic theology here at Princeton Theological Seminary, I generally consider the high systematic quality of Tillich’s three volumes to be one of their strongest selling-points. Apparently, there are (and were) some who disagree. Tillich addresses one such critic in the opening paragraphs of the ‘Introduction’. A theological system, pursued properly, will not seek to rationalize revelation but is simply an attempt to conform to “the justifiable demand to be consistent in one’s statements” (3). Indeed, Tillich lists the drive toward consistency as chief among the three benefits that he has found in the systematic approach, followed by its conduciveness to identifying hitherto unrecognized relations between various theological aspects and to perceiving the ultimate wholeness of theology’s object beyond its many discreet aspects, principles, and their relations.

[B] Tillich is quick to note, however, that choosing to work in a systematic mode does not necessarily imply failure to recognize the provisional character of one’s theology or that one undertakes such work in isolation from contemporary cultural context. Although Tillich confesses that Christianity’s birth-event (Jesus as the Christ) is universally important, he also affirms that “the way in which this event can be understood and received changes with changing conditions in all periods of history” (4). This means that the language of Scripture, or the fruits of historical-critical analysis of Scripture, cannot simply be adopted wholesale – although Tillich seems to want to claim such as a starting point for this thought. Rather, new ways of speaking must be found if one is to succeed in communicating with “the large group of educated people, including open-minded students of theology, for whom traditional language has become irrelevant” (ibid), which puts one in mind of Schleiermacher and his ‘cultured despisers’ of religion. Abhorrent for Tillich is the notion that faith be estranged from culture, and vice versa. So, having “penetrate[d] the meaning of the Christian symbols,” Tillich endeavors to “interpret the symbols of faith through expressions of our own culture” (4, 5).

Also included in Tillich’s conception of the contextual nature of any systematic theology is its seemingly inherent lack of comprehension. This incompleteness arises from attention to context, which dictates that some topics be treated at greater length than others. Furthermore, Tillich recognizes three important historical developments in his own period with which he hopes theologians will further engage: first, secular criticism of religion; second, other religions; third, Protestant-Catholic ecumenical dialog. The last point is, as Tillich indicates, important for his ecclesiology {Johnson sees in Tillich’s sacramentology, for instance, the opportunity for rapprochement between post-Vatican 2 Catholicism and Protestantism. Maxwell E. Johnson, "The Place of Sacraments in the Theology of Paul Tillich," Worship 63, no. 1 (1989): 17.}.

What does "Perichoresis" mean?

2009-04-29T12:36:00.002-05:00

TF Torrance provides an account of the Latin reception of this term (perichoresis) with reference to Hilary, and - in the process - clears up the misconception that it is etymologically associated with the notion of dancing. The interpretation of the term with reference to dancing has some limited merit, but it is an interpretive move as opposed to an etymological explanation. In the quotation below I am transliterating the Greek terms on the fly: see Torrance's text for the precise forms.

Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons" (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996): 169-70.

"Hilary was very familiar with Athanasian and Cappadocian theology which he learned during his exile in the East, and although he wrote in Latin he clearly had in mind the Greek terms and chorein and choretikos in this account of the way in which the Persons of the Holy Trinity reciprocally contain one another while remaining what they are in their otherness from one another. Here we evidently have developed the full concept that was to be given technical expression in the term perichoresis (perichoresis), which like the verb perichorein derives from chorein meaning both 'to go' and 'to make room for' or 'to contain'.*"

*Footnote #8 opens with the following sentence: "Choreo is not to be confused with choreuw which means to dance as in a Greek choros or chorus."

Repeat?

2009-04-23T21:26:00.003-05:00

So, since I'm way too busy trying to finish my semester and get ready for exams to post about theology, I thought that I might as well post briefly about hockey: about the Detroit Red Wings, to be exact. The Wings just completed a sweep of the Columbus Blue Jackets to be the first defending Stanley Cup champions to make it out of the first round of the playoffs in a number of years. That they did so with a sweep bodes well. Of course, this was Columbus' first time ever in the playoffs (the team is only 8 years old), and therefore could not match the Red Wings' considerable playoff experience. They did put up a good fight tonight, with the Wings winning 6-5 with a goal from Franzen during a Wings power play in the last 1.5 minute of the game due to Columbus having too many men on the ice.

In any case, now that the first round is over I can have some peace to get my work done until round 2 beings.

The photo is of Wings captain Nick Lindstrom (the first European captain in the NHL to win the Stanley Cup) in tonight's game. It is a shame that he will likely be passed over for the Norris this year...

Rosemary Radford Ruether at MAR-AAR

2009-03-31T06:11:00.001-05:00

I spent last Thursday and Friday in Baltimore taking part in the Mid-Atlantic Regional meeting of the American Academy of Religion, a meeting that I have been a part of now for three consecutive years. Just as a bit of advertising, there are always some very interesting papers. In any case, the keynote address this year was delivered by the distinguished and well-known liberation and feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether (hereafter, RRR).

It is always interesting when you get the chance to engage with a famed theologian in person as opposed to through their work and reputation only. For instance, RRR looks like your grandmother, or any grandmother that you might run into during your church’s coffee hour. But then she steps up to the podium and the incredible breadth of her knowledge and her grasp of the literature involved astounds. If my memory serves me, there is a passage in Scripture that talks about the possibility of entertaining angles unawares; we should all also be careful lest we entertain famed theologians unawares.

This has never happened to me (at least that I know of), but it puts me in mind of a story I once heard. Once upon a time, there was a MDiv student at Princeton Theological Seminary eating dinner alone at a table in Mackay (the cafeteria). An old man randomly sits down and begins to eat with our student and engage him in conversation about his studies. Along the way, the old man asked the student if he would be attending the lecture being held that evening by T. F. Torrance, and what the students thought of Torrance’s work. Our student had not planned to attend the lecture, but ended up going because the old man had pricked his interest. Imagine his chagrin when he realized what all of you, my very clever readers, have certainly by now realized – that he had just unknowingly had dinner with Tom Torrance!

Anyway, here are a few notes on RRR’s talk. They are not comprehensive, but should give the picture.

“Comparative Perspectives on Ecofeminism” - (3.26.2009)

Ecofeminism is about trying to see the interconnection between the domination of women and that of nature, and it goes on at the ideological (women seen as closer to nature, etc.) and socio-economical (women relegated to non public realms, etc.) levels. The former level provides the superstructure for the latter. Such analysis could be extended to class, racial, and ethnic levels. All this is connected to the Greek / Western tradition that tends to separate mind from matter. The Western view, as opposed to other patriarchal and urban cultures like Hinduism in India and Confucianism in China, does not retain a notion of nature’s sacredness.

There are three basic feminist responses to this state of affairs. First, some reject the association of nature with womanhood as a reproduction of the basic patriarchal hierarchy and playing into its ideology. Women are said to be just as rational, etc., as men. In fact, what occurs is that an elite class of women is made equal to men on male terms. Second, some affirm the connection and want women to claim their affinity with nature and push them to take the lead in caring for the earth. A third group (where RRR places herself) rejects such essentialist pictures and sees the connection as a social construct that naturalizes women and feminizes nature. If there is a connection, the connection arises from women’s social location in these realms in patriarchal culture.

RRR spends the bulk of her time comparing two emerging ecofeminist perspectives, one from India and one from Brazil. Both critique traditional western views on epistemology and the self. Underlying this critique is a serve for a more sustainable, more viable society. The search for an alternative vision represents a longing for finding ways of relating in a more sustainable way and of seeing nature as the living source of connectedness. RRR identifies some commonalities amongst ecofeminism:

(1) Tendency to reject or be disinterested in notions of a kind of transcendent divine self outside of nature. This builds on Paul’s notion of the God in whom we live and move and have our being; this is God as life-giving matrix.

(2) This view of God both sustains the renewal of life and motivates us to struggle against its destruction and distortion, which “threatens the very fabric of planetary life.”

(3) RRR’s favorite way of talking about this God and this sort of life is ‘Wisdom’.

Lehmann on ‘the Common Ethical Predicament’

2009-03-24T05:34:00.001-05:00

Bobby has recently asked about Sharing the Gospel. Here is something of a response.

Paul L. Lehmann, Ethics In A Christian Context (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1963): 154-5.

Lehman is talking about the way in which his version of koinonia ethics understands the relation between believers and non-believers. Just as a little bit of background, Lehmann basically follows Barth on this point: believers are those who – on the basis of Christ – know what God is up to in the world and what it means to be truly human, while unbelievers do not. He grounds this in a discussion of the first / second Adam material in Romans. This discussion was carried out a few chapters earlier, but he returns to it briefly in this section and applies it in what I think is a very interesting way. We’ll see what you, gentle reader, think.

“The common ethical predicament is that compound of circumstantial involvement and human striving for maturity which forces into the open the issue of the falsification or the fulfillment of the authentic humanity of every human being. In delineating this predicament, and in the development of a sensitivity for it, ethical analysis and theological analysis have a very intimate relationship. For example, believers sometimes acquire a habit of behaving with more nuisance value than insight by pressing upon unbelievers the question whether they are saved. This question is at best premature; at worst, irrelevant.”

“But turn the question the other way around so that it is the unbeliever, not the believer, who asks it. Then the question undergoes a significant transformation. When a believer and an unbeliever are met on the level of their common involvement with the issue of the possibility and the integrity of their humanity, and when by reason of this involvement the question ‘What shall I do to be what I am?’ however it may be formulated, can no longer be suppressed, then the integrative power and the possibility of the Christian gospel are exposed. The New Testament offers no evidence for putting the question ‘Are you save?’ That is simply not a biblical question. However, the question ‘What shall I do to be saved?’ is a biblical question. It appears also in the form ‘What shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ The question means, in short, ‘What shall I do to be what I am?’ The lawyer, trying to justify himself, the Macedonian jailer, who found himself on the threshold of unemployment, put the question of authentic life from the level of an inescapable confrontation with a claim upon them to move in the direction of self-fulfilling self-surrender. It is only out of this kind of authentic human situation that the question of belief and unbelief, the religious question, has integrity.”