A name commonly thrown around when discussion liberal Christianity is Paul Tillich, famed for a Christian version of something like Heidegger's philosophy of religion. Here's a very long and slow-to-get-going (not to mention very dark on my screen) interview with him:
Watch on youtube.
In this first clip (around 5 minutes in), he describes how tragedy shaped his philosophy (interestingly, he seems to equate "idealism" as having a positive, optimistic outlook with the metaphysical idealism of Hegel, Fichte, etc.). Around 8 minutes in, he compares philosophizing in German vs. English (with a pretty positive assessment of English as better enabling analytic clarity).
In the 2nd clip, he talks a bit about Christian socialism in Germany. Around 3:45 in, he discusses his influences, citing not only German idealism but Heraclitus and Parmenides as being key. His biggest influence was Schelling, whom he credits as anticipating modern existentialism. He also, surprisingly, cites Hamlet as providing an early model of existentialism for him.
In the 3rd clip, he gets into the relationship between Christianity and the various existentialist figures (Sartre, Nietzsche). He says that Christianity can make use of the results of any tradition and not essentially tied to any of them (which is hard for me to understand unless his views are something like Schleiermacher's)
It's not until clip 4 when Tillich gets around to talking about what he thinks the religion and philosophy is: both are about addressing the question of the meaning of "my life and life generally." Around 1:40 he starts talking about the notion of "spirit," which sounds straight from Hegel, and he describes morality as "the realization of oneself as a person," not following preexisting external moral laws (which he calls "moralism," not morality). Following laws "instead of considering them as expressions of what we human beings essentially are and thus should be" is distortion of morality. We invent morality; it is an expression of us. This sounds much more like Nietzsche than Kant, and sure enough, the interviewers ask Tillich what keeps us in line if we're not following rules. Tillich's response is "love," which is very much in the spirit of Schleiermacher even if S. explicitly buys into Kantian ethics. Inverting Kant, Tillich says that even the strictest obedience to moral law doesn't count as truly moral behavior if it doesn't come out of love as a reaction to a concrete situation (meaning that the right way to respond can't be captured in rules, which can't capture all the specific possible situations). Rules like those elaborated in the Sermon on the Mount should be taken as expressing the wisdom of human experience: we should take them as good advice that needs to be absorbed and used to feed our own free moral expressions.
All in all, this is a pretty interesting if slow-moving interview (it assumes you already know who Tillich is and have a reason to care about what he haw to say), though unfortunately it displays no philosophical acumen on the part of the questioners (unlike, say, those much more pleasant Bryan McGee interviews).
-Mark Linsenmayer
Kid Charlemagne says
July 4, 2011 at 12:12 amNice to see Tillich up here. He’s certainly an interesting figure both for his private life and for his impact on liberal theology.
burl says
July 4, 2011 at 5:34 amI am open to PT, but was quite put off upon hearing his anthropocentric dogma that ‘Spirit; is given only for humans. ALL creatures have Ultimate Concern.
If I am looking for a liberal theology, it needs to be inclusive of all realities. In such a case, I would choose the other PT liberal theological approach – Process Theology.
Like my dogs, I am agnostic.
Kenn says
December 5, 2015 at 8:59 amYour dogs are not agnostic. You are their God.
burl says
July 5, 2011 at 8:39 amI was jusy looking at an RV forum thread where a seller could not convince anyone that her clean, low-mileage, fairly priced unit was legitimate. Peole would either lowball an offer, or just say ‘that’s a fine rig’ and leave.
Buyers are so accustomed to flashy sales pitches from undisciplined who make up any imaginable story to get their commission. In a way, the business of theology is like this. The product is quite valuable, it’s the nature of its marketers that often turns the more thoughtful individual away.
Given the breadth of the subject matter that theology can co-opt/include (nearly all fields of study), and the fact that so many theologies spring forth from such endeavor, is it any wonder that one might make a living deploring such a state.
From the wiki link, Tillich said ‘theological theism:
“deprives me of my subjectivity because [God] is all-powerful and all-knowing. I revolt and make him into an object, but the revolt fails and becomes desperate. God appears as the invincible tyrant, the being in contrast with whom all other beings are without freedom and subjectivity. He is equated with the recent tyrants who with the help of terror try to transform everything into a mere object, a thing among things, a cog in a machine they control. He becomes the model of everything against which Existentialism revolted. This is the God Nietzsche said had to be killed because nobody can tolerate being made into a mere object of absolute knowledge and absolute control. This is the deepest root of atheism. It is an atheism which is justified as the reaction against theological theism and its disturbing implications.”
I bet Dawkins and the New Atheists would agree.
burl says
July 5, 2011 at 8:43 amI meant to add that both the seller (Tillich), and potential but unwilling buyers both can make a living off of theology.
burl says
July 5, 2011 at 8:52 amActually, I meant to say this (weak coffee):
Both the seller (Tillich), and potential but unwilling buyers (New Atheists) can make a living off of dissing-theology.
Kid Charlemagne says
July 5, 2011 at 5:06 pmI loved the dramatic introduction like those old cheesy Mystery Science Theatre movies. I was fully expecting a low budget alien invasion movie to follow.
Tillich is making a bit a comeback these days in liberal theology especially for taking the God debate beyond atheism/theism.
Mark, have you seen this piece on him?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908007-1,00.html
burl says
July 5, 2011 at 7:01 pmOn first googling this just after my first comment http://processandfaith.org/writings/ask-dr-cobb/2008-07/tillich-and-whitehead , I told myself not to link it here as it seems all I can do is blab on ANW.
But it is from Dr Cobb at Cleremont Theological, and it is more Quality-filled an act to link it than to fear further digging myself in as a process freak. Cobb is a lifelong, long-lived Whiteheadian, and an honorable, compelling theologian.
His statements on Thomistic esse and Heidegger are useful for theophilosophy. If it peaks your curiosity, read all the Existential Thomism you can, particularly the ANW sympathetic, Jacques Maritain and Fr. W Norris Clarke, SJ.
For a special treat, search out Fr. Gerald Phelan’s blockbusting insight of essence as an exercise of esse
Karl Miller says
May 30, 2013 at 4:15 pmHey all,
Another request to add to the pile … why not do an episode on Hamlet? He comes up so often in every other corner of your growing archive and you’ve devoted whole episodes to Cormac McCarthy books, so … I’d be interested to hear everyone’s take. That is all. Carry on.
cheers,
K