#5 FPC, Lowville, NY Fall 2012 Theological Study Group

Study Notes for Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith, Chapter Three Section 1: The Meaning of Symbol only symbolic language can be used to express the ultimate symbols: (1) point beyond themselves to something else (as do signs) (2) also participate in the reality that they point to (while signs dont); (2) reveal deeper levels of reality, which are usually closed to us; (4) reveal deeper aspects in our soul that parallel aspects of reality itself; (5) grow out of the unconscious & are accepted by the collective unconscious of the group in which they appear: and (6) have a life of their own that grows, matures, declines, & dies Section 2: Religious Symbols all symbols are religious because we turn every ultimate concern into a god false faiths thus symbolize their supposedly ultimate concerns in ways that make those concerns into idols true ultimates transcend everyday reality & cant be expressed directly Religiously speaking, God transcends his own name. (p. 51) thus, The language of faith is the language of symbols. (p. 51) God is the basic symbol of faith even in the denial of God every ultimate concern is an affirmation of God thus it is doubtful that atheism is actually possible since in order to deny God the atheist has to deny the reality of ultimate concern [even atheists have ultimate concerns & therefore God] it is wrong to react to this argument by asking if God is nothing but a symbol because God is a symbol for God there are two elements to the notion of God: (1) our experience with our ultimate concern; & (2) making that experience concrete in symbols thus it is useless to argue over the existence of God the experience of God [as ultimate concern] is certain while our symbols vary so, the question is not whether God as ultimate concern exists, but rather which symbols are most adequate to faith which symbols are not idolatrous? symbols include all of the qualities we attribute to God, all actions we attribute to God, and all sacred objects Holy things are not holy in themselves, but they point beyond themselves to the source of all holiness, that which is of ultimate concern. (p. 55) Section 3: Symbols & Myths symbols dont stand alone they are united w/ myths, which were originally stories of the gods more generally, myths are symbolic stories of human encounters w/ the divine more generally still, myths are present as symbols in every act of faith they draw on material from ordinary life in doing so, they divide the divine into several figures (or parts of the story), which opens them up to criticism for turning the divine into the worldly such criticism can: (1) seek to preserve the unity of the divine; (2) demythologize myths by pointing out that myths are symbols & symbols point to the divine; they are not the divine; & (3) resist trying to do away w/ myths altogether something that cannot be done anyway Christianity rejects the idea that myths cant change or be replaced myths must be respected for what they are, symbols, & their symbolic character should be preserved But those who accept their myths in a superficial way resist the criticism of them & express their resistance thru literalism they dont accept the idea that symbols & myths point beyond themselves instead, they seek to turn the myths & symbols into concrete ultimates they esp. do this to God, making God a single being involved in time & space Literalism deprives God of his ultimacy and, religiously speaking, of his majesty. (p. 60) literalism turns symbols & myths into idols

#5 There are 2 stage of literalism: (1) the natural stage people of faith assume that their myths & symbols are literally real & dont think to question them as being anything but real however, when doubt does arise it goes in one of 2 ways: either newer myths or versions of the myth replace the questioned myth or symbol w/ others OR the faithful repress criticism and go into (2) the reactive stage authority is used to repress criticism this stage is an enemy of critical theology Symbols of faith cant be replaced by other kinds of symbols, such as artistic ones they are recognized by the mind as religious as being true & powerful Nothing less than symbols and myths can express our ultimate concern. (p. 61) -- & in the end myths cant be limited to nature alone there are also historical myths including the myth of Christ as a transcendent being who appeared at the right moment, lived, died, & rose from the dead Christianity treats its historical myths as symbols that must themselves be criticized & broken so that Christianity can continue to be an expression of ultimate concern (p. 62) Questions 1. Given Tillichs definition of symbol, how does symbolic language differ from other forms of language? What is the relationship of symbols to objective reality? And, does Tillich mean by symbol what Buddhadasa meant by Dharma language? 2. What does Tillich mean by deeper elements of our soul? Is there such a thing as a soul? If so, does it have levels? Is soul a symbol? 3. What does it mean to say that God transcends Gods own name? 4. What does it mean to say that God is a symbol? Do you find persuasive Tillichs suggestion that atheism (as the denial of ultimate concern) isnt actually possible? 5. Are the great stories of the Bible myths in Tillichs sense of the term, that is symbolic stories? If so, what is their relationship with everyday reality? If not, how do we avoid the temptation to treat them literally & thereby as being ultimate? 6. In particular, Tillich treats the Christ Event as a myth. How do we take that event seriously if it is just a myth? Does treating it as a myth make Christ less real? Or is Tillichs approach to the Christ Event as a symbolic story of ultimate concern more faithful to God in Christ?