In this series I use progressive Christian in its very broad sense simply because it’s a well-known word, and the one patheos uses. I admit the word is too loaded.
I have stated that I consider myself progressive but have become disgruntled with the progressive Christian church. This series will first talk about the philosophy that was the forerunner of the progressive church (particularly 20th century philosophy), and then later we will look at current progressive Christian church leaders and bloggers of today. You can check out what I wrote so far here, here, and here.
—————–
While I do not fully agree with Dr. R.C. Sproul, this entry is indebted to his lectures on contemporary theology.
Tillich changed how we talk about God. In his earlier years of influence (1930s) he was considered to be apart of the neo-orthodox school of thought, but then in 1935 he published an article critiquing this school of thought, and it then became apparent that Tillich was taking a different approach to the problems of theology.
Tillich wrote so much that he really deserves multiple posts. But his most controversial belief – and the one who shook the church — was his philosophy of the transcendence of God. Here’s how Dr. Sproul explained it in a lecture.
Historically Christianity has talked about a transcendent God who has the power of being in himself and is at the same a being as distinguished from us. We are little beings who are not gods but we are withheld somehow by the power of being which is God. Now Tillich instead of defining transcendent as that which is up there and out, defines transcendence as the depth dimension of our experience.
Tillich calls this depth experience the ground of reason or the ground of being. He would say its wrong to think of God as up there and out there, and yes, this makes so much sense. Tillich says God is transcendent, but he is transcendent in the depth dimension. That is we can get in touch with God by first coming in touch with that which concerns us ultimately (this would also go back to what Bultmann says about first having existential experiences).
But Tillich takes a sharp turn from classical orthodoxy because he says that God is not an individual substance. He says God cannot be a Being. He says that is an error. We can’t say that God is the pure Being among all other little created beings. That doesn’t work, Tillich said. God is not a being; he is the ground of being. God is not a supernatural being among all other beings. Instead he is the ground of all beings. Tillich then goes on to affirm that since God is not a being (not a individual substance that sustains us), then we cannot argue for the existence of God. This is because 1) God isn’t a being, so there is no affirmative argument 2) there is no argument against God’s existence anymore since he is “Being-itself” (Tillich’s term) rather than a being.
Many have called Tillich an atheist Christian because while he professes a belief in God, his God is neither personal or impersonal, or so Tillich said (my point: it’s not really possible not to be one or the other, but okay whatever).
Tillich also has a problem with referring to God in anthropomorphic language (referring to God in human terms). See, because God is not being, we can’t say that God is personal. We must say he is the ground of personality. We can’t say God is love. We must say he is the ground of love. So what can we say about God? We cannot say much, but we as individuals now have our answer to the existential problem of non-being. That is, if God is the ground of being as opposed to a being among all other beings, then we are sustained forever by God’s hand. Christianity has never been able to answer how it is possible that God sustains and holds us if God is a separate entity from us (Christians believe God does, but it is still a mystery). But Tillich’s ground of being, or so Tillich believed, answered that ontological concern.
The only problem is that now our language about God is so useless because we can’t refer to God in concrete terms but rather as the ground of those characteristics.
After Tillich killed our language about God, Tillich sneaked God in the back door through his symbols. A symbol participates in that which it points too. A symbol is that which helps us get in touch with God, that helps us participate in God. This could be sex, this could be theology, this could be a lot of things. This is not saying that sex is God, or that theology is God, but that those things can help us get in touch with God because they participate in the ground of being (remember, God is not a seperate entity). This goes back to Tillich’s understanding of ultimate reality. Once we know what concerns us ultimately, then we experience revelation. Through our hearts deepest desires, we can know and meet God.
With this crude, ambiguous definition of God (neither personal or impersonal, say what Dr. Tillich?), it may be hard for any Christian to take him seriously. But yet Bishop John Shelby Spong did take him seriously. He did. Bishop Spong took him so seriously that its even mentioned on his wikipedia page. And I kind of understand why he did.
And so what else would we expect: death of God movement followed. Van Buran said that even the concept of transcendence had lost meaning to us. God never literally died, but our talk about God died, or at least was drastically cut back.
What else can you all add to this? Do you see any of these ideas in the church today?