Early Response Paper

As repeatedly asked, some want to see the work I do as a Theology student. So from time to time I will select some response papers that are coherent outside of a divinity school context.

This paper is in response to reading from Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology and one of his sermons.
~~~~~~~
In part 7 of the introduction of Systematic Theology, vol. 1, Paul Tillich discusses the relationship between philosophy and theology. The previous section asked the question about the how theology relates to other forms of knowledge (18). Tillich expresses three points in “cognitive attitude, sources, and content” (22-24) of divergence between philosophy and theology preventing any real common ground for discussion. Any true discussion is brought on grounds of pursuit for absolute reason (philosophy) or working toward the ultimate concern (theology). (24-25). The section concludes by affirming philosophy and theology can neither agree or disagree with each other because each is so different in its foundation and motivation. One must adhere to the other’s structure in order to have dialogue.

Within this section Tillich speaks of the theologian’s burden. The theologian must “turn toward his existential situation including his ultimate concern” (25). The theologian does this in order to clarify the universal force of what his/her ultimate concern is. In doing this the theologian “must take the risk of being driven beyond the boundary line of the theological circle” (25). Another section suggests that theologians must have one foot in the theological circle and one foot outside of it to obtain an “honest” theology (10).

This living on the boundary of acceptance from the devout creates a certain paradox in what Tillich preaches. In the sermon Shaking of Foundations, we are told the only comfort against the overwhelming demonic forces is trusting Providence. One hand Tillich says “trust” and the other he wants critical questioning to or beyond the accepted boundary. When does this living on or beyond the boundary become distrust in Providence? I find it hard as a young theology student to prepare myself to walk this line towards distrust. Isn’t trust in Providence the only thing keeping humans from being unbreakably grasped by the demonic?