Theology Department
St. Stephen's
Episcopal School
Austin, Texas

Curriculum
-theology 12
-theology 8
-theology senior elective

Resources
-books
-community service
-ethics
-human rights, interfaith dialogue, & peacemaking
-environmental concerns
-historical figures
-larger perspectives
-practice

Contact

please report invalid links to: theology@sstx.org

A. Read: vii - pg. 4 of DoF. Be ready to discuss & write on:
1. What separates humanity from other living things? H.b.'s have spiritual concerns -- cognitive, aesthetic, social & political -- each of which can claim ultimacy, demanding total surrender & promising total fulfillment.
2. Define ultimate concern (U.C.). P.T.'s definition of faith is that it is the state of being U.C. We [all?] have spiritual concerns that claims ultimacy by demanding total surrender, promising total fulfillment, makes threats if unconditional demands aren't met.
3. Why is a fear of nationalism as a U.C. mentioned so early in the text? P.T. had escaped Germany has it was falling into the grasp of the Nazis, a particularly ferocious example of nationalism.
4. How is faith connected with U.C.? In the act of faith one accepts the unconditional demand, accepts the promise of ultimate fulfilment, and is willing to risk the threats also involved. (pg. 4: regardless of content, "faith" is the state of being ultimately concerned.)

B. Read: pp. 4-12 in Tillich.
1. "Faith is a matter of freedom." What does that mean? Pg. 5 -- If we understand freedom to mean the possibility of making a centered personal act. In fact, faith & freedom are identical. This understanding flies in the face of much modern thinking which, influenced by Freud, holds that faith & freedom are contrasted & that faith reflects something very different from freedom.
2. Some thinkers (like Freud) say faith expresses an infantile need for a father. What does Tillich say to that? P.T. doesn't seem to have much use for Freud, and says (5, bottom) that his theory on the superego is inadequate, resulting from Freud's "naturalistic negation of norms and principles. P.T. writes that analytic psychology and other modern descriptions of personal & psychological life tended to think in polarities & the resulting tensions & conflicts. For Tillich, faith as an act of the total personality is a conscious act in which the unconscious elements participates. If faith were determined by unconscious forces, then it wouldn't be faith but simply compulsions. To be faith it must be a freely chosen centered act. Faith may express itself through a "father image," but it transforms this image into a principle of truth & justice to be defended even against the father. (6, top)
3. What do you think ecstasy is? What does Tillich say? Can you buy it? P.T. says faith is ecstatic -- NOT meaning an emotional outburst -- because it transcends the drives of the non-rational unconscious and the structures of the rational conscious. Although ecstatic, faith still includes the rational -- and nonrational. It brings about an awareness of truth & ethical value. It means "standing outside of oneself" w/o ceasing to be oneself, w/ all elements united in the center. (6 bottom - 7). He implies that ecstasy is one result of the unity of every element in the centered self (8 top) .
4. What is our passion for the infinite? Do you buy it? It's one way of thinking of the "restlessness of the heart." PT says that human biengs are able to transcend the flux of relative & transitory experiences of ordinary life. There is an "element of infinity" in humans; they can understand in an immediate & personal way the meaning of God/ultimate/Sacred/infinite. Being aware of the infinite to which we belong, humans are driven toward faith. So faith is an "infinite passion," a "passion for the infinite," (9).
5. How does Romans 8:26-27 relate to faith as the merging of subject & object? PT says the U.C. unites the subjective and objective. It's the act and the ultimate itself (10). Then, on pg. 11, the separation of subjectivity & objectivity is overcome by the act of faith and the notion of the ultimate/infinite/etc. Mystics say their knowledge of God is the knowledge God has of himself -- I Cor. 13. And even a successful prayer (Rom 8) is successful because it is God as Spirit praying within us.
6. How & why will idolatrous faith always disappoint us? Examples? Related to the preceding question, "idolatrous faith" offers false ultimacy. It is finite but claims infinity, as with nationalism or success, and thus can't transcend the subject/object gap. One mistaking something finite, like a nation, for something infinite, will face profound disappointment, come to refuse even the provisional claims of the shattered U.C. So an idolatrous faith offers preliminary, finite realities elevated to ultimacy. It ends in "existential disappointment." A person centers on something on the periphery and faces a loss of the center, disharmony, a lack of balance, koyaanisqaatsi, disruption of the personality. This is inevitable with idolatry, it seems. Ecstasy can hide it only for a while.

C. Read pp. 12-22
1. Does "holiness becoming justice & truth" have consequences? (pg. 15)
Is it peculiar to Christianity & Judaism? The example is from the Old Testament, in which the divine aspect of the holy conquers the demonic aspect and as a result the idea of the holy changes to become justice and truth, creative, demanding obedience to the law. And thus, ultimately, holiness comes to mean moral perfection. As it does, it loses its meaning as the "separated" or the "transcending," "fascinating & terrifying," "Wholly Other." It's become morally good and logically true, and is no longer the genuine, oldest, deepest meaning of holy. Big point: Holy was a precursor to ideas of gooda nd evil, both divine and demonic, and it changes in meaning if the demonic is reduced so that holy becomes rational, good, true. It's genuine meaning must be rediscovered.
2. What is "courage?" How is it connected to despair? ( pp. 17-22)
Courage is the element of faith that accepts uncertainty. Uncertainty can't be removed from faith, because it's a finite being approaching the infinite. Courage is the "daring self-affirmation of one's own being in spite of the powers of 'nonbeing' which are the heritage of everything finite. Because faith requires courage, it means there is a risk. It's the content about which there is not certainty -- e.g., content as God, bible, nation, success. The RISK comes because what was thought to be a matter of ultimate concern turns out to be a matter of preliminary & transitory concern -- like a nation. This is the greatest risk you can take. If it fails, meaning breaks down. You have surrendered yourself to something which turns out to not be worth it. Given away one's personal center. Despair results from this breakdown, and proof that their concern was idolatrous. The risk is unavoidable if a finite being affirms itself. Ultimate concern is ultimate risk and ultimate courage.
3. What is the "concrete element" of faith? (18) Every faith has a concrete element -- it's concerned with something or somebody, which may prove to be NOT ultimate. Then faith in its concrete expression fails. A god vanishes, but the status and quality of divinity remain. If one concrete element vanishes, a new content can be re-established.
4. Is "believing something is true" the same as being "ultimately concerned?"(18)
Faith can't be understood as the belief that something is true, because then doubt would be incompatible. And for PT, doubt is necessary to faith. It's a consequence of the risk. It's the kind of doubt that comes with a risk, with being ultimately concerned with a concrete content. It's existenal doubt.
5. What does "existential doubt" have to do with faith? (20-22)
E.D. is the doubt of the faithful ultimately concerned about a concrete content. It's the awareness of the insecurity in every existential truth. Courage enables one to accept the insecurity. Doubt is not a permanent experience; it's part of the structure, however. Doubt is not the negation of faith. It's an element which was always & will always be present in the act of faith, doubt & faith being poles of the same reality.

D. Read 22-29
1. Why does faith need language and language need community?
22-Faith is best seen in its doctrinal formulations & in a sociological setting. 23--the act of faithdepends on language & therefore on community; language requires a community of spiritual beings to come alive. 24-- Language is necessary for an act of faith or religious experience itself. And it can't be understood outside the community of believers. Language gives the act of faith a concrete content. It's ONLY as a member of such a comunity that we have a content for our U.C., and only in a community of language can we actualize our faith.
2. What is a heresy? 25 -- It means someone who has denied the foundations of the Church. Not erroneous beliefs, but one who has turned away from the true to a false & idolatrous concern. He may undermine the community.
3. If a community enforces spiritual conformity, what happens?
27 -- If the are successful, they have removed the risk & courage which belong to the act of faith and changed faith into a behavior pattern which doesn't admit alternatives & loses its character of ultimacy.
4. Claiming infallibility is dangerous. Why?
28 -- it excludes doubt as an element of faith in those who subject themselves to these authorities. Their personal struggle may be with their own subjection, but they can't struggle with doubt regarding the infallible statements of authorities. Their faith has become static as opposed to dynamic, a nonquestioning surrender to the concrete elements -- religious authorities -- as well as to the ultimate.This is a case where something preliminary and conditional -- the human interpretation of the content of faith -- is elevated above the risk of doubt and "receives ultimacy." This is what Protestantism fought against, and later the Enlightenment fought against the increasingly static Protestantism.
5. What is an example of non-ultimate things pointing the way to the ultimate?
29 -- a creedal expression of the ultimate concern must include its own criticism -- it must become obvious that they are not ultimate, and that their function is to point to the ultimate which is beyond all of them. This is the "Protestant principle," because it is the critical element in the expression of the community of faith and consequently the element of doubt in the act of faith. The doubt and the critical must always be possible -- there in potential -- but not necessarily actual. So the Church, its doctrines, institutions, and clergy, are not above "prophetic judgement'" or in any way immune. They stand under that judgement.
6. What is Tillich's "Protestant principle?" See #5
7. What is life "under the cross," for Christians?
So, with the ideas of criticism & doubt we see that the community of faith is "under the Cross" with the Cross being the divine judgement over our religious life.

E. Read 30-35
1. Are faith and belief the same? How are they, or how are they not?
31 -- PT says that if we think of faith as "an act of knowledge that has a low degree of evidence," we're misinterpreting the idea of faith and instead speaking of belief. We believe something based on sufficient evidence that points to a probable outcome. Thus we can reconstruct events based on accounts, that a scientific theory ties together a set of facts into a coherent pattern, that a person will act consistent with past behavior, or that current events will alter a political situation in a predictable way. Belief can also be related to improbable outcomes because of adequate if incomplete evidence, because of an authoritative imprint, if we accept evidence because others thought it sufficient (e.g. history). 32 -- Thus we always trust authority (parents) when we're infants; the more we experience, perhaps the less we trust authority in this way. But this isn't faith -- it's not believing authorities, trusting their judgement, etc., because those things are always conditional. Faith includes but transcends trust.
2. Should a Christian have faith in the Bible? Why or why not? 32 -- PT says we should NOT have faith in the Bible or its human authors, because "faith is more than trust in even the most sacred authority;" it's when everything we are connects with what we're ultimately concerned with. And faith has nothing to do with theoretical knowledge or the authority of others or some arrangement of facts.
3. What is the difference between faith and knowledge? 32-- PT says faith really has nothing to do with knowledge. Neither affirming nor denying, it is almost like a separate reality. 33-- Knowledge results from our inquiry or the inquiry of authoritative others we trust -- like science, history, psychology. Belief is subject to testing and revision. So, faith is not a kind of flimsy provisional knowledge. 34--Knowledge can be based on sensory information or logic. Yet the process of becoming knowledgeable has no end; it is infinite.
4. What does it mean to talk about the certitude of faith being existential?
34-- PT talks about the certitude of faith being of a different character from the certitude of knowledge. The C of K can be virtually complete, but is open to new evidence or criticism, regardless of how remote the possibility. The C of F is not open to new evidence or criticism, is independent of "formal evidence," and yet as "existential certitude" because it involves our whole existence, is related to something ultimate or unconditional, and runs the risk of surrendering to a concern that is not really ultimate. Summing up, faith isn't knowledge based on changeable evidence, or belief, or in any sense uncertain.

F. Read 35-40
1. Tillich says the Roman Catholic Church offers a distorted interpretation of faith. Why is it not adequate? Who came up with it? 35 -- PT says that Thomas Aquinas, an RC, came up with the idea that an "act of will" makes up for whatever is lacking in evidence. So he misunderstands the nature of faith (see above), which has nothing to do with evidence; TA ignores the "existential aspect." And this idea that our motives can "drive" us to believe something in spite of little or no evidence has nothing to do with faith, PT says. He notes that the roots of the RC idea were that the "will to believe" was a manifestation of God's grace, affecting one's will so that they accept the truth -- not the intellect, but the will, in the absence of content. The Church's authority offers evidence & content for intellectual affirmation, guided by the will as necessary.
2. Is there a distorted intepretation of faith for Protestants? Can we meet the demands of this interpretation? 36 -- Protestants also have an idea of the "will to believe," related to a) an element of commitment in the state of being U.C., with all mental functions engaged in the act of faith, or b) subjection to the prophetic command to believe, essentially accepting a message from God through a human conduit. But "the demand to be obedient is the the demand to be what one already is," which is in a state of being U.C. (WHILE TRYING TO ESCAPE THAT VERY U.C.). Ultimately, 38 -- "No command to believe and no will to believe can create faith."
3. What was Schleiermacher's answer to this? How does Tillich respond? 38-39 -- The Big S described religion as unconditional dependence (related to U.C.). S. wasn't taling about emotion, but was misinterpreted. But this is to restrict the state of being U.C. to feeling & subjectivity. Faith claims the whole person, all functions. And the very people who wanted to push religion into this corner, dismissing it as a mirror of one's emotional life, psychological truth, etc., -- the scientists, artists, & moralists revealed their own U.C. in the process. Faith involves the whole personality. Emotion is a strong part of it. But it isn't the source. Faith "is defnite in its direction & concrete in its content.....It claims truth & commitment, directed toward the unconditional, appearing in a concrete reality, demanding & justifying the very commitment it receives."

G. Read 41-48
1. What are the six characteristics of a symbol? 41-- 1) They point to something beyond themselves, 42 -- 2) they "participate in" that to which they point, e.g., a flag "participates in" the power & dignity of the nation for which itt stands, & can't be replaced except after an historic catastrophe that changes the nature of the nation it symbolizes. So an attack on the flag is an attack on the group it represents, & blasphemous; 3) they open up levels of reality which is otherwise closed -- a view not otherwise available -- in a way similar to a poem or a picture which reveals something otherwise unseen (e.g., pointillist, Impressionist, & light, polytonal chanting); 43 -- 4) they "unlock dimensions & elements of our soul which correspond to the dimensions & elements of reality." Hidden depths of our own being. So what we see through the symbol we learn to see in reality, & there are "within us dimensions of which we cannot become aware except through symbols, as melodies & rhythmns in music"; 5) they cannot be produced unintentionally, but rather come from the unconscious & must be accepted by the unconscious to function. For political & religious symbols, the group's "collective unconscious" must accept them. 6) they grow and die like living things, growing when the situation is ripe, and dying when the situation changes (e.g., a "king,"). 43 -- Note: "Symbols do not grow because we long for them, & don't die because of criticism of a scientific or critical kind. They die because they don't produce the response in the group.
2. Why say "not less than a symbol" rather than "only a symbol?" 45 -- Symbolic language overwhelms nonsymbolic language in quality & strength, & power. (Clinton, advertising). 44 -- Concepts are turned into symbols, as part and parcel of the character of ultimacy and the nature of faith. The true ultimate transcends the finite, including finite language (e.g., God transcends his own name). And when we talk about that thing which is our U.C., what we say has symbolic meaning, as it points beyond the words themselves to something immeasurably greater, in which it participates.
3. What is the "fundamental symbol of our ultimate concern?" 45 -- God is the fundamental symbol of our U.C., always present in the act of faith, even the act that is a denial of God. One God can deny another. And thus atheism, taken seriously, must mean the removal of any ultimate concern, and to be unconcerned about the meaning of our existence. -- to be indifferent. 46 -- "God is the fundamental symbol for what concerns us ultimately." And, "God is a symbol for God," with the idea of God including the element of ultimacy, , and the element of concreteness.
4. Why does T. say that "God is more certain than any other certainty?" 46 -- It is meaningless to question the ultimacy of an ultimate concern. The ultimacy is in the idea of God is certain. 47 And for P.T., the real question is "which of the innumerable symbols of fatih is most adequate to the meaning of faith -- which symbol of ultimacy expresses the ultimate w/o idolatrous elements?

H. Read 48-54
1. How does Tillich define myth? 48 -- not only "stories of the gods," in which 49 - man's ultimate concern is symbolized in divine figures and actions, but also (50) the combination of symbols of our ultimate concern." Myths are symbols of faith combined in stories about divine-human encounters, present in every act of faith, because language (the medium of myth) is a symbol. The great traditions attack, criticize & transcend myth, which use material from our ordinary experience & put the gods into a time/space context although they are beyond both. Myths split up the divine; each resulting figure is less than ultimate, leading to conflicts of ultimate claims.
2. Is there a substitue for the use of symbol & myth? Why/why not? 51 -- At least in part because "they are the language of faith," and check back to 22-24. They can't be replaced by something of a different character, like a scientific substitute.
3. Define: demythologization, literalism, and broken myth. 50 -- If DEM points to the need to see a symbol and a symbol & a myth as a myth, it's a positive idea. If DEM means the removal of symbols & myths altogether, it's destructive and to be attacked & rejected, and in fact will never be successful, because symbol & myth are the forms of the human consciousness which are always present. Myth can be replaced by myth, but myth cannot be excised from spiritual life. 51 -- If it means to make conscious the symbolic character of myth, then DEM may or may not be a threat to the "primitive mythological consciousness." Resistance to this awareness can be supproted by systems -- political or religious, but authoritarian, to give security to subjects & unchallenged power to authority. And so "LITERALISM" is the resistance against DEM; it presupposes (52) that God is a being acting in time and space and living in a special place, affecting the course of events & being affected by them. In this way literalism deprives God of ultimacy & majesty by drawing God down to the finite & conditional level. Thus symbols & myths are understood in their immediate meaning, the idea of a symbol pointing beyond itself is disregarded, Creation really happened, Adam walked on the earth, the virgin birth is a beguiling biological fact, and the 2nd Coming a cosmic event. And PT says that in the last analysis, literalism becomes idolatrous, because it calls something ultimate which is less than ultimate. In contrast, faith which is aware of the symbolic nature of its symbols, gives God the honor which is due him.
And "BROKEN MYTH" refers to (50) a myth understood as a myth but not removed or replaced -- & P.T. says Xity denies by its nature any broken myth, because its first presupposition is the first commandment, which affirms the ultikmate as ultimate & rejects idolatry. Thus mythological elements in the Bible, doctrine, or liturgy should be recognized as mythological, but should also be maintained in their symbolic form & not replaced by scientific substitute. It is one response to one result of literalism, in which (52) one sees the mythical and literal as indistinguishable, and so a "broken myth" is understood and lived with because our questioning mind break through the natural acceptance of the mythological visions as literal.
4. What is the outcome "if faith takes its symbols literally?" If faith takes its symbols literally, then (53) we repress our questions & uncertainty, and choose a conscious literalism using as a tool an acknowledged sacred authority like the Church or the Bible. P.T. says this is unjustifiable for a mature mind; it is at war with autonomous thought.
5. Does a myth "point beyond itself? How? Why?
6. Compare natural & historical myth. Do they apply to Judaism & Christianity?
53 -- P.T. says Christian theologians argue that the word myth should be reserved for repetitive natural processes & their meaning, whereas (54) if we see the world in terms of a historical process with beginning, middle & end as in Xity and Jism, the term "myth" should not be used. But P.T. says this would reduce the scope of the word dramatically and turn myth into a "discarded idiom" of our language instead of being the "language of our ultimate concern." And, he says, history shows that there are natural & historical myths. If we see earth as the battleground of divine powers, or see God as selecting & guiding a nation through history toward some end, or see Christ as transcendent & divine but appearing on earth, living, dying, & rising again, then we have an historical myth.

I. Pages 55-73
1. What are the two main elements in the experience of the holy? Tillich uses three names for each. 56-57
A) The presence of the holy here and now, so that it is present & felt as present. This is they ontological type. Here it is breaking into ordinary reality, shaking it and "driving it beyond itself in an ecstatic way." And consecrating the place where it appears & its own reality, provoking terror & fascination, setting up rules by which it can be approached.
B) The second element is of the holy in "judgement over everything that is," demanding personal & social holiness in the form of justice & love, & commanding what we should be. In this case our U.C. represents what we are in our essence & ought to always be. So it's an experience of the holiness of what ought to be. This is the moral type of experience.
P.T. says these two elements shape the way faith manifests itself within a tradition, or among traditions. They are intimately personal, and an intimate part of the movement of the great historical religions. Found in every act of faith, but one will be predominant, since finite humans can't balance all aspects of faith in a perfect balance.
2. What is tolerance? P.T. says that people are always trying to reach the ultimate, which can't be reached. That fact causes tension, and the issue of tolerance emerges. "Negative tolerance" is relativistic and asks for nothing ultimate; having no real content, it tends toward intolerant absolutism. (!) The struggle for one engaged in an act of faith is to harmonize tolerance, based on its relativity, with the certainty at the core of one's ultimate concern. This is particularly a problem with Protestant Christianity. It is great & dangerous because it makes possible the "power of self-criticism" and the "courage to face one's own relativity." So there's an infinite tension -- between the absoluteness of its claim and the relativity of its life.
3. What is a sacramental type of religion? Why is transparency important? Sacramentalism is universal, present in all religions, keeping faith from becoming empty, abstract, and without significance; it enables the faithful to be "grasped by the holy through a special medium." Because the holy is present here and now, it manifests itself in a thing -- a person, an event, etc., which is chosen through a visionary experience, accepted by a group, passed on from one generation to the next, and changed in the process. So a concrete chunk of reality serves as the medium of the holy, communicating "the ultimate ground" and "meaning of all reality." Anything can become the "bearer" of the holy. Such a thing is sacramental in character. So a jar of water, a tree, this cup of wine, this piece of bread, my hands moving this way, this river, this color, word, book, person, "bears the holy." Through such a thing faith experiences the content of its ultimate concern. The reactions can run the gamut from awe to fear, adoration, fascination, idolatry, etc. Also,
* no one can judge the validity of the sacramental object and another's faith.
* faith can't be judged from the outside.
* the faithful can ask, or be asked, whether the medium expresses real ultimacy. This presupposes the inadequacy of the finite to express what is of ultimate concern, but we forget that and identify the object with the ultimate.
* Transparency must be kept -- the notion that the source of holiness is shining throughthat you're looking through and past the object to the something greater, infinite, ultimate, absolute, unconditional, etc.
4. What is true mysticism & how does it relate to the soul? 62 -- Mysticism is "a type of faith" like sacramentalism. Every type of faith has a mystical element as well as a sacramental element. P.T. says (60) that mystics have been driven to transcend every piece of reality & reality as a whole in their faith, driven by the limitations and dangers of the sacramental type of faith. They realize that the U.C. can't be identified with a piece of reality or expressed in a rational system (61). Mystics identify the ultimate with the "ground of being," the irreducible substance of everything, going beyond the concrete & sacramental. All concreteness disappears in the abyss of pure divinity (read this sentence at least twice). They find themselves in ecstatic experience that can be described in language that denies the possibility of describing it. Hence the parardoxes of Otto, Arjuna, Lao Tzu, Jesus, and innumerable others, driven to try to communicate because what they have experienced is so powerful, yet confined by the fact that what they confronted defies language to capture it. They say the infinite is present in the human soul. It's a point of contact; think of a spark. A fire. How earlier human beings tried to understand what fire was, where it came from, how useful & frightening & mysterious it was. To reach the point mystics have reached means getting beyond subject/object splits -- and techniques are developed to achieve that. 62 --- and mystics are in the business of trying to merge their mind with the Something, accepting a preliminary stage of union with the infinite and working & hoping for a final ecstasy. .
5. Compare secular and religious. Where does humanism fit in? 62 -- P.T. uses lots of "ifs" w/ regard to Humanism. So be on your guard. He says that Hism implies faith, faith means the state of being ultimately concerned about the ultimate; an Hist "makes man the measure of his own spiritual life, because the divine is manifest in the human & the U.C. of man is the "true man, man of the idea, in his essence." 63 -- In this case the Hist's U.C. is man, which is the ultimate in finite reality, juast as sacramental faith sees the ultimate in a piece of reality or as mystical faith finds in the depth of man the place of the infinite. But the sac. and myst. types try to reach beyond man & his world; Hism stays w/in those limits. Thus