|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Tillich Studied or Considered a Relevant Anymore?
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Facinating.
Nobody wants to tell Boogie she shouldn't dismiss the priests counsel because he manhandled her.
Why not?
IMV, this is a case in point of microcosm verses macrocosm. No-one wants to discuss the microcosm but are happy to say it shouldn't be a problem in macrocosm. Abstractions are safer than real life.
Is it because it's personal in this instance and not impersonal so it's easier to compartmentalise?
FWIW Kaplan Corday, Boogie's case is not reminiscent of your example. She is still a practising Christian AFAIK.
Leaf: Good point about the Patriarchs. I don't know what to say to that except to say that some of them were active before the law and didn't know any better and were just going along with the cultural mores of the time. David technically should have but there is some argument that The Law was really only "resurrected" in Josiah's time and the Pentateuch was only strongly formalised during the exilic period. But the Patriarchs and David are certainly not people we would "look up to" today.
As for my experience of adultery clouding my judgement. I wouldn't describe it that way. I'd say it was informing my judgement.
Again, this is not to say ideas can be discussed on their own merit. But integrity and incarnational theology becomes a problem for some of us such that we may not seek out those ideas if we don't have to.
[ 27. September 2014, 11:36: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Meant to say this is not to say ideas cannot discussed on their own merit.
Missed the edit window.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Nobody wants to tell Boogie she shouldn't dismiss the priests counsel because he manhandled her.
I'm back to answer some questions as my experience is being used as an example. Which is fine, that's why I mentioned it.
He wasn't a priest, he was a Local Preacher and Headteacher of a local school. I continued to go to the same Church and even some of his services. I still go to the same Church. I simply didn't listen to him again. He was so well thought of I also had to extracate myself from conversations about him. People were surprised I didn't go to his funeral - it was a big affair.
My point is that, when it becomes personal, you can't take any of their ideas seriously - as you know they are untrustworthy people, so why should you trust their ideas? Nothing could make me listen to them - never mind believe him, but that was just an emotional reaction I suppose?
I think Evensong is right on the 'big picture' thing - we can ignore mis-doings and concentrate on achievements if they don't affect us. The closer to home they come the harder detachment is. Not to everyone, some can compartmentalise so well they are sociopathic/psychopathic of course.
I wasn't throwing down a gauntlet, I was asking a question. Should I have taken notice of any of his words, knowing what kind of man he was - and knowing what he'd done to me and who knows who else?
If not, why should we do so with others? Does the fact that the harm they did is 'distant' make it OK to appreciate their work?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Actually, Kaplan did address Boogie's situation. You should read it again. There is probably some merit in your points about microcosms versus macrocosms, but more on point is the fact that when someone is directly emotionally affected by the criminal and abusive actions of someone, they're reaction to anything that person says and does will also be affected by that. You're actually comparing apples and oranges. If this were a conversation about whether or not Tillich's work was still relevant to one of his victims, your arguments would have some validity.
I was thinking some more about Tillich today, and thinking also about current theological trends on the relationship between scientific understandings of the world and theological or religious ones. Tillich's project was to bring these worlds together. I actually don't think they go together. God is wholly other, as Otto told us, and can't be known through scientific methods (this, incidentally, is what Dawkins' tiny little brain can't seem to grasp). Barth is thus more in line with current thinking, and likely to be for awhile. I think.
X-post with Boogie
[ 27. September 2014, 12:37: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
...but more on point is the fact that when someone is directly emotionally affected by the criminal and abusive actions of someone, they're reaction to anything that person says and does will also be affected by that. You're actually comparing apples and oranges.
But surely, if we have any empathy for the victims, we will also be affected by that?
Are you saying we shouldn't be?
[ 27. September 2014, 13:22: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
Much earlier in the thread cottontail linked to a blog which mentions that the Mennonite Church's publishing arm has now begun to print a statement at the front of John Howard Yoder's books mentioning his history of sexual harassment and the difficulties it raises: "We believe that Yoder and those who write about his work deserve to be heard; we also believe readers should know that Yoder engaged in abusive behavior." This seems to me a constructive approach.
I think it was from Hauerwas' autobiography I first heard about Yoder having been disciplined by his church for (Hauerwas' words:) inappropriate relationships with women. There is a lot more information available on the internet today, and this thread has prompted me to read some of it. I found this article from a local newspaper at the time of the disciplinary process especially interesting as it covers the responses both of (two of) his victims and of his friends to the continuing value of his work. The victims quoted would struggle to use his writings themselves, but do think they might still be of value to others.
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
...but more on point is the fact that when someone is directly emotionally affected by the criminal and abusive actions of someone, they're reaction to anything that person says and does will also be affected by that. You're actually comparing apples and oranges.
But surely, if we have any empathy for the victims, we will also be affected by that?
Are you saying we shouldn't be?
No. And you and ES are quite right to point out the empathy for victims required in coming to terms with the work. It's a factor in interpretation. But to allow that to invalidate the work together is fallacious.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elephenor:
Much earlier in the thread cottontail linked to a blog which mentions that the Mennonite Church's publishing arm has now begun to print a statement at the front of John Howard Yoder's books mentioning his history of sexual harassment and the difficulties it raises: "We believe that Yoder and those who write about his work deserve to be heard; we also believe readers should know that Yoder engaged in abusive behavior." This seems to me a constructive approach.
I think it was from Hauerwas' autobiography I first heard about Yoder having been disciplined by his church for (Hauerwas' words:) inappropriate relationships with women. There is a lot more information available on the internet today, and this thread has prompted me to read some of it. I found this article from a local newspaper at the time of the disciplinary process especially interesting as it covers the responses both of (two of) his victims and of his friends to the continuing value of his work. The victims quoted would struggle to use his writings themselves, but do think they might still be of value to others.
Wow
Yoder seems to have been treated in line with his own teaching. I'm not sure if that is ironic or what?
The Mennonites seem to have demonstrated real integrity
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't know what to say to that except to say that some of them were active before the law and didn't know any better and were just going along with the cultural mores of the time. David technically should have but there is some argument that The Law was really only
I have a hard time with the argument that the Patriachs didn't know murder and adultery were wrong because "The Law" hadn't been given yet.
[Apart from the eye rolling aspect, you then have to wonder why Nathan's pronouncement of "you are the man" had so much weight].
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I have a hard time with the argument that the Patriachs didn't know murder and adultery were wrong because "The Law" hadn't been given yet.
Before Moses there were the seven noahide laws
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I have a hard time with the argument that the Patriachs didn't know murder and adultery were wrong because "The Law" hadn't been given yet.
Before Moses there were the seven noahide laws
Well quite. I was trying to be polite.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Facinating.
Nobody wants to tell Boogie she shouldn't dismiss the priests counsel because he manhandled her.
No, what's fascinating is your imagining that any of us has the right to "tell" Boogie what she should or shouldn't do.
Boogie appears to have been so disgusted with his behaviour that she decided to no longer listen to anything he had to say, and that is OK.
If she had decided to thenceforth to listen to him, but try to judge what he had to say purely on its merits, irrespective of his character and behaviour, that would have been OK also.
In such cases, when it comes to affected individuals' choices as to how to respond, we would do well to mind our own business.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If she had decided to thenceforth to listen to him, but try to judge what he had to say purely on its merits, irrespective of his character and behaviour, that would have been OK also.
This is what this whole thread is about. I brought it down to the personal because it can make it more real to us - bring it home, so to speak.
If we have empathy for the victims it means we feel for them.
So my question was 'does this affect our reading/listening to their ideas'?
You seem to be saying 'mind your own business' but surely that's what happens all the time in allowing abusers to continue to abuse?
Jesus called us to be salt and light - a little salt goes a long way. In my view a little harm goes a long way too.
To put these harmers on pedistals just because they have great intellects bothers me quite a lot. Those who harm and have no standing in the world end up in jail.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You seem to be saying 'mind your own business' but surely that's what happens all the time in allowing abusers to continue to abuse?
The "mind your own business" in my post referred to respecting the decisions of the recipients of abuse in choosing how to respond to it.
If their decision is to raise an almighty shitstorm and expose the abuser, no matter what their stature and reputation, then that choice should be respected too - and supported.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Yes, sorry, and this is waaay off topic again ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
People keep saying it's off-topic, which puzzles me. If one reason that Tillich is not considered relevant by some people, is because of his sexual behaviour, and others are saying that in fact, he discusses 'dark' sexuality in his work - how is that not germane to an overall consideration of Tillich?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
People keep saying it's off-topic, which puzzles me. If one reason that Tillich is not considered relevant by some people
I think relevance is a separate issue. I think we have to do two things simultaneously when examining his ideas, judge them both on their individual merits and then - because of his behaviour - evaluate how they might be tainted by his thoughts on other areas. This latter would not necessarily invalidate them - but may make us wary of the reasons for why people push certain ideas (see the example of Yoder).
I don't think that to do so would necessarily constitute putting him on a pedestal.
I think the dynamics in the case of a church leader are somewhat different - and often they are put on a pedestal by the very nature of their work (see the other thread on priests as a walking sacrament).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
It seems to me to be a false dichotomy to propose that either we validate a person and his or her work or we reject both out of hand. As I've said several times now, in coming to terms with Tillich's work what we know (which isn't much, and in not including the self-interested narrative of Hannah Tillich for reasons already discussed) of his sexual behaviour, both right and wrong, must be a factor in coming to terms with his message. This is not about honouring the man so much as it is about recognising the importance of his work and it's enduring value.
If we want to say the man was a poor role model or example to live by, you'll find very little argument from me. But to reject his work on the basis of his life is wrong-headed. Mind you, it would significantly reduce the size of the canon of great literature, classics and learned texts if we were to take this approach. Apart from the names already mentioned, we'd need to discard Hiedegger, Sartre, Evelyn Waugh, Germaine Greer, Foucault, Socrates, Virginia Wolf ... I could go on. That's just looking at my bookshelf for five minutes.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think the dynamics in the case of a church leader are somewhat different - and often they are put on a pedestal by the very nature of their work (see the other thread on priests as a walking sacrament).
Wasn't Tillich a Lutheran pastor? Did he give it up?
I think Enoch hit the nail on the head here.
As long as these people are not considered "great men or women" I'm cool with whatever.
Boogie's point that those considered "great men" should not be allowed to get away with abuse is also important.
[ 28. September 2014, 11:11: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think Enoch hit the nail on the head here.
No he/she didn't. Enoch made the mistake you and he/she have made this whole thread - conflating the value and validity of a person's work with their life independent of that work.
quote:
As long as these people are not considered "great men or women" I'm cool with whatever.
Finally!
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I do wonder how much people check out a writer's or thinker's moral credentials before reading or listening to them. After all, many people probably have dark secrets, and it's only if you are famous, that these might be exposed in later biographies.
A lot of my favourite artists had quite dubious private lives - well, who would have believed it! I was thinking recently about Walter Sickert, who was not really Jack the Ripper, but who none the less, had a fascination with prostitutes and general low life. Check out his Camden Town paintings if you are curious.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I do wonder how much people check out a writer's or thinker's moral credentials before reading or listening to them.
I do.
But I am a feminist of a very certain stripe. (A relict from the late 1970's)
That's why I stopped reading books written by men for 3 decades. And now, while I do read a few, I never actually *buy* them with my own money.
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I do wonder how much people check out a writer's or thinker's moral credentials before reading or listening to them.
I do.
But I am a feminist of a very certain stripe. (A relict from the late 1970's)
That's why I stopped reading books written by men for 3 decades. And now, while I do read a few, I never actually *buy* them with my own money.
I must say, 'relict' is a wonderful word - do you know that it used to mean 'widow'?
Anyway, do you check out the moral credentials of women writers and thinkers?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I do wonder how much people check out a writer's or thinker's moral credentials before reading or listening to them. After all, many people probably have dark secrets, and it's only if you are famous, that these might be exposed in later biographies.
This is an important part of hermeneutics, I think. But it also involves a critical appraisal, perhaps a historiography, of the sources used for constructing a moral history of a person. I don't dispute the source Cottontail put up that strongly suggested Tillich harassed one of his students. I am very dubious about claims based on Hannah Tillich's work, as I and others have said.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...As long as these people are not considered "great men or women" I'm cool with whatever.
Boogie's point that those considered "great men" should not be allowed to get away with abuse is also important.
If they made major contributions to society in other ways, should they not be looked on more leniently when they transgress against cultural mores? Surely so, in the case of Kennedy, MLK, Tiger Woods, etc. Otherwise is it not simply a case of trying to drag people down to one's own level of mediocrity?
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
If they made major contributions to society in other ways, should they not be looked on more leniently when they transgress against cultural mores? Surely so, in the case of Kennedy, MLK, Tiger Woods, etc. Otherwise is it not simply a case of trying to drag people down to one's own level of mediocrity?
Certainly not. Exactly the opposite in my opinion. If you are a public figure who aspires to occupy a public role and whom we are exhorted to respect and admire, a particular responsibility rests upon you to live up to that expectation.
I just don't buy the notion that somehow the great and the good are entitled to be given extra slack that the rest of us are not, just because they are great, good and important, or their surname happens to be King, Kennedy or Tillich.
That is one of the reasons why I keep rabbiting on about July 18th 1969.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
If they made major contributions to society in other ways, should they not be looked on more leniently when they transgress against cultural mores? Surely so, in the case of Kennedy, MLK, Tiger Woods, etc. Otherwise is it not simply a case of trying to drag people down to one's own level of mediocrity?
My initial reaction to this was an instinctive "Ewww." But I will try to respond more thoughtfully. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
This position presupposes some causal link between "transgressing against cultural mores" and achievement. I do not understand how pointing out the fault, and calling for repentance and making amends, is a form of imposing mediocrity. I think it imposes accountability, which is no bad thing.
I also find it an interesting rhetorical move to refer to adultery, not as a sin - let alone one of the Top Ten - but as a mere cultural more, and thereby more easily dismissed, perhaps?
We are also conflating adultery and sexual harassment in this conversation, when they are two different things. Adultery is bad enough; sexual harassment IMO is worse.
This thread has had a range of opinions on what is too compartmentalized, and what is too inappropriately mixed together. I noticed one of the comments in the article linked by hit the "too compartmentalized" end of the spectrum:
quote:
“There’s an enormous burden on that church to protect the heritage [John Howard Yoder] is a part of,” said James William McClendon, distinguished scholar-in-residence at the evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. “If he is slandered and defamed and abused, that’s going to hurt all of us who are grateful for the enormously important work he’s done for half a century.”
This made me so angry I had to step away from the computer for a while. The concern was all for the abuser and potential harm to his reputation. Two academics were quoted praising Yoder's "humbling himself" to the process of inquiry; if they also praised the courage of the women in coming forward, that was not included in the article.
One of the women in this case, "Clara", was quoted with what seemed a thoughtful, balanced, understandable point of view: quote:
“I cannot use his writings at this point. (I) feel that they’re not at all credible,” Clara said. “He does not live up to what he writes and what he speaks.” Yet Clara drew a distinction between the appropriateness of Yoder’s work for her personal use and its use by the wider Christian community. “The church needs to be very honest and candid and raise questions about whether one can legitimately use his material, knowing his behavior patterns,” she said. “His writings are legitimate, even if his behavior isn’t.”
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
... This position presupposes some causal link between "transgressing against cultural mores" and achievement. I do not understand how pointing out the fault, and calling for repentance and making amends, is a form of imposing mediocrity. I think it imposes accountability, which is no bad thing.
Well said.
The alternative is quote:
"Only the little people pay taxes."
or in this context, "only the little people are faithful to their husbands or wives" quote:
I also find it an interesting rhetorical move to refer to adultery, not as a sin - let alone one of the Top Ten - but as a mere cultural more, and thereby more easily dismissed, perhaps?
Again, well said.
quote:
We are also conflating adultery and sexual harassment in this conversation, when they are two different things. Adultery is bad enough; sexual harassment IMO is worse.
Although it depends on the level and nature of harassment, and how insistent it is, unless harassment tips over into actual rape, I would personally regard adultery as worse because of the betrayal, breaking of faith, involved. However, I really don't think one can grade these, with one being more or less serious than the other. They are both bad. It is like saying a cabbage is a better or worse vegetable than a carrot.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
I think the idea that adultery is worse than harrassment is absurd, given that harrassment involves a breach of consent. Also, Enoch has essentially flattened out the narrative, as if all adultery is the same. Tillich and Barth were adulterers, but the context of this adultery was that it took place with the knowledge and consent of their partners.
In short, as has happened several times in this thread, you have oversimplified some complicated issues.
And comparing Tillich to Ted Kennedy? Really?
If I agree that Tillich was not a great man, or any kind of moral example to live up to, something I've long ago agreed to, can we wonder idly about his theological legacy? Or is that a lost cause?
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Byron: "What men call gallantry, and gods adultery, / Is much more common where the climate's sultry".
Yes, all adultery and all sexual harassment is wrong, but they can be wrong in different ways and degrees.
When, in the incident I referred to upthread, George Orwell visited a young Arab prostitute in Morrocco, he was exploiting both a gender and an imperial power differential (all the more culpable because of his explicit denunciation of the latter), but he did so with the knowledge and permission of his wife, so to that extent at least it was arguably not a betrayal of a personal relationship.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Or is that a lost cause?
Right up there with communism, the Southern Confederacy and disco, I reckon.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
If they made major contributions to society in other ways, should they not be looked on more leniently when they transgress against cultural mores? Surely so, in the case of Kennedy, MLK, Tiger Woods, etc. Otherwise is it not simply a case of trying to drag people down to one's own level of mediocrity?
So, if someone was a popular and successful figure and huge contributor to society's good causes you would look on them leniently if they transgressed 'cultural mores'?
Interesting that.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Or is that a lost cause?
Right up there with communism, the Southern Confederacy and disco, I reckon.
There's a Marx-reading, slave-holding, flare-wearing individual somewhere who, for reasons unknown to him/herself, just shed a single tear.
And he/she just picked up a copy of The Courage to Be.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Or is that a lost cause?
Right up there with communism, the Southern Confederacy and disco, I reckon.
You said, Dark Knight, a page or two back, that Otto has shown us that God is wholly other. I think that Tillich is one of those who may offer an alternative to the defeatism of Otto and Barth (not sure they really go together), and any others who think there can be no conversation between faith and reason.
Tillich's description of God as our ultimate concern - that which we take completely seriously, without any reservation - seems a useful idea, to me. It's where I'd start in a conversation with Dawkins. 'Prof. Dawkins, you've spoken movingly of the wonder of life and the evolutionary processes we see at work, and you clearly delight in your ability to explain scientific ideas to others, as many scientists do. How do you think science and scientists can help us overcome ignorance and commercial greed and tackle the great problems of climate change and poverty?' I would try to bring his great meta-narratives to the surface and exchange ideas at that level.
I'm no expert on Tillich, but I think his writings show a flare for the dramatic turn of phrase, and that he is always interested in the question of what you do with your theology, what difference it makes to how you see the world and live. I think 'so what?' is often the most important question. Unfortunately, he often seems to have bought far too deeply into the psychology and sociology of his day.
I suppose I see him as a preacher more than a theologian. He is best when he has his eye on the (then) contemporary world, making connections and asking questions in both directions between theology and 'modern' life.
But very sharp. I remember, long ago, when I first got my hands on a copy of his systematic theology, finding a line in his discussion of the concept of God where he says something to the effect that to insist on the existence of God is atheistic. I cheered.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So, if someone was a popular and successful figure and huge contributor to society's good causes you would look on them leniently if they transgressed 'cultural mores'?
No, but it wouldn't be the only standard I applied to what they had achieved. How about these. Do they, if true, imply a flaw in him or in his work?
I appreciate theology may be different. And I've never read Rousseau because he was such a s***.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
hatless - I like that. Reminds me of his "God above God" line.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Or is that a lost cause?
Right up there with communism, the Southern Confederacy and disco, I reckon.
There's a Marx-reading, slave-holding, flare-wearing individual somewhere who, for reasons unknown to him/herself, just shed a single tear.
And he/she just picked up a copy of The Courage to Be.
They are currently on bail awaiting trial. Difficult to see them having much enthusiasm for Tillich. Still, you never know.
Slightly more seriously, the business about the existence of God as an orthodox belief goes back at least to the Cappadocian fathers, so it's hardly new. However, the problem with Tillich, as so frequently, is that it is not immediately obvious what he means by it, at least not without having an extensive knowledge of his underlying theology, which I don't have.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
If I wanted to tie together the sexual misconduct with the theology in Tillich, it's the fear I'd have that his God becomes so impersonal that it doesn't really matter. It's an abstraction that leads to hedonism, kind of like some of the gnostics who, deciding the material world was a sham, cared less about what happened to it. So what if you hurt someone, it's just a philosophical exercise. And the desire for a ground of all being is basically selfish.
When I was in seminary, I made up a joke about the way that some liberals of a certain kind would stare down the void that Nietzsche warned of, and then paint a big smiley face on it. They want to be able to name it and contain it and tell people what it is, to grasp it per John 1. But we ultimately fail, because we're human.
For a while I found Tillich useful, it was probably around the time I'd flirted with Spong for a bit, I recall reading someone, probably here, saying that Spong was just watered down Tillich, and there's some truth to that.
His thoughts influenced me, and in some level they're still there, but I think, especially since reading Bonhoeffer (who I still regard as one of the more influential theologians I've read) that I'm not comfortable at all to reducing God to a "ground of all being."
It sounds like you're creating a "God shaped hole" in your existential universe to plug god into, or assuming such a hole, but such a hole does not require a Jesus plug. I think if I'd stuck with Tillich, I'd be an atheist by now.
If I dared to comment on MLK, based on reading, his philandering was, like his theology, eminently pragmatic. He was a very passionate, lustful man who was away from his wife for very long periods of time, and as he couldn't handle his libido, he found practical outlets for it. He was too busy managing his movement to manage himself. Something I read online indicates that he also suffered from serious health problems due to poor diet and exercise, and he was gaining weight.
On one level, that's not much to reflect on, it's a lot like many secular politicians, a sad byproduct of a job that requires being away for your family for an unhealthily long time. And perhaps also reflective of the liberal tendency to veer away from personal piety into social holiness, as if one can exclude the other.
All this personal history, for me, is no reason to reject someone, but it is something to work into their theology. It's just another angle to take, some negative examples to put along with the positive.
I can completely understand, on that note, especially for cases of personal history, why some people would avoid these guys like the plague. It isn't very pretty.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
If God is our symbol for God then we should pick the best symbol we have. If the symbol we pick is an impersonal force or philosophic concept then that probably says something about what we value. If the symbol we pick is a man who wept then that says something else.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Yes. Sometimes I feel like "ground of all being" is just a placeholder. And maybe the point is to keep the placeholder vacant, kind of like the holy of holies in the Temple. But that doesn't seem practical, and maybe even the empty space can turn into an idol.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
The idea of "God above God" is that whatever your idea of God is, be it an impersonal force or a man who wept, it is inadequate. Whatever your idea of God is, the actual God transcends that. One of the few points of Tillich's theology that connects with Barth, who also famously stated that "when man thinks of God he makes an idol."
So I'd argue that Tillich helps, rather than harms, with that problem.
And to reply to Bullfrog, all we have to do is look at the ministers who had a conservative theology who also engaged in sexual infidelity to see the flimsiness of the proposition that this is related to liberalism. Invalid.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Everything is inadequate, and that includes nothing. Quaker silence is a liturgy, the Holy of Holies was an idol; without symbols we must pass over in silence but if we stay silent the very stones will cry out.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
That was kind of my point.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
The idea of "God above God" is that whatever your idea of God is, be it an impersonal force or a man who wept, it is inadequate
Our human idea and apprehension of the "man who wept" is inevitably going to be inadequate. However it seems probable that the Word made flesh was and (eternally) is a rather good representation of himself.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Indeed. And all Christian theology is, to some degree, talk about him.
I'm not sure I see your point.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
that if we over-emphasise the "un-knowability" of God then we by necessity minimise the fact that He has made himself known, and thus maybe even cease to be engaging in Christian theology. Which seemed to be where the conversation was tending.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Firstly, I disagree that Tillich is focusing on the unknowableness of God. That is really something we more associate with the theology of Otto and Barth. Tillich is the opposite, an apologist for theology who hoped to correlate ideas and phenomena from culture and philosophy to the ideas and symbols of theology. In that regard, like Schleiermacher, he wants to show what we all share, and as humans before God we all - religious or not - imagine God not as he/she/it is, but as we imagine he/she/it to be. So I think what is actually going on here is a discussion about the knowableness of God, contrary to your assertion.
Secondly, and this is an area I claim far less knowledge of, but the apophatic tradition in theology, most commonly associated with Eastern Orthodoxy is a tremendous resource for God-talk, one I think is largely untapped in the Western Christian tradition. So I think even if that were where the conversation were to go, this would not be unproductive.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
I must have misread
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
The idea of "God above God" is that whatever your idea of God is, be it an impersonal force or a man who wept, it is inadequate. Whatever your idea of God is, the actual God transcends that. One of the few points of Tillich's theology that connects with Barth, who also famously stated that "when man thinks of God he makes an idol."
So I'd argue that Tillich helps, rather than harms, with that problem.
And to reply to Bullfrog, all we have to do is look at the ministers who had a conservative theology who also engaged in sexual infidelity to see the flimsiness of the proposition that this is related to liberalism. Invalid.
For what it's worth that was not intended to attack liberalism in general, just conjecturing a link between theology and practice. I do remember thinking Tillich is sometimes too abstract, though admittedly it's been a while since I read him.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
