Chapter III
Symbols of Faith
from Paul Tillich’s DYNAMICS OF FAITH
1. The meaning of symbol
“Man’s ultimate concern must be expressed
symbolically, because symbolic language alone is able to
express the ultimate.”
CHARACTERISTICS OF SYMBOLS:
(1) Signs and symbols .... they have this in common:
they both point beyond themselves.
But signs do not participate in the reality to which they
point, while symbols do.
E.g., the flag participates in some greater reality while the red light at the corner does not.
(others: a trophy, e.g., a game ball; a photo of a loved-one; a name of a sacred hero,
personal or communal: Jesus, Buddha, or Babe Ruth or Jackie Robinson, or Albert
Schweitzer or Vincent Van Gogh).
Signs can be changed or replaced for practical reasons, while
symbols cannot be simply replaced.
(this relates to their living, organic, communally important nature).
(2) Symbols participate in the reality to which they
point.
(3) They open up levels of reality which are otherwise
closed to us...
for example, poems and songs and paintings reveal things about reality which science
cannot.
(4) They unlock dimensions of the soul which
correspond to dimensions of reality unlocked for us.
“There are within us dimensions of which we cannot become aware of except through
symbols.” p. 43
(5) Symbols cannot be produced intentionally. They
grow out of the collective unconscious of the individual
or group.
(6) As they are alive, they also grow and die...
from failure to get a response in the people where they originally found expression. p. 43.
Religious symbols
Ultimate Concern must be expressed symbolically.
But all symbols are concrete, finite, limited.
Hence, doubt about them as adequate to express one’s UC must
always exist.
And risk must be taken in being Uconcerned.
Religious symbols of UC... “God”
p. 44,45: “Religiously speaking, God transcends his own name.”
I.e., no finite reality can express the ultimate directly and properly ...
e.g., neither the nation nor success
They are “idolatrous symbols.” (p. 44)
for UC is infinite, while the concrete is always finite.
Discussions about the existence of God are meaningless.
It is meaningless to question the ultimacy of an ultimate concern.
The symbolic expression of god or of ultimate concern varies endlessly in human history.
These various ‘gods’ are not to be found in the whole of reality: “no divine being exists”
in this concrete sense.
The question is: which of these innumerable
symbols of faith is most adequate to the meaning
of faith?
Which expresses the ultimate without idolatrous elements?
Other symbols of faith: power, love, justice, etc.
Taken from concrete, human, daily experience, they are used to express the ultimate, but
they are not actualities to be looked for in nature and history.
3.
SYMBOLS AND MYTHS
Myths = stories of the gods (Greek word, “mythos”)
“Myths are symbols of faith combined in stories about
divine-human encounters.” p. 49
“Myths are always present in every act of faith, because the
language of faith is the symbol.”
Criticism of Myth:
First: rejects many gods for One God.
Second: Monotheism: criticized by “demythologization”
Bringing the divine into the concrete... into action in space and time... limits the divine...
turns the infinite in to the finite, and hence, the ultimate is not vulnerable to criticism: it is
limited, not ultimate in this concrete form.
1.
recognize a symbol as symbol, and myth as myth
“Broken myth” ... myth understood as myth but not rejected.
2.
meaning or kerygma is then to be searched for.
Third:
the attempt to reject all symbols and myths
This must be rejected as a criticism of myth:
It can never be successful.
Symbol & myth are forms of human consciousness which are always present.
“One can replace one myth by another, but one cannot remove the myth from man’s
spiritual life.”
“For the myth is the combination of symbols of our ultimate concern.” p. 50
the Radical criticism of myth
Origin: primitive mythological consciousness fears
demythologization.
It thinks that the broken myth has lost its truth and convincing power.
Without the literalness of the myth, one’s security and certainty seem threatened.
Authoritarian politics and religion support this resistance, in order to give security to
the people under their control and to give power to themselves.
Resistance to demythologization:
LITERALISM
Symbols & myths are taken literally, in their immediate
meaning.
The character of the symbol to point beyond itself is
disregarded.
Examples:
Creation, the fall of Adam, virgin birth, resurrection and ascension, the second
coming of Christ & the apocalyptic catastrophe of the end of the world... all
understood to be events in time and space.
Presupposition of this literalism: that God is a being like
other beings in the universe.
This deprives God of ultimacy, and reduces God to the level of finitude and concrete
realities.
“Faith, if it takes its symbols literally, becomes idolatrous!” p. 52
Two stages of literalism:
1.
Natural: original, innocent, believing state of mind ...
“The primitive period of individuals and groups consists in the inability to separate
the creations of symbolic imagination from the facts which can be verified through
observation and experiment.” p. 52
...which sees the myths as real events, in accordance with their own worlds views and
metaphysical ideas.
“This state has a full right of its own and should not be disturbed...in individuals or
groups...
up to the moment when man’s questioning mind breaks the natural acceptance of the
mythological visions as literal.” p. 52
Two reactions are possible at this questioning moment:
1.
Replace the unbroken myth with the broken myth.
2.
Repress questions (“half consciously, half unconsciously”) and revert to
literalism, with the support of authority: e.g., the Church or Bible.
This is “reactive literalism”:
2.
Reactive literalism
clings to fundamental, literal acceptance of myth and symbols as concrete realities.
Unjustifiable if a mature mind is “broken in its personal center by political or
psychological methods, split in his unity, and hurt in his integrity.” p.53
This is repression and aggression against autonomous thought.
Summary:
Symbols of faith cannot be replaced artificially by other
symbols, nor removed by scientific criticism. “They have a
genuine standing in the human mind...”
Their symbolic nature is their power and “truth”
“Nothing less than symbols and myths can express our
ultimate concern.” p 53
Final question: are myths only about nature?
Tillich says no: there are historical myths, too...
earth as a battleground between good and evil
God choosing and leading his people
history having a beginning, middle, and end
Christ living and dying in time, being resurrected, coming
again at the end of time...