Life as Spirit

A Study of Paul Tillich's Ecological Pneumatology

Keith Ka-fu Chan

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9783110611816
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

Paul Tillich is exceptional in modern theologians that his distinctive and abundant understanding of the concept of life and spirit has the potential to engage with other disciplines, such as biology, psychology, cosmology and social science; and that his ontological understanding of "life as spirit" which is so crucial in the ecological consideration, is so complex and subtle that enables powerful and critical inter-religious dialogue in environmental ethics. This book argues that, despite the fact that Tillich did not engage in ecological and environmental theology directly, his abundant personal experience of nature-mysticism and intellectual understanding of the idea of nature rooted in his Lutheran and German idealist heritages and, more importantly, his ontological-pneumatological holistic and multi-dimensional conception of unifying and differentiated reality, perfectly and organically coupled with the theonomous vision of theology of culture, nature and morality is profoundly ecologically oriented.

1 Introduction

“Life as spirit” was a phrase employed by Paul Tillich to describe the divine dynamic ontology and the innermost part of human life and reality in his volume one of Systematic Theology. “The statement that God is Spirit means that life as spirit is the inclusive symbol for the divine life … Life as spirit can be found by man only in man, for only in him is the structure of being completely realized” (Tillich 1951: 250).4 For Tillich, this phrase was not welcome for the two reasons. The word life is both highly ambiguous and vague. It is always correlated with the polarity of life and death in the realm of living beings. However, Tillich intended to re-articulate its embracing power and extend its meaning to cover the whole reality, entitled “multi-dimensional unity of life” in his volume three of Systematic Theology, and the reality of God as Living and as Spirit in his volume one of Systematic Theology. Also, the word spirit has almost lost its genuine meaning under the modern empiricist separation between the human mind, intellect, emotion and will. However, for Tillich, the “spirit” functions not as a separated sphere alongside other functions of the human mind; it denotes fulfillment in life as an integrated whole in which all elements of the structure of being participate (Ibid.). In referring to the whole universe, “life as spirit” expresses the multi- and trans-dimensionality of all beings functioning under holistic and dynamic interrelationality. In describing the being of God, divine life as spirit expresses the dialectical movement within the process of God, whose identity (being) and separation (non-being) are overcome in the unity of the Spirit. “Life as spirit” articulates the analogical dialectical structure of “union-separation-reunion” shared by God’s life as Spirit manifesting his Trinitarian dialectical overcoming of non-being within the being-itself and life in the process of actualization of potentiality in the multi-dimensional whole of the universe. This book aims to elaborate Tillich’s above assertion, and to explore its ecological significance in dialogue with orthodox theology and Confucianism.

In this introduction, the symbol of “life” and “spirit” within Tillich’s system are mapped in order to argue that, in a formal architecture, these two symbols play embracing and crucial roles in grasping Tillich’s overall structure (1.1.). Likewise, Tillich’s theology, anthropology and cosmology are deeply and existentially grounded in his experience of nature-mysticism and, simultaneously, his appropriation of the mutual participation of the infinite and the finite which, inspired by his German intellectual heritage and the Lutheran tradition, empowered Tillich to reject the idea of the separation of human beings and nature (1.2.). Furthermore, the scholarship on Tillich’s ecological theology is reviewed, and the shortcomings of the scholarship of Tillich’s theological contribution to environmental issues assessed (1.3.). Some recent distinctive pneumatological attempts, including: Pannenberg’s “Spirit-field”, Moltmann’s cosmic Spirit, the eco-feminist idea of the Spirit, and Mark Wallace’s wounded Spirit and Pentecostal ecological theology, are reviewed (1.4.). Lastly, I sketch some distinctive approaches of Tillich’s ecological pneumatology (1.5.).

1.1 Mapping the “Life-spirit” Symbol in Tillich’s System

Without question, the categories of “life” and “spirit” function as the regulating formal principle and substantial material concept contained in the thought of Paul Tillich. Although Tillich located the correlation of the term “life” and “spirit” primarily as the doctrine of God in his volume one of Systematic Theology, both terms receive their comprehensive meanings in the lengthiest part of his volume three of Systematic Theology under the method of correlation. The theoretical significance and practical implication of both concepts should not be understood merely as one of the doctrines among others in Tillich’s systematic theology. However, the thesis of this book is an argument that both concepts are the heartbeat and backbone of his entire system in which all other fundamental ideas, concepts and doctrines are closely interconnected. Both concepts are rich and complex for us in articulating a Tillichian ecological pneumatology, even though it seems that Tillich himself did not directly engage in the environmental issues during his lifetime.5

In both Semitic and Indo-Germanic employment, the word “spirit” originally denoted the breath of life which keeps life alive. Therefore, the word “spirit” does not carry the meaning of immaterial substance, but is profoundly and fully embodied with the power of life which is not external but is the power of animation itself (Tillich 1963: 21). However, through the western dichotomy of spiritual-transcendent and material-immanent worlds, the meaning of “spirit” has been reduced into the idea of “mind” and “intellect” in which only the cognitive and psychological meanings remain (Ibid.: 22). For Tillich, losing the meaning of “spirit” inevitably leads to the breakdown of the meaning of other related terms, such as “soul”, “mind” and “reason”. Under the predominance of empirical philosophy, the human psyche is the immortal “substance” which is outside the boundary of human knowledge. Therefore, the logos of psyche (psychology) can be easily misunderstood as the science of human behavior instead of the human internal psyche. The words “mind” and “reason” are correlated and face the same fate that, without being in companion with the “spirit”, “reason” is understood as the scientific-technological functionality of “reasoning”, instead of expressing the logos-structure of all beings. For Tillich, spirit without “logos” is blind; “logos” without spirit is empty (Ibid.: 24).

For Tillich, losing the meaning of the term “spirit” denotes the breakdown and division of human beings. Pneumatology no longer belongs to anthropology; that means human being deprived of spirit. Anthropology without pneumatology is not only incomplete but also inadequate because both the unity of each human being is in danger and also the creativity of human beings would become inexplicable. Tillich emphasized the meaning of “spirit” as the unity of power and meaning. If the element of spirit is eliminated, the functionality of the human mind is internalized as the emotional element and is disconnected with the intellect. Therefore, the unity of the human person would be fragmented.

Inspired by Hegelian philosophy of the whole vision of reality, Tillich reserved the term “spirit” (with a small “s”) for a human being, which constitutes the relative and finite spirit, and is correlated with God as absolute and infinite Spirit (Tillich 1967a: 416). Firstly, the Hegelian God as Spirit is the creative power united with meaning. “This creative power in union with meaning produces in men personal self-consciousness and creates through men culture, language, the arts, the state, philosophy and religion” (Ibid.). Without the understanding of the human spirit, all creative production of the human being as person is problematic. Secondly, Tillich is aligned with Hegel in integrating the concept of spirit and life process into a dynamic whole. The human spirit itself and its various manifestations are the self-manifestation of the divine Spirit, which concretely and profoundly appears in the life process in nature and history. “All life processes are the manifestation of the divine life, only they appear in time and space, whereas in God, they are in their essential nature” (Ibid.: 417). God’s being is nothing but is essential and potential, given his historical and natural manifestations. God’s Spirit reveals Himself in and through the human spirit. Therefore, for Hegel, “everything in its essential nature is the self-expression of the divine life” (Ibid.). God’s Spirit returns to Himself through the world process, and finally through human spiritual manifestations. For Tillich, from an essential perspective, Hegel established a comprehensive vision for restoring the synthesis of divine Spirit and the human spirit through the manifestation of the divine life in the life of all beings.6

Furthermore, the term, life, also suffers the problems of ambiguity and vagueness. Generally speaking, the polarity of life and death denotes the experience of the special group of “living beings” which merely dominate the organic dimension. It is obvious that the other dimension will be excluded in this limited employment of this term. Therefore, Tillich tried to expand the realm of life, from the polarity of life and death, to the universal concept of life in which the word, life, can be elevated to a basic and radical term to cover the multi-dimensional unity of all beings. Also, due to the above limitation only covering the biological understanding of life, the ontological and universal status of life is designed and packaged as a philosophical concept, which is inspired by Aristotle’s classical distinction between dynamis and energeia (Tillich 1963: 12). Life is the actuality of potentiality. This pair of Aristotelian concepts plays an important role in two directions. Firstly, this ontological-philosophical matrix of potentiality and actuality enriches the meaning of life from materiality to spirituality in which life does not merely mean living beings, but also covers the various processes of different life forms in which the ontological self-integration, self-creation and self-transcendence are articulated. Secondly, echoing Tillich’s own philosophical-theological articulation of essential and existential framework, life is understood as a twofold perspective: the unity and diversity in its essential and potential stage, and the manifold ambiguities in its existential and actual stages (Ibid.). Based on this articulation of life as existential actuality of essential potentiality, the various forms of life would be enveloped into a pneumatological quest for an unambiguous stage of redemption.

Besides, the philosophical-theological system itself and life share the same destiny. Tillich conceived all parts of his Systematic Theology as being constituted as an organic system with a circular character, like a gestalt whole (Tillich 1957:5); this is despite the fact that the writing process for his three volumes of Systematic Theology took almost twelve years (1951 – 1963)! Tillich’s enthusiasm for systematic construction is well known; it started from his first published, but less noticed monograph, The System of the Sciences (1923), to the magnum opus, Systematic Theology (1951 – 1963). In his work he always integrated diverse, multifaceted, even rival, perspectives into a coherent and unified system which is not static and closed, but is a dynamic unity even if it were full of unsolved tensions. In his final phase of life, Tillich still insisted on defending his systematic character of thinking. For him, from Origen to Schleiermacher, Christian theology is always systematic in character. However, Tillich was never lost in establishing the system for the sake of the system. He always reminded us of the danger of Hegelian systematic-metaphysical hubris and we should bear in mind that the finite, fragmentary and fragile nature of the system is convincingly challenged by existentialism (Tillich 1957: 51).

It is dramatically ironical that, in his final volume of Systematic Theology, Tillich honestly confessed, “his system is not even complete” (Tillich 1963: 5). For Tillich, the completeness of his system is neither his theological goal nor the destiny of every system; rather he tends to accept the symbolic function of the system pointing beyond itself to the ultimate.7 The concepts of God, human beings, theological engagement, etc., are by no means static and fixed. For Tillich, static implies a death identity. Tension, polarity and dynamism symbolize authentic and concrete embodiment in reality. Therefore, systematic construction of theologizing is implicitly analogous with life processing, involving and sharing the same destiny that is fragile and fragmentary; but positively speaking, they are a gestalt whole in which those regulating principles and dynamic interrelations unite different dimensions (Tillich 1951: 58; 1963: 3). Tillich always resisted the deductive-mathematical character of a theological system in which the human existential experience is excluded and ignored.8 For the fragility of life and the fragmentation of the system, Tillich said,

It is the function of the systematic form to guarantee the consistency of cognitive assertions in all realms of methodological knowledge. In this sense some of the most passionate foes of the system are most systematic in the totality of their utterances. And it often happens that those who attack the systematic form are very impatient when they discover an inconsistency in someone else’ s thought. On the other hand, it is easy to discover gap in the most balanced system, because life continuously breaks through the systematic shell. One could say that in each system an experienced fragment of life and vision is drawn out constructively even to cover areas where life and vision are missing. And, conversely, one could say that in each fragment a system is implied which is not yet explicated. Hegel’s imposing system was built on his early fragmentary paragraphs on the dialectics of life, including the dialectics of religion and the state. The “blood” of his system, as well as its immense historical consequences, were rooted in this fragmentary vision of existence … Nietzsche’s many fragments seem to be permanently contradictory. But in all of them a system is implicit, the demonic strength of which has become manifest in the twentieth century. A fragment is an implicit system; a system is an explicit fragment” (Tillich 1951: 58. Emphasis mine).

No system should be a closed entity as life is always open and unstable. A fragmentary character is not a weakness of a system; rather it is like different pieces of stationary entities searching for another stage.9

Even if Tillich himself was disappointed with the incompleteness of his system, his blueprint for systematic theology was clearly framed into three main parts. First, the “essential” element expresses the structure of the finitude of beings and the ontological questions implied. Following the doctrine of God provides the Christian answer under the consideration of the method of correlation. Second, the “existential” element analyses the estranged alienation of the beings and all realms of human activities, which points to the quest for the Christological answer. Last, as Tillich said, the third part is based on a premise that “the essential as well as the existential characteristics are abstractions and that in reality they appear in the complex and dynamic unity which is called ‘life’” (Tillich 1951: 67). Thus, the discussion of the essential and existential beings, contained in volume one and two of Systematic Theology remain as abstractions, until the mixture of both comes into the actualization in the symbol of “life” under which the doctrine of the Spirit is designed to tackle the ambiguity of life expressed in this last part. Simply speaking, the “essential” and “existential” parts are prepared for the concept of “life” which embraces and integrates the former two abstract ideas. Also, correspondingly, pneumatology is proposed as the main doctrine to correlate the ambiguity founded in the mixture of essential and existential beings. Therefore, in the very beginning of writing his theology, Tillich anticipated the climax of his theology in the correlational apparatus of life and spirit.

Likewise, in his volume one of Systematic Theology, Tillich had already anticipated the last part, life and spirit, which would be extended into the consideration of “historical life” and the problems created in history in general. Correspondingly, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit would also extend into the doctrines of “eternal life” and the “kingdom of God” as the Christian answers. For Tillich, these three symbols, the Holy Spirit, eternal life and the kingdom of God, are not independent. Conversely, in the final part of his volume three of Systematic Theology, history and the kingdom of God, should be considered as the extended dimension of the part, life and spirit. That means, the historical dimension of the Spirit and the horizontal dimension of the multi-dimensional unity of life are articulated. Therefore, in volume three of Systematic Theology, the comprehensive vision of the vertical and horizontal dimensions, coupled with multi- and polyfaceted levels of beings and the divine, is clearly completed. As Tillich emphasized the doctrine of Spiritual Presence, the Eternal Life and the Kingdom of God are all three-in-one symbols manifesting the distinctive modality of God’s revelation in answering different dimensions of the ambiguity of life in general and the historical life in particular. “The three symbols [Spiritual Presence, Eternal Life and the Kingdom of God] use different symbolic material and, in doing so, express different directions of meaning within the same idea of unambiguous life”(Tillich 1963:108. Emphasis mine). For the sake of systematic construction, it is reasonable to assert that volume three of Systematic Theology, containing the last two parts, life and the Spirit, history and the Kingdom of God, is Tillich’s final consideration in his lifelong theological career.10 This is not to assert that volume three should be exclusively interpreted as an isolated text; rather this book argues that all other texts published in the U.S., and even other writings in his German period, are rightly to be reinterpreted in the light of this final volume. Therefore, this is exactly the reason why Tillich himself expected too much of this volume and, furthermore, after the publication of the former two volumes of his Systematic Theology, Tillich highlighted that the whole polemic burden, heavily relying on the doctrine of the Spirit, may be another reason for creating some internal difficulties and external problems.11 Whether Tillich convincingly argued his numerous theses in volume three, one thing is certain: the neglect of the ideas of life and the spirit would become unacceptable. It is clear that the whole theological construction is basically Trinitarian in framework (Being/ God – Existence/ Christ – Life/ Spirit) and, as Tillich mentioned, based on the r...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Pneumatological Theology
• 3 Spirit and the World
• 4 Persons and Nature
• 5 Towards a Theonomous Technology
• 6 Environmental Ethics in Dialogue: Tillich, Orthodox Theology and Confucianism
• 7 Conclusion
• References
• Name Index
• Subject Index