rivanna

“Humor is good at getting people to think about serious issues, isn’t it?” yes, definitely! I’m embarassed to admit I haven’t seen any Monty Python films, but know people who rave about them. My all-time favorite for combining humor and spiritual transformation is “Groundhog Day” - great comedy, great message. also remember enjoying these -- Keeping the Faith Dogma Bruce (and Evan) Almighty Michael (John Travolta as the very down-to-earth angel) Heaven can wait Oh God! others I’ve heard about in this category but haven’t seen-- Religulous Wholly Moses Saved! Sister Act The Gods Must Be Crazy

Some notable films I've seen fairly recently - “Martha Marcy May Marlene” –a young woman trying to leave a quasi-religious cult - scary “A Separation” –moving, personal glimpses into Iranian society becoming increasingly fragmented - sad “Beginners” – after his wife dies, a 75 yr old father reveals to his son that he is gay, and explores a new life – upbeat “Tree of Life” – the story of a 1950’s Texas family, interwoven with evolutionary imagery that seems to tie the narrative to the origins of life, the history of the universe. The Classical music and visual effects are memorable, but to me the attempt at portraying an ‘everyfamily’ is misleading –three sons and no daughters, the wife is saintly and downtrodden, the husband devoted but domineering. Was intrigued by the bible allusions, and the statements about nature / grace.

There’s one more sermon in this book I thought worth commenting on, chapter 16 --“Is there any word from the Lord?” It focuses on the anxiety of making important decisions, wanting to be directed by divine wisdom, needing courage to accept doubt, possible error or failure. Tillich emphasizes that the Word of God was/is Jesus’ life, his being, beyond any particular words; and can never be owned by any one group. The conclusion to this chapter seems to me one of his best points: “a word from the Lord is always present and tries to be perceived by us. It is like the air, surrounding us, omnipresent… It is the empty space in our souls which it tries to enter, here and now. So the last question is: Is there an empty space in your soul? Or is everything filled with that which is transitory, ultimately insignificant, however important it tries to be? Listening with an open soul, keeping an empty space in our inner life, this is the only thing we can do. Therefore, let us keep open our ears and our hearts, and ask with great seriousness and passion: Is there a word from the Lord, a word for me, here and now? It is there, it tries to come to you.” Other ways of putting it -- “God dwells only where humans step back to give him room.” – Henri Nouwen “There is a crack in everything / that’s how the light gets in” – Leonard Cohen or as Richard Rohr says, God enters through the wound….your woundedness is the place that the Holy Spirit can pour the healing Presence in.

My favorite source of Trek news is trekmovie.com -- lots of updates on the making of the new film, etc. Here is Nichelle Nichols (Uhura) with President Obama on Feb. 29, giving the Vulcan salute -- she was speaking at a NASA event

Chapter 20, “Our Ultimate Concern” has some of Tillich’s most passionate writing, on a subject which has always appealed to me—the story in Luke about Jesus with Mary and Martha. I think it speaks to both men and women – the active and passive side in everyone, extrovert / introvert etc. In my own life I see both sides. This story shouldn’t be taken as a value judgment of doing / being, or spirit / flesh, or works / faith or contemplation vs social activism. There are plenty of times when Jesus teaches the need to actively help others. As Tillich points out, Martha’s service is important – work that keeps the world running. But on the other hand Martha is not going around the village donating food to the poor. She is proving herself worthy and angrily judging her sister, which is why Jesus chides her. Martha anxiously conforms to the world, the traditions that bound women to household tasks. Mary was sitting at Jesus’ feet, open to what she could learn, at a time when women were forbidden even to study the Torah. Theologians have defined the “one needful thing” as worship, piety, or simply presence. But Tillich rejects religion, even God, as the answer-- he says “the first and last answer I can give is to be concerned ultimately, unconditionally, infinitely… Mary was infinitely concerned.” The finite concerns are defined as things which can be taken from us--they all come to an end; they all bring anxiety. Tillich leaves the “one needful thing” only vaguely defined – Jesus’s words did as well, it’s open to interpretation. I like what Thomas Merton wrote about the Mary / Martha story: “if we have the courage to let almost everything else go, we will probably be able to retain the ‘one thing necessary’ for us -whatever it may be. Happiness consists in finding out precisely what the ‘one thing necessary’ may be, in our lives, and in gladly relinquishing all the rest. For then, by a divine paradox, we find that everything else is given us together with the one thing we needed.”

Nice post. Chapter 11, “Has the Messiah Come?” opens with Simeon’s song of praise when he sees the infant Jesus presented in the temple. The chapter concludes with Tillich saying “the event of salvation is a birth…the mystery of salvation is the mystery of a child.” Certainly the concept of “new being” is illustrated by the image of a newborn. Tillich delves into the deep contrast between the Jewish and Christian views on the Messiah, and the kingdom of God not manifesting in the world as originally expected. Maybe he’s saying we can only see what we’re looking for, what we have eyes to see -? A lot more could be said about the history and paradox in this meditation.

Chapter 10 covers so much ground I can hardly wrap my mind around it--probably I’m just stating the obvious, but here are a few responses. I like how Tillich brings us into the bible scene, asks us to imagine ourselves in the place of the priests, scribes and elders who demanded an explanation from Jesus. He had just cleansed the temple, and was boldly continuing to teach there-- in effect, telling people that what they had previously gotten from the Temple intermediaries and sacrificial rites, could now be experienced directly …Jesus was the new Temple, and God is “not circumscribed to a definite place.” Jesus outwits the officials who tried to convict him of blasphemy, by exposing their real concerns –not God, but their own power and control of the people. As David suggested, Tillich makes us see that Jesus as the crucified one, transcends all other claims to authority. The Cross is the greatest symbol as it reminds us he was not the messiah people expected, the conquering military hero, but the suffering servant who emptied himself of all glory, laid down his life for the people. The unanswered question ends up showing that authority is not the point, love is. As Tillich says of Jesus, “the only test of the prophets was the power of what they had to say...that is what He tells them.” I also appreciate David’s point about the feminine side of God, something Tillich’s language rarely expresses…though I think he implicitly includes women as half of the earliest form of authority, our parents. As children we are totally dependent on those who take care of us. And throughout our lives, it seems true that the people who have the most power over us are not the ones who insist on hierarchy and domination, but those who minister to us, lift our hearts, heal our wounds, dedicate themselves to our well being. This sermon reminds us that the Christian message has always had a subversive element, undermining rigid institutions and boundaries. On the other hand, Tillich also considers the existential response, that of having no guide or meaning but oneself, a loneliness which leads to despair. I like how Tillich seems to define the kingdom of God –not the “earthly image of the heavenly ruler of the Church, but a medium through which the spiritual substance of our lives is preserved and protected and reborn.”

So words really do matter….yes. I guess many who started on this book don’t relate to Tillich’s language for one reason or another. Anyway, a look at chapter 9 -- “Faith and Uncertainty” – This one opens with a quote from Martin Luther-- “What is more miserable than uncertainty?” I’m not familiar with the context-- his religious dispute with Erasmus-- but two points in this sermon stood out for me. One is “that certainty which Paul and Luther defend….clearly it is not self certainty.” Paul is not sure of himself, but he is utterly sure of the gospel-- as Tillich says, “it is lost the moment we begin to regard it as our certainty.” The other is “we do not have God as an object of our knowledge, He has us as the subject of our existence.…We may not comprehend, but we are comprehended. We may not grasp anything in the depth of our uncertainty, but that we are grasped by something ultimate….remains absolutely certain.” It seems that faith means staying humble about our own limited understanding, while trusting in divine grace or guidance – or as Tillich says, “the Ground of our existence.” (I’m surprised he doesn’t use the word trust in this sermon). Faith and/or certainty were discussed in a thread Joseph started last year -- http://tcpc.ipbhost....-not-certainty/

Each one of these chapters covers so much. To me, Tillich’s power of expression is even more remarkable considering that English was not his first language. In Chapter 8 the idea that statements can only point to truth, not contain it, reminds me of several things– Christ as the Logos or Word; the fact that Jesus never wrote his teachings down; and Paul’s phrase “the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life.” The emphasis on personal “encounters” in contrast to doctrine seems essential. Tillich puts the oral and written word on the same level, not sure about that, but neither can completely define truth. The goal of remaining or “participating in His being” could have quite different meanings for different people. It helps to have these guidelines – “distrust every claim to truth that is not united with love” and “the truth that makes us free from our false self, to be the self grounded in true reality.” “There is no freedom where there is ignorant and fanatical rejection of foreign ideas and ways of life, where one’s own truth is called the ultimate truth.” I tend to agree with everything he says here... makes me question my own life more, if not find more answers. There’s another sermon from Tillich’s Shaking of the Foundations published the same year, called “Doing the Truth” -an excerpt - “Truth in Christianity is something which happens, bound to a special place, a special time, to a special personality. Truth is something new which is done by God in history, and done in the individual life….the mystery of truth in Christianity is an event which has taken place, and which takes place again and again. Truth is a stream of life, centered in Christ, actualized in everybody who is connected with Him…In Christianity truth is found, it is done, and done it is found. Truth is the new creation…”

I much prefer the original version of the 8 points, keeping the word God in. Probably Tillich would too, though he often refers to God as ground of being or ultimate unity. It just seems like an abstract phrase substituted for God in every statement denies the personal dimension, the I-Thou relationship of prayer.

“the word God has been removed from point one of the eight points.” This raises an interesting question--in Points 1, 2, 3, and 7 on this board the word God is used; but on the home page link to the tcpc points, the word God has been removed from all 8 points, changed to “sacredness and oneness or unity of all life.” Definitely a disparity between the two versions- maybe the one on this board needs to be updated? I like “New Being” better than “Christ” I guess I use them interchangeably, but I understand that is not true for most people, will try to keep that in mind. From the Kimball article you suggested –liked Tillich’s affirmation that ideally, the sacred and secular would not be separate realms – as in Revelation, “there will be no temple in the heavenly Jerusalem, for God will be all in all.” There’s a nice description of Tillich by Harvard Divinity School president Nathan Pusey-- “He saw more clearly than most the predicament of the intelligent, educated, concerned people in the 20th century who had been cut off from the energies of faith by the cultural orthodoxies of this period. And he wanted more than anything else, deeply and compassionately, to be of help; and he was of help because, artist and philosopher as well as theologian, he cared for culture as well as for Christ.” Yet I agree that Tillich uses the word creativity to mean far more or other than esthetics – more like the courage to be.

If no one has further comments on chapter 6 I guess we can go on. Maybe Mike will have more time later. I really don’t feel qualified to discuss the intellectual / philosophical undercurrents of Tillich’s work, but here is my response to the next sermon. In chapter 7 Tillich focuses on one of Paul’s famous lines from the letter to the Romans –that nothing can separate us from Christ’s love –and ‘unpacks’ it in a way that hadn’t occurred to me before. I’d always associated that passage with the dire situation the early disciples faced—the physical hardships, being persecuted or put to death. The context is Paul referring to “sufferings of the present time” and exhorting hope in the unfolding of a new order and in their own clear conscience. But Tillich says that Romans 8:38 means not only threatening things, but good things can come between us and God’s love. The words Life, angels, principalities, and height are all positive terms. Tillich explores each of the potentially divisive influences – human love, pursuit of knowledge or achievements, the power to build and organize communities, other ostensibly good involvements. Each can throw us too far up or down, to rest in the ultimate permanence of God’s love for us, which is beyond “moments of victory and defeat, fulfillment and emptiness, elevation and depression.” He goes on to explain that “nothing else in all creation” means “the powers of this world are creatures as we are, they are limited…they cannot destroy the meaning of our lives even if they can destroy our lives.” Finally Tillich turns to our feelings of unworthiness, and affirms that what we feel is unacceptable in ourselves is accepted by God--our despair about our lives can’t separate us from the ultimate unity. He echoes the writer in John -- “even though our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts and knows all things.” Or as a contemporary author might say, it’s about divine connection, not human perfection. I can certainly understand why many see Tillich’s work as too dated – this chapter refers to his days as a chaplain in WWI. His paragraphs on Providence were a bit confusing to me, it’s a term we hardly use any more. Would his message be any different if he were writing in these times? I don’t know. We’re always in the hands of ambiguous forces beyond our control, and as Tillich suggests, humans have as deep a capacity for self destruction as for creativity. But I like this idea–“Faith is the courage to say Yes to one’s own life and life in general, in spite of the insecurities and catastrophes of existence.” (did he get this from Jacob Boehme’s “divine yes and no” ?) Saying yes to one’s life in spite of everything –perhaps that’s the essence of this meditation.

Just a few responses to this chapter, hopefully others who started will jump back in too. In “Holy Waste” Tillich revisits the gospel scene with the anointing woman in the first chapter, only it’s from Mark instead of Luke, and Jesus’ head is anointed instead of his feet. Some lines that resonated with me: “people are sick not only because they have not received love, but also because they are not allowed to give love, to waste themselves.” Maybe Tillich was advocating more passion and openness as opposed to emotional repression and conforming to social expectations-? That would seem consistent with the image we have of the early 1950’s culture. David’s comparison of the 1960’s values with Tillich’s message about the cross, seems very insightful. Tillich’s last paragraph implies that suffering can never be done away with, no matter how successful or productive a society becomes. Suffering changes from one form to another, it cannot be eliminated from human life. The Cross symbolizes the necessary acceptance of un-control, non-being, or ultimate anxiety into oneself. Another part I liked - “There is no creativity, divine or human, without the holy waste which comes out of the creative abundance of the heart and does not ask, What use is this?” As a sometime artist/poet I can vouch for that. Tillich brings in the example of the sea monster from the book of Job, as one of God’s many expressions-- the profound mystery of God’s creation, not always useful or beneficial to humans. “In the self-surrendering love of the Cross, reason and ecstasy, moral obedience and sacred waste are united.” Tillich seems to comprehend how Jesus knew exactly what he was doing, how it carried out his mission in the most effective way, yet at the same time did it with passion and extravagant devotion-- like the woman who anointed him. The energy of an outpouring of pure emotion is never lost, it endures longer than the flesh. This chapter reminded me also that “loving wastefully” is a phrase John Spong uses in his work-- you see Tillich’s influence there.

These posts were both helpful in clarifying, for me. As David noted - Tillich distinguishes between neurotic and existential anxiety. From Tillich’s The Courage to Be: “Pathological anxiety is an object of medical healing. Existential anxiety is an object of priestly help. The minister may be a healer and the psychotherapist a priest, and each person may be both in relation to the neighbor, but the functions should not be confused.” About Joseph’s quote from Tillich - “the people whom Jesus could heal and can heal are those who did and do this self-surrender to the healing power in Him” (surrender meaning trust, reliance). I used to think everyone Jesus healed actively sought his help, but of the 21 healings reported in the gospel, only 7 of the recipients expressed faith / desire to be cured. Sometimes it was the confidence of an intermediary – the Roman centurion, the paralytic brought in through the roof, Jairus’ daughter, the Gadarene demoniac, etc. Sometimes no one involved showed faith – Lazarus, Malchus’ ear, etc. Maybe some healings were done to create faith. And what would Tillich say about Paul, the apostle who prayed three times to be healed of his affliction, and was denied.

It does seem that Tillich’s affirmations about healing are couched in language that keeps them tentative, intermittent – I think David’s paraphrase is a very apt take on this chapter--“Healing does not take us to another world.” Two things stand out for me in chapter 5 – the first part almost sounds like a Christian science position (?). It echoes the idea that therapy offers explanations; spirituality offers forgiveness. Religion heals by accepting the unacceptable. The second part I relate to particularly since he uses esthetic terms – focusing on the spiritual image of Jesus that we have in our minds, from the bible, sermons, and the arts-- how this picture might or might not have the same healing effect for us today. “How do we paint Jesus the Christ? The stories in the gospel of Matthew …paint him as the healer. It is astonishing that this color, this powerful trait of His character, has more and more been lost in our time. The grayish colors of a moral teacher, the soft traits of a suffering servant have prevailed…Have we received healing forces here and there from the power of the picture of Jesus as the savior?” etc. Imagination, putting ourselves in the place of someone Jesus gave new life to, seems essential in Tillich’s view.

It’s good to have reflections from someone who has clearly studied Tillich in depth. Personally I can’t see substantial distinctions between Tillich’s view and PC, only a difference of language or style rather than meaning. To me, separating the idea of secular justice from Tillich’s “ground of being” morality seems contrived somehow, and IMHO “living in two orders” does not conflict with the unity of life concept. It seems to me that the oneness of human life includes the dynamic of alternately feeling / not feeling grace, belonging, acceptance. I don’t understand how Tillich would disagree with point 1-- saying that we’ve “found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus.” Also don’t see how Tillich would deny point 2 – “we affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey.” – Tillich was especially interested in Buddhist mysticism, for one thing. But I’ve only scratched the surface of Tillich’s work, and these philosophical subtleties are probably beyond me – Mike could relate to them better :-) Maybe we can go on to the next chapter - ?

I just wanted to respond to a question George brought up yesterday, on Jesus’ quote about the poor in Matthew and Mark – it’s also in John, the same scene towards the end when he’s visited at dinner by the anointing woman. Mary had bought an alabaster jar of nard and was rubbing the ointment into his feet and wiping them with her hair, which women were supposed to let down only in private. Her action was socially taboo and intensely sensual. But also it was an extravagant act of devotion—the large jar of ointment was worthy of a king, a gift of royal honor in anticipation of his death. In the gospel of John, Judas responds with indignation -- "Why wasn't this sold for 300 hundred denari and the money given to the poor?" John's version states he didn't really care about the poor; perhaps even stole from the disciples’ funds, and was about to betray his master. Jesus' response to Judas is mild reproach or impatience, ending with: "You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me." What is implied in Jesus' statement—"Let her alone so that she may keep it for the day of my burial"—is that Mary didn't use the whole jar but kept some for later. Since Jesus was crucified, no anointing at burial was allowed; perhaps that explains her weeping at the feet that would soon be pierced. According to the commentary below, Jesus’ words reflect a tradition in the Jewish culture of the time, that valued supreme acts of mercy for those about to die, even more than relief for the poor. So the quote has to be taken as a singular exception, mainly a defense of the woman involved. ..definitely not to be misinterpreted as apathy or disregard for the poor. http://gotell.org/pd..._commentary.pdf

To me it’s interesting that the golden rule appears in some form in every major religion now, and in Jesus’ time was already present in Confucius and the Tao, the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, Hinduism, in Leviticus and other scriptures long before the gospel. The “ethics of reciprocity” code was known to Jesus’ audience. Tillich points out that his teaching– the New Being – goes beyond it. The one problem I had at first with this chapter was that, in everyday behavior with people, we don’t normally go through an analytical process before acting— asking ourselves “am I treating the other person the way I want to be treated? do I know for sure what way that is? and is it for the best?” In my mind, the golden rule has been identified simply with the disposition to “Be loving / compassionate.” However it seems that Tillich draws a contrast between the two concepts to advocate action that flows naturally from the heart, without expectation, rather than from the head. As in Jesus’ Good Samaritan parable. side note – part of what I appreciate about Tillich is his affinity for psychology, and for the arts. On the same site there’s an essay by him on modern art and existentialism. To me it’s another example of his liberal mindedness—most of the artists and poets I’ve worked with through the years lean to the left. Also I’m a little surprised that his writing can be seen as a challenge to the PC church – though when it comes to church matters I wouldn’t know.

I thought David’s point about the context of this sermon was well taken-- it must have seemed radical to choose Elsa for his example of “making God transparent in every moment without a single theological conversation." She certainly was subjected to a lot of brutality, danger and hardship in her work. Jenell, it sounds like you’ve had more than your share of issues with hard-core fundamentalism. I suppose that anger and pain is what fuels many of the posts on this board. I just don’t have that axe to grind. But I need to read authors like Tillich because he speaks to the existential, Stoic, or cynical atmosphere that my parents’ generation passed on to me, in the midst of what he calls “the darkest, most destructive and cruel of all centuries since the dawn of mankind.” Is there more to be said about this chapter -? It seems like one of the simpler ones. Chapter 4, “The Golden Rule” looks much more challenging. Tillich says the golden rule is limited, both in its positive and negative form, that it’s not the whole content of the gospel. He calls it “calculating justice” –“the assertion that God is love, infinitely transcends the golden rule, for it does not tell us what we should wish others would do to us.” I haven’t really thought through his examples yet, but wonder is it too idealistic, impossible to put into practice? or is this an important qualification? The meaning isn’t clear to me, but it reminded me of Jim Burklo in his book Open Christianity-- he suggests we adopt instead “the diamond rule” – do unto others as they would have you do unto them. (of course we can’t really know that either). Tillich’s writing is full of paradox, that is for sure!

Kshewfelt, I’m not a churchgoer, but your description reminds me of when I went to a women’s bible study group, which was supposedly open and non-denominational, and in discussing the cross, I suggested an alternative interpretation to substitutionary atonement. Reactions about particular beliefs can be disturbing. Yet as friends, hosts, they couldn’t have been nicer. Just a couple further responses on chapter 2. I wondered if Tillich uses the term “New Being / Creation” as equivalent to the “kingdom of God/ Heaven”—to avoid the cultural baggage associated with the word kingdom. Or is there a distinction of meaning? Also thought this phrasing, from another work, was clarifying – “Jesus is considered the bearer of the New Being, but Tillich suggests he isn’t necessarily the only saving power. Jesus is the standard for salvation— not the exclusive entry point into it. He stands as a model for anything that brings hope, healing, reconciliation, and love.” Since these meditations are so short, maybe we could cover one a week - ? Chapter 3 “The Power of Love” focuses on Elsa Brandstrom, known for courageously helping prisoners of war in Russia. Tillich’s point about her life seems straightforward. Many humanitarian contributions, big and small, are made all the time by people who ‘abide in love’ but have no allegiance to Christianity or any religion.

Mike, can we go on to the next chapter? “The New Being” covers a lot of ground, with some of Tillich’s most eloquent affirmations. To me, his view anticipates the essence of PC --its transcendence of religious doctrines and rituals, its openness, inclusiveness. He states there is no interest in converting others -- “Christianity as such is of no avail….no religion matters, only a new state of things.” The New Creation exists whenever we get past our own provincialism – “personal distaste, racial strangeness, national conflicts, differences of sex, age, beauty, strength, knowledge, all the other innumerable causes of separation.” My one quibble is that in exploring the idea of circumcision he never mentions that it applied only to males. Perhaps Tillich was somewhat patriarchal / chauvinistic, even considering the typical language usage of his times—I don’t know. That said, the second half of the sermon really speaks to me, especially where he says reconciliation is not something to try for, but simply accept; and where he states that “resurrection happens now, or it does not happen at all.” However, Tillich also implies the New Being is not a one time event, a constant state of mind-- we continue to live in two orders. “Having as having not – that is the right attitude toward everything great and wonderful in life, even religion and Christianity. But it is not the right attitude toward the New Creation. Toward it, the right attitude is passionate and infinite longing….A New Creation has appeared, and we are all asked to participate in it: reconciliation, reunion, resurrection.We don’t need to do anything, we must only be grasped by it….Where the New Reality appears, one feels united with God, the ground of one’s existence. One has what has been called the love of one’s destiny, the courage to take upon ourselves our own anxiety. Then one has the astonishing experience of feeling reunited with one’s self, not in pride and false satisfaction, but in deep self-acceptance. One accepts one’s self as something which is eternally important, eternally loved, eternally accepted. There is a center, a direction, a meaning for life…Where there is real healing, there is the New Being.”

I thought David's post made several good points, new to me, that added a meaningful perspective on this chapter. Not sure I really understand the emphasis on "no cause and effect" --forgiveness as something that just happens--but it suggests to me an ultimate mystery, something beyond our control or mental grasp. It does depend on our being open to it. Paul Tillich seems to share a mystical approach similar to Paul of the new testament, IMHO. Also thought it was interesting to view Jesus not as the necessary agent of forgiveness, only an example of it. Perhaps the essence of this chapter could be summed up by David's words, "we are all both righteous and sinner. Tillich would encourage us to love based on being sinners, while at the same time encourage us to be righteous."

Looking just at this chapter, I don't see that Jesus is stuck between two groups, or that violence was a possibility. IMHO, he was not so concerned with what people believed or didn't believe about him, as with their actions and heart attitudes. In this scenario, he gently chides the Pharisees for their scornful judgment of the supplicant. I think Tillich uses the term "righteous" here somewhat differently than in the bible--he suggests that people who feel sure they're doing the right thing all the time, never doubting themselves, probably aren't open to the process of inner transformation he describes. Maybe I should add that I have always seen myself as a bit of an outsider in this group, and it makes my communication problematic at times. I was raised in a secular, liberal environment, and only "discovered" Christianity in my twenties. So Tillich appeals to me because his intellectual dialogue seems to be more with existentialism or even nihilism, than with fundamentalism, unlike many contemporary PC writers.

I agree the bible story could apply to anyone who identifies as a misfit or outsider. Dutch wrote, "Tillich's portrayal of the righteous is always a challenge, but does it mean that one must be born again to experience reunion and resurrection?" I think not...Tillich's only real critique of the righteous in this sermon is that the people at the table with Jesus cared more about propriety than the spontaneous outpouring of gratitude and devotion by the woman weeping at Jesus' feet. Tillich focuses on the contrast between acting out of obedience, conformity, convention --and acting out of love. He is affirming humility as opposed to complacency. Also, Tillich points out that we need to face the depth of our own anxiety and despair before the sense of ultimate acceptance enters in ...."In the midst of our futile attempts to make ourselves worthy, in our despair about the inescapable failure of these attempts, we are suddenly grasped by the certainty that we are forgiven." This down and up, dark to light movement seems to me one of the vital truths he repeats through the bits and pieces I've read, at least.

Matt, thanks-- however, to me the image of a Jesus who "rightly chastises those who resist him" sounds too much like an evangelical claim...in my eyes, and I think Tillich's, Jesus was not forceful or aggressive but more the suffering servant.