All living beings have concerns in life such as whether or not they have enough money for gas to get back and forth to work until the next paycheck, or if the power will get shut off due to lack of payment. Man, however, also has spiritual concerns. According to Tillich, “faith is the state of being ultimately concerned” (Smith, 2003). The Ultimate Concern is that which demands the complete surrender of the person who faithfully accepts the Ultimate. Additionally, faith in and surrender to the Ultimate promises total completion regardless of what must be sacrificed in the name of faith. Tillich argues that faith is a task for the believer’s complete being. for example, it is an act of both the conscious and the unconscious. He refers
…show more content…
However, when things like a nation or success become elevated to the level of ultimacy, they are merely false or idolatrous symbols of ultimate concern. Tillich also discusses that myths are an integral part of our ultimate concern. While a myth must be recognized as a myth (much like how a symbol must be recognized as a symbol), Tillich argues that any attempt to remove the mythological from our consciousness will be unsuccessful because myths signify a collection of symbols which stand for our ultimate concern. One might be able to replace one myth with another, but he could never completely remove mythology from human consciousness. In fact, Tillich argues that even a “broken myth,” one which has been proven to be understood as a myth and has not been removed from or replaced within consciousness, cannot be replaced with a scientific substitute because myths are the symbolic language of faith (Fesser, 1970). However, Tillich also warns that one cannot simply accept myths as literal truths because they then lose their symbolic meaning and rob God of his standing as the …show more content…
In my church, we don't refer to God as a ¨implied being.¨ Although we too value symbols such as the cross and images said to be God, we pray to Him with a firm belief He is listening which gives us a great comfort. The test of Tillich’s most profound claim is his Systematic Theology; the test of his Systematic Theology, not the only test but for our purposes, the fundamental test, is his doctrine of God. The language by which we differentiate one object from another, one person from another, cannot properly and directly be used of God. Tillich is not a pantheist, but he is saying that God is more like the structure of all things, or the force that in the green grass drives all things than He is like any particular thing of our experience. God is not an object within reality, but “the ground of reality” or “the matrix of reality.” An exact notion of God, then, cannot be reached by the operations, or according to the methods, by which we reach other notions. God is not the object of our various operations of experiencing, nor can He be pointed to ostensively, nor can He be conceived of as a scientific hypothesis. We don't need God in those ordinary experiences which we can tend to
However, when things like a nation or success become elevated to the level of ultimacy, they are merely false or idolatrous symbols of ultimate concern. Tillich also discusses that myths are an integral part of our ultimate concern. While a myth must be recognized as a myth (much like how a symbol must be recognized as a symbol), Tillich argues that any attempt to remove the mythological from our consciousness will be unsuccessful because myths signify a collection of symbols which stand for our ultimate concern. One might be able to replace one myth with another, but he could never completely remove mythology from human consciousness. In fact, Tillich argues that even a “broken myth,” one which has been proven to be understood as a myth and has not been removed from or replaced within consciousness, cannot be replaced with a scientific substitute because myths are the symbolic language of faith (Fesser, 1970). However, Tillich also warns that one cannot simply accept myths as literal truths because they then lose their symbolic meaning and rob God of his standing as the …show more content…
In my church, we don't refer to God as a ¨implied being.¨ Although we too value symbols such as the cross and images said to be God, we pray to Him with a firm belief He is listening which gives us a great comfort. The test of Tillich’s most profound claim is his Systematic Theology; the test of his Systematic Theology, not the only test but for our purposes, the fundamental test, is his doctrine of God. The language by which we differentiate one object from another, one person from another, cannot properly and directly be used of God. Tillich is not a pantheist, but he is saying that God is more like the structure of all things, or the force that in the green grass drives all things than He is like any particular thing of our experience. God is not an object within reality, but “the ground of reality” or “the matrix of reality.” An exact notion of God, then, cannot be reached by the operations, or according to the methods, by which we reach other notions. God is not the object of our various operations of experiencing, nor can He be pointed to ostensively, nor can He be conceived of as a scientific hypothesis. We don't need God in those ordinary experiences which we can tend to