Exploring the Positions of Theologians Tillich and Bonhoeffer

Theology

What is the connection between the theology of Paul Tillich and process theology?

First of all what is process theology? Authors Cobb (professor of theology) and Griffin (professor emeritus of theology and philosophy) explain that process theology offers a way of "…recovering the conviction that God acts creatively in the world," and this pattern by God is His way of expressing "divine love" for the planet (Cobb, 1976).

[There is a question as to who launched process theology as a movement. To wit, Cobb is considered the "chief builder, thinker, and leader of process theology," according to Dorrien (2008). But author Rob Haskell asserts that while "Process theology is a philosophical religion" that does not "claim special revelation," the closest thing process theology has "to a founder is Alfred North Whitehead" (Haskell, 2012).]

Meanwhile, notwithstanding who gets credit for its beginning, process theology implies a departure from the traditional theism viewpoint that God controls "every detail of the world process," Cobb explains (53). The implication for humans is that if humans truly love one another, they do not attempt to "control" each other, or pressure others with "threats involving extrinsic rewards and punishments" (Cobb, 54). There are denominations that tell participants if you don't do something a certain way, or if you are sinful in some way, you will go to hell. That is a simplistic way of explaining what Cobb means by "threats" -- and according to Cobb, process theology is about God's "creative love" and God is not in "complete control" and in fact his divine love "promotes enjoyment" rather than seeking to control and manipulate (Cobb 55).

Paul Tillich and process theology

Tillich agreed with much of what process theology puts forward, according to retired professor of theology Tyron Inbody, whose essay in Theological Studies makes the claim that Tillich criticized the "classical theism" and instead promoted the idea of a "more philosophically… adequate way" of approaching the subject of God (Inbody, 1975). For Tillich there was a need to be creative in approaching the mysterious subject of God, and hence Tillich rejected what Inbody calls "a hierarchy of levels" (Inbody, 473). Delving deeper into Tillich's approach to process theology, Inbody writes that Tillich rejected a "static hierarchy of being" and he also rejected "static absolutes" -- and instead he embraced the "structure of present experience" (Inbody, 474).

On the other hand, Inbody writes that Tillich disagreed with theologians who had embraced process theology. Either Tillich "misunderstood" some of the doctrines of process theology, or he "inadvertently misrepresented" some of the doctrines (Inbody, 474). Another aspect of Tillich's apparent misrepresentation of process theology, according to Inbody, is that Tillich believed process theology proposes "a finite God" and that "life and death are equal" (474). Moreover, Tillich attempted to make God "fragmentary" and Tillich was not actually trained in the philosophical language that permeates process theology, Inbody concludes on page 480.

While admitting that Tillich is "closer to the process viewpoint than he is to classical theism," Inbody goes on -- in esoteric language that is difficult for a lay person to come to terms with -- to basically criticize Tillich's position on "being" and "is" (Tillich is quoted saying: "Is' means 'is not not'…you can deny anything particular whatsoever, but not being, because even your negative judgments themselves are acts of being and are only possible through being. Being is the basic absolute.") (Inbody, 482). Inbody argues that Tillich's position "…ignores the primodial intuition [that which has existed from the beginning] of all being and knowing" (482).

Evaluate process theology and secular theology with regard to whether or not their views of the nature of God are valid.

In the lecture notes (3), the instructor explains that process theology and "neotheism" are closely related, and that God is not "sovereign" over humans' free choices; the neotheistic God does not "have the power to coerce" (HTH 469). Future events are not controlled by God or even known by God, according to process theology, and because God allows free will, He cannot destroy evil.

As for secular theology, the textbook explains that modern society does not have a need for God in the same way as before. Erickson writes that today's humans are perfectly capable of "dealing with [the world's] problems without superhuman aid" (HTH 469). Science and the advancements in technology has "replaced" the need for God, according to secular theology, and for Dietrich Bonhoeffer, God always believed that one day humans would become "independent" of His power.

That textbook / lecture position seems to depart somewhat from some of the existing scholarship on Bonhoeffer. For example, some key components of Bonhoeffer's position on secular theology are portrayed through an essay by Ulrik Becker Nissen (Nissen, 2006). Nissen explains that according to Bonhoeffer, there is no "reality separate from God's will, and that it is "…an outrageous demand to claim that the problem of Christian ethics is not how the individual does good" Nissen, 92).

The question should not be how good the individual is, but instead "the will of God" is what matters because the most important element in this discussion of theology is "how the reality of God is seen as the ultimate reality" (Nissen, 93). And moreover, Bonhoeffer's thesis was that Christian ethics should be seen not as to the "reality of one's own self" nor should be viewed as the reality of the world or human norms and values; in fact it is the "reality of God" that He revealed though Jesus Christ (Nissen, 93).

Basically, though it is not easy to get a grasp of everything that Bonhoeffer writes, and Nissen's narrative isn't always thoroughly plain-spoken vis-a-vis the lay person. But cutting through the Nissen narrative, the position that appears to represent Bonhoeffer's thesis is Christ's passage in Matthew 28:18 "…All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." This is a fairly straight-forward way of rooting out what Bonhoeffer has presented in his writings. On the other hand, looking at Bonhoeffer's "Christocentric" approach suggests that Christ isn't the end-all when it comes to answers about worldly matters:

"His word is not an answer to human questions and problems, but the divine answer to the divine question addressed to human beings. The word is essentially not from below but from above" (Bonhoeffer as quoted by Patrick Nullens, 2011). This would seem to suggest that the secular theology extolled by Bonhoeffer is blended with classical theism.

One can find courage and originality in Bonheoffer's situation in Nazi Germany. It is well-known that he was imprisoned and was the subject of a hate campaign by Hitler's fanatical administration. Bonheoffer was very critical of "orders of creation" as "separate realities"; this rationalization was employed by some Christians in Germany to "justify the love for blood, race and German soil" (Nullens, 66). Rather than "orders of creation," which were clearly based on racism and the Nazi propaganda campaign, Bonheoffer preferred to speak of "orders of preservation," which entailed the redemption of Jesus Christ and "preserved by the Father until its final consummation" (Nullens, 66).