eschatological panentheism

[kitewithfish]

Tillich, you sneaky bastard, you saved the best part for last!

I have just finished reading all of Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology, a three volumes work comprising slightly more than 900 pages. And I have only one thing to say about the merciless philosophical theological slog that the last three months of reading this thing:

THEY WERE WORTH IT FOR THE LAST 50 PAGES.

In the last 50 pages, Tillich became wonderful, vibrant and brilliant. I cannot stress enough that reading this thing without reading the last fifty pages would be to misunderstand everything Tillich wants to say, because the stuff he gets to in the last fifty pages changes the meaning of the previous 850 pages into something entirely different.

Comments

[kitewithfish]

Hmm.
I actually really like C.S. Lewis, what little I've read of him.

Tillich is really good because he makes a point of placing himself and his ideas within the Christian tradition, but also examines what that means (he doesn't take for granted that certain symbols about God are going to be understood in the same way he does, and so he explains everything). His Systematic Theology is very very large, but also comprehensive and coherent. Courage to Be is apparently the book that made his reputation, and it's pretty small, so if you want to start with Tillich that would be a good point.

I like Schubert Ogden and Charles Hartshorne for a very conversational writing style that nevertheless contains arguments. They are not as clear in their thought process as Tillich, but they are interesting for being part of a movement called Process theology that views God as informed and changed by human actions, and that God works subtly to encourage humans to choose good actions.

I mean, CS Lewis is actually a good place to start. You might just try and look for references in his works to authors he likes, or find people who talk about his work- there's a bit of a field right there.

[dhara]

taking note of your recommendations! and quite grateful for "conversational writing style that nevertheless contains arguments" because that's much less intimidating. i liked lewis because he's a lovely writer and also quite easy to follow without any kind of background in theology, but assumed that his informal approach was probably different from A Serious Academic Work with millions of footnotes and endnotes and references to other weighty Serious Academic Works. that sort of thing is awesome when reading within your field, and terrifying outside of it.

[kitewithfish]

I think footnotes are much heavier in articles in theological circles. Books tend to be kind of light on them, because the author will usually tell you who thought of such-and-such and idea and how the author disagrees with them on some level, and thinks that the interpretations of so-and-so were rather off-base, but would generally like to affirm this particular aspect of blah blah blah. It's a little dense at time, but they are usually pretty interesting, and it means you can follow along with the gist of this particular argument pretty well, even if you cannot yourself respond.