Next week I am starting a new post series called THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PAUL TILLICH. It’s based on a 37-page paper I wrote for my Contemporary Theology course in my Master of Theology (ThM) in Historical Theology program. We’ll cover his view of the human problem (i.e. sin and human nature), our solution (i.e. salvation), and the bearer of that solution (i.e. the person and work of Jesus Christ). It will be a more academic treatment of Tillich and existential theology in the same way we’ve been treating a Pauline universal salvation.

I hope you’ll join in on the journey and conversation because Tillich’s brand of theology—existential theology—has been making a comeback recently. In my research on Tillich, I’ve seen how many so-called “progressive” Christian teachers are recycling his version of the Christian faith for a new day. Just as his and others theology spoke to a generation ravaged post-WWI/II and Great Depression, so too is their repackaged existentialism re-understanding the Christian faith for a new generation post-9/11 and Great Recession. No clearer is this the case than in the recent book that’s caused quite the stir regarding heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who’s ever lived.

When Rob Bell’s, Love Wins, was released I was neck-deep in Tillich’s Systematic Theology (3 volumes) and other more sermon-styled books. While there isn’t a direct 1-to-1 correspondence between their theology—although I have it on good authority that Bell was into Tillich when the original sermons that formed the book were first preached—much of what Bell has written is existential theology, with shades of Tillich. In my own review and response to the book I made note of a few links between Bell and Tillich (or at least existentialism):

Regarding God:
Later Bell speaks of Jesus speaking with God “as if God was right here…Jesus lived and spoke as if the whole world was a thin place for him, with endless dimensions of the divine infinitesimally close, with every moment and every location simply another experience of the divine reality that is all around us, through us, under and above us all the time.” (60-61) Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but I want to know what does Bell mean by “endless dimensions of the divine” and our “experience of the divine reality that is all around us, through us, under and above us all the time.” What does he mean by the divine? This seems to enhance the argument that God is simply an experience that invades all of reality, which is both theologically liberal and also panentheistic.

Also when he states “God is love” (e.g. 177, 178) does Rob mean love is a characteristic of God or that God equals Love, as in Love is god? Unfortunately, the latter appears to be the case and I would welcome a statement of clarity from Bell and even Mars Hill.

A recent quotation in an article on Bell’s book by our local newspaper, the Grand Rapids press, further complicates things, or perhaps makes it even clearer: Bell says, “God is love. Love is the ground of our being. Jesus came to give us and show us this love.”

On the surface this seems innocent. Understanding Bell’s “Love is the ground of our being” comment directly reflects the existential theologian Paul Tillich, however, is very concerning and perhaps answers our questions about his view of God. Tillich’s word for “God” was “ground of being” or “ground of our being.”

For Tillich that which gives meaning to life, that is of ultimate concern in life actually is God. He consistently refers to God as an idea, an existential idea in which God is the foundation (ground) of meaning and existence (being); “God” is that which is meaningful and gives our being and existence meaning. As Tillich says, “The word ‘God’ points to ultimate reality.” In other words, God is a symbol for that which is ultimately meaningful in existence.

Regarding Jesus’ Resurrection:
As Bell writes, “What gave the early Christians such extraordinary fire and fuel was the insistence that Jesus’ death on the cross was not the last word on the rabbi from Nazareth. What set all sorts of historic events in motion was his follower’s insistence that they had experienced him after death. Their encounters with him led them to believe that something massive had happened that had implications for the entire world.” (131)

On the surface this seems to suggest Bell believes in a literal resurrection, where God physically raised Jesus Christ from the dead as the early church witnessed and believed and testified. It’s important to note that Bell uses specific words here to describe what “happened” post death: the disciples insisted that they had an experience of Jesus.

Insisting you have an experience of someone is not the same thing as actually physically experiencing them in the flesh as the apostles proclaimed. Liberal theologians believe Jesus was resurrected spiritually through the memory of the community of Jesus-followers. Existentialist theologian Paul Tillich argues that Jesus became the Christ after his disciples received him as such; their experience of Jesus’ message and teachings after his death was communicated through their use of the symbol resurrection. (Furthermore, Tillich believed Jesus lived on in the experience of his disciples as they lived out his teachings and way.)

I believe better understanding Tillich, and others like him (like H. Richard Nieburh), will help Christians better understand that the new kind of Christianity being offered by people like Bell isn’t really all that new after all. It will also help Christians better understand the implications and dangers of such revisionism for the gospel of Jesus Christ.