Post Series
1–Introduction
2–On the Human Condition
3–On the Person and Work of Jesus Christ
4–On Salvation
5–Conclusion
This examination has sought to better understand the gospel according to Tillich by exploring how Tillich defines the problem, solution, and bearer of the solution. First, the problem that defines the human condition is that of existential estrangement; humanity is separated from that which is of ultimate meaning and aim of existence. Rather than the human problem being rebellion and separation from God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, humans do not live as they ought to live. This “transition from essence to existence,” as Tillich says, manifests itself in anxiety and despair about life, meaningless existence, and existential death. Physical death for Tillich is naturally part of being human, but existential death is part of existence, resulting in the disintegration of marriages, inner depression, or social inequity. In the end, the problem for Tillich is entirely anthropocentric not theocentirc: the problem isn’t that humans have rebelled against and offended an actual holy Being God, but that humans themselves are offended and affected by the stuff of existence itself, resulting in meaningless existence and the need for a better one.
Secondly, if the problem is meaningless existence that results in personal depression, fractured relationships, and estrangement from that which is of ultimate meaning, we need someone to show and bring us a better existence. Tillich believes the bearer of the solution to our human problem just happens to be a man from Nazareth named Jesus, who was received by his followers as the one who came to give and show us a new reality defined by love. For Tillich, Jesus isn’t God himself, the second person of an actual trinitarian God, but instead he was a special man in whom ultimate meaning was present, one who never lost connection with ultimate existence. This connection to that which is of ultimate meaning was manifest in his words, deeds, and suffering in death; that which is of prime importance for Tillich is the supreme existence of Jesus as a portrait of ultimate meaning for humanity. This important portrait is ultimately manifested in the symbols of the Cross and Resurrection.
For Tillich, the event of the Cross symbolizes Jesus’ subjection to existence, it is the point at which his entire cruciform life culminates through rejection by the old powers of existence and where he completes his effort of existential solidarity. Rather than this event being a literal event at which God objectively dealt with sin through a substitutionary sacrifice, it is the moment of ultimate existential solidarity with humanity and the point at which the new reality began in light of Jesus’ rejection by the old reality. This new reality and way of existing lived on after Jesus’ death through his disciples existence, which is symbolized in the Resurrection. Rather than Jesus Christ actually resurrecting physically from the grave, he did so existentially. Because his existence was so profound and left such an overwhelming mark on his disciples, he lived on through their existence, paving the way for human salvation from existential estrangement.
Finally, the new reality and way of existing that Jesus came to give and show has lived on through continued human development and progress. For Tillich, the solution to the human problem is as an overcoming of human existence itself, a conquering of estrangement from that which is of ultimate meaning in existence. Since Tillich’s Jesus wasn’t God and is still dead, it is unclear how a solution has truly arrived through him. What Tillich’s gospel ultimately centers upon is humanistic progress, because the problem, solution, and bearer of that solution is humanistic. The gap between how humanity ought to be and how humanity is is closed through humanistic efforts of self-transcendence and accepting that one is acceptable in love.
Ultimately, salvation is achieved through greater positive human development that overcomes that which is existentially negative, a belief that seems rooted in Enlightenment self-confidence in the fundamental goodness of man and capabilities of human society. If the problem, as Tillich rightly sees, is embedded in human existence, how can humans overcome that existence on their own without a mediator who both transcends existence and experiences it as God and man, like the historic Christian faith insists? Tillich’s gospel is no gospel at all, because he leaves the solution to the human problem firmly in the hands of humanity. Somehow humans are empowered to make sense and meaning out of their own senseless, meaningless existence all on their own, which makes little sense as Tillich starts with the reality that humans are the ones with the problem to begin with.
In the end, better understanding the existential theology of Tillich will help contemporary Christian leaders, particularly evangelicals, better understand the root from which current reflections on salvation are growing. There seems to be considerable influence by Tillich upon contemporary postmodern innovators who are trying to re-imagine the Christian faith in life of our own existential condition, much like Tillich in his post-WWII context. They rightly recognize our existence is marked by chaos, anxiety, despair, and meaninglessness in a post-9/11, Great Recession world that is heightened by a greater awareness of the plight of human suffering around the world thanks to rapid communication and globalization. Like Tillich, many new leaders consign the human problem to these existential realities, rather than to the human heart; I am not the problem, the stuff of existence is.
Likewise, many new leaders share Tillich’s view of Jesus that reduces him to a man who had this close association with the divine, who is the divine in skin and bones. They view his existence as providing a positive guide, map, and way through meaningless, chaotic existence to the other side into a new reality that is marked by hope and love. They refer to both his death and resurrection symbolically in order to grasp for some sort of existential solvency. In so doing, they negate Jesus’ deity, divinize his humanity, drain the cross of any meaning, and reduce the resurrection to moments of positive existential conquest. Consequently, they also define salvation as humanistic progress and individual self-transcendence over bad existence. As with Tillich, these new gospels are no gospel at all. They are fake. Recognizing them as such and better understanding the existential foundation of these new gospels will better equip Christian leaders “to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people,” (Jude 3) for the glory of God and good of our broken, busted world.














As someone who has been greatly influenced by Paul Tillich, I appreciated your post series. Also, as a student of philosophy, I deeply respected the fact that you presented Tillich in a fair and clear manor – not building a flimsy straw man, only to tear it down.
However, the issue I take with your rejection of "Tillich's gospel" is that you seem to reject it by appealing to evangelical sentiments. So, for example, when you say, "Tillich’s gospel is no gospel at all, because he leaves the solution to the human problem firmly in the hands of humanity," I respond by saying, "What's wrong with that?" Sure, if you appeal to evangelical assumptions, then it may sound bad to say that the gospel is firmly rooted in human ingenuity…rather than the power of God, but that doesn't explain why such a "gospel" is "no gospel."
It would seem that your assertion is (basically) this: there can only be a gospel if it is of God. But why? If Tillich is right in his estimation of "God's" existence (or non-existence, rather), then it is completely fair to reason that that we human beings must strive for ultimate meaning and make sense of our existential estrangement on our own terms. And, in my judgment, it does seem to be good news/gospel if we can identify with Jesus, the bearer of our salvation or "newness"; if we have someone to follow as we seek to live a life of ultimate meaning, love, and unity (with our selves in the world). Sure, it is not the evangelical gospel, but that doesn't make it "no gospel."
In the end, it seems as though you simply highlighted the differences between Tillich's theology and traditional evangelical theology, and then asserted Tillich's position as false by virtue of its dissent from evangelicalism. Of course, you may have only intended to do that in this post, in which case my comment misdirected.
Anyway, sorry for the (somewhat) long comment. Again, I really enjoyed this series.
what a disappointment. I read your summary of Tillich with a real excitement because I was thought “Finally there is an evangelical that is open to truly thinking about the Christian message.” What I realize in reading your conclusions is that, while you are completely capable of regurgitating Tillich’s thoughts in a constructive manner, possibly the entire time instead of contemplating them, you were thinking of ways to refute them…which of course means you never really considered his comments in the first place. This is at best disingenuous. Tillich brings out real questions and deserves real answers. It is no longer plausible to simply resort back to the Anselmian explanation of atonement and assume this solves the problem. I am at a loss in trying to explain how someone could read most of Tillich’s works and come to such painfully wrong conclusions!
Thank you so much for this fair and balanced presentation of a difficult theological perspective. I disagree with your conclusion but I appreciate the scholarly effort to fairly present the thinking of Tillich. I will recommend it as an introduction to Tillich’s work because it accurately summarizes him.