Tillich's Theological Influence on Langdon Gilkey
(1919-2004)
|
Langdon Gilkey (from
here) |
The theological influence of Paul
Tillich on the thought of American theologian Langdon
Gilkey is a fascinating and ambiguous one. Gilkey was an
influential Protestant theologian during the latter part
of the twentieth century, who spent most of his academic
career at The University of Chicago Divinity School.
Though a prolific academic
theologian, Gilkey is perhaps best remembered for his
autobiographical book Shantung Compound: The Story of
Men and Women Under Pressure (1968), which details
his internment at a Japanese POW camp during the second
World War. Shantung Compound not only recounts the
harrowing travails of life in an internment camp, it
also discloses the significant ideological shifts that
this experience precipitated for the young Gilkey.
Perhaps most importantly, the experience in Shantung all
but dissipated the humanistic optimism of his liberal
upbringing. For life “under pressure” in the internment
camp revealed his fellow prisoners (and himself) at the
nadir of their selfish, ignoble selves. Where Gilkey had
hoped to find some modicum of goodness and humanity he
found instead only a bleak, Hobbesian image of the human
condition. With regard to his theology, this experience
served to illuminate the power and truth of the
traditional Christian symbols of the Fall and original
sin. Gilkey’s experience in WWII left him perfectly
primed for the “crisis” theology of Neo-orthodoxy that
was in vogue at the time.
After the war, Gilkey went on to
pursue doctoral studies at Union Theological Seminary
and Columbia University, where he worked under Reinhold
Niebuhr and Paul Tillich. Though he worked more closely
with Niebuhr, Gilkey writes of his encounter with
Tillich: “at once I was puzzled, fascinated, and lured
by his very different way of viewing existence, namely,
ontologically rather than ethically as did Niebuhr. Soon
I felt I was beginning to understand him; for a time I
became his assistant and interpreter in his classes on
systematic theology—and a devoted listener in his
seminars on Augustine and Luther. I did not suspect
then—nor did I for a number of years—that a new
theological blood type, if I may put it that way, was
entering my arteries, one that would later become almost
dominant” (Gilkey, 1990: xi). Gilkey goes on to note, “I
did not become explicitly aware of how my own modes of
theological reflection were dependent on him until the
mid-sixties…” (Ibid: xii).
Gilkey’s dissertation on the
doctrine of creation served as the basis for his first
book, Maker of Heaven and Earth: The Christian
Doctrine of Creation in the Light of Modern Knowledge
(1959). As we shall see, this work exhibited a curious
amalgamation of theological and philosophical influences
ranging from Barth to Whitehead to Tillich. Setting
aside the philosophical influence of Whitehead, the
divergent theological currents at work in the book made
for an awkward, if not incoherent theological position.
However, in order to understand
Gilkey’s ambiguous theological stance in Maker of
Heaven and Earth, it is important to place this work
in proper historical context. For a brief time after the
First World War it was common for theologians as diverse
as Tillich and Barth to be lumped together under the
banner of “Neo-orthodoxy.” There were, of course, some
common elements amongst the theologians who (for a time)
bore this epithet, e.g. they often wrote in the
philosophical idiom of existentialism and shared—in
varying degrees of outrage—a general dissatisfaction
with the liberal theology of the later 19th century.
Nevertheless, over time it became vividly apparent that
these similarities were more surface-level than
substantial—indeed, Barth and Tillich could not be more
divergent in their approaches to theology.
Gilkey’s handling of the doctrine
of God in Maker of Heaven and Earth exhibits
perhaps the clearest instance of Tillich’s influence.
Throughout the text, Gilkey insists, in good Tillichian
fashion, that God is “Being-itself,” and therefore
cannot be understood as one entity alongside others. For
instance, Gilkey cites the first volume of Tillich’s
Systematic Theology, and repeats Tillich’s assertion
that “A conditioned God is no God” (Gilkey, 1959: 111).
However, only several pages later we find Gilkey
arguing, this time in a robustly Barthian vein, that the
Divine freedom is such that God is totally free to act
upon his creation in various ways to accomplish God’s
purposes. Consequently, God is not just Being-itself,
but also the God of Heilsgeschichte, or salvation
history. Gilkey writes, “the essence of the biblical
view of God is that He is not confined merely to that
ontological relation to the world which He has as
Creator. Rather He is ‘free’ to have other sorts of
relations to creatures, depending upon His
‘intention’…the biblical God is the God of history, who
acts within certain unique events of history and is thus
known through His ‘mighty deeds’” (113).
Throughout Maker of Heaven and
Earth, Gilkey seems to want to have it both ways
with respect to the Divine nature: God as both
Being-itself—and therefore eternal, impassible and
unconditioned—and the temporal, loving, personal God of
the Bible who supernaturally intervenes in certain
events in human history. Now, in Gilkey’s defense, the
attempt to form a synthesis between “the God of the
philosophers” and the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”
is an ancient one, and he has a significant portion of
the tradition on his side in attempting to conjoin the
two divergent models of God. That said, for as long as
the tradition has attempted such a synthesis it has
always been plagued by the specter of philosophical
incoherence. As it happens, Tillich is one of a handful
of Christian theologians in the tradition to come out
and frankly name the incoherence, and then choose
cleanly between the two conflicting models of God (See
Tillich, 1951: part II). It follows from Tillich’s
ontological claim that God is Being-itself that the
personalist images of God in the biblical tradition must
be interpreted symbolically. Unlike many other
theologians, Tillich refused to proceed as if the
tension between Jerusalem and Athens could be dissolved
with a few fancy flourishes of dialectical language, or
by waving the term “paradox” at it like a magic wand.
It seems odd then that Gilkey, who
studied under Tillich and cites the first and second
volumes of the Systematic Theology in his
Maker of Heaven and Earth, nevertheless carries on
as if casually yoking the God of the bible with a
Being-itself model of God were not a fraught
philosophical move; especially given that Tillich’s
entire system hinges upon an unusually clear distinction
between these two models of God. Over time, however,
Gilkey came to recognize the considerable conceptual
problems with his position in Maker of Heaven and
Earth.
In his wide-ranging book The
Word As True Myth: Interpreting Modern Theology,
eminent historical theologian Gary Dorrien dedicates two
chapters to the unfolding of Gilkey’s thought amidst the
tempestuous theological tides of the 1950’s and 60’s. In
explicating the historical and theological milieu in
which Gilkey was trained, Dorrien illuminates the
connection between Gilkey’s muddled theological position
in Maker of Heaven and Earth and the broad
theological trends of the pre and post-war era, which
were replete with conceptual incongruities and
equivocations. Dorrien recounts Gilkey’s gradual
awakening to the theological gravity of these
theological and philosophical issues, especially the
notion of God’s action in human history. For
Neo-orthodoxy and its close cousin, the Biblical
Theology movement, the “mighty acts of God” recorded in
the bible served as the historical basis for
Christianity. However, Gilkey began to recognize a
serious problem with this view, viz., that it
“emphasized the historical character of biblical
religion, but it also threw history overboard whenever
it dealt with biblical events that were historically
questionable. Much of its ‘historical’ grounding was
theological, not historical in the scientific sense” (Dorrien,
1997: 143). It turned out that Neo-orthodoxy and the
Biblical Theology movement were torn between a
pre-modern orthodoxy and the exigencies of modern
historical consciousness—and, when pressed, they
ultimately opted for a fideistic account of salvation
history. Gilkey thus came to realize that Neo-orthodoxy
was not as modern as he had originally thought, and that
continuing down this theological path would entail a
sacrificium intellectus that he could not abide.
According to Dorrien, Gilkey eventually arrived at the
rather embarrassing conclusion that, “theology was
obliged to return to Schleiermacher’s starting point”
(Ibid: 153).
Perhaps a greater irony—beyond that
of wandering through the wilderness of Neo-orthodoxy
expecting to find the Promised Land, only to find
oneself circling back to the fleshpots of
Schleiermacher—was that Gilkey’s newfound liberalism was
so unconsciously indebted to Tillich that he was utterly
blinded to the extent of this influence. What Gilkey
perceived to be an innovative approach to theological
reasoning was in fact thoroughly derivative of Tillich.
Gilkey’s next major book, Naming the Whirlwind: The
Renewal of God-Language (1969), was certainly a
creative application of Tillichian thought to a new
intellectual situation (viz., the “Death of God
Theology” movement). However, its main thesis was
essentially a rehashing of Tillich’s previous insights
about the ultimate dimension of human life, and the
inevitability of aligning oneself with an ultimate
concern. In his book Gilkey on Tillich (1990),
Gilkey relates a telling conversation with Tillich in
1964, in which he shared a recent paper that would serve
as the basis for Naming the Whirlwind. After
reading the paper Tillich, rather deflated, replied,
“But Langdon, I said all this years ago.” Clearly
embarrassed, Gilkey responded somewhat sheepishly, “I
know Paulus…but in this new situation I have just
discovered what it means, and I have, therefore, only
now found myself saying it after you, but now in my own
way” (Gilkey, 1990: xiv).
Tillich never tired of calling
attention to the ambiguous nature of human life under
the conditions of existence. It is fitting then that his
own theological influence on his pupil Langdon Gilkey
was as powerful and pervasive as it was ambiguous.
Bibliography
Dorrien, Gary. The Word as True
Myth: Interpreting Modern Theology. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.
Gilkey, Langdon Brown.
Catholicism Confronts Modernity: A Protestant View.
New York: Seabury Press, 1975.
_____. Creationism on Trial:
Evolution and God at Little Rock. Virginia: The
University of Virginia Press, 1998.
_____. Gilkey on Tillich.
New York: Crossroad, 1990.
_____. Maker of Heaven and
Earth: The Christian Doctrine of Creation in the Light
of Modern Knowledge. Garden City NY: Anchor
Books/Doubleday, 1959.
_____. Naming the Whirlwind: The
Renewal of God-Language. Indianapolis and New York:
The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1969.
_____. Nature, Reality, and the
Sacred. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
_____. On Niebuhr: A Theological
Study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
2001.
_____. Reaping the Whirlwind: A
Christian Interpretation of History. New York:
Seabury Press, 1976.
_____. Shantung Compound: The
Story of Men and Women under Pressure. New York:
Harper & Row Publishers, 1966.
Tillich, Paul. Systematic
Theology. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1951.
The information on this page is copyright ©1994 onwards, Wesley
Wildman (basic information here), unless otherwise
noted. If you want to use text or ideas that you find here, please be careful to acknowledge this site as
your source, and remember also to credit the original author of what you use,
where that is applicable. If you have corrections or want to make comments,
please contact me at the feedback address for permission.
|