As Is The Feeling,
So Is The Result.
From October 1995, excerpt of a discussion
online with a Christian Scientist.
I was comparing Tillich as a theologian with Niebuhr as an ethicist.
The main thing that keeps coming back to me about this distinction — which I feel is a real and useful one — is that an ethicist is essentially short sighted and dualistic whereas a theologian — rightly defined — is essentially long-and broad-sighted — and even more importantly, broad-or large-hearted (non- dualistic) — and that there is a real operational difference there which intimately impacts such people’s inherent capacities as teachers. A theologian, seeing farther and wider because of non-dualistic vision/experience, will ipso facto be a better teacher than an ethicist, who cannot be as understanding and therefore perceptive as to what a student needs to hear/do.
Niebuhr was always in a mode of falling into a ethicist’s scolding. Not that that is inherently a bad thing. Often it is very appropriate, as the entire prophetic literature shows. Tillich was not so either/or as Niebuhr was. He saw more and included more and thus was more potent as a teacher. And for that reason his work has greater impact than Niebuhr’s did. The non-dualists always have impact far in excess of the dualists’ for the simple reason that non-dualism is more fundamental, more real, in your Christian Science sense of that term, than dualism is.
A Neo-Orthodox theologian ipso facto cannot be a non-dualist. Their overwhelming sense of (1) the pervasiveness of original sin — Tillich calls Barth a Marcionite (!!!) for his overstatement of original sin, and Tillich is right (Barth is the preeminent Neo-Orthodox theologian) — and (2) the incurable and unbridgeable distance between God and man — what Niebuhr calls Divine Transcendence, and Barth, too — makes it impossible for them to have any appreciation of non-dualistic or monistic thought or experience.
Barth said that mysticism — in the classical sense not of mystification or oceanic indistinctness but of real and existential participation (non-dualism) in the Divine Nature through a special ecstatic condition (Teresa of Avila) or through just awareness (Francis of Assisi) — is impossible. Barth and Neo-Orthodoxy in general deny mysticism on principle. They cannot tolerate the sense of nearness to the Divine. They even hate it with a passion. This is very clear in Barth and also clear in Niebuhr if you understand what you are looking at. Neo-Orthodox theologians, to go along with this attitude, have a profound aversion to idolatry. They are scions of Calvin in this respect, and probably for good reason: being prone to visually mis-taking the world for something it isn’t.
Jim Sanders, my Old Testament professor at Union, for example, had the Neo-Orthodox sarcasm for anything idolatrous, as did Niebuhr; Sanders could be viewed as an un-graduated Neo-Orthodox scriptural technician without a lot of difficulty; his hang-ups are those of Neo-Orthodoxy; he really is not a mature student, even now.
Tillich is usually called a Neo-Orthodox theologian, but in truth he is anything but that. Tillich is actually a great Romantic (Continental meaning of that technical term) Theologian, in the direct line of Schleiermacher, coming from Schelling. Schelling, incidentally, is one of the major backgrounds for Mary Baker Eddy, whether she knew it or not. Even Schleiermacher would have been known and appreciated by her. His was but two generations before hers. To call Tillich — who is fully for divine immediacy — Neo-Orthodox is inaccurate.
Now, there’s a certain “more” to this distinction between a theologian and an ethicist that will probably clinch the point for you. It is an implication of Paul’s diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum — All things turn to good for those who love the Lord.
This statement of Paul’s is conditional. This is what Eddy would say, too: not that all things turn to good — this is minimizing the distinguishable, affective phenomenon of evil; to think this is hippie reverie, sloppy thinking and even worse science; no, the Pauline statement is conditional, just as the Augustinian version of it (“Love God and do what you want.”) is also conditional. The condition, of course, is loving God. And that is some condition. It isn’t a simplistic love that is meant here, an indistinct feeling that comes and goes. It isn’t going to church on Sundays. It isn’t being a good person. It isn’t praying to God for this and that. It is an unconditional love, a total faith, a complete pistis, a stable agape (self-less love). In other words, it is God’s own love and no other because no other is good enough for His presence. This is the love with which God loves Himself, the love Paul and Augustine are talking about — and Tillich also: absolute, unconditional, thoughtless, unending, unbeginning, unnamable, unmanageable Love, the kind that only God has … for Himself.
This is the Love Christian Science is aiming to employ in healing, and why not? That’s what it’s for, among other things.
Anyhow, this Love is the condition for all things turning to good. Without it (God for Himself, note), all things very definitely do not turn to good. They don’t turn at all. This is demonstrable, scientific in the proper sense of the term.
So, the famous statements of super-ethics, or what is properly called non- dualistic ethics — Paul’s and Augustine’s, both of which were grasped clearly and frequently echoed by Luther especially but also by Calvin, who, remember, was a highly and deeply experienced Seer — are anything but an invitation to license, such as sages always aim to guard against. They are profoundly conditional statements indicating a profoundly conditional condition of life.
However, within that condition of life, when the conditional requirement is met, there is the most awesome and indescribable freedom and insouciance, such as the world in its usual stupid dualism can never fathom and even fears, when it gets an inkling of it’s existence. And to an ethicist (Niebuhr, Barth), reports from a Tillich or a Luther or a Paul or an Augustine regarding this freedom — which is inside a profound conditional requirement — sound bizarre and even dangerous. They sound like a threat to faith and morals and the church and everything else. They sound like license run amuck and rampant and about to destroy the world with chaos.
(So-called scholars and churchmen were calling Tillich “a dangerous man” in the late 50s and early 60s, right up until he left. It was a PR stunt. The fact is that his non-dualism threatened their supply line, which depends on their maintaining in the laity’s minds the illusion of dualism, to keep them paying to be rid of guilt … which can only be got rid of by making restitution to the ones wronged. I am referred to with the same words by ECUSA and UCC clergy. In fact, when I hear myself referred to with these words, I estimate I’m on the right track and am doing something useful.)
Mystics are experiencing this conditional situation of absolute love in varying degrees of stability and they report it with varying degrees of usefulness. They experience anything but chaos: the sweetness supernal and indescribable of the Divine Presence. This sweetness, this Presence overcomes all mere rules of ethics and holds the personality and indeed the entire world together in a finest, most quiet, relaxed order such as even a geometer can indicate only with halting lisps. So the order is there, more order than any ethics can ever produce (as the Roman “Pauline” passages observe), but it is occurring in the context of radical freedom such as, to one not experiencing it, looks and sounds insane or palpably dangerous. Thus are the accusations from inexperience and selfishness.
This is why Saints and Sages, when they reach a certain stage of experience, withdraw from society in stages. The light grows too bright, of such a luminance and intensity as to frighten ordinary mortals. So retirement is made in order to protect all concerned. But the Neo-Orthodox theologians were and are such bone- heads that they want to say that even this magnificent estate of experience is bogus and not supported by God or religion. They would bring everyone down to their own essentially low level of mere ethics.
Ethics is “yes and no,” dualism. Theology is “not only that, but also ….,” non-dualism.
Now, there is one other way of saying this, of making the distinction between theology and ethics as usually meant that I want to make here. Pay close attention to the articulation, which is important.
What Paul and Augustine are saying in these statements above is that the important thing is the condition, the condition of Love. The “all things turning to good” is subsidiary, a nice consequence of the Loving, which is the essential thing. Augustine went so far as to throw off the ethics part of it with the astonishing, “do what you want.” It’s a throw away. He’s saying that he doesn’t really care what you do and that neither does God. What he cares about is the Loving God. That’s what’s important. That’s all God cares about. If that’s in place, everything is fine and there is no need for ethics at all. It happens automatically.
Jerome uses the word diligentibus — diligence — for what our texts usually translate as love. This is a very significant word to use here and I want to dwell on it. Remember that Jerome is the preeminent scriptural scholar up until our time and probably for all time. I can’t imagine any ever surpassing him either in skill or insight. So why does he use diligentibus here? It seems strange.
The reason is very deep in the phenomenology of the experience of the divine immediacy itself. He is describing the essential aspect of that experience. the essential character of the phenomenon of God’s Love for Himself, which is the existential condition or quid pro quo of a genuinely Christian life. He is saying that in its essential aspect that experience, that condition for real life (salvation, telos), is a holding to, a binding to, a diligence, a tenacity, an irrevocability that is a done thing, that doesn’t just fall out of the sky and happen but is a done thing, done by God and done by the devotee (echoes of the mutuality of a covenant), where in this case God is both God and the devotee. And Jerome is saying that in this diligentibus one is experiencing so far as awareness is concerned that ineffable sublimity, that being the inseparable other. This is a very feminine experience. Ultimately, spirituality is a feminine (negative, based) experience. The whole world, of course, is feminine in character. The only masculine is God.
[Homosexuals, incidentally, can never be spiritual because they cannot be feminine because they cannot be men. Men can be feminine in their experience. Homosexuals are homosexuals, neither masculine nor feminine. They feign femininity or masculinity out of wishful emotion, but the truth is that they are not human beings. They are another category or species of creature entirely. Vedas refer to them as Yakshis (apparently masculine personality in apparently feminine body) and Yakshas (apparently feminine personality in apparently masculine body). Vedas do not treat these individuals as of the human species because, in fact, they are not. They are dangerous to humans because they are imperialistic and domineering. All of the ancient literature shows these traits of homosexuals. All of the Roman Emperors who persecuted Christians were homosexuals and so were the top Nazi party officials who persecuted homosexuals. This business of homosexuals persecuting one another was also apparent in Joe McCarthy’s aide, Roy Cohn, who by day persecuted homosexuals ruthlessly and at night played with them gaily after the blazing manner of Cole Porter. The “spirituality” of homosexuals is just as they are: venal. The abuse of women and children — and of men — is a behavior of homosexuals not of men. Men do not abuse women and children — or men. Homosexuals, which are non-humans, do.]
In Sanskrit there is a short hand for this which involves the word Dharma, usually translated as Proper Conduct (i.e., ethics as we usually mean it — rules for this and that, none of which is wrong or inappropriate and all of which, if they conduce to justice, have a place and use so far as they go). But Dharma does not really mean Proper Conduct in this ethics (dualism: you and the rules) sense. It means proper conduct in the Theology (non- dualism: we) sense. And the articulation is — observe this carefully — Dharma is the strength which holds the consciousness bound to Truth.
Diligence — strength holding something in place, to its proper mate …
And consciousness, which is inherently a non-dualistic phenomenon because it includes intuition, which is participatory as well as readily and often ecstatic ….
And Truth, by which is meant pretty much what Mary Baker Eddy means by it when she is articulating most abstractly: Truth is the One-Without-A- Second. Spinoza’s Substance, Tillich’s Ground of Being, Paul’s Christ.
An ethicist looks for rules for this and that. These rules change over time to accommodate circumstance, prejudice, etc. Thus, there is nothing unconditional about ethics, as Kant and Hume pointed out and as Neo-Orthodox theologians hated to fess up to. Whatever is finite is conditioned and what is conditioned is impermanent and therefore not Truth. Probably Eddy would have an articulation similar to that one, which I made up with her in mind. An ethicist, therefore, is always looking for something which is essentially conditional and therefore can never satisfy and always leaves one feeling hollow and empty and useless. An ethicist is never looking for the truth. This is clear from the history of Union herself during the past 40 years. Their whole story is the frustration of seeking what ultimately can only frustrate rather than delectate: they sought ethics and morality (“social justice,” which soon degenerated to racism, violence and homosexual “rights”) rather than Truth. This is why Tillich left Union in the 50s. He saw it coming. John Williams, the president during my years as a student, was the one who brought Union down, even financially … he was using endowment to pay operating expenses. Tom Driver was the great homosexual at Union, who got it turned specifically that way through his touchy-feely “class” sessions.
A theologian looks for the unconditional, for the Truth. They look for it within the conditional, as the essential nature of the conditional. As Scheiermacher said, the infinite is in the finite just as the finite is in the infinite. A theologian is a non-dualist. They do not deny the phenomenology of evil, but they very definitely deny that it has any ontological status. Neo-Orthodox theologians, who are really not very good theologians, at least emotionally and by the force of their articulation affirm that evil has ontological status. They know better, the best of them do, but their sense of distance from the divine and their hatred of ecstatic intuition and their reveling in a perverse appreciation of the doctrine of original sin all combine to make them sound to others and then to themselves as though they believe that evil has ontological status — that it is a permanent aspect of reality. This is why Tillich calls Barth a Marcionite. He was one. He in effect posited an evil God. Certainly such a positing was the near universal attitude at Union when I was there. This was supplanted by the apparently opposite attitude that there is no good God by the 1980s. And that, of course, is the African religion which is sweeping Union from the 1970s: no good God, only an evil one. African religion is 100% liquor and license. They have no God of graciousness, only one for manipulation (voodoo).
Since Lehmann –Tillich’s and Bonhoeffer’s friend — left, UTS has not had a theologian on the staff, i.e., a non-dualist.
Now finally, a little postscript on the Diligentibus line of Paul’s and the fact that it’s a conditional statement.
The thought I was having is regarding what the condition is NOT. He does not say:
For those who love the church …..
or
For those who love their parents ….
or
For those who love their mentor ….
or
For those who love their spouse and children ….
or
For those who love their work ….
or
For those who love the Bible ….
or
For those who love their fellow humanity ….
or
For those who love the environment ….
or
For those who love their country ….
or
For those who ….
Well, you get the point.
This seems like an obvious thing to mention, but its very obviousness may conceal a great fact of the actuality of spiritual phenomenology, the way the road to God is actually traveled and the experiences and temptations one actually encounters on that road.
Tillich points out that nothing was able to crack open the Roman nominalist system, in which the church hierarchy substitutes for total worldly uncertainty, until Luther was able to establish the Protestant principle that faith, not the hierarchy, is the key to salvation. And historically, of course, this is how it happened. Huss and others softened up the ground, but it was Luther who actually got under the wall and made it collapse into the hole he had sapped.
Now what intrigues me about this is that while Luther did this with the principle of salvation by Grace through faith, would it also have been possible to crack the wall by the principle of salvation by Grace through love in this sense of diligent attachment or bonding to God alone, a very thorough detachment from worldliness combined with an extremely warm and vigorous affection for the One loved? Francis’ and Clare’s ardency for Lady Poverty (Mary Magdalene) comes to mind. Jean Guyon’s thoroughly Vedic prayer (meditation/mantra) discipline also comes to mind as a clear example of what I am hoping to indicate. This combination of ardent commitment and stringent detachment, both implied in the Pauline phrase, Diligentibus Deus omnia convertuntur in bonum, this combination when focused irrevocably on God alone and with a joy higher than any mere laughter or gaiety — a Joy Francis saw in the supremely purificatory tempestuousness of Fire — this combination making all things turn to good appeals to me as possibly of force also sufficient to crack a nominalist system such as Rome — or modern “science,” maybe. Of course, it’s a moot point in one way, because Luther pulled it off by using a different tool.
But we are in the throws of several nominalist systems today — one with a supposed “Million Men” in Washington, D.C. — and I am asking myself if what this Diligentibus line says and doesn’t say regarding the condition for all things turning to good might contain some assistance for our situation. Meaning, might comprise a puissance sufficient to crack the nominalist systems that are vying to overwhelm us. I don’t know. It’s an intriguing thought.
In any case, there is an astringent detachment from every worldly affection in that conditional statement of Paul’s and I felt that this is an important even though probably obvious thing to mention.
It is an interesting irony that the very Neo-Orthodox people who evince the greatest respect, even obsession, for the principle of original sin and the transcendence of God are also deeply tied to worldly attachments in a way which has always appeared to me as nearly unbreakable. For example, Calvinists who abhor iconography have always appealed to me as people tortured at night by “visions of Roman dancing girls” (one of my favorite lines from a letter of Jerome’s), by visual attachments, concupiscence through the eyes, mediated by physical presences such as statues, pictures and bodies. Just an observation. An irony of spiritual phenomenology.
Calvin was an experienced man in the sense of being a Seer, a veteran of silent communion in God, not just as a Christian Scientist would articulate that but certainly in a manner which would qualify him to receive the title of Sage. It is the occupation of sages to do this sort of thing, to see inwardly. All of Calvin’s work must be understood as the result of his seeing inwardly. This is orindarily not understood, but it is the only way to understand him and his work. Calvin was a great lover of God alone. After Augustine, his most frequently quoted author is Jeremiah. Now no one has ever accused Jeremiah of being a cold fish !!! Or Augustine, for that matter !!! Yet some accuse Calvin of being a cold fish or arid. They never checked for themselves ….
Joel D. Harrison: The Most Important Thing You Need To Know About Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Theology
From 2021:
Best I know, “Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted” was a Reinhold Niebuhr locution, which puts it, technically, in my wheelhouse. It may be earlier than Rheiny, but as best I know, he is famous for using it.
My memory is not reliable in this particular.
Since many decades, I associate the phrase with Rheiny. It has that dialectically facile nonsense that is his trademark, e.g., Moral Man and Immoral Society.
Rheiny was co-founder of Americans For Democratic Action, a socialist combination still active. Coffin (Yale, S&B) hired him to Union because of his communist chops earned as a German Reformed pastor on the violent union protest lines in Detroit and elsewhere.
He was not a theologian, as he admitted in later years when Tillich called him out in public for superficiality, e.g., The Gifford Lectures, soon after published as The Nature And Destiny Of Man.
DonAZ David R. Graham
But he won the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1964! 😉
I know the name, but very little about the man. I just scanned the Wikipedia article about him, but Wikipedia people articles can be biased.
David R. Graham DonAZ
He was charismatic, could hold a room spellbound. Big booming voice, quite the natural phrase-maker. My father was his student assistant. He was semi-retired during my years at Union. His wife, Ursula, an English Lady, taught First Century Christian History at Barnard, my first philosophy lectures, while in vitro. When I went to visit him early in 1966, he baited me with a question about integration and then attacked my answer. Although invited back, I never returned. His interest was politics and life’s rough and tumble, at which he excelled, but he was quite comfortably insulated in the ivory tower almost all of his adult life. My mother took this picture at Union circa 1950:
Niebuhr was admired and feared. Tillich, his contemporary at Union, was loved. Niebuhr had brought Tillich to Union as a refugee from Germany, where Tillich was the first professor the Nazis fired. Niebuhr wanted students to answer questions he propounded. Tillich wanted to answer questions students propounded. You see the difference.
I am concerned with the spiritual arts, the finest arts, rather than the fine arts. I want spiritually elevating subjects to be depicted in dance, like Radha and Krishna and their sublime relationship, which is beyond the ken of people. One must give up themes such as drunkards, evil men, power-drunk personalities, and clowns, which cater to vulgar tastes. Adjust all items of dance and dramatic representation to the spiritual urge in humanity; foster it, fertilise it, and take people a little nearer to the Goal. The human being is a compound of animal and angel, we can say. The human has in it the wolf, the monkey, the bullock, the jackal, the snake, the peacock, the bear —but beneath all these, the pure spark of Divinity is there too. It is the duty of all who cater to the senses to transform the low values that are now pervading and transmute them into higher values.
- Sathya Sai Baba – Divine Discourse, December 14, 1963 / Daily Email, Sai Inspires: Subscription
Βασιλεία του Θεού