It would normally be taken that however else religion may be defined it always has to do with God. Consequently, we might expect from Tillich’s book an essay in comparative religion from a Christian standpoint. It is perhaps characteristic of Tillich that he does not give us what we expect.

This book which is sub-titled Common Misconceptions of Catholicism contains a series of essays by American Jesuits on points of Catholic doctrine which are the most fruitful sources of misconceptions amongst non-Catholics. It does not follow that the book is solely for non-Catholics since it is a fair presumption that misconceptions of Catholicism amongst non-Catholics are due in no small part to Catholics themselves, to their inability to understand or express properly their own religious and moral positions. The removal of (...) misunderstandings at which this symposium aims must, like charity, begin at home. (shrink)

Tillich seems to fall in for a rougher treatment at the hands of his commentators than do other prominent theologians of our time. Kenneth Hamilton’s The System and The Gospel was extremely severe on him and although J Heywood Thomas sets out to put positive appreciation before criticism, he is hardly less severe in the end. It is true that the charges of ambiguity and vagueness in concept and term can be levelled against Tillich with far more justice than they (...) could be levelled even against Barth, for instance, and this may be because of the variety of influences that have gone into the making of Tillich’s thought. Thomas is probably correct in insisting that Tillich depends mostly on Schelling but there are whole sections in Systematic Theology which come almost directly from Kierkegaard while the modern existentialists and particularly Heidegger find constant echoes in all Tillich’s writing. Even the characteristic concept of ‘ultimate concern’ with its corresponding ‘ground of being’ is of uncertain parentage. (shrink)

Tillich seems to fall in for a rougher treatment at the hands of his commentators than do other prominent theologians of our time. Kenneth Hamilton’s The System and The Gospel was extremely severe on him and although J Heywood Thomas sets out to put positive appreciation before criticism, he is hardly less severe in the end. It is true that the charges of ambiguity and vagueness in concept and term can be levelled against Tillich with far more justice than they (...) could be levelled even against Barth, for instance, and this may be because of the variety of influences that have gone into the making of Tillich’s thought. Thomas is probably correct in insisting that Tillich depends mostly on Schelling but there are whole sections in Systematic Theology which come almost directly from Kierkegaard while the modern existentialists and particularly Heidegger find constant echoes in all Tillich’s writing. Even the characteristic concept of ‘ultimate concern’ with its corresponding ‘ground of being’ is of uncertain parentage. (shrink)

It is unusual, to say the least, to find in a tract de Ecclesia a treatment of primitive religion and a reference to the pre-frontal lobes. But then this book by a professor at the faculty of Theology in Lyon is a new and refreshing approach to the writing of a tract on the Church.