| Summary: | This study is an attempt to interpret the theology of Paul Tillich as a Christian humanist. In this context, Christian humanism is understood as a philosophical stance which unites a horizontal (autonomous) and vertical (theonomous) perspective. The Christian humanism of Tillich is illustrated by theological amplification on the basis of three key areas: Christology, ethics, and world religions. === Is Christian humanism intellectually viable? A polemical attitude surrounds the entire debate. The secular humanist is as conviced as the theist that any union of the two is overshadowed by the many differences. The thrust of the research leads to a realization of the concord that exists. The areas of union (open-minded world view, human experience, appreciation of the secular, concept of value) are located in a common spirit. This mood which exists on the boundary between these two divergent areas is more compelling than the more extreme options. === Christian humanism is functional in Tillich as a philosophical stance. The redefining of metaphysical inquiry into ontology, the development of theonomy, the theory of symbol, and a holistic outlook are crucial to both Tillich's Christian humanism and his philosophical understanding. It is necessary, therefore, to see that the significant thing in Tillich's philosophy is a merging of metaphysical and physical categories. This is the essense of a Christian humanist. === The ease with which Tillich moved through the entire range of Christian theology is reflective of his Christian humanism. This is especially true as Tillich dealt with Christology, ethics, and world religions. When he dealt with these three areas, it becomes apparent that he reflected a serious encounter with the Judeo-Christian heritage, dealt with human experience, and employed a universal language. These three compose the basis of a Christian humanism. === In the final analysis, Christian humanism is interpreted as the most viable form of theology. Tillich courageously worked within this rubric, and left a powerful model for present-day theology. === Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 42-12, Section: A, page: 5159. === Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1982.
|
|---|
