Explain the symbolic nature of religious language with special reference to Paul Tillich.

Understanding Symbolic Language

Before examining Tillich’s perspective, it’s important to understand what is meant by ‘symbolic language’. In contrast to a ‘sign’ which points to something else *by* resemblance or convention (e.g., a road sign), a ‘symbol’ participates in the reality it points to. A flag (sign) represents a nation, but a work of art (symbol) *embodies* beauty and evokes emotional responses. Religious language, according to many theologians, functions primarily symbolically. It doesn’t aim to describe God objectively, but to evoke a sense of the sacred and to mediate an encounter with the divine.

Paul Tillich’s Theology of Culture and Religious Symbols

Paul Tillich’s theological project was deeply rooted in a philosophical understanding of culture. He believed that culture itself is a religious phenomenon, expressing humanity’s search for meaning and ultimate concern. Tillich defined “ultimate concern” as that which demands not only intellectual assent but also existential commitment. It is the center of one’s being, the source of meaning and purpose in life.

Tillich argued that religious symbols are the language of ultimate concern. They are not literal depictions of God, which he believed were idolatrous, but rather ‘pointers’ to the ultimate reality. He distinguished between ‘symbols’ and ‘idols’. A symbol opens up levels of reality which are otherwise closed to us, while an idol closes them off. For example, the image of God as a ‘shepherd’ is a symbol, evoking qualities of care, guidance, and protection. However, if one believes that God *is* literally a shepherd, that becomes an idol, limiting the infinite nature of the divine.

Characteristics of Tillich’s Symbolic Religious Language

• Non-Literal Meaning: Religious symbols are not meant to be taken literally. Their meaning lies in their ability to evoke a sense of the sacred and to point beyond themselves.
• Existential Revelation: Symbols reveal the ultimate concern, not through intellectual understanding, but through existential experience.
• Dynamic and Open-Ended: Symbols are dynamic and constantly evolving, reflecting the changing cultural contexts in which they are used.
• Universality: While expressed through specific cultural forms, the underlying ultimate concern is universal to all humanity.

Examples of Religious Symbols in Tillich’s Framework

Tillich applied his theory to various religious symbols. For instance, he analyzed the concept of ‘God’ itself as a symbol of ultimate concern. He argued that ‘God’ is not a being among beings, but the ground of being itself, the source of all existence. Similarly, he examined symbols like ‘the Kingdom of God’, ‘grace’, and ‘sin’ as expressions of humanity’s relationship to the ultimate concern. He also explored cultural symbols like art, literature, and even political ideologies as potential expressions of ultimate concern, albeit often distorted or alienated ones.

Criticisms of Tillich’s Approach

Tillich’s theory has faced several criticisms. Some argue that his distinction between symbols and idols is too vague and subjective. It can be difficult to determine when a symbol has become an idol. Others criticize his emphasis on existential experience, arguing that it neglects the importance of objective truth claims in religion. Furthermore, some theologians contend that Tillich’s approach is overly relativistic, potentially undermining the uniqueness and authority of specific religious traditions. Critics also point out that his focus on ‘ultimate concern’ can be interpreted as anthropocentric, centering the divine around human needs and experiences.

The Relevance of Tillich’s Thought Today

Despite these criticisms, Tillich’s work remains highly influential in contemporary theology and religious studies. His emphasis on the symbolic nature of religious language provides a valuable framework for understanding the complexities of faith in a modern, secular world. His insights are particularly relevant in a context where traditional religious beliefs are often challenged by scientific advancements and cultural pluralism. His work encourages a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of religious experience, recognizing the limitations of language and the importance of existential commitment.