Paul Tillich converses with psychotherapists.

Journal of Religion and Health

40

Paul Tillich Converses with Psychotherapists

JAMES B. ASHBROOK

The Experiential Zen Buddhism Professor Tillich visited Japan in May, June, and July, 1960, at the invitation of Professor Yasaka Takagi, to w h o m he dedicated his book, Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions (New York, Columbia University Press, 1963).

Question: Did you have a chance to speak to some of the Zen ~ people there? The conversation took place in October, 1960, on the backporch of Richard L. Johnson, M.D., then Director of the Psychiatric Residency Program and the Outpatient Clinic at the State Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. Dr. Tillich understood he was simply to be present in an informal give-and-take on issues growing out of psychotherapeutic experience. This was part of a weekend of conversation between Dr. Tillich and faculty members at Denison University. There are four other conversations in the series. "Paul Tillich Converses on Culture and Religion," "Paul Tillich Converses on Culture and Theology," "Paul Tillich Converses on History and Theology" were published in Foundations: A Baptist Journal of History and Theology (1971, 14, No. 1, 6-17; No. 2, 102-115; No. 3, 209-223); "Paul Tillich Converses on Psychology and Theology" is to be published in the Journal of Pastoral Care (in press). THE REV. JAMES B. ASHBROOK, PH.D., Professor of Psychology and Theology in the combined faculty of Colgate Rochester, Bexley Hall, Crozer, at Rochester, New York, who arranged these conversations, transcribed and edited them. His transcription is published here with the permission of Robert C. Kimball, Executor of the Literary Estate of Paul Tillich.


41

Dr. Tillich: Oh, that was m y m a i n object in going. I h a d c o n t i n u o u s discussions with the Buddhists w h o are partly professors of p h i l o s o p h y , partly priests, partly monks, partly Zen masters, i n c l u d i n g one archbishop a n d his son, w h o m I k n e w before, of the so-called T r u e Pure L a n d sect. T h i s is the largest c h u r c h in B u d d h i s m in J a p a n . 2 Question: Do you feel they have s o m e t h i n g to say to us? Dr. Tillich: Yes, at least to me. If the concepts of b e i n g a n d n o n b e i n g are not taboo as they are in m o s t of A m e r i c a n Protestantism, then we can have very p r o f o u n d discussions w i t h them. 3 If it comes to the o r d i n a r y American concept of social a c t i v i t y - - K i n g d o m of G o d as a religious symbol, a n d so o n - - t h e n it is m u c h m o r e difficult. But they agree n o w that they are lacking in this. Question: T h i s other d i m e n s i o n ? Dr. Tillich: Yes, the horizontal d i m e n s i o n . We can agree w i t h t h e m in m a n y respects in t h e vertical d i m e n s i o n , very little in the horizontal. Dr. Johnson: I have been interested a little in Zen, m a i n l y f r o m its relationship to p s y c h o t h e r a p y a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y the way in w h i c h the masters try to teach by n o n d i r e c t i o n - - i n a s e n s e - - w h e r e the teacher tries to help the p u p i l to become o p e n to h i m s e l f w i t h o u t outside aid . . . . 4 Dr. Tillich: I k n o w , you m e a n the k i n d of teaching of the Zen masters, w h i c h is not real teaching. It is i n t r o d u c i n g the s t u d e n t into the a t t i t u d e of Z e n - - t h e w h o l e " s i t t i n g " process, 5 w h i c h is the discipline preceding any e n l i g h t e n m e n t . Oh, of course, we p r e s u p p o s e d this w h o l e realm. I mean, I knew Suzuki, w h o was here. 6 I h a d m a n y discussions w i t h h i m in New York. I knew H i s a m a t s u , w h o is a real Zen master, one of the greatest. 7 T h i s [background of u n d e r s t a n d i n g ] was presupposed. T h e n we tried to go more to the f u n d a m e n t a l s . Of course, it [teaching by n o n d i r e c t i o n ] can h a p p e n to you. W h e n I visited Suzuki in Kamakura, J a p a n , a n d asked h i m the question, he refused to answer. He said s o m e t h i n g : " S u p p o s e I a m n o t disposed to answer this n o w ? " T h i s was a riddle word. Of course, he did n o t w a n t to be impolite. He invited u s - - M r s . T i l l i c h a n d m e - - t o a w o n d e r f u l din-

]ournal oJ Religion and Health

42

ner. It was the m e t h o d ' n o t discussion.

to do it o n the basis of a mere abstract

Dr. Johnson: T h i s has been a thing for me, I have been interested in it because in m a n y ways, p s y c h o t h e r a p y is a p r o b l e m of h o w to help an individual to become a c q u a i n t e d w i t h himself. H e certainly c a n n o t do it by dealing in abstractions a b o u t life.

Theological abstractness and Zen Buddhism Question: S o m e t h i n g that bothers me in Christian t h e o l o g y is the att e m p t - - i n s t e a d of theologizing with respect to the actual experience s i t u a t i o n - - t o set u p theology as abstract principles and concepts. Do y o u think Zen can have a real effect u p o n Christian theology by means of returning it, maybe, more to a description of growth, such as mystical theology in the Middle Ages?

Dr. Tillich: Yes, it is the form in w h i c h m a n y Western p e o p l e take in Asiatic mysticism. It is the nearest form because it was deprived of some Indian ascetic and negativistic characteristics by China. W h e n B u d d h i s m went to China, it experienced a change, s It was the k i n d of practical emphasis of the Chinese attitude generally toward life in all its religions that influenced it. So w h e n it was b r o u g h t to J a p a n , it was n o t the genuine Indian Buddhism: it was a practical one. 9

Question: Do y o u k n o w H a n n a h Colm? Dr. Tillich: H a n n a h C o l m is o n e of m y oldest friends, t~ . . . N o w she is very m u c h impressed by Zen B u d d h i s m . She was in J a p a n the three m o n t h s before I was there. She largely k n e w similar people. But she went m u c h deeper into the reality of Zen than I did. She was "sitting" for a week. I do not k n o w w h a t the J a p a n e s e w o r d for "sitting" is. ix She had real experiences and deep u n d e r s t a n d i n g of it. H i s a m a t s u , the Zen master, told her in a conversation that she really is able to talk to h i m on an equal footing, while he said to m e - - i n C a m b r i d g e where we first m e t - that I a m still away from the K i n g d o m of God, or in B u d d h i s t termi-

Paul TiUich Converses with Psychotherapists

43

nology, I have not reached the stage of E n l i g h t e n m e n t 12 because I still accept the idea of e v i l - - o f g o o d and evil as c o n t r a s t i n g things . . . .

Contrasts between Christianity and Zen Buddhism: Enlightenment vs. K i n g d o m of God Dr. Johnson: T h a t was an interesting thing for s o m e b o d y to say, w a s n ' t i t - - t h a t you h a d not reached the K i n g d o m of God? Dr. TiUich: No, n o t reached E n l i g h t e n m e n t , he said. K i n g d o m of G o d is not a good w o r d - - t h a t is o n l y the G e r m a n phrase, or the words of Jesus that the particular questioner is n o t far a w a y from the K i n g d o m of God. For them, this is individual E n l i g h t e n m e n t . T h i s is all that they have. Question: There is no c o m m u n i t y in it? Dr. Tillich: T h e r e is n o c o m m u n i t y in it. It is the direct r e l a t i o n s h i p to the Ultimate. Question: Does this damage their capacity for interrelationships? Identity vs. c o m m u n i t y Dr. Tillich: You ask a very discerning q u e s t i o n - - b e c a u s e o u r discussions went to that p o i n t rather frequently. P e r h a p s I can tell y o u of a discussion with a priest of the S h i n g o n sect. 13 T h i s is n o t a Zen sect. T h e y call it sect; you can call it churches. T h e r e are large churches. T h e y have n o t h i n g to do w i t h sects in the technical sense. T h e r e we c a m e to the concept of s u b s t a n c e - - i n the sense of s t a n d i n g u p o n oneself, substantia being s o m e t h i n g that can stand, that underlies s o m e t h i n g else, a n d therefore is n o t c h a n g i n g in itself b u t is based u p o n itself, In this sense, the priest, w h o was also a scholar, said that if the i n d i v i d u a l h u m a n being has a substance--i.e., is s t a n d i n g u p o n himself as a separated person, as we m i g h t say in E n g l i s h - - t h e n n o c o m m u n i t y is possible. I answered him, if the i n d i v i d u a l is n o t this, then o n l y identity is possible, b u t n o t c o m m u n i t y . T h i s was really a p o i n t at w h i c h the difference came o u t very sharply. For them, the c o n c e p t of identity is the

44


highest. Even the very beautiful w a y in w h i c h they exercise cornpassio-c o m p a s s i o n - - i s based u p o n an identification w i t h the other one, b u t not on participation in s o m e b o d y w h o is also s o m e t h i n g q u i t e different - - t h a t is, an individual in his o w n standing. 14 T h e s e ideas are very far away from them.

Dr. Johnson: I think I c o u l d begin to raise some q u e s t i o n as to the worth of the Ultimate that they c o u l d r e a c h - - o r a thing like t h a t - - b e cause it certainly takes c o m m u n i o n , in a sense, between p e o p l e or the encounter with people o u t of their ultimate state, then. Dr. Tillich: Yes, a n d the real difference is: has the individual person, as individual person, an ultimate meaning? T h e y w o u l d deny such ultimate meaning, because for them the highest is the formless self. 15 Formless self is the difference between subject a n d object a n d the self-consciousness has disappeared. T h e n , of course, the individuality as such has disappeared. H e is o n e beside a n o t h e r one, b u t he is n o t an individuality. There are the m a i n differences, w h i c h have great cultural consequences, of course.

Question: W o u l d that not have consequences in analysis, too, then? Dr. Tillich: Yes, therefore, I a m very d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r one can do w h a t F r o m m and Karen H o m e y try to d o - - t o b r i n g Zen B u d d h i s m into psychoanalytic thinking. F r o m w h a t I k n o w a b o u t the p s y c h o a n a l y t i c purpose, it is to set people free from their c o m p u l s i v e l i m i t a t i o n s - - t o give them the freedom to act creatively as individual persons. If this is so, then, I w o u l d say, g u i d i n g t h e m into Zen B u d d h i s m after this w o u l d s o m e h o w eliminate the aim of setting them free. Of course, y o u can say, "We set them free to sit, to meditate, and to become o n e w i t h the Absolute, then." But you w o u l d not set them free for action, for living in this world.

Dr. Johnson: T h a t is the thing I think about. At least I believe, from m y o w n experience in w o r k i n g with people, that p r o b a b l y the last thing a person finds in himself is some true capacity to love. I think this concept is basic in Christianity, too. T h i s attitude of theirs certainly


45

pushes Zen and Christianity miles apart. T h e i r highest level w o u l d be to be practically incapable of relatedness with other h u m a n beings. I think that maybe, in o u r p o i n t of view, the highest capacity is ultimately to be able to relate, because that is a part of being h u m a n . Overagainstness Dr. Tillich: Now this is true in theory, but it is, interestingly e n o u g h , not true in practice. I have never received so m u c h considerateness in m y life as in Japan. T h i s is a part, at least, of love. It is based on the concept of compassion; but compassion is n o t simply in c o n t r a d i c t i o n to love. T h e p e o p l e - - s o m e of the colleagues, for i n s t a n c e - - w e r e really almost saints in the way they related, but they did not do it in terms of agape. T h e y always did it in terms of compassion. Therefore, they usually do not dare to criticize--to contradict, a n d so o n - - w h i c h [action] belongs to agape, the Christian m e a n i n g of love, but it does not belong to compassion. Comment: So there is not an overagainstness. Dr. Tillich: Exactly. Neither psychologically nor critically, m o r a l l y nor religiously. But the side of c o m p a s s i o n in l o v e - - t h e feeling-in-theplace-where-the-others-are--we have that in the New T e s t a m e n t , too. Jesus had compassion with the masses. So it is n o t an a n t i - C h r i s t i a n concept, but it is not the full concept. He also threatened the masses. That, I think, a Buddhist w o u l d n o t do. Dr. Johnson: I begin to see w h a t you mean. W h e n it comes r i g h t d o w n to the kind of people, maybe there is not so m u c h difference. It is in the way we conceptualize it. Dr. Tillich: It is very hard to m a k e the difference, but I w o u l d say the difference is the positing-against each other. T h a t is the real point. Question: T h e overpoliteness? Dr. Tillich: Yes, but it is not o n l y politeness. It is really a k i n d of identification with the other one.

46


Comment: You are me. Dr. Tillich: You are me. T h a t one is m e because in y o u is the same B u d d h a as a scintilla, as a spark, as it is in me. Selfishness and self-love Dr. Johnson: In a sense, we have the same p r o b l e m in a p o p u l a r understanding of Christianity that tries to elevate selflessness to the u l t i m a t e goal of self.

Dr. Tillich: N o w this brings me to a struggle I have w i t h Erich F r o m m - - a b o u t this concept of self-love. H e rightly makes the p o i n t that there is a necessary and justified self-love over against the selfishness that does n o t really love itself b u t is a greedy a n d self-disgusted k i n d of working. N o w this is one of the m o s t i l l u m i n a t i n g things I have learned from him. "Be careful a b o u t t e r m i n o l o g y , " I said to him; "I w o u l d n o t like to use the term 'self-love' because y o u m u s t a l w a y s a d d - - w h i c h A u g u s t i n e had to doln--the right self-love a n d the w r o n g self-love. So w h y n o t use different terms and do not use self-love at all? W h y n o t d i s t i n g u i s h three types of relationship to oneself: 1) the natural self-affirmation, w h i c h every h u m a n being has and which, in the N e w T e s t a m e n t , is called loving the other one 'as oneself.' T h i s is p r e s u p p o s e d . T h i s is n o t a c o m m a n d m e n t . Every living being has a n a t u r a l self-affirmation. T h i s is n o t denied in these words of Jesus. Let's call it self-affirmation; 2) the negative form of self-affirmation. If it turns against the others and uses the others as means, then it is selfishness; 3) and then, the highest form of self-love. It is to affirm oneself in spite of n o t being able to affirm oneself. T h a t I w o u l d call self-acceptance in the accepting the unacceptable, namely, oneself." N o w these are three words that I suggest be used instead of the a m b i g u o u s w o r d "self-love."

Dr. Johnson: I know, in trying to teach F r o m m ' s concepts to psychotherapists, I had to modify the l a n g u a g e because I c o u l d n o t teach by using self-love. I did s o m e t h i n g similar to w h a t y o u did, b u t I o n l y took


47

the two--selfishness (Yes) as o p p o s e d to self-respect, w h i c h is to care w h a t h a p p e n s to one's o w n self. (Yes. Yes) You start t h r o w i n g the term "selflove" in, and it is just not received in terms of w h a t F r o m m was trying to communicate.

Dr. TiUich: Yes, self-respect is still a n o t h e r form that w o u l d partly belong to the natural self-affirmation--partly to the higher form of selfacceptance. But I think we need a better t e r m i n o l o g y there. Problems in terminolog~ Dr. Johnson: Well, I don't k n o w . I t h i n k m a y b e w h a t we need is no t e r m i n o l o g y - - i n a sense of h a v i n g to have n e w names. I m e a n everything we are talking a b o u t in p s y c h o t h e r a p y m r e a l l y - - i s of things that have been talked a b o u t since time began. W h y everybody has to coin a n e w l a n g u a g e . . . Often y o u can use a language, b u t the t h i n g is that you have to get concepts d o w n to s o m e s i m p l e t e r m i n o l o g y before the term that y o u are trying to use conveys a n y t h i n g . Dr. Tillich: Yes. At least I think the best is to give examples of w h a t your concept m e a n s - - t o make constellations. I t h i n k that is i m p o r t a n t . If you do not w a n t to make definitions, w h i c h is often impossible, y o u can illuminate the term by p u t t i n g it into constellation with other terms. T h a t is a w a y of i l l u m i n a t i n g i t - - n o t in an Aristotelian definition of h a v i n g a higher genus, then a m i d d l e concept, a n d so on, b u t instead of that, relating it to other concepts. T h e r e are some concepts that c a n n o t be defined: " b e i n g " c a n n o t be defined; " m e a n i n g " cannot be defined. Y o u always p r e s u p p o s e the reality w h e n y o u define it. " F r e e d o m " c a n n o t be defined, b u t it can be p u t into constellations. Dr. Johnson: T h i s is particularly true, I think, in trying to tell somebody w h o has not had the experience w h a t p s y c h o t h e r a p y is (Yes.) . . . . My favorite phrase is to s a y i t is like trying to define the flavor of a strawberry. You c o u l d write a b o u t w h a t a strawberry tasted like, b u t n o b o d y else w o u l d k n o w until he tasted one, p r o b a b l y l In p s y c h o t h e r a p y , I


48

find that often I a m fighting concepts in psychiatric residents in order to try to remove the concepts so they can allow themselves to have an experience instead of filtering it t h r o u g h a c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k that separates them, in a sense, from early experiences.

Dr. Tillich: But h o w will y o u teach p s y c h o t h e r a p y except by examples that are then conceptually interpreted?

The Theological Comment: I a m curious a b o u t h o w that concept of "all a m a n needing to k n o w being built in h i m some place" w o u l d fit in w i t h w h a t Zen taught. It must be the same, because Zen Buddhists are w o r k i n g all the time to get a person to experience himself, aren't they?

The paradoxical nature of acceptance Dr. Tillich: N o w first of all, I w o u l d not say that the acceptance is built in. T h e acceptance is always paradoxical. T h e r e is the psychoanalytic acceptance, w h i c h is similar to the acceptance in friendship relationships and family relationships. All this is a limited acceptance. T h e n there m u s t be the universal p o w e r of a c c e p t a n c e - - l e t me s a y - - b y life itself where the analyst and the patient are in the same boat, because the analyst needs it as m u c h as the patient d o e s - - t h e u l t i m a t e acceptance. T h e r e the Christological p r o b l e m comes in, I mean, because of Christ as the symbolic expression that G o d accepts us.

Christ symbolizes acceptance Comment: You m e a n that Christ externalizes this natural rationale of acceptance?

Dr. Tillich: NO, I w o u l d not call it acceptance. Acceptance is always paradoxical. It is not natural. Natural self-affirmation is w h a t is usually called self-love--in an indifferent way, n o t good, n o t bad, b u t natural. But then, to be aware of one's e s t r a n g e m e n t - - d i s t o r t e d n e s s or s o - - a n d


49

nevertheless to accept one's self is a paradoxical thing, w h i c h c a n n o t be produced by ourselves intentionally. It is s o m e t h i n g different. It needs both the power of the c o m m u n i t y , w h i c h has u l t i m a t e sources, and then, finally the ultimate power itself in order to enable somebody to accept himself, I k n o w h o w difficult this is from the p o i n t of view of the psychoanalytic s i t u a t i o n - - t o overcome the self-disgust, self-hate, self-escape, and all this. But it can never be in the ultimate d i m e n s i o n of h u m a n life. T h e n we need self-acceptance, w h i c h can only be given by life itself or by the g r o u n d of being itself. Here, I w o u l d say, Christ is the symbol. So, I w o u l d have answered this question in this way. I w o u l d have said, acceptance and Christ crucified are not simply separated, but they are not the same. T h e question is not w h e t h e r acceptance is built in or w h e t h e r it comes from an event like Golgotha. T h e question is that acceptance is built in in the essence of G o d - - i f you w a n t - - I m e a n , in the ultimate g r o u n d of o u r being. T h a t we accept acceptance is paradoxical for us. This p a r a d o x is manifest a n d at the same time resolved in the cross of Christ. T h e r e in the cross you can see it in a way that is p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y very difficult m interpret. Why have people always seen divine forgiveness in the cross? But suddenly, it has h a p p e n e d to them. T h e theories the c h u r c h uses to interpret the event are very miserable. T h e y are n o t sufficient. I think that one day psychoanalysis s h o u l d h e l p us interpret the feeling of peace and being atoned a n d [the experience of] sins being forgiven, w h i c h come to people f r o m the vision of a faith in the cross. Is the Christ s~mbol necessary? Comment: ,But does this experience of acceptance need the Christ event to be real? Dr. Tillich: N o w the Christ event is a n o t h e r problem. W h a t has really impressed people a n d has p r o d u c e d the A n s e l m i a n theory of a t o n e m e n 0 7 is that He has carried o u r sins as an exchange in terms of satisfaction

50

]ournal of Religion and Health

a n d all that. This is n o t the image of the cross, I mean, w h i c h we have in a t h o u s a n d things. T h e event itself is the source o u t of w h i c h this image comes; b u t if it comes as such an image, it is interpreted. [The m e a n i n g ] was n o t immediately manifest in it [as seen in the fact that] the disciples ran away. T h e y did n o t even see the crucifixion. Later they interpreted it in this way, T h e r e is one thing in these theories of a t o n e m e n t that is always very dangerous. We forget that according to the Bible a n d some theology, in m y opinion, G o d is H e w h o reconciles and n o t Christ w h o enables H i m to do it. T h i s is a very bad theory, I think, as if G o d is d e p e n d e n t u p o n Christ. But Christ manifests w h a t G o d is always d o i n g or is willing to do or is ready to do in this event. Comment: So that this event simply shows us w h a t is g o i n g o n constantly at all times, in all places? Dr. Tillich: In God, of course. But it shows it in a w a y that is a criterion. I mean, I w o u l d say that the w a y in w h i c h it is s h o w n in the sacrificial cult in the Old Testament, for instance, or in other religions, is n o t sufficient. T h e r e is s o m e t h i n g lacking. While the description of this event shows all m o m e n t s that make it possible, the event I w o u l d say [shows it] definitely. I do not k n o w the psychological answer. I have often tried to find the answer: w h y are p e o p l e w h o see the cross r e m i n d e d by a physical cross of the event of God's attitude towards us? W h y are they grasped so m u c h that they are convinced, "Yes, this means the forgiveness of sins"? Comment: Because they need it so m u c h . Dr. Tillich: Yes, b u t w h y do they concentrate on this [event]? W h y is this helpful and other things not? In B u d d h i s m there is n o such t h i n g at all. In J u d a i s m there is God's grace as a p r o m i s e that is b e h i n d the experience of forgiveness, b u t it is n o t such an event. So, w h y is [the cross event] necessary? Comment: W a s n o t the cross that i m p o r t a n t a s y m b o l in the very early years of Christianity?


51

Dr. Tillich: O h yes, of course. It was in Paul. Comment: F r o m the beginning? Dr. Tillich: It was n o t p a i n t e d in the early years. In p a i n t i n g it a p p e a r s 9only in R o m e in the fourth century and n o t earlier, as But it was presupposed. T h e oriental church i m m e d i a t e l y took the resurrection as the central symbol, because of the Greek idea of light a n d l i f e - - C h r i s t as the bringer of i m m o r t a l life and the bringer of i l l u m i n a t i n g light, these two things. There the cross does not play a great role, b u t it does in the Apostolic message, I mean, in the N e w Testament. It does, then, again in the R o m a n church. Therefore, in the sarcophaguses of R o m e there is the oldest sculptural r o o t - - t h a t is, the presentation of the cross. C o m m e n t : Well, w o u l d n o t J u n g say (I c a n n o t speak except in terms of w h a t J u n g says here) that there are certain kinds of experience or i d e a s - I do not k n o w quite the w o r d - - c e r t a i n h u m a n experiences that can only be expressed because there are, say, n o t words for them? Needs or wishes c o u l d be expressed only in certain ways. As an e x a m p l e , the cross for a Western society--namely, us in a Christian w a y n o w - - w o u l d stand for or symbolize the possibility of forgiveness of sins a n d redemptions. In a way, it w o u l d be more than just a symbol, because it can be a very immediate experience of resurrection. S o m e h o w there c o u l d be the possibility of redemption. This is possible for us in this w a y because it is, he says, a collective unconscious. N o w this sounds like a very tricky m e t a p h y s i c a l term, b u t it makes sense. I actually h a d s o m e o n e yesterday w h o is w o r k i n g t h r o u g h this w h o l e thing. In a fantasy, this is w h a t he w i t h d r e w t o - - a cross. T h e cross was filled w i t h light; a n d he was afraid to t o u c h it, y o u see. So Jufig says t h a t these things a p p e a r in p e o p l e ' s experience, a n d this is only one w a y they can express them. Dr. Tillich: N o w the collective u n c o n s c i o u s is a term I use myself w h e n I speak of symbols. I think a s y m b o l is m o r e than " o n l y " a symbol.

52


A symbol participates in the reality of w h a t it symbolizes, and, therefore, it has power. But w h a t kind of power? In this sense of symbols I consider the cross a symbol. It is actually a symbol of God's p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the suffering and sin of the world. T h a t is the way Paul interpreted it, finally, for the Christian church. But you need the historical event, the consequences, a n d all this. 19 You c o u l d not derive the m e a n i n g of the symbol from the collective u n c o n s c i o u s if the historical event of the cross h a d n o t come. Because it has come, the collective u n c o n s c i o u s has positively received it. T h e reception of an event by the collective u n c o n s c i o u s is a process that I w o u l d like to understand, because y o u have b r o u g h t in some concepts - - s o m e interpretive c o n c e p t s - - s u c h as r e d e m p t i o n and so on. Comment: I always like to think of it in this w a y - - a n y w a y for m y s e l f - as a sort o{ dialectic. W h a t other thing c o u l d stand in its p l a c e - - s u p p o s ing w h a t this experience expresses or does for us? W h a t c o u l d be p u t in its place? I have never been able to think of anything. Dr. Tillich: But even so, if y o u say this, w h y do we need a n y t h i n g at all? W h y is the simple message " G o d has forgiven" n o t e n o u g h ? T h i s is the riddle for w h i c h I w a n t to h a v e - - a l w a y s have w a n t e d b u t never g o t - - a little bit more light from the p s y c h o l o g i c a l side. Comment: I k n o w for myself I do n o t need it. I do n o t need it because I a m m u c h closer t o - - s o m e h o w - - t h e B u d d h i s t w a y . . . . Comment: We agree, or do y o u agree, that there is n o t h i n g that is to be forgiven ol that there was n o t h i n g that needed to be forgiven in the first place? Dr. Tillich: No, I w o u l d not agree with that. T h a t was the reason H i s a m a t s u told me that I a m not yet Enlightened, because I said, " T h e r e are things to be forgiven a n d c o n t i n u o u s l y . " Dr. Tillich: N o w let's s u p p o s e that there are p e o p l e for w h o m the concept of forgiveness is decisive. T h e y need it, as y o u said; they need it

Paul Tillich Converses zoith Psychotherapists

53

badly, even, obviously, o n the basis of y o u r experience. Did y o u n o t just say that? C o m m e n t : I was saying that I did n o t feel the need for myself. Dr. Tillich: No. No. W h a t y o u said, I mean, n o w from y o u r patients and so forth. N o w y o u could tell these p e o p l e - - a minister c o u l d tell them: "Be assured. G o d has forgiven you. G o d is the G o d w h o forgives always." Of course, the p r e s u p p o s i t i o n is that y o u even w a n t to be forgiven, that y o u feel there is s o m e t h i n g w r o n g , that s o m e t h i n g needs repentance, w h i c h means t u r n i n g - o n - o n e ' s - w a y . N o w let's see--these p e o p l e say, "Yes, we feel very badly. We w a n t to be forgiven for this mistake we did to this other h u m a n b e i n g " - - f o r instance, h u r t i n g him badly and so. N o w one c o u l d ask, w h y is it n o t e n o u g h to receive this message, as we have it in the O l d T e s t a m e n t , "if your sin is like blood, it will b e c o m e like s n o w , " so there is forgiveness. In the Psalms, of course, there is forgiveness w i t h you, and so on. W h y is that not enough? W h y did P a u l use the event of G o l g o t h a in order to give a theological a n d / o r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l a d d i t i o n to this, w h i c h has made it possible ever since for the Christians "to be certain o f the divine forgiveness?

T h e d n s e l m i a n theor3~ of a t o n e m e n t Dr. Tillich: Here is m y riddle. T h e theory s a y s n t h e A n s e l m i a n theological t h e o r y - - G o d c o u l d n o t forgive because H e m u s t exercise His justice against the sin. T h e sin is infinite because it is directed against the infinite God. N o h u m a n b e i n g can expiate infinite guilt, because he is finite. Only G o d H i m s e l f c o u l d d o it. B u t H e c o u l d n o t do it, since H e cannot suffer in Himself. H e c o u l d o n l y suffer in a man. And so, a m a n had to do it, a n d this m a n h a d to be divine. T h a t is the w h o l e theological construction. N o w this construction is very bad theory, I w o u l d say, a n d very good psychology: namely, g o o d p s y c h o l o g y in the sense that it de-

54


scribes h o w p e o p l e w h o are in despair again get assurance of forgiveness by the vision of the suffering G o d - - l e t ' s p u t it this way.

Dr. Johnson: I have a brainstorm, and I a m g o i n g to break in. [Professor Tillich chuckles] You know, earlier we were talking a b o u t the concept of self-love, which you have broken d o w n into three things, one of w h i c h was self-acceptance. If a person accepts himself, does he need forgiveness? Can a person forgive himself? Dr. Tillich: T h e ideal is always the question. H o w can y o u accept yourself? T h i s is the ultimate question. But then, the answer is: y o u cannot accept yourself, because you are guilty. Y o u c a n n o t say, "I a m not guilty" if you feel guilty. No one can d o this psychologically. Even in the psychoanalytic practice, you need s o m e b o d y else w h o accepts you and takes you in and says: "Do n o t be worried. I a m not a moralist. Lie d o w n or sit d o w n . We talk. I will see w h a t y o u are. And let's forget a b o u t y o u r guilt feeling." So there is acceptance by somebody. N o w I say, y o u cannot forgive yourself. N o b o d y will believe this act of forgiveness if he forgives himself. T h e only w a y is to have a resource in the p o w e r of forgiveness that is in life, that can be called the divine p o w e r of forgiveness, to w h i c h y o u refer and of w h i c h you are aware and are perhaps certain. But it must be s o m e t h i n g that transcends n o t only the individual patient, b u t also the analyst. Both the analyst and the patient are in the same boat of needing forgiveness and can get it only by being in relation to this that I call the p o w e r of forgiveness, which is in life (in order to get all m y t h o l o g i c a l nonsense o u t of the way). There is so m u c h nonsense in theological l a n g u a g e that I really w a n t to talk psychologically so that it makes sense to me. If this mythological nonsense is all removed, then one thing remains. It is extremely hard to accept the fact that one is accepted, b u t that is the only w a y in which one can accept oneself. N o w that is my w h o l e statement.

Paul Tittich Converses with Psychotherapists

55

Now the question is: how can you give somebody certainty that he is accepted so that he can also accept himself? This certainty was given for a few thousand years, often, formerly, by the sacrificial cult where animals took the guilt away; and, then, finally, in the idea of the lamb of God who was slaughtered for our sins. T h a t is the meaning of the cross in this kind of speech. How is that psychologically understandable, please? I must confess that I have tried and tried to understand that. Theologically, I can see an answer, because in this image God Himself participates in our guilt; and, therefore, He is not the judge any more, but the participant. That is perhaps a good theological answer. C o m m e n t : Identification. People in our society feel so desperately guilty that they are able to expiate their sins through identification and the death on the cross. Dr. Tillich: Identification with what? Comment: With Christ. Dr. Tillich: (Yes.)

Now, yes, but with

the crucified Christ, you mean?

Comment: Could we not admit the possibility that somewhere, let us say, one h u m a n being accepts a n o t h e r - - s o m e h o w , in some way, forgives him or something? (Yes.) He experiences this other h u m a n being as a being forgiven? Dr. Tillich: He is also in need of forgiveness? Comment: Yes. B u t somewhere along the line it m i g h t be possible-because in a sense he was forgiven--that he could forgive himself. And ultimately, somehow, this thing of guilt just dissolves, so that this guilt experience is almost gone. I do not know if it is ever completely gone. Maybe for some people it might b e - - a Buddha or someone like that. Dr. Tillich: Now Buddha is another question, because there this matter of guilt was never the predominant problem. T h e r e suffering was the predominant problem and guilt was not the central problem.

56

Journal o[ Religion and Health

Is guilt universal? Comment: T h i s is w h a t I a m w o n d e r i n g about. Is there a n y other society at present in t h e w h o l e world, or has there ever been, that feels as guilty as the Christian society does, that experiences such p r e o c c u p a t i o n with guilt? Dr. Tillich: " P r e o c c u p a t i o n " changes the q u e s t i o n a little bit. Let's ask first whether guilt is there at all. There, I w o u l d say, it seems to be. Even in M a h a y a n a Buddhism, we have it very strongly. It is not in Zen Buddhism, because Zen B u d d h i s m is the self-force B u d d h i s m or the self-power Buddhism, as it is called in u n k n o w n J a p a n e s e words or Indian words. 2~ But Shin B u d d h i s m is the o u t e r - f o r c e - - t h e A m i d a Buddha. z~ Most of the statues are A m i d a B u d d h a or K w a n n o n , the Goddess of Mercy, statues where mercy includes forgiveness, and these are functions of the B u d d h a spirit. T h e B u d d h a has [these functions] right and l e f t - - w i s d o m and compassion. T h e divine c o m p a s s i o n overcomes the individual guilt. So we have guilt in B u d d h i s m also. He w h o calls the n a m e of Amida in the right w a y - - i n the right way is a big p r o b l e m , of c o u r s e - - w i l l be taken u p by A m i d a B u d d h a a n d relieved of the oppressive burden of worldly cares. Dr. Johnson: I have an idea that I have never even tried o u t on myself. In some w a y guilt is a p r o d u c t of nonacceptance, I think. G u i l t comes from failing to meet expectations. In my mind, one of the m a j o r things in p s y c h o t h e r a p y is a type of acceptance that does n o t - - m a y b e - - e x p e c t . I mean, it does not have a goal of what this person s h o u l d be or do or feel b u t tries only to find the truth w i t h o u t expecting. By not h a v i n g wants, the therapeutic relationship sets u p an experience in w h i c h a person functions w i t h o u t an external demand. W h e n he can function this way, I think he comes to a type of acceptance that leads to a self-acceptance.that frees from guilt. Guilt and guilt-feelings Dr. Tillich: In German, guilt means schuld and guilt-feeling means


57

schuldgefi~hl. In English, the w o r d " g u i l t " is used b o t h for the fact a n d for the feeling. I k n o w from m a n y discussions that this creates a great confusion. Therefore, I always suggest that we consistently use guiltfeeling if we w a n t to express the feeling of guilt, a n d guilt if we speak a b o u t s o m e b o d y w h o c o m m i t s a m u r d e r a n d is guilty n o w - - i s u n d e r a guilt, stands under the j u d g m e n t " Y o u are g u i l t y " in his conscience. T h e r e are two things. If he makes this clear distinction, then I w o u l d say, "Objectively, we always become guilty: namely, we always d o things w h i c h we should not have done and do n o t things w h i c h we s h o u l d have done." T h a t is the famous f o r m u l a of confession. N o w if that is the case, then the q u e s t i o n is: w h a t is the right reaction of our awareness to it? Shall we feel this as a tinge or as a p a n g of conscience, w h i c h is guilt feeling, or s h o u l d we not? I w o u l d say, we should. We s h o u l d b e c a u s e - - w h a t gives us this uneasy feeling, w h i c h usually is called an uneasy c o n s c i e n c e - - i t is o u r essential being. We act against our essential being. This brings me to your concept of expectancy. If we have w h a t Karen H o m e y always likes to say is "the g r a n d e u r i l l u s i o n " a n d then feel defeated if we do n o t get to this k i n d of p e r f e c t i o n - - C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y has called it p e r f e c t i o n i s m - - t h e n an u n h e a l t h y guilt-feeling develops. If you expect yourself to be B u d d h a or Christ or even s o m e t h i n g better, then, of course, you m u s t have c o n t i n u o u s guilt-feelings because y o u have not reached it. Or even the g r a n d e u r in external things, if y o u have the idea of w a n t i n g to be a very successful business m a n a n d y o u always remain in a mediocre p o s i t i o n a n d this g r a n d e u r is really y o u r ultimate concern, as I w o u l d call it, then, guilt-feeling m u s t develop. But I think there is at the same time an essential guilt-feeling: n a m e l y , an expectation that we are n o t w h a t we essentially o u g h t to be in a concrete situation. If this expectation, w h i c h is n o t a neurotic g r a n d e u r expectation, is not fulfilled, then the feeling of guilt is justified. C o m m e n t : I think guilt is a n o r m a l or healthy e m o t i o n or feeling. Say a person does not live u p to w h a t he can see himself clearly a n d actually to be. If he falls short of a realistic goal or does s o m e t h i n g that is o p -

58


posed to his o w n inner feeling, this I w o u l d consider to be guilt. But the thing that we see over a n d over is guilt-feelings that are completely unrelated and basic.

Comment: But are n o t the guilt-feelings actually m a s k i n g the deeper guilt? Dr. Johnson: T h a t is the point, b u t I think w h a t we have been calling guilt a r o u n d here a lot m a y be really a feeling of guilt, w h i c h is a neurotic manifestation. Dr. Tillich: I made the distinction in The Courage To Be. I mean, the reason I made the distinction is in order to save the real, the g e n u i n e guilt feeling, w h i c h is necessary in order to feel that there is in us an essential m a n and at the same time it is distorted by o u r actual existence. If this feeling is gone, then every impetus a n d every motive to ask the m e a n i n g of "where is the g e n u i n e guilt" has gone. T h e r e f o r e it is so i m p o r t a n t [to realize] that the idea that the analyst analyzes every guiltfeeling away reduces guilt . . . . Comment: T h a t is ridiculous. Dr. Tillich: But this is produced. I think Karen H o m e y was very near to it. 22 She was a very close friend of mine, b u t we always h a d this disc u s s i o n - - w h e t h e r there is both a basic or existential guilt-feeling and anxiety and then a neurotic guilt-feeling a n d anxiety. She did n o t w a n t to make this distinction. She w a n t e d to liberate men, as a kind of savior - - n o t herself but, I mean, her f u n c t i o n - - f r o m b o t h of them together. Therefore, she did n o t really a c k n o w l e d g e the difference. She felt that every anxiety is neurotic a n d every guilt-feeling is neurotic. Comment: I absolutely disagree. I w a n t to ask y o u this question. Do y o u think it is possible that a h u m a n being c o u l d live guiltless? Dr. Tillich: W i t h o u t objective guilt? No. No. H o w c o u l d he, because ~ we are all under the destiny of existential estrangement from our true being. Comment: But this w o u l d be one of the things that w o u l d b r i n g it


59

about--existential estrangement? (Yes.) Where this was n o t present, then there w o u l d not be guilt? Dr. Tillich: T h e r e w o u l d be n o life either, because we w o u l d still be in what I like to call symbolically " d r e a m i n g i n n o c e n c e . " I mean, before the self-actualization of life y o u can i m a g i n e a h a p p y state of paradise, w h i c h is a mythological symbol for w h a t Plato called the realm of p u r e essences. But that is not actual life. In actual l i f e q w i t h the self-realization of life in its individual charact e r - w e always have estrangement from the essential reality at the same time. Therefore, guilt is s o m e t h i n g universal, because it goes t h r o u g h our freedom. A l t h o u g h it is universal, we k n o w that we participate in this. It is, so to speak, a transcendent act in w h i c h every empirical act participates--"so to speak" means, this is also symbolic. It is s o m e t h i n g that precedes every individual life. So there is universal guilt; there is universal guilt-feeling, in some way. N o w I did not analyze the stages of the "sitting" experience in the Zen Master before he becomes a Zen Master. H o w m a n y lapses are there in h i m about w h i c h he has s o m e t h i n g of this guilt-feeling? "I s h o u l d not have slept," for instance, w h i c h they always do, a n d all these things. T h e y do not call it guilt-feeling, but I t h i n k it is exactly the same thing. I have seen deep guilt feeling in social relations a m o n g every Asiatic people, I mean, if they h u r t the other one or they m a d e a bad mistake. T h e y had a tremendous guilt-feeling a b o u t this n e w s p a p e r article in w h i c h I was called dead. It was not their guilt; it was nobody's guilt; it was a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g at the p h o n e a b o u t a J a p a n e s e word. But they had the feeling this m a n was guilty (the editor w h o h a d telephoned), a n d he must come and excuse himself. T h i s k i n d of guilt is m o r e social, then, perhaps, than in Christianity. It does not go as deep, but it is there. It c a n n o t be denied. Forgiveness and acceptance Dr. Tillich: Forgiveness is o n l y the m o r e vivid description of the m o r e

60


abstract term " b e i n g justified by grace t h r o u g h faith." Faith is receiving forgiveness; grace is the divine giving of forgiveness. T h e w h o l e act is in a P a u l i n i a n terminology, w h i c h was a rabbinic terminology, called justification. I do n o t use that term because n o b o d y understands it today. It is simply understandable only if y o u have the O l d T e s t a m e n t concept of tsedaqah 23 and so on. Therefore, I was l o o k i n g for a n o t h e r term and replaced it by acceptance.

Comment: But to be declared right or justified and to have this experience is in a sense to be guiltless. (Yes.) Yet at the same time, t h o u g h one is guiltless, one participates in brokenness; and despite brokenness, one is guiltless. Dr. Tillich: Yes. L u t h e r has f o r m u l a t e d it most sharply: justus, injustus; he w h o is just is unjust. In this short f o r m u l a he has p u t together the two things. Actually, s o m e b 0 d y - - l e t us m a k e the e x a m p l e the most external and objective e x a m p l e p o s s i b l e - - i s a criminal, b u t he hears the word of forgiveness as symbolized in the m a n o n the cross. For instance, one of the two criminals crucified with Jesus is accepted. T h i s does n o t mean that he is n o t a criminal. H e is guilty. But his guilt is taken u p as f o r g i v e n e s s - - s o m e t h i n g that shall not be valid in the relationship of G o d and himself, as it is not valid in the relationship w h e n we forgive each other: children, m a n a n d man, m a n and wife, friends, and so on. This does not m e a n that we deny that there was s o m e t h i n g bad, but we accept the other one. Usually, we thank God, w i t h o u t a solemn act of forgiveness; we simply do it. But the other feels we disapprove; we are hurt, or so, nevertheless, we accept him. N o w this seems to me a g o o d psychological analogy to the ultimate forgiveness. The uneasy conscience Dr. Tillich: G o d has saved us eternally. Yes, of course, b u t we must always become aware of this again if we fall into a kind of sin, if y o u want to call it t h a t - - I mean, sin as a concrete thing where we realize


61

that we s h o u l d not have done t h a t - - w e h u r t s o m e b o d y ; we did something wrong; we were lazy or whatever it m a y be. It can go even farther; we had to lie, we lied, we b e t r a y e d - - a l l k i n d s of things that we always do. There, I w o u l d say, this produces a feeling of bad conscience. Let's avoid for a m o m e n t the w o r d " g u i l t . " N o w h o w do y o u overcome this feeling of uneasy conscience if it is very sharp, very hard, and gives y o u the feeling y o u are really separated in this m o m e n t from G o d or from the source of life or from the U l t i m a t e or however y o u w a n t to call it? W h a t then? T h e n , of course, the w o r d of forgiveness has meant for i n n u m e r a b l e p e o p l e the o v e r c o m i n g of their uneasy conscience. T h e y are accepted. I think that the psychoanalyst in o u r period of history has largely had the function of the priest w h o m a d e the statement: " Y o u are forgiven. You are accepted." He accepts; he takes them into c o m m u n i t y . T h e church has become very mechanized a b o u t these things. O n the other hand, the church has one thing b e y o n d the analyst. T h e c h u r c h also embraces the patient a n d the analyst. T h e analyst needs the same thing that the patient needs. So there m u s t be some place from w h i c h this w o r d of forgiveness m u s t be s p o k e n to somebody. N o w there m a y be people, I will not deny that, w h o say it to thems e l v e s - - w i t h o u t self-betrayal, not in terms of self-complacency b u t in terms of a kind of meditative prayer: "Forgive us o u r sins as we forgive our debtors." All right. T h i s is n o t said o u t loud; it is n o t a prayer; it is some inner meditative feeling: "In spite of this, I a m in u n i t y w i t h G o d . " But it is a serious inner act, then. It is not: "I can take that easily." Now, if it is not that easy act, then it is very similar to h e a r i n g the w o r d of the minister or the w o r d of the Bible or of the c h u r c h fathers. T h e n the q u e s t i o n c o m e s - - w e started this line of discussion w i t h the question: " W h a t does the cross m e a n in this context?"

The cross and ambiguity Dr. Tillich: I do not mean the cross that we see o n the wall, b u t the

62

Journal o[ Religion and Health

symbol of the cross itself. Why has the symbol had such an immense impact on the consciousness of people? I mean, for instance, a criminal who is executed is shown the cross. Why is that done? What is going on psychologically in this moment? Or the child praying in the m o r n i n g or evening--better in the evening in this case--"Forgive what I have done during the day" and looking at the cross? Or T h o m a s Aquinas, when he was dying and one of his friends (I do not know who it was, one of the other great theologians, Bonaventura, probably) said to him: "Now you did all this great theology and should not be worried about the salvation of your soul." And Aquinas said: "I have forgotten everything that I have ever written, but . . ." and then he showed the cross of Christ, I mean, the crucifix.

Theological shi[t in Western Christianity Comment: To go back into history, is there something that happened in the fourth century as far as kirchengeschichte 24 is concerned--did the philosophy in the church change at that time? I am curious to find out. Dr. Tillich: Not the official theology so much, because the Greek theology was taken over by the R o m a n Western part of Christianity. But there was a great change in emphasis. The Greek ontological thinking was officially accepted. I mean, the dogmas were finished, practically in the fifth but omcially in the seventh century. They were taken over. Then, when the Western world developed independently, some m o t i v e s - - y o u must call them motives of t h o u g h t - - b e c a m e emphasized that were already in the Bible and in the early church, for instance, the humility of Christ. In the Greek mosaics--Greek Orthodox mosaics in all these wonderful Ravennine churches ~5 and so o n - - y o u always have Christ Pantocrator, which means the World Ruler, z6 with these majestic forms of the mosaics. You never have h i m crucified; z7 but in the Romanesque period, zs you have these extremely realistic crucifixes, which are like expressionistic forms of the twentieth century, z9 Comment: Do you detect an element of masochism?


63

Dr. Tillich: Yes, that might be. On the other hand, instead of the ontological hierarchy with Christ on the top, it also meant the active and dynamic participation of God in the life of the lowest in a new way. Therefore, it has to do with the h u m a n character of Christ, which was more or less lost in the Eastern church and still is by the Monophysitic development) ~ There is only one n a t u r e - - t h e divine; t h e h u m a n nature of Christ is lost. This is anhypothetic, 31 as it is called in a terrible scholastic term. It has no hypostasis--that is, one's own substantia; it is in the substantia of the divine. Now this terrible formula means something very realistic. It means that the h u m a n image of Jesus became completely lost in the Eastern church. That h u m a n image came out again in the Western church, partly under Augustine's influence. It was the reason for the emphasis upon the crucifixion pictures, which now came up, and also the feeling of sin and guilt. The problem of justification, in the Pauline way, came up again. T h e interesting thing is that Paul was almost eliminated in the Eastern church very shortly after the New Testament period. Instead of that, there was always the Fourth Gospel (John), which decided the [thought of the] Eastern church. There the problems of eternal life and light--knowledge and light--are decisive. T h a t is quite different from Paul, where from the rabbinic tradition the problem is guilt--fulfillment of the law and the inability to do it. T h a t other side came up again in the Western world. Paul was rediscovered in the West. Therefore, we have different periods of Paulinism. Augustine was Paulinian. Thomas Aquinas had strongly Paulinian elements. Then, the Reformation was a revolt of Paulinism against the whole R o m a n church. This meant the symbol of the'cross was the central symbol. Comment: ,Somehow they needed this. Maybe the two were necessary-interrelated--guilt, forgiveness, the cross. What can symbolize/orgiveness? Dr. Tillich: Yes, good. But we have not yet fully answered the question,

64


perhaps n o b o d y can: W h y the psychological p o w e r of this symbol? T h e q u e s t i o n that is most i m p o r t a n t for me is w h e t h e r this same psychological p o w e r can be p r o d u c e d by meditative self-acceptance w i t h o u t the relationship to the symbol of the cross. C o m m e n t : I think so. Dr. Tillich: You think so? C o m m e n t : It seems like a very different experience for me. T h e y are the same in m a n y ways, b u t I think that the m i r a c u l o u s - - r e a l l y sort of large miracle, I d o n ' t k n o w h o w to say i t - - q u a l i t y that is related to the symbol of the cross is very different. It is n o t really the same w i t h o u t it. I a m trying to think w h a t this symbol w o u l d be where the experience of telling it to oneself was present and I do n o t k n o w w h a t it w o u l d be. Dr. Tillich: Of forgiving oneself? C o m m e n t : Yes. Dr. Tillich: We were clear a b o u t that earlier in o u r discussion. We cannot do it simply and directly. We can do it t h r o u g h the p o w e r s of forgiveness, because life has forgiven us or has accepted us. Only if this [forgiveness] is in the meditative element, only then, can it be done. Otherwise, it is simply saying, "I a m a g o o d m a n ; " b u t that is just the opposite of w h a t forgiveness means. So the question is: W h a t is the s y m b o l of forgiveness in the g r o u n d of being itself or in the p o w e r of life itself if it is not the cross? I try in m y theology to reinterpret the cross in this sense so that one does not need to make his assurance d e p e n d e n t u p o n the event, as a sacrificial, substitutionary suffering and this w h o l e A n s e l m i a n idea. I think this is really almost impossible for us today. Y o u have m u c h m o r e experience with people, b u t I think it is impossible. Can the cross be reinterpreted? Dr. Tillich: So, what can we say? N o w I say w h a t is right theologically, I mean, what can be f o u n d in Paul is that G o d is reconciled by the death


65

of Christ as the sacrificial substitute. But G o d is everything; H e does it; and He shows it. N o w h o w does H e s h o w it if not in this way? T h a t was the last question asked. Is there a n o t h e r symbol? y o u said. C a n the symbol of the cross be reinterpreted? Can it get a n o t h e r m e a n i n g ? Or is this impossible? Comment: This m a y be absolute nonsense, b u t it seems to m e that in the cross the symbol is s o m e h o w focusing on something. But w h e r e the cross is gone, s o m e h o w this experience, then, is pervasive; a n d in some w a y it is almost trans-symbolic. Dr. Tillich: Yes. All right. Let's forget n o w a b o u t the three-level symbol; the cross on the wall; the event, the cross of a m a n Jesus, w h o was the Christ; a n d then, the original m e a n i n g , namely, G o d ' s acceptance of estranged m a n k i n d . All right, these are the three levels of the symbol. N o w can this be expressed in the same c o n v i n c i n g w a y as that w h i c h really produces, w h i c h has produced, w h i c h still produces in inn u m e r a b l e people, the c o n q u e s t of their uneasy conscience? Can we have another symbol for it or, at least, a n o t h e r experience? P e r h a p s we are not able to have a symbol for it today; b u t if we can have this experience, I w o u l d be greatly relieved because I k n o w h o w infinitely difficult it is to u n d e r s t a n d all these terrible a s s o c i a t i o n s - - w h a t y o u called, the w h o l e scene of miracles a r o u n d it. We m u s t get rid of all this, of course. H o w is it possible? Dr. Johnson: Does this symbol crop u p in p e o p l e w h o are a w a r e or p e o p l e w h o are relatively u n a w a r e [of the barrier and difficulty of c o m m u n i c a t i n g with God]? Comment: Sometimes m y patients seem to develop this, n o q u e s t i o n a b o u t it. Dr. Johnson: I know; m i n e do not; and that is w h y I a m curious. Comment: In one m a n patient of m i n e it is evident that this is a real symbol of rebirth and r e d e m p t i o n a n d that he lost himself somewhere. This experience is really shaking. My hair was rising o n the back of

66

Journal o~ Religion and Health

my head as this thing came u p in therapy. I k n e w I was in the presence of the n u m i n o u s . Dr. Tillich: T o w h i c h p o i n t do y o u refer the w o r d "this"? T h e cross? Comment: T h e cross, yes. H e came to this, y o u s e e . . . Dr. Tillich: O h yes. N o w that is w h a t y o u can find in churches all the time and in dying people, for instance. It is really the consolation. We are n o w in a situation where m a n y of us w o u l d prefer that we had another symbol or no symbol at all, perhaps, simply the description of the experience in o u r inner acceptance that we are accepted w i t h o u t having this addition, w h i c h is often mostly in Christian prayers, "because of the innocent suffering and dying of thy son Jesus Christ." T h a t is the last sentence of all the official prayers for forgiveness. N o w I must confess this "because" has no sense for me. I w o u l d say, "as it is manifest." T h a t w o u l d be m y f o r m u l a t i o n of the prayer. So, in this sense it w o u l d be a symbol for me. N o w if this is not even possible any m o r e - - I mean, this "as it is manifest" f o r m u l a - - t h e n this symbol is gone. Is there a n o t h e r symbol? Comment: What I think it i s - - a n d I can only say h o w it seems to m e - is that it is like the Zen. T h e Zen idea seems to be h e l p f u l to m e - - t h e Zen idea of a gateless gate. W h e n y o u are there, y o u see the gate. Once y o u go through, you realize there was n o gate in the first place. Maybe, in the same w a y the cross is necessary, a n d after this, s o m e h o w , it becomes transparent; and it is gone. S o m e h o w it is so paradoxical. Dr. Tillich: Yes. Now, of course, in Christian s y m b o l i s m w h a t y o u say can be understood, then, as only the resurrection is l e f t - - t h e resurrection, again, not in the m i r a c u l o u s absurdity b u t in the sense that o u t of this death, life is born. T h a t y o u can say. T h e r e is the d o u b l e step. In classical Christian theology (in the Bible a n d the N e w T e s t a m e n t ) there is never the cross alone. T h e r e is always the cross a n d resurrection. T h e r e is never the resurrection alone, it is always the resurrection of the crucified. These two b e l o n g to each other, absolutely. T h i s is a very i m p o r t a n t discussion for me, because I really see h o w


67

difficult it is--even to reinterpret the symbol in this modified f o r m "as manifest" instead of "because of." If this is gone, there is n o other symbol. All these other symbols such as Zen B u d d h i s m has are very h i g h l y unhistorical symbols.

Comment: We have to stop in a b o u t five minutes. Dr. Tillich: Oh, I a m sorry we have to stop. T h i s is a w o n d e r f u l discussion. The deepest problem Dr. Titiich: I w o u l d still emphasize the p r o b l e m of guilt m o r e t h a n anything else. I a m glad, for instance, that Karen H o m e y (and other psychoanalytic friends) have i n f o r m e d me that w i t h these e n l i g h t e n e d p e o p l e of New York, Park Avenue, a n d so on, w h o were her patients, there is always a point where she comes d o w n to the p r o b l e m of guilt. A l t h o u g h one thinks they are so h u m a n i s t i c a n d naturalistic, that this p r o b l e m w o u l d not m e a n anything, it is not true. I do not k n o w w h a t y o u feel about that fact. It is an astonishing fact. But it is a fact that the p r o b l e m of guilt, in spite of the p r o b l e m of death and the p r o b l e m of m e a n i n g , w h i c h are the three m a i n p r o b l e m s - - a l t h o u g h the p r o b l e m of m e a n i n g is, perhaps, externally the most c o n s p i c u o u s t o d a y - - i n the depths of everybody, the p r o b l e m of guilt plays a t r e m e n d o u s role. Therefore, I think we s h o u l d not m a k e it too easy for t h e m to swallow the p r o b l e m of acceptance. T h e y m u s t c o m e into c o m m u n i t y w i t h objective transpersonal powers of forgiveness or of acceptance in order to be able to accept themselves. Otherwise, it is simply a self-confirmation in a state of estrangement. ~2 Comment: Well, if we are not aware of this, if we go in blindness o u r selves, all we do is give people a h a n d y set of rationalizations so they can still get away from really dealing w i t h this f u n d a m e n t a l difficulty. Dr. Tillich: Yes. Yes. T h e y can go on. I t h i n k it is a d a n g e r in some g r o u p s of psychologists, perhaps the m o r e o r t h o d o x Freudians, that there the


68

difference between is n o j u d g m e n t analyzed

essence and

e x i s t e n c e is n o t m a d e .

from essence against existence. Therefore,

away; guilt feelings can be analyzed

Therefore,

there

anxiety can be

away. I think

t h i s is t h e

p o i n t w h e r e t h e C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n is p r o f o u n d e r .

Dr. J o h n s o n : I j u s t r e a l i z e d t h a t I h a d b e e n b y p a s s i n g have gone

from where

we are trying

directed and self-supporting

to help

a person

so thai the problem

guilt.

I mean,

become

of guilt

I

inner-

does not ac-

t u a l l y c o m e u p i n t h e r a p y , e x c e p t as i t is e x p r e s s e d as a f e e l i n g . I t h i n k I will spend some time going into that.

N o t e s a n d References 1. Zen Buddhism is one of the principal sects (shfi) of Buddhism in Japan. It disavows abstraction, generalization, explanation, argument. Instead it appeals directly to facts of personal experience without any intermediary. 2. The True Pure Land Sect or J6do-Shin-shfi. Its founder claimed that the sect "truly" transmits the faith and thought of the Pure L a n d Sect (Suzuki, D. T., Zen and Japanese Buddhism. Rutland, Vt., Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1958, p. 109). The True Pure Land Sect is based u p o n the 18th vow: " H a v i n g heard the name of Amida, they rejoice and trust in him with the whole heart." This vow is the most liberal of Buddhist vows and because of its popular interpretation may account, in part, for the success of the sect. 3. "In the dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism two telos [the intrinsic aim of existence] formulas can be used: in Christianity the telos of everyone and everything united in the Kingdom of God; in Buddhism the telos of everything and everyone fulflled in the Nirvana." Tillich, P., Christianit3~ and the Encounter with the World Religions. New York, Columbia Univ. Press, 1963, p. 64. 4. "The Zen master would say, 'My words are mine and not yours and do not belong to you. All must come out of your own being.' " To avoid abstract metaphysical speculations that distract one from the concrete world of finites, the Zen master makes illogical rctorts to questions in order to jolt the student into seeing for himself. This charactertistic feature of question and answer is called mondo. T h e mondo have a freshness and vivacity "because they spring from life and deal with it directly without any intermediary agent such as intellection or symbolization." Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 23. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962. Also see Suzuki, D. T., Fromm, E., and DeMartino, R., Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis. New York, Grove Press, 1960, pp. 24-32, 142-171 ("The H u m a n Situation and Zen Buddhism"). 5. Technically, "to sit" means to sit cross-legged in meditation. It refers to a motionless sitting and some sort of concentration or peaceful attention to the object without straining to achieve effects. Usually the legs are crossed, the back straight, the

Paul T i l l i c h Converses w i t h Ps3~chotherapists

6. 7. 8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

13.

69

breathing regular, and the eyes only slightly open. Wood, E., Zen Dictionary. New York, Philosophical Library, 1962, p. 157. D.T. Suzuki, 1870-- , lived in New York City from 1951 on most of the time. Identity is uncertain. Probably refers to Dr. Shinichi Hisamatsu. See Suzuki, Fromm, and DeMartino, op. cit., p. 142. According to legend, Buddhism was thought to have originated in India and to have been taken to China in finished form by Bodhidharma early in the sixth century A. D. The actual origin in China began with the sixth-century patriarch Huineong (died 713 A.D.). He emphasized prajn~, which is essential wisdom that transcends the subject-object dualism, in contrast to the "one-sided mental absorption in the tranquilizing practice of dhyana meditation or contemplation or u n i o n with Reality that was the prevailing tendency in his day." Encyc. Britannica, loc. cit. The change and adaptation that took place are seen in the establishment of such schools of Buddhism as those that developed skills in "classification by chronological periods and compromise between Indian metaphysics and Chinese worldly thought"; emphasized faith and the doctrine of abrupt Enlightenment as "the outcome of the Chinese bent for simplicity, directness, and practicality"; emphasized filial piety; and developed the close liaison with the imperial government. Ch'en, K. K. S., Buddhism in China: a historical survey. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 1964, pp. 484-486. Either in 538 or 552 A.D., one of the Korean kings presented a Buddhist image to the Japanese court, along with copies of Buddhist scriptures and liturgical ornaments. Although Buddhism had been known earlier among Japanese of Chinese and Korean ancestry, these are the dates usually regarded as the b e g i n n i n g of Buddhism in Japan. Morgan, K. W., ed., The Path of the Buddha: Buddhism interpreted by Buddhists. New York, Ronald Press, 1964, pp. 64-65, 307463 ("Buddhism in Japan"). Professor Tillich dedicated his book, Theology of Culture, to " H a n n a and Gerhard Colm." H a n n a Colin was in Berlin from 1923 to 1927 as lecturer in child guidance at the School for Social Work of Dr. Alice Salomon, and Pestalozzi-FriSbel-Haus. Professor Tillich was Privatdozent of Theology at the University of Berlin from 1919 to 1924. The Japanese word for "sitting" is za-zen. Also see note 5. Enlightenment is apparently a constantly experienced state of satori or getting beyond concepts. It is an added mode of experience similar to the o p e n i n g of a third eye. "Satori may be defined as an intuitive looking into the nature of things in contradistinction to the analytical or logical understanding of it. Practically, it means the unfolding of a new world hitherto unperceived in the confusion of a dualisticallytrained mind." Suzuki, D. T., Zen Buddhism: selected writings. Edited by William Barrett. Garden City, N. Y., Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956, pp. 83-108. The Shifigon-shg w a s b r o u g h t to Japan by Kobo Dishi from China in 806 A.D. It is one of the most powerful and prosperous Buddhist sects in Japan. The sect regards its own teachings as "secret or esoteric doctrine" and all other Buddhist teachings as "open or exoteric doctrine." Arnrstrong, R., An Introduction to Japanese Buddhist Sects. Canada, privately printed for Mrs. Robert Cornell Armstrong, 1950, pp. 166-197.

70

J o u r n a l o f R e l i g i o n and H e a l t h

14. As a religion, Buddhism has given the world two major values: (1) "the idea of personal discipline to gain freedom from craving in the ultimate tranquility in Nirvana"; and (2) "the idea of unselfish devotion to the good of others for the sake of their deliverance from ill." Hamilton, D. H., Buddhism: A Religion of Infinite Compassion: Selections from Buddhist Literature. Edited, with an Introduction and Notes. New York, The Liberal Arts Press, 1952, p. xxiii. The second of the four stages in cultivating the unlimited emotions is compassion. It requires concentrating on the sufferings of others in order to Suffer with them, and thereby desire to remove their suffering. With Mahayanists conrpassion achieved a rank of importance equal to that of wisdom. Donze, E., Buddhism: Its Essence and Development. Oxford, Bruno Cassirer, 1957, pp. 102, 128. 15. "In the traditionaI terminology of Buddhism, seIf-nature is Buddha-nature, that which makes up Buddhahood; it is absolute Emptiness, Sunyata, it is absolute Suchness, Tathata . . . it has nothing to do yet with a dualistic world of subject and obj e c t . . . " Suzuki, Zen Buddhism, op. cit., pp. 210-211,220. 16. Etienne Gilson interprets Augustine on love: "The moral problem is not whether one should love but what one should love. 'Are you told not to love anything? Not at all! If you are to love nothing, you will be lifeless, dead, detestable, miserable. Love, but be careful what you love.' Virtue, then, means to will what we should will, i.e., to love what we should love." Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine. Translated by L. E. M. Lynch. New York, Random House, 1960, p. 135. 17. Anselm's theory of atonement "starts with the tension in God between his wrath and his love and shows that the work of Christ makes it possible for God to exercise mercy without violating the demands of justice . . . . Only the God-Man could do this, because, as man, he could suffer and, as God, he did not have to suffer for his own sins." Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. II. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1957, pp. 172-173. 18. From the late Constantinian period "the death of Christ is alluded to by other scenes, but is never actually portrayed . . . . The cross of G o l g o t h a served as a symbol of the Crucifixion, as on a sarcophagus in the Lateran Museums." Volbach, W. F., Early Christian Art. New York, Harry N. Abrams, Photography by Max Hirmer, n.d., p. 22. A more or less historically conceived crucifixion is "seldom found in the 5th century and the definitive composition originates in the 6th, perhaps in Jerusalem. The 5th century efforts are shapeless and distasteful; it is only later that a worthy form is achieved." Vander Meer, F., and Mohrmann, C., Atlas of the Early Christian World. Translated and edited by M. F. Hedlund and H. H. Rowley. New York, Nelson, 1958, p.145. 19. In a Radio/Television conversation with Carl Rogers, Professor Tiltich described his view of the necessity of translating and interpreting the symbols of faith instead of replacing them: "I don't believe that scientific language is able to express the vertical dimension adequately, because it is bound to the relationship of finite things to each other, even in psychology and certainly the physical sciences. This is the reason why I think we need another language, and this Ianguage is the language of symbols and myths; it is religious language. But we poor theologians, in contrast to you happy psychologists, are in the bad situation that we know the symbols with which we deal have to be reinterpreted and even radically reinter-


20.

21.

22. 23.

24. 25.

26.

27.

28.

71

preted. But I have taken this heavy yoke u p o n myself and I have decided long ago I will continue to the end with it." Paul Tillich and Carl Rogers--a dialogue. Produced and directed by T. D. Skinner; edited by R. E. Lee. Radio/Television, San Diego State College and the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute, La Jolla, Cal., Jan., 1966. Zen Buddhism is par excellence the religion of self-power by virtue of the fact that one attempts to achieve Enlightenment by one's own efforts of study and ascetic practice. The Japanese word for self-effort is'jiriki. Humphreys, C., Buddhism. Middlesex, England, Penguin Books, 1949, p. 170. In contrast to jiriki or self-power of Zen is tariki or other-power of J6do Shin. It expresses the idea of salvation by faith in Another's Power. Shin is the Pure Land School of Buddhism in Japan in its extreme form of salvation by pure faith, the doctrine that man may be born in paradise simply by repeating the name of Amida Buddha. Armstrong, op. cit., pp. 211-217. See Homey, K., New Ways in Psychoanalysis. New York, Norton, 1939, pp. 237-238. Tsedaqah or "righteousness." In the Old Testament it implies conforming to the norm of the character of G o d - - a n ethical idea that was linked with salvation. Richardson, A., ed., ,'t Theological Word Book of the Bible. New York, Macmillan, 1951, pp. 202-204. Paul means by the righteousness of God the salvation that He accomplishes through Christ. Romans 3:21-26. German for church history. Professor Tillich's second wife, H a n n a h Werner, was an art student. After their marriage in March, 1924, they went on a three-month walking tour through Italy, where she introduced him to the fascinating wonders of medieval and Renaissance painting and architecture. "For years afterwards," he said, "I dreamed of the 24 hours we spent in Ravenna." Time, March 16, 1959, pp. 47-48. "What no a m o u n t of study of church history had brought," he is reported to have said, "was accomplished by the mosaics in ancient Roman basilicas." Adams, J. L., Paul Tillich's Philosophy of Culture, Science, and Religion. New York, Harper & Row, 1965, p. 66. "Byzantine art represented the Christ of all time, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. The CEFALU C H R I S T has the majesty of the creator of the universe and the power of him who, in the words of the Te Deum Laudamus, we believe 'shalt come to be our judge.' " The majestic, divine, and transcendent Christ was often of tremendous size. In some mosaics the head of Christ alone is about eight feet in height. Its placement on a concave area above the altar gives the image an impression that is overwhelming. Dillenberger, J., Style and Content in Christian Art. Nashville, Abingdon, 1965, pp. 59, 52. For example, in Sant' Apollinere Nuovo are Passion scenes on the top zone of the south side of the three-aisled basilica: "The Last Supper, Christ in Gethsemane, T h e Kiss of Judas, Christ Led to Caiaphas, Christ Before Caiaphas, Christ Foretelling the Denial of Peter, The Denial of Peter, The Repentance of Judas, Christ Before Pilate, The Roatt to Calvary, The Marys at the Sepulcher, The Road to Emmaus, a n d T h e Incredulity of Thomasl ~' Volbach, op. cit., p. 341. But there is no scene of the crucifixion itself. In the West, the Romanesque period was a time of upheaval with the invasions of Northern barbarian tribes and the weakening of the political, social, and economic structure. Varying degrees of classical, barbarian, and Byzantine elements are welded

72

29. 30.

31.

32.


together in a n e m e r g i n g style. " B y z a n t i n e art presents g r o u p s of figures as so m a n y isolated beings near each o t h e r b u t w i t h n o r e l a t i o n s h i p to each o t h e r b e y o n d t h a t of gesture. In R o m a n e s q u e art the g r o u p s are b o u n d by i n t e n s e e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n to the event . . . . T h e C h r i s t of R o m a n e s q u e a r t is either the d o m i n a n t a n d t r a n s c e n d e n t presence in a scene such as T H E P E N T E C O S T ; or the C h r i s t of the A p o c a l y p s e seen in glory i n h e a v e n a n d s u r r o u n d e d by the s y m b o l s of t h e four evangelists; or the C h r i s t w h o as j u d g e rules over the s e p a r a t i o n of the elect f r o m the d a m n e d at the Last J u d g m e n t . All of these subjects are s u p e r n a t u r a l subjects of v i s i o n a r y a n d mystical e l e m e n t s " i n a n o n n a t u r a l i s t i c style D i l l e n b e r g e r , op. cit., p p . 57-65. Western C h r i s t i a n i t y e m p h a s i z e d C h r i s t ' s h i s t o r i c a l h u m a n i t y , his h u m i l i t y , w h i l e Eastern C h r i s t i a n i t y e m p h a s i z e d his divinity, his victory. In R o m a n e s q u e art the artist distorts the h u m a n figure i n order to convey a n emotion or idea; thus the style m a y be called expressionistic. Monos m e a n s " o n e ; " physis m e a n s " n a t u r e . " M o n o p h y s i t i s m insisted t h a t " t h e h u m a n character of C h r i s t was s w a l l o w e d u p i n d i v i n i t y . . " T h e East reacted a g a i n s t the C h a l c e d o n i a n f o r m u l a of the full h u m a n i t y of C h r i s t " t o s u c h a degree t h a t it became a n easy prey to the Islamic p u r i t a n r e a c t i o n . . , a g a i n s t the s a c r a m e n t a l superstitious forms i n t o w h i c h C h r i s t i a n i t y h a d fallen m o r e a n d more. I have a t h e s i s . . , that the attacks of I s l a m w o u l d never h a v e been successful if E a s t e r n Christianity h a d t a k e n i n t o itself the e l e m e n t of p e r s o n a l i t y a n d h i s t o r y . " T i l l i c h , A History of Christian Thought. 2 n d ed., reviSed a n d edited by C. E. Braaten. L o n d o n , SCM Press, 1968, pp. 8_1, 87-88. Hypostasis m e a n s " b e i n g a n i n d e p e n d e n t b e i n g . " L e o n t i u s of B y z a n t i u m in the s i x t h century stated t h a t " t h e h u m a n n a t u r e in C h r i s t does n o t h a v e its o w n hypostasis; it is anhypostasis ( w i t h o u t hypostasis) . . . . W h e n it comes io the f o r m u l a enhypostasis (one hypostasis i n the other), we d o n o t really k n o w w h a t t h a t means. But the reason it was i n v e n t e d is clear. T h e q u e s t i o n was: C a n two n a t u r e s exist w i t h o u t a n i n d e p e n d e n t head; a n hypostasis? T h e a n s w e r was, they c a n n o t . T h e r e fore, C h r i s t has o n e hypostasis r e p r e s e n t i n g the two n a t u r e s . . . . T h e two n a t u r e s are d i s t i n g u i s h e d o n l y i n theory, n o t i n practice. T h e p e r s o n of the L o g o s h a s become the p e r s o n a l center of a m a n . T h e h u m a n n a t u r e h a s n o p e r s o n a l characteristics of its own. T h i s was the decisive p o i n t , because if this is the case, h o w c a n H e h e l p us? T h e Crucified is the true G o d a n d L o r d of glory, a n d o n e of the T r i n i t y . T h e identification of Jesus C h r i s t w i t h the L o g o s is c o m p l e t e . As in the icons i n w h i c h C h r i s t a p p e a r s i n g o l d - g r o u n d setting, the h u m a n p e r s o n a l i t y h a s d i s a p p e a r e d . " T i l l i c h , A History oJ Christian Thought, op. cit., p p . 88-89. In a m e m o r i a l tribute to Professor T i l l i c h , p s y c h o a n a l y s t Erik H. E r i k s o n spoke of T i l l i c h ' s " r e i t e r a t e d . . . c o n c e r n a b o u t the f a d d i s h aspects of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s . I n s t e a d of restricting itself to r e m o v i n g n e u r o t i c s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t i o n s so as to free i n m a n w h a t h e called 'the m o r a l self-realization of the centered self,' d i d it n o t a t t e m p t to rem o v e m a n ' s existential d r e a d a l o n g w i t h his n e u r o t i c anxiety? A n d w h a t was m a n w i t h o u t the awareness of his finitude, w h a t w i t h o u t the r e a l i z a t i o n of his g u i l t in regard 'to acts of w h i c h , ' as h e p u t it elsewhere, ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y c a n n o t be denied, in spite of the elements of destiny in t h e m ' ? . . . P a u l u s a c k n o w l e d g e d F r e u d ' s basic discoveries as h a v i n g s h o w n u p 'the a m b i g u i t y of w h a t h e called m e n of g o o d will . . . so r a m p a n t in . . . P r o t e s t a n t i s m . ' " Harvard Divinity Bulletin, 1966, 30, No. 2, p. 15.

Conspiracies of immanence: Paul Tillich, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and C.G. Jung.

Interview with Paul Selzer.

Burnout among Dutch psychotherapists.

A conversation with Bill Paul.

Ten questions with …. Paul Coss.

Inspiration of psychotherapists by patients.

The training of psychotherapists.

Paul Conduit.

Psychotherapists and the clergy: Fifty years later.

Factors associated with critical thinking abilities in psychotherapists.

Dr Paul Tessier.

Common mistakes made by beginning psychotherapists.

Differences between behavior therapists and psychotherapists.

Boogie woogie: Paul Chidlaw.

Paul Branton 1916-1990.

Paul Arnold Toller, F.D.S.

Personality Styles of German-Speaking Psychotherapists Differ from a Norm, and Male Psychotherapists Differ from Their Female Colleagues.

Clergymen as psychotherapists: Problems in interrole communication.

Distinction in a sample of prominent psychotherapists.

William E. Paul 1936-2015.

Paul F. Christenson, 1916-1976.

Paul Ehrlich and Almroth Wright.

Why do psychotherapists participate in psychotherapy research and why not? Results of the Attitudes to Psychotherapy Research Questionnaire with a sample of experienced German psychotherapists.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul.