Tillich’s Theory of Religious Symbols

Premda je po vlastitom priznanju svoj cjelokupni teološki rad usmjerio prema interpretaciji religijskih simbola kako bi postali razumljivi svim ljudima, Paul Tillich sa svojom teorijom simbola odnosno religijskog jezika izazvao je brojne polemike, stoga ćemo nastojati prikazati njene bitne odrednice. Uže područje istraživanja nekoliko je njegovih ključnih eseja, a pored toga metoda proučavanja odnosi se i na analizu relevantnih ideja njegovih glavnih kritičara. Kritičkom analizom autor je došao do zaključka da je Tillich prije svega želio prevladati pogubne posljedice ‘doslovnog’ i ‘nadnaravnog’ tumačenja vjerskih učenja, zbog čega je zagovarao filozofiju religije koja bi pomogla osnaživanju značenja simbola i rasvjetljavanju simboličke prirode glavnih vjerskih učenja. Pritom je posebno naglašavao da se simboli nipošto ne smiju poistovjećivati s onim što simboliziraju, kako ne bi došlo do njihova demoniziranja, odnosno do tog da se apsolutiziraju te tako postanu sami sebi svrhom i predmetom idolopokloničkog obožavanja; nego da kao ‘sredstvo’ ukazivanja na Sveto moraju sadržavati i svoju vlastitu negaciju, a što je zapravo afirmacija one stvarnosti koja nam u svojoj biti ostaje do kraja nespoznatljiva. U tom smislu simbol raspetog Krista na križu najviše odgovara sadržaju i značenju vjere, a kao konačni kriterij svih religijskih simbola predstavlja glavnog čuvara protiv njihova demoniziranja.Although Paul Tillich, as he himself confessed, directed his whole theological work towards an interpretation of religious symbols so that all people could understand them, he caused a great deal of polemics with his theory of symbols, or religious language. Therefore, our intention is to show its seminal determinants. The focus of the research is on several of his key essays and the study methodology also includes an analysis of relevant ideas of his most prominent critics. Through critical analysis, the author concluded that Tillich primarily wanted to overcome the devastating consequences of ‘literal’ and ‘supernatural’ interpretation of religious teachings, which is why he advocated a philosophy of religion that would help strengthen the significance of the symbols and shed light on the symbolic nature of the main religious teachings. In doing so, he especially emphasized that the symbols must never be identified with what they symbolize, so they wouldn’t be demonized or turned into the absolutes, and in that way become their own purpose and an object of idolatry. Instead, as an ‘instrument’ of pointing to the Holy, the symbols must also include their own negation, which is in fact the affirmation of the reality that in its essence remains unknowable to us in its entirety. In this sense, the symbol of the Christ crucified on the cross meets the content and meaning of faith to the greatest extent, and as the final criterion of all religious symbols, it represents the main guardian against their demonization