Reviewed Book: Reimer, A James. The Emmanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: A Study in the Political Ramifications of Theology. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989. Toronto studies in theology; 42

Muller, Richard A.

English

Scholars Commons

The Emmanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: A Study in the Political Ramifications of Theology

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 18Issue 1 Issues in Church Life Article 185-1-1992The Emmanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: AStudy in the Political Ramifications of TheologyRichard A. MullerFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationMuller, Richard A. (1992) "The Emmanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: A Study in the Political Ramifications of Theology,"Consensus: Vol. 18 : Iss. 1 , Article 18.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol18/iss1/18144 ConsensusThe Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: A Studyin the Political Ramifications of TheologyA. James ReimerToronto Studies in Theology, Volume 42Lewiston/Queenston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989XV + 384 pp. U.S. $79.95 hardcoverIt is relatively common knowledge that Paul Tillich, writing in 1934-35 from his exile in New York, confronted his former colleague, EmanuelHirsch, with a powerful salvo against Hirsch’s theological and political viewson church, state, and the question of Jewish Christians in the nationalGerman church. The crystal clarity of late twentieth-century hindsightnow links Hirsch irreparably with the rise of the “German Christians”,National Socialism and Adolf Hitler—and Tillich’s “open letters” standwith the Barmen Declaration^ also of 1934, as beacon lights of theologicalreflection against the warped political faith of that time. Tillich is reveredas one of the great theologians of the century; while Hirsch, particularlyin English-speaking circles, has passed into obscurity, remembered as themisguided and tragic author of the vast and still-authoritative Geschichteder neuren evangelischen Theologie^ five large volumes covering the historyof Protestant thought from the close of the era of orthodoxy to the end ofthe nineteenth century. Reimer’s excellent study of the two theologians goesfar beyond the brief debate of 1934-35 and, through a careful and detailedreading of published sources and personal remains, reconstructs what was infact a sixty-three year, close, personal, and intellectual relationship betweenTillich and Hirsch. Reimer sets the relationship into the context of thetheological and political developments of the time and offers a finely- drawnintellectual portrait, most remarkable for its balanced reading of Hirsch’sthought.Perhaps the most important contribution of Reimer’s work is its de-mythologization of the Tillich-Hirsch relationship and its careful delineationof Hirsch’s own theological position. Tillich hoped for a fusion of religionand culture in which a myth of national origins had a positive role, and hedid not immediately reject fascism as demonic. Hirsch, on the other hand,recognized the possibility of evil in fascism. Both theologians understoodtheir political involvement existentially in terms of the necessity of takingrisks. Yet Tillich, given his understanding of myth and the importance ofbreaking myths in order for them to function properly, refused to supportNational Socialism—while Hirsch assumed, with tragic result, the respon-sibility of remaining with the movement in order to help guide it. Nor wasHirsch, as is often thought, a derivative thinker who merely borrowed (orplagiarized) some of Tillich’s political ideas: Reimer shows Hirsch as anindependent thinker who shared an intellectual heritage with Tillich andwho had his own distinctive understanding of some of the shared concepts,like that of “the boundary”, which Hirsch saw as rooted in Fichte. Hirsch’sBook Reviews 145concept of a historical boundary or limit on human activity and a divineboundary or limit on all moments of history pressed him toward a theologydeeply influenced by his historical experience and profoundly in search ofthe moment in which his commitment to the history of his religion and hisnation would result in a new and renewed understanding of the national or-der or law [nomos). Hirsch, moreover, did not deify or absolutize NationalSocialism—but the contrast with Tillich does indicate that Hirsch failed todevelop the capacity either to criticize the movement or to And a groundfor opposition in the midst of the ambiguities of political life.Reimer’s essay offers both a significant and detailed analysis of thehistorical path of the Tillich-Hirsch relationship from early friendship, todebate, and rupture, and an expertly crafted discussion of the politicaltheology of both thinkers as it developed in the time between the twoWorld Wars. It is a welcome contribution both to the literature on Tillichand to the much needed contemporary analysis of the theologies of the firsthalf of the twentieth century, their roots, their historical context, and theirsomewhat ambiguous (rather than clearly good or clearly evil) contributionto the politics of the age.Richard A. MullerCalvin Theological SeminarySources of the Seif: The Making of the Modern Iden-tityCharles TaylorCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989521 pp. plus notes and indexPhilosophers, to paraphrase Dickens, are the best of historians andphilosophers are the worst of historians. They are the “worst” because thesearch for the grand generalization and the theoretical basis often ignoreshard data that undoes the generalization or disproves the theory. Theyare the “best” because sometimes their conclusions, even when based onflawed analysis of detail, tell us more about ourselves than hundreds ofjournal articles which are “correct” in every particular.Charles Taylor, a native Montrealer formerly at Oxford and now pro-fessor of philosophy at McGill University, is aware of the problems andpossibilities of a philosopher doing history. He knows the dangers of asimplistic idealism, and he also knows the dangers of an equally simplisticmaterialism. The goal he has chosen for Sources of the Self is not to offerthe complete story of why and how the modern identity developed, but todiscover what the appeal of the developing modern identity was to those

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1875&amp;context=consensus

The Emmanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: A Study in the Political Ramifications of Theology

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholars Commons

Wilfrid Laurier University