このシリーズでは、私が1994年に執筆した統一神学大学院(Unification Theological Seminary)の神学課程修士論文(Divinity Thesis)を日英二か国語で掲載している。


 「他律」という言葉も、二つのギリシア語から由来する。「見知らぬ(strange)」や「外の(foreign)」を意味する heteros と、「法」を意味する nomos である。他律は人がいかに実在を理解すべきであるかを「外部から」命令し、見知らぬ法を強制する。たとえばもし誰かが「あなたは許しを受ける前に、まずこの教義に対する信仰をもたなくてはならない。」というならば、それは人に信じ難いことを信じるように強い、率直な疑問を抑圧することによって、その人の正直さを破壊する結果となるのである。ティリッヒは、他律とは「われわれに安全を保証する権威に服従することによって、恐怖を逃れようとする試みである」と結論づける。この意味において、全ての宗教的権威は他律的になりうると彼は指摘するのである:






VII. Evaluation of the Mukyokai Movement.(Cont.)

The word “heteronomy” also derives from two Greek terms, heteros, which means “strange” or “foreign,” and nomos, which means “law.”(22) Heteronomy impose upon a man the way to understand reality from “outside” and forces a strange law upon him.(23) For example, if somebody should say, “Before you can be forgiven you must first have belief in this doctrine,” it results in destroying a person’s honesty by compelling that person to believe certain unbelievable things, and repressing honest doubt. He concludes that heteronomy is “the attempt to escape fear, not by courage but by subjection to an authority which gives us security.” (24) In this sense, Tillich points out, all religious authority can become heteronomous:

In the church as it should be, nothing is heteronomous in contrast to autonomous. And in man’s spiritual life nothing is autonomous, in contrast to heteronomous, whenever spiritual life has an ultimate integration. Yet this is not the human situation. The church is not only the community of the New Being; it is also a sociological group immersed in the conflicts of existence. Therefore, it is subject to the almost irresistible temptation of becoming heteronomous and of suppressing autonomous criticism, eliciting just by this method autonomous reactions which often are strong enough to secularize not only culture but also the church itself. A heteronomous tide may then start the vicious circle again.(25)

Tillich points out that the church paid a dear price in its struggle against heresies. What he called the heteronomous structures of an authoritarian church, which later resulted in the church of the Inquisition, had their beginnings in the anti-Gnostic response of Orthodoxy. Also every definition entails exclusion. When the church was pressed by heresies to defend itself, it had to define itself. This self-definition, Tillich believes, inevitably has a narrowing result.

The whole history of Christian dogma is a continuing narrowing down, but at the same time a defining. And the definition is important, because without it many elements would have undercut the whole church, would have denied its existence. The dogma, therefore, the dogmatic development, is not something merely lamentable or evil. It was the necessary form by which the church kept its very identity…. The tragic element in all history is that if something like this must be done, it immediately has the consequence of narrowing down and excluding very valuable elements.” (26)

Tillich believes that there is no solution to this problem of self-reduction through self-definition except by the continual reformation of the church.
According to Tillich, the battle between autonomy and heteronomy is a self-destructive conflict between the structural elements of reason under the conditions of existence.(27) Since it is a conflict between different forms of the same reason, the schism can be ultimately healed.

(22)Ibid. , p.26.
(23)op cit, Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p.84.
(24)op cit, Tillich, Perspectives, p.26
(25)op cit, Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p.148.
(26)Tillich, Ultimate Concern: Tillich in Dialogue, ed. Mackenzie Brown (New York: Haper & Row, Publishers, 1965). pp.64-5.
(27)op cit, Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p.83.

カテゴリー: 統一神学大学院修士論文シリーズ パーマリンク