Paul Klee: Art Analysis

Paul Klee, a German national Swiss painter, was born on 18th December 1879 in a place called Münchenbuchsee bei Bern in Switzerland.He grew up in a music family and was himself a violinist. After many years, he chooses to study art, not music, and he attended the Munich Academy in 1900. He joined Der Blaue Reiter, an expressionist group that contributed much to the development of art abstract. After World War 1 he taught at the Bauhaus School. In 1931 he began teaching at Dusseldorf Academy.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

He was a natural draftsman who experimented and researched most of the time in obtaining new color combinations and most of them in natural and shining forms. He mastered color theoryand wrote vastly in his writings. He worked in German Bauhaus School of art, design and architecture, where he used his skills extensively. His paintings reflect his thinking, mood, beliefs and humor.
Paul Klee has a very definite style. His pictures are little difficult to classify. He had wide variety of painting styles such as oil paint, watercolor, ink, pastel, and etching. He also used canvas, burlap, muslin, linen, gauze, cardboard, metal foils, fabric, wallpaper, and newsprint. He did not satisfy with the above so he also tried using spray paint, knife application, stamping, glazing, and impasto. He is well associated with feelings of expression, cubism, and futurism etc. He also used mixed media oil with water colors and similar.
He used to experiment for long time in developing different color sequences and mixtures. The color textures used by him are very unique. They include highly glaring colors and in contrast very smooth and light color combinations. He created many color combinations and used them in his paintings. The various styles and color combinations used gave him a unique identity. The Golden Fish, Ad Parnassum, and The Death and Fire are discussed below.
The Golden Fish:
Paul Klee created this masterpiece in 1925. It was painted by using oil and watercolor on paper, which was mounted on cardboard. He had affection towards pets and animals. He also painted Trilling Nightingale, a Migratory Bird and many others. The Golden Fish is a magical fish with flashing gold color and a number of runic signs all over its body. The golden fish hasscarlet color uncommon fins and a pink flower as an eye. He swims imperially with a lot of freedom in the deep and dark blue sea. The great golden fishis very much prominent in dark water with light blue plants everywhere. The painter is very keen to highlight the golden fish, so it was painted with glaring gold color, where others are dull colored. The other fishes are small and are in different colors in order to get the feel of an ocean or sea. It can be inferred from the picture as the golden fish is moving and also the other small fishes in the picture are running away form huge, beautiful golden fish. We may or may not understand its significance, but it draws the mysteriousness of his freedom and his secret world. This quite nobility and brightness are clearly visible through his paintings in common and specifically in the golden fish. The spellbinding color and dramatizing images is very well observed in this painting. Also there might be a strong reason for drawing many pictures of fishes.
Ad Parnassum:
It was painted by using oil and casein on canvas in 1932. It is one of the major and most finely worked paintings in divisionist group. He was at his peak of his creative work during the time of Ad Parnassum.
Ad Parnassum is a conclusion to the series “Magic Squares”, created by Klee in 1923. This conclusion came in 1932 that is 9 years after creating magic squares series. Here each element (in the painting) is similar to a theme in a polyphonic arrangement. Klee himself gives the definition of polyphony as, ‘the simultaneity of several independent themes’.The golden-yellow morning sun and the divine mountain can be observed. Small dots are now recognizable tiny squares and rectangles.
The color combinations used are perfect and are changeable, so anyone who see’s can experiencethe transitions of colors. Both the dawn and the noon can be identified in the picture by having a clear look. The white narrow pointed wedge below the mountain and above the temple is noon and the long, sharp, narrow triangle above the sun signifies its dawn. Klee has never showed such phenomenon of time in his earlier paintings, as shown in this. The contours of the mountain and the ruins are very much clear. This shows that he had another picture in mind and tried to show his intentions and ideas of the second one in this picture only. The white narrow pointed wedge seems to be a platform. It can be observed that the light is brighter inside the pyramid rather that outside. Also each artistic element in Ad Parnassum is itself a dilution and distillation of several ideas and own personal experiences. The graphic element illustrates the entrance to Mount Parnassus, i.e. the home of Apollo and the Muses. This picture brings mosaics, which Klee admired in Venice.
Park Of Idols:
It was painted by using watercolor on blackened paper in 1939. His creative works in that period were majorly based on angels and demons. When we first hear the name Park of Idols, we get two questions blinking in our minds. They are, what kind of “idols”, and where are they placed, i.e. what kind of “park” is it. Three idols and be clearly identified from the picture with distinct colors and shapes. The colors are not exactly decaying but they are pearlescent. The round ball like item in the picture is nothing but sun and the landscape is blue and grey-blue in color according to the painting. Here sun is not meant as a heavenly body but as an idol of worship, along with the idols in greenish yellow and reddish brown color.
The black background on which the painting is painted gives us divided feelings. The gaps between the idols where we can find the black background can be paths or they can be nothingness that confers numinous quality upon this picture. As all know everything looks different in black and can be inferred in different ways and depends on ones thinking. The usage of black background is apt because, on any other background their placement would be much less striking.
Online Referencess:

Conscientious Decay of Private Paul Berlin in Going After Cacciato by Tim O’Brien,

The Conscientious Decay of Private Paul Berlin

 One of the most life-changing experiences a man can endure is war. Since 1776, America and its patriotic citizens rallied behind the cry for democracy. These ideas, however, would change when the Vietnam War devastated the hearts and minds of the nation. The Conflict was the first war to bring awareness to the stress these warriors felt before, after, and during the war. Vietnam War veteran and author of Going After Cacciato, Tim O’Brien explained that his only knowledge of the conflict prior to the draft was from the news and protests (Herzog 13). The Character Paul Berlin, who is akin to O’Brien has suffered moral dilemmas caused by the unknown nature and the trauma of war.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

From the very beginning, every soldier was unsure of what was going on in the foreign land that they couldn’t even pin on a map. The Vietnam Conflict stuck out as such a great burden on the basic principles of freedom that young men valiantly fought for, in honor of their fathers before them. These men would only return home quietly, box up their emotions, never to speak of the terror they inevitably sustained. Author Tim O’Brien would be a victim of this unfortunate situation, experiencing the rotting corpses in the villages of Vietnam or recognizing his role in the My Lai Massacre. Due to the ghastly crisis that O’Brien went through, he was changed forever. Going After Cacciato by Tim O’Brien, showcases O’Brien’s personal struggles with The Vietnam War, mainly to illustrate moral guilt that the war has embedded on soldiers, especially Private Berlin.

 During The Conflict, every male had the general question poised in the back of their head: “What will I do if I get drafted?”. This was a major internal conflict that O’Brien struggled with before going to Vietnam and even during his tour. When O’Brien initially received his draft notice he pursued a way out. The only option in his mind was to cross The Rainy River into Canada, where he could then fly away to Europe (Herzog 13). It was moments like these that O’Brien had struggled with, the thought of running away, for a long time before finally realizing that there was no escaping the war. His decision to go to war was the choice that would map out the rest of his life.

Along with the obligation to fight a war he didn’t understand, the choice left O’Brien with a byproduct that could never be forgotten. The cumbersome guilt that would follow down every road he went and shape every decision he would make since that point in his life. The reason O’Brien was ashamed was due to the war being was “ill-conceived” and “…(he) did the wrong thing in not following his conscience.” O’Brien had the gut feeling that he should not have gone off to fight; however, he chose to report “active duty” in Vietnam. The then young O’Brien’s poor choice of neglecting his instincts haunted him for the rest of his life. These events are displayed through Paul Berlin in Going After Cacciato during the first few scenes when Berlin weighs the morals of running away from war or staying and fighting for a cause that did more damage than any possible benefit (Herzog 14). “‘In my case, I committed an act of unpardonable cowardice and evil. I went to a war that I believed was wrong and participated actively. I pulled the trigger. I was there. And by being there I am guilty” (Herzog Interview, Herzog 14). O’Brien was clearly in a confused state both before and after the war. The decision of whether or not to go to war can decalibrate a man’s moral compass, and O’Brien clearly expresses his confusion through Berlin’s personal struggles with his family and his choice to fight.

 One of Paul Berlin’s greatest struggles, which reflects Tim O’brien’s own experience, is his disconnect from his family symbolized by the Military Auxiliary Radio System. One of the most prominent times when the reader gets to interact with Berlin’s family is when the squad gets to use the Radio Telephone Hookup to communicate with the mainland. The machine, called MARS, baffled soldiers and gave them the opportunity to communicate with their family back home and hear their voices for the first time in months, rather than just communicating via letter. MARS offers Berlin an opportunity to speak to his family. He quickly became overrun by a rush of nostalgia, leading a page full of describing minor details about his childhood home.

In the emotional sequence of storytelling, Berlin gives the reader a visual insight into his youth. Berlin goes deep into detail looking at how his father rigged up an extension of the telephone from the kitchen in order to hear the ringer in the basement. The emotional sequence is followed by a moment of thought from Berlin about what he could possibly say. Berlin thinks about all the things he could converse about, such as how the neighbors are or if his mother ever quit smoking. Berlin displays a damaged mind in this instance because he focuses so much on what not to say. Berlin can think of more things bad than good, for example, Berlin says, “Tell them things weren’t really so bad. Then ask how his father’s business was. Don’t let on about being afraid. Don’t make them worry…” (158). Berlin shows a malfunction in his frame of mind because the experiences he witnessed are ones he is unwilling to talk about. Berlin is a man who has seen his friends die in combat. MARS symbolizes his connection to the real world because his family never answers the phone. The emotions are heightened when Oscar says, “Maybe they was out takin’ a drive or something. Buying Groceries. The world don’ stop” (159). O’Brien puts these type of quotes in the book to show the disconnect of a soldier from the civilian lifestyle that he leaves behind when he ships off to combat. Author Vera P. Froelich agrees with the idea that war is bad for a soldier of in that type of mental state. “…in this novel O’Brien seems much preoccupied with memory and especially with imagination, probing its power and scope as well as its limitations, it is nevertheless the horror of the wartime situation that gives imagination its urgency, its desperate importance” (Froelich 1). In accordance with Tim O’Brien interviews, it is shown that Going After Cacciato is an anti-war novel for the reasons of the mental toll it had on all who participated.

 Lt. Sydney Martin’s massacre played a major role in Berlin’s sudden shift from a small town boy, to shell shocked man. Although he didn’t experience the fragging of his superior, the same can be said about O’Brien when the idea of witnessing a tragic death is questioned.

Literary critics point out, “The summary of O’Brien’s novel on the website also mentions that Lt Sidney Martin was “‘presumably murdered by Johnson’” but the means of the homicide in question, or “fragging”, was not mentioned. O’Brien has said in author interviews that any soldier in their platoon, except Cacciato, could frag their commander” (Morrow). Conceding to the concept of Lt. Martin’s fragging, both the author and the critics are showing the horrors of war. Most innocent, patriotic young men wouldn’t consider treason to such a degree, yet it happened because of the war. O’Brien indicates that Cacciato is the only soldier that wouldn’t kill his leader, the killing is important for a couple of reasons.

The main point comes into fruition when the reader identifies Cacciato as a figment of Berlin’s reality. Cacciato is a man who can filter through the trash and pull out treasure, a person that Berlin yearned to become. When at the water-filled crater, on the heavily bombed hill, Cacciato sees a fishing hole. Cacciato defines himself during Berlin’s flashback because he manages to neglect the fact that his fellow squad-mates are about to kill his officer. Berlin desires the capacity to simply neglect the apprehension and destruction brought to the feet of Cacciato.

O’Brien establishes Berlin’s flashback to develop Berlin’s character, to show that it was impossible to overlook the dismay that battle puts on a soldier’s mind, painting a distasteful picture. The idea that Going After Cacciato is an antiwar novel proven by the ideas of Fera P. Froelich, who shows that a “very American Novel” can make a patriotic soldier appear as only a pawn in a game (1). Even the most honest men who volunteered to serve didn’t understand the type of psychological horrors that they would be subjecting themselves too. The same can be said for Lt. Sydney Martin who chooses to be an officer yet had no idea that he would have to send his men in enemy tunnels, a certain death sentence. His actions lead to all sorts of moral dilemmas. Martin knows he has a mission that has to be done but on the flipside, he doesn’t want to lose his men. For this purpose, O’Brien writes about running from the war. Froelich shows her point again by hammering through the point of “social pressures” and how the only way to achieve a happy ending is to create it in your mind (2). Her ideas are translated into the novel through the idea of “The Observation Post”.

Critic Jack Slay Jr. writes about how the book is staged in three parts; battle stories, the mission to find Cacciato, and the Observation Post. Slay Jr. realizes that all these intense battle experiences lead Paul Berlin to create a fantasy mission to Paris and he argues that the Observation Post is another image of Berlin. In fact, one of the key storylines is the observation post. The alleged flashbacks include scenarios where Berlin fearlessly creates a perfect scenario by taking multiple night watches where he allows his fellow soldiers to rest. The reason why this is unrealistic is that the men are so sleep deprived that they would most likely sleep at any given opportunity. Slay Jr. has a similar hypothesis saying that the Post is the only time when Berlin has complete “control” and it can lead to a desired happy ending (2). Even though Berlin achieves his happiness he still, much like O’Brien, has guilt.

Guilt is another reason for the creation of the Observation Post in order to cope with the guilt that Berlin experiences. The young Private chooses to get Cacciato to agree with the squads’ decision to murder the Lt. because he needs to “share the guilt”(3). Everything adds up in Berlin’s conscience, making him feel like a coward (4). Through all of these points, Slay Jr. wraps around into the idea that the Observation Post was another way to escape (5). Slay Jr. begins to end the essay by going back very start of the book. He says that this is the only part that is authentic (6). Slay Jr. says that it’s only time that Berlin faces reality, he goes in order of who dies and exposes the ugly truth of war.

A famous quote from O’Brien is, “A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth”(The Things They Carried). the previous quote is perfect for the theme of Going After Cacciato because it captures the true mindset of a soldier experiencing war. His statement can be interpreted as O’Brien arguing the point that even if a soldier volunteers to serve his country and becomes a decorated war hero, he still could be a coward for going to war. In the events of the book, Berlin is the true hero for running away from the battles. Even though Berlin has fought in combat, O’Brien wants the reader to believe that the most courageous thing a soldier can do is put down his weapons. O’Brien is making a statement about war, he is saying war never changes and guilt is no exception.

Much like O’Brien, Private Paul Berlin blames himself for a war that is out of his control. O’Brien details these moral events with colors. General historical knowledge could assist the reader in identifying the meaning of the red smoke in the first boobie trap that Cacciato leaves behind. The smoke scene could expose a couple of messages that the author was trying to leave behind. When the men first set off the trap, Berlin immediately knew what was going to happen, “Count, he thought. But the numbers came in a tangle without sequence” (19). As the reader will find at the end of the book, none of the things Berlin experienced were actually real. O’Brien reveals the shocking truth at the end of the novel, which means the aforementioned scene was played out and created in Berlin’s mind. O’Brien is making a statement about the psychological impact that battle has on soldier’s mind because it is unlikely that most people would imagine their own death, said person especially wouldn’t imagine themselves wetting their trousers (20). When the squad realizes that there was no threat, in fact, the trap was only a red smoke grenade, it’s a clear sign from the author.

During battle, American ground forces would use smoke to identify either their position or “provide a target for an airstrike”(Keen 1). O’Brien specifically mentions that the troops were out of the “fly zone” for the US Air Force, creating a scenario where the only people who saw the smoke were the soldiers themselves. Berlin imagined this color because it was used to mark targets for the USAF, therefore Berlin believes he is the enemy. O’Brien wants to illustrate the mental toll that battle has on a man, showing how it can distort reality, make them picture their own death, and turn them into the thing they fear the most, the enemy.

Philosophers have questioned what is moral and what is not, Private Paul Berlin cannot debate this inquiry due to the mental state of decay he experiences throughout Tim O’Brien’s novel, Going After Cacciato. Despite the fact that some of Berlin’s maturity from his war experiences are not real, he is still a very much damaged soldier from spectating fellow soldier’s deaths. O’Brien uses Berlin’s character to state that war damages the mind beyond repair. The multitude of evidence cannot be denied that O’Brien intended to create a sense of moral challenge throughout the award-winning novel, Going After Cacciato.

Work Cited

Froelich, Vera P. “O’Brien’s Going after Cacciato.” Contemporary Literary Criticism, edited by Jeffrey W. Hunter, vol. 211, Gale, 2006. Literature Resource Center, Accessed 5 May 2019. Originally published in Explicator, vol. 53, no. 3, Spring 1995, p. 181.

Herzog, Tobey. “A Soldier’s Heart and Mind: Going after Cacciato and The Things They Carried.” Short Story Criticism, edited by Jelena O. Krstovic, vol. 123, Gale, 2009. Literature Resource Center, Accessed 15 May 2019. Originally published in Tim O’Brien, Twayne Publishers, 1997, pp. 78-124.

Keen, Shannon. “What Do the Colors of a Smoke Grenade Mean?” Our Pastimes, Our Pastimes , 10 Jan. 2019,

O’Brien, Tim. Going After Cacciato. New York: Delacorte Press/S. Lawrence, 1978. Print.

O’Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried. New York : Broadway Books, 1998. Print.

Slay, Jack, Jr. “A Rumor of War: Another Look at the Observation Post in Tim O’Brien’s Going after Cacciato.” Contemporary Literary Criticism, edited by Jeffrey W. Hunter, vol. 211, Gale, 2006. Literature Resource Center, Accessed 5 May 2019. Originally published in Critique, vol. 41, no. 1, Fall 1999, p. 79.


Leadership Styles Of Jesus Christ And Paul Religion Essay

This essay will examine the theoretical concepts of leadership, showing their strengths and weaknesses. The leadership styles of Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul will be discussed followed by the leadership qualities expected from the church as illustrated by the five-fold ministry found in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians Chapter 4. The leadership qualities expected in change management, communicating vision and handling or dealing with oppositions shall be examined.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Nevertheless, most people believe that leadership means to occupy an exalted position that commands authority over others. Typical is the request by the mother of Zebedee’s children to Jesus Christ in Matthew Chapter 20 verses 20 and 21. Salome sought that Jesus will grant that her two sons take positions; one on the left and the other on the right hand of Jesus in His kingdom. Jesus confirmed that this is the manner of leadership found in the world, where “…the princes of the gentiles exercise dominion over them and they exercise great authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you…”.  Wright inferred that with this concept of leadership, only the few people occupying positions of authority and responsibility could be referred to as leaders and not every Christian.  
Jesus advocated that leaders should serve rather than being served  . This concept focuses on what we do; as in service to God and to others as opposed to merely occupying positions. Paul, when writing to the Galatians instructs us that, “…by love serve one another”  . God’s intention demonstrated by the blessing of Genesis Chapter 1 verse 28 shows that all humans have the right to lead and we need not occupy any position to do that. Wright again explained that “if by leader we mean a person who enters into a relationship with another person to influence their behaviour, values or attitudes, then I would suggest that all Christians should be leaders”.  
Damazio in his book reveals the danger the church faces today as scriptural principles laid in God’s word are being replaced with business principles thus making the church to run as business corporations rather than as New Testament organisations. Members hardly comprehend the truth of the word of God. Biblical prerequisite into leadership position demanding holiness, Holy Ghost in-filling, integrity and godly wisdom have gradually been replaced with academic scholarship hence robbing the church of its spiritual life and vitality  . The church is gradually going the way Paul describes as “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof”.  
Jesus communicated His mission saying, “For the son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life as ransom for many”. This statement depicts service and sacrifice. Similarly, Paul in his Epistles revealed that his leadership is derived from being a servant of Jesus Christ. Some translations of the Bible even allude to him as a bondservant of Jesus.
Paul’s leadership is by example reflected in his statement, “be followers of me as I am of Christ”  , similar to Jesus’, “I do whatever I see the Father do”  . This emanated from the law of reproduction of kinds – “every organism produces after its kind”  ; which actually has its root in Genesis at creation. It is popularly said, that “success without a successor is failure”. As Jesus therefore commanded his disciples to “teach all nations”, so Paul instructed Timothy that “the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also”, thus the continuity of the leadership chain guaranteed. The mentorship style of both Jesus and Paul is also here emphasised.
According to Ascough, Paul’s style of leadership referenced in 1st Thessalonians 5:12-13 is, “to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in highest regard because of their work”  . Since these are unnamed people, the term “who are over you”, implies they are leaders whose obligation is due to the work they do rather than their position. This tally with Jesus’ view that leadership is not about the office but the duties. While exercising authority in administrative offices, they are not to slack in their daily tasks of “their work”; for which they are to be respected  .
Accordingly, Agosto’s Jesus’ leadership challenged the political and spiritual leadership of His time. He identified with the masses that were overtaxed and oppressed by the Jewish domination helped by Roman authorities. He confronted the injustice, challenging the oppressors’ right into the temple; where He overthrew tables of money changers  . His weapon remained the Word of God, referring His critics to the Old Testament book of Jeremiah 7: 11 which says that the house of God has become den of robbers.  
The difference between Jesus’ and Paul’s leadership style is obvious the way Jesus ministered to a local audience in the regions of Galilee and Jerusalem and ministered in Jewish temple and synagogues, Paul embarked on missionary journeys establishing churches in urban centres throughout the Roman Empire.
Paul wrote to his followers while Jesus did not keep any writing except witnesses account written after his death. This makes Paul presentation more comprehensible to us today than Jesus  . The gospel writers may not have written without elements of their personal agenda.
In Ephesians chapter 4, the five-fold leader’s template was identified and Paul explained the purpose of the gifts. According to verse 12, the purpose of the gifts is not to boast but as tools to work with, that is:
The perfecting of the saints – providing leadership for other believers
The work of the ministry
The edifying of the body of Christ
The word “apostle” is from the Greek word “apostollos” meaning “to send”. That is called to represent Christ as a missionary, preaching the gospel and establishing churches.  Jesus was called an Apostle sent by God (Hebrews 3:1).  Stamps believe that apart from the signs of an Apostle mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:12, the apostles commissioned to write scriptures belonged to a different class to church leaders that succeed them.
The Old Testament prophets always appeal to the conscience of God’s people to remain faithful and telling of future events. Today they warn, rebuke exhort, comfort and pronounce judgement  . Their prophecies however are to be authenticated by the word of God.
From the Greek root word “evangel” meaning “good news”, evangelists have the tasks of spreading the gospel of Christ. Jesus commanded His disciples to “go into the world and preach the gospel to all creatures. Mark 16:15. Every believer is expected to do this. But there are some specially gifted of the Holy Spirit to evangelise and win many souls by preaching, miracles and deliverance  . Philip is a classical NT example (Acts 21:8).
Pastors are shepherds to tend and oversee the flock of God in a local assembly. They are to feed the members with the undiluted word of God; to ensure spiritual growth and provide leadership for the congregation in a local church. Apostle Paul was very clear in expressing the qualifications of bishop, Pastor or overseers; which are not political but spiritual qualities (1 Timothy 3: 1-7).
Teachers lead God’s people providing sound doctrine and acting as the custodians of the truthfulness of the Word of God. They check and balance the ministry of prophets to prevent heresies  . They are also responsible for raising other teachers.
The five-fold ministry are interrelated and interdependent. Individuals within the body of Christ can possibly manifest more than one of these gifts. Apostles are said to function in all five.
According to Carson Pue, Leaders met in the past two decades and concur in the realisation of the full advantages of communicating their vision clearly and with such a feeling that people were able to follow. With numerous books on visionary leadership, Leaders wanting to achieve their target for various ministries or organisation will still need to cope with the modern requirement for the creation and communicating their visions. He made mention from John Cotter’s extensive research that Superior Leadership stems from power to “translate a vision into reality and sustain it”.
Carson sums it all by the absolute need to take adequate time, involve enough people so as to successfully disseminate the vision. It will in turn be captured at all levels of workers in the organisation (boosting motivation) hence assist in progression of goals for the Ministry.  A biblical example is the sequence with which the Lord did the commissioning of the disciples after resurrection as recorded in Acts 1:8 where the disciples were instructed to wait for Holy Ghost baptism to acquire the power required for evangelism.  
According to Michael W Foss’ book A servant’s manual, Dr Zipper symbolises the process or challenge of Change to a burning platform with a multiple attitudinal response form leadership. With the “burning platform” taken as the very circumstances that necessitates the required change, its management then translates to ability to call the attention of those whom the change will affect to it. While Persistence, patience and purpose are three key factors through a successful change, there are conservative leaders that will assert that “the platform is not really on fire”. This is an expression of denial immediately followed with the attitude that, we had fires in the past this one is no different we will soon put it out!
This foregoing attitude was linked to gradual decline in church attendance research at various congregations despite sustained evangelism. The big question to consider is if the platform is burning hot enough to absorb the obvious loss. Management of Change welcomes such loss as long as focus is brought from the past to the present for the sake of “good future”. Leaders are enjoined to make use of only vocabulary that will influence those who will receive the changes. Leaders are to stay connected to followers as followers prefer leaders who are with them rather than the one “always in front of them”.  
Oppositions will come up from within the leadership scope and outside the scope itself, hence according to Bill Hull’s book, the disciple making church, he used the example of Paul and Barnabas who saw opposition as normal and a clear projection of their success. With full recognition of Acts 14:22 where it is expected that evangelism through tribulation are the pathway to Kingdom of God. Hull says that oppositions could be gotten from the resulting friction from the implementation of God’s agenda or from being passive and allowing the Church to be moribund with a resulting clamour against poor leadership skills. He further said that in evaluating approaches to opposition, it is good to bear in mind that the enemies of the ministry should only be in the categories of the opponents of the gospel. It is essential to let the opposition count rather than being ignored.
Apostle Paul in a Challenging time was encouraged by God who made it clear to him to continue the evangelism as there are many people in the city for God ( Acts 18:9-10), when he was abused by Corinthians Jews as he left them to continue preaching to the gentiles.  
Conclusively, I am in support of Leadership that is ready to Change, manage changes as earlier mentioned by Michael Foss rather than the passive leadership that only reacts to the aftermath of challenges rather than being pro-active or be mindful of overall disposition in the scope of leadership in the areas of needful changes and apparent opposition. This in line with warning from Hosea 4:6 which God warned that his people are perishing due to lack of Knowledge. This can also be likened to indifference and overly conservative attitude of some Modern day leaders.  

Paul McCartney’s Influence on the Beatles

 To anyone living at the time, June 18, 1942 was likely a rather uneventful day. Little did they know that a little baby, a baby that would become one of the most influential musicians in the history of Earth, was born in Liverpool, England. His name was Paul McCartney. Perhaps some in the present time remain unfamiliar with this name, but there is no doubt that they are not unfamiliar with McCartney’s greatest affiliation: the Beatles.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

The Beatles was an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960, and its members were John Lennon, Ringo Starr, George Harrison, and McCartney himself. Since the Beatles’ peak in the 1960s up to the present day, its music has been loved by millions of fans and played countless of times in countless countries – there is no denying the influence the Beatles had and still has in today’s society. Although it is true that his other bandmates played key roles in the popularity of the band, McCartney was arguably the most prominent member. Paul McCartney greatly influenced the Beatles band by applying his musical genius to create memorable songs, tarnishing their reputation by admitting drug use, and contributing to their disbandment.

    As one of the main songwriters for the Beatles (the other one being John Lennon), McCartney had a direct hand in the musical success of the group and the popularity the band garnered over their unique music. He was involved in the writing of approximately 74 songs (out of a total of 209 songs recorded by the Beatles from 1960 to 1970).[1] Additionally, 43 of the 74 songs were written by McCartney without any contribution from anyone else.[2] Such statistics suggest a great devotion to the band and a passion (along with natural talent) for writing music. McCartney not only worked tirelessly onstage with his fellow bandmates concert after concert, but also behind the scenes to create songs that fans raved over. McCartney’s participation in the band’s songwriting was remarkable, but the style of his songwriting was even more so. McCartney was considered by many to be a natural talent, “producing technically ‘finished’ works almost entirely by instinct, his harmonic judgment based mainly on perfect pitch and an acute pair of ears.”[3] His musical genius can be attributed to not only a creative mind but also McCartney’s proficiency in numerous musical instruments; he “played bass guitar, acoustic and electric guitars, piano and keyboards, and forty other musical instruments.”[4] Such an ability to play a great variety of instruments was an important advantage to the Beatles. By being able to experiment with a diverse range of sounds, McCartney could supplement the Beatles with unique combinations of these sounds to back up their lyrics (and create songs that resonated with fans). Overall, McCartney’s contributions to the Beatles’ long list of top hits serve as testimony to his great influence on the group.

 However, not all of McCartney’s influence on the Beatles can be considered as positive to the band. He was the first out of the Beatles members to admit to using drugs[5] despite initially being hesitant to use them, thinking “that they alter your life and you never think the same again.”[6] His confession of course tainted the Beatles’ previously clean reputation. Fans were shocked, and the media went in a craze over this confession. Paul McCartney attempted to mitigate this by saying, “I’m only telling the truth, I don’t know what everyone is so angry about.” He also explained that he was not trying to convince fans to use drugs simply because he did.[7] Nevertheless, the damage had already been done. Since McCartney’s public remark on using LSD (a psychedelic drug) in 1967, the Beatles have been associated in pop culture with illegal drugs. Additionally, McCartney commented in an interview that he “saw God, this amazing towering thing, and was humbled” while taking DMT with Robert Fraser.[8] Such a statement likely did not sit well with at least some of the Christian community at the time; after all, McCartney linked a religious, sacred figure to something with a dirty, negative connotation (an illegal drug). Even if McCartney’s words did not offend anyone in a religious context, they likely cheapened the Beatles’ image with the idea that the Beatles’ members were foolish and suscpetible to hallucinating. Although all the Beatles used drugs at some point and contributed to the band’s drug-laced reputation, McCartney had the most influence because he took charge in revealing their use of drugs and their reliance on them.

 Despite being one of the most involved in the band and greatly influencing the Beatles’ image, McCartney was ironically the one to play the largest role in its disbandment. He himself admitted this without hesitation, stating that “when the Beatles broke up…the residue was that I was to blame. I was the one who broke the Beatles up.”[9] Of course, it is possible that McCartney exaggerated his involvement in the disbandment of the Beatles to make himself appear more significant, but there is no denying that he took initiative in breaking the band up. He was the first to voice dissatisfaction with their collaboration; McCartney explained that he “was not interested in spending his…days farting around…while everyone made up their mind whether they want to do it or not.”[10] As a passionate musician eager to continue producing creative content, McCartney was frankly disappointed at his fellow bandmates’ supposed loss of enthusiasm for the band. In other words, McCartney felt frustrated because he put a significant amount of effort into the band without seeing an equal amount of support from the other members. Furthermore, McCartney was responsible committing “the last straw” by filing a lawsuit against Lennon, Harrison, Starr and Apple Corps.[11] (Lennon, Harrison and Star appointed Allen Klein as the Beatles’ new manager; McCartney wanted John and Lee Eastman instead since he did not trust Klein.[12]) This lawsuit, along with a public statement that “his writing partnership with Lennon was over and his time in the Beatles (was) done,”[13] effectively ended the Beatles era. Had McCartney not voiced discontent over his bandmates’ apathetic attitude or failed to file a lawsuit, it is possible that the Beatles would have continued on and produce subpar music reflecting Lennon, Harrison and Starr’s loss in enthusiasm for the band. Thus, there was a silver lining to McCartney causing the disbandment of the Beatles. By breaking up the Beatles before tensions could further increase, McCartney prevented the degrading of their song quality and cemented the Beatles’ reputation for producing superb music.

 Paul McCartney contributed greatly to the Beatles’ downfall, but one must not forget the lasting legacy he had on the band. A renowned song that reflected McCartney’s importance in the band was a song he wrote himself: “Yesterday.” This song, which has been covered over 3000 times,[14] described a breakup and the feelings of regret that came with it.  His prodigious ability to spontaneously write touching lyrics was clearly evidenced by this song; it “fell out of bed” and was “so fully formed upon waking that he was sure he must have unconsciously plagiarized a melody he’d heard somewhere else.”[15] To say the least, this song was extremely original and certainly not copied from elsewhere. Critics praised its creativity, commenting that it “captured the Beatles’ inventive spirit” and “opened the door to a willingness to experiment with new sounds.”[16] Overall, “Yesterday” was a masterpiece in the sense that it evoked strong emotions in listeners and incorporated McCartney’s proficiency with musical instruments. It was (and still is) a timeless classic and will continue to reflect McCartney’s musical influence on the Beatles.

McCartney was arguably the most influential member of the Beatles because he was responsible for writing (and singing) many of their top hits, popularizing their reputation for drug use and causing their breakup. His influence was not limited to just the Beatles however; he influenced European society as a whole. During the Beatles’ peak in the 1960s, the Cold War was rampant and many Europeans felt anxiety over the possibility of nuclear war. McCartney’s skillful songwriting helped to bring cheerfulness to millions worldwide (especially in Britain and the US) during a time in which society was in a depressed, bleak state; this was what made the Beatles so appealing. Paul McCartney changed European pop culture drastically this way, and he will be remembered as a remarkable musician for many generations to come.

Works Cited

Gilmore, Mikal. “Why the Beatles Broke Up.” Rolling Stone, 10 Apr. 2019,

Harry, Bill. The Beatles Encyclopedia. Virgin, 2011.


Kyriazis, Stefan. “Watch Paul McCartney DRUGS Confession but NO Apology ‘Why Is Everyone Is so Angry?’ .”,, 8 June 2017,

Lifton, Dave. “The Story of Paul McCartney’s Lawsuit to Break up the Beatles.” Ultimate Classic Rock, 31 Dec. 2013,

MacDonald, Ian. Revolution in the Head: The Beatles Records and the Sixties. Vintage Books, 2008.

Nelson, Steven. “Drug Use Belied Beatles’ Squeaky-Clean Image.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report,

Quinn, Ben. “Paul McCartney ‘Saw God’ after Taking Drugs during Beatles Heyday.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 2 Sept. 2018,

Rolling Stone. “100 Greatest Beatles Songs.” Rolling Stone, 19 Sept. 2011,

Shelokhonov, Steve. “Paul McCartney.” IMDb,,

Telegraph Reporters. “Paul McCartney on Beatles Split: ‘John Wanted Yoko’.” The Telegraph, 12 Sept. 2018.

Thomson, Rex. “The Story Behind The End Of The Beatles, On This Day In 1970.” Live 4 Live Music, L4LM, 9 Apr. 2018,

Wonfor, Geoff and Bob Smeaton, directors. The Beatles Anthology. EMI Records, 1995.

[1] The Beatles Box Score: John Outhits Paul

[2] The Beatles Box Score: John Outhits Paul

[3] Revolution in the Head: The Beatles’ Records and the Sixties

[4] Paul McCartney Biography

[5] Drug Use Belied Beatles’ Squeaky-Clean Image

[6] The Beatles Anthology

[7] Watch Paul McCartney DRUGS Confession But No Apology

[8] Paul McCartney “saw God” after taking drugs during Beatles heyday

[9] Paul McCartney on Beatles Split

[10] Why the Beatles Broke Up

[11] The Story of Paul McCartney’s Lawsuit to Break Up the Beatles

[12] The Beatles Encyclopedia

[13] The Story Behind the End of the Beatles, On this Day in 1970

[14] Paul McCartney Biography

[15] 100 Greatest Beatles Songs

[16] 100 Greatest Beatles Songs

Paul Tillich: Dynamics of Faith

Paul Tillich
In this essay I will be discussing my view of Paul Tillich’s theory of religion based upon his book “Dynamics of Faith.” I will give examples from his text that support my view. The very title “Dynamics of Faith” leads to the question, what is faith? Faith can hold many meanings, especially when used in the context of religion. Tillich explains faith in the first chapter of the book. “Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned: the dynamics of faith are the dynamics of man’s ultimate concern.” (pg. 1) He also states that the concern must be unconditional. Faith doesn’t have to necessarily be religious. It can be non-religious. For instance ultimate concern with a person’s career, raising their children or even concern that a farmers crops will grow can all be considered non-religious. The Jewish and Christian faith in God and the Muslim faith in Allah are good examples of “ultimate concern” in a religious context.
Tillich states that faith is a centered act. “Faith as ultimate concern is an act of the total personality. It happens in the center of the personal life and includes all its elements.” (pg. 4) The human mind’s most centered act is faith. Everything revolves around faith. It is not simply a function or section of a man but his total being. Tillich states however that faith is more than the sum of all man’s parts or impacts. It can involve rationality and it can involve emotion, but it transcends them both. Faith can have an impact on both rationality and emotion without destroying both in the process. It is what Tillich calls “ecstatic.” This means one can stand outside themselves without ceasing to be themselves.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Tillich states that faith is both conscious and unconscious. Since faith is the total act of personality, it is impossible to imagine faith without the unconscious elements of one’s personality. Faith as a conscious act relies on the unconscious elements to create faith. If simply unconscious forces determine a mental status, Tillich states, it is not faith but rather compulsion. He also states that faith is freedom. “Freedom is nothing more than the possibility of centered personal acts.” (pg.6) Since faith is a free and centered act of personality, freedom and faith are equal.
For faith to exist in something there must be two sides, the subjective side of faith and the objective side of faith. Tillich illustrates this by using the terms “fides qua creditor (the faith through which one believes) and the fides quae creditor (the faith which is believed).” (pg. 11) Simply there is no faith without something to have faith in. When using terms such as “absolute” and “ultimate” subjectivity and objectivity are the same. If God is the “ultimate concern: then he is both the subject and the object. This is considered true ultimacy. When faith cannot be both object and subject it is simply false ultimacy. Tillich gives the examples of a nation or success as false ultimacy. This is because it is in the believer’s eyes just an object it is subject to ordinary knowledge and handling.
This leads to the subject of true faith and idolatrous faith. In true faith the “ultimate concern” is simply a faith in the truly ultimate, God, for example. The truly ultimate is infinite, the subject is the object. In idolatrous faith, “finite realities are elevated to the rank of ultimacy.” (pg. 13) The subject is almost overtaken by the object but this is temporary and the subject returns again leading to “existential disappointment.” This is because it leads to a loss of center and disrupts the personality, which according to Tillich can be hidden for a length of time but always exposes itself eventually. Idolatrous faith is still considered faith. “The holy which is demonic is still holy.” (pg. 18) This shows how faith can be ambiguous and dangerous. Idolatry is a danger of faith and the fact that there is a “demonic possibility” of the holy is the ambiguity. Faith can destroy us or heal us, but according to Tillich we can never be without it.
It is often thought that the word doubt means the lack of faith. Doubt is merely the lack of conviction. It is also an important aspect of faith. “An act of faith is an act of a infinite being who is grasped by and turned to the infinite.” (pg. 18) Doubt is the opposite of our “ultimate concern.” Humans are finite beings and have to accept uncertainty in faith. This is where courage plays a role. Tillich uses a larger concept of the word courage rather than the dictionary definition. “Courage as an element of faith is the daring self-affirmation of one’s own being in spite of the powers of “non-believing” which are the heritage of everything finite.” (pg. 19) We must accept the possibility of failure. This possibility is present in every act of faith. This is a risk and it must be taken in order to maintain the “ultimate concern.”
Now that we have established what faith is I will look at what faith is not. According to Tillich, there is an intellectualistic distortion of the meaning of faith. This is done not only by the popular mind but also philosophical and theological thought. Since faith is a centered act of the whole personality one function of thought cannot completely identify with faith without distorting what faith is. Faith is not simply an “act of knowledge that has a low degree of evidence” (pg. 36) This describes a belief, not faith. A belief is based upon evidence that is sufficient enough to add a high degree of probability.
A belief can be varied. We believe things when we have good evidence about them or when they are stated by good authorities. When we accept the authority’s evidence as true it is often because we are unable to approach the evidence directly. History books are a good example of this. We are unable to prove that it happened because we weren’t witness to it but believe it because we believe the author. This cannot be considered faith though simply because although we trust the authorities, it is never unconditional. We don’t have faith in them. Tillich states “Faith is more than trust in authorities, although trust is an important element of faith.” (pg. 37) Tillich uses this thought when he describes early Biblical writers. Christians believe the writings but never unconditionally, they don’t have faith in them and therefore “should not even have faith in the Bible.” (pg.37)
There is also a voluntaristic distortion of the meaning of faith. This is true mainly for Catholics and Protestants.
According to Tillich, Catholics believe that the lack of evidence that faith provides must be complemented with an act of will. This states that faith is understood as knowledge with limited evidence that is made up by the willful act. Tillich refers to this as the “will to believe.” The Protestant version of the “will to believe” is connected with the morality of the believer. These beliefs state that faith is dependent upon the teachings of the church which is not the case.
The third and final distortion of the meaning of faith is the emotionalistic distortion. This interprets faith as a matter of emotion. Tillich states that this distortion is partly supported by both the religious and the secular. “For the defenders of religion it was a retreat to a seemingly safe position after the battle about faith as a matter of knowledge or will had been lost.” (pg. 44) It was also readily accepted by scientists and representatives of ethics simply because it took away any interference from the religious in matters of scientific research. Tillich responds to this by stating that faith is not “a matter of merely subjective emotions, without a content to be known and a demand to be obeyed” (pg. 45) Faith has strong emotional elements tied to it but emotion isn’t the source of faith.
Tillich believes that man’s “ultimate concern” has to be expressed through the use of symbolic language. Symbolic language is the only language able to express the ultimate. He states that symbols have many characteristics. One characteristic in which they have in common with signs is the fact that “they point beyond themselves to something else.” (pg. 47) He uses the example of a stop sign. The sign points to the order to stop movement of a vehicle for a specific amount of time. The color red has absolutely nothing to do with the stopping of a vehicle. When combined with a sign it simply points to the idea that one should stop their vehicle.
The second characteristic of a symbol is that “It participates in that to which it points.” (pg. 48) Here he uses the example of a flag. The flag stands for the power and dignity of the nation that it belongs to. An attack on a nation’s flag is considered an attack on the dignity of that nation and is considered to be blasphemy. The flag isn’t responsible for the power or dignity but simply symbolizes it.
The third characteristic of a symbol is “that it opens up levels of reality which otherwise are closed to us.” (pg. 48) The example used here is that a picture or a poem or even a story show us elements of reality that cannot be studied scientifically. Creativity opens up a reality in a dimension that cannot be accessed otherwise. This ties in with the fourth characteristic. This is characteristic opens up dimensions and elements of reality that are otherwise unapproachable AND elements of our souls that correspond to the elements of reality. He uses the example of a play in this scenario. The play gives us a vision of what is going on but also opens a dimension in our own being. We can comprehend what is happening in reality but there are also dimensions that we cannot access without the use of symbols. “Melodies and rhythms in music.” (pg. 49)
Symbols are not to be produced intentionally, but grow out of our individual or collective unconscious. These symbols must be accepted by our unconscious or else they have no function. Tillich states that any symbol with an especially social function is created by the group’s collective unconscious in which they appear. Political and religious symbols are examples of this. The final characteristic of a symbol is the fact that the symbols cannot be invented. They grow and also die. When the situation calls for them, they grow. When that situation changes, they die. An example of this is a King. The symbol of a king used to mean something and produce a response of servitude and loyalty. This is no longer the case because for the most parts kings have been replaced by political leaders.
Tillich explains that God is the fundamental symbol of our “ultimate concern.” It is always present when considering acts of faith. He states that God can only be denied in the name of God. Since an “ultimate concern” cannot deny itself it affirms itself. Atheism is simply the attempt to remove any “ultimate concern” from our lives. Tillich states that the only true form of Atheism is in difference toward the ultimate question. One cannot deny God because by doing so he confirms the existence of God. One can argue that in this case God is simply just a symbol, to which Tillich replies “God is a symbol for God.” (pg. 53) Tillich believes that God is the basic symbol of faith, but states that there are many other symbols as well. Manifestations of the divine in such things as documents and in words, in people and communities, even events are all symbols of faith. Tillich believes that holy things are not themselves holy, they are merely objects that point toward the source of holiness, which is the “ultimate concern.”
Symbols of faith aren’t isolated. Tillich believes that the symbols are united in myths. He states that mythic gods are based upon human characteristics, they have personalities, are of both sexes, are related, and even participate in human struggles. Often the gods are not equal and live in hierarchies. There is usually one god or a small group of gods that rule over the other gods. Tillich states that all myths are fundamentally the same, “man’s ultimate concern symbolized in divine figures and actions.” (pg. 56) Myths are simply symbols of faith that are combined in stories of what Tillich calls “divine-human encounters.”
Myths appear in every act of faith. They are often attacked and criticized because they use material from ordinary experiences. It adds a human experience of time and space when the “ultimate” is beyond time and space. A myth often divides what is considered divine into many figures. Doing this removes ultimacy without removing the claim to ultimacy. This causes criticism because it rejects the division of the divine claiming there is only one God. Tillich states that God is an object of mythological language and is often drawn into the human experience of time and space. This makes God a “concrete concern” and removes his ultimacy. Polytheistic mythology isn’t all that is rejected. Even monotheism falls under criticism. Tillich states that it needs “demythologization.” The word is used in connection with many of the mythical elements used in the Bible. Stories where “divine-human interactions” occur are in character considered mythological. However, they are also objects of demythologization.
Any myth that has been proven to be a myth but is not replaced is called a “broken myth.” There is a tremendous backlash when considering “broken myths” as no culture wants any of their myths to be proven false and lose its power. People who live in an unbroken mythological world feel protected and safe. Tillich states this type of thinking is supported by authoritarian systems because it gives false security to the people whom they control and also unchallenged power over them. He calls this “literalism.”
Literalism allows myths to be understood by their immediate meaning. They are placed in a human context, events are attributed to ideas that humans understand. For example, the virgin birth is understood in a biological sense. “Literalism deprives God of his ultimacy and, religiously speaking, of his majesty.” (pg. 60) It basically draws God down to the human level of the finite and conditional, which he cannot be since he is ultimate. “Faith, if it takes its symbols literally, becomes idolatrous! It calls something ultimate which is less than ultimate.” (pg. 60)
Tillich speaks of many types of faith. These types vary from religion to religion, culture to culture, and even from individual to individual. The variance in these faiths has to do with the variation of symbols of the faith. These types all have one thing in common. They all are united because of their focus on “ultimate concern.”
There is a relationship between faith and history, science, and philosophy. Tillich believes that if our “ultimate concern” is really ultimate then it is not affected by any of the conclusions provided by history, science, or philosophy. He explains this by stating that a symbol of the ultimate is not ultimate in itself but merely a way of representing that which is ultimate. Therefore a faith is true if it represents the ultimate.
Tillich believes that “the experience of actual faith, of faith as a living reality…” (pg. 115) is considered the life of faith. He once again states that having faith is having courage. Faith is integrated in to our everyday personalities and plays some role in shaping them. Faith is ingrained with various tensions. Tensions between doubt and courage, being estranged or being whole, between ourselves and our communities. He states we must maintain balance between faith, hope, and love so that they play a role in the totality of our personalities. Faith is present in our communities and is important. We use the faith and symbols of our communities and express them through ourselves, the individual.
Faith is the central phenomenon in the personal life of mankind. It is visible and invisible at the same time. It is both religious and non-religious. It is universal and sat in stone. It can be changing but is always the same. Tillich states that it is “an essential possibility of man, and therefore its existence is necessary and universal.” (pg. 146) If faith is our “ultimate concern” than it cannot be undercut by science, superstition, and distortion of church and state. Faith alone stands upon itself and justifies itself.
I feel that Tillich’s theories follow and partially agree with the theories of Freud and Durkheim. He explores with detail the human mind and our psyche. This determines our personality and as Tillich states many times faith is deeply ingrained in our personalities. Faith is an act of total personality. Faith is both an act of rational and unconscious elements. Tillich even applies faith to Freud’s naturalistic negation of norms and principles stating that “Faith and culture can be affirmed only if the superego represents the norms and principles of reality.” (pg. 6) Freud states that if the superego is not established through valid ideas it becomes suppressive. With real faith, even if it uses Freud’s father image, creates true ideas or principles and therefore it rings true.
Durkheim states that religion is community, Tillich agrees with this. A community provides the symbols of faith in which people believe. The individual expresses their faith through the community. Therefore without the community there are no symbols of faith in which to represent that which is ultimate.
When considering Marx in this equation, the two cannot be further apart. For Marx, religion or faith were nonexistent and something that was just invented to qualm our meager existence in this world. Tillich states that faith is us and has always been ingrained in us. He states that to deny the existence of God only strengthens the case that God exists. Therefore Marx’s theory holds no water in Tillich’s eyes. He states that “the rejection of faith is rooted in a complete misunderstanding of the nature of faith.” (pg. 146) The denial of faith is an “ultimate concern” so therefore is faith in itself.
Tillich, Paul. Dynamics of Faith. New York: Harper, 1958. Print.

History of Serial Killers Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo

The crimes of Paul Bernardo and his wife Karla Homolka were among the most horrifying and controversial in Canadian history. The two did not start their criminal behaviors together as Paul was 6 years older than Karla and was known as the “Scarborough Rapist”. Many years before Karla was involved, Paul raped or attempted to rape 24 young teenage women across a 5-year period. After the soon to be famous murderous couple met, Paul was pursuing his work killing and soon after Karla joined in on the sinister crimes after she believed it was time to join in. The two were in charge of 3 rapes and murders across a 3-year span and one being Karlas own sister “Tammy Homolka”.  The reasoning for this being one of the most famous Canadian murder cases is that the two individuals’ lifestyles and mental states were way out of line and is what made them to be known as so violent as hedonistic killers. We chose Karla Homolka as our famous serial killer as she shows the public the first time a violent criminal can be a woman and how dangerous a women criminal in the 1900’s could be and how her involvement in the crimes went almost unnoticeable.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Karla was born May 4th, 1970, in Port Credit, Ontario. Raised by Karel Homolka (father) and Dorothy Homolka (mother) and had two siblings Logan Valentini, Tammy Homolka. As a child Karla enjoyed drawing and expressing her love for animals and loved to be creative in many ways. Unfortunately, Karla was asthmatic and had to be hospitalized frequently causing possible trauma to her mental and physical self in her early childhood years. She also often witnessed her “father drunk often and fighting with her mother” when she was growing up (editors, thefamouspeople. June 26th 2018. p. 1). This could be one of the reasoning or triggers behind the start of her involvement in crime. She started reading ‘Hardy Boys’ and ‘Nancy Drew’ mysteries at the age of 12 and became obsessed with crime and how to get away with it. As she grew older her ways of life became harsher as she often participated in spiritual rituals with her friends. As she grew older her love for animals began to decrease and at one point, she threw a friend’s hamster out of a window resulting in its death. It was known that Karla was more of a bossy and controlling figure to her peers. as she grew older her childhood behaviors depleted drastically and she was only becoming more and more violent. Now, going into her school days, Karal was an outsider, she was a non-conformist for fashion and didn’t care of what others thought of her. She usually hung around the opposite sex, her first boyfriend by the name of Doug. She admitted that the couple experimented with lots drugs and had sexual relations together. She also admitted to fantasizing about death and what it would feel like. Her fantasizing over death lead to her cutting herself with a knife because of this. Months later and becoming more and more mentally unstable Karal got a part-time job at a veterinary clinic while she was in high school (probably not the best place for someone like her to work), and after graduating in 1988, she was hired by Thorold Veterinary Clinic as a full-time veterinary technician. Impressively Karal has an “above average intelligence, testing between 131 and 134 on IQ tests” (Phillip Crawley. 2018. p. 2). The standard for near genius is more than 140 and she was almost achieving that status. Ms. Homolka did obtain a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Queen’s University, in Toronto but was unable to pursue studies in sociology because no correspondence course was offered.
As years passed on the killers Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo eventually met at a convention in Toronto when she was 17 years old. They had sexual intercourse for the first time they met and discovered that they shared sexual desires. They then got married June 29th, 1991 at ages 21, and 27. They were both loners from the outside world and worked together and went on the now well-known killing spree to satisfy their desires as hedonistic killers. Every time Paul and Karla fought, Karal would bring Paul a new girl as a “gift”. Karal did this because as a child she saw her mom doing sexual things when she got into arguments with her father (her mother was involved in a threesome after an argument with her husband). This shows that the nature of her crimes was caused by past experiences leading to possible PTSD like symptoms. She had not been diagnosed with any mental disorders, and she did involve herself with treatment by going to therapy sessions from her drug abuse. Paul and Karla desires were very similar making the crimes more interesting for them, leading to a bigger passion for killing.
These two people were deeply in love and were deeply in love with killing. The first murder took place on December 23rd, 1990 of Karla’s own sister Tammy by drugging her and used her to feed Paul’s sexual pleasure as a rapist. The second, victim was Leslie Mahaffy. This took place on June 15th, 1991 and her body was found encased in concrete blocks nearly 8 months later. The third murder took place on April 16th, 1992 on 15-year-old Kristen French whom was raped and killed by the couple. Each of these murders took place over a 3-year period. When the couple was caught for the crimes committed, they never showed any signs of remorse after the facts and it was shown when they planned for what they would say in the courts to fight against everything and ensured video evidence. Karal also showed that she was not sorry after her diary was found of the thought-out descriptions of the crimes and what she was feeling what they happened. As every murderer would, Paul plead not guilty for the 3 murders and aggravated sexual assaults he was charged with. And surprisingly, Karla plead guilty for her charges of manslaughter of 2 victims as she made a deal to do so because she would receive a lower sentence if she did. Even though Karla was not sentenced to full life imprisonment she was not found capable of a withstand trial/NCR. Bernardo was found guilty of all charges against him: two counts each of first-degree murder, kidnapping, forcible confinement and aggravated sexual assault, and one count of committing an indignity to a human body. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and declared a dangerous offender. In 2015 he applied for parole and not even 30 minutes into reviewing the application he was denied because for how dangerous he is to the public. Karla Homolka served her full 12-year sentence for the 2 pleas of guilty of manslaughter at Ste-Anne-des-Plaines prison but plead that she was influenced by “battered women syndrome” and was released from prison in 2005 under a series of judge-imposed conditions, including restrictions on her movement and a ban on any contact with anyone under the age of 16.
Karla Homolka runs under the lines of classical theory the reason why is because Karla rapped and sexually assaulted children and as a serial killer therefore knowing what the punishment and crimes for doing those criminal crimes, and what classical theory is that when one commits a crime, it is because the individual decided that it was advantageous to commit the crime.  The individual commits the crime from his own free will being aware of the punishment. Therefore, that is the reason why she is classical theory. Karla Homolka is the type of criminal that also knows that she’s going to get caught and doesn’t care about it, nor getting caught in the act, almost as if she has no feeling at all of punishment.
From the corrections perspective there is a lot of treatment they can provide for Karla such as counseling, it been said that the CASA has found that 65% of the prisons that provided the counselling for substance about and murders only 16% of the prisoners show up and attend the counseling. We think that the counseling would be very effective because the counselors that the prisons have probably are very well educated to the point to convince them that the crimes, they have committed in the past are wrong and help them develop a healthy mindset.
In conclusion, the case on Karla Homolka was a very historical event for Canadian crime. This event has helped our government to prevent future crimes murders from occurring, by taking into consideration that females can and will be as violent as male offenders. Karla’s life started out healthy until she began to witness bad things happening in her home as a child. These events made her think wrong is right and right is wrong. Having this mindset and later meeting Paul is what made her into the monster she once was. During her prison sentence she realized that her mindset was backwards and needed to be changed. This eventually led to an early release and a fresh start. Overall, serial killers are people that have serious mental issues and are unaware of it, leading them to get more and more unstable. Saying this there have been many people within the world we live in and are unaware of mental illness and is why we believe that these typed killers will never go away.

Criminology Theories report released. (2014, April 2) retrieved from:
Homolka’s psychiatric report released. (2018, April 22). Retrieved from
Karla Homolka. (2018, December 09). Retrieved from
Karla Homolka to Be Released from Prison in July. (n.d.). Retrieved from
Key events in the Bernardo/Homolka case | CBC News. (2010, June 17). Retrieved from
Montaldo, C. (n.d.). The Crimes of Canadian Killer Couple Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. Retrieved from
Who is Karla Homolka? Everything You Need to Know. (n.d.). Retrieved from
9 treatments affected in prisons, report released. (2005, no date)