Theistic Existentialism

[NullSet]

To what degree is it possible to be a Christian and simultaneously a theistic existentialist (a la Kierkegaard)?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Have you read Barth's Romans? I'd say he was the real thing, but that is not to say that I endorse existentialism.

Kierkegaard, too, was a Christian, IMHO, but he also seemed pretty wretched. He brought out a lot of truth, but he never seemed to realize or enjoy the full liberation inherent in the gospel.

Bultmann was over the top; sometimes he sounds as if he understands the gospel, but many other times, he doesn't. In any event, he so closely followed Heidegger that I fear for him, as well as for those who become his disciples.

I would be most careful about recomending that folks read these guys, unless they are engaged in theological study which demands that they become conversant with existentialist or Neo-Orthodox thought. I have the least reservations about Barth, but most non-specialists might well find even his writings obscure or unduly confusing.

I've gotten into some trouble by introducing certain friends of mine to writers like these, and I regreted giving them the mental anguish their reading caused them. I htink some of us are called to engage with ideas, and some of us are not. We've got to be careful and responsible in our advocacy or advice as we presume to lead others. And we also have to be responsible to ourselves and the nurture of our own minds.

To conclude, I'd say that it's definitely the case that some people are both existentialists and Christians. But I don't know that it is usually desirable or beneficial....

[Gavin]

The whole idea of existentialism seems to me to be in contradiction with theism, so I don't know how it would be done.

Creation ex nihilo is at odds with "existence precedes essence". :argh:

[b488]

It is my understanding that Kirkegaard was a christian and his Christian existentialism is thouroughly theistic and specifically christian in character. The reason why his philosophy is called existentialist was not due to any objection to christianity, but to the manner in which many of the philosophers of his day (namely Hegel) approaced many questions. It was often in a cold, aloof and objective manner. The fundamental innovation K. had was to focus on the perspective of the observer and the subjective elements therein, rather than be on an explainitory level far removed from the participants of the existence that philosophy attempts to describe.

So existentialism to Kirkegaard was not in an adversarial role re christainity whatever. It is the 'angle' from which he persued to get to Truth. Although I am just beginning to research K. myself, in the readiing i have done, no one has asserted nor implied that he was not a man of the faith. I see no reason to doubt his christianity.

As disturbed as K. seems to some, I appreciate his having been disturbed by the so-called orthodox christianity of his day, which seemed quite smug in its comfort and complacency. I liken his attacks against Hegelianism to that of those who would be outspoken about the abuses of televangelists or chruchs today who see themselves and the world through rose colored glasses.


As an aside, i am perplexed by the original question somewhat. I see this as no different from asking "To what extent can one be a xian and have a pragmatic soteriology (à la Lewis)"
(See 'the perfect penitent' in Mere Christianity) or "To what extent can one be a xian and believe in partial preterism at the same time? (à la Dee Dee Warren)" :P K's thoughts on many matters are not directly related to matters deemed essential to salvation, IMHO. (the current thread on inerrancy comes to mind at this point)

well ive said enuf for now...back to my lil corner here in the observation deck (ie Peanut gallery) :shy: