Can somebody explain "Christian Existentialism" to me?

Question

I'm an existentialist, but I'm having a hard time understanding what the term above means. Can somebody explain??

Answer 1

God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."
- Paul Tillich,
His point of view was that since God does not exist in space and time, he is non existenent, and for that reason you cannot say that he doesnt exist from an outward inclusion

In terms of Kierkegaardian
The first is that the universe is fundamentally paradoxical, and that the greatest paradox of all is the transcendent union of God and man in the person of Christ. The second concerns having a personal relationship with God that supersedes all prescribed moralities, social structures and communal norms. The third asserts that following social conventions is essentially a personal aesthetic choice made by individuals.

Basically he believes that God is Love, not an actual object or thing of existence.

Answer 2

Christian Existentialism seems like a contradictory term. I think that the key to understanding this term is as follows.
Existentialism is based on the idea (among others) that man has no proof of anything except that which he can prove himself. Nietzsche and Sartre are known as the big existentialists. What they did was sit in a room and say things like "hey, how do I know that I am more than a ghost in an egg?". They insisted that the reality was what we are able to prove it as being.

The Christian element added, this would take on a meaning where all other things being equal, a man at one with God must evaluate and define his world based on what he knows (with God included in there).

Working backwards from them, you could find their influences in the beliefs and theories of Dostoyevsky and Kierkegaard. And it turns out that these two guys were devoted Christians. They emphasized the human mind as having moral capacity (As did Kant, who was into metaphysics moreso than existentialism).

With that background, I will take a shot at defining it for you. Basically being a Christian existentialist means to me that you would have to monitor and control your own moral reality. You would be responsible for yourself, your actions, and your relationship with God. You would not wait for other people to tell you how to feel, or what to think. This creates a HUGE responsibility that many people will tell you is impossible for a mortal to live up to. This is a very unpopular stance with the more dogmatic Christian groups, who would rather that you join their "flock" (of sheep- kind but stupid animals). Not that you will not find many free-thinking Deists, Lutherans, Unitarians, and some of the other free-thinking righteous rebels from just about every denomination out there.

I see some parallels to some concepts in Judaism that have some strong interplay here- call it Jewish existentialism. I think there is alot of emphasis on the responsibility side of the equation there (rather than freedom, since freedom by itself can pretty much mean "do whatever you want"). I'm not sure, but perhaps they place higher value on personal morality in the face of strong political winds, social Zeitgeist, etc.

Whatever religion you are examining, the concept seems to stay the same. Placing the control in the hands/mind of the individual rather than the prevailing dogma doesn't always mean that they are more or less religious, more or less liberal/conservative, etc. Look at the Quakers- zealously religious, conservative values, high emphasis on staying in personal contact with God, taking stands against things they feel are wrong, value placed on rugged individuality, and strongly existentialist christian in my opinion. These are people that joined the US Army in droves during Vietnam, yet many refused to kill or hold a weapon.

I hope I was able to shed some light. It is a strange concept at first because Nietzsche is the famous existentialist. was an atheist.

PS, don't let yourself become a nihilist.

Answer 3

I think you might find info on this by researching Kiregard (I think its spelled right). He was existentialist, and overcame its absurdity by taking a "leap of faith" and became Christian. You might find what youre looking for in some of his writings, Id guess (I havent really studied them, personally).

Answer 4

It would seem to be an oxymoron to me, since Christianity requires a depth of introspection that existentialism would deny.

Answer 5

Existentialism is almost as difficult to interpret as it is impossible to describe. It may be wholly secular and totally atheistic, or it may appear as Christian philosophy that fits into the milieu of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, or the Orthodox establishment. It can also be at home with Judaism.

The support of intellectuals in each of these persuasions has made existentialism something "faddish" in educational and theological circles during the last two decades. This was especially so under the glamour of famous European exponents, such as Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Kafka, Sartre, Camus, Jaspers, Tillich, and a host of others. Not all who bandied these names about had read their works of course, but the vogue swept on nonetheless

The perils to be found in Christian existentialism are neither obvious nor easily discerned. On the contrary, existentialism's claim to relevancy and involvement of the whole of man's existence in truth offers much that is desirable.

The word "existentialism" is an extension of the word "existence." The crucial issues which face modern man require that he discover the true nature of his existence. For centuries the approach in philosophy has reduced the world of persons, including God and man, to mere objects of thought, as concepts set forth in the categories of language. The result has been the application of man's rational powers to control and direct life on the horizontal plane economically, politically, scientifically, and religiously. The consequence is the dehumanization of the individual. The Christian religion has been emptied of its vital meaning and its relevancy to life. This is due largely to the church's concern with and search for rational certainty, rather than with living truth. Because religious truth has become objectivised, man has been separated from God.

There is much truth to this critical observation by existentialism. The church has long operated principally in the context of ideas and doctrines, giving priority to formal utterances by church and school. It is possible to answer many questions about religion and life without dealing with the main issue: that of being personally involved in the whole of one's being. A rational philosophy of religion can be a substitute for the real thing. In the juggling of words and ideas, it is possible to reduce God to an idea. The effort to formulate a creed can get man nowhere. The God that people claim to believe in may become to them no more than an intellectual abstraction. This is the great tragedy of philosophy according to existentialism.

Existentialism is a revolt against the attempt to get at the meaning of life through ideas. The assertion is that God cannot be made an object of human thought without distorting the truth about God. To deal with truth as an object to be grasped by the logic of mind and language is to lose the vertical relationship with God; that to believe reality is something to be known rather than lived is an illusion, denying to man the true nature of Christian meaning and existence. Man thereby becomes the captive of rational categories, rather than experiencing freedom through a personal relation with God.

Existentialism is a philosophy which shatters all rational security. It condemns all claims to truth which avoid or abdicate personal involvement. To interpret the Christian religion in terms of ideas and doctrines is to distort the truth and make participation in it impossible.

How does truth become relevant? Existentialism aims to answer that question. What is at stake is the very nature of man's being. The reality of truth is experienced when man faces decisions that constitute in essence a matter of life and death. Existentialism is a philosophy of crisis, where man is driven to vital decisions, thus penetrating to the inner meaning of life, facing up to the crises and anxieties that confront one's very existence.

The contrast is between being a participant and being a spectator. One may state his belief objectively about the nature of man, that he is mortal, subject to death. He can write that statement down, put it in doctrinal form, argue it as the basis of his own logical conclusions about man, all this without being involved. But let the doctor declare a man a victim of terminal cancer. He is now involved in death itself. Death is no longer a theory to be discussed. It is now part of man's very existence. Consequently, truth must fail if it stops short of securing the involvement of the whole man.

Answer 6

...doing "ones" own thing out-side of the parameters of Scripture, knowing "don't do that"... kinda-sorta... you'll be fine, have another beer...