Existential

The Existential Answer

Previous Home Next Table of Contents

5. The Existential Answer

It is important at the outset to realize that existentialism is a philosophical term. It describes a movement of thought which begins with the knowing individual and looks at life from the perspective of the actor rather than that of “the detached spectator” (Brown, Evangelical Dictionary). Existentialism has its origin in the writings of Kierkegaard, Nietzshe and was further developed by individuals like Heidegger, Sarte, Bultman, Tillich and Barth. As an approach to life, existentialism is derived from the reasoning and deduction of man. Several quotations describing this philosophy will provide a definition of its basic premises.

(The existential modal)...is unified by a central concern with the ultimate

challenge of human existence - to find sound values, to grow as a person,

and to build a meaningful and socially constructive life. (Coleman, p. 70)

Existentialism involves centering upon the existing person and emphasizes

the human being as he is emerging, becoming....existence has been set

over against essence, the latter being the emphasis upon immutable

principles, truth, logical laws, and so forth, that are assumed to stand

above and beyond any given existence. (May, p.12)

(Existentialism emphasizes)...our uniqueness as individuals, our quest

for values and meaning and our freedom for self-direction and

self-fulfillment....represents a somewhat less optimistic view of human

beings and places more emphasis on the irrational tendencies in human

nature and the difficulties inherent in self-fulfillment - particularly in our

bureaucratic and dehumanizing mass society....A basic theme of

existentialism is that our existence is given, but what we make of it - our

essence - is up to us....However, this is not an easy task in an age of

profound social change...For this is an age which tends to engender

inner confusion and deep emotional and spiritual strain concerning

the kind of person we should be and become, and the way of life

we should try and build for ourselves.

Essentially, we can resolve this dilemma in one of two ways: (a)

by giving up the quest and finding some satisfaction in blind

conformity and submergence in the group; or (b) by striving for

increased self-definition in the reality of our existence. The

existentialist views the first alternative as being inauthentic and

the pathway to anxiety and despair. (Coleman, p. 70)

The above definitions point out some important premises by which Scripture is reinterpreted when the existential view is used. The question which must be applied to these premises is how biblical are these assumptions of man and are they in agreement with the view of man set forth by revelation. If these views can be found to be Scriptural views of man, then they are valid ideas for understanding and interpreting the events and words of Scripture. You might even say they can be accepted as doctrine. If, however, they do not agree with the Scriptural view of man, then they must be dismissed or changed to adhere to truth.

The first basic premise is that man is searching for sound values and a basis upon which he may build a meaningful life. There is a degree of truth to this premise. There is no doubt that man is seeking to find something which is meaningful. If this were not the case then there would be no reason for thousands to respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The question that must be asked is whether man is able to find such a meaningful life by his own efforts and wisdom. As Scripture portrays him, man is seeking, but he always seeks meaning in the wrong place. Scripture affirms that man is unable to deliver himself. Moreover, this seeking is not even directed for the true life which man was created. As the Psalmist and Paul wrote, “There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They have all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Romans 3:11-12 KJV) Thus, even though man may be seeking a constructive life, this life is not possible unless God intervenes. The character of man’s seeking is best described by the proverb, “there is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof is destruction” (Proverbs 14:12, 16:25 KJV). The existentialist sees man’s nature as basically good and as able to choose the best. Thus he will offer the possibility of self-actualization without a work of God upon the basic nature of the individual. At this point, the premise is in contradiction to Scripture and therefore must be restated.

A second premise found in the above definitions is that man is “becoming.” This term is used to describe the process in which man defines himself by certain concepts and terms. An important aspect of this premise holds that as individuals develop, they determine the values, principles, and truths which shall define what existence is. Thus, values are not seen as absolute, rather all values occur and are defined as an individual “emerges.” Basic to this premise is that values and truths are not absolute and fixed but are developing and changing as man “becomes.”

While it is true that man is developing or emerging (and becoming more ungodly and unrighteous with each day), this premise assumes that Scriptural principles and ethics are also only a result of the biblical writers “becoming.” They were defined and developed in the life situation of the first century. This premise equally affirms that these values can change and develop as man does. When approaching Scripture, there may still be certain values and truths which are useful for guiding a person’s life, but it is our existence or our becoming which determines which values will be accepted and held as useful. If the value is no longer useful in determining a person’s existence, then it can be disregarded.

The problem with this premise is that it sets the Word of God not as an authoritative guide for all life, but only as a textbook which can be useful in guiding life. Not all in Scripture is to be accepted since the values reflect the first century’s way of defining existence. A current example of this type of approach will demonstrate the problem. Since the women’s movement has set as it goal the liberation of women into every potential place of employment and opportunity, the view of the place of women in the authoritative structure of the local assembly has come under attack. Speaking as if the Bible only represented the absolute value of its writers, many have said that a denial of women as pastors amount to archaic values which have no place in our present society. Since the prohibition of women pastoring in the local assembly is viewed as a barrier to women reaching their God-given potential, it must be disregarded and a new value espoused. A value which affirms the place of women in leadership and allows them to fulfill their “calling.” The problem with the above type of rationale is that it leaves every value, every instruction, every ethic open to reinterpretation. When asked where such liberty and license to interpret Scripture in this way is granted, the answer will always lead to the fact that man has determined which values to keep and which to disregard. Thus if any of the biblical values and exhortations does not seem to be useful in a person reaching their potential or desires, then it can and must be dismissed. Afterall, existence defines values, not values defining existence. If the later is the case, the result is said to be inauthentic existence.

I am sure the objection will be raise in connection this truth, as often is, that a person does not and will not “say what God can or will not do.” This pious statement in reality just skirts the issue. In response to this statement I would ask, for what purpose has Scripture been left to the church if it is not an infallible guide on how to direct the church? Does this type of statement suggest that God will contradict His own written Word by doing something or commanding something He has previously expressed He does not want done? If it is said that He does, by what authority do we measure the truthfulness of the command? The truth of the matter is that God has given the Word so that we would know how to guide our life, our family, and the life of the church. If this is not the case, man is at the mercy of any value system that he designs and desires. The only question in such a scenario is which group or individual becomes strong enough to assert their value system over others. At any rate, the premise that values are determined by existence as man “becomes” is not a biblical view.

A third premise of existentialism involves the freedom for self-direction and self-fulfillment of the individual. In this premise, stress is place upon how institutions, groups, values, beliefs, organization, etc., affect the freedom of a person in reaching their fulfillment. The premise is such that those barriers, whether they involve any of the above areas, which tend to inhibit individuals from self-actualization are viewed as dehumanizing, and thus inauthentic values. The results of this premise tend to devaluate those systems and values which individuals feel are hindering self-fulfillment. Thus, if a homosexual desires to preach the gospel and feels he is called to this purpose, even though he feels there is nothing wrong with his lifestyle, then any group or individual which attempts to deny him this right is viewed as dehumanizing him and trying to place upon him what would be “inauthentic existence.”

This is an interesting contrast to the scriptural view of man. The Scriptures affirm that there is no other pathway to self-fulfillment, if I may borrow the term, except through the truth and person of Jesus Christ. As Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6 KJV). The existential modal, however, would view the truths of Jesus Christ as a hindrance to the fulfillment of the individual if these truths would not allow the homosexual to preach. It has been suggested that the problem is not whether the homosexual can be a Christian, the problem is whether the Christian is Christian enough to love and accept the homosexual as he is. If this is the case, the church becomes nothing more than a psychological clinic which aids and nurtures individuals to reaching their potential in life in their “diverse” ethical lifestyles. Acceptance, not conformity, is the design and goal of the Christian life. The church is expected to avoid at all costs any value or barrier which would hinder a person from reaching their full potential. It is evident, nonetheless, that this third premise is not biblical.

The fourth premise of existentialism is a defining of what authentic existence consists. A person can only be truly considered as “living authentically” when he has developed his own value system and lives to his potential in this value system. So long as the value system does not hinder the larger society from reaching its potential, that is, from reaching the “Kingdom of God,” then the value system is accepted. In this premise is the inherent idea that a person can live and guide their life by principles revealed by God and yet live inauthentically. The reason, they have not critically reviewed these values to see whether they are valid or not for the individual and society. The problem with this premise is obvious. Whether nobody or everybody was to accept the truths of Scripture as valid for their life, this has no bearing on the validity of Scriptural truths. As Paul wrote to the Romans, “For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: let God be true, but every man a liar...” (3:3-4 KJV)

In this premise, only those values and truths which have been critically accepted and viewed as valid for today are viewed as authentic. I wonder if this is what Jesus was talking about when He spoke about child-like faith? Does a child have enough critical and rationalizing ability to live authentically as this premise would suggest? I think not.

At the same time, I do not desire to convey the idea that it is desirable to accept the truth of Jesus Christ simply because as person’s family has or it is the acceptable thing to do. Salvation, initially, is occasioned by the individual responding to the proclamation of the gospel and is effectually received in the believer by a life-changing indwelling of the Spirit of God. The difference between this and the above premise is that once a person has responded to the gospel, part of this act of repentance involves submitting of oneself to the truths and values which Scripture has revealed. Whether one fully understands the reasons behind a specific command found in Scripture is not the issue. The issue is one of obedience and faithfulness to the decrees and commands found. It is trust that Jesus will not lead us astray. It is trust that God has revealed what is best for our welfare. Unfortunately, in the above premise, at this point a person may be accused of living inauthenticly because they have accepted and submitted themselves to biblical values uncritically. Furthermore, as will be examined in greater detail in Section III, those who submit themselves to the truths of the Scriptures are viewed as possessing a lower or inferior type of faith, as James Fowler has suggested in his theorizing. Again, this type of premise is not found in Scriptural teaching and must be rejected.

A final premise of existentialism involves the idea that existence “is given.” This point is either affirmed or denied depending o the view of the writer. More specifically, this idea is affirmed by those who believe in God and is denied by those who do not. These two groups are defined as holding to either atheistic existentialism or Christian existentialism. Jean-Sarte expresses the truth in this way:

...there are two kinds of existentialists. There are, on one hand, the

Christians, amongst who I shall name Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel,

both professed Catholics; on the other the existential atheists, amongst

whom we must place Heidegger...and myself. What they have in

common is simply the fact that they believe existence comes before

essence or, if you will, that we must begin from the subjective.

(Sarte, p. 26)

What Sarte is saying is that both groups would believe in the basic assumptions which have been developed in the preceding premises, namely, that the individual defines the values or that existence precedes essence. The only difference is said to be on whether they believe in God or not. However, there does not really seem to be a major difference between “atheistic” and the “Christian” existentialist when their positions are looked at closely.

Jean-Sarte explains the basic position of atheistic existentialism in this way:

Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with

greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one

being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists

before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or,

as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by saying

that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists,

encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines himself

afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable,

it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything

until later. And then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus,

there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a

conception of it. Man simply is....Man is nothing else but that which

he makes of himself. This is the first principle of existence.

(Sarte, p. 27-28)

This view of man is set over against the views of those who believe in God and believe man’s existence is derived. W.H. Auden expresses the basic thoughts of Christian existentialism in this way:

Man is created in the image of God; and image because his existence is

not self-derived, and a divine image because like God each man is

aware of his existence as unique. (Auden, p. 8)

Given the preceding premises of existentialism, that existence precedes essence, the question naturally is asked how it is that man is connected to Go or knows that He is. Auden states this connection is due to a subjective apprehension of God.

While in the aesthetic religion the feelings, and in the ethical religion,

the ideas were the presence of God, they are now only my ideas

and if I believe that what I feel (e.g., God is present) or think

(e.g., God is righteous) is caused by my relation to God, this

belief is revelation, for the cause is outside my consciousness....If

the feeling of which I would approximately describe as sonship,

I may speak of God as Father. (p. 13-14)

In this definition of Christian existentialism, God is accepted on a two-fold basis. The first reason God is accepted is because of an experience of a direct revelation which the individual believes is coming from “outside” the self. The second reason for accepting God is due to a type of cosmological type of reasoning, or an “a priori” type of argument. In this view, the belief is not necessarily due to the revelatory truths of Scripture. This belief is more of a belief arising from rational conclusions. If this is granted, the only difference between atheistic and Christian existentialism is that one goes only back to the knowing subject and begins there. The other moves beyond the knowing subject to the source of being. The atheist stops with the fact of man, the Christian finds the need for an “a priori” being. Thus, the Christian existentialist is simply saying there is a God or prior “being before man,” thus his existence is derived. From a Scriptural point of view, this hardly makes an individual a Christian. It may be as stated earlier that even when they believe the right thing, it is for the wrong reason. In this case, the reason for God is out of necessity or mystical apprehension.

It is equally interesting that the descriptions and attributes which are given by “Christian” existentialists to God do not even closely resemble the truths which Scripture reveals. Instead of being Jehovah, the God of Israel, a God of mercy, holiness, justice, grace, love, all-power, all-knowing, and sovereign, the God of existential proponents is described as the “source and power of being,” the dynamic of the universe, the creative force, etc.. The descriptions seem to multiply as needed until God becomes one that fits the existential view of reality: one of man’s own imagining!

This is to be expected when thoughts and ideas coming “from without” can be ascribed as revelation. One can only wonder by what criteria an individual can determine whether a thought coming “from without” is truly from God or from Satan. Or is Satan just another myth to be removed from the existential view of the world? The truth of the existential belief in God is that the only difference between those who believe and those who do not is that one accepts there is a God, and then proceeds to create an idolatrous conception of Him. In the end, I am not sure that the word “Christian” should even be connected to the word “existentialists.” To affirm that “existence is given” is not a belief based upon the truth of Scripture. It is derived more of necessity.

There is, however, a greater reason for an existentialist to affirm a belief in God. As might be already discerned, if the premise that values are defined by existence is followed to its logical implication, there can not be certain values which should be taken more seriously than others. In fact, the existentialist with a biblical background would not use the Bible as a sure guide since no portion of it could rightly be discerned as authoritative. This fact becomes clear when the issues of morals are considered. If morals are defined by existence, one could conceive of a society in which murder was regarded as effective child discipline. As a result of this type of objection to the existential premise, it is necessary to establish an “a priori” existence to certain morals and values which are authentic values. Moreover, these “a priori” values and morals are the truths which existentialists seek to derive from Scripture by removing the mythical elements. It is, however, at this point that God must be conceived. The reason: if there are “a priori” morals and values, there must be an intelligent being to ascribe them upon. Enter the necessity of God. Sarte discusses this point adequately.

However, if we are to have morality, a society and a law-abiding world,

it is essential that certain values should be taken seriously; they must

have a ‘a priori’ existence ascribed to them....The existentialist...finds

it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there

disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible

heaven. There can no longer be any good ‘a priori’ since there is no

infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. (p. 33)

While Sarte is an atheist, his quotation reveals the dilemma that the existentialist faces when finding solid value. How can each person define his own values as he lives authentically and yet not have a world which is characterized by chaos and confusion? The answer is quickly found in ascribing to the ground of being certain a priori values, as well as, the source of all being. Once this is accepted, the Scriptures become a tool which the existentialist can use to help move people toward responsible existence and self-actualization. The only problem which remains is to remove the mythical features that are found in Scripture and reinterpret them by using existential premises. The change is simple. The God of Scripture, stripped of His attributes which have been revealed by Him, becomes the ground, source and power of being. God is the one from whom man derives being and represents certain a priori values, such as love. Jesus Christ becomes the man who points others toward a commitment toward God. When man makes this commitment, certain values and principles can be drawn from Scripture which will reveal how to live authentically. Since these values have an a priori existence and are associated with God, commitment to God and dependence upon Him is logically a commitment to these values also. The values which are drawn from Scripture are only those which are useful in liberating man to reach his potential.

The results of such twisting of truth are obvious. A preacher can still call individuals to commit themselves to Jesus Christ and trust Him because they are in reality committing to the values, the ground of being, which He symbolizes. However, they are not committing themselves in an act of faith of the work of Jesus on the cross. Jesus Christ can rightly be seen as the Son of God since He revealed in humanity the possibility to live authentically and in submission to these values. New birth can be affirmed because repentance comes to mean a turning from the old patterns of life which lead to inauthentic and estranged living, to a new life which is characterized by a commitment to the a priori values and the ground of being. Eschatology can be embraced because it represents the actualization of society which becomes possible when people begin to live responsibly.

As this discussion has revealed, even when the existentialist believes in God, it is to use the concept to move men toward an envisioned goal of personal and social actualization. It seems as this approach to God and Scripture actually uses God and His Word for man’s own personal benefit, rather than giving glory to God and bringing man into total submission and reverence toward Him. If this is the reason they call themselves Christian, because they believe in God, then the faith amounts to little more than head knowledge.

This is the same type of faith which I once possessed with regard to God. In my earlier college studies when I was heavily into sociological and psychological studies, I developed a modal of human development showing how the physical, historical, sociological and philosophical aspects of man’s life are inter-related. At the center of this modal was the area of psychological study. From this center sprang the four major areas of psychological study, the physical, psychoanalytic, social and existential. The interesting aspect of this modal was the affect that the philosophical aspect of man had on the physical aspect of man’s development in this circular modal of human development. In fact, without any other possible explanation, I discovered that there are certain events and changes in the modal that could only be explained by the existence of God. From theological deduction, I was able to gladly announce that “God is.” The point I make here is that this belief, and a certain belief at that, of a God was not saving faith. It was not until I was confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ, some five years later, that I truly came to know God and experience conversion. My first faith was merely deducted truth, the second was saving faith in response to Jesus Christ. The first faith made little difference, the second faith changed my life forever. Needless to say, the belief in God which the existentialist promotes seems to resemble the faith of my earlier college days. To say that man’s existence is derived amounts only to a pious statement which has little, if any, saving value.

I have made this long departure from my original intent to help expose how those who may rightly be called Christian existentialists can use and preach from God’s Word while adhering to the existential philosophy as the means to interpret Scripture. By the above rationale, Scripture can still be used as a valuable book because it contains certain a priori values which are associated with the being from whom man derives his existence. The problem with the use of Scripture in this manner is that the value system which comes to be accepted is a diverse as the interpreter. The result for the church is an uncertain and confusing sound. One which sees church’s and groups in conflict with each other. Furthermore, the reinterpretations themselves may be reinterpreted as it is needed. Values which are accepted with some degree of authority may change as a new group seeks for a more “authentic” expression of defining life. Thus, a young person seeking for true values must be told that there are not any, but that he must develop his own from the experiences which he encounters in life.

Interestingly, even when some a priori values are accepted, there are both conservative and liberal ranks among existentialists who decide which values derived from Scripture can be held as having an a priori value. When looking at the effect of this system on the local church, the preacher can no longer expound the Word of God authoritatively because the congregation has been equally intoxicated with the existential approach to interpreting Scripture. Inside the preacher knows, if the congregation sees it differently, they may very well land him on the front door steps “unemployed.” The Christian counselor must also forget the idea of trying to guide troubled individuals with immutable and firm truths. Instead, he must seek to help the individual to discover their own values and answers concerning their problem. Equally, man can not find any assurance in immutable truths but must base his assurance on his own ability to reason and develop wisdom. As it has been point out, this type of ethical system leads to the dissolution of every system of meaning and society. It is interesting that this is the very opposite of what existentialists have as a goal. Perhaps it bears repeating that Satan has come to kill, steal and destroy (John 10:10).

Closely align to the existential modal is the humanistic modal. This modal is similar to the existential in that the “self” is the unifying theme and focus. Carl Rogers is a major proponent of this philosophy. James Coleman provides some of this modal’s premises.

a) Each individual exists in a private world of experience of which the I,

me, or myself is the center.

b) The most basic striving of the individual is toward the maintenance,

enhancement, and actualization of the self....

e) The individual’s inner tendencies are toward health and wholeness:

under normal conditions he behaves in rational and constructive ways

and chooses pathways toward personal growth and self-actualization

....Humanistic psychologists place strong emphasis on values and the

process of value choices for guiding our behavior and achieving a

meaningful and fulfilling way of life. At the same time, they consider

it crucially important that each one of us develop values based on our

own experience and evaluation rather than blindly accept values held

by others; otherwise we deny our own experiences of value and

become increasingly out of touch with our own real feelings. (p. 67)

Equally, in this modal the basic nature of man is seen as not inherently evil or inclined to evil, but as good.

There is no need for a full exposition of this position as was done with existentialism. The two philosophies are similar and identify with many of the same premises. In fact, the same arguments which were introduced against existentialism are the same for humanism. The biggest difference between the two is that humanism places more emphasis on the process of making choices which are seen as crucial in achieving a meaningful life. The current practice of value clarification in the educational system is a distinguishing trait of this modal. Value clarification is the process by which individuals are taught to make and decide their own values when confronting a new experience. When applied to values and truths, such as those found in Scripture, the approach produces nothing short of situational ethics. Thus, when a person is confronted with a situation which is new, he must decide whether to respond in ways he has been told are correct, or evaluate the situation in light of all of experience, and make a value judgment. If a person was to respond to a situation in a certain way because the Bible says this is the way to respond, the person is said to be out of touch with his real feelings. This would equally be considered an inauthentic response.

However, is it inauthentic to accept biblical values as true and certain even when I may feel otherwise? Does not God call man to obey His Word out of obedience? Yes He does. The use of our reason is not to decide whether the commands are relevant commands, but to obey and see from the resulting experiences how God works and is faithful toward His people. To accept these uncritically, moreover, is not necessarily to be out of touch with one’s real feelings. On the contrary, my real feelings tell me that it would be okay or natural, given my circumstances, to indulge in sexual immorality or to steal. However, it is my uncritical acceptance of Scriptural truths that help me to determine that these “real feelings” for what they are: sin upon which the wrath and judgment of God rest. In reality, I do not always understand why every command is given as it is in God’s Word. Yet I know that an infinitely wise and all-knowing Creator and Father has a specific and trustworthy reason for the command. I can be assured that the results will be beneficial, even if I must wait until heaven to receive the benefit.

The humanistic modal contradicts the foregoing truth by assuming that genuine actualization of self is not possible when an individual “blindly accepts” certain values and commands as truth. It also believes that individuality is lost by the blind acceptance of values received. Both of these assumptions are false with regard to the church. The point here is that the humanistic modal has a tremendous affect on the way ethics and values are being interpreted from Scripture. As with the existential modal, this view places man’s reasoning and understanding as the authoritative guide for interpreting God’s Word. In both approaches, the key to Scriptural interpretation has little interest, if any, in what the Scripture means as historical fact. Only what it means for the person today is what is important. Even if there is a search to find the original intent of the writer, this is usually reinterpreted to fit the contemporary situation, often at the cost of destroying the original intention of the writer.

In the following pages of this section, the reader will see how these reinterpretations have tried to make Scripture meaningful to modern man. In doing so, the reader will see how four critical doctrines have been affected by these subjective approaches. While there is not doubt that many of the existentialists feel they have freed themselves from the hindrance of dogmas and outdated understandings, the truth is that they have simply established a new set of doctrines, based upon philosophy rather than on a verbally inspired foundation.

Previous Home Next Table of Contents