Get the Net!

Each semester I teach Sartre’s Existentialism is a Humanism, and every semester I’m stunned by the number of introductory students that take Sartre’s position to heart. As an “atheistic existentialist,” Sartre tries to make sense of the world from the position that God does not exist and humans are responsible for creating themselves by their choices. This view speaks to some students because they’re uncomfortable with the notion that God is in charge and that somehow this implies they are not in charge.

In his discussion of forlornness (the idea that we must face the consequences of living in a world where God does not exist), Sartre gives an example of a young man who, after a series of disasters decides to join the Jesuits. The young man had a rough childhood, had a disastrous love affair, entered the military and was summarily booted out, and so decided to join up. Sartre explains:

This young fellow might well have felt that he had botched everything. It was a sign of something, but of what? He might have taken refuge in bitterness or despair. But he very wisely looked upon all this as a sign that he was not made for secular triumphs, and that only the triumphs of religion, holiness, and faith were open to him. He saw the hand of God in all this, and so he entered the order. Who can help seeing that he alone decided what the sign meant?

Some other interpretation might be haeen drawn from this series of setbacks; for example, that he might have done better to turn carpenter or revolutionist. Therefore, he is fully responsible for the interpretation. Forlornness implies that we ourselves choose our being.*

Sartre’s explanation here is somewhat (?) problematic for the Christian, in the sense that we have this fundamental belief that our steps are directed. I don’t disagree with this point, but I’ve never been one to see – except retroactively - that my path is moving in a certain direction. This comes with a little skepticism, though, especially nowadays. There are a whole variety of explanations for why my life has taken the shape it has – Sometimes I wonder if I’m just arbitrarily choosing the “God Lens” to lay over it. Like the young Jesuit in Sartre’s example, am I deciding on the signs or is there something more?

In any case, I find myself struggling with the now. Isn’t it the case that I’m making my own choices, and the God thing is just a kind of metaphysical and existential bracket that I place over my life in the hope that it will all make some kind of sense, that it will all work out? Am I pressing my luck by asking these kinds of questions?

*Jean-Paul Sartre, “Existentialism is a Humanism,“  in Philosophy: the Big Questions (Blackwell, 2003), 313-321.

 

Kierkegaard now and then.

It’s been awhile since I submitted myself – in whole or in part – to lenten reflection. Thanks to a tip from Drew Moser, I picked up the e-mail devotional from CRM Empowering Leaders. Somehow, every day has delivered a word I have needed to hear and words of comfort. I’m so grateful for the folks who have written thoughtful meditations that find their way into my inbox.

This season of my life has been strange and unfamiliar – after a semester of hard work and momentous occasions (my first publication, a Jeopardy! appearance, etc.),  I was riding high and once the new year came, BAM! I found myself in a valley of fear, anxiety, and doubt. It’s timely, then, that in the transition back to WordPress I came back across a post I wrote about Kierkegaard almost two years ago, where I included this quote from Provocations:

Just as knowing ourselves in our own nothingness is the condition for knowing God, so knowing God is the condition for the sanctification of a human being by God’s assistance and according to his intention. Wherever God is, there he is always creating. He does not want a person to be spiritually soft and to bathe in the contemplation of his glory. He wants to create a new human being. To need God is to become new. And to know God is the crucial thing. Without this knowledge, a human being becomes nothing. Without this knowledge, he is scarcely able to grasp that he himself is nothing at all, and even less that to need God is his highest perfection.

From “To Need God is Perfection,” in Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, Charles E. Moore, ed. (Plough, 1999), 33.

It’s funny how we sometimes think that our approach to and understanding of God will stay the same as it has always been. The last two months have demonstrated to me that God will speak to you in the ways you will hear, and ways that are unexpected and separate from your usual processing mechanisms. 

It’s true that Kierkegaard (as I said in the original post) pulled me back from the gorge of unbelief in college, and thinking about Kierkegaard’s approach has done it again – this time revealing my own nothingness and forcing me to move away from despair. I see God’s demand that I become new, that I become transformed – not just intellectually, but wholly.