Tag Archives: Existentialism

Experiencing the Lectionary: John 15.26-16.15

UPDATE: I have realized that the lectionary actually leaves out the first four verses of chapter 16.  Sigh.  My guess is they wanted to avoid the anti-semitic tones of the verses.  But that’s a problem with later readers of the Bible like us, not for the text.  Oh, well, it could still be mentioned in a sermon…

An existential analysis of this week’s gospel reading: John 15.26-16.15

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you.

“I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

1.  What is the existential concern behind the text? “They will put you out of the synagogues.”

Is it persecution? Survival? Oppression? Being a social outcast?  You get the point.  While there may be economic and political implications to being cast out of the synagogues, I prefer to put this as an identity concern.  It encompasses these tertiary concerns I just mentioned, but it carries with it the added weight of belonging.  This social sense of belonging eases the existential crisis by creating a systematic community that produces meaning for life.

Rather than consider Christians vs Jews, it’s better to consider a Jesus movement within Judaism.  Where some members of the synagogue are now disenfranchised, this text is offering a new sense of belonging to the “Jesus movement.”  Those who have cast out the Jesus followers, will get what’s coming to them, not because they have failed at correct belief and doctrine, but because that have treated the Jesus movement poorly.

Most bible readers will be enthralled with the “Helper” in this passage, as they probably should be.  Is it the Holy Spirit in the narrative?  Close enough.  But again, this is a concept aligning itself as a resolution to an existential concern.  And as I am continuing to argue, the existential concern should take precedence in bible-believing communities, ahead of theories of the Holy Spirit or Divine Judgment.

2.  How to respond to the existential concern?

It’s not about getting the theology or doctrine correct.  Rather, it’s about creating an atmosphere or situation where the human existential crisis cannot rear its ugly head in the concern of identity.  I have two suggestions.

First, don’t be the kind of community that marginalizes based upon theological or doctrinal differences.  Be accepting of challenges to the status quo, to the dominant understanding of the faith proclaimed within the community.  Be aware and open to the fluid nature of identities.  So long as the practices of love abound, questions and fluidity can only help the community grow in faith.

Second, be a community who can continually mold itself to offer new senses of belonging to various disenfranchised members of nearby communities.  In doing so, theologies and doctrines may take a backseat to a community that is attempting to follow Christ, a community that answers existential concerns with existence rather than with concepts.

Story Saturday: The Wind and the Sun

The inspiration for South Korea’s “Sunshine Policy” at the turn of the last century:

The Wind and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger. Suddenly they saw a traveller coming down the road, and the Sun said: “I see a way to decide our dispute. Whichever of us can cause that traveller to take off his cloak shall be regarded as the stronger. You begin.” So the Sun retired behind a cloud, and the Wind began to blow as hard as it could upon the traveller. But the harder he blew the more closely did the traveller wrap his cloak round him, till at last the Wind had to give up in despair. Then the Sun came out and shone in all his glory upon the traveller, who soon found it too hot to walk with his cloak on.

via The Wind and the Sun an Aesop’s Fable.

Bible and Existence (6)

JC&M

Part 6/6 of a series…

The judgment that man’s existence can be analyzed without taking into account his relation with God may be called an existential decision, but the elimination is not a matter of subjective preference; it is grounded in the existential insight that the idea of God is not at our disposal when we construct a theory of man’s existence.  Moreover, the judgment points to the idea of absolute freedom, whether this idea be accepted as true or rejected as absurd.  We can also put it this way: that the elimination of man’s relation with God is the expression of my personal knowledge of myself, the acknowledgment that I cannot find God by looking at or into myself.  Thus, this elimination itself gives to the analysis of existence its neutrality.  In the fact that existentialist philosophy does not take into account the relation between man and God, the confession is implied that I cannot speak of God as my God by looking into myself.  My personal relation with God can be made really by God only, by the acting God who meets me in His Word.

A counter question we may ask to Bultmann is: do we have an idea of an “other” at our disposal, such as the idea of my wife or my mother?  If so, what is different in the distance between my experience of God and my conceptions of God?

I would venture a guess that while an “other” is not fully at our disposal, their participation within the same boundaries of existence with our selves, the objectification of the “other” is made plausible.  On the other hand, where Bultmann and Barth might agree, is that God is wholly other.  One cannot objectify God, one cannot know God as one knows an object, one cannot simply love God as one loves one’s family.  I will admit this is a bit of theology I am uncomfortable with, but I will leave my critiques of Bultmann for later.

Suffice it to say, though, thinking in this way lends itself to an existential analysis, and therefore it is beneficial to think in this way, if we must.

An existential analysis limits itself to the experiences within the self, and therefore all conceptions of the divine must be left to the side.  Religious/spiritual experience, however, is available inasmuch as one experiences it.  But to name that experience is to limit it with our conceptions, leaving it to the realm of faith rather than the realm of experience.

But notice, Bultmann does not simply speak of religious/spiritual experience, but as “man’s relation with God.”  It is a relative/relational experience, that may fail to be captured by conceptions.  Only in the experience of the relationship can God ever be true.

And, at least for Bultmann, this “acting” God enters into such a relationship in God’s Word.  Therefore, it is not the ontological truths of God’s Word that are important, but the experience of the acting God in relation to the Word.  What then is this Word?

Bible and Existence (5)

JC&M

Part 5/6 in a series…

To be sure, philosophical analysis presupposes the judgment that it is possible to analyze human existence without reflection on the relation between man and God.  But to understand human existence in relation to God can only mean to understand my personal existence, and philosophical analysis does not claim to instruct me about my personal self-understanding.  The purely formal analysis of existence does not take into account the relation between man and God, because it does not take into account the concrete events of the personal life, the concrete encounters which constitute personal existence.  If it is true that the revelation of God is realized only in the concrete events of life here and now, and that the analysis of existence is confined to man’s temporal life with its series of here and now, then this analysis unveils a sphere which faith alone can understand as the sphere of the relation between man and God.

It would be nice to know what Bultmann means by faith alone, because this is a slight departure from the existential analysis, however true it may be.  Still, if we take any of the common definitions of faith–belief in, allegiance to, or trust– we are still left with the “sphere of the relation between God and man.”  Here, since “faith” must “understand” the sphere, the sphere is a conception post-existence.  It can very well be a sphere in which humans may exist, but is only a sphere that is later reflected upon through faith, and perhaps by only faith.

Take for example the famous “Footprints” poem.  The narrator’s existence experienced difficult times.  Upon further reflection, “the Lord” is inserted into the narrative of existence, presumably by faith, and no one can empirically verify or disprove the accuracy of the insertion. But clearly, the narrator is looking back (historically) to analyze existence.  This gives birth to “the Lord” in existence, but it is therefore a conception applied after the experienced event.  For this reason, an existential analysis has no conception of God at its disposal: an analysis of human existence prior to conceptions.

Bible and Existence (2)

JC&M

Part 2/6 of a series.

…It may be enough to say that existentialist philosophy shows human existence to be true only in the act of existing.  Existentialist philosophy is far from pretending that it secures for man a self-understanding of his own personal existence.  For this self-understanding of my very personal existence can only be realized in the concrete moments of my “here” and “now.”  Existentialist philosophy, while it gives no answer to the question of my personal existence, makes personal existence my own personal responsibility, and by doing so it helps to make me open to the word of the Bible.  It is clear, of course, that existentialist philosophy has its origin in the personal-existential question about existence and its possibilities.  For how could it know about existence except its own existential awareness, provided that existentialist philosophy is not identified with traditional anthropology?  Thus it follows that existentialist philosophy can offer adequate conceptions for the interpretation of the Bible, since the interpretation of the Bible is concerned with the understanding of existence.

Human existence is true in “the act of existing,” and not in its conceptions of its existence.  The experience of a breeze in one’s face is truer than a description or conception of the event.  From where does such energy come that moves unseen particles across one’s face?

Therefore, existential philosophy can never secure a conception of human existence.  Although, it must try because such analyses are always bound by limited and limiting language.  If a “self-understanding” were to exist, it is only in the awareness of the immediate, here-and-now, present experience: i.e. the awareness of the breeze before the conception of it.

Because this experience of the world is internal to the individual and contained by impenetrable boundaries, the experience of existence must be personal.  We relate to each other only through the limiting and limited conceptions of existence.  The conceptions fail to give us the “true” answers about identity and meaning.  Yet this is equally liberating as well.  One is not bound to the conceptions of existence from another.  Since my decisions can be based solely on my experience, I am responsible for my own decisions.

Equally, since the Bible is a collection conceptions of truth and of human experience, it cannot contain or embody fully true human existence.  However, the conceptions are based on experience.  And the Bible, more than other literature, is rhetorical–full of attempts to persuade us to make “right” decisions.  Therefore, as we, the Bible readers, try to match our experiences via our conceptions with the experiences of the ancients via their conceptions, we are free from conceptions of God, theology, politics, etc.  Our greatest point of connection with the ancients is through existential experiences, such as survival, human relationships, or imagining better futures.

To say this another way, I am not bound by theologies and doctrines to interpret the Bible in a certain way, but I am freed from the conceptions to match possible shared experiences with the writers of the Bible.

Enough for now, however, it is a convenient move by Bultmann to separate existential philosophy from classical anthropology.  We’ll come back to the possible connection between the two in the future.

A Saturday Story: Words

Just listen to the first story (est. 20min), if you don’t have time to listen to the hour long program.

From the nationally recognized radio program, Radiolab.  Thanks to Chris McLeod for sharing.

As you listen, consider the relationship and gaps between language and experience:

WORDS

For more on this story, a more detailed version of this story is available in this book.

Demythologizing at work: ‘Kosmos’

As a response to comments in yesterday’s blog, an example of demythologizing.

From Butlmann’s Theology of the New Testament, Vol. II, Part 3, Chapter 2: “Johannine Dualism”

First the description of the mythical understanding of the kosmos:

“As for Paul, so for John the kosmos means primarily the world of men; on it the judgment falls that it is evil and would be lost were it not for the coming of the ‘Son.’  In its radical opposition to God it is characterized as in Paul by the term ‘this world’ which comes from apocalyptic eschatology.  In this term, the point is the contrast between the nature of the world and God, not a contrast between two ages.  Accordingly, John speaks neither of ‘this age’ or ‘the present age’ nor of the ‘future’ or ‘coming age.’”

Then the process of demythologizing:

“But what is the essence of the kosmos?

…The essence of the kosmos, therefore is, darkness–darkness not as a shadow lying upon the world, an affliction imposed upon it, but as its own peculiar nature in which it is at ease and at home, for: ‘the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light.’  Just this–that the world appropriates to itself its darkness–can come to expression in the judgment that men are blind, blind without knowing it and without wanting to acknowledge it…Furthermore, this compound of darkness and falsehood that is characteristic of the world, which it, itself, has bondage–an idea that is expressed by the promise to those who know the truth (8:32).  Kosmos, then, is in essence existence in bondage.”

Boom! Existential interpretation!  The mythological world is made up of (let’s say) the heavens, the cosmos, and hades.  The mythological understanding of the cosmos, then, can be demythologized to “existence in bondage.”  There is no myth and there is no historical Jesus, only part of the kerygma (the proclamation) of Jesus expressed in modern language.

No need to agree with Bultmann’s move entirely, but important to see the movement.  Next week, we’ll hit hard the series: The Bible and Existence.  Enjoy your weekend!

The Crisis of Subsistence: A short note

A short reflection on last Sunday’s post, Sheep without a Shepherd:

While I said,

This is a story about Jesus teaching the hungry disciples to feed the hungry masses.

This too is an ontological claim.  I admit it.  Of course it is.

But the existential analysis, is trying to point to the lived, in-the-moment experience of the hearers of Mark.  We actually don’t need the Bible to show us that large numbers in the First Century struggled with subsistence.  But the fact that the Bible addresses it, in my opinion, means that it must be one of the concerns of the Church, prior to any theological claims.

Bultmannia: The Bible and Existence

JC&M

Update: Contents–

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Starting a new series, “The Bible and Existence.”  I will link below to the others in this series.  As promised, we will work our way through part 3 of  “Modern Biblical Interpretation and Existential Philosophy,” from Bultmann’s Jesus Christ and Mythology.  By way of introduction, I leave you with one of the closing paragraph’s from part 2:

Our task, therefore, is to discover the hermeneutical principle by which we can understand what is said in the Bible.  It is not permissible to evade this question, since in principle every historical document raises it, namely, what possibility of understanding human existence is shown and offered in each document of the Bible?  In critical study of the Bible I can do no more than search for an answer to this question.  It is beyond the competence of critical study that I should hear the word of the bible as a word addressed personally to me and that I should believe in it.  This personal understanding, in traditional terminology, is imparted by the Holy Spirit, who is not at my disposal.  On the other hand, we can discover the adequate conceptions by which such understanding is to be expressed.  To discover these conceptions is the task of philosophy.

-Rudi B.

Do you think we are starting off on the right foot?

Sheep without a Shepherd: An example

The apostles returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught. And he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while.” For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat. And they went away in the boat to a desolate place by themselves. Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them. When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things. And when it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the hour is now late. Send them away to go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” But he answered them, “You give them something to eat.” And they said to him, “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?” And he said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go and see.” And when they had found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.” Then he commanded them all to sit down in groups on the green grass. So they sat down in groups, by hundreds and by fifties. And taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven and said a blessing and broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples to set before the people. And he divided the two fish among them all. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish. And those who ate the loaves were five thousand men.  (Mark 6:30-44 ESV)

Jesus feeds five thousand men with just five loaves and two fish.  Who is this Jesus?  Where does his power come from?  Is this really a story about who Jesus is?  Of course.  But in the church, we can go (at least) two ways with this.  We can theologize about Jesus’ divinity or power or relationship to Israel, etc.  Or as I’m suggesting, we can (read: should) try to find some core of human existence that this story is addressing.  Why tell it once? Why tell it again?  And again?

The deepest existential crisis according to Bultmann goes something like this: Humans have no control over their own destiny.

In the West, in the places where value is quantified and collected, it is hard to grasp this crisis.  But even the collection of wealth, is evidence that humans are wrestling at the deepest level with controlling their own destinies.  Not only wealth, but resources, including food.

Conservative estimates place certain cities in Jesus’ time at a 70% subsistence level.  Resources were more scarce than today, and they were more hoarded than they are today, so nearly 70% of the population had less than or barely enough to eat.  Both the hoarding of wealth and the struggle to subsist are experiences of this core existential crisis: to control our own destinies.

In some odd illusion, those with resources often attempt to control the destinies of others. Babylon and Persia molding the world with their power.  Caesar exploiting the land for resources, allocating them to Rome.  Herod, the failed ‘shepherd of Jerusalem.’  Yes, Herod failed.  So the people were “without a shepherd.”

One who ought to use power benevolently to guide the destinies of the sheep.

Again, the story:  The disciples were so busy doing Jesus’ work, they didn’t even have a chance to eat.  Famished, they go to be by themselves.  But a crowd gathers again.  Jesus pities them, since the Jerusalem leadership has failed (the people can barely subsist).  And Jesus, tells his hungry disciples to feed the five thousand hungry people.

Notice: Jesus teaches.  But Mark doesn’t mention what he teaches.  And, yes Jesus has superpowers.  But these are secondary.  This is a story about Jesus teaching the hungry disciples to feed the hungry masses.

A story that addresses a core crisis of humanity: subsistence.