Sárospataki Füzetek 15. (2011)
2011 / 4. szám - TANULMÁNYOK - Kónya Péter: Szlovák reformátusok a 17-18. században
Sawyer. Frank abstract speculative sphere and impinge upon our identity, feelings, and existential choices. This is similar to Jesus’ answer when the disciples asked: Will many be saved? Jesus said: Strive yourself to enter the kingdom of God. 4. After Kierkegaard Kierkegaard helped prepare the way for the modern and postmodern ‘question of God’. First God was hidden, then absent, then dead. Or: there was a movement from theism to deism, from deism to agnosticism, from agnosticism to atheism, and then on to either nihilism or the triumph of some ideology (several by turn). After Kierkegaard several thinkers expanded on K’s themes and developed their own, significantly different approaches to the basic themes raised by S. Kierkegaard. For example, Barth agrees with Kierkegaard that God is wholly other. Hans Kiing calls Barth an initiator of steps toward a postmodern theology.37 This is because Barth criticized the ideological tendencies of modernity and developed a dialectical theology which (like S. Kierkegaard) did not wish to hold to closed concepts or closed systemic approaches. Heidegger (Being and Time) deals with our throwness in the world and some of other themes similar to S. Kierkegaard, such as ‘care’. Sartre (1905-80) & Camus (1913-60) dealt with absurdity (but not as theis- tic thinkers like S. Kierkegaard was). Indeed, when Sartre wrote about “existentialism as humanism”, he was (among other things) rejecting S. Kierkegaard’s theism. Theologians like Paul Tillich (1886-1965), concentrated on ambiguity (similar to absurdity in S. Kierkegaard’s writings); and ‘ultimate concern’ (similar to S. Kierkegaard’s ‘passionate choice’). Martin Buber (1878-1965), deals with the eclipse of God (there are parallels S. Kierkegaard) and subjectivity; it would be interesting to research Buber’s ‘I and Thou’ views, and see if S. Kierkegaard’s striking individualism does not also include a strong T and Thou’ (which I believe it does). Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973), in comparison to S. Kierkegaard was more joyful, not dealing mainly with the negative limits of experience, but focussing on the mystery participation, and love, hope, and fidelity (a rosier view than many existentialists present). Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) is also significant for his emphasis on situations of‘limit’, such as guilt, failure, conflict, suffering and death. These limit situations, such thinkers say (in line with Kierkegaard) put us in a situation to hear the voice of transcendence. Faith then is no longer a ‘custom’. It becomes a life and death matter. Much of this belongs to dialectical theology, which was a reaction to liberal Protestantism and to the idea that discourse about God and Bible interpretation is mainly a matter of logical propositions put together into a system. Dialectical theology echoes Kierkegaard’s view on time and eternity as in dialectical tension and his views on estrangement and freedom. All this is solved paradoxically not by reason but by a divine leap: by the Incarnation and by faith. We further understand that God is both against us and for us: God judges us and God saves us (also from ourselves). In short form: Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living. For Descartes, Kant, and modernity, that is the life in which a person does not think for one’s self. For Kierkegaard, it is the indecisive life which is not worth living. For Tillich, it is the life which does not recognize its ultimate concern. For 37 Hans Küng, Great Christian Thinkers (New York: Continuum, 1997), 199-204. 66 Sárospataki füzetek 2011/4
