A Contrast: Existentialism and Christianity Contemporary Existentialism and Christian Faith by Rodman J.

Williams Review by: Jerome Tovo The Christian Scholar, Vol. 49, No. 3 (FALL, 1966), pp. 254-256 Published by: Penn State University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41177572 . Accessed: 22/09/2012 01:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Christian Scholar.

http://www.jstor.org

The Christian Scholar his knewand understood thisyoungman Wallantwho, whatever own assumptions, but what occasionwell enoughto perceivenot onlywhathappensto them, people them.The statement Jonathan of Baumbach about this last ally happens through novel is not far offthe mark of themall: and horror,Wallant's children . . . Out of the finaldepths of depravity of feelingthat provides at the of darknessdiscoverthe terrible luxury of possibility love.16 price of pain the redemptive

A Contrast: Existentialismand Christianity

JeromeTovo
Existentialism Christian and Faith, by Rodman J. Williams.Englewood Contemporary Cliffs: Inc., 1965,pp. 180, xi. Prentice-Hall,

to the This book was written acquaint the reader,presumably generalpublic and theologian, withthe contrast between as well as the professional philosopher Existentialism Christian and faith. the works of Sartre,Jaspers,Heidegger,Tillich, and Bultmann, Considering these men all agree that ProfessorWilliams argues that,in spite of differences, truthis subjectiveand that man is and ought to be the central object of our thoughtand passion. Making man central,they eitherdeny that God exists or of deny thathe is accessible, and this unavailability God leads the existentialists and the finality death. Christian of faithliketheinevitability anxiety of to declare wise findsitselfpreoccupiedwithman, but withman as a child of an accessible Williamsargues,whileChristian faithalso maintains Professor God. Consequently, withanxiety, thatthe humancondition suffused is Gos presenceenables man to overcomethis anxietyand secure a life afterdeath. To some extentProfessorWilliams has achieved his aim in this book. The reader can avail himselfof a check list of assertionsmade by a wide range of thinkersover the last thirty existentialist years, and he can readily determine which of these assertionsagree with the doctrinesof Christianfaith,and which fromtwo gravedeficiencies. the first In do not. But theworksuffers place, Profesroot of the differences sor Williams does not really make clear the fundamental and Christianfaith,and secondly,while the reader can between Existentialism left tell what assertionsthe various existentialists make, he is frequently to conwhatis meantby these assertions. jecture
Review,Feb. 29, 1964,p. 33. l*Saturday

[254]

Book Reviews the of to Williams In theprcis theargument,saidthataccording Professor I find of existentialists assertthe preeminence man, and therefore, themselves is committed the obscurity God. And this,I gather, whathe wouldwant to of to haveon therecord. he saysifwe ask,"Why God obscure Existentialis in For ism?"themostobviousanswer that is with Existentialism, its concentration finding upon man, has difficulty indeed called"theeclipse" be God anywhere. obscurity God might The of earth sunthe and ofGod,as forexample the when mooncomesbetween is eclipsed thelesser. Even so, God is eclipsed man.This by greater by thinkers is His obscurity; little and matter how muchsome existential to Him to light, as Jaspers, and Bultmann) strive bring (such Tillich, do so the darkness remains. Others(Sartre, Heidegger) not struggle He for also believe is hardin theattempt. still yearn Himbutthey They to with existence, 64.) (p. unnecessary their preoccupation human to And againhe states of "thepicture God is distorted theimpossible attempt by the viewHim from human situation." 69.) (p. reasonforthe But thenwe are toldthatthere a "stillmorefundamental is of is of God . . . This is ... thatExistentialism a reflection thepresent obscurity doubted . ."; andwe arealso toldthat erain which reality God is seriously the of . but is "Sartre not too far wrongin sayingthatExistentialism 'nothing an is " a from consistently atheistic to position.' So it attempt drawthefullconclusion that seemsthatthe existentialists withthe absolutepresupposition God is start of andgo from there. thisaccount theobscurity God is incompatible of But dead, the becausehe is eclipsed man. with first. first us that The tells God is obscure by for Thislatter us that tells God is notobscure anyreasonat all. His nonexistence man shouldbe our chief is simply and, if anything, absolutely; presupposed thereaderis unableto decide becauseGod is obscure. other In concern words, or whether Existentialism an atheism is because it is a humanism, whether Existentialisma humanism becauseit is an atheism. is of the be clear However, thatas it may,it is nevertheless that centrality man otherdisagreements and God's inaccessibility the sourceof Existentialism's are what understand theExistentialists with Christian we faith. then, must Obviously from its aboutmanand God,before can understand differences Christian we say doctrine But faith. reading Williams whatProfessor says aboutthe existentialist in Sartre's doctrine intoa fogbank.For example, exposing of manis a journey of man,he writes, cries Sincemanhas no being, is sheerlack,he constantly out and but return without for haunts that but him, he cannot losing yearns thebeing the to himself. wouldbe destruction becomeagain the materiality, It of beingitself, 26.) (p. impermeability
[255]

The Christian Scholar But what is it we yearn for when we yearn for being? What authorizesSartre's of be claim that we yearn for being? Why would the satisfaction this yearning What is meant by saying that being is impermeable?Since these destruction? the questionsgo unanswered, reader does not know what Sartreis saying. of Again considerthe explication Jasper'snotionof Existenz. to is for Jaspersa termthatrefers the depthof existence.It is Existenz it the real not of the rational but of the counter-rational; is the dark thatis ever present. is the It and meaningless groundof humanexistence inacces"unreason"on whichreason is founded;howeverit is altogether sible to reason and no science can lay hold of it. (pp. 4-5.) betweenthe surfaceand the depth of existence? But what is the difference What makes the depth counter rational? Why is it meaningless?Why is it inaccessibleto science? are Finally,it is trivialto point out that all of the Existentialists perpetually with Nothingness."Nothingness,"and its cognates "nonbeing," preoccupied of But nowhere in Con"nant," "nichts" pepper the writings Existentialism. Existentialismand ChristianFaith is there an explication of this temporary in of concept,one of the slipperiest the history Westernthought. Williams'book. Existentialist writThese faultsare not peculiarto Professor to on and muchcommentary it is inexcusably (one is tempted say criminally) ing, obscure. But a commonfaultis a faultcompounded.

Authors of the Book Reviews

of Dr. William V. Spanos is a memberof the English department Harper College, He of State University New York at Binghampton. is the author of a numberof articles and on modernliterature editorof A Casebook on Existentialism. of is of at Dr. Russell S. Hutchison chairman the Department Religionand Philosophy is College in New Concord, Ohio. His responsibility in the field of Biblical Muskingum studies. and religious Tovo is an Assistant Professor Philosophyat the College of Wooster, of Dr. Jerome Ohio.

[256]