It was precisely because Kierkegaard was so profoundly open to the spiritual emptiness of his time that he was able to reach
a radical understanding of faith.
Not exact matches
The
radical secularization that has transformed Christianity's heartland into the most religiously arid half - continent on the planet has at least as much to do with the craven surrender
of ministers
of the gospel to theological and political fads, and their consequent loss
of faith, as it does with the impact
of urbanization, mass education, and the industrial revolution on Europeans»
understanding of themselves.
Despite its great relevance to our situation, the
faith of the
radical Christian continues to remain largely unknown, and this is so both because that
faith has never been able to speak in the established categories
of Western thought and theology and because it has so seldom been given a visionary expression (or, at least, the theologian has not been able to
understand the
radical vision, or even perhaps to identify its presence).
There continues to be much to learn from Kierkegaard, a man who not only arrived at a
radical and dialectical
understanding of faith, but who did so in the context
of the advent
of a world that is totally profane.
It's a bit
radical, I know, but it is Lutheran theology, and I believe it is an accurate, biblical
understanding of the life
of faith.
Needed is a foundation for uniting a
radical understanding of God's action in history with
radical individual and corporate discipleship in the world — namely, reflection which results from depth experience, the spiritual life, the interiorization
of faith through meditation, prayer and corporate worship.
Thus
understood, the doctrine
of radical evil can furnish a receptive structure for new figures
of alienation besides the speculative illusion or even the desire for consolation —
of alienation in the cultural powers, such as the church and the state; it is indeed at the heart
of these powers that a falsified expression
of the synthesis can take place; when Kant speaks
of «servile
faith,»
of «false cult,»
of a «false Church,» he completes at the same time his theory
of radical evil.
If the total coincidence
of transcendence and immanence is vision, and not structure
of existence, then the traditional styles
of faith and practices
of faith may still have possible meaning, even though they are seen to be penultimate; and then the
radical theologian can be
understood as standing in a spectrum
of theological positions and not in isolation.
It is by
faith alone that we become aware
of the true meaning and the overwhelming power
of guilt and repression: thus we need have little hesitation in assigning Nietzsche to a tradition
of a
radical Christian
understanding of sin, a tradition going back to Paul by way
of Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Pascal, Luther, and Augustine.
Only by recognizing the antithetical relationship that
radical faith posits between the primordial and transcendent reality
of God and the kenotic and immediate reality
of Christ, can we
understand the violent attack which the
radical Christian launches upon the Christian God.
What is needed today, I believe, is the
radical attempt to work Out a theological pattern for Christian
faith which is in the main influenced by process - philosophy, while at the same time use is made
of what we have been learning from the existentialist's insistence on engagement and decision, the
understanding of history as involving genuine participation and social context, and the psychologist's awareness
of the depths
of human emotional, conational, and rational experience.