Onward Christian Soldiers

A call for righteousness and repentance in Washington.

Farmers steamed up about price supports, blacks demanding racial justice and equality, mothers seeking a halt to abortion on demand—all have marched on Washington. Most recently, Christians marched to claim “Washington for Jesus.” While other groups sought one legislative goal or another, the Christians sought repentance, humility, and national healing. Their official platform was simple: national righteousness. Congressmen were told by marchers: We represent Christians who want righteousness restored to government.

There was more than a hint of Old Testament religious conviction in the Washington air April 29. The scene was a vivid reminder of the day when Nehemiah called God’s people to the Jerusalem square and they stood for a whole morning listening to Ezra preach God’s Word. After a time of rejoicing in the Lord, the people confessed their sins.

To the politically savvy, “Washington for Jesus” was a dud because “righteousness” is both vague and old hat. One might well ask: Righteousness as defined by whom? Hugh Hefner or Billy Graham or Pope John Paul II? But the Washington movers and shakers could well miss the underlying significance of the rally: that tremendous numbers of people across this land have not shifted their moral values. These Christians believe the country would be a better place to live and have a much stronger and more respected voice in the world, if in fact the legislators, jurists, and members of the executive branch from President Carter on down to every bureaucrat were somehow captured by a commitment to honesty, integrity, self-sacrifice, and courage.

The old lame excuse that you can’t legislate righteousness doesn’t apply. Rather than make snide remarks about fundamentalists and charismatics, the country’s opinionmakers and political pundits would do better to come up with what they think are solutions to the rot that so easily consumes and corrupts American society and values.

The “Washington for Jesus” marchers ran the risk of flaunting self-righteousness and a “holier-than-thou” attitude. It was a risk well taken. Had they screamed for a specific political platform, they would have lost their unity. By calling for repentance and righteousness, they at least opened the door of responsible witness to those who chart America’s direction. We happen to believe that when a legislator opens himself to the witness of God’s Spirit, a dynamic for change is unleashed. This country’s leaders are not noted for confession; smart politicians don’t confess, they hide. If “Washington for Jesus” starts the process of confession, repentance, and restitution, we shall have much for which to be thankful.

The death of Jean-Paul Sartre on April 15 was a significant event in the history of twentieth-century philosophy and letters. Despite a flirtation with Marxism in his later years, for much of his life Sartre epitomized the philosophy of existentialism, both for scholars and for the general public. His passing marks the end of an epoch.

Sartre’s philosophical work, both in its early and later phases, must be described as humanistic. His central concern is always on the value and meaning of human life. Sartre consistently stresses the importance of human freedom and the unique freedom and responsibility of the individual for his own action. At one point during the Second World War, he invited public wrath because he refused to advise a French youth to defend his country against the armies of Hitler; he respected too much the integrity of the youth’s freedom of personal choice.

Sartre’s thinking exhibits a strong anti-Christian tone. No room is left for a transcendent God or transcendent values. For Sartre the individual creates all his own values by his personal choices. In a “dreadful freedom” he must accept complete responsibility for his choices, and no objective justification of a choice is possible. The attempt to evade one’s anguished freedom is termed “bad faith.” In his later period Sartre claims that dehumanizing social structures limit man’s ability to make authentic choices, but a humanly rooted set of values remains his ideal.

Sartre’s themes are displayed in a variety of genres. He will be remembered not only for his purely philosophical works, such as Being and Nothingness and the more popular Existentialism Is a Humanism, but also for such works as The Psychology of the Imagination and novels and plays such as Nausea and No Exit. The latter play must surely give Sartre the distinction of being one of the few atheists to write a play about hell. The real meaning of the play, however, is not the afterlife but the conflict between human egos. For Sartre, “hell is other people.”

Although Sartre was a lifelong follower and leader of radical political causes, he never joined the Communist party. His rejection of determinism and emphasis on the individual made a synthesis with Marxism difficult. Nevertheless, he energetically attempted in his later Critique of Dialectical Reason to transform existentialism into a needed corrective of Marxism.

Sartre emphasized many ideas for which Christians should be thankful. God in his providence uses the faithful and the unfaithful to accomplish his ends. Sartre’s descriptions of human relationships provide penetrating insights into the state of a sinful race. His emphasis on individual freedom and responsibility is a much-needed protest against materialistic mechanisms which see the person only as a “cog in a machine.” Most significantly for the Christian, Sartre makes an honest attempt to think through the implications of atheism. Sartre agrees with the Christian that if there is no God, then there are no transcendent values, and his philosophy can be seen as an honest, courageous, albeit devastating, exploration of the consequences of a religious denial.

On the negative side, Sartre’s humanism reveals a prideful affirmation of man’s total autonomy. Sartre sees God as a potential rival who must be denied if man is to be affirmed. Even here, however, Sartre can be seen as serving the purposes of his Creator. Critics such as Sartre’s Christian contemporary, Gabriel Marcel, have convincingly shown that Sartre’s attempt to deify man actually leads to an impoverishment of man’s humanness. To the Christian this confirms that God is not a threat to man’s humanness but rather the Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer of that humanness.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.