Was Soren Kierkegaard an exemplary Christian

[tomarin]

According to what I’m reading, Kierkegaard has an adversarial relationship, in his writings at least, with the state Church of Denmark and with institutionalized Christianity as a whole. Yet (and possibly because of this) he seemed to be a very devout and sincere Christian who claimed that his entire philosophical output was an investigation of what it meant to have faith. He seems to have really despised what one might call the “bourgeois” Christianity of his time, presumably because he found it hypocritical and unworthy of Christ’s teachings. At the end of his life he even stopped attending Church because he did not “want to make a fool of God.”

What are we to make of this?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Kierkegaard was certainly sincere but from my reading of him, his motivation in having faith was more driven by fear or awe than by love of God, and I don’t really agree with his stance on many biblical issues and those of the Church (apologetics especially). Nevertheless, he does reflect a side of Christian piety that can oftentimes be missing.

 

[ngill09]

He’s arguably the most interesting theologian, at least of those I’ve read.

 

[tomarin]

Kierkegaard was certainly sincere but from my reading of him, his motivation in having faith was more driven by fear or awe than by love of God, and I don’t really agree with his stance on many biblical issues and those of the Church (apologetics especially). Nevertheless, he does reflect a side of Christian piety that can oftentimes be missing.

His father was a pietist, which is a movement I don’t have a very clear understanding of.

 

[tomarin]

He’s arguably the most interesting theologian, at least of those I’ve read.

He seems to have thought of himself as a theologian, even going so far as calling off his impending marriage because being married would interfere with his thinking and writing about God. But I’ve never thought about him that way until now.

If he could be considered a theologian, could someone like Friedrich Nietschze also be?

 

[Theophorus]

According to what I’m reading, Kierkegaard has an adversarial relationship, in his writings at least, with the state Church of Denmark and with institutionalized Christianity as a whole. Yet (and possibly because of this) he seemed to be a very devout and sincere Christian who claimed that his entire philosophical output was an investigation of what it meant to have faith. He seems to have really despised what one might call the “bourgeois” Christianity of his time, presumably because he found it hypocritical and unworthy of Christ’s teachings. At the end of his life he even stopped attending Church because he did not “want to make a fool of God.”

What are we to make of this?

Kierkegaard was very interesting certainly, and IMO he is the archetypal non-denominational Christian. Our relationship with God is a radically un-mediated and inexplicable paradox(only faith suffices).

Kierkegaard, in his “fear and trembeling” outlines, as best he can, what he thinks it is to be a christian. He draws heavily on the OT story of Abraham and Issac to do so. Basically one must live Christianity, and live Christ, who is always now. Historical christianity makes no sense. There can be no mediation between me and God, nor can true christianity be spoken about(except in parables) or understood, as this lowers it to the level of universal, and God is ‘more’ than that. Faith means living the paradox of abraham, not understanding what God asks, but doing it, living it and hoping for the best.

All this brings us to the highest possible mode of human existence and gives the only meaning that life can possible have (cf. sickness unto death).

Although I disagree with Kierkegaard in many ways, is is certainly one of the most compelling post Hegelian philosophical approaches, and I do have a soft spot for him.

 

[tomarin]

Although I disagree with Kierkegaard in many ways, is is certainly one of the most compelling post Hegelian philosophical approaches, and I do have a soft spot for him.

(shortened by Tomarin)

Where do your disagreements with Kierkegaard stem from? On the value of historical Christianity?

 

[Theophorus]

(shortened by Tomarin)

Where do your disagreements with Kierkegaard stem from? On the value of historical Christianity?

That too. But its in his focus on the unmediated nature of the christian life that I disagree with him the most. We all need a personal relationship with Jesus, but to do this without the Christian community is IMO impossible.

It’s not so much the in the historical as in the institutional and community aspects of Christianity that I disagree with him. Our relationship with God is radically individual and inexplicable. There can be no visible institutional Church for him, there are only individuals and their lived relationships with God. Christian community lowers us to the universal level again and is unacceptable.

Also, in his Sickness onto Death, he effectively replaces original sin with a kind of dispair. We realise our own finite self and we dispair, we realise thst we must be posited by another and we despair even more and seek death, but even this is not an answer to the problem. we must reconcile our finite selves first to self, and then to the infinite positor(God) and live the paradox of faith. [obviously this is a simplified version but I think it does him justice]

Finally in his abraham model, religous belief and practice acn’t really be understood, can’t be shared meaningfully can’t be rationally explored and I think this excludes a very important part of the Christian faith.

Don’t get me wrong though, In another age I think he could have been a mystical doctor of the Church

 

[ngill09]

He seems to have thought of himself as a theologian, even going so far as calling off his impending marriage because being married would interfere with his thinking and writing about God. But I’ve never thought about him that way until now.

If he could be considered a theologian, could someone like Friedrich Nietschze also be?

Since he dealt extensively with theology, I think it proper to call him a theologian.

I think it would be much more difficult to class Nietzsche as such, since I don’t recall him ever writing specifically on theological matters.

 

[tomarin]

Since he dealt extensively with theology, I think it proper to call him a theologian.

I think it would be much more difficult to class Nietzsche as such, since I don’t recall him ever writing specifically on theological matters.

I don’t want to sound like an ignoramus, but wasn’t “Thus Spake Zarathustra” all about a Christ-like figure who turns out to be the antithesis of Christ? (which to Nietzsche, needless to say, is a good and desirable thing).

 

[ngill09]

I don’t want to sound like an ignoramus, but wasn’t “Thus Spake Zarathustra” all about a Christ-like figure who turns out to be the antithesis of Christ? (which to Nietzsche, needless to say, is a good and desirable thing).

Not exactly. Nietzsche is a pretty complicated writer, and “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” is a fictional story, a sort of medium he uses to get across his philosophical ideas, just as Plato used dialogues to deal with his philosophical ideas. While Nietzsche dealt extensively with morality (or the lack of it), compare that to Kierkegaard’s writings on the meaning and nature of Christian Faith, on the morality of the story of Abraham, and on the relationship between man and God.

 

[tomarin]

Not exactly. Nietzsche is a pretty complicated writer, and “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” is a fictional story, a sort of medium he uses to get across his philosophical ideas, just as Plato used dialogues to deal with his philosophical ideas. While Nietzsche dealt extensively with morality (or the lack of it), compare that to Kierkegaard’s writings on the meaning and nature of Christian Faith, on the morality of the story of Abraham, and on the relationship between man and God.

Thanks.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Although I disagree with Kierkegaard in many ways, is is certainly one of the most compelling post Hegelian philosophical approaches, and I do have a soft spot for him.

Just on this point, we kind of have Kierkegaard to thank for saving Christianity (at least in its European Protestant form) from Hegel’s web. Although Hegel believed himself a sincere Christian (Lutheran in this case, like Kierkegaard), the way he interpreted the faith through his philosophical system twisted Christianity into something that sounded sophisticated but had little existential value. Kierkegaard brought the genuine anguish and hope of the individual believer back to the faith.