Kierkegaard and the Church
by
H O W A R D A. J O H N S O NKierkegaard, com bating the Church, claim ed for h im self n oth in g m ore than that he w as m erely ’’the corrective,” and he said:
”T h e corrective works confusion on ly w h en it is not h eld in the context o f that to w h ich it is a corrective”.1
I
”It is the peculiarity o f the hum an race,” wrote Kierkegaard, ”that just because the individual is created in the im age o f G od ’the individual’ is above the race. T his can be w rongly understood and terribly misused:
concede
>. But that is Christianity. A n dthat
is w here the battle m ust be fought.”2O ne o f the ways in w h ich the Kierkegaardian stress on ’th e individual’ has been misunderstood and misused is in the contention, constantly recurring, that Kierkegaard had no essential place in his thought for the Church. I to o m aintain that, measured by the N e w Testam ent conception o f the Church, K ierkegaard’s ecclesiology is defective. But to assert that his doctrine o f the Church is defective is different from asserting that he had no doctrine at all.
It m ust be adm itted that in his last m onths Kierkegaard, breaking a life-lon g custom, did cease attending public w orship and besought others to do likewise.
O ne D anish biographer gives us th e picture (h ow w e ll authenticated I kn ow not) o f K ierkegaard on a Sunday m orning, at the hour o f H ig h M ass (H øjm esse), deliberately taking up a position at a sidew alk café opposite a church and there conspicuously reading a newspaper so that all the pious en route to service m igh t see. Such a picture pains m e, for I am a priest. T h e prophets o f Israel
1 Papirer, X I* A 28; cp. A 198; X I 2 A 305.
2 D m , Selections from the Journals of Kierkegaard, N o . 1 0 5 0 = X 2 A 4 2 6 .
stood
with
the p eop le G od had com m anded them to condem n. T h ey continued to identify them selves w ith th e com m unity under judgm ent. A s T roeltsch said:”T h e prophets predicted that th e lig h tn in g w as about to fa ll - and w ere struck dow n by the sam e ligh tn in g w h ich felled their people." T o th e exten t that Kierkegaard, at the very last, dissociated h im self from the Established Church, h e was, in m y judgm ent, som ething less than th e prophets o f Israel — though still a prophet.
II
There is little to be gained, how ever, in discussing K ierkegaard’s ecclesiology in terms o f his eccentricities. A lready too m uch o f Kierkegaardian research has preferred the m a n s idiosyncrasies to his ideas, his biography to his b eliefs — perhaps because the form er are easier to handle. O f biographical considerations, it m ust suffice to m ention three. T h e facts are these:
(1 ) Except for the final few m onths, Kierkegaard w en t regularly to church, him self preached in churches on occasion, and as a h u m b le suppliant received the Sacrament o f the Altar. O n e has on ly to read his "Discourses for the C om m union on Fridays" to see h o w exalted a conception h e had o f the Lord’s Supper.3 R epeatedly and ardently h e lo n g ed to be ordained. H e w as hindered in this either because o f the em ergence o f som e n ew crisis (e. g., the affair o f
"The Corsair" at w hich tim e he conceived that G od w as callin g him to rem ain on the front lines o f the battle and not to retreat to a country parish) or because o f the lack o f encouragem ent from the Prim ate w h o w as grow in gly displeased w ith Kierkegaard’s literary output. Kierkegaard lo n g delayed the publication o f som e o f his later decisively Christian w ritings because o f an agon izin g apprehension that they, bein g offensive to his bishop, m ig h t preclude forever the possibility o f his ordination.
W h e n com m entators w o u ld p oin t to th e fact that th e K ierkegaardian lite
rature does not often and explicitly deal w ith the doctrine o f the Church, and w ould deduce from that that h e w as not interested in the Church and found
3 A lth o u g h m any o f his discourses w ere n ot actually spoken from a pu lpit, w here are they im agined as b ein g delivered? Precisely in church, m the context o f pu blic w orship. O ne should read - and pray too - S. K .’s tou ch in g Prayer for the W h o le State o f C hrist’s Church in the seventh discourse in Training in Christianity.
K i e r k e g a a r d i a n a V I I I 5
little m eaning in it, w e m ust reply:
On the contrary!
H ere was a loyal son o f the Church, lon gin g to serve it a priest, w h o — far from depreciating it — was so im m ersed in its life that h e sim plyassumed
it. H e assumed as a matter o f course the existence o f the Church w ith its liturgies, orders, buildings, cerem onials, vestm ents, sacraments. Like St. T hom as Aquinas (or any other theologian until recent tim es), he is so livin g
in
the sacramental, ecclesiological reality that it rarely becom es a topic for special study. A ll o f the "equipment,"the w h o le o f the "Christian inventory," he could safely presuppose — b ell, book, and candle. In Kierkegaard, as in D anish Lutheranism, there w as no disposition to top p le altars, break stained glass, strip the sanctuary bare, decapitate sculp
tures o f saints. H e reiterates a hundred times: "I have no proposal w ith respect to a change in externals."4 T h e doctrine is all right.5 T h e hym nal doesn’t need revision.6 A b ove all, the m an w h o is called to be the critic o f the Establishm ent
(det Bestaaende,
literally that w hich stands) m ust h im self stand w ithin it and love it.7 In short, the State Church o f D enm ark was part o f S. K .’s culture, part4 Cf., e .g ., X 3 A 187, X 5 B 4 0 (p. 2 5 9 ), X^ B 107 (p. 2 9 3 ), X^ B 144. In the Papirer, at X 1 A 53 7 , w e read: ’’W h a t in our tim e needs reform in g is n ot the system of Church governm ent and such - but th e concept: C hristendom .”
5 Cf. X 4 A 2 0 4 and Journals, 1 1 8 5 , 1187.
6 ”A lle have travlt m ed hvad T id en fordrer, Ingen synes at bryde sig om , hvad den Enkelte behøver. M u ligen behøves der slet ikke en ny Psalm ebog. H vorfor hitter d og in gen paa et Forslag, der ligger saa nær, nærm ere maaskee end M angen tror: at m an gjorde et m id lertidigt Forsøg m ed at lade den gam le ind binde paa en ny M aade, om ikke den for
andrede In d b in d in g skulde gjøre det, især hvis m an tillod B ogbinderen at sætte bag paa:
den nye Psalm ebog. V e l lod der sig indvende, at det var Synd for det gam le gode Binds Skyld, thi, besynderligt nok, skal M enighedens Exem plar af den gam le P salm ebog være særdeles v el conditioneret, form odentligen fordi B ogen bruges saa lidt, sam t at det nye B ind var en aldeles ov erflø d ig U d gift; m en m od denne In dvend in g m aa der svares m ed en dyb Stem m e, m ed en dyb Stem m e v el at mærke: enhver alvorlig M and i vor alvor- ligen-bekym rede T id indseer, at N o g e t maa der gjøres - saa forsvinder enhver In dvend in g som In tet.” S. V . V II, p. 4 6 8 ff.
7 Cf. V II B 2 3 5 , p. 64: ’’T h e o n e chosen [to recall the Church to its vocation ] m ust love the Establishm ent.” A gain, in X 1 A 5 9 8 , the them e is repeated. N o external changes are wanted. T h e sole necessity is to draw attention to the fact that ’’every ind ividu al m ust seek a prim itive [i. e., original, first-hand] relationship to G o d .” Cf. also X 4 A 2 6 , 30, 33, 2 0 4 . O ne o f S. K .’s m ost trenchant defenses o f the E stablishm ent as against the »num erical«
appears in X 4 A 363: A t forsvare et Bestaaende, m ed polem isk Sigte paa det N u m eriske, M æ ngde, Publikum , det U organiske, M asse, det O nde i Samfundet: det var m in O pgave.
N aar Em bedsm æ nd forsvare det Bestaaende, saa er her let en T vetydighed, at det er fordi det er deres N æ ringsvej o g Carrière. Frem deles forsvare de det o fte nok slet nok, n e m lig ved H jæ lp af at faae det N u m erisk e paa deres Side, eller i en lid t tid ligere T id ved physisk M agt. Jeg derim od udtrykker Idealitetens Fæ gtning. Som jeg i sin T id sagde
o f the standard, necessary environm ent for m aking life supportable, the elem ent in w hich he lived and m oved and had his being. H is attack arose only w h en he felt the Church w as
in a wrong way
a part o f the culture, succum bing to a culture, instead o f so relating itself to eternity that it w ou ld be in possession o f a transcendental principle o f criticism by w hich to judge the culture to w hich G od w ould have it responsibly related. Kierkegaard never attacked the Churchqua
Church. H e inveighed against the Church on ly w h en h e feared that it was in danger o f becom ing a culture-religion, a too sim ple identification o f Church and State, a marriage o f convenience w herein the governm ent w as m ore than w illin g to pay clerical stipends and provide for the m aintenance o f church fabrics out o f the public treasury in return for the m odest, reciprocal favor that,til Christian d. V III, da han ønskede at trække m ig nærm ere til sig: lykkedes dette D em , saa er jeg væ sen tligen gjort afm æ gtig, th i P oin ten er just, at det er en Privatiserende.
En Privatiserende, En, som er In gen tin g forholder sig, ideelt, tydeligst til Idealitet - derfor er jeg i een Forstand m indst blevet forstaæ t.
M en fordi jeg saaledes qua Extraordinair har forp ligtet et Bestaaende, deraf følger ikke, at jeg ganske udenvidere skulde være e n ig m ed det Bestaaende, det v il sige, m ed de faktisk g iv n e Embeds- o g R egjeringsm æ nd o g deres Taktik. Idet jeg da hovedsagelig er rykket frem m od det N u m erisk e (det var der Slaget skulde staae) har jeg ikke udenvidere o g ligefrem knyttet m ig til de faktiske R epræsentanter for det Bestaaende, det er, jeg har ikke bestem t m ig eensartet m ed dem. Tvæ rtim od der har en d o g været en A n ty d n in g af en M u ligh ed af en U en ig h ed m ed dem , m en h eller ikke mere. D e t v il sige, jeg har maattet operere saaledes, at idet jeg tog deres O pgave, o g rykkede m od det O nd e i Staten, det N u m eriske, jeg tillig e m aatte indireete faae det gjort aabenbart, hvori det F eile i det Bestaaendes Taktik ligger, de respektive R epræsentanter m aatte kom m e til at forløb e sig i at døm m e m ig , forløb e sig saaledes, at det blev aabenbart, at de eg en tlig ikke ret har fattet Tanken ”et Bestaaende”, m en i G runden b lo t tim elig t o g verd sligt fæ gter for hvad der er deres Fordeel, det Bestaaende. D e tte er ogsaa lykkedes m ig, saaledes at faae disse R epræsentanterne gjort aabenbare, lig e in d til den sidste: M ynster per G oldschm idt.
M en paa h ele dette M ellem væ rende skulde der efter m in Idee ikke henledes O pm æ rk
som hed; thi her skulde Slaget ikke staae. Først naar h e le m in O peration staaer klar, først saa kan der være T ale om , saa smaat at lade dem in d frie disse Beter, m en d og m ere som et privat M ellem væ rende m ed dem.
D ette er O perationen. Prof. N ie lse n skulde nu gjøre det bedre. M in H oved tanke har han aldeles ikke caperet: at forsvare et Bestaaende (det v il da sig e ideelt, ikke ved H jæ lp af h øiere E m bedsstilling o g P o litie M agt, o g saaledes ideelt at forsvare det er igjen iden
tisk m ed ideelt at være O pvæ kkelse) m od det N u m eriske. Saa troede han, (idet han n em lig ind bild te sig ypp erligt at have forstaaet m ig, at jeg angreb det Bestaaende, eller dog dettes Repræsentanter) at det var en U n d erligh ed af m ig, ikke ligefrem at angribe f. E. M arten- sen o: s: v: Saa skulde han da være den A lvorlige, der gjorde A lv o r heraf. Jo, jeg takker, han vild e, hvis han m aatte have raadet, hju lp et m in Sag lig e saa godt, som naar en D iv isio n a ir fører sine Tropper i Slag et par T im er for tid lig eller et par M iil for langt borte, han v ild e hjæ lpe til, at Slaget kom til at staae paa et ganske andet Punkt. See der
for har jeg bestandigt sagt ham , at jeg fra m it Synspunkt m isb illig e d e A n grebet paa M artensen.
on p olitical and social issues, th e Church rem ain irrelevant and confine itself to ’’Q uiet H ours.” In the nineteenth century, to have been born o n D an ish soil m ade you, as a D ane, autom atically a Christian (unless you w ere so unfortunate as to be an unconverted Jew , Turk, or M oham m edan — or, even uglier, a B aptist).8 Church and State becam e virtual equivalents. P eop le, w hatever their profession o f religious b elief or lack thereof, constituted the parish. R esorting to an old cliché, Christianity in K ierkegaard’s D en m ark (w ith notable excep tions o f deep spirituality) w as reduced to the three experiences o f b ein g
’’hatched, m atched, dispatched.” It was religion at w h ich three things w ere throw n at you. W ater at baptism, rice at marriage, earth at burial. For the rest, m ost peop le felt free to g o about their business, not feelin g m uch pressure upon their conscience. Even if one deigned to take a p ew on the principal feast days, the pulpit seldom pum m eled you. T h e consolations o f religion w ere admirably set forth. O f its possible perturbations, little w as to be heard. A n om inous silence reigned.
This
is the kind o f set up Kierkegaard was attacking. H e took his stand not against Christianity but against ”the blinding illusion o f Christendom ,” the ’ geographical Christianity” h e so w itheringly described in
The Book on Adler
. H e opposed the equation:Mængden — menighed
(th e crowd is identical w ith the congregation, the Church the sam e as the State, Christianity coterm inous w ith the world.9(2 ) In intention, at least, Kierkegaard w as not a sectarian, although m any splinter groups have sought to claim him as such.10 It w ou ld be no arduous task
8 ’’H vis et M enneske sim pelt o g e en fo ld ig t v ild e sige, at han var bekym ret for sig selv, at det ikke han g rigtigt sam m en m ed at han kaldte sig en Christen: saa v ild e han - ikke b liv e forfu lgt eller henrettet, m en m an v ild e see vredt til ham o g sige: ”det er ret kjede- lig t m ed det M enneske, at han skal gjøre O phæ velse over in g en T ing; hvorfor kan han ikke være ligesom v i A ndre, der alle ere Christne; det er ligesom m ed F. F., der ikke kan gaae m ed en H at som v i A ndre, m en skal være aparte.” V ar han gift, v ild e hans K one sige til ham: lille M and, hvor kan D u nu faae saadanne Indfald; skulde D u ikke være en Christen? D u er jo D ansk; staaer der ikke i G eographien, at den luthersk-christelige R e lig io n er den herskende i Danm ark? For en Jøde er D u da ikke, en M ahom edaner heller ikke, hvad skulde D u v e l saa være? D e t er jo 1 0 0 0 Aar siden, at H edenskabet blev fortrængt, saa veed jeg da, D u er in gen H ed n in g . Passer D u ikke D it A rbeide i C ontoiret som en god Em bedsm and, er D u ikke en god Undersaat i en christelig, i en luthersk-christelig Stat: saa er D u jo en C hristen.” See, saa objektive ere v i bievne, at selv en Em bedsm ands K o n e argum enterer fra det T otale, fra Staten, fra Sam funds-Ideen, fra G eographiens V idenskab elighed til den E nkelte.” S. V . V II, p. 41 ff.
9 Cf., e .g ., X 8 A 5 7 4 , X 1 A 53 3 , X 1 A 5 5 2 , X& B 111 (p, 3 0 6 ) and X^ B 2 0 8 (p. 3 9 2 ), X I 2 A 2 6 4 , 4 1 0 .
10 A fascinating and responsible book brought out by the P rinceton U n iversity Press by an
to collect from his w orks a bundle o f utterances exhibiting th e "Godfearing satire” he poured upon "pietistic severity,” "party-m ovem ents,” and "bungling efforts at reform ing” th e Church, w hether from w ith in or w ithout. T h e evils o f th e Established Church seem ed less dangerous to K ierkegaard than "this evil lust, this flirtin g w ith th e w ill to reform .”11 W h e n K ierkegaard, towards the last, launched his attack, he w h o had been largely ignored suddenly found h im self the darling not only o f sectarians but o f som e politicians as w ell. Their cham pion had arisen at last! But w ith consum m ate p olem ical skill this »dam ned explosive D an e« rose up to sm ite dow n those w h o w anted to uphold him . A lth ou gh h im self figh tin g the Establishm ent, h e
would
not lend his nam e or prestige to an anti-Church cam paign m otivated by p olitical or sectarian hostility. H e w anted theBestaaende —
the Standing Church — tostand —
but only on the terms h e thought the N e w T estam ent w ou ld authorize.12able scholar show s the m any affinities betw een S. K. and the convictions held dear by the Brethren. Y e t there is another side to Kierkegaard in w h ich the Brethren w ou ld find little com fort or support. S. K . was ill-disposed towards sects, thou gh h e o ften defended their rights to w orsh ip in accordance w ith their conscience.
11 Cf. ’’T h e M oral” in Judge for Yourselves! O ther references: X 3 A 6 4 7 , 6 5 8 , 7 9 9 , 800;
X 4 A 2 6 , 345; Journals, 118 4 . T hese all dem onstrate S. K .’s detestation o f the ’’reform ing zeal” o f his period. Kierkegaard b elieved that h e had provided an ideal defense o f the Establishm ent. If o n ly the State Church w ou ld m ake the h u m b le adm ission that som ehow it was som eth in g less than w hat the N e w T estam ent requires, then all right. Let it stand.
It is, in any case, to be preferred to ’’parties and sects.” H e puts his fo o t flat dow n against ’’w reck in g the E stablishm ent in favor o f parties and sects” (Cf., X 5 B 1 1 7 ). H e often said that h e w ou ld sponsor n o m ovem en t in the direction o f ’’pietistic severity.”
(Cf. X 3 A 519; cp. 57 1 , 6 5 8 ). A by n o w fam iliar them e reoccurs in X 3 A 527: ”A cor
rective has n ot the assignm ent to push th e E stablishm ent ou t and m ake h im self a new kind o f establishm ent, but, if possible, to m ake the Establishm ent m ore spirited, m ore inw ard” ( X 3 A 5 2 7 ). O f m any references, I cite o n ly o n e m ore. In X 3 A 6 4 7 he says that o n e w ay h e supports the Establishm ent w ith his insistence o n ’the in d iv id u a l’ is his op p osition to parties and sects. Y e t on e m ore point: In X 6 B 2 1 8 (p. 3 4 6 ) S. K . says straight ou t that if the Establishm ent w ill bu t m ake the confession that it falls short o f w hat the N e w Testam ent expects o f C hrist’s Church, it is to b e preferred to all other alternatives. Cp. X 5 A 125.
12 Cf., e. g., X 2 A 193 in w h ich S. K . remarks that his task is n ot to b lo w up th e Establish
m en t but rather to try to b lo w in to it som e spirited inwardness. H e also says in X 1 A 92:
”1 am in the service o f th e Establishm ent. I have n ot collided w ith it but w ith the universal hum an. T h e extraordinary feature is that, so far from m y ha v in g introduced som ething new I am, qu ite to the contrary, designed to help preserve th e E stablishm ent.”
(Cp. X 1 A 74, X 4 A 2 0 4 (points 3 and 4 ) , and X 4 A 2 1 8 ). B ut S. K. lam ents that ’’the corrective” has a hard tim e o f it. H e does not w ant to foun d a party or a sect; yet, this so easily happens. O n this poin t, cf. X 3 A 7 9 8 . In a score o f passages h e disclaim s b ein g a Svcermer, i. e., an ’’enthusiast” or near fanatic. N o , h e says, ”1 am o n ly a corrective. I have no th in g new to b rin g.” Cp. X 3 A 6 4 7 , X 3 A 527.
W h ile not blind to practical questions o f reform nor oblivious to the desirability o f certain eventual alterations in the Church’s structure and praxis, Kierkegaard knew that this is not the p lace to start. This is w ron g end to.
Kierkegaard desired essentially not the rem odelling o f the Church but its revival. ’’For R evival and Increase o f Inwardness” is the sub-title o f
Training in Christianity ,13
T his phrase m igh t w e ll serve as the m otto for K ierkegaard’s w h o le endeavor in relation to the Established Church. H is position is clearly stated in the fo llo w in g Journal entry from 1 8 5 0 (X 3 A 4 1 5 ):From the Christian standpoint, in the highest sense there is n o established Church, on ly a m ilitant one.
T hat is the first consideration.
Y e t the second consideration is that there is, em pirically and in fact, an established Church. By no m eans should anyone w ant to b ow l that over or knock it out cold. N o . Y e t over the Establishm ent m ust h ang the higher ideality as a quickening possibility: that in strongest Christian terms there is, essentially, no established Church.
T his has happened w ith m e by the h elp o f a pseudonym [A nti-C lim acus, author o f
Training in Christianity, For Self-Examination,
andJudge for Your
selves
/ ] : that everything m igh t be purely a m ovem en t o f the spirit. T here is not at shred o f proposal w ith respect to changing churchly externals.A nd as the pseudonym lifts his hand to strike this trem endous blow , I step in as a buffer, so that the w h o le force o f it falls on m e, that I am such a poor Christian — I w h o nevertheless rem ain in the established Church. In this way, everything is m ovem en t o f the spirit.
In the m argin to this entry Kierkegaard adds:
Even in the case o f an established Church m ade up o f
earnest
Christians, it w ou ld need to be rem inded that, from an ideal Christian poin t o f view , there is no such th in g as an established Church but only a m ilitant one. Y e t this m ust not be said except from the vantage point o f ideality in its distance from the establishm ent. If it should then happen that an established Church w ou ld not tolerate that this be said even under the stated condition, then it is a sign that such a Church is in error and that a direct attack is called for. ( X 3 A 4 l 6 ) .Cp. X 1 A 162.
H ere, forcefully announced in 1 8 5 0 , is the principle on w hich Kierkegaard in 1855 justified to him self his direct attack.
(3 ) W h e n the tim e came, the attack came. N o on e w h o know s Kierkegaard’s papers can suppose that the bom bardm ent o f incendiary pam phlets w as the haste-work o f a hot-head. It cost him the agony o f endless soulsearching, for he was attacking som ething h e loved. T h e point to be secured is this: in attacking the Establishment, S. K. w as w e ll aware o f the one-sided character o f the attack:
”H e w h o m ust apply a ’’corrective” m ust study accurately and profoundly the w eak side o f the Establishm ent, and then vigorously and one-sidedly present the opposite. Precisely in this consists the corrective, and in this too the resigna
tion o f him w h o has to apply it. T h e corrective w ill in a sense be sacrificed to the established order.
”If this is true, a presum ably clever pate can reprove th e corrective for b ein g one-sided. Y e gods! N o th in g is easier for him w h o applies th e corrective than to supply the other side; but then it ceases to be the corrective and becom es the established order.” ( X 1 A 6 4 0 ).
W h a t could be clearer? D elib erately S. K . suppresses a ll that he could have said in favor o f the Establishm ent. W ith conscious exaggeration h e ham m ers on its w eaknesses. Over th e years he had been w ritin g books w ith stronger and ever m ore stringent criticism o f the Church — often hesitating to publish them for fear o f the consequences. But w hat happened? N o th in g . N o t a ripple. H e once said, ”It is as if m y books had never been w ritten.” It w as then that he conceived that he m ust teach by ’’th e irritational m ethod.” H is form ulation o f a n ew program was: ’’H enceforth I w ill w rite in such w ise as to
irritate
peop le into facing the issues. I can com pel no m an to agree w ith m y opinions, but at least I can com pel him to have an opinion.”14 Kierkegaard did not abandon the 14 V III2 B 193 (p. 3 0 1 ) gives us an in sigh t in to S. K .’s conception o f h o w th e ’’irritationalm eth od ” m ig h t work. In this place h e is reflecting on his recurrent stress on th e im portance o f the individual. ”1 w illin g ly adm it that I som etim es . . . have pushed the case as far o u t in peculiarity as p ossib le - veritably n ot ou t o f peculiarity. O n the contrary, I have in h ig h degree been conscious o f w hat I did, that I acted responsibly, conscious of m y responsibility, that not to do so w ou ld have been irresponsible. I did it . . . because it was im portant to m e to irritate m en in to fix in g their attention o n this p o in t - som ething one can accom plish neither w ith ten volum es w h ich develop the doctrine o f the ind ividu al nor w ith ten lectures thereon, but in these tim es exclusively by g ettin g p eople to laugh at y o u .”
pen for the sword, but w e m igh t say that, towards th e last, h e laid aside the rapier in favor o f a less subtle instrument, the sledgeham m er.
I l l
Entirely apart from all biographical considerations, and abstracting from the accidentalities o f his particular historical situation, let us ask h o w Kierkegaard
in principle
conceived the Church.A Church there w ill be,
of course.
W h e n G od touches an individual, that touch always brings h im in to touch w ith all other individuals sim ilarly touched.T h e Church is a congregation com posed o f such individuals. By "individual”
(Den Enkelte)
Kierkegaard m eans the m an w ho, standing before G od as h e is revealed in Christ, know s h im self judged, forgiven, restored to fellow ship, taken out o f "the world," and sent back into the w orld as w itness for service.T h e Christian congregation, a religious concept, "lies on th e other side o f
’the individual”’ and is "by n o m eans to be confounded w ith w h at m ay have
political
validity: the public, the crowd, the numerical, &c.”15Menigheden
andMcengden,
as noted before, are qualitatively different. W h a t constitutes this difference? T h e congregation, says Kierkegaard, "is a society w hich lies on the hinter side o f hum an society, a little society w h ich has an inward bond o f cohesion - viz., that o f b ein g believers; i. e., by accepting and havin g dedicated their w h o le life to the Absurd, they have said goodbye to the w orld and broken w ith the w orld. . . . T h e Christian congregation is a society w h ich consists o f qualitative individuals; the inwardness o f the society is conditioned (1 ) by its faith in the Absurd and (2 ) by its p olem ical position in relation to the great hum an society."16 B ut the w h o le difficulty, as Kierkegaard sees it, is that, in the course o f tim e this th in g o f b ein g a Christian becam e identical w ith being a m an. "Thus it cam e about that the Christian congregation was supposedly one and the sam e th in g as the hum an race. G ood night, nurse! N ow adays the Christian congregation equalsVuhlikum!m
A gain: "R eligiously (in contradistinction to the ’P u b lic/ the ’M asses/ etc., w hich p olitically m ay have their 15 The Point of View, p. 153.
» X 2 A 4 7 8 . i? Ibid.
validity) there are on ly individuals. A n d still less from the poin t o f view o f the Christian R eligion can there be such a th in g as the 'Masses1 . . . because 'the possibility o f offense,’ w h ich Christianly is encountered in b ecom ing a Christian, unconditionally m akes m en first, qualitatively, 'individuals,' w hereby this concept secures the 'Christian congregation' as som ething qualitatively different from the 'Public,' the 'Masses', etc., w h ile naturally unconditionally every m an can be the 'individual”'.18 In the sam e entry w e read: '"The individual' m ust in a decisively ethical w ay have gon e betw een as an interm ediate determ inant in order to secure that the 'congregation' is not taken in vain as synonym ous w ith the 'Public,' the 'Masses'; w h ile yet it m ust be rem embered, as is w e ll know n, that it is not the individual's relationship to the congregation w hich determ ines his relationship to G od but his relationship to G od w hich determ ines his rela
tionship to the congregation.”
T h e same note is struck again and again. O n e m ore instance w ill suffice:
"In the highest religious form, the individual relates h im self first to G od and then to the congregation; but this first relationship is the highest, though the individual does not n eglect the latter.”19 20 In this connection Kierkegaard calls attention to a passage in th e
Unscientific Postscript2,0
w here h e contends that"the task is not to begin w ith the individual and arrive at the race, but to begin w ith th e individual and through th e race (th e universal) arrive at th e individual again.” If here w e read "Church” for "race,” I doubt if Kierkegaard w ould object. T h e task, accordingly, is: from th e individual through the Church to reach the individual. For o f course S. K . know s that the Church, under divine appointm ent, is the ch ief agency by w hich individuals are rescued either from isolated subjetivity or else from faceless anonym ity in the public, and
through
th e m inistrations o f th e Church are m ade individuals, qualitatively understood. H ow ever poorly th e Church m ay historically have fu lfille d her vocation, she is nonethelessecclesia docens,
the principal bearer o f revelation, the M other o f Christians. Kierkegaard has no fault to find w ith the definition o f the Church contained in the A ugsburg Confession: the Church is the com m union o f saints, in th e w h ich the pure18 X 5 A 2 0 8 , p. 392.
1» V II A 20.
2 0 Page 383 = S. V . V II, p. 4 1 8 .
W ord o f G od is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered.21
The Book on Adler,
am ong other writings, m akes evident h ow clear it is to Kierkegaard that Christianity, though it is far m ore than doctrine (being, in fact, a w ay o f life ), is none the less a d efinite doctrine w h ich m ust first be taught and accepted passionately before there can b e any question o f em barking on that life.22 W h e n an historical Church fails in the task assigned, the D eity is not helpless, not throw n for a loss. H e o f course finds other ways o f gettin g through to m en. Y e t norm atively (and even in practice, despite all her faults) the Church, w ith her ordained ministry, com m on worship, etc., is theway
G od seeks to establish contact w ith m en to w in them out from isolated subjectivity or out from engu lfm en t in the masses and into ”a prim itive G od-relationship.”232 1 x i A 2 4 6 .
2 2 Cf., e. g., V II B 2 3 5 , pp. 1 9 8 -2 1 0 ; cp. V III B 82, 13 and B 83 to 89.
23 II A 172. S. K .’s respect for th e authority o f ordination is w e ll know n. It gets expression repeatedly in his u n w illin gn ess to call his discourses ’’serm ons.” For him , th e serm on im plies ordination and authority. H is category was ’’w ith ou t authority.” H e was a layman. The Book on Adler is in E nglish called On Authority ¿md Revelation. M uch of that is germ ane to the present discussion. Cf. also X 3 A 2 6 7 . In The Present Age K ierke
gaard gives us good reasons for his distrust o f ’’the collective idea” and ’’the prin cip le o f association”, the lo g ic o f w h ich is: Individually w e are noth in g, but by the strength o f united effort w e shall attain the goal. R everting to this topic alm ost to the p o in t o f m onotony, S. K. tells us that this princip le m ay w e ll have its valid ity in connection w ith m aterial and p olitical interests, but that the p rin cip le exten ded to ethical and religious concerns is disastrous. H o w disastrous it is he makes clear in this statement: ”It does away w ith G od and eternity and w ith m a n ’s kin ship w ith D e ity .” (Cf. the entire passage in The Point of View, p. 113; cp. Journals, 1 0 5 0 ) — T his is w h y h e says: ”It is quite im possib le for the com m unity or the idea o f asociation to save our age . . . . D ialectically the p o sitio n is this: the prin cip le o f association by strengthening the ind ividu al, enervates him ; it strengthens num erically, but ethically that is a w eakening. It is on ly after the ind ividu al has acquired an ethical outlook, in th e face o f the w h o le w orld, that there can be any su ggestion o f really jo in in g together. O therw ise the association o f individuals w h o are in them selves weak, is just as d isgu sting and as harm ful as the m arriage of child ren” {The Present Age, pp. 61 f.) - Thus th e Christian A ssociation, the Church, lies beyond all hum an associations - through individuals. Individuals, each o f w h om has a G od-relationship, m ay perfectly w e ll exist in the association called the Church. O n page 112 o f The Point of View S. K. remarks: ’’Perhaps it may be w e ll to note here, although it seem s to m e alm ost superfluous, that it naturally could n ot occur to m e to object to the fact, for exam ple, that preaching is don e or that the truth is proclaim ed, even thou gh it w ere to an assem blage o f hundreds o f thousands. N o t at a ll.” - Finally, this passage from the Samlede Vcerker, V III, p. 68: ’’W h ere the individuals (each o n e severally) in essential passion relate them selves to an idea, and thereupon in association essentially relate them selves to the same idea, there the relationship is perfect and norm al. T h e relationship is in d ividu ally d istin gu ish in g (each has h im self for h im self) and ideally u n itin g. In this way the individuals never com e too close to o n e another, bestially understood, precisely because they are united on the basis o f ideal distance. T his un ity o f d ifference is the w e ll instrum ented, rich orchestration o f com plete m usic.”
’’T he individual,” Kierkegaard insists, ”is
in
the congregation,” not a herm it or a recluse.24 N aturally he goes to church — three tim es every Sunday! T h e reason for that Kierkegaard gives w ith deep hum an understanding and d eligh tful humor: ’’T he infinitely reflective religious m an does the sam e as the im m ediately religious m an, goes to church three tim es every Sunday, but conceives it hum oristically and w ith a w illin gn ess to repent it at once:
Hum oristically, that h e can’t h elp g o in g to church, that h e can never tire o f hearing G od ’s W ord and b ein g in G od ’s H ouse; h alf repentantly, that it should still be true o f him that he needs again and again n ew incitem ent in his G od- relationship.”25 A nd in church the individual receives, to his great and endless com fort, the Sacrament o f the Altar.26 T h e Church is the pow erhouse w hich generates our zeal, im pells us out into the w orld. T here w e suffer defeats. This drives us back to the Church. W ith in its w alls w e confess our shortcom ings, experience the m iracle o f forgiveness, g et up from our knees, and h avin g been set on our feet again, w e g o out to tackle the w orld once m ore. T h e dialectic betw een Christ the Redeem er w h om w e adore and Christ the Pattern, w h om out o f lo v e and gratitude, w e w ou ld im itate, is exhaustively and beautifully explored in m any o f K ierkegaard’s books, particularly those o f his last period.
Adoration and im itation — an
in
to the church and anout
to the world, then back again and out again: this is th e perm anent rhythm o f the Christian life.N o w that w e have seen som ething o f w hat S. K .’s ’’individualism ” imports — that it is not anti-ecclesiastical — w e can begin to draw som e conclusions. Once again w e m ust be sure w e understand Kierkegaard’s distinction betw een
Mceng- den
(the crowd, the masses,das Man
o f H eidegger) andMenigheden
(con gregation, the assem bled P eop le o f G od). W e can afford to hear out our D anish rebel another time.In ’the Public’ and such like the individual is nothing, there is no individual;
the num erical is the constituative factor, and the law for com in g into being, a
24 X 2 A 390. H o w absurd it is to fin d that som e translators have rendered den Enkelte or him Enkelte as ’’That solitary in d ivid u al.”
25 V I A 52.
26 T h e best com m entary o n this statem ent is to be foun d in S. K .’s m o v in g ’’D iscourses at the C om m u nion on Fridays.” Cp. X 5 A 101 and 103.
generatio aeqvivoca.
Apart from ’the P ublic’ the individual is n oth in g and neither is h e anything, m ore deeply understood,in
the Public.T h e [au th en tic] individual is in th e congregation; the individual is dialectic- ally decisive as
prius
for form in g the congregation, and in the congregation the individual is qualitatively an essential factor, can consequently becom e at any m om ent higher than the ’congregation’ as soon, that is, as ’the others* fa ll away from the idea. T h e cohesive pow er for the congregation is that each is an individual, and so th e idea. T h e ’togetherness’ o f the public or perhaps its dissolution lies in the notion that the num erical is everything. Every individual in the congregation guarantees the congregation. T h e public is a chimera. T h e individual in the congregation is a m icrocosm w hich qualitatively respects the macrocosm. H ere applies, in a good sense,unum noris onmes.
In the public there is no individual, the w h o le is nothing. H ere it is im possible to sayunum noris omnes,
for here is no ’’on e.” — ’T h e congregation’ is indeed m ore than a sum, but in truth it is a sum o fone’
s.27’’M ore than a sum .” D o e s Kierkegaard tell us w hat this ’’m ore” is? N o t explicitly. But hints there are. T h e m ost im portant on e is tucked away in a footnote in the
Postscript,
p. 4 9 2 . In the text Kierkegaard has been m aking his favorite point that ’’R eligiously regarded, the species is a low er category than the individual, and to thrust on eself under the category o f the species is evasion.”T h e context here is a discussion o f an individual’s eternal recollection (i. e., consciousness of) his total guilt. But now , w hat if h e retreats in cowardly fashion from this consciousness? W h a t if, to exonerate him self, h e takes refuge in a doctrine o f O riginal Sin, as popularly misunderstood? Or w hat if h e flees to a G reek tragic position to com plain w him peringly that ”1 couldn’t help m yself. I’m just a dead-end kid. Born on the w ron g side o f the tracks. N ever had enough V itam in C., etc., etc. I am only a m em ber o f an ill-starred race, eventually an anim al race.”28 This, thinks Kierkegaard, is an evasion, a craven flig h t to the tem p le o f aesthetics, a hunt for cover against the relentless scrutiny o f ethics. N o , ethically and religiously, he and he alon e m ust assum e fu ll
27 x 2 A 390.
28 Painstakingly S. K. has been over all this ground in V o lu m e I o f EitherlOr.
responsibility. For ethically and religiously th e individual is higher than the race.
In this setting com es the footn ote from the
Postscript
so im portant for a doctrine o f the Church:O nly in the final definition o f the religious as the paradox-religious does the race becom e higher, but then it is on ly in virtue o f the paradox, and one m ust have had the interm ediate definition o f th e religious w h ich m akes the individual higher than the species, if the spherical differences are not to coagulate and people to prate aesthetically about the paradox-religious.
T his bein g interpreted means;: In the paradox-religious sphere (i. e., Christ
ianity), the Church is higher than the individual — yet in such a w ay that the absolute im portance o f each individual severally is n ot cancelled, and that Christian ethical responsibility is laid m ore heavily on each and every on e - but always w ith the help o f grace, [c f. X 2 A 4 8 9 ] Each person m ust stand up on his ow n tw o feet and take his ow n m edicine — th e bitter dosage o f ethics.
T his done, he m ay then discover in th e church th e sw eet m edicine, the Elixer o f Im m ortality.
T h e poin t is clear. T h e m ystery o f the Church is this: it is a fellow sh ip w hich, far from suppressing individuality, nurtures it, brings it to fu ll flower.
It produces an individuality in
m den Potens,
in second potentiality, as K ierkegaard liked to put it. T h e Church m ay be com pared to the mystery o f marriage:
bride and bridegroom , the tw o o f them , becom e on e flesh, and yet this is a oneness w hich does not annul the twoness. T h e m an and w ife are individuals still, each w ith separate duties, yet the duties becom e m ore supportable in the situation o f comradeship.29
I have had to leave out a hundred relevant quotations, but I subm it a little catena o f three in conclusion:
R igh tly used, the category ’the individual’ can never be harm ful to the Establishment. U sed in peacetim e, its function w ill be: w ithout changing any externals, to aw aken inwardness to increased life in the Establishm ent; and in 29 Judge W illia m has som eth in g to say about all this in Either ! Or and Stages on Life's Way.
an unsettled tim e its function w ill be m ore that o f supporting the Establishm ent by leading the individuals to indifference to proposed alterations in externals and thus to supporting the Establishm ent.30 A remark o f K ofoed-H ansen in a serm on on M onday in W h itsu n W e e k struck m e today. "One m igh t ask w hy God, w h o disrupted the proceedings at Babel (consequently desired to split p eop le up), nevertheless w illed to create the Church (consequently unity)."
T his struck m e w ith reference to m y sm all-scale religious operation: that I w ant to do away w ith the public, and yet, if possible, to h ave
everyone
becom e the "individual" —in unity.
T h e hallm ark o f the religious is always, to begin w ith, a negative determinant. T h e first is always som ething h it upon by m en or w orldliness (Babel, the public, etc.); the religious negates this, and then brings forward in its truth that w hich m en w anted in untruth.31Christianity is also designed for
et Folk -
a people, a land. [A n d K ierkegaard hesitates not at all in adding] : T w e lv e m en united on b ein g Christians have recreated the face o f the world. In actuality there is, therefore, on ly one danger for a p eop le in Christendom — that the individuals no longer are Christians.32
IV
In the ligh t o f his attack upon Christendom, p eop le often ask, "W hat w ould Kierkegaard have becom e had h e lived longer?" A R om an Catholic? More than a few have suggested that. A sectarian? There are those prepared to m ake a place for him in their hagiographie calendar. A n agnostic or an atheist? T his I doubt. Perhaps som eth in g lik e the so-called "N on-Church Christians" to be found in Japan? Interesting questions! A n d speculation is not to be forbidden.
But yet, h o w un-Kierkegaardian, h o w non-existentialist these speculations are!
T h e question posed by Kierkegaard is not w hat
he
w ou ld have becom e. T h e rude, actual question is: w hat areyou
to become?30 i x B 6 6 . Cp. IX B 6 3 , p. 362: ’’W h e n the ’M issionary’ com es h e w ill not seek to overthrow the Establishm ent but w ill use the category ’the in d iv id u a l’ to strengthen the Establishm ent.”
31 X 3 A 63 . 32 V III2 B 122.
Perhaps it w as providential that he died w h en h e did. By prodigious industry he had said at the age o f only forty-tw o all that h e had to say. H e said it pow erfully. H e challenged the w h o le lot o f us w ith astringency that n one but the obtuse can evade. Kierkegaard had his pride, lik e St. Paul. Y e t there was a Pauline hum ility too. H e claim ed nothing m ore for h im self than that h e was a 'c o r r e c tiv e ’ - and he repeated a thousand tim es that th e corrective, n o m atter h ow needed, m ust never becom e the norm ative. T h e corrective is only ’’the necessary pinch o f spice.” N o stew can be m ade o f spice alone. W ith even m ore hum ility, he added the prediction that ’’the n ext generation w ill need the opposite o f ’the corrective.’”33
Valdem ar A m undsen, a great professor o f the U niversity o f C openhagen, put the matter right w h en succinctly h e said o f th e enigm atic D ane: ’’W h ere Kierkegaard was w rong, that is betw een him and God. W h ere Kierkegaard was right, that is betw een G od and
us!'
33 x 5 A 106.