• Ingen resultater fundet

Kierkegaard and the Church

N/A
N/A
Info
Hent
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Del "Kierkegaard and the Church"

Copied!
16
0
0

Indlæser.... (se fuldtekst nu)

Hele teksten

(1)

Kierkegaard and the Church

by

H O W A R D A. J O H N S O N

Kierkegaard, 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 d

that

is w here the battle m ust be fought.”2

O 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 .

(2)

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

(3)

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 ply

assumed

it. H e assumed as a matter o f course the existence o f the Church w ith its liturgies, orders, buildings, cere­

m 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, part

4 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

(4)

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 Church

qua

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.

(5)

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 Christen­

dom ,” 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

(6)

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 the

Bestaaende —

the Standing Church — to

stand —

but only on the terms h e thought the N e w T estam ent w ou ld authorize.12

able 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.

(7)

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,

and

Judge 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.

(8)

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 ’’irritational

m 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 .”

(9)

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.”15

Menigheden

and

Mcengden,

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 equals

Vuhlikum!m

A gain: "R eligiously (in contra­

distinction 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.

(10)

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 nonetheless

ecclesia 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 pure

18 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 .

(11)

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 the

way

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.”23

2 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.”

(12)

’’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 t­

ful 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 an

out

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) and

Menigheden

(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.

(13)

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 say

unum 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 f

one’

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.

(14)

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 ierke­

gaard 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.

(15)

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.31

Christianity is also designed for

et Folk -

a people, a land. [A n d K ierke­

gaard 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 are

you

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.

(16)

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.

Referencer

RELATEREDE DOKUMENTER

Kierkegaard should have said that the first form of authentic despair is the basic one, the kind he calls not wanting to be oneself.. So Theu- nissen proposes in his

gaard research today: his relevance in current philosophical debate (Hinrich Fink-Eitel on Kierkegaard and Foucault), the growing interest in a rhetorical reading

sage, and Søren Kierkegaard, The Melancholy Dane (London 1950), an elementary but sound and readable introduction to Kierkegaard’s life and work, with a short

I neither believe it, nor argued it in my paper, but Kierkegaard did, contrary to Emmanuel, hold to a doctrine of recollection regarding the immanent metaphysical truths.. What I

So, Kierkegaard concludes, »The subjective thinker is aesthetic enough to give aesthetic content to his life, ethical enough to regulate it, and dialectical

Theological Concepts in Kierkegaard Kierkegaard and Great Traditions Kierkegaard and Human Values The Legacy of Kierkegaard Kierkegaard: Literary Miscellany

Kierkegaard contends in his portrayal that Socrates’ entire life was (in terms of practical concerns) one of indirection, simply because he didn’t know

[r]