How Kierkegaard Ever Became Trendy and Other Absurdities....

I don't pretend to know how Kierkegaard ever became popular in some liberal/progressive Christian circles. Consider, for instance, the following passage from Fear & Trembling:

It is different in the world of the spirit [as opposed to the external and visible world]. Here [the world of spirit] an eternal divine order prevails. Here it does not rain on both the just and the unjust; here the sun does not shine on both good and evil. Here it holds true that only the one who works gets bread, that only the one who was in anxiety finds rest, that only the one who descends into the lower world rescues the beloved, that only the one who draws the knife gets Isaac. [Hong p. 27]

This passage has several important elements relevant to the immediate context, not the least of which are the introduction of the concept of anxiety and the supposition of an eternal divine order/decree. Yet, the question that just jumps off the page to me upon reading such a passage in Kierkegaard is, "How in the world do liberals or progressives read this?" This passage asserts the existence of a God who commands the sacrifice of Isaac. Just as we ought not gloss over a theology of the holy saturday between the cross and the resurrection of Jesus, we ought not gloss over the anxiety of Abraham in his journey, especially as he draws the knife. We ought not allow the fact that Christ is risen, or that God provided Abraham a lamb, deflate these fundamental narratives of their offense, meaning, or power. The story of Abraham is idol crushing. In an age where every salesman of theology puts God in the dock, proclaiming that he's found a way to make God good, Kierkegaard places himself firmly in line with Luther, placing man in the dock, proclaiming that God has made a way to make man good. Hence my confusion regarding SK's darling status with many liberals/progressives.

One of my favorite liberal precepts is "God must be at least as nice as Jesus". I don't know its original author, but this phrase is quite useful since it explains succinctly the problem that confronts liberal/progressive Christianity when faced with a confessional reading of the Old Testament. Protestants and Catholics of a conservative orientation have labored for centuries trying to place the "atrocities" of the OT in a covenantal context that might explain the offensiveness, but, as this phrase shows, many contemporary liberals and progressives just preclude this whole effort. Simply put, the God of the OT must be as nice as Jesus. If the text paints the God of the OT as not as nice as Jesus, then that text must be subjugated to the niceness of Jesus. (This is highly problematic, for obvious reasons. Who is Jesus, and are we sure he's all that "nice", for starters?) Wouldn't the sacrifice of Isaac be the first OT passage on the chopping block (even over genocide)?

Kierkegaard goes on from the passage quoted to explain that the problem is not merely ethical (although it is at least that). He explains that the sacrifice of Isaac is linked but not equivalent to the command of Jesus to the rich young ruler (to sell his possessions and give to the poor). The command of Jesus was the call of repentance, and if anything is parallel to God's call to Abram to come out of Ur. The command of God to sacrifice Isaac is the call to faith. It is a call to exist in the eternal realm; and paradoxically, to at the same time live within the temporal. Kierkegaard's God is not as nice as the Jesus of the liberals and progressives (I will leave it up to you to decide if that is the real Jesus at all).

From the Lilies and the Birds Let Us Learn

Father in Heaven, when spring is come, everything in nature returns in new freshness and beauty, the lilies and the birds have lost nothing of their charm--oh, that we also might return to the instruction of these teachers! Ah, but if in the time that has elapsed we have lost our health, would that we might regain it by learning again from the lilies of the field and the birds of the air!

Excerpt from Kierkegaard's Journals

Babel

Depending on who asked me, I would say that the first half of Genesis 11 is my favorite portion of the Pentateuch. Right or wrong, I admit that I take a lot about the character of GOD from this passage.

Perfunctory Confession

...or, "The Difference between Quitting and Resigning"

It always goes like this. There are spirits crying for structure, and then once you give it to them, they turn on you. Then you're left with a big frame, just sitting there like a broken down car on blocks in the front lawn.

So many times this leads to rationalizations which lead to quitting. But, this time, perhaps I'll quit rationalizing.

The Work of the Spirit

Main Passage: John 16:7-14.

Main Points:

1. Why do we have spiritual experiences?

Here the lecture swerved to a shallow appeal to human nature. We all have experiences which are inexplicable in a purely material world. The bare assertion was made that we are spiritual beings and that there is a spiritual reality, but no grounding was given, even from Scripture.

The Echo of Guilt

Recently the thought occurred to me that there might be a moral to the failures of my recent past.

The dreams of a young man are like unto weeds. They grow quickly, choke out fruit-bearing growth, and, if left for a season, are nigh impossible to kill.

As soon as the thought took root, I was offended by it. From whence did this thought come. My imagination took flight with the trite image of an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. It was indicative of the fact that I am, of late, conflicted with myself in the broadest of terms. I had constructed a grand vision. It had failed. I was/am confused.