Kierkegaard

I sometimes get asked how evangelicals should reckon with Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was a very interesting bird, and his writings have become very popular and influential in large measure thanks to Karl Barth. Perhaps not coincidentally, like Barth, Kierkegaard presents something of a dilemma for evangelicals. Should we love him, fear him, embrace him, marginalize him, or something in between? Though what follows will likely not be very helpful in answering this question, it is offered for consideration. I apologize in advance for the technical lingo. The below is largely an excerpt from a directed study I did at seminary which required a heavy dose of academic terminology:

Kierkegaard has to be understood in context. He was mostly ignored during his own lifetime and for some time after. Perhaps ironically, it was partly through the emergence of Barth that the thought of Kierkegaard began to enjoy a renaissance and popularity in the West that continues to this day. Kierkegaard reacted against the impersonal epistemology of Kant (and especially the absorption of the individual into the Absolute Spirit of Hegel's epistemology) during the mid-1800s. For Kant, true knowledge was created and dictated by human reason, and only by restricting the domain in which human reason could operate (i.e., the phenomenal realm) could Kant make any allowance for faith and feeling as being legitimate in those areas where reason did not and could not extend. For Kierkegaard, such rationalism made insufficient allowance for the role emotions and feelings play in man's accumulation of truth in the world. Kierkegaard believed that Danish society, under the influence of Kant and Hegel, had been reduced to a level of dead aestheticism and “ethicism” that eliminated authentic human existence and religion. Kierkegaard had a particular disdain for Hegelian metaphysics because Hegel, through his thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic, believed humans could actually discern the mind of God (the Absolute Spirit in Hegel's thinking). This meant that Hegel actually had more hubris than Kant when it came to humanity's ability to rationalize all reality. Kierkegaard believed Hegel's program was both arrogant and plainly false, citing the Biblical account of Abraham and Isaac as proof that Hegelian rationalism fails to explain how a good God could command the father of faith to sacrifice the child of promise. Kierkegaard believed that street level reality was filled with such paradoxes and conundrums that Hegel's program could not account for or persuasively address.

It is true that Kierkegaard believed that achievement of the most authentic human existence was a matter of religious faith and commitment, rather than something that could be achieved purely through the intellect. But in saying this, Kierkegaard should not be dismissed as an irrationalist. Again, he has to be understood in context. Brute rationalism had resulted in 'pious neglect' for the poor in Europe because people were living in Hegelian abstraction rather than the real world. But Kierkegaard was far from advocating a thoughtless, uncritical, or irrational faith. What he advocated was a careful thinking about faith that recognized that faith was not itself merely a matter of thought. On this, Kierkegaard was absolutely right and was a desperately needed antidote to Hegelian metaphysics.

But at least in my opinion, Kierkegaard still considered Kant's 'phenomenal/noumenal' dialectic to be mostly sound, and he attempted to rethink Kant within a more Biblical framework, with mixed results. He agreed with Kant's basic framework that God cannot be pursued in an objective way. The "leap of faith" in Jesus Christ that is required to move into the most authentic human existence requires the abandonment of our reliance on reason since, like Kant, we can have no objective knowledge about God prior to entering into a relationship with him because of the “infinite qualitative distinction” that exists between God and man. Barth seized upon this idea in his revolutionary commentary on Romans, which is what brought Kierkegaard back into the conversation after his death. For Kierkegaard, this infinite distinction between man and God (time and eternity) is bridged by the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and this was part of Barth's basic thinking as well. The decision to place faith in Jesus Christ is not through speculative abstract reasoning, but through faith that is often an affront to human reason. For example, Kierkegaard considered the Incarnation to be a 'scandal' to human reason and couldn't be believed purely on the employment of human reason. Nonetheless, in disagreement with Kant, this subjective faith decision is the only way the human self can achieve a truly authentic existence. As a result, for Kierkegaard, faith and reason at this highest stage are at odds with each other to some degree, in that reason alone cannot bring a person to authentic existence; only faith can. In this respect, Kierkegaard and Kant are in some agreement at least on the dialectic relationship between faith and reason, in that the legitimate operation of the two occurs in somewhat mutually exclusive realms that cannot validly accommodate the other. But whereas for Kant, rationalism was primary, for Kierkegaard, existentialist faith is primary. And while Kant believed the chasm between God and man was unbridgeable, Kierkegaard believes that through faith in the incarnate God, the chasm is bridged and a tangible relationship between God and man becomes possible.

I don't entirely agree with Kierkegaard's thought (particularly the faith/reason dialectic), but his approach was a very understandable and desperately needed response to Kant and Hegel. When seen in this historical context, Kierkegaard isn't perfect, but in my view, he's definitely our friend. Evangelicals should read him with discernment, and with the expectation that we can learn some very important things from Kierkegaard, while probably needing to part company with him in some areas as well.