The God-man is the sign of contradiction, and why? Because, Scripture replies, because he was to disclose the thoughts of hearts. Does all the modern thought about the speculative unity of God and man, all this that regards Christianity only as a teaching, does this have the remotest resemblance to the essentially Christian? No, in the modern approach everything is made as direct as putting one's foot in a sock - and the Christian approach is the sign of contradiction that discloses the thoughts of hearts. The God-man is an individual human being - not a fantastic unity that has never existed except sub specie aeterni [under the aspect of eternity], and he is anything but an assistant professor who teaches directly to parroters or dictates paragraphs for shorthand writers - he does exactly the very opposite, he discloses the thoughts of hearts. Ah, it is so cozy to be listeners and transcribers when everything is so completely direct. Gentlemen listeners and transcribers must watch out - it is the thoughts of their hearts that are to be disclosed.~S. Kierkegaard, Practice in Christianity, p.126
1/01/2008
Lovin' his way with words
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Featured Post
New Playroom
I've been consumed for a few years by care for my parents, so writing has fallen by the wayside. In and for my heart, this has become a ...
-
I've been consumed for a few years by care for my parents, so writing has fallen by the wayside. In and for my heart, this has become a ... -
June 13, 2008 Senior Thesis, Victoria Hershiser Advisor: Chris Swanson The word “politics” in this day and age generally applies to endless ...
4 comments:
Oh I LOVE me some Kierkegaard.
Thanks for posting it. :)
Yep, gotta get a dose now and then. Thanks, Ms. former Honda driver.
I've just read a book by Brian McLaren called 'A Generous Orthodoxy'... fabulous. I've been questioning Christianity for quite a while. Not God and not Jesus, but Christianity. We have made it something I don't think it was ever meant to be. My tendency however is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ditch much of this theological thinking Kierkegaard is describing... McLaren reviewed many of the different branches of Christianity (protestant, evangelical, catholic, pentecostal, orthodox, etc etc) and identified what he thought was helpful in each and why he was happy to be called each. Of course he twists the meaning of each so that it isn't really what the proponents of each think (eg evangelical not Evangelical), but I realised I'm being a little preemptive and reactionary. Yes, in many ways I find Christianity in its present form severely lacking, but to throw it away completely is to assert my own superiority and before I know it, I'm already on as bad a path as I believe many forms of Christianity are. I have been encouraged to look for the good in each branch (most especially my own!) and embrace it such that I develop a generous orthodoxy...
Phew... such a long comment. sorry!
Your thoughts always fascinate me, Cecily. Thanks for adding them. McLaren's perspective sounds like one worth absorbing, as a good reminder that no one view has it all right.
I heard a good reminder this week about seeking to communicate regarding faith by working to define the real meaning behind what we say. A challenge with Kierkegaard, certainly, but also between people every day.
I appreciate when you share where you're at in reconsidering Christianity, and I'll be interested to learn where the journey takes you.
Post a Comment