Skip to main content

[Archive] My Love-Hate Relationship with Evangelicalism (Kierkegaard Gets It)


So I’m over here in Northfield, Minnesota, doing research for my master’s thesis on Søren Kierkegaard, and I came across a section in one of his books that I’d forgotten about. As the title of the blog entry would indicate, it helps explain the love-hate relationship I have with conservative Christianity. See, I consider myself an Evangelical, but I cringe each time I say that because I know what kind of image it evokes for most people who aren’t evangelicals. They picture me standing on a street corner holding a sign and a bullhorn, or going to a museum that has exhibits of humans riding dinosaurs. They think of me as a young-earth creationist, a bible-thumper, [shudder] a James Dobson disciple or [bigger shudder] a Sarah Palin supporter. Well, maybe they don’t; maybe I’m just projecting. But the fact that I’m afraid of being seen that way shows you how I feel about stereotypical conservative Christianity. I’ve seen too much ignorance, insanity, and insensitivity to be comfortable with that label.
And yet, in spite of the previous paragraph, I’m usually reluctant to join in on bashing Evangelicalism. Whenever I’m around more liberal people who are criticizing Evangelicalism, I start to feel uncomfortable. I get the strange urge to come to its defense, sometimes over the very issues for which I criticize it myself.  At first I thought it was the same kind of feeling older siblings get when they get protective over a younger sibling—you know, “No one beats up my little brother but me”—but yesterday I came across this passage in Kierkegaard that resonated very strongly with me.
In the book in question Kierkegaard talks a lot about how important passion is to finding truth—it’s passion, according to Kierkegaard, that makes you search for the right answer rather than the comfortable one. In one part of the book, he starts talking about “letter-zealotry” and “literalist theology”—this was in 1846, before terms like “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” were in use—and he says, “It’s merit was that it had passion. In another sense, it was comic.” It’s a good thing that these zealots had passion, he says, but it’s also very funny. He compares them to Don Quixote, who had great passion for chivalry but mistook windmills for giants came out looking ridiculous. When Don Quixote gets knocked off his horse by a windmill, we want to laugh. And many people want to laugh at the way conservative Christians fight for intelligent design and “family values” and whatnot. But even though Kierkegaard recognizes that these zealots are comical, he still has words for those who would laugh at them:
[Important note: Kierkegaard uses a term here that won’t make sense out of context, so I’ll need to explain it. If you remember the way the scientific method works, it’s actually a process of eliminating wrong answers, not finding right answers. When scientists have a theory, that just means it’s something they haven’t been able to disprove so far. Technically, though they don’t speak this way anymore, all a scientist can really say is, “as far as we know” or “we believe” or “evidence indicates” x is true. So when Kierkegaard mentions an “approximation-object,” he’s talking about something that is in the realm of science, something that is found through or subject to the scientific method.]
With what right one would laugh is another question, because the fact that the whole age has become devoid of passion does not entitle it to laugh. The ludicrous aspect of the zealot was that his infinite passion thrust itself upon a wrong object (an approximation-object), but the good aspect of him was that he had passion.
~Søren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments
What Kierkegaard is saying is that most people who laugh at zealots have no right to do so. It’s not enough to know the Truth—you also have to understand how important it is. Zealots have passion because they understand how important the truth is, even if they’ve misunderstood Christianity by taking it as a scientific assertion. They have passion but misunderstand the Truth; comic at times, yes, but still better than having neither passion nor Truth.  No matter how critical I get of conservative Christianity, I am always reminded that they have at least one critical thing to teach me: passion.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Massacre of the Innocents [By W.H. Auden]

[From For the Time Being,  by W.H. Auden] HEROD One needn’t be much of a psychologist to realize that if this rumor is not stamped out now, in a few years it is capable of diseasing the whole Empire, and one doesn’t have to be a prophet to predict the consequences if it should. Reason will be replaced by Revelation. Instead of Rational Law, objective truths perceptible to any who will undergo the necessary intellectual discipline, and the same for all, Knowledge will degenerate into a riot of subjective visions—feelings in the solar plexus induced by undernourishment, angelic images generated by fevers or drugs, dream warnings inspired by the sound of falling water. Whole cosmologies will be created out of some forgotten personal resentment, complete epics written in private languages, the daubs of school children ranked above the great masterpieces. Idealism will be replaced by Materialism. Priapus will only have to move to a good address and call himself Eros

Works of Love XVIII: “Love for the Dead”

[From Part II, Chapter IX: “ The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead ”] “Weep less bitterly for the dead, for he is at rest.” Sirach 22:11 (NRSV) [1] With chapter 9 of part 2, Works of Love is beginning to come to a close. With entry 17, this blog series is also nearing its end. As Kierkegaard has given us a detailed view of what Christian love is supposed to look like, now he gives us a way to test the purity of our own love: look at the way you love those who have died. [2] We are to love everyone, and loving means remembering, and so we are to love the dead. But loving those who have died is a special circumstance, and it shows us what kind of love we are showing. If we reflect on the way we love the dead, we can see whether we are showing truly Christian love. Kierkegaard identifies three ways that love for the dead is unique. First, he says that showing love for the dead is “a work of the most unselfish love.” He writes, “If one wants to make sure that love is

Choruses from the Rock (VI), By T.S. Eliot

[I know that I promised blog entries that I haven't delivered yet. I've got plenty of ideas in my head, it's just a matter of finding the time and the motivation at the same time. Anyway, I expect that I'll be ready to write relatively soon, but until then I thought I would tide you over with a section from T.S. Eliot's excellent poem, Choruses from "The Rock". Enjoy!] It is hard for those who have never known persecution, And who have never known a Christian, To believe these tales of Christian persecution. It is hard for those who live near a Bank To doubt the security of their money. It is hard for those who live near a Police Station To believe in the triumph of violence. Do you think that the Faith has conquered the World And that lions no longer need keepers? Do you need to be told that whatever has been, can still be? Do you need to be told that even such modest attainments As you boast of in the way of polite society Will hardly surv