Kierkegaard: Existence is Motion

Most undergraduate philosophy textbooks do away with S. Kierkegaard by a singularly modern curse, the 'f-' word; namely, the word 'fideism.' What grave injustice. Such epistemic pretensions elicit my disdain. They also do great violence to a great thinker, whom I believe still has much to teach us - that is, those who care to listen.

In Works of Love, reflecting on 1 Cor. 13.7 ('love...believes all things'), SK writes:

'...knowledge per se is impersonal and must be communicated impersonally. Knowledge places everything in the category of possibility, and to the extent that it is in possibility it is outside the reality of existence. The individual first of all begins his life with ergo, with faith....[W]hen a man's knowledge has placed contrasting possibilities in equilibrium and he wants or has to judge, then what he believes in becomes apparent, who he is, whether he is mistrustful or loving' (218)*

We begin our life with ergo, with faith. SK provides a wonderful illustration of what this means. He writes,

'Truly, it is not knowledge which defiles a man, far from it. Knowledge is like the sheerest transparency, precisely the most perfect and purest, like the purest water, which has no taste at all. The magistrate is not defiled because he knows more about the plots than the criminal. No, knowledge does not defile a man; it is mistrust which defiles a man's knowledge just as love purifies it' (220)

That is, knowledge in itself is objective; man is not. Man is subject, not object. He takes into himself knowledge as he drains into his body liquid. In so doing he is not passive. He thirsts. He sees. He fills. He grasps. He swallows. All verbs, motions, actions, participations. A world is out there and he is in it. Man is implicated. He is creatura.

Yet so long as knowledge remains outside us, it remains 'outside the reality of existence.' That is, it remains outside the reality of our existence. For example, God is, apart from us. He exists, apart from us. But the knowledge that He exists is not knowledge that is in the reality of existence apart from us. He is the ground of our existence and our knowledge. But ground is not ground of anything lest on that ground stands something. To bring knowledge into reality therefore requires motion. That motion is faith, which is the ergo after knowledge.

Thus to exist is to move; and to move is to exercise faith. Existence entails faith, says SK. That is why he may say the following,

'To believe nothing is right on the border where believing evil begins; the good is the object of faith, and therefore one who believes nothing begins to believe evil. To believe nothing is the beginning of being evil, for it shows that one has no good in him, since faith is precisely the good in a man, which does not come through great knowledge, nor need it be lacking because knowledge is meagre' (220)

To believe in nothing is (as I interpret it) to cease motion. It is to stop moving, therefore it is to tend toward non-existence. For existence is motion. It is subjectivity in objectivity. To believe in nothing is to cease as a subject, and to join knowledge in suspension, in non-reality. Thus in true Augustinian colours SK holds that evil is privation of good. It is nothingness, non-existence. It is motionlessness. It is faithlessness.

But not all faith is good faith. Faith may purchase the wrong thing. It may purchase the lesser good instead of the supreme good [summum bonum]. Cut off from the supreme good, this faith cannot and will not survive. It is misplaced faith. But it is not motionless; no, it is not dead yet.

We leave out discussions of 'love' for another time. But let us round the corner back to the f-word, fideism. So much presumption lies in this word. It presumes, firstly, intellectualism; that is, it presumes certain truths about human nature, all of which SK denies, viz. that man may know apart from volition, apart from movement. To SK this objectifies man, and pitches him out of existence. It dissolves his subjectivity and obscures his creatureliness. It removes him from the actions that make his life a life. We may not follow SK through to all of the conclusions he has hitherto surmised. But we surely do not want to overlook, thanks to our philosophy books, what important questions he raises concerning what it is to be human.

*SK, (1962), Works of Love. Trans. Howard and Edna Long. NY: Harper Torchbooks.

Continue Reading>>>

When Athens Met Jerusalem

Well, I wanted to share another book recommendation with our readers. IVP just recently released Dr. John Mark Reynolds' new book, "When Athens Met Jerusalem: An introduction to Classical and Christian Thought." I'm far enough into the book now where I felt it would be helpful to share a few of my thoughts.

First, Dr. Reynolds does an excellent job of placing ideas, figures, and texts within their historical ideological context; I like to think of it as a history of worldview development, based on the efforts of man to describe the fundamental nature of this world. For example, in the early pages of the book, Dr. Reynolds gives a basic description of the role that Homer's Iliad and the Odyessey played in ancient society toward shapinig the overall worldview for the average person; He later goes on to describe how the first philosophers, and their attempts at "natural science" impinged on, or provided the catalyst for growth beyond that view and so on, as historical narrative develops. Now, not only is this narrative portrayal of the development of these ideas interesting, but it also provides a readily accesible introduction to some of these classical ideas, which is important for someone who might be interested to learn more, but who is not sure where best to begin. It's one thing to read an introductory text which gives you the raw description or definition of a particular text or figure, but it's another task entirely to do a good job taking these bits of ancient history, and provide a description that makes ideas, figures, and texts come alive in their original context; Dr. Reynolds does the latter.

Ultimately, in developing this narrative, Dr. Reynolds not only seeks to provide a narrative description of the development of these ideas, but he also wants to highlight the influence of classical thought on the development of Christianity, while also arguing that the loss of this clasical influence in modern Christianity has been detrimental. Definitely an intriguing read; check it out!

Continue Reading>>>

The Gospel About Jesus Christ

Mark 1:1 says this: "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

It is almost certain that the first "of" should be taken as objective (i.e. "the good news about Jesus", not "the good news from Jesus", which would be subjective). I will take the point for granted here- challenge me in the meta if you disagree.

This means at least two things:

1. Mark's book is about Jesus.
2. Mark's book is not about you.

Since we believe that the Bible is authoritative, we are encouraged to read it always with a view to personal application. We know that we should be reorganizing our lives according to what Scripture says, so we faithfully read our Bibles in the morning and ask, "How do I apply this to my life?"

At a basic level, that is a good question. I encourage it and I practice it myself. But that is often an easier question to answer when we read the Epistles than when we read the Gospels. The command to always be edifying in Ephesians 4 directly challenges what comes out of our mouths. "How do I apply this to my life?" is a simple question: I need to always be edifying!

But then we read the stories of healing in the Gospels and think, "OK, so Jesus can heal. That's nice. I'll pray for healing." Then we get bored when the Evangelist piles up a few stories in a row on the subject. We can think of no other application, so we skim until we get to some of Jesus' teaching, since that is easier to know how to apply.

All of this is why we need to remember that the Gospels, as Mark makes clear, are not about us. The application question can mislead us to always be looking for ourselves in the text.

But the Gospels aren't about us.
The Gospels are about Jesus.

So as you work through the Gospels, ask "What does this text teach me about Jesus?" The practical benefits will almost always fall into place when we do this, because quite simply, when we get Jesus right, we'll get our lives right.

For all of its good, the application question can also be symptomatic of the cultural value on the self. Focus on Jesus, brothers and sisters! Mark tells you that Jesus is his subject. He should be yours too. Fix your eyes on our Lord, and be amazed at how easy the application comes along.

Continue Reading>>>

So Simple the Act, So Hard the Undoing

I've started listening through Carson's sermons/lectures on temptation that JT pointed out on Saturday. No comment yet on the overall quality, but Dr. Don had this quote about Adam and Eve's initial sin in the Garden: "So simple the act, so hard the undoing. God Himself will taste poverty and death before 'Take and Eat' become verbs of salvation."

I just thought the quote was too good not to pass on. And to be clear, he says he is quoting someone else, but he doesn't mention who specifically.

Continue Reading>>>

Calvin the Commentator

Nice post here from Mark Strauss on Koinonia about Calvin's legacy as not just a theologian, but a commentator. Here's Strauss's intro:

As the 500th birthday of John Calvin approaches (July 10th), theologians around the world will be reflecting on and celebrating this man's remarkable legacy. Calvin is perhaps best known for his Institutes of the Christian Religion, his magnum opus on Reformed Theology. Yet Calvin also wrote commentaries on almost every book in the Bible. For me, at least, these may be his most lasting legacy. Calvin embodied through his life, ministry and scholarship the spirit of sola scriptura.

I sympathize with Strauss. Not that the Institutes is anything less than amazing, but as a guy who leans toward exegesis, I love his commentaries. They are almost always useful, and for older commentators especially, it is remarkable how he models and anticipates historical-grammatical exegesis with an eye to the whole biblical story and personal application all at the same time. They are consistently great. Heck, they don't call him the "Prince of Commentators" for nothing...

One more thing: should it come as any surprise that Calvin was such a masterful theologian when he spent that much time in the Bible? If we really do believe in sola scriptura, then we need to recognize that there is nothing more important for forming good theological conclusions than spending a lot of time thinking through the text itself. Theologians need to be rigorous in their exegesis before and at the same time as they do theology. Add to that his unwavering commitment to the Church, and it becomes clear that Calvin models truly Christian theology like few (if any!) others.

Continue Reading>>>