Kierkegaard Soccio Reports That at the Funeral

Kierkegaard

Soccio reports that at the funeral of Soren Kierkegaard in 1855, his brother Peter (a clergyman) delivered a conventional Christian eulogy but that "upset with the way the institution had violated the spirit of its great critic, his nephew caused a scene at the graveside." (397). This anecdote appealed to me particularly, because Kierkegaard's own critique of Christianity seems to me particularly persuasive and appealing. In the debased climate of Christianity in America today, it strikes me that Kierkegaard's view of religion is more relevant than ever.

In fact, the majority of religious believers today strike me as needing a good dose of Kierkegaard. Soccio quotes an amusing anecdote from Either/Or in which one of Kierkegaard's many fictional personae reports a scientific study of Christians, and follows one around taking notes on his behavior, only to conclude "But he does just what I do!" (401). Well, of course on the surface there is nothing to indicate quality of belief -- anyone can be a hypocrite, and in fact the etymology of the word "hypocrite" is in the ancient Greek word for "actor." But the other motivation is, of course, pure conformism. Moreover, their view of religious belief is entirely shallow -- as Kierkegaard would state in Either/Or of his contemporaries, "The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful…They do their duty, these shopkeeping souls, but they clip the coin a trifle…they think that even if the Lord keeps ever so careful a set of books, they may still cheat Him a little." This strikes me as the essence of dogmatic religion -- but the irony, as Kierkegaard knew well, was that the philosophical underpinnings of Christianity emerged from an objection to the Pharasaical interpretation of religion as obeying the letter rather than the spirit of the law.

The irony is that, of course, nowadays most practicing Christians are little more than Pharisees themselves. In the 2000 U.S. Presidential debates, apparently George W. Bush was asked who his favorite philosopher was, and he replied: "Jesus, because he changed my heart." If one could take a time machine and go back to that debate, then it would be wonderful to ask Bush for his interpretations of various statements by his favorite philosopher -- such as "blessed are the peacemakers," or "you cannot serve both God and Mammon" or "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven." I am being ironic, of course, but I think Kierkegaard would have appreciated the irony.

George W. Bush illustrates for me personally the central critique that Kierkegaard would make of the average Christian -- Soccio describes it as a process whereby someone "attempts to be 'a Christian' or 'a lawyer' based on some collective abstraction, some image or idea" or in other words "attempts to conform to a pattern." (404). I agree with Kierkegaard that this is not a religion -- instead it makes Christianity into a vast form of social control and enforced conformity. When Bush claimed Jesus as his "favorite philosopher," evangelical Christians across America thought "He is one of us," in other words, they recognized the signs of conformism and approved them. They did not think "How can he justify his tax policies in light of Matthew 22:15-22?"