The Sum of Human Wisdom

Alas, the truth of human wisdom is laid forth by Kierkegaard in The Sickness Unto Death.

"The summa summarum [sum total] of all human wisdom is this "golden" (perhaps it is more correct to say "plated") mean: ne quid nimis [nothing too much]. Too little and too much spoil everything. This is bandied about among men as wisdom, is honored with admiration; its exchange rate never fluctuates, and all mankind guarantees its worth. Now and then there is a genius who goes a little way beyond this, and he is called crazy - by sensible people. But Christianity makes an enormous giant stride beyond this ne qui nimis into the absurd; that is where Christianity begins - and offense."

Truth we can't deny

Lyrics from the forthcoming album...

We are bound for better truth than this,
which we have come to find,
which bids us hold inside
the truth we can't deny.
We know we can't arrive,
for it is ours to strive,
pushing all else aside
for a truth we can't deny.

Who would give the sun to watch the sky,
and make believe the reasons why,
and give their life unto the call
that so often eludes us all?

Who would give away their right to know
embracing all their strife to show
that certainty is not the goal
of those who stive to truly know?

We are bound for better truth than this,
which we have come to find,
which bids us hold inside
the truth we can't deny.
We know we can't arrive,
for it is ours to strive,
pushing all else aside
for a truth we can't deny.

To push aside the things we know today
and embrace the one true way
goes against uncertainty we claim
holds any truth behind a veil.

For who am I to say what's true for you,
and what are you to hold me to?
I know there must be more than this
to show the reaasons we exist.

We are bound for better truth than this,
which we have come to find,
which bids us hold inside
the truth we can't deny.
We know we can't arrive,
for it is ours to strive,
pushing all else aside
for a truth we can't deny.

Kierkegaard, conquerer of problems past, creator of problems new

From Spark Notes...
The most common explanation of what Kierkegaard is up to is that, unlike the scientists and scholars he criticizes, Kierkegaard is not trying to communicate straightforward facts, but rather to provoke a new state of awareness in his readers. He therefore writes in an circuitous manner that is meant more to provoke reflection than to communicate clear ideas.

So, the thing I sort of knew in the back of my head has been brought to my attention more than once now. Kierkegaard may have been trying to save the world from Hegel and rationalistic philosophy, but in doing so he opened wide the door to post-modernism, and the shots that it takes at his blessed Christian faith. It is obvious that Kierkegaard held the Christian faith close to his heart, but his thinking is obviously in line with the current line, which is increasingly post-modern, and says that truth is only found in our experience. Part of me wants to simply say that, if that's what it takes to produce Christians that follow their Lord with reckless abandon, then so be it. Another part of me desperately wants Christians to be well-taught and theologically certain, but in the end, does the theological certainty actually win any souls?

From Kierkegaard to Philippians

"...as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe as you hold out the word of life - in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing."

These are the words of Paul to the Philippian Christians, at least 1,900 years ago. In these words there is the striving of infinite passion, which Kierkegaard wove into his exposition of subjective truth. Yes, there are plenty of other places where Paul appears to proclaim the objectivity of the truth that God was man, risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. He says that Jesus was indeed the perfect representation of the fullness of the God-head, and his witnesses saw him walking and talking on this earth, and after that saw him raised from the dead, and all of that. But I don't think that Paul is trying to aid us in planting our beliefs on something that is objectively verifiable. After all, Paul is the one that first referred to the gospel as an "offense." And after all, just further in Philippians, Paul mentions that he hopes for something "in the Lord." What else does "hope in the Lord" mean, if it does not relate somehow to the idea of the "God-relation?"

The thing that I'm trying to get at is that, if God is real, he is completely sovereign, and he does not need our help in explaining his existence through objective reasoning. The immensely more powerful mode of explaination is that which is seen subjectively, as his disciples work out their salvation with "fear and trembling," as if it really were God who works in them to "will and to act according to his good purpose." I really can't hope to justify the resurrection to anyone on the grounds of reason - it is a matter of faith, and if it were not, then I don't believe that the Bible would have been written. What good would it have been to show man something he could already figure out using reason, his beloved creation? But if all of history was actually orchestrated by some divine power to show mankind something that defies all logic, but nevertheless is truer than anything that ever was true - this is something that needs the Bible. This is the stumbling block, the truth that will offend them all, a stone to make men stumble and a rock to make them fall.

An Illusion of Peace

Indeed, the Cold War was the worst war that any American generation lived through. It may have had relatively few casualties, but its potential destruction surpassed anything imaginable. Perhaps the worst thing about this war was that it seemed to be successful in lulling the American people to sleep. For the first time, our country realized that it could conduct a war, while carrying on a somewhat normal life. No real sacrifice was required of the people, and therefore, the war was not felt, not fought, not understood by the vast majority of Americans.

Perhaps one who understood better than most Americans was the British songwriter, Sting, when he said that the greatest hope for Americans was "if the Russians love their children too." These words may have new life today, as roadside bombs have become our new nukes. What happens when nukes fall into the wrong hands? There will be no protection for us then - us who could not sacrifice our normalcy, with tomorrow's tragedy around the corner.