'The highest and most beautiful things in life are not to be heard about, nor read about, nor seen but, if one will, are to be lived'.Soren Kierkegaard was the positive bright light in existentialism, a philosophy that is a call to look inward, to develop one's own personal philosophy of life (in a simplified definition). Though I would not call myself an existentialist, I do think an element of it is worth examining. A proponent of existentialism was Soren Kierkegaard, a man whose aim was to find 'truth', not simply empirical truth but rather a deeper, spiritual truth for which he could live and die. This seeking within a person is common among all peoples both past and present. A common yearning has shown itself to be present throughout history as people have asked questions regarding purpose and the meaning of life. Existentialism leans toward the idea that one lives his or her way into existence, that in living one discovers the truth that works for his or herself. Again, I do not hold solely to this for various reasons (though perhaps it is not completely off par), mostly because of the view obtained within existentialism that concludes life lacks meaning at all. Many existentialists did (and today still do) not believe humans have intrinsic worth and oftentimes they removed God from the equation of life completely, holding to ideals such as 'radical freedom' and 'the absurdity of life'.
Wherever you stand within this philosophy, let's examine one point made by Kierkegaard: living truth.
Kierkegaard criticized various institutions, including academia and the Church. He found both largely superfluous, as you can infer from the following:
'What would be the use of discovering so called 'objective' truth, of working through all the systems of philosophy and of being able to review them all and show up the inconsistencies within each system? What good would it do me to be able to develop a political theory and combine all the intricate details of politics into a complete system, and so construct a world for the exhibition of others but in which I did not live; what would it profit me if I developed the correct interpretation of Christianity in which I resolved all the internal problems, if it had no deeper significance for me and for my life; what would it profit me if truth stood before me cold and naked, indifferent to whether I recognized her, creating in me paroxysms of anxiety rather than trusting in devotion?'The philosopher who said these words has a rather tragic story: after seeking a truth worth living and dying for during much of his life, he began to battle with the Church. He struggled with the lives of people whose actions in life contradicted the words that flowed from their mouths on Sunday mornings. He struggled with the fact that, as a whole, the Church's actions didn't match her convictions. So compelled was he to address this issue that he rejected the established Church of his land and joined the Atheist Society in protest to the spiritual deadness of the Church. Truth is not truth if it is merely claimed, he argued. Is not truth meant to be lived out? To make matters worse, the Church responded by hurdling insults his way. A controversy erupted in which Kierkegaard would not back down, accusing the Church of being 'as genuine as tea made from a bit of paper which once lay in a drawer beside another bit of paper which once had been used up to wrap up a few dried tea leaves from which tea had already been made three times'.
How insults have evolved over the years...perhaps ours today are much less witty and cutting.
Anyway, Kierkegaard struggled with hypocrisy within the Church, and perhaps it was this struggle that drove him to his death.
A common phrase has made it's way into the culture of the North American Church today: I love Jesus but I hate the Church. Perhaps Kierkegaard was the founder of this concept, and who can blame him? Who would want to be a part of a group that makes extraordinary claims but lives ordinary and even contradictory lives?
Perhaps this is why some people are starkly against Christianity today. Perhaps this is why fewer college students are attending church once they leave home. Perhaps this is why multitudes of people feel broken and rejected, promoting phrases such as 'I love Jesus but I hate the Church'.
Let me say here that I love Jesus, but I love the Church.
Or at least, I love the Church when she fulfills her role of being the Church.
When she's real. When she's united. When she's imperfect (because she will be imperfect) but she is yet dependent on Jesus Christ.
Eyes fixed on the One who holds all things.
Today I'm not sharing this information to bash the Church or to convict any Christians reading these words, but I am sharing Kierkegaard's story as a gentle reminder of what is important: living out truth. I need reminders such as this on a daily basis, because as a Christian I am called to preserve souls-to love people. How can I fulfill this calling if I am not actively living out my faith? As I mentioned in my previous post, I have lately been convicted of realness. The most stagnant sort of faith-perhaps the wrong sort of faith at all-is that which is claimed but not lived out.
The world needs Christians whose actions match their convictions. The world needs the Church to be the hands and feet of Jesus. The world needs love.
It begins with you and me.
