I think most of my reactions to things that you say are in the “yeah, but…” realm, because, for example, I totally agree with the quotations above and almost everything you and Justin said in the reply to my previous post. But I am wary when I perceive an implication that things in our religious tradition should be completely replaced.

That’s understandable, and I agree that it is not always easy to tell what is the real implication and what is the real heart behind that implication. For instance, Kierkegaard himself was accused by most people of holding this super-high, impossible standard that we are supposed to live in, in this no-grace sort of way.

But really all he was asking for was honesty. He didn’t so much care that Christians were doing shitty things, but more that they were doing it and acting like it was the way that Christianity was even in the New Testament! And as he says, that’s the one thing that Christendom would not admit (that it was acting differently than Jesus). Kierkegaard was not looking down in judgment, just asking for some honesty.

I think it’s powerful because, as he says, grace can only apply where there is a realization and confession of a lack. So, grace can only apply where there is honesty. So with him I take it for granted that we are all sinners, no one is righteous, not the American church system, not anything…but as much as maybe I personally would like to see reform of some kind, what I really want, and after reading Kierkegaard, what I would settle for as a good first step, is just some honest reflection. No change, no judgment…just honesty.

Most of my dig with the church is much better articulated in Kirkegaard’s first quote–many are more interested in being right than being honest. And honesty is the only path to transformation.