I think you make my point. (Being passionate about a passion is either redundant or nonsensical. Doesn’t a passion have an object other than itself? How much sense does it make if it’s its own object?)
Being passionate about God presumes true faith1 – faith itself is not the passion. “The faith” can be the object of passion, like a political party, but that is a misplaced passion.
1 Of course, someone can be passionate about what they mistake or imagine God to be.
Doesn’t life exist in, or rather, isn’t it comprised of, faithful relationships? It does not exist in faith but through faith.
@Dale, I left your comments without reply, so I could think through how to answer you as dispassionately as I am able.
In the context of his time, where reason and passion were set in opposition, and reason was used to dismember faith (see Kant and Hegel specifically) Kierkegaard recognized that reason did not offer a path to or support of faith. The Danish state church with its businesslike exercise of Christianity, and interest in Hegelian philosophy, required no faith at all, only adherence and the payment of fees.
Context matters. SK was, like we are, formed by the times in which he lived.
Arguing about precise definitions of faith and passion really is pointless. Particularly in this case, when Kierkegaard has developed his “definition” over many challenging publications.
You can argue about my written formulation of faith and passion, but that doesn’t indicate that you understood what Kierkegaard meant in the quote from Fear and Trembling. You certainly haven’t argued against Kierkegaard’s concept of faith as a passion.
Regarding your footnote, I do wonder at whom it is directed and what your purpose is in including such a nasty barb.
If you are interested in grasping what SK meant about faith being a passion, this may help.
Excerpts from Kierkegaard’s world, part 4: ‘The essentially human is passion’ by Clare Carlisle
At the end of his 1843 book Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard writes that passion is “the genuinely human quality”, and he adds that “the highest passion in a human being is faith”. Today we are used to hearing people talk of their passions, whether they are “passionate about football”, “passionate about music”, or “passionate about retail”. Such talk expresses enthusiasm, dedication, and often a thirst for success. It also indicates ways in which we find meaning and value in our lives. But what might it mean to regard passion is the most essential feature of the human being? What does Kierkegaard mean by passion?
In order to answer these questions, we need to look back at the philosophical tradition that Kierkegaard inherited. The dominant view within this tradition, from Plato and Aristotle through to Descartes, Spinoza and Kant, is that reason is the most important aspect of the human being. Philosophers have frequently opposed our capacity for rational thought to “the passions”, or the emotions, and many have argued that living a good human life involves controlling, subduing, or even eliminating one’s emotions and appetites. According to this view, reason ought to rule over the passions.
We can also trace through the history of philosophy a counter-movement which reverses this relationship between passion and reason. Kierkegaard might be located within this movement, alongside David Hume and the Romantic poets. When he emphasises passion, Kierkegaard challenges the idea that rational thought could or should encompass and direct human existence.
However, for Kierkegaard “passion” does not just signify emotion. More importantly, passion is a kind of desire. Again, this is an idea that Kierkegaard takes from the philosophical tradition.
… [removed for the sake of length, see article]
Kierkegaard was influenced by Plato’s philosophy as well as by the Platonism embedded in Christian thought, and in his lengthy book Concluding Unscientific Postscript he explains that his concept of passion owes much to Socrates’ discussion of Eros in The Symposium. Kierkegaard’s claim that passion is “the genuinely human quality” indicates that the human being is above all an erotic creature: a being who, conscious that she lacks something – including, perhaps, the knowledge of what this “something” is – reaches out beyond herself. In fact, this continual reaching out constitutes the movement of becoming what Kierkegaard identifies as “existence”.
…[removed for the sake of length, see article]
In a more specifically Christian context, Kierkegaard’s focus on passion as opposed to reason finds expression in his claim that Christian teachings are paradoxical. He regards the doctrine of the incarnation – the appearance of God in human form, of the eternal within history – as a paradox that cannot be thought. Reason certainly plays an important role in relating to this doctrine, since it is reason which recognises the paradox as a paradox. But rational thought comes to a halt in the face of a paradox, and cannot penetrate it or assimilate it. This means that the Christian can only appropriate the teaching of the incarnation by a passionate movement beyond the limitations detected by reason. This provides one indication of what Kierkegaard means when he describes faith as a passion.
Regarding this from F&T:
@Dale, You said this:
There are about 144 pages and 3 paragraphs that come before ththe sentence you are arguing against. Just reading the three paragraphs for understanding would have helped. The entire book and those three paragraphs and the few pages afterward are addressing the Danish christians, who had aligned themselves with Hegel’s philosophy, which teaches a progression of history, where faith is an immature step along the way. They sought to start with faith and go past it to better things. Kierkegaard spends the entire book fighting this view.
The point of the entire book is that coming to faith in God is the highest, best, most miraculous thing that can occur in a person’s life; there is no further destination or goal beyond faith.
In this last sentence from the quote, he is talking to Christians who are frustrated by the cultural push to “go further” than faith. “No”, he says. “Stop there; you have come as far as is possible; there is nowhere else to go, except backwards. But don’t just stand around. The struggle to get to the point of faith through the deep pain of anguish and doubt is over. Stay here and make your home in the life of faith in God. Rest in your Savior.”
For a fuller explanation, I recommend reading the book itself.
Such a directed nasty barb. How about a whole globe full of passionate religious extremists?
This raises a curious question, which then lead to an even more curious article:
Ask Hong what Kierkegaard would have made of Denmark’s flare-up with the Arab world, the attitude of Danes toward Islam, their reaction to seeing Danish consulates and embassies attacked and products boycotted, and he’s 30 years old again. Not a know-it-all, but a find-it-out. “Yes, that’s good!” he says, intrigued by the idea of Kierkegaard on Islam. “I’m not sure he had a copy of the Koran. Let’s see.”
Once more, because it bears repeating. This last bit is so beautiful.
And here is the point of the last bit, if it seems unclear:
But can’t faith grow? It’s not entirely unlike children, fun when they’re small, but it’s wonderful when they’re friends with their parents as adults.
Absolutely:
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.
Romans 4:5
It’s not about accumulating Brownie points or any of the other silly godless characterizations about gaining the ‘hereafter’.
That’s an interesting question in light what I quoted from the Epilogue of Fear and Trembling. In particular this last bit from the quote:
But the person who has come to faith—whether he be the remarkably gifted person or the simple person makes no difference—he does not remain standing at faith. Indeed, he would be indignant if someone said that to him, just as a lover would be offended if someone said that he had remained standing at love, for he would say, “I do not remain standing at all, for I have my life in it.”
The growth of faith is not the question of Fear and Trembling. The question is whether faith can exist at all in Kierkegaard’s generation, and if so under what circumstances in the widely held Hegelian philosophical structure and expectations of the time. One of the Hegelian expectations at the time was that religion was a stepping stone to some further, better stage in history. Faith (Religion), in Hegel’s view, was something that society would eventually be able to abandon as it pursued the ever higher goals of history.
See for example:
Furthermore, one should note that the Germanic ethos is not the final stage in history, and rather it is but a moment in the progression of Spirit.70 That is, Germanic socio-political customs and norms are the best that the world has yet encountered, but not the best that there will ever be.71 Hegel believes this to be so because there is still German history, and if it were a truly perfect, or completely rational national ethos, there would be no need for its people to continue to embrace and advance its history or codify the elements of Germanic culture, law, religion, and philosophy.72 Accordingly, Hegel claims that there are further stages in the advancement of God, or Spirit throughout the world, and it is only when all people in their respective nations unite to form truly individuated national spirits, will the world be historically complete.73 Hence, one may claim, that just as God realizes himself/herself as an infinite being who is free within reason, the populaces of the various nations of the earth are coming to understand the same but only in the worldly realm.74 Finally, Hegel continues by addressing what he understands to be the end of history, or the ultimate goal that God is nearing toward, and how the nations of the world will reflect that monumental achievement.
from: The Telos of History as Understood by Hegel - Inquiries Journal
Kierkegaard directly confronts this idea over and over and over in Fear and Trembling, demonstrating the impossibility of holding Christian faith while simultaneously holding Hegel’s view of faith in history. SK constantly reminds the reader of the futility of “going beyond faith.” He compares it to turning water into wine and then back to water again, for example. The person who tries to do something even greater than having faith actually undoes the miracle (and he emphasizes that faith is a miracle, beyond an individual’s power).
In light of Kierkegaard’s actual concerns addressed in F&T, growing in faith requires that one actually stop pursuing something “beyond faith.” As I mentioned before, he clearly states MANY times, that there IS no greater thing than to have faith, and that by attempting to “go beyond” faith, one actually undoes the miracle of faith and is left with nothing, not even her former life.
This view is in harmony with what you are saying. If one is going to grow in faith, then one needs to stop moving away from faith to some other goal. One must remain standing at faith. Become rooted. Find one’s life in faith – and in this Kierkegaard specifically means Christian faith, just as you and I do.
My copy of Margret Daly Denton’s commentary on John in the Earth Bible Commentary series arrived yesterday. Beautifully subtitled “Supposing him to the gardener”.
Here is a quote from the introduction which I felt was a rather accurate summary of the sinful attitudes that pervade many (mainly) Western approaches to the Natural World:
The biblical witness to… Israelite respect for the land challenges quite a few of the myths we live by today: our notion that the world’s resources exist purely for the benefit of humankind; our trust in the ‘omnicompetence’ of science; our presumption that just because we have the technology to modify natural processes, we have the right to do so; ‘the fantasy of that human ingenuity runs up against limits only to overcome them’; ‘the notion that all natural things are valueless in themselves, merely petty extras, expendable, either secondary to human purposes, or actually pernicious,’ to mention a few.
I was particularly struck by her use of the phrase about the ‘omnicompetence of science’. For sure, science has solved many a problem. But I wonder, when one crosses the line from ‘science might’ to ‘science will’, has such a person also crossed over into the realm of idolatry?
Source: M Daly-Denton, John: An Earth Bible Commentary, 2017, 4-5
Okay - it’s not pithy. And it’s not a quote of somebody else - but me just shamelessly sharing my own morning thought here. I wish there was a pithy version of this though - since it’s rather long to write up on the top of my board at school. But maybe still worth it, given that during finals week the board isn’t needed for much else!
The season for bridge builders here may be past, since nobody builds bridges long enough. The most needed mission tools now are ladders. Ladders to lower down to the many mired deep in their distant partisan pits, that at least some might begin to crawl back up again into the clearer airs of truth and vision. Are you able to be such a missionary? If so, you are one of the few. Be on your knees for your neighbors and leaders, members of your own families and communities – for each other.
What made me think of this was when I learned of how Musk’s recent choice to head Twitter was being attacked from the right for how far left she is, and attacked from the left for how far right she is. My thought was … Oh - maybe Elon was fancying he was going to hire a ‘bridge builder’! (I don’t really keep up with billionaire intrigue and have never followed or cared about Twitter). But in any case, it made me think that in our current situation, most bridges are just islands. Bridges from nowhere to nowhere.
Once I saw it, I’ve always thought it wonderful how Paul wrote about the coequal principles of justice.
Seems to be a a bit of pith there. Blessed are the peacemakers as they catch it from both sides.
You describe tough work. It seems more comfortable down in the mire for many, and your emphasis on prayer is appropriate.
Oh how I’m sure Paul would have been seen as down in the mire, especially to some of the religionists of our day… I mean surely without a doubt 
Just imagine if he were here now and saw the things that are said in polite conversation… I’m not sure if he would have prayed for judgement or pleaded for mercy. It would be something to have him here and to see what he would say. However, I know for a fact he would not stop preaching the Gospel or minimize the glory of Jesus Christ.
So … does this qualify as a ‘pithy’ summary of Romans? After our Sunday school has spent several Sundays developing some marginal notes and commentary for that last section of Romans 1, - from the discussion I felt inspired to attempt an elevator pitch for the entire book. Just think - if Tertius had been this succinct, (or Silvanus or Moses and the prophets), we could all be fussing to high heaven over a pamphlet instead of a compendium, right?
Merv’s very brief commentary on Romans
Chapter 1. Hey – you see all those people out there? They’re pretty bad, aren’t they!
Chapter 2. And you think you’re any better? Think again. It takes one to know one. *
Chapter 3. In case you didn’t get that last point: let me repeat. Nobody has what it takes. Nobody.
Chapter 4. So all that stuff you’ve been using to separate yourself from the evil riffraff out there? -That’s not what real faith has ever been about.
Chapter 5. The answer to all this: Jesus. So now you don’t have to be ruled by death and sin.
Chapter 6. Just in case that last point escaped you: Don’t let sin continue to rule over you.
Chapter 7. And yeah – I’m definitely preaching to myself here as well. I feel it all too.
Chapter 8. But despite all our brokenness, God’s got this. We are not left to our fate or thrown away.
Chapter 9. Ahh! For my own people! So are they lost then? Turns out that God uses some groups to reach out to others in surprising ways.
Chapter 10. And to you original chosen ones whom God used to reach into the world, and who ended up straying after other gods: Just check out those ‘outsiders’ who did hear and respond to my message! Yeah – jealousy is a thing, and I can use it too.
Chapter 11. But now, you former outsiders who now may have pride in your own turn… Do you think you’re better than the original branches? Think again. If they could get cut off, so can you.
Chapter 12. Great – with that all behind us, now check out what we’re all supposed to be about: love; love everybody just as you love and value all the diverse members of your own body.
Chapter 13. And let’s be orderly about this!
Chapter 14. And just in case you still haven’t picked up on all this, there’s a lot more important stuff going on now than the petty stuff we still tend to bicker over.
Chapter 15. So now, get out there – work and rejoice that your family is much bigger than it once was! And others of you rejoice that you’ve been added to the family!
Chapter 16. And my, what a team we’ve got! Keep up the good work, and say ‘hi’ to everybody for me.
- With debt to Myrna Bartel reading from ‘The Message’ for the “It takes one to know one” phrase.
But there would appear to be an infinite number of both grammatical and ungrammatical sentences… So how do we do it? Perhaps the most influential of modern linguists, Noam Chomsky, suggested that we can do this because the infinite collections are encapsulated in a finite set of rules that are hard-wired into us; that evolution has programmed us with an innate grammar. Could logic be the same? Are the rules of logic hard-wired into us in the same way?
Graham Priest, Logic: A Very Short Introduction
(For higher resolution, click on image or link.)
It’s a similar theme to Laura Story’s “Blessings”:
(Today’s M&Es are good, too: a.m. & p.m.)
(“Have us nearer he will” sounds like Yoda. )
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
