LUTHERAN BRETHREN SEMINARY

Kierkegaard, Post-modernism, and the Church of the Post-modern Epoch

by

Logun Moe
May 3, 2022

0
 Introduction

Soren Kierkegaard was a 19th century religious thinker who has had a deep influence on

post-modern thought. He is widely considered one of the first existentialists, and even praised as

the father of existentialism by many, and has been given a seat at the table of contemporary

philosophers, political theorists, and religious thinkers alike. Kierkegaard’s religious and

philosophical thought has deeply seeded itself in the post-modern world through his brilliant and

inquisitive writings that questioned power structures, objectivity, the self, and even the very

conclusions he, himself, propounded. This essay will make the obvious claim that Kierkegaard

has influenced postmodernity, and will attempt to prove this by showing just some of the many

ways in which he has become a voice for post-modern thought. Further, given the ecclesiological

and historiological purposes of this essay, it will also be shown that Kierkegaard acts as a sort of

‘post-modern-prophet’ showing the contemporary church it’s need for a dedicated pursuit of

truth in the midst of a church culture that all too often rests in the status quo of regurgitated

‘faith’ beside a world of seekers longing for true religious experience.

This will be accomplished by focusing on three elements of Kierkegaard’s writings and

thought, which are predominately used by scholars in post-modern scholarship, and which

subsequently fit well within the generally accepted subset of postmodern categories. These

elements are Kierkegaard’s use of subjectivity, his deconstructionism, and his anti-

institutionalism. Kierkegaard’s use and understanding of these methods will be explored, as well

the attempted Kierkegaardian implementation of these paradigms by post-modern scholars.

Kierkegaard’s influence on post-modernity will further be shown by starting out with a portrayal

of the life and time of Kierkegaard in such a way, so as to draw, the obvious connection between

1
his works and culture, and his influence on the post-modern epoch, while also giving a brief and

genuine look Kierkegaard as a man (this exploration of the life, time, and works of Kierkegaard

will also serve to show, however subtly, that the aforementioned tenets of post-modernism were

at play in his life). It is in a similar fashion that this essay will end, tying together all the

aforementioned in a conclusion which recapitulates Kierkegaard’s influence on postmodernity,

and the need for Kierkegaardian voices in the contemporary church today in order to spur on a

genuine faith in the elect of Christ as they — as Kierkegaard would say — “become Christian.”

The Life and Time of Kierkegaard

Soren Kierkegaard was born 5 May 1813 in Copenhagen, Denmark, and died 11

November 1855, in the same city of his birth.1 In birth, death, and life Kierkegaard remained

close to home. It seems that he reserved his adventures for the inward exploration of faith and

intellect, rather than of the world and it’s pursuits. He opted, instead, to live a rather domestic

life, travelling less than six times, and going only to Sweden and Germany – quite likely for

some type of intellectual affair.2 Kierkegaard spent much of his time (when not involved in

intellectual endeavors or writing) walking through the streets of Copenhagen, or taking leisurely

carriage rides through the nearby country-side. In fact Kierkegaard’s wanderings through the

streets of Copenhagen, has to some, been interpretated as a selfish necessity, since the extreme

intellectual needed a variety of other minds to interact with in order to produce his many works

which touch on the human experience. But Kierkegaard clearly had a motive for expressing a

common nature with the fellow man. As an upperclassman and Christian, Kierkegaard seems to

1
Lissa McCullough, “Kierkegaard, Søren,” The Routledge Encyclopedia of Postmodernism, ed. Victor E.
Taylor and Charles E. Winquist (London: Routledge, 2001), 1
2
McDonald, William, "Søren Kierkegaard", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/kierkegaard/>., 1

2
have felt a desire to connect with humanity from all walks of life, as an outward expression of

the love and life of the God-man Jesus, whom he followed.

Kierkegaard’s quiet life was, however, not due to only a quiet humility, or desire for

peace, or religion, necessarily, but also, it seems to come from a deep inwardness that pervaded

his life from an early age until his death.3 This inwardness required his earnest attention and

meditation. It seems have deeply guided him and infected his writings and life. Eventually this

inwardness would become one of the guide-posts for post-modern Kierkegaardian scholars.

It was this type of inwardness that lead to Kierkegaard’s fame, as he fiercely rebuked,

and stood against, those systems of social and philosophical orders that, in Kierkegaard’s mind,

left the human as a simple observer or “third-person,” rather than an engaged member of society

and faith.4 Kierkegaard felt that the Danish Lutheran State Church had failed miserably and had

made faith too easy, and therefore not genuine, and even, according to McCullough, “neo-

pagan.”5 To Kierkegaard, this was a result, not only of the state church, but of the rise of

Hegelianism, and of the reliance on scientific method, and human reason.6

As these ideals pervaded Denmark and the Church, Kierkegaard was hit close to home, as

even his own father and brother became members of this dogmatized and rationalized Church,

with his brother becoming a Bishop later in life, and his father often rubbing shoulders with the

religious elite, as a well-off nobleman, and intellectual.7 Kierkegaard’s familial ties to the upper

echelons of the State Church likely kept him from rebellious public discourse towards the

3
McDonald, 2017
4
McCullough, 2001, 7.
5
McCullough, 2001, 7.
6
This statement comes from multiple sources and pervades almost any work on Kierkegaard that I’ve
found. But see McCullough, 2001, 2 for a bulk of this information.
7
McDonald, 2017.

3
Church, but upon his fathers death, Kierkegaard began speaking out against the hypocrisy of the

Church, which culminated in a full on “Attack on Christendom” in 1854-1855.8

Following his father’s death, Kierkegaard almost immediately (within days) broke his

engagement to hi betrothed, Regine Olsen, writing later in his Journal that he was made free by

this break to pursue his academics, and religious calling.9 However, it has been duly noted that

miss Olsen remained his muse throughout his life, and that he considered his giving her up a

sacrifice for religious duty.10 The connection between the loss of his father and the giving up of

his betrothed, must have some psychological cause, but it seems that Kierkegaard viewed it is as

a spiritual calling to deepen his focus on writings.

It was following these losses that he began to get embroiled in arguments, as with his

rival Martensen, who, as a teacher of Kierkegaard knew he was working on collection regarding

Faust, and so published his own work on Faust before Kierkegaard, causing Kieekegaard to

abandon the work, at least for a time.11 Martensen would later become bishop.12 Beginning in

1846, Kierkegaard would become involved in a lengthier battle with another academic rival and

former teacher, Moler, over petty writings towards Kierkegaard in a satirical Magazine, The

Corsair.13 Nonetheless this battle was one Kierkegaard claimed to undertake as a spiritual one,

since he felt Moler’s public and private immorality justified it.14 These intellectual battles show

Kierkegaard’s growing reluctance to overlook the status quo, and his deepening desire to speak

against the hypocrisy and detachment from true faith that he saw appearing socio-ecclesiastical

life of Copenhagen and Denmark.

4
 While Kierkegaard’s religo-socio-political life was affected his family’s natural

intermingling with it, he nonetheless seemed to have had a happy relationship with them all.

According to Kierkegaards niece, his parents’ rearing was stern, and serious, yet afforded them

much time for youthfulness, and allowed Soren’s wit and satire to become a dominant trait

within him which was free to roam in the Kierkegaard household.15 Kierkegaard’s wit and

intellect is often credited as coming from his father, who shared a great love for philosophy and

education, and no doubt had a great influence on the intellectual that Soren turned out to

become.16

Kierkegaard’s father was a rationalist who raised the family in a mixture of Lutheran

State Church doctrinal adherence and heartfelt Moravian pietism.17 This religious upbringing

very likely had an influence on Kierkegaard’s writing which largely pertained to finding true,

and felt Christian practice, within a doctrinally dominant church-society. Soren seemed to have

had great relationship with his father, writing in his Journals concerning him, upon his death, “I

so deeply desired that he would have lived a few more years… he was a faithful friend.”18 Of his

mother, however, Kierkegaard wrote nothing. Not a word anywhere, even upon her death.

However, as McDonald points out, Kierkegaard may have had only the deepest love for his

mother, and his lack of speech of her may have been the greatest display of affection and honour,

since he says in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript, “an omnipresent being, makes himself

known by his invisibiblity.”19 And so, while he used his own form of literary communication, it

seems that Kierkegaard’s absence of writing of his mother is the very thing that spoke of it. This

15
Wikipedia, 2022.
16
McDonald, 2017
17
Roberts, Kyle. Emerging Prophet: Kierkegaard and the Postmodern People of God (p. 7). Cascade Books,
an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition, 7.
18
Wikipedia, 2022.
19
McDonald, 2017.

5
is also the possible cause of his brother saying that Kierkegaard’s love for his mother would be

made known by volumes of which he wrote of her.20 This is the type of literary wit, that

Kierkegaard is said to have had by many scholars, especially post-modern ones, making him a

difficult read, even for those most acquainted with him.

The Works of Kierkegaard

For those who study Kierkegaard he is a brilliant poet of aestheticism, as well as a

sophisticated literary pedant of almost all disciplines. Nevertheless he remains most noted as a

religious writer, which is something he seemed to have wanted.21

Kierkegaards works can be mostly broken down into 2 categories: his Pseudonymous

writings, and his Upbuilding Discourses.22 Kierkegaard’s Pseudonymous writings are those

which are written by him, but published under pseudonyms. They tend to deal with more abstract

topics and do not necessarily represent his own views, but might be considered a sort of

philosophical thought experiment.23 Interestingly, Kierkegaard said of Hegel (whose philosophy

Kierkegaard is most famous for denying), that had he presented his own ideas as a thought

experiment rather than truth, Hegel would have been the greatest philosopher to every live,

however in presenting his ideas as truth, Kierkegaard felt Hegel instead was among the worst.24

Nonetheless it seems wrong to conclude that Kierkegaard did not believe the conclusions of his

pseudonymous writings. Rather his pseudonymous writings served a purpose other than

expounding the truth as he saw it. Kierkegaard’s main goal in writing anything is widely

20
McDonald, 2017. My research on this specific point is not deep, but this sounds like it could be hearsay.
Other sources have shown that some of McDonald’s work in this source may have relied on other elements of
disputed histories.
21
Evans, 2009, 1
22
Evans, 2009, 2
23
Evans, 2009, 2
24

6
understood as pushing the reader towards their own existential “becoming” as humans and as

Christians. 25 Thus, Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous writers likely were in more of a position to

subtlety prompt the reader into becoming on their own accord, rather than being told what to be

and who to be it by yet another religious authority. While Kierkegaard took authorial ownership

of his pseudonymous writers as the editor of their works, he nonetheless recommended that these

works be read as if written by their pseudonymous authors, and not him in order to properly

understand them.26

Kierkegaard’s Upbuilding (or “Edifying”) Discourses is the second category of his

writings. Of these he wrote over 25 Discourses over a ten year period, ending in 1841, at age

38.27 These writings tend to focus on religious matters (though not strictly, and not as though the

pseudonymous writing don’t focus on religion), and tend to be written under his own name.28

These discourses are the writings of Kierkegaard which he himself claimed to be his own point

of view (as opposed to the pseudonymous thought experiments).29 Further as Pattison puts

succinctly, “The discourses are not thought experiments, but offer real input into real

problems.”30 Thus, while the Discourses and Pseudonymous Writings are separated by all the

aforementioned, the main difference between them is that the Discourses are direct and concrete

and the Pseudonymous Writings are indirect and abstract—The recognition of this difference

puts a kink in the arguments for some extreme postmodern usages of Kierkegaard as it shows

him as entering into the world of concrete, even modern thought, and to some, puts him into the

25
Roberts, 1.
26
Roberts, 9.
27
Pattison, George, Soren Kirkegaard, Spiritual Writings, A New Translation and Selection by George
Pattison (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010), xvii
28
Evans, 2009, 2.
29
Pattison, 2010, xii.
30
Pattison, 2010, xiii

7
very system he was against.31 But despite this Kierkegaard maintains much of his anti-

authoritarianism through indirect communication in these Discourses inviting the reader to

become, rather than be made by the world.32 This keeps in line with his broadly accepted

subjective existentialism, as well as his theory of the individuals’ movement from religiousness

A to religiousness B (or in short, from a declared religiousness to a truly practiced one).33

Within these works, both the Pseudonymous and the Discourses, are found themes which

have influenced the postmodern epoch, namely (for the purposes of this essay), subjectivity,

deconstructionism, and anti-institutionalism. These themes have been very briefly mentioned in

the introduction to Kierkegaards Life, Time, and Works, but now some these tenets will be

explored more specifically, though, however, brief.

Kierkegaard and Subjectivity

First, for Kierkegaard, and most post-modern Kierkegaardian scholars, subjectivity is a

more precise word than it’s common usage implies. For the common post-modernist, or anti-

postmodernist for that matter, subjectivity implies a sort of relative truthfulness wherein the

subject decides truth. However, for Kierkegaard subjectivity is, in fact, the only way to

experience truth.34 This comes from the development of religious experience that Kierkegaard

saw in Denmark (which has been introduced to this essay previously), which allowed the one

experiencing it to become an onlooker, where the question of ones faith was not in regard to the

31
While this is true, the purposes of this essay are not to declare Kierkegaard a postmodernist. He clearly
was not for many reasons. However it is to show that Kierkegaard has been shown to be (often accurately) an
influence on postmodernity and that his work offers good insight for the Christian of the post modern epoch.
32
Pattison, 2010, xiii.
33
Shrag, Calvin, O. “The Kierkegaard Effect in Shaping the Contours of Modernity.” In Kierkegaard in
Post/modernity, Edited by Martin J. Matsustik and Merold Westphal, Germany: Indiana University Press, 1995, 9.
34
Jegstrup, Elsebet. “A Questioning of Justice: Kierkegaard, the Postmodern Critique and Political Theory.”
Political Theory 23, no. 3 (1995): 425–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/191752, 3.

8
individuals actual experience of the object of their faith and their relationship together, but rather

it became about simply confessing a doctrine given to the masses from the authorities.

This, to Kierkegaard, was the result of Hegelian objectivity. For Kierkegaard, if one did

not experience a subjective faith, there was none to be had. This, in part, is because the

relationship of the subject to the object of faith is dependent on the objects ability to work in the

subject, to develop it’s faith or religiousness.35 This is expressed through Kierkegaard’s

development of Life’s Stages between the aesthete, to the ethical, to the religious. 36 Thus, for

Kierkegaard, subjectivity is the exact opposite of contemporary relativism (and the

misconception of subjectivity), as it, in fact leads the subject to the Absolute truth, namely God.

However, as it has been previously mentioned, Kierkegaard seems to leave room for the

religiousness of a person to be developed without the exact reference to “God” so as to allow for

the subjects own “becoming.” This again is important as the context of Kierkegaard’s writing

was in and against the modern scientific movement, and its chokehold on genuine faith.

This subjectivity coincides with what is referred to as the singular universal, a

Kierkegaardian concept which Sarte spent much time deliberating upon and, ultimately, making

his own.37 Within this understanding, the ‘singular’, or the subject, becomes engaged the

universal—and even becomes it—only through subjective experience.38 For Kierkegaard the

universal has been said to be God, but his language is unclear, and makes it appear that the

universal is, vaguely, something greater than the self. This is seen in Fear and Trembling where

in one instance he says “the ethical is the universal,” and later “the…individual[s].. task…is to

35
Schrag, 1995, 7.
36
Schrag, 1995, 6.
37
McBride, Willian, L. “Sartes Debt to Kierkegaard: A Partial Reckoning.” In Kierkegaard in Post/modernity,
Edited by Martin J. Matsustik and Merold Westphal, Germany: Indiana University Press, 1995, 18.
38
Kierkegaard, Soren. “Fear and Trembling.” In A Kierkegaard Anthology, edited by Robert Bretall.
Princeton University Press, NJ. 1973, 129.

9
become the universal.” What is also possible is that the universal is the “whole” or the “other[s].”

And so for Kierkegaard, the way to experience the whole (universal), is to first experience the

subject (singular). Thus in short, subjectivity is the first necessity in becoming, or existing, or

engaging in truth.

Kierkegaard and Anti-Institutionalism

Anti-institutionalism, for Kierkegaard, had much to do with the Danish Lutheran Church,

and Hegelianism. These were his enemies, in many ways, upon whom he released his quiver of

fiery words. They created the very systems that Kierkegaard felt were contrived and leading

people away from truth by their obnoxious demands. From the faults of these two systems grew

Kierkegaard’s anti-institutionalism which spread to almost any and every system, even reality

itself.39

While Kierkegaard’s dismissal of these institutions is founded in spiritual uprightness, it

may also be true that his own wild spirit had some to do with it. Kierkegaard’s upbringing may

have been harsh or stern, according to Gonzalez, and this may have lead to nurtured anti-

authoritarianism in him.40 While Kierkegaard was oft well-behaved as a boy he was also known

to get into altercations at school, and disregard his teachers.41 Thus, as it is with all of us, his anti-

institutionalism may have been due to more than an intellectual or spiritual yearning for truth,

but also to do with an emotional, or more carnal reaction to, life around him. Regardless,

Kierkegaard’s anti-institutionalism was, as first stated, in response to the debilitation of the

Populus to be truly Christian, due to the systems that were put in place by those with power and

authority.
39
González, Justo L.. The Story of Christianity: The early church to the reformation. Volume 1. United
States: HarperCollins, 2010, 291.
40
Gonzalez, 2010, 289
41
Wikipedia, 2022.

10
 As we see in Elsebet Jegstrup’s A Questioning of Justice, Kierkegaards anti-

institutionalism was something that went beyond a hatred of the systems, and into an outright

disbelief in them. This is seen in Kierkegaard dismissal of “constructed justice” for a type of

justice that is “beyond.” Kierkegaard felt that all justice systems, that were constructed by man,

would be misconstrued, and thus would not be justice at all.42 Nonetheless this need for justice

shows the probable existence of Justice, and thus if the justice is not available to us on earth, it

points to an external justice, expressed, attained, and fulfilled through love.43 This external

justice of love, clearly points to God, and further fulfills the law in distinctly Christian way. Thus

for Kierkegaard, even though he may have had an innate anti-authoritarianism, his anti-

institutionalism, was not a selfish denial of the systems or people he disliked. Rather it was yet

another way of eliminating the delusions of objectivity from oneself, and instead allowing for the

individual to subjectively engage with the Absolute, and enter the journey of becoming through

It. Further his anti-institutionalism showed the utter inability of the system (and of human reason,

and of modernity, etc.) to attain true religiousness or true Christianity.

Kierekgaards Deconstructionism

In many ways Kierkegaard’s deconstructionism gets to the heart of him, and to the heart

of post-modernity’s love and use for him. As mentioned above Kierkegaard had grown to believe

that systems were no good, and that if reality itself became a system or was at least viewed as a

system, there would be no real truth that was experientable, as it would dwell within the confines

of seeking an objective truth to understand, rather than to experience and live in its reality. It is to

this extent, then, that Kierkegaard is a deconstructionist. Where a system exists, Kierkegaard

42
Jegstrup, 1995, 432.
43
Jegstrup, 1995, 432.

11
would deconstruct it.44 At least this is the hope of the post-modernist who longs to see an end to

those systems in which it is confined, although ironically post-modernism itself is a system,

which is deconstructed through Kierkegaardian deconstructionism.

Kierkegaard’s deconstructionism is not limited to others and their systems, but are also

applied to himself. As Pattison points out, Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous writings have critiqued

his Discourses, or at least posed questions to them, and vise versa.45 Thus it seems that for

Kierkegaard to deconstruct is to let go of the self, and especially of the self that may be

contrived, and as has been shown elsewhere in this essay, to allow the Absolute (God) to

construct the subject (or in God’s case, the object).

This must be why the lack of systems is so important for Kierkegaard. If the system is the

thing upon which the human is relying on to become what God intends to make it, then the

system must be perfectly correct, since the system is the thing producing the becoming of the

individual. However, as Kierkegaard knew, and expounded upon as his “sine qua non,” the

human being is inherently sinful, and thus the system it contrives cannot be perfect, nor very

good at all.46 Thus the true constructing (by God) of the individual from the aesthete to the

ethical to the truly religious, not only involves, but requires simultaneous deconstructing.

It's easy to see how the post-modern extremist might enjoy Kierkegaard’s ferocious

deconstructionism, especially as it pertains to power structures, but true Kierkegaardian

deconstruction cares far more of self-deconstruction to the glory and power of God, than to the

disestablishment of the structures that be, and those postmodernists who adhere to

44
This may be a stretch. I have limited experience with Kierkegaard and need to rely only on what my
research has given me as well as the implications of that research, this statement would be an implication thereof.
45
Pattison, 2010, xv.
46
McCullough, 2001, 3.

12
Kierkegaardian philosophy must undergo their own deconstruction of post-modernism, for the

sake of their own subjective experience of the Absolute.

Kierkegaard and the Church of the Contemporary Postmodern Epoch

Kierkegaard’s influence on postmodernity is made quite obvious by the sheer volume of

postmodern scholarship on him, and by the appropriation of him in such scholarship for the

benefit of the (post-modern) authors purposes. It is also very easy to see why this is so, for, as

shown above Kierkegaard is very clearly in line with at least several post-modern ideals, and one

does not need to twist his words to make him appear so. Kierkegaard, through his subjectivity,

anti-institutionalism, and deconstructionism, shared much in common with those who identify

within the framework of the postmodern era.

However, Kierkegaard’s post-modern (or, more accurately, his anti-modernist) approach

to intellectualism spawns from a deeply biblical and Christian place. He was not anti-modern in

the same sense as a post-modernist today. But, the fact is that neither do most postmodernists

today, fit into the stereotypical extremes of post-modernism . This is because post modernism is

not a black or white issue, but rather it is most epitomized as a reaction to modernism. 47

With the definition of Postmodernism being best put forth as a reaction to modernism, it

becomes clear that the divergence from a specific “system” of thought which would define post-

modernism is likely, and therefore the diversity of thought within this post-modern epoch is

wide. This sea of thought becomes even larger when Christian believers identify within post

modernism, given the paradoxical theology of the bible (namely the tension between the

existence of absolute truth and the humans seeming inability to fully grasp such absolute

47
Thompson, Glendon, “Postmodern Theology.” April 8, 2020.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/postmodern-theology/

13
knowledge, or as some call it falsely call it, “relativism”). Even more is the sea broadened when

considering the contemporary global and pluralistic world. Thus post-modernism does need to be

defined in radical such terms as Nietzche would describe wherein there are no facts, no god, only

nihilism, nor does this narrative need to be echoed by conservative reactionaries to post-

modernism.48

Rather post-modernism can be broader, more inclusive, and more Kierkegaardian,

wherein all who are seeking a personal truth, that goes beyond “truths” and enters into a great

beyond, wherein one is relinquished form the truth of the System, and freed from the shackles of

the world, and found in the hands of an undeniable Absolute, which does not deny the heart of

the post-modern quest for Truth (whether this object of the quest is known, or unknown to the

seeker) beyond systemic “truths.” Indeed the Kierkegaardian concepts which influence post-

modernism flip post-modernism on it’s head, deconstructing it, re-subjecting it to the subject

looking upon it, and tearing down the systems which have been built around that which aimed to

be against the system. When Kierkegaard is used as lens for post-modernism, he allows post-

modernism to re-find itself.

Furthermore Kierkegaard invites the church of the post-modern epoch to do the same. He

invites the church to tear down its wall from both sides: those who find themselves as anti-

modernist, and those who are anti-postmodernist; those are who extreme and those who are not.

Ultimately Kierkegaard invites the post-modern epoch into a new post-modernism, into and era

of deconstructionism, wherein we truly deconstruct by allowing God to be the deconstructionist.

Kierkegaard calls the contemporary church to becomes subject of experience, rather than

48
Thompson, 2020.

14
onlookers upon facts and theories. He calls us to take a leap into the unknown, to relinquish our

systems, and join together from all sides into a free becoming.

When considering Soren Kirkegaard’s life, time, and works it is clear that there is much

in common between the post-modernist and the late Kierkegaard, and indeed he has been

accommodated to the post-modern world. But Kierkegaard transcends post-modernism in that he

is both too radical, and to near to modernism, for the average post-modernist, as he calls the

individual to an impossible subjective deconstruction that leads to an absolute beyond all

comprehension. And while this Kierkegaardian “post-modernism” does not fit perfectly into the

contemporary post-modern society, it may be far truer to post-modernism than the current

version thereof, in it’s unwavering commitment to subjectivity, deconstructionism, and anti-

institutionalism. Further Kierkegaard’s “post-modernism” broadens the gate of entry to the

increasingly pluralistic post-modern epoch, welcoming them, and calling them to subjective

deconstruction which might lead them to and impossible faith given by Christ. And it is this

same approach that the church of the post-modern epoch ought to learn from. It is no longer a

time wherein the church can, as in Kierkegaard’s day, allow for membership in the system of

church to account for the true experience of faith with the living God. Nor, can it put up boarders

between those true seekers who, while outside the doors of the Church, are not outside the call of

God. The church ought to take notes of Kierkegaard and bring itself under a radical subjectivity,

questioning it’s own being in Christ, rather than the being of others in Christ, and instead

welcome the outsiders and objective onlookers, into as subjective experience with the living

God, as we all, together, become Christian, without the helps of systems, but only by the mercy

of God.

Conclusion

15
 This essay has surveyed the life, time and works of Kierkegaard, and has further done so

in in the context of his subjectivity, anti-institutionalism, and deconstructionism so as to show

the influence on, and relevance to, post-modernism that he has had. In so doing Kierkegaard has

been shown to be a fierce intellectual with an innate desire to experience truth, and specifically

spiritual truth over and above gazing upon objective facts from afar. Kierkegaard fought against

the establishment of what he understood to be a false Church (Danish Lutheran Church) and

philosophy (scientism), and implemented his unwavering subjectivity instead, as the answer to

true faith in a world where faith was being lost. The lost world of Kierkegaard’s day is not unlike

the lost world of today. The advantage of today is that much of the ideas Kierkegaard put forth in

a war on the Church and on Modernism have been accepted, and therefore the Church today

ought to learn from Kierkegaard and reach our world through a radical Kierkegaardian

evangelization of theContemporary Post-Modern Epoch.

References
McCullough, Lissa, “Kierkegaard, Søren,” The Routledge Encyclopedia of Postmodernism, ed.
Victor E. Taylor and Charles E. Winquist. London: Routledge, 2001.
McDonald, William, "Søren Kierkegaard", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter
2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta
(ed.),<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/kierkegaard/>.

Soren Kirkegaard, Wikipedia, 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard

Roberts, Kyle. Emerging Prophet: Kierkegaard and the Postmodern People of God. Cascade
Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Evans, C. Stephen. Kierkegaard: An Introduction. United Kingdom: Cambridge University

16
Pattison, George, Soren Kirkegaard, Spiritual Writings, A New Translation and Selection by
George Pattison. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010
Shrag, Calvin, O. “The Kierkegaard Effect in Shaping the Contours of Modernity.” In
Kierkegaard in Post/modernity, Edited by Martin J. Matsustik and Merold
Westphal, Germany: Indiana University Press, 1995.
González, Justo L.. The Story of Christianity: The early church to the reformation. Volume
1. United States: HarperCollins, 2010.
Thompson, Glendon, “Postmodern Theology.” April 8, 2020.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/postmodern-theology/
Jegstrup, Elsebet. “A Questioning of Justice: Kierkegaard, the Postmodern Critique and Political
Theory.” Political Theory 23, no. 3 (1995): 425–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/191752.
McBride, Willian, L. “Sartes Debt to Kierkegaard: A Partial Reckoning.” In Kierkegaard in
Post/modernity, Edited by Martin J. Matsustik and Merold Westphal, Germany: Indiana
University Press, 1995
Kierkegaard, Soren. “Fear and Trembling.” In A Kierkegaard Anthology, edited by Robert
Bretall. Princeton University Press, NJ. 1973

17