On Kierkegaard and the Suspension of the Ethical November 21, 2011
Posted by Matt in theology.Tags: Abraham, Alameda, EFM, Elliott Smith, god, Isaac, Kant, morality, Soren Kierkegaard, teleological suspension of the ethical, theology
2 comments
I’ll return to the Awake My Soul series soon, maybe following the Thanksgiving holiday, but today I had another subject to bring up for discussion and perhaps find some additional insight.
Last week’s EfM (Education for Ministry) reading took me to the story of Abraham, namely that which regards his near-sacrifice of his son, Isaac. Now, I have read this story numerous times in the past, but this time I did so with a more critical eye and came away with some perplexing questions.
First, of course, I read the Biblical account, followed by the EfM notes regarding it, and then quickly reread Soren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, to give a little extra understanding and perspective on the story. I’m sure most of you are familiar with the patriarchal tale, but in case you are not, this recounts God’s telling Abraham to sacrifice the son promised to him, Isaac. Abraham goes to do so, but God stops him at the last minute, instead sending an animal for sacrifice, thus rendering the faith of Abraham as the standard by which to live.
The story bothers me on a number of accounts. What does it say about Abraham that he was willing to bargain with God for the lives of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but went along unquestioningly when it involved his own son? What does it say for the character of God to order such an action, regardless of the fact that a scapegoat, as it were, was introduced at the last minute?
Kierkegaard explains this long-standing quandary by appealing to what he terms, a “teleological suspension of the ethical,” meaning that God’s ways are higher and more important than those principles we regard as moral, those presumably put in place by God. He goes on to call Abraham a “knight of faith,” for going against human moral conventions in his “infinite resignation” to the will of God and in his “absolute duty to God.”
In my view that makes God out to be quite manipulative and capricious, with an arbitrary attitude toward morality. Believe me, I’m no Kantian moral absolutist. I believe that laws and ethics have a highly situational aspect to them. At the same time, I do not at all buy into the maxim that “the ends justify the means,” a short sentence that can be used to justify everything from relatively inconsequential actions to dropping an atomic bomb.
So, I’m torn and like everyone else I do not have a satisfactory answer. Instead, I’ll turn to the tragic existentialist poet Elliott Smith, whose sadness and beauty shown like a dimly lit star, one snuffed out some eight years ago. These are the lyrics to his song “Alameda.”
You walk down Alameda
Shuffling your deck of trick cards over everyone
Like some precious only son
Face down, bow to the champion
You walk down Alameda
Looking at the cracks in the sidewalk
Thinking about your friends
How you maintain all of them in a constant state of suspense
For your own protection over their affection
Nobody broke you heart
You broke your own because you can’t finish what you start
Walk down Alameda
Brushing off the nightmares you wish
Could plague me when I’m awake
And now you see your first mistake
Was thinking that you could relate
For one or two minutes she liked you
But the fix is in
You’re all pretension
I never pay attention
Nobody broke your heart
You broke your own because you can’t finish what you start
Nobody broke your heart
You broke your own because you can’t finish what you start
Nobody broke your heart
You broke your own because you can’t finish what you start
If you’re alone it must be you that wants to be apart.
On Abraham and Sacrifice June 27, 2011
Posted by Matt in religion.Tags: Abraham, faith, hyperbole, infinite resignation, Isaac, Kierkegaard, myth, sacrifice
2 comments
Yesterday’s reading in church was a story that has long been a conundrum for thinking Christians and others who study the Bible. It has been debated and discussed, dissected and digested over and over again, yet still the tale remains a sticking point for many with no end in sight.
The passage in question is Genesis 22:1-18, the testing of Abraham, when God told him to sacrifice his son, Isaac.
It’s an interesting passage in that it opens up varied avenues of discussion. There are those who say that the story, in its most literal sense, is truly God testing Abraham. Then there are those who argue that this interpretation makes God seem petty and manipulative, a far cry from the idea of God as the personification of love. I’ve heard it said that perhaps Abraham was sacrificing his son to pagan gods, like those worshipped by the surrounding people, and that he had a sort of “Damascus moment,” and this story was then interpreted by writers centuries later. I have another friend, a former minister, who says that we shouldn’t discount the idea that Abraham was insane.
In class, I brought up for discussion the concept of “infinite resignation” as stated by Soren Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling. In his harrowing retelling of this story, Kierkegaard describes the final mindset of Abraham as one of infinite resignation, “the last stage before faith, so anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith, for only in infinite resignation does an individual become conscious of his eternal validity, and only then can one speak of grasping existence by virtue of faith.”
In my own view I see this story, when taken literally, as one contrary to the character of God that we see in much of the Bible, but that does not mean that the story itself is without merit. I see where it has value as a hyperbolic myth, one that takes the idea of faith and its value and blows it up to unfathomable proportions to make a point.
What do you think?
Isaac and the Wells January 14, 2008
Posted by Matt in Bible, god, love, peace.Tags: Bible, giving, Isaac, love, peace, turning the other cheek
1 comment so far
I’m a voracious reader, but have always been incredibly bad about regularly reading my Bible. So, in an attempt to try something new, I’ve begun listening to the Daily Audio Bible podcast, which is available on Itunes, during my short commute to and from work each day. Each day a guy named Brian reads scripture in his annoyingly breathy voice, choosing selections from the Old Testament (beginning with Genesis), the New Testament (beginning with Matthew), Psalms and Proverbs.
Today’s scripture came from Genesis 26 and 27, which deals with the relationships of Isaac, Jacob, and Esau, both with each other and with those outside the family. There was a story, though, that caught my attention this morning, one that I know I’ve read before but perhaps have never really thought about.
Genesis 26:17-25
17 So Isaac moved away from there and encamped in the Valley of Gerar and settled there. 18 Isaac reopened the wells that had been dug in the time of his father Abraham, which the Philistines had stopped up after Abraham died, and he gave them the same names his father had given them.
19 Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and discovered a well of fresh water there. 20 But the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Isaac’s herdsmen and said, “The water is ours!” So he named the well Esek, [b] because they disputed with him. 21 Then they dug another well, but they quarreled over that one also; so he named it Sitnah. [c] 22 He moved on from there and dug another well, and no one quarreled over it. He named it Rehoboth, [d] saying, “Now the LORD has given us room and we will flourish in the land.”
23 From there he went up to Beersheba. 24 That night the LORD appeared to him and said, “I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bless you and will increase the number of your descendants for the sake of my servant Abraham.”
25 Isaac built an altar there and called on the name of the LORD. There he pitched his tent, and there his servants dug a well.
I was really struck by the attitude of Isaac who, when the herdsmen of Gerar complained about the placement of his well, willingly gave in to avoid an unneeded conflict. Even more amazing is the fact that it happened not just once, but twice.
So, it made me think about us, in today’s modern world. Imagine that you had a prized possession that was very important to you. Then imagine that somebody came along, claimed it belonged to them rather than you, and took it from you. What sort of reaction would you have?
Would you fight them physically to have it returned to you? Would you take the person to court, suing them for the rights to the object of your desire? Would you take to the airwaves, proclaiming how terrible this person is in an attempt to ruin their reputation?
Or would you take the road that Isaac took and graciously move on?
It’s a hard situation for us, in our overly-aggressive modern world where we vehemently defend what we see to be ours – either in terms of physical possessions or rights or ideals – but it is one that many are regularly faced with. It’s not easy to put our love for others (even our enemies) and a desire for peace above our own wants and desires.
I’m reminded of the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:
Matt 5: 38-42
38″You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Thoughts?
