Either/Or and Three Devotional Discourses
In the introduction to this project, Kierkegaard’s financial hardships were identified as a partial explanation for his concentrated study of Matthew 6:24-34. A practical outworking of his growing money problems, according to Lowrie, was the publication of a second edition of the pseudonymous work Either/Or, a book he accompanied with the third collection of Matthew writings:Three Devotional Discourses
(TDD). Lowrie comments, ‘the public had long been clamoring for it [Either/Or] and SK at last yielded reluctantly’; he goes on to describe Kierkegaard’s ambivalence to the republication:
He was embarrassed by the fact that a second edition of Either/Or was called for, and because he needed the money he had to consent to it, though it seemed to him inappropriate that his first aesthetic work should reappear at a time when he was engaged in the most decisively religious production.158
To be sure, he had turned a corner from the poetic/aesthetic works and was engaged in more thorough going Christian literature. But what was ‘inappropriate’ about the second edition in Kierkegaard’s mind? Even as the first pseudonym,Either/Ormoves the reader toward the religious through a presentation of the shortcomings of the aesthetic and the ethical spheres of existence. In The Point of View, Kierkegaard declares that, ‘the religious is present from the very beginning. Conversely, the aesthetic is still present even in the last moment’ (POV: 30). He is not ashamed of the content ofEither/Or; instead, he possesses sensitivity toward a new readership most familiar with the straightforward
religious writings. A similar, internal debate arose a year earlier (1848) with the publication of Crisis in the Life of an Actress. On the positive side, that work would silence the critics who contended that, ‘a man who serves Christianity is one who is aesthetically incapable’; on the other hand, Kierkegaard feared that a reversion to that style could potentially mislead or discourage those readers inspired by the ‘strictly and seriously’ Christian deliberations.159 Regarding the re-publication of the first pseudonym, measures needed to be taken to avoid any confusion. With these concerns in mind, he chose to simultaneously publish the third group of writings on Matthew 6.
The joint publication of a pseudonym and signed work mimicked the initial publishing ofEither/OrandTwo Upbuilding Discoursesin 1843; nevertheless, two slight differences are worth noting. First of all, after the original publication, Kierkegaard waited almost three months before releasing the upbuilding discourses which served as its counterpoint. In the later instance there is no gap in time, the bird and lily discourses and the second edition ofEither/Orwent out together on 14 May, 1849. This suggests greater deliberateness on Kierkegaard’s part in the pairing of these with the pseudonym, an observation confirmed by Lowrie who points out how Kierkegaard passed over two works in preference for the three devotional discourses.160 From the Preface to TDD, Kierkegaard maintains the distinction that the collection is ‘offered with the right hand – in contrast to the pseudonyms, which were held out and are held out with the left hand’ (WA: 5). Nevertheless, the initial effect of the 1843 staggered release and any anonymity produced by the pseudonymous authorship is lost in 1849. The editors of Without Authoritydescribe the relationship between the two works thus: ‘The discourses were not written as a parallel companion volume to the second edition of Either/Or, but
159
Kierkegaard,Journals, 253.
symbolically, they “came into being at the time – just what I needed”’.161 Explicit in the quote from Kierkegaard is the idea that providence was working alongside him in the authorship. In the end, the subject matter of Three Devotional Discourses confirms the important connections with the first pseudonym; this is emphatically demonstrated in the second discourse on obedience, through its exposition on Matthew 6.24, ‘No one can serve two masters.Either he will hate the oneorlove the other.’ The opening page alone repeats the refrain either/or eighteen times; furthermore, his reiteration of the absolute nature of the choice between God and mammon intensifies a similar discussion initiated by Judge William on the choice between the aesthetic and the ethical (E/O II: 157-178). As Lowrie puts it, their content appears to be ‘written expressly for this purpose’.162
In addition to Kierkegaard simultaneously publishing the pseudonym and the discourses, he also chose different terms to describe the collection of discourses. In 1843, he sent out upbuilding (opbyggelige) discourses; in 1849, he accompanies the pseudonym with devotional (gudelige) discourses.163 Returning to Lowrie again, he notes that ‘these are subtle distinctions, but they clearly indicate a sense of progress’.164These terms ought not to be viewed as mutually exclusive; instead, ‘devotional’ operates as a sub-category of ‘upbuilding’. The 1849 Matthew discourses, in conjunction with building up, focus the reader on particular spiritual disciplines that align with the practice of Christian piety. These shifts in terminology should not so readily excite a tendency to separate the earlier and later discourses into two sub-genres: immanent and transcendent. As Pattison points out, ‘it is more helpful to emphasize the continuity’.165 The overlap between Three Devotional Discourses and Either/Or has also sparked a theory that the discourses
161
Kierkegaard,Without Authority, xiv. The quote is from Kierkegaard’s journals.
162Lowrie,Kierkegaard, 455.
163The Danish term,gudelige, carries a range of meanings which may include godly (Lowrie), pious,
sanctimonious, and religious.
164
Lowrie,A Short Life, 199.
represent a continuation of a discussion of the three stages of existence found initially in
Either/Or. I now briefly turn to this approach to the material.
The Theory of the Stages in the Three Devotional Discourses
In chapter two, a similar discussion occurred on the relationship between Kierkegaard’s three stages of existence and the 1847 discourses in What We Learn. Turning now toTDD, on the surface it looks as if the content could promise more insight into the stages of existence. The first writing, on 'silence', deals particularly with poetry and the poet, an obviously aesthetic notion; the topic of the second discourse, 'obedience', suggests ethical overtones and the discourse treats extensively the unconditional demands of God in the Creator-creature relationship; finally, 'joy', the theme of the last discourse, is easily conceived as a definitive category of the religious. Accordingly, M.W. Sinnett makes a case for this unambiguous, intentional connection between the stages and the two works.166He sets out with an interpretation ofEither/Orwherein Kierkegaard’s goal is to negatively appraise the life-view of its three key figures: the poet, Judge William, and the anonymous pastor. His concluding chapter champions Three Devotional Discoursesas a continuation of this same critique. Commenting on the three main topics of silence, obedience, and joy, Sinnett writes: ‘these three qualities then define the challenges successively and cumulatively . . . to the poet, to Judge William, and to the Jylland pastor’.167 Initially, his application of the material seems to fit with the content of
Either/Or, where the unknown writer, ‘A’, explains life in the aesthetic, writer ‘B’ argues for the superiority of the ethical, and the last word comes from an anonymous sermon writer who promotes an ‘Ultimatum’ meant to orientate the reader to the religious. In the
166
Sinnett,Restoring the Conversation.
end, though insightful in places, his presentation simultaneously over-focuses and limits the dynamic of the material too much.
The first discourse on silence does critique the poet; problems arise for Sinnett’s view because the second and third discourses continue to promote the poet as the central antagonist who misunderstands the birds and lilies. Kierkegaard’s content bursts this compartmentalization. Sinnett’s use of the discourses also sidelines other central features (abundantly attested to in the secondary literature) present in the discussion of silence, obedience, and joy which resonate with other major works besides Either/Or. Furthermore, such a narrow scope sidelines the importance of the substructure of the Lord’s Prayer which weaves through all three writings. To force the material to function primarily in a negative, confrontational manner is to major on a minor theme. I submit that ultimately the primary function of TDD is to encourage spiritual devotion – hence Kierkegaard’s title and the constant hope and challenge held out to those who may be experiencing suffering. As writings based on the Gospel of Matthew, they portray and promote the kingdom life attested to in the Sermon on the Mount; the single individual addressed by Kierkegaard is multidimensional and every aspect of his or her life is to come under the rule of the Gospel.
Suffering and Three Devotional Discourses
Having considered various ways the collection is juxtaposed with Either/Or, I want to now say more about the root problem Kierkegaard addresses in these meditations on Matthew. Instead of the terminology of worry, he introduces the problem of suffering and sets forth ways the Gospel, through the bird and lily, offers a remedy to its presence. For Kierkegaard, suffering is not completely disconnected from worry. In a Communion discourse on Hebrews 4:15, he spells out various forms of suffering in order to
demonstrate how Jesus is able to sympathize with an individual, regardless of the circumstances. The first variety mentioned is ‘temporal and earthly concern, poverty, worry about the future and what that involves’ (WA: 117). Accordingly, the possibility of worry connected with Matthew’s text fits within Kierkegaard’s category of suffering. As Kierkegaard continues in the Communion discourse, he also elucidates a form of sorrow connected with ‘the wickedness of the world’ and the ‘sin and ungodliness of the world’ (WA: 118). In the context of TDD, these aspects of suffering also arise and drive the individual away from society to seek relief in the company of nature. Kierkegaard’s depiction of artful living arises in response to these types of suffering. In addition, his interaction with the lily and bird includes a delineation of the suffering of nature and its ‘artful’ response to its unavoidable circumstances.
In Sylvia Walsh’s study of suffering in Kierkegaard’s literature from 1847-1851, she summarizes his view of definitively Christian suffering thus: it ‘is distinguished, therefore, not merely by the inverse interpretation Christians bring to ordinary and innocent sufferings in life . . . but also, and primarily, by its inverse character and the
contradictory consequencesthat entails. It is suffering that occurs as the result of turning to Christianity’.168 Following from this, there is a suffering common to all people, regardless of their religious convictions, and even though inwardly, the believer may receive it differently than others, it encompasses ‘the usual adversities in life and does not constitute suffering in likeness to Christ’.169 Conversely, there is a voluntary suffering acquainted with following Jesus. This includes self-denial and the ever-present reality of one’s sinfulness and limitations before God; according to Climacus, it also includes a suffering attached to the knowledge that many remain outside the blessedness of the faith
168Walsh,Living Christianly: Kierkegaard's Dialectic of Christian Existence(University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005), 129.
(CUP: 582). Christian suffering’s ‘inverse character’ derives from the fact that its presence offers consolation and joy as an evidence of Christian living; the ‘contradictory consequences’ relate to the seeming absurdity that turning to Christ, instead of alleviating suffering, ushers the individual into a higher form of suffering. Walsh calls this the ‘inevitable consequence . . . given the heterogeneity of the Christian conceptions to those of the world and the world’s negative reaction to the outward expression of Christian ideal’.170 These comments help frame the various expressions of pathos in TDD, especially those which Kierkegaard transposes upon the bird and lily. On the surface, that nature models suffering seems to point to the universal quality of the suffering. It remains to be seen whether or not there also arises, through artful living, a version of Kierkegaard’s qualitatively different category of Christian suffering. Before proceeding to the discourses, a few comments on Kierkegaard’s use of the lily and the bird in TDD
are in order.
Are the Bird and Lily Actively Devoted to God?
Kierkegaard, in his presentation of the bird and lily in this collection (more so than the previous collections) champions them as those who naturally and willfully
overcome worry and suffering in life. The repeated picture of nature’s triumph causes Jason Mahn to suggest that ‘Kierkegaard so personifies nature that the lilies and the birds themselves are seen to actively resist temptation to sin. Their silence, obedience, and joy may not be simply “there”; they too might be won over-and-against temptations to despair’.171 Mahn’s comment is certainly understandable in view of Kierkegaard’s interpretation of the bird and lily, so how does one best understand the meaning of their
170Ibid., 130. 171
Jason A. Mahn, "Kierkegaard's Three Devotional Discourses and the Felix Culpa Theme," inIKC: WA, ed. Perkins (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2007), 105.
conquest of suffering? George Pattison’s discussion of the difference between Kierkegaard’s and Hegel’s outlook on nature helps to frame the importance of how one answers this question:
Hegel invites us to pass through the process of self-externalization to self-enjoyment and, in doing so, to repeat, at a higher level, the dialectical process already discernible in the bird, Kierkegaard invites us . . . to renounce the desire to self-externalization, and, in doing so, to repeat the original relation of simple dependence already manifest in the song of the bird, to return from complexification to the simple, original, unity of the “is”.172
The question is whether or not the animal kingdom can make progress in its relationship with its environment. According to Pattison, Hegel suggests that it can adapt in such a way that individual creatures gain ‘self-independence and self-consciousness’; in the case of a singing bird, this evidences the even greater ability to actually enjoy itself in these surroundings.173 It has transcended the merely animal instinct to survive. The bird, in turn, sets the stage for human beings to take this to the next level, which is ‘sublated and consummated in reason and freedom’.174 Hegel reads distinctions into nature between its raw (alimentation), formative, and artistic drives and he ascribes to the bird ‘dialectics directed teleologically towards the emergence of the kind of consciousness and the kind of volition found preeminently in humanity’.175
Pattison maintains that Kierkegaard moves in the opposite direction. Nature’s great lesson consists in its lack of independence and self-awareness, this, by definition, grants the bird and lily their exemplary simplicity. This view is ultimately safeguarded by the frequent deconstruction of the bird and lily wherein Kierkegaard erodes first the evolutionary links found in Hegelianism and secondly the seemingly volitional character of the lily and bird. While it may be possible textually, as Mahn shows, to construe nature as a conqueror, Kierkegaard does so only in a poetic fashion. Nature’s imperturbable
172Pattison, "The Joy of Birdsong or Lyrical Dialectics," inIKC: WA, ed. Perkins (Macon: Mercer
University Press, 2007), 122-123.
173Ibid., 120. 174
Ibid., 121.
continuation cannot be separated from its inability to dissimulate and its lack of an active will. To be fair, the contrasting viewpoints between Mahn and Pattison about the level of
becoming that may be found in nature is somewhat artificial, this becomes evident in Mahn’s explanation for how Kierkegaard uses the dialectic introduced between silence/obedience/joy and perishability. He writes, ‘Kierkegaard closes the gap between images of natural immediacy and symbols of intentional faith . . . to call into question the poet’s pride in having a more difficult task than does nature’.176 Kierkegaard himself notes how he set out to personify nature inThree Devotional Discourseswith ‘even more poetic tone and richness of color’ (WA: 198). The characterization of nature is not there to provide clues about his latent natural theology. Westphal makes a similar observation on Kierkegaard’s use of the bird and lily: ‘This is not theology of nature or natural theology but a heuristic for reading the Gospel text and subjecting ourselves to its authority’.177 Kierkegaard, with the colourful teaching aid of the bird and lily, leads the reader into deeper devotion to God. Leo Stan, in his article on the bird and lily discourses, notes a similar appeal to these objects, ‘nature points to a visible familiarity with the beyond, which is psychologically comforting and curative’.178
The three discourses address the topics of silence, obedience, and joy. Each piece serves as a building block on the next so that silence precedes and leads into obedience, and silence and obedience together culminate in joy. As Kierkegaard illuminates each concept, he simultaneously comments on various sections of Matthew’s text and applies them to the life of a suffering individual. Within the artful responses to the pathos of life the Lord’s Prayer also plays an important part in the structure of the material. Accordingly, within the examination of each discourse, I will parse out how Kierkegaard
176Mahn, "Felix Culpa Theme," 105. 177
Westphal, "Paganism in Christendom," 22 n.24.
applies the various petitions of the prayer to the terminology and practice of silence, obedience, and joy. This will also create space to interact with New Testament scholarship on the relationship between the Lord’s Prayer and the exegesis of Matthew 6:24-34. In line with these aims, each discourse will feature a section on the meaning of the focus words (silence, obedience, and joy), an analysis of suffering, a look at the application of the key concept to suffering, and Kierkegaard’s use of the Lord’s Prayer in his interpretation of the Matthew passage. This begins with a look at ‘silence’.
Discourse One
On Silence
The central purpose of the presentation on silence (Taushed) is to help the individual properly respond to the problem of suffering. Kierkegaard’s definition of the term entails much more than merely the lack of speech; it involves a reorientation of the self around the goodness of the heavenly Father. As this conversation begins, it is helpful to consider the work of Christopher Nelson, who lays the foundation for the concept of silence, especially as it appears in Kierkegaard’s earlier writings. His extensive account starts by flagging the ‘apparent hypocrisy’ involved in any endeavour to ‘speak to the