Theme for a Sermon:

The Proclamation of the Word

here based on that hymn verse in the old hymn (O great God, we praise thee)

The prophets announced him, The apostles proclaimed him, And the host of martyrs praised you Solemnly in the hour of death.

This is the true preaching; this is what it means to witness; Sunday chatter does not mean much.

Incidentally, the fact that this verse says ["]announced him ["] and ["]proclaimed him ["] is prob. accidental, but it is something that could be made use of: It is only with respect to the host of martyrs that Xt himself is present, so that it says: it ["]praised you ["].

* * *

Proportions.

Luther rightly says that there rlly ought not be preaching in churches; it is an accommodation to the sort of worship that exists for the sake of our weakness—alas, and we are so far behind that scarcely very many go to church—and nonetheless this is Christendom.

* * *

Orthodox people, like the Grundtvigians, who are fatuous enough to believe that they are the only true Xns—when they take action in life, their actions are in complete conformity with worldliness. They are also worshipers of voting and the majority, etc.

And inasmuch as the modern political movement per abusum contains elements of religiosity, they find it to be splendid, almost making common cause with worldliness—rather, under such circumstances, they ought to be exceedingly zealous to ensure [their] difference.

But these orthodox Christians—if you will—are as far as possible from being dedicated to the Christian principle: that to serve the truth is to suffer. They are imperious and seek power fully as much as any other political party.

* * *

* * *

As has happened in the course of history—in which there have been entire eras when by means of sheer imagination people have become lost in Christian objectivity and have entirely forgotten themselves, while they cleverly elaborated the doctrine, produced artistic depictions of Xt and the like—this is still the case with most of those who have at least some relationship to Xnty. They do not notice that the real difficulties only begin when all this objectivity is to be transposed existentially into the life of the single individual. For safety's sake they continue to shout that the objective is what is highest, that the subjective is something imperfect. And yet, the whole of Xnty is subjectivity. Xnty is no doctrine, it is a doctrine existentially transposed into one single hum. being, into the God-Man.

But when will we gain control over this confusion from which hum. beings are not eager to remove themselves, for they are not eager to turn to existential tasks, to genuine self-denial, to acting in Christian fashion, to having God and the Exemplar so close to their lives that it literally has solely and only to do with me, the single individual[?]

And people have decked out these cowardly, worldly, effeminate evasions as the highest of things—being subjective is nothing, indeed, it is an error. What profound cunning of evil is indeed always present in worldliness! To be objective is supposedly to be modest, humble—at least it is what is easiest.

* * *

The Grundtvigians fought like this: they maintained that the others were not Christians, and therefore they wanted them removed from their official positions.

The entire concept of a State Church and the secure official positions that correspond to it is based on the illusion that we are all Christians. So the orthodox probably even wanted to make a sort of profit from the circumstance that there were so few Christians. Everything the Church owned was of course supposed to become the property of the few truly Christian priests.

What worldliness in the midst of the holiness!

But Grundtvig ought to be kept out of this. Incidentally, I am not aware that the party has been willing to make any sort of sacrifice. Grundtvig's error was that he did not immediately understand the matter sufficiently deeply: that Xndom was the concept he should attack. The way he put the matter gave it the appearance that if Clausen were removed from his position, everything would be fine, then we would all be Xns, and the State Church would be a society of Christians. Only when this tactic foundered did he decide to resign his position. From the point of view of the principle, it was fortunate that the matter turned out as it did, for otherwise an absurd situation might easily have arisen in which Clausen's removal would guarantee that the whole business was Xndom.

Before long, incidentally, the question of Xnty can turn into a question of money. The syllogism will be: of course, everything the Church owns belongs only to the true Xns; we are the half-score of people who are true Xns; ergo we take possession of the estate. The best thing to do would be to retain an attorney to plead the case—and then give oratorical assurances that this is a return to the apostolic Church.

To a certain extent, this tactic would even get popular support; the popular aspect of it, of course, is that it is as unchristian as possible and as worldly as possible.

* * *

Strictly speaking, the manner in which Peter defended himself when they wanted to remove him from his position is not Christian but legalistic. His unspoken assertion, like that of all Grundtvigians, is that they are the only true Xns—ergo they have to protest against the entire concept of Xndom and the State Church. Then the State Church says: ["]You must either do it or resign your position.["] He replies: ["]Neither the one nor the other—if you want to dismiss me, that is your business.["] But in doing this he indirectly recognizes the concept of the State Church and Xndom: that we are all more or less Xns. That is, he clings just as firmly to the concept of the State Church as do any of its defenders who happen to disagree with it on a particular point.

* * *

I cannot, alas, get anyone to understand me. For to understand what I say—well, that is something than can certainly be managed. But then, when all is said and done and it is to be actualized, things get confused. They are not constrained at every second, as I am, by a higher power who with inflexible rigor compels one to obey what has been understood down to the least detail and in connection with the least of things.

Imagine a horse who admired a horse called "The Dancer" and who also wanted to dance—but this horse had no riding master who would use a whip and spurs and a sharp bit at every instant to force it to dance: Do you think that such a horse would learn on its own to dance that way, which seems to the horse to be cruelty?

And in comparison with the other horse, the situation for this horse (which incidentally, was perhaps just as well-formed and had all the prerequisites) would be just like the situation of another person in comparison to myself: he begins to move and makes a sort of hop—and then a lot of clumsiness, and then another hop. At one instant a start is made at wanting to act in an ethical-religious manner, and almost at the same instant, he flops down into the use of impatient, finite, shabby means.—What is missing is the riding master and the whip and the spurs and the sharp bit.

* * *

* * *

The system begins with "nothing"; mysticism always ends with "nothing." The latter is the divine nothing, just as Socrates' ignorance was fear of God—his ignorance, with which, again, he did not begin but ended, or at which he continually arrived.

* * *

The passage in the scriptures is spoken of so often: ["]All is revealed in the mystery,["] and a certain speculation has maintained that it was not profane speculation, but within the mystery.

In connection with Xnty I would stress another aspect of the concept of mystery: the ethical-religious. Xnty entered as a mystery; the greatest possible hum. guarantee was sought before anyone was admitted—how profane they have now made Xnty with the slipshod manner in which they simply make everyone straightway into a Xn, and allow everyone to be one!

Xnty understood very well that with respect to serving the truth, what matters especially is the transformation of the individual, so that one becomes a suitable instrument of the truth. But no one gives a thought to such things in our objective and busy times. Hence this unfortunate—and, objectively quite correct—preaching of Xnty by hum. beings who rlly have no notion whatever of Xnty. And nothing, nothing has confused—indeed abolished—Xnty so much as has precisely this unchristian way in which it is preached.

Certainly, Xnty has never been—indeed, it has abhorred being—a mystery in the sense of existing only for a few brilliant minds who have become its initiates. No: God has chosen the lowly and the despised—but still there was no lack of initiation. It is not an intellectual but an ethical initiation, personality's enormous respect for inclusion in the Christian community, and this respect is not expressed in assurances and by making a fuss, but existentially, in action.

Do not I, a poor wretched hum. being, experience something like this in my petty circumstances[?] Change me into some doctrinal formulas and then let every faker teach them, and let his life be a satire of what he says: Is this not meaningless[?] And in what way am I different from this? Is it not the fact that—even though I am only striving—I have transformed my individuality to serve these ideas of mine existentially[?] That is, I have had an initiation. Therefore, what little there is within me has been a power—when it is taught as a doctrine it is only a little more nonsense in addition to all the other nonsense.

Therefore I never forget that with respect to Xnty, a shoemaker, a tailor, a workman is just as much a possibility as the most learned person and the most brilliant intellect. Indeed, generally, the Church must always expect its salvation from a layman, precisely because he is closer to the ethical initiation.

* * *

Prayer

Father in Heaven! O, you who concern yourself with the sparrow—and not in such a way that you cruelly require that the sparrow be like yourself: No, you who lovingly concern yourself with the sparrow so that with fatherly concern you put yourself in its place—you indeed also concern yourself with a human being. And even though you require that he strive to be like you, which you cannot require of the sparrow, you do not require it of him cruelly. No, with fatherly concern you put yourself in his place, and you yourself are the one who provides the strength to strive.

* * *

Prayer

Lord Jesus Christ! Throughout your entire life you endured suffering in order to save me also: Alas, and the time of your suffering is not yet past; for will you not also, saving and redeeming, endure this suffering—this patient suffering of concerning yourself with me—I who so often wander from the right path or who, even if I remain on the right path, stumble on it, or rather move forward so slowly, creeping. Infinite patience, the suffering of infinite patience! How many times have I not become impatient, wanting to forsake everything, give everything up, take the frightfully easy shortcut, the shortcut of despair: but you did not lose patience. Alas, what your chosen servant says—that he completed your sufferings—does not apply to me. No, what applies to me is only that I have increased your sufferings, added new sufferings to those you once suffered in order to save me also.

Prayer

We hum. beings bear what is holy merely in a fragile vessel of clay. But you, O Holy Spirit, when you dwell in a hum. being, you dwell in something that is infinitely inferior: You, Spirit of Holiness, dwell with uncleanness and infection; you, Spirit of Wisdom, with foolishness; you, Spirit of Truth, with self-deception! Oh, continue to dwell [here]; and you, who do not conveniently search for the desirable dwelling that you would surely seek in vain; you, who yourself, in creating and giving rebirth, make your own dwelling place—o, continue to dwell [here], that one day you might be pleased with the dwelling place you yourself have prepared for yourself in my infected and foolish and deceitful heart.

* * *

The title:

A Contribution to the Introduction of Christianity into Christendom

is correct with respect to categories; nothing is said of Denmark, or Germany, or Sweden, etc., nor of whether it is something present or past; no, it is the purely dialectical definition of the concepts: the relation between the two concepts: Xnty—and Xndom, with the qualification of introducing Xnty.

It is spiritual fencing.

* * *

* * *

Lk 24:28 "... and it seemed as if he wantedto go further. And they constrained him and said, Stay with us, for it is almost evening and the day is almost over. And he went in to stay with them."

This is a metaphorical characterization of Xt's relationship to the believer qua Exemplar. With one single step, the Exemplar is so far ahead that the believer is annihilated. But of course the believer must still strive. Therefore the Exemplar must patiently yield a little; then despite the infinite imperfection, there is still a slight bit of progress. But then it often happens that for a moment it looks as if the Exemplar wanted to "go further," and further in such a way that the imitator is lost—then he prays for himself: Stay with me. This is the lingering, that, for a hum. being, is a need, even though for the Exemplar it is the suffering of patience.

* * *

To become sober! From a Christian point of view, this idea is so gigantic in its simplicity that a person could almost become completely confused by it. How many people have in fact existed who—if they themselves were equipped with extraordinary abilities—have understood existentially, in their own lives, that the least bit of actual self-denial, even it were something of the greatest insignificance to daily life, is worth more than the greatest world-historical accomplishment even if, in an external sense, this [latter] reshapes an entire country or a world! How many people have in fact existed who existentially, in their own lives—if they themselves were millionaires—have understood that the widow gave more than they did when they gave 900,000 rd.! Fundamentally, it is alarming for a hum. being to consider the infinite unchangingness of spirit with which God makes this distinction—God, for whom the ethical and the ethical-religious are the only currency.

One difficulty has always occurred to me in connection with the simple person. I imagine a young pers., a university student, for example; he becomes ill, cannot accomplish anything—his spirit is suffering. Then, if I were to offer consolation—and how gladly would I not do so!—then I would say: Consider that in God's eyes your life is nonetheless absolutely as important and significant as that of someone who astonishes the world and transforms it with his ideas. But look, are not a powerful brain and significant intellectual strengths required in order truly to find rest in this exaltation? So of course we are back at the same point.

But I cannot let go of the idea that every hum. being, absolutely every hum. being, however simple he is, or however much he suffers, is nonetheless capable of grasping what is highest, namely, the religious. If this is not so, then Xnty is rlly nonsense. For me, it is frightful to see the recklessness with which philosophers and the like apply categories of differentiation, such as genius, talent, etc. to the religious. They have no notion that the religious is thereby abolished. I have had only one consolation, this blessed one, that I know something that can provide consolation, blessed consolation, to every hum. being, absolutely every hum. being. Take away this consolation and I do not care to live—then I have spleen.