Abstrakt
The Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) has got in his time excellent education and delved deep into Christian tradition as well as quite a few Western philosophers. He was also a man of a strong spirit: "Genius is not a rush candle that goes out in a puff of air but a conflagration that the storm only incites." Specifically, he was extolling Christ and Apostles as models and examples to follow more than some traditional Church dogmas that according to him help man to remain in his natural state and guard himself against following lofty life ideals.
From his impartial and institutionally independent position, Kierkegaard did not see in his nominally Christian society any passion that any religion, especially Christianity needs. He tried to incite Christian passion in that time (Danish) society through his largely pseudonymous literary activities and through some other forms of his "indirect message" [indirecte Meddelelse] and finally through his journal The Instant [Øieblikket].
The Christianity can not be truly didacticised. This world is and will be always bad and the church triumphant in it is an illusion.
The church related to Christ in his debasement will always be just the church debased, but in any moment militant, proving thus its Christian nature. The yield of previous generation can not be utilized by subsequent generation.
Christianity can be saved just by its stringency, sovereignty; it is to be incessantly tested in this world. Anyway, the true Christian is hidden in order not to be rewarded in or by it.
Kierkegaard recognized equality of the neighbour's status on a par with the status of one's own in a spiritual sense, just a genuine and Christian equality. Kierkegaard took over the attitude of the first Christians that one should honor king, but know at the same time that the king is of this world and as such absolutely no instance in Christian realm.
To protect his Christianity, Kierkegaard, finally directly, in his periodical "The Moment" [Øieblikket] decided to work in two ways: a) One is to clarify human concepts and learn people by means of ideals, pathos, irony, mockery, sarcasm: One should let people know what Christianity "really" is and demands. To explain people that Christianity is in fact very exacting and it is the official Church that is compromising it.
Ergo: "whoever you are, whatever your life has been so far: if you cease to participate in public worship (in case you still participate in it), you will get rid of one great guilt: you will cease to participate in mocking God." b) One is to make the state cease to support its own state church: Everybody should be able to make an individual free choice whether one wants to be/become a Christian or not. Christianity (as well as poetry) does not need suffocating protection of state, it just needs fresh air, persecution and God's protection.
The state should not use the police in enforcing Christianity nor maintain the pastors - the quacks. Kierkegaard extolled Socrates who most of all feared delusion; let's take over this Socratic fear.
Ability of good analysis, discernment and allegiance to truth is also needful: it can prevent mediocre and spiritless rendering of the Bible. Kierkegaard was not primarily interested in political institutions, utility artifacts.
He had never spoken out against technology of procurement of such goods that can be gained comfortably without any spiritual harm.Instead of any positive political doctrine proclamation, Kierkegaard was standing rather negatively against political doctrines which by "ballotation", daily press, crowd, and attempts of politicians, but also of church representatives trying to: 1) supplant or flatten his spiritual and religious (- and obviously also aesthetic, ethical and intellectual life) and 2) supplant or debase the status of eternal individual. As early as in 1848 he stood especially against communism which instead of traditional oppression installs and stimulates fear from people.
Kierkegaard did not profess just Weberian politics of responsibility, calculating mediocre defects of people into decisions. However, he was not irresponsible.
Unlike many notorious revolutionaries, Kierkegaard did not incite violence nor dangerous political upheavals. Instead: personal responsibility for his clearing the concepts, for his own acts that do not appeal to lowly passions, but to the best in individual human being.
Most noble aspects Kierkegaard himself had previously been calling forth through his work.