Selections from the Writings of Kierkegaard
not the case, then the seriousness of the business demands that
I do not meddle with it at all. Nothing is more detestable and
mean, and nothing discloses and effects a deeper demoralization,
than this lackadaisical wishing to enter "somewhat" into matters
which demand an _aut--aut, aut Cæsar aut nihil_,[8] this taking
just a little part in something, to be so wretchedly lukewarm,
to twaddle about the business, and then by twaddling to usurp
through a lie the attitude of being better than they who wish
not to have anything whatever to do with the whole business--to
usurp through a lie the attitude of being better, and thus to
render doubly difficult the task of him whose business it really
is.
CONFIRMATION AND WEDDING CEREMONY; CHRISTIAN--COMEDY--OR WORSE STILL
(No. VII, 6)
Pricks of conscience (insofar as they may be assumed in this
connection)--pricks of conscience seem to have convinced "Christendom"
that it was, after all, going too far, and that it would not do--this
beastly farce of becoming a Christian by the simple method of
letting a royal official give the infant a sprinkle of water over
his head, which is the occasion for a family gathering with a
banquet to celebrate the day.
This won't do, was the opinion of "Christendom," for the opportunity
ought to be given the baptized individual to indorse personally his
baptismal vows.
For this purpose the rite of confirmation was devised--a splendid
invention, providing we take two things for granted: in the first
place, that the idea of divine worship is to make God ridiculous;
and in the second place, that its purpose is to give occasion
for family celebrations, parties, a jolly evening, a banquet which
is different from other banquets in that it--ah, exquisite--in
that it, "at the same time" has a religious significance.
"The tender child," thus Christendom, "can of course not assume
the baptismal vow personally, for this requires a real personality."
Consequently there was chosen--is this a stroke of genius or
just ingenious?--there was chosen the age of 14 or 15 year's,
the schoolboy age. This real personality--that is all right,
if you please--he is equal to the task of personally assuming
responsibility for the baptismal vow taken in behalf of the infant.
A boy of fifteen! Now, if it were a matter of 10 dollars, his
father would probably say: "No, my boy, I can't let you have
all that money, you are still too green for that." But for a
matter touching his eternal salvation where the point is to
assume, with all the seriousness one's personality is capable
of, and as a personality, responsibility for what certainly
could not in any profounder sense be called serious--when a
child is bound by a vow: for that the age of fifteen is excellently
fitting.
Excellently fitting. Oh yes if, as was remarked above, divine
worship serves a double purpose, viz., to render God ridiculous
in a very adroit manner--if you may call it so--and to furnish
the occasion for graceful family celebrations. In that case it
is indeed excellently fitting, as everything is on that occasion;
as is, likewise, the customary biblical lesson for the day which,
you will remember, begins: "Then the same day at evening, when
the doors were shut[9]"--and this text is particularly suitable
to a Confirmation Sunday. One is truly edified when hearing a
clergyman read it on a Confirmation Sunday.
As is easily perceived, then, the confirmation ceremony is still
worse nonsense than the baptism of infants, just because confirmation
pretends to supply what was lacking at the baptism, viz., a real
personality capable of making a vow in a matter touching one's
eternal salvation. In another sense this nonsense is, to be
sure, ingenious enough, as serving the self-interest of the
clergy who understand full well that if the decision concerning
a man's religion were reserved until he had reached maturity
(which were the only Christian, as well as the only sensible,
way), many might possess character enough to refuse to become
Christians by an act of hypocrisy. For this reason "the clergyman"
seeks to gain control of men in their infancy and their youth,
so that they would find it difficult, upon reaching a more mature
age, to break a "sacred" vow dating, to be sure, from one's
boyhood, but which would, perhaps, still be a serious enough
matter to many a one. Hence the clergy take hold of the infants,
the youths, and receive sacred promises and the like from them.
And what that man of God, "the clergyman," does, why, that is,
of course, a God-fearing action. Else, analogy might, perhaps,
demand that to the ordinance forbidding the sale of spirituous
liquors to minors there should be added one forbidding the taking
of solemn vows concerning one's eternal salvation from--boys;
which ordinance would look toward preventing the clergy, who
themselves are perjurers, from working--in order to salve their
own consciences--from working toward the greatest conceivable
shipwreck which is, to make all society become perjured; for
letting boys of fifteen bind themselves in a matter touching
their eternal salvation is a measure which is precisely calculated
to have that effect.
The ceremony of confirmation is, then, in itself a worse piece
of nonsense than the baptism of infants. But in order to miss
nothing which might, in any conceivable manner, contribute to
render confirmation the exact opposite of what it purports to
be, this ceremony has been connected with all manner of worldly
and civil affairs, so that the significance of confirmation lies
chiefly in the--certificate of character which the minister
makes out; without which certificate no boy or girl will be
able to get on at all in life.[10]
The whole thing is a comedy; and perhaps something might be
done to add greater dramatic illusion to the solemnity; as e.g.,
passing an ordinance forbidding any one to be confirmed in a
jacket, as not becoming a real personality; likewise, a regulation
ordering male candidates for confirmation to wear a beard during
the ceremony, which beard might, of course, be taken off for the
family celebration in the evening, or be used in fun and merrymaking.
I am not now attacking the community--they are led astray; they
cannot be blamed for liking this kind of divine worship, seeing
that they are left to their own devices and deceived by their
clergyman who has sworn an oath on the New Testament. But woe
to these clergymen, woe to them, these sworn liars! I know there
have been mockers at religion, and I know how much they would
have given to be able to do what I do; but they were not able
to, because God was not with them. It is different with me.
Originally as well disposed to the clergy as few have been,
and very ready to help them. I have undergone a change of heart
in the opposite direction, owing to their attitude. And the
Almighty is with me, and He knows how the whip is to be handled
so that the blows take effect, and that laughter must be that
whip, handled with fear and trembling--therefore am I used.
THE WEDDING CEREMONY
True worship of God consists, very simply, in doing God's will.
But that kind of divine service has never suited man's wishes.
That which occupies man's mind at all times, that which gives
rise to science[11] and makes science spread into many, many
sciences, and into interminable detail; that of which, and for
which, thousands of clergymen and professors live, that which
forms the contents of the history of Christendom, by the study
of which the clergyman or the professor is to be trained--is
to get a different kind of worship arranged, the main point of
which would be: to do what one pleases, but in such fashion that
the name of God and the invocation of God be brought into connection
therewith; by which arrangement man imagines himself safeguarded
against ungodliness--whereas, alas! just this procedure is the
most unqualified ungodliness.
For example: a man has the intention to make his living by killing
people. To be sure, he knows from the Word of God that this is
not permissible, that God's will is: thou shalt not kill! "All
right," thinks he, "but this way of serving God will not serve
my purposes--at the same time I don't care to be among the ungodly
ones, either." So what does he do but get hold of some priest who
in God's name blesses his dagger. Ah, _c'est bien autre chose!_
In the Scriptures the single state is recommended. "But," says
man, "that kind of worship really does not serve my purposes--and
surely, you can't say that I am an ungodly person; and such an
important step as marriage (which _nota bene_ God counsels against,
His opinion being, in fact, that the important thing is not to
take "this important step")--should I take such an important step
without making sure of God's blessing?" Bravo! "That is what we
have the priest for, that man of God, he will bestow the blessing
on this important step (_nota bene_ concerning which the most
important thing was not to take it at all) and so it will be
acceptable to God"--and so I have my own way; and my own way
becomes the way of worshipping God; and the priest has his own
way and gets his ten dollars, which are not earned in such a
simple way as, for example, by brushing people's clothes, or
by serving out beer and brandy--oh no! Was he not active on
behalf of God? To earn ten dollars in this fashion is: serving
God. Bravissimo!
What depth of nonsense and abomination! If something is not
pleasing to God, does it perhaps become pleasing to Him by having--why,
that is aggravating the mischief!--by having a clergyman along
who--why, that is aggravating the mischief still more!--who gets
ten dollars for declaring it pleasant to God?
Let us consider the marriage ceremony still further! In His
word God recommends the single state. Now suppose two young
people want to be married. To be sure, they ought certainly
to know, themselves, what Christianity is, seeing that they
call themselves Christians; but never mind that now. The lovers
then apply to--the clergyman; and the clergyman is, we remember,
pledged by his oath on the New Testament (which _nota bene_
recommends the single state). Now, if he is not a liar and a
perjurer who makes his money in the very shabbiest fashion,
he would be bound to take the following course: at most he could,
with human compassion for this human condition of being in love,
say to them: "Dear children, I am the one to whom you should
turn last of all; to turn to me on this occasion is, indeed,
as strange as if one should turn to the chief of police and
ask him how best to steal. My duty is to employ all means to
restrain you. At most, I can say, with the words of the Apostle
(for they are not the words of Our Lord), I can say to you:
well, if it must be, and you cannot contain, why, then find
some way of getting together; for fit is better to marry than
to burn.'[12] I know very well that you will be likely to shudder
when I speak in this manner about what you think is the most
beautiful thing in life; but I must do my duty. And it is therefore
I said to you that to me you should have applied last of all."
It is different in "Christendom." The priest--oh dear me!--if
there are but two to clap together, why certainly! Indeed, if
the persons concerned turned to a midwife they would perhaps
not be as sure to be confirmed in their conviction that their
intention is pleasing to God.
And so they are married; i.e. man has his own way, and this
having his own way strategically serves at the same time as
divine worship, God's name being connected with it. They are
married--by the priest! Ah, for having the clergyman along is
just what reassures one--the man who, to be sure, is pledged