The Climacean Alphabet

Reflections on Religiousness A and B from

the Perspective of the Edifying

By Michael Olesen

Abstract

The article investigates the theory of religiousness that Kierkegaard, through his pseud-
onym Johannes Climacus, outlines in the Postscript. The thesis is that the theory, articu-
lated as religiousness A and religiousness B, is a construction. More precisely, it is a
construction in the sense that religiousness A cannot be regarded as proper religious-
ness while religiousness B is no proper form of existence. The notions have their justifi-
cation within Climacus polemical struggle, but they are impossible to realize in life.
This also means that Climacus theory cannot be used as an interpretative tool for the
edifying writings because the religiousness presented in the edifying discourses is not in
accordance with the religiousness presented by Climacus. First, I present a brief inter-
pretation and comparison of religiousness A and B. I then criticize Climacus theory,
partly on the basis of the conception of faith in religiousness A, partly on the basis of
the conception of the upbuilding in religiousness B. I conclude with an examination of
the edifying writings and briefly suggest how this type of religiousness differs from
those presented by Climacus.

1. Introduction

By way of introduction, I will reveal two reservations I have about this

study of the Postscript: First of all, I think it wise to openly declare my
unfamiliarity with the Postscript. Though I have read the book, it is
not among the Kierkegaardian primary texts with which I am most fa-
miliar. And secondly, I do not take Philosophical Fragments into ac-
count and I do not address whatever difficulties the relationship be-
tween the Fragments and the Postscript might present on the issue.
Having said this, I will begin by stating the thesis of the article: I ar-
gue that Climacus theory of religiousness, as described through the
notions of religiousness A and religiousness B, is a construction inso-

Brought to you by | Copenhagen University Denmark

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/30/15 3:23 PM
 The Climacean Alphabet 283

far as religiousness A cannot be regarded as proper religiousness

while religiousness B is not a proper form of existence. The notions
are justified only in Climacus polemical battle against speculation,
as he often calls his target; but at the same time, these categories are
impossible to realize in life. This means that Climacus theory cannot
be used as the interpretative tool for Kierkegaards edifying work
since the religiousness presented in the latter is not in agreement with
the religiousness presented by Climacus.
The development of the article will be as follows: first, I will give a
rather short interpretation of religiousness A and B respectively, as
well as an interpretation of the relationship between the two. Thereaf-
ter, I will raise a criticism against Climacus theory. My criticism is
based in part on the conception of faith in religiousness A and in part
on the conception of the upbuilding in religiousness B. Finally, I will
turn to the edifying work and briefly suggest the differences with re-
spect to religiousness.

2. Religiousness A and B

2.1. Religiousness A: Resignation, Suffering and Totality of Guilt

With the notion religiousness A, Climacus refers to immanent reli-

giousness or common religiousness. Religiousness A, says Climacus,
is the dialectic of inward deepening; it is the relation to an eternal
happiness that is not conditioned by a something but is the dialectical
inward deepening of the relation, consequently conditioned only by
the inward deepening.1 Immanence refers to the fact that the precon-
dition for religiousness A is already within the person himself and the
decisive question is therefore limited to a persons relationship; the
person who relates inwardly to eternal blessedness exists within the
sphere of religiousness A. In theological terms, this can be described
through mans createdness; because God created man, God is in the
ground of being, and therefore it is only through the inward relation-
ship that the individual moves towards his eternal blessedness.
To further illuminate the A-position, we can follow Climacus de-
scriptions of existential pathos2 in which Climacus highlights three
expressions, namely resignation, suffering and guilt. With these ex-
pressions, Climacus describes what we could call the Bildungsge-

1 CUP1, 556 / SKS 7, 505.

2 CUP1, 387-555 / SKS 7, 352-504.

Brought to you by | Copenhagen University Denmark

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/30/15 3:23 PM
284 Michael Olesen

schichte of the individual in religiousness A. In consonance with his

createdness, the individuals self is eternally determined; but every in-
dividual exists in the temporal world and gains consciousness of him-
self in the temporal world. The point of departure therefore, is not
eternity or eternal blessedness, but is instead the temporal world. To
become conscious of oneself thus entails a dialectic: the individual be-
comes aware of his eternal determination at the same time that he ex-
periences himself as a temporal being. In other words, the eternal de-
termination is a potential and as such, the individual is not himself but
has the possibility of becoming himself. The self is a task.
And since God is in the ground, the direction of the movement is in-
ward and, initially, the means is resignation, a resignation understood
as the loosening of the ties to the world in order to attain a closer rela-
tion to God in the ground. Or as Climacus puts it: The task isto re-
late himself simultaneously to his absolute tlos and to the relative.3
Problems first arise, though, with regard to the individuals ties to the
world; it is not easy to resign oneself from the world as one appropri-
ates an invisible and somewhat abstract ideal. Resignation thus resem-
bles more and more a form of suffering simply because resignation is a
burden. Secondly, it becomes all too clear that in some sense, the whole
task is in vain; when the task of becoming oneself is to fulfil ones eter-
nal determination, it is unacceptable from the viewpoint of the eter-
nal to have spent any number of years before beginning the task. In
fact, even the briefest moment of time before the beginning is a wasted
moment of time; but it is also a moment of time again, from the view-
point of the eternal that the individual must account for. And how
can anyone do that? Hence, the totality of guilt is the final stage in
the Bildungsgeschichte of religiousness A which is why Bildung dis-
solves and existence instead borders on annihilation. The A-position
thus appears not only to be immanent, but also dialectical: The only
way an existing person is able to attain eternal blessedness is exactly
what generates new guilt, that is, the more a person seeks to strengthen
the God-relation, the more problematic the relation becomes.

2.2. Religiousness B: The God in Time

Whereas religiousness A is immanent religiousness or common reli-

giousness that requires only inward self-relation, religiousness B is
transcendent religiousness. It is the specifically Christian religiousness

3 CUP1, 407 / SKS 7, 370.

Brought to you by | Copenhagen University Denmark

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/30/15 3:23 PM
 The Climacean Alphabet 285

because the revelation of Christ transcends human existence. The key

term seems to be God in time as an individual human being4 since,
in one sense, this is Christianitys only content, according to Clima-
cus.5 And one might also add the paradox and its clarification of the
character of God in time, namely, that He is inaccessible to thinking.
To further describe religiousness B, we can follow Climacus emphasis
on three expressions, viz., the consciousness of sin, the possibility of
offence and the pain of sympathy.6 On the face of it, they seem to par-
allel the three expressions of Religiousness A: resignation, suffering
and guilt. But it is important to note that in religiousness B there is no
Bildungsgeschichte in Climacus construction of Christianity there is
no development or movement; it is more like a fixed state.
By means of these three expressions, however, we can describe the
state of religiousness B, and we can point to where it differs from exist-
ence in religiousness A. The crucial element is the break which mani-
fests itself on more than one level. The consciousness of sin as well as
the possibility of offence marks a break within the person himself:
The consciousness of sin is the break. By coming into existence the in-
dividual becomes another person.7 But it also marks a break in rela-
tion to God. In religiousness A, the God-relation was a given because
it was a consequence of creation; man was created by God and God
was the ground of being. In religiousness B, man was also created by
God and, as such, the individual was also eternally determined. But in
his becoming a sinner the connection to eternity is broken. Take, for
example, the paradox, which is inaccessible to all thinking: One can
become eternal although one was not eternal.8 Religiousness B is thus
a break insofar as it is characterized by the absolute isolation of the in-
dividual; the existing person finds himself separated from himself, and
the connection to himself, to his eternal determination, is completely
broken. So much for the consciousness of sin and the possibility of of-
fence. The pain of sympathy draws attention to yet another level of the
break, namely the break in the relation to other people. Whereas in re-
ligiousness A, the existing person latently sympathize[s]with every

4 CUP1, 561 / SKS 7, 510.

5 Though I refrained from including Fragments in this reading of religiousness A and B,
the pivotal importance for Climacus of Christ as the God in time and the importance
of the fact that Gods appearance in time is the only content of Christianity, is appar-
ent in his world-historical nota bene; cf. CUP1, 104 / SKS 4, 300.
6 Cf. CUP1, 581-586 / SKS 7, 529-533.
7 CUP1, 583 / SKS 7, 530.
8 CUP1, 573 / SKS 7, 521.

Brought to you by | Copenhagen University Denmark

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/30/15 3:23 PM
286 Michael Olesen

human being qua human being,9 the individual within the sphere of
religiousness B can essentially onlysympathize with Christians.10
Climacus certainly does not lack consistency; having been torn from
his eternal determination, the individual can attain eternal blessedness
only through Christ and thus there is a forever separation11 between
the Christian and the non-Christian.12
Religiousness B thus presupposes a definite something,13 namely
Christ. And, on the one hand, the Christ-event does indeed entail the
absolute isolation of the individual: he must become another person.
But on the other hand, it involves becoming anew in Christ. Hence,
the God in time reveals the individuals sinfulness but He also reveals
the justification of the sinner. It is worth noting, however, that while
the break within man and the break between God and man is (dialec-
tically) overcome, the break in the relation to other people remains;
only within the Christian community can there be an open sympathy.

2.3. The Relationship Between Religiousness A and B

Thus far, religiousness A and B do not seem to cause any serious dif-
ficulties at least not conceptually. The relation between religious-
ness A and religiousness B, however, does imply an immediate diffi-
culty. On the face of it, Climacus insistence on a relationship between
the two categories of religiousness seems to contradict his fierce em-
phasis on the break involved in religiousness B. In other words, how

9 CUP1, 585 / SKS 7, 532.

10 CUP1, 585 / SKS 7, 532.
11 Cf. CUP1, 586 / SKS 7, 533.
12 This differs from other Kierkegaardian writings in at least two respects, namely, an
understanding of the other individual, and the conception of a specifically Christian
suffering. Contrary to the pain of sympathy, The Works of Love in particular offers a
different approach to the other person, namely, to presuppose love in the other hu-
man being (cf. CUP1, 216f. / SV3 12, 210). The clear distinction between the Chris-
tian and the non-Christian thus seems to be a distinctive Climacean idea. Regarding
specifically Christian suffering, Climacus seems to link it to the pain of sympathy:
having his eternal happiness based on something historical means that the Chris-
tians good fortune is distinguished by sufferingthe happiness linked to a historical
condition excludes all who are outside the condition (CUP1, 582 / SKS 7, 530; see
also CUP1, 585f. / SKS 7, 532f.). Again, this definition seems to be a distinctive Cli-
macean idea, for contrary to this, Anti-Climacus in Practice in Christianity defines
specifically Christian suffering as the consequence of willing the good, as being per-
secuted or ridiculed or killed for willing the good (cf. PC, 173 / SV3 16, 167).
13 CUP1, 556 / SKS 7, 506.

Brought to you by | Copenhagen University Denmark

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/30/15 3:23 PM
 The Climacean Alphabet 287

can he insist on a relation when he, at the same time, carefully digs a
gulf on all sides of religiousness B?
In spite of this difficulty, he nonetheless insists on a relation, and he
does so in two respects. First, religiousness A is a precondition for reli-
giousness B. And secondly, the A-position somehow returns within the
B-position but paradoxically; Climacus talks about the retroactive
effect of the dialectical on pathos leading to a sharpened pathos.14
The implication of these relationships seems to be the following.
The idea of religiousness A as a precondition for religiousness B has
to do with the possibility of becoming aware of the God in time:
Religiousness A must first be present in the individual before there can be any consid-
eration of becoming aware of the dialectical Bbecause before there can be any ques-
tion at all of simply being in the situation of becoming aware of it one must first of all
exist in religiousness A. But often enough the mistake has been made of making capital,
as a matter of course, of Christ and Christianity and the paradoxical and the absurd,
that is, all essentially Christian, in aesthetic gibberish.15

Without the understanding of existence implied in A, the God in time,

the paradox, etc., becomes aesthetic gibberish,16 that is, it becomes
merely an outward relation. Climacus thus seems to hint at an idea of
appropriation.
Stray remarks in the Postscript can supplement this a bit. For exam-
ple, when the state of religiousness B is described as being situated at
the edge of existence,17 one could understand religiousness A as point-
ing the individual in the direction of the edge. Or when Climacus says
that every human being grasps only what he has use for,18 it could im-
ply that the individual must be in some kind of need of Christ in order
to even become aware of Christ. Although such a need seemingly con-
tradicts the notion that a consciousness of sin is a possible self-knowl-
edge only within religiousness B, Climacus nonetheless insists on some
kind of self-knowledge as a necessary prerequisite for grasping Christ.
Perhaps we could express it as follows: For an individual to understand
that he has become another person, he must have had some idea of who
he was. Or, expressed the other way around: if he was completely un-
aware of being eternally determined (which is the self-understanding of
religiousness A) then he would not have a clue as to what he lost (and
received again) in religiousness B (namely eternity).

14 CUP1, 581 / SKS 7, 529.

15 CUP1, 556f. / SKS 7, 506.
16 CUP1, 557 / SKS 7, 506.
17 Cf. e. g., CUP1, 569 / SKS 7, 517.
18 CUP1, 590 / SKS 7, 536.

Brought to you by | Copenhagen University Denmark

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/30/15 3:23 PM
288 Michael Olesen

The second relation the returning of A within B to a sharpened

pathos19 is captured by the three terms we dealt with in the inter-
pretation of religiousness B, namely, the consciousness of sin, the pos-
sibility of offence and the pain of sympathy.20 There is no need to re-
peat what has already been said, so let me simply draw attention to
the break implied in the state of religiousness B: the self-understand-
ing is paradoxical insofar as it is a broken self-understanding. The dia-
lectical self thus returns within the B-position, but as a broken self,
that is, as a paradoxical-dialectical self.

3. Criticism of Climacus Theory of Religiousness

3.1. The Lack of Faith in Religiousness A

From this outline of religiousness A and B, we can turn our attention

to some of the characteristics of these two types of religiousness, also
with respect to faith. Religiousness A bases itself on the belief that
God is the ground of being. The self is eternally determined and the
individual is thus measured by an eternal standard. As such, religious-
ness A is an ethico-religious sphere of existence. It is ethical in the
sense that the self is a task and the individual must account for every
moment of his life; time is of the essence, so to speak. And it is reli-
gious in the sense that God forms the basis of existence and the im-
plicit task. By contrast, in religiousness B the Christian believes in
Christ as the God in time in whom the Christian finds his entire life.
Outside Christ, there is nothing but damnation, but in Christ there is
new life. Hence, religiousness B is faith in Christ as Saviour and the
Christian finds refuge in Christ.
The problem of faith in religiousness A has to do with the latter as-
pect, namely, a hope and trust in Gods love and salvation. This aspect
is simply lacking in religiousness A, and therefore one cannot speak
of faith in the sphere of A.21 Obviously, this does not have anything to

19 CUP1, 581 / SKS 7, 529.

20 CUP1, 581-586 / SKS 7, 530-533.
21 By this I presuppose a concept of faith necessarily involving the elements of trust and
hope. Hence, faith is not a specifically Christian concept some would say that it is not
even a specifically religious concept (cf. the post-modern re-launchings of (non-reli-
gious) faith where the elements of trust and hope are underscored precisely as the ele-
ments that make faith beneficial and thereby the elements that still justify faith; e. g.
Tor Nrretranders At tro p at tro: menneskesyn med mere, Frederiksberg: Anis 2003).

Brought to you by | Copenhagen University Denmark

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/30/15 3:23 PM
 The Climacean Alphabet 289

do with the sincerity of the individuals God-relation. The individual

within religiousness A most certainly does believe in God, and he
does so very strongly; in fact, his entire existence is aimed at strength-
ening the God-relationship. But he is not able to trust in Gods love
and forgiveness, that is, the God-relationship does not build upon
faith faith is not part of the God-relationship. The lack of faith dis-
closes that religiousness A is not proper religiousness. God is not a liv-
ing God, but is only a principle and the God-relation is not a living re-
lationship, but also a principle of ethical ideality. This is clearly evi-
dent in the previously mentioned Bildungsgeschichte of religiousness
A: resignation, suffering and totality of guilt are all consequences of
the existential persons striving for ethical ideality. And this ethical
ideality is based upon a principle, the principle implied in the rela-
tion to an eternal happiness,22 through which eternity sets the stan-
dard of existence; the only required knowledge in religiousness A is
therefore the idea of eternal blessedness the principle from which
the misery of existence springs.

3.2. The Lack of the Upbuilding in Religiousness B

Climacus makes a note on the upbuilding in religiousness A and B.23

In religiousness A the case is quite simple. The final stage in the indi-
viduals Bildungsgeschichte was the totality of guilt where the Bil-
dung dissolves and the self borders on annihilation. That is, the indi-
vidual turns out to be the hindrance in attaining eternal blessedness.
Therefore, the task becomes more and more a question of the individ-
ual [setting] himself aside in order to find God, since it is the individ-
ual himself who is the hindrance. Here the upbuilding is quite prop-
erly distinguishable by the negative.24 By this definition we can also
clarify the dialectics of the self in religiousness A: The more the indi-
vidual inwardly relates to himself, the more the self disappears or, put
simply, the very act of becoming oneself is the annihilation of the self.
When it comes to religiousness B, Climacus says that the upbuild-
ing is something outside the individualGod in time as an individual
human being.25 This does not say much, though, about the character
of the relationship. In fact, the description of the upbuilding is identi-

22 E. g. CUP1, 529 / SKS 7, 481.

23 Cf. CUP1, 560 / SKS 7, 509f.
24 CUP1, 560 / SKS 7, 509.
25 CUP1, 561 / SKS 7, 510.

Brought to you by | Copenhagen University Denmark

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/30/15 3:23 PM
290 Michael Olesen

cal to the description of religiousness B: God in time. Moving beyond

the passage referred to (the note on the upbuilding), one could again
point to the three previously mentioned expressions the conscious-
ness of sin, the possibility of offence and the pain of sympathy and
argue that these are the very descriptions of the Christians way of re-
lating in religiousness B and, as such, describe the upbuilding in B. I
think that this is a better explanation than the God in time, but still, as
we saw above, they emphasize the paradoxical isolation of the individ-
ual. And this isolation is so extreme that not only is the individual
eternally changed, he is also fixed in a state where there is no move-
ment, development or growth. It is the state in which the individual
grasps the paradox of Christ and, in this state, understands himself as
both sinner and justified; hence, the Christian is simul justus et pecca-
tor to use Luthers phrase. But whereas in Luthers teaching the em-
phasis is on enabling the individual to act freely in trust of Gods
grace, Climacus view does not encompass individual freedom or a re-
alization of Christianity in life. It is never a question of leading a good
life, of being able to act openly and freely in trust of Gods love and
care; it is only a question of seeing Christ properly and, in with this in
view, to grasp the paradox of being sinner and justified.
According to Climacus outline of Christianity in religiousness B, is-
sues like inwardness, ethical behaviour and the like thus appear to be
secondary if they are present at all. One might see them implicitly
present in Climacus insistence upon a relationship between A and B,
in the return of A within the B sphere, for instance. But even if one at-
tempts to underscore the importance of inwardness, etc., within reli-
giousness B, these issues disappear behind the paradox because the
Christian is not allowed to take his eyes off the paradox. The upbuild-
ing is thus lacking in religiousness B. It is simply irrelevant to Clima-
cus project; but the consequence is that religiousness B is not a form
of existence because it is impossible to realize in existence.

4. Climacus Theory of Religiousness and Religiousness

in the Edifying Work

When reading the edifying work, it is obvious in at least two ways that
one can indeed read it with the help of the Climacean alphabet; that
is, it is possible to classify the discourses within religiousness A or re-
ligiousness B. First, it is obvious because Climacus himself does so. In
his review of the first half of Kierkegaards production, he classifies all

Brought to you by | Copenhagen University Denmark

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/30/15 3:23 PM
 The Climacean Alphabet 291

the eighteen Edifying Discourses from 1843-44 within the sphere of

religiousness A.26 And though Climacus is not necessarily an author-
ity on Kierkegaards work, it can well be interpreted as an indication
of Kierkegaards approval of such a reading. Secondly, in a sense the
development in the edifying work itself suggests just such a reading.
The first half of the work hardly mentions Christ or the paradox, but
is focused more on what it means to be an existing person in the
world. Moreover, the negative seems to be the mark of the positive,
and self-annihilation certainly constitutes a prominent aspect. In the
latter part of the edifying work, the focus is more and more on Christ
and, through Him, great weight is attached to suffering and the Imita-
tion of Christ. In short, a Climacean reading seems obvious.
The problem that makes such a reading difficult is basically that the
religiousness implied in Climacus theory is not in accordance with the
religiousness of the edifying work. This becomes apparent when the
edifying religiousness gives weight to precisely the aspects lacking in
Climacus theory of religiousness. First, throughout the discourses,
one finds expressions of a living faith in a living God. God is no mere
principle. Instead, He is someone the existing person can turn to, can
pray to, can accuse, can find comfort in, etc. Faith is thus present
throughout the edifying work because the individual, in spite of his
burdens and trials, is allowed to find hope and to trust in Gods love.
As mentioned above, although one could see the edifying in the shape
of negativity not least in the early discourses it is important to note
the difference from the negativity implied in religiousness A. While
the latter leads into a totality of guilt where the individual becomes
locked up, the negativity of the edifying aims at disclosing the individ-
uals self-delusions and self-deceit in order to reveal new possibility
and new hope for the individual. In the edifying discourse, negativity
does not stand alone but is always coupled with something positive.
Secondly, the individuals understanding and self-relation is essen-
tial to edifying religiousness. In fact, edifying religiousness can tenta-
tively be captured through the term inwardness.27 It can be character-
ized as inwardness because it seeks to shed light on the intended lis-

26 Cf. CUP1, 270f. / SKS 7, 245f.

27 One could of course point to other terms and be right in doing so. The strength of in-
wardness is its double emphasis on the inner self-understanding and self-knowledge
on the one hand, and on the outward relation and its expressions on the other. See
also Arne Grn Subjektivitet og negativitet: Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: Gyldendal
1997, pp. 80ff. for an outline of the conception of inwardness (and its opposition to
reticence [indesluttethed]).

Brought to you by | Copenhagen University Denmark

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/30/15 3:23 PM
292 Michael Olesen

teners way of understanding himself, because it aims to disclose self-

understanding in order to open up a new self-understanding, and be-
cause it asks whether an inner self-understanding is maintained in
outer relations and actions. Inwardness is thus the starting point of the
edifying and it continues to be a decisive focus until the end. A read-
ing of the edifying work on the basis of the Climacean alphabet there-
fore runs the risk of losing these crucial elements of edifying religious-
ness: the relationship to a living God, faith and the emphasis on in-
wardness in the individuals self-understanding and way of relating.
As already implied, these discrepancies between Climacus and S.
Kierkegaard have much to do with their differing respective aims and
perspectives. While Climacus overall aim is steered by polemical
struggles and thus the perspective becomes the delineation of Chris-
tianity from common religiousness, S. Kierkegaards aim is the build-
ing up of the intended listener, which explains why the perspective
can be described as that of pastoral care.28 In this context, it may be of
interest that Climacus not only accounts for his own experimental
perspective and position I, Johannes Climacus, now thirty years
old, born in CopenhagenI now ask: How do I become a Chris-
tian?29 but he also indicates a different perspective on the preced-
ing page: The god rescues from delusion the person who in quiet in-
wardness and honest before God is concerned for himself; even
though he is ever so simple, the god leads him in the suffering of in-
wardness to the truth.30 In the reading of religiousness A and B pre-
sented above, the tension between the individuals self-relation and

28 N. J. Cappelrn has drawn my attention to the possibility of reading the edifying

work from the perspective of pastoral care. Not only does it capture the upbuilding
aim of the texts, it also makes sense with respect to the development in the edifying
work. Kierkegaards focus is on the intended listener and his method of pastoral care
is to meet the individual on the individuals own terms. The early discourses thus ad-
dress the single individual, that is, they meet the existing individual in the world.
By contrast, the later discourses address the worried and ultimately the sufferer,
suggesting that the discourses narrow their focus from the world to the God-relation
while they address the individuals spiritual growth. Finally, the perspective of pasto-
ral care gives cohesion to the edifying work by offering an overall Christian perspec-
tive on the discourses. (As I mention N. J. Cappelrns inspiration, I should also men-
tion that he would probably warn me of the risk of reducing the early discourses in
particular to pure and simple Christianity, which would thus eliminate their strong
universally human features.) See also Johannes Mllehave Til trst, Copenhagen:
Lindhardt and Ringhof 1983.
29 CUP1, 617 / SKS 7, 560 / cf. CUP1, 15f. / SKS 7, 25.
30 CUP1, 615 / SKS 7, 559.

Brought to you by | Copenhagen University Denmark

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/30/15 3:23 PM
 The Climacean Alphabet 293

Gods external intervention or guidance is lacking, both in terms of

the hopeless striving of religiousness A and the static state of reli-
giousness B. Climacus polemical perspective simply does not allow
for such nuances. Instead, his task is the delineation of Christianity.
But perhaps Climacus is aware of such an understanding of Christian-
ity but cannot give an account of it because it does not fall in line with
his project and consequently, it is left to S. Kierkegaard to construe
such an understanding. In any case, this is precisely the tension that
lies at the heart of the edifying work.

Brought to you by | Copenhagen University Denmark

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/30/15 3:23 PM