In the final chapter of Kierkegaard and Theology, Murray Rae contends that, of the current interest in Kierkegaard, ‘Only a portion of that interest is theological’ (p. 179). In this work Rae provides a sustained argument that this deficiency in theological interest is misguided. Rae shows that Kierkegaard's theology is the place where the philosopher, psychologist or general reader ought to begin; that without a clear understanding of the centrality of Christ, of grace and of scripture to Kierkegaard's thought, whatever insights one might glean about, for example, the human condition, will rest on faulty footing.
The idea that theological concerns ought to inform one's reading of Kierkegaard is not based in academic provincialism but in the quality of theology Rae believes Kierkegaard endorses – theology which edifies. ‘[I]n the midst of all the scholarly engagement with Kierkegaard we must remind ourselves that the reader he himself sought was one who was prepared to engage, not with his genius as an author, but with the existential challenge of the paradoxical self-presentation of God, and thus also with God's call upon every individual to a true realization of the self’ (p. 2). The edifying quality of Kierkegaard's writing is imitated in Rae's own style which, with pastoral tone, often makes use of the first person plural; for example, ‘The important question is whether through his corrective Kierkegaard still confronts us with the challenge of the gospel and by virtue of that challenge prompts action towards a giving of our whole lives, without merit as they are, into the hands of God’ (p. 165). Here the reader is momentarily called away from scholarly concerns and powerfully reminded of the personal and existential nature of Kierkegaard's theological address.
The reader will find the chapters ordered thematically, yet also concentrated on particular works of Kierkegaard. Chapter 3 concerns the pseudonymous pair of texts by Johannes Climacus. (Here I have a minor quibble; Rae treats these works as nearly entirely consistent, and yet Jamie Ferreira has recently argued that there are at least a few notable incongruities between the two books.) Chapter 4 primarily concerns Practice in Christianity; chapter 5 – Either/Or II, The Concept of Anxiety, The Sickness unto Death, and Without Authority; chapter 6 – Fear and Trembling and For Self-Examination; and chapter 7 – Works of Love, Judge for Yourself!, and For Self-Examination. I point this out as a way of recommending Rae's chapters not as commentaries but as short guides to those particular texts for readers interested in Kierkegaard's theology.
There are many strengths of Rae's book, including his discussions of the leap (chapter 3), Lessing (chapter 4), the atonement (chapter 5) and the ecclesia (chapter 6). I will say a bit more on two others. First, in chapter 7 Rae shows the relevance of Kierkegaard's thought to the grace versus works debate, in the context of a discussion of Works of Love. Rae's interaction with Barth is among the most important features of the book as it does the most to further the notion of Kierkegaard's relevance to contemporary theology. Rae carefully concludes that Barth misreads Kierkegaard when he claims that his gospel is too heavy-handed, and that the redeeming grace of Christ is not emphasised enough.
Second, Rae successfully defends the position that Kierkegaard's theology is orthodox and biblical. He supports the latter both by pointing out Kierkegaard's explicit dependence on scripture in developing his views of God, Christ, humanity, sin and grace, but also by drawing on his own wealth of biblical knowledge when it is only implicit in the primary texts. One result of this attention to scripture is a sharper sense of Kierkegaard's responses to the theologically problematic positions of Kant, Hegel and Schleiermacher.
Rae aptly describes Kierkegaard as ‘an uncomfortable ally for those who count themselves as Christian’ (p. 167). In this work, Rae – to use a Kierkegaardian term – ‘repeats’ Kierkegaard, making uncomfortable any reader who would sweep under the rug or dismiss the theological basis of Kierkegaard's thought.
