{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029646522234891677, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.797356828193832, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Kierkegaard and Radical Disciple-ship: A New Perspective

LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN once said that a philosopher, a real one apparently, was not a citizen of any community of ideas and that was what made him a philosopher {Zettel). Kierkegaard has always seemed thus to me, not overtly and obviously a churchly Lutheran, not exactly an existentialist, not this or that, really too many-sided to be a member of any school. Vernard Eller has written a long and informative study, provided indeed a new perspective, in which Kierkegaard's "radical discipleship" is first dug out of his texts and clearly stated, and then has compared this outlook, again in detail, to that of classic Protestant sectarians, the Brethren (or "Dunkers" as they were dubbed in the eighteenth century). Of course, the author is too well informed to pretend any massive historical influence upon Kierkegaard, but he does make a strong case for an affinity in kind. Eller does two things exceedingly well : He makes a strong case for showing, as Adolf Deissmann did for Paul the apostle, that Kierkegaard is not a technical theologian but is primarily a man of religion, that he belongs to faith, not to the theoreticians of it; and, secondly, he describes the Brethren, and, by implication, other sectarians too, in fine detail and with a firm historical hand. So, his book is historically rich and exceedingly fulsome, not seeking to do everything, but doing a few things very well. However, it is the comparison between Kierkegaard and the sectarians that goes down a little hard. For one thing, Kierkegaard was also the poet-dialectician; and, unlike Paul, he did not claim to be an apostle. Though it is right to point out that he does not really belong to academic theology, not at all, still he would never even acknowledge the possibility of being a hero of religion. So, to make the denial is not to make the affirmation that Eller does. And, when everything is admitted about affinities between Kierkegaard and the sectarians, about their use of the Bible, about faith, their individualism, about certain antiecclesiastical strains, still there is one large fact that will not go away, namely, that Kierkegaard disparaged those vivid Christians, who indeed wanted radical faith but still did not dare it until they had joined up with a few like-minded. Making a sect out of radical faith is something for which Kierkegaard's literature gives one very serious pause. Thus, I do not find Eller's book quite convincing, though one must also admit that every page is full of insight and is both religiously moving and intellectually gratifying.