We, as human beings, have a tendency to create God in our image, to adapt and interpret the scriptures to better suit our personal feelings.  The word “apologist”, as defined by the dictionary, is a person who defends an idea, faith, or doctrine.  In this paper, the term “apologist” will be used to identify a person who through various exegetical methods or any other means, changes the literal meaning of scripture to make Christianity more acceptable to the secular world, tapping in the more connotational meaning of “apologist”.  Christians use this apologetic exegesis on particular verses, such as Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19:24 “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” becoming more of a mild warning than a venomous attack on material wealth, or on a much larger scale, such as the de-emphasis on the vengeful God of the Old Testament.  In his book Fear and Trembling, Søren Kierkegaard addresses these Christian apologists who wish to dull the edge of Christ’s sword.

            Kierkegaard starts his attack by citing a Biblical verse, Luke 14:26, which says, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Fear, 99)  He then goes on to say, “This is a hard saying, who can bear to hear it?” (Fear, 99)  For this reason, he says, Christians very often ignore it, which is popular method used to make the teachings of Christ more bearable.  But students of theology are forced to confront the meaning of the verse and do so by focusing on the word “hate.”  They adapt it by saying the word “hate” in this verse means things like “love less”, “give less priority to”, “show no respect to”, or “make nothing of”, but Kierkegaard claims the story that follows proves that “hate” means exactly what it says. (Fear, 99-100)

            In the next paragraph, Kierkegaard claims the Christian apologist is attempting to “smuggle Christianity into the world by haggling.” (Fear, 100)  The original tone of this verse is compromised by these apologists, making it “drivel rather than terror.” (Fear, 100)  This goes along with Kierkegaard’s claims in other writings that Christianity is “offensive”.  Christianity, if taken literally from the teachings of Christ, goes against many of our worldly sensibilities.  It is meant to shake us up.  It advocates poverty, weakness, being childlike, leaving behind those we love in order to give complete love to God.  Adapting Christianity to suit human beliefs dilutes the true meaning, making it almost worthless.  By making Christianity less offensive to humankind, it makes it offensive to God. 

            However, Kierkegaard does not expect us, by reading the passage literally, to start hating our parents.  “The words are terrible, but I feel sure they can be understood without the person who understands them necessarily having the courage to do as they say.  And yet there must be honesty enough to admit what is there, to confess to its greatness even if one lacks the courage oneself.  Anyone who manages that will not exclude himself from a share in the beautiful story.” (Fear, 100)  He simply wants us to recognize what the passage is actually saying.  

This practice of exegesis to make Christianity more in sync with our modern ideals is as alive today as it was in Kierkegaard’s time.  One of the claims made by modern Christians is that Jesus Christ taught family values.  This claim is the reaction of many Christians concerned with the apparent disintegration of the family.  They see this lack of the family as the cause of the problems of the world and use scripture to back it up.  It is true that Jesus said “Honor thy father and mother”, quoting the commandments of the Old Testament.  Also, he spoke out against divorce, but, if one takes a closer look at the words of the New Testament, this current belief may be called into question.

            In Mark 1:19-20, we see Jesus calling James and John away from their father.  In Jesus’ time, the child had a duty to stay with their father and help with the work.  But here we have Jesus telling them to follow him by abandoning their father.  In Luke 12: 51-53, Jesus says that he has come to divide households against themselves.  He says, “father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother.”  In Matthew 19: 29, he says, “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life.”    

            Biblical evidence shows contradictory support for the idea that Jesus was for the type of family values presented by modern American Christianity and we cannot ignore this contradiction if we consider ourselves true Christians.  Else where in the Gospels, Jesus calls for a redefinition of the terms mother, father, brother, and sister, such as in Matthew 12: 50, “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”  He applies these terms equally to everyone, expanding the family into the population of the world.

            The fact that many Christians forget is that Jesus was an iconoclast.  If an ideal was held by the community, it did not mean that Jesus supported it.  Mainstream Christianity has ignored his rebellious nature by ignoring and reinterpreting what he actually said.  The family is not the ultimate goal.  Living for God is the ultimate goal.  The teachings of Christ, or any religious leader, should not be viewed as a buffet, where one picks the parts he or she likes and leaves the rest untouched.  By doing this they trivialize their own position.  By following the parts of the scripture one agrees with, but dismissing the ones one does not, it leaves the whole process empty, or as Kierkegaard put it “drivel”.

            Another example of this is public prayer.  Many modern American Christians advocate prayer as show of devotion; some even wish to have it in public schools.  However, if you look at the teachings of Christ literally, as Kierkegaard calls for, this wish is also called into question. 

            In Matthew 6: 5-6, Jesus says, “And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.  Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”  If taken literally, this is a command against public prayer.  However, Christian apologists, when they do not ignore it completely, tend to weaken it by saying things like Jesus was speaking out against hypocrites only and if you are not a hypocrite then public prayer is a good thing.  As Kierkegaard said this turns the statement into “drivel”, but not only that, it jeopardizes the rest of the New Testament.  If one command Jesus gives is explained away because it offends our sensibilities, then all other commands, like the command to love thy neighbor, he gives are in danger of losing their meaning as well.  One cannot dilute the salt concentration of one part of the ocean without lowering the concentration of the entire sea.

            In conclusion, Kierkegaard’s attack against Christian apologist calls for a Christianity that is a difficult and frightening, but one he gets from the New Testament.  He claims that curbing the bite of Jesus’ preaching through exegesis is a dilution that can only negatively affect Christianity as a whole.  He believes we take Christianity on its own terms, not ours.  The practice of diluting Christianity is not unique to Kierkegaard’s time, but can be seen in our own as well.  Perhaps Kierkegaard’s outrage did not go far enough, modern day Christians do a far better job of suppressing the teachings of Christ, through their process of picking and choosing, than the Romans did when they crucified him.