Sunday, September 25, 2005

Abraham - Genesis 22:1-18

This is a complex story, and can be helpful and relevant to our lives since the situations we face are often complex, too.


This story has been seen in various lights depending on the situations of the readers. Today we might ask who or what we might be sacrificing on the altars of our ambitions, careers, etc.



The Danish writer Kierkegaard is well-known for his explorations of this story.

Some of his ideas follow:


Abraham acts in silence and isolation.
Why?
Abraham is a not a traditional hero, but a "knight of faith."
A traditional hero would perform some great act of renunciation that could be universally appreciated. A knight of faith makes a leap of faith that is personal and may even seem absurd.


There is a conflict between the ethical and the religious.
Here, "ethical" refers to rules that protect society.
"Religious" refers to response to God.
A true religious action may go against the prevailing ethics.


Abraham's religious act is more than obedience to God, it is a leap of faith.
A leap of faith involves trusting that God's plan will be right in the end. A leap of faith exposes a person to the possibility of being proved wrong.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A true religious action may go against the prevailing ethics." This is a rather inflammatory statement. Taken out of the context of the Abraham and Isaac narrative, it could mean that the religious action is the higher ground because the prevailing ethics are so abhorrent. Yet, it is just the opposite in the case of Abraham and Isaac, or at least to us in our day and culture. Today we would hold the prevailing ethic to be "thou shalt not kill." That, of course, is also in agreement with religious thought. So, then, how could Kierkegaard's statement be true? Abraham lived prior to that commandment, so do we think that the prevailing ethic was different?
On a different strain, isn't this a foundational belief for the suicide bombers of today? Do we think they are rightly religious in their actions? I certainly do not.

6:26 AM  
Blogger Charles Hulin said...

Hi Anonymous,

Thanks for commenting!

I'm no expert on Kierkegaard's thought, so I can't claim to do his ideas real justice.

With that said, I think the idea is that in our response to God, we may at times have to stand alone against the society around us. It may be impossible for us to explain our actions to people who do not have a relationship with God through grace.

It may be that I have unintentionally misrepresented Kierkegaard's definition of "ethics" through my word choice. My sense (and again, I could be wrong about this) is that "ethics" in this context refers to rules that do not have the completeness of God's vision.

In that sense, I believe we could come up with lots of ethical systems that could involve some principles that are opposed to what Christian's have frequently held to be God's way, including the ethical systems within some churches. In fact, I think it was the ethics of the church in Kierkegaard's day that led him to this type of statement.

I'm not sure exactly how to view Abraham's act, but I am comforted by Kierkegaard's idea that Abraham's leap of faith involved trusting that God's plan would eventually come out right.

I'm not sure I followed all the points you made in you comment, so I invite you to discuss some more if you'd like to.

9:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home