As many of you may've read, there is a small segment of extremely religious folks that believe that the Rapture, the end of days, is coming very soon -- namely Saturday, May 21st, at 6pm. This belief stems from the mathematical analysis of the bible as done by one particular preacher named Harold Camping.
Some folks, however, are taking it very seriously. One NYC man has retirement savings -- including $140,000 for an ad campaign -- to spread the word of the forthcoming rapture.
Why bring this up?
As I considered the ludicrous notion of the world ending on Saturday in tandem with our reading of Fear and Trembling, it dawned on me that something JdS/Kierkegaard mentions early on about the story of Abraham is true: we know that Abraham's act was a trial of God but only because we have the complete story and can reflect on it after the fact. At the time, however, his actions would have seem off, unethical, or wrong.
So then what of this NYC man? To him, this is his faith. He believes he has an absolute duty to god, and instruction to spread the gospel and alert people that their window for redemption is closely. He's sacrificed his money and his belongings and his time to do this.
On Saturday, if the Rapture were to actually happen as he foretells, those of us left behind would basically be saying "Wow, he was right; he did have a relationship with god, he was a man of faith" -- no?
But when it doesn't happen, we'll pity him or mock him or ignore him until he fades into history, a tragic character who sacrificed everything for nothing.
So do we need to know the final results to really judge someone a Knight of Faith? Can we only know whether someone is acting out of faith or demonic influence/sin after we see the results of the action?
It's a fine line, as we discussed, between an act of faith or an act of sin, in both cases prioritizing the individual over the universal. The difference is that absolute relationship with, and duty to, god -- but it's something we can't see, from the outside world, during the action.
Just something that crossed my mind and that I found interesting to ponder.
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me like there are a lot of differences between Keirkegaard's/JdS's Knight of faith and this guy putting up ads about the coming May 21st Rapture. For instance, the original belief comes not directly from God (as with Abraham/KoF), but from some calculation of the timeline in the Bible. The very public nature of the Rapture ad campaign seems to be at odds with the private, absolute demand received by Abraham from God. I dunno. But - as for whether or not we can judge this man (or anyone else) to be a Knight of Faith before the end of his story - it seems like K/JdS are saying that it's almost always impossible to spot a true Knight of Faith. Abraham is a kind of special case, because his story is actually given/explained in the Bible. Otherwise, we don't really have any criteria to find true faith (let alone separate true faith from sin) - it's impossible for anyone else know or interpret the relationship between God and the KoF. Even if the Rapture actually does happen on Saturday, do we actually have any confirmation or explication of this guy's relationship with God (it could have been a lucky guess :D)?
This same problem occurred to me at the end of class when we were discussing acts of faith vs acts of pure evil. The knight of faith will ALWAYS be invisible to us in the moment that they are acting out of faith precisely because we can NEVER know for sure if they are actually interacting with God or something else. Acts of faith and acts of pure evil look the same from the outside in. During the moment, it is only the act-er who can know if they are acting with God (although I question whether even though could ever truly know). For the outsider observers, it is only hindsight that will reveal their acts as of faith or something else.
ReplyDeleteI essentially understood the account the KOF in the same context that Oscar describes here and this is my biggest ISSUE with this book. This is a rather mundane example of an act of faith, earlier I spoke of the far more disturbing act of killing someone in the name of faith where this view of understanding faith becomes infinitely more serious. Earlier in the Preliminary Outpourings, JdS describes how he would attempt to talk someone out performing a wrongful act of faith but that he would not stop him. As cynical and grim as this notion is, I think it is of the utmost importance when anyone deals with something as powerful and all-pervasive as someone's "faith". I wonder if there is an implied trust that JdS has in the intentions of the religious which I think he either takes for granted or already expects the reader to understand? Anyway, I hope, for all our sake that this guy's "faith" is wrong!
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit of a stretch to try to compare these two accounts of faith. In Abraham's case, the faith is so strong that Abraham goes against not only common expectations about what is good and bad, but also against his own expectations of what is to be a father, human being, etc. One of the main reasons why he is Knight of faith, I think, is not because he goes against rules that everybody follows, but because he goes against his most intimate beliefs, his most basic instincts, he basically renounces everything that he is to do something that is right. This NYC man is clearly not an example of Knight of Faith. He believes that end of the world is coming. But this belief was not formed out of his direct communication with God. He just beliefs that the end of the world is inevitable, because of analysis performed on Bible by some other people. Analysis is speculation, and the Bible is a collection of stories. Knight of faith beliefs because he cannot otherwise, NYC man beliefs because he is scared and misinformed.
ReplyDeleteHi Dan!
ReplyDeleteI love the fact that you attempted to find a current Knight of Faith. However,
I agree with what has been said above... there are many differences between
these two stories.
For example: Abraham has a direct connection with God while this man does not...
Also, are the acts that the man is committing, conflicting with the ethical?
Abraham is sacrificing, that which he loves the most and which is irreplaceable..
God is asking Abraham to sacrifice his most valuable possession,
but as far as we know God did not ask this man to give his money up...
For all we know this man could be acting based on an evil call.. like Oscar has mentioned...
Yes, knowing the outcome negates the whole point of a test. If you knew the end result, there would be no virtue to it. If you knew it was a trial and that it would ultimately end well, there would be no element of faith in it. So, as laughable as the actions of this guy are to us, he thinks that he is doing the right thing by spreading what he thinks God's message is. Like Abraham, he is doing what seems inexplicable and unfathomable to us but what has deep meaning to him. He also thinks that he has a special relationship with God and has received some exclusive message from him. So, yes, the comparison is apt.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Camping has many of the same qualities a knight of faith, but to be a knight of faith, under Kierkegaard’s definition, one must be unknown as such (while they are being a knight of faith). The knight of faith is necessarily unintelligible as such, so the knight of faith may never be recognized. This just goes to further the point that a knight of faith is probably an impossible character. Even if he was possible, we would never know, only he would know, and in that case, it really would not matter. Being that the act of faith is a personal one, one exclusive to the individual, we will never see it, and it will never occur outside of people who believe they are being commanded by some supernatural force (Abraham or crazy people). I still cannot see how Abraham’s faith can have any bearing on us whatsoever. The picture of absolute faith portrayed in this book seems to be merely that it is a very difficult task.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting inquiry and connection to the text. I agree with those who have rejected the notion of this man as a Knight of Faith at all. I would say that the whole idea of the rapture is itself unethical and irrational, but that may depend on one’s own views and interpretation of the rapture and its context. This “faith” that is portrayed cannot measure up to that of Abraham’s. There is no “fear and trembling” that is occurring; it is merely the feeling of anxiety for coming to terms with and preparing for the Rapture. Perhaps this sheds some light on Johannes de Silentio’s window into faith. This man has a faith or trust in the bible and word of God, but his actions seem insignificant in the notion of faith described by JDS.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete