Soren Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard believed that he himself was a part of this process, and he con-
tinued his attack in a determined manner: “Here in this country and else-
where, the communists are fighting for human rights. Good, that is what I
do as well. And this is exactly why I am fighting with all my strength against
the tyranny of the fear of man....What communism makes such a fuss
about is what Christianity assumes to be self-evident, that all people are
equal before God, thus, they are essentially equal.” Or, brief and to the
point: “What is humanness [Danish:Menneskelighed]? It is human equality
[Danish:Menneske-Lighed]. Inequality is inhumanness.”
Kierkegaard’s alternative to communism, socialism, liberalism, and his
own old-fashioned conservative tendencies was thus something as radical
and bold as mercy! It was not without reason that he insisted that the eighth
chapter in the second part ofWorks of Lovewas written in direct “opposition
to communism.” In a way, we might add that this is true of the entire book,
but the chapter in question is indeed one of the most materially relevant in
the book, even if it bears a quite immaterial title, “Mercifulness: A Work of
Love Even if It Has Nothing to Give and Is Incapable of Doing Anything.”
The chapter contrasts the true essence of mercy with “this unending worldly
talk of beneficence and benevolence and philanthropy and giving and giv-
ing,” and Kierkegaard dismisses the latter alternative with his unique-
ly solicitous brutality: “Oh, let newspaper columnists and tax collectors and
directors of poor relief speak of philanthropy and count and count, but let
us never fail to notice that Christianity speaksessentiallyof mercifulness.”
This does not mean that the merciful are freed from philanthropic deeds;
on the contrary, “It goes without saying that if the merciful person has
something to give, he will more than gladly give it.” Kierkegaard’s point is
that one can be “merciful without having the least thing to give,” and that
in itself being merciful is a “far greater perfection than having money and
thereforebeing ableto give.” Or, to express the same thing a bit more freely:
“Because a person has a heart in his breast, it does not necessarily follow
that he has money in his pocket, but the former is of course what is more
important, and it is of decisive significance with respect to mercifulness....
For Eternity has the keenest eye and the most sophisticated understanding
with respect to mercifulness, but no understanding whatever of money.”
With these words the ideological perspective is deconstructed and then re-
constructed into a direct theological provocation—one that is almost scan-
dalous and of course arouses offense. And Kierkegaard in fact heads off a
number of objections with a little dialogue that is both indignant and (we
will soon see) equally calculated to arouse indignation: “ ‘The poor person,
the wretched person, he could indeed die—so what is most important is
that help be given.’ No, Eternity answers, what is most important is that