Footnotes, Chapter 6h
Kierkegaard and Radical Discipleship: A New Perspective (Eller)
This file is provided for browsers lacking the ability to show notes in pop-up windows, and for those wishing to print the document with endnotes.
In Dru’s and in Rohde’s selections from Kierkegaard’s journals, the number identifies an entry rather than a page; the date following is that of the particular entry.
1. Discourse II on "What Is To Be Learnt from the Lilies" in The Gospel of Suffering, 234.
2. Works of Love, 315.
3. Attack upon "Christendom," 287.
4. Brumbaugh, op.cit., 68, 176-77.
5. Michael Frantz, a letter dated Dec. 9, 1747, in Henry Kurtz, The Brethren's Encyclopedia (Columbiana, Ohio: 1867), 133-34.
6. Whether, in eighteenth century Brethrenism, the deacon should be considered as a cleric or a layman is a very neat question. Deacons were inducted into office through a laying on of hands, although it is also true that every member was so ordained into the Christian life at the time of his baptism. When, in the late nineteenth century, the Brethren began to develop a trained, professionalized ministry, the diaconate clearly became a lay office; but in the eighteenth century, the lay clergy distinction was of such little moment that the question about deacons could not even be formulated.
7. The so-called writ of censure (which is entirely my own title) is preserved in English translation in Kurtz, op.cit.,137-41.
The sequel and climax to the story is this: To the original, 1764 manuscript of the writ was appended a note by Mack Junior, dated May 17, 1767. In it he asseverates that, although he still holds the views expressed in the writ, he does not want either his name or the writ itself to be made the authority for calling any "big meeting" that might endanger the Gemeinschaft of the church. In addition to his own, this "concluding unscientific postscript" bears the signatures of three more of the original four other signers of the writ It seems quite unlikely that the writ was ever "served"; the Brethren put higher value upon the preservation of Gemcinschalt than upon correcting Sauer. At the same time, however, it is highly likely that the concern did get communicated to the offender; the catalog of the Sauer Press lists no further printings of catechisms until 1777, the year when control of the business passed from Sauer to his sons. Apparently Elder Sauer--as well as his petitioners--had some feeling for Gemeinschalt.
8. Dru Journals, 551.
9. The Preface to For Self Examination, 5.
10. Dru Journals, 877 (1849). Cf. S.K.'s statements quoted above.
11. Either/Or, 1:116; 2:77, 2:280, 2:297; Stages of Life's Way, 222, 226, 282, 297.
12. Postscript, 92, 502.
13. "Faith's Expectation" (Discourse I) in Edifying Discourses, 1:10.
14. Works of Love, 335; cf. 97. Cf. also the second of "Two Notes on 'the Individual'" in Point of View, 118.
15. Works of Love, 80, 81.
16. The Preface to "Two Notes on 'the Individual'" in Point of View, 107-8. Cf. Works of Love, 52, and The Book on Adler, xxi.
17. "Every Good Gift ..." (Discourse III) in Edifying Discourses, 2:48; see the entire discourse for an extended discussion of the theme.
18. The Present Age, 53; cf. 51ff for an extended discussion.
19. Purity of Heart, 123, 125.
20. Postscript, 204. Cf. Attack upon "Christendom," 159.
21. Works of Love, 85, 87.
22. Dru Journals, 719 (1847); cf. 769 (1848), 1092 (1850), and 1367 (1854). Cf. also Point of View, 48-49.