Generally speaking, there are two ways the works of Soren Kierkegaard have been interpreted. The first, and more well-known, is to see him as a rather extreme religious existentialist thinker who placed blind faith as his top priority. According to this interpretation Kierkegaard believed that faith alone, unsupported by any historical or logical reasoning, is the ultimate criterion for judging a person’s existential value. His account of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only son Isaac if asked to by God in Fear and Trembling clearly focuses this extreme view of religious faithfulness. The person of faith finds himself treading water over 70,000 fathoms still believing the impossible contradiction that God became human. In other words, it is a leap of faith, there is no basis for it.
The second way of interpreting Kierkegaard’s line of thought is to see it as simply absurd at the outset and thus necessarily dismissible from a rational, philosophical point of view. This is, to be sure, the predominant point of view of most philosophical, and even many theological, thinkers. Henry Allison, in his essay “Christianity and Nonsense”, argues that Johannes Climacus’ presentation of the logic of Christian faith in Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript is either self-contradictory or flat-out irrational. (Cf. “Christianity and Nonsense” in Philosophy Today # 1) So we have this dilemma of how to understand Kierkegaard at the heart of his writings and perspective. Which way Kierkegaard?
I struggled with this issue for many years during my early years as a student of both philosophy and theology. I finally was able to put my mind to rest when I read Louis Mackey’s interpretation in his very insightful book Kierkegaard: A Kind of Poet. Mackey’s overview of Kierkegaard’s entire authorship revolves around his understanding of Kierkegaard as a poetic writer who, in and through his various writings and characters, “traffics in existential possibilities”. Rather than seeking to present a solid, one-dimensional perspective that covers all perspectives and interpretations of faith and life, Kierkegaard is, according to Mackey, striving to present the reader with a variety of perspectives embodied in the various characters comprising the cast of his creative writings in order to force the reader to think deeply and choose amongst them for him or herself.
Kierkegaard himself sets the stage for this way of viewing his authorship in his very early The Point of View for Understanding My Work as an Author and in his doctoral dissertation The Concept of Irony. In both of these works Kierkegaard extols the virtues of “indirect communication”, pseudonymity, and irony as the proper means of expressing and focusing of the various existential possibilities confronting the human individual. He makes it quite clear that his own works are to be understood as stimulators to one’s own action, not as patterns to be copied. I think there can be little doubt that in spite of numerous misunderstandings and exaggerations, Kierkegaard’s writings have succeeded achieving his goals. The characters and options populating his many works continue to be at the center of numerous lectures, debates, and writings, as well as the actual choices and behavioral patterns of those who have read his works.
Viewed from this interpretive perspective the many characters in Kierkegaard’s numerous volumes take on a whole new meaning and interest. Indeed, he himself becomes visible as more of a person in his own right rather than merely as a brilliant but eccentric theological thinker. So, I no longer struggle with the logical and theological issues raised by Kierkegaard’s writings in the same way as I used to. I still gather challenges and insights about my own way of being in the world, and still enjoy the cleverness of both the author and his characters, but I no longer puzzle over the confusing and at times seeming contradictory character of his incredible literary quality and theological diatribes. Actually, he now seems even more creative and insightful than before I came to understand him as primarily a literary artist. I would be very interested to know if and how any of these thoughts may strike my readers. (L. Mackey: Kierkegaard: A Kind of Poet, W. Lowrie, A Short Life of Kierkegaard, J. Gill, Essays on Kierkegaard)

Both of these “movements” or branches of Christian belief are rather modern and both distinguish themselves from mainstream Christianity. There has been a plethora of adds from the Fundamentalist point of view on mainstream media lately so I shall begin with it. The Fundamentalist movement began around the turn of the 20th century as an effort to counteract the rise of what is called the “Liberalist” interpretation of Christian faith which had arisen in modern times and had become the dominant interpretation of mainline Christian denominations, especially among English speaking believers.
Fundamentalism got its name from the title of a series of books called The Fundamentals sponsored by several very conservative Christian business men around 1900 and aimed to counteract the rise of the liberal interpretation of Christian faith called “Modernism.” These books focused on the truth of such traditional doctrines as the Verbal Inspiration of the Scripture, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the belief that Jesus’ death guaranteed salvation for those who believe in him.
The Modernist movement, which by then had come to represent the Christian Church in America, offered a more rationalistic and scientific account of the events described in the Bible and traditional doctrinal creeds. The Evangelical movement arose around 1950 in an attempt to establish an interpretive option to both Fundamentalism and Modernism. The key differences between it and Fundamentalism centered around the nature of the inspiration of the Bible and how Jesus’ death and teachings are to be understood.
While Fundamentalists insist that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and without error, Evangelicals acknowledge a more flexible approach, especially when it comes to scientific issues. Also, Fundamentalists insist on viewing Christian faith and salvation as directly dependent on Jesus’ death and resurrection, whereas Evangelicals tend to take a broader, richer view of these issues. They view the salvation provided by Jesus’ death and resurrection focusing on ethical and cultural terms.
The viewpoints in and behind the various “Christian commercials” referred to above are strictly from the Fundamentalist point of view. No effort is made to establish either the verbal authority of the scripture quoted or the particular view of salvation through Jesus therein emphasized. It is assumed that the Bible speaks the inerrant truth and that Jesus was and is the exclusive divine mediator between God and humans. Indeed, the Bible is quoted as if spoken directly by God, and Jesus’ death is said to have closed the deal for human salvation.
In my view, the chief difficulties with the Fundamentalist view pertain to the total exclusivity of its interpretation of both the scripture and Jesus’ death. The simple fact is that there is no one set of ancient manuscripts upon which to base the Bible itself. Rather, there are literally hundreds of manuscripts of the Bible, and they often contain serious differences. This is not to say that we cannot make out what the main teachings are, but it is to say that no claims can be made for an exclusivist interpretation of even some of its main teachings.
In addition, by and large the Fundamentalist understanding of Jesus’ life and teachings is far too simplistic to account for the depth and diversity of what the scripture clearly says. There are many factual discrepancies in the Gospel accounts, and some of the traditional interpretations of Jesus’ death and resurrection are quite confusing. Each of the Gospels has a different account of how things went at the end of his life.
The Evangelical point of view generally takes such issues into account, whereas the Fundamentalist perspective does not. Presenting the Christian Gospel cannot be a matter of simply saying “Here’s the truth.” A strong Christian faith takes crucial and relevant issues and criticism into consideration and a weak one does not.
In this regard Evangelicals have more in common with a classic liberal point of view than with the Fundamentalist point of view. That is to say, they regard the role of human reason and open discussion as crucial to the determination of what the scriptures, and thus what Christianity, actually stands for.