There are three 19th century Christian thinkers who fascinate 20th century theology: Newman, Dostoyevsky and Kierkegaard. Curiously, they arrive by almost common channels to Germany and France, and to the Christian universe as a whole. All three have "dramatic" biographies, or parts of them. In Newman, his conversion. In Dostoyevsky, his whole life. In Kierkegaard (1813-1855), the second part and especially the end of his short life (1846-1855), when he fully assumes what he considers his mission statement: to make Christians Christians who are not Christians.

Only his (long) stay at the university has, in general, a carefree and youthful tone, where he enjoys life, friends, beer and opera (and courses). Although always threatened by "melancholy" (depression) and with the imprint of a serious Lutheran Education and the death of five brothers.

The period of falling in love with Regina Olsen, also quite dramatic, gives way to mission statement. Even breaking up with her is his way of burning his ships and starting his mission statement, partly inspired by Socrates and partly by Christ. Like Socrates, he feels called to challenge his fellow Danes with irony to make them realize that they are not Christians. He goes ahead and wants to be "Christian" and work for Christ, and he knows that this path leads to the cross. He experiences it in the contradictions and difficulties he suffers until he dies physically, psychically and economically exhausted.

Of course, all this made his life and personality increasingly intense. He was very conscious of being "intense". And this, while admiring us, is a barrier to understanding him, because most of us are not like that. Moreover, he made it difficult. As part of the exercise of his Socratic irony (the reason for his doctoral thesis ), he wrote under different pseudonyms in his early works. It is not a mere game, they really want to represent different positions, in which he seems to place himself perfectly, but the critics do not.

His work has generated a "conflict of interpretations". Attracted by his civil service examination to Hegel, by his uncompromising defense of the personality of the "individual" and by his concept of "anguish" (existential), he is considered the inspiration for the existentialism of Heidegger and Sartre. But this would have surprised and disappointed Kierkegaard. Because, for Heidegger or Sartre, existentialism is to assume that there is no God and, therefore, that one has to get by in existence without expecting anything. And for Kierkegaard it is the opposite: the true realization of the existence of the individual is when he places himself before God, when he overcomes the aesthetic stage (living in search of tastes) and the ethical stage (trying to be moral or decent on his own) to recognize himself as a sinner and needy before God (religious stage). Thus he finds himself (resolves his anguish), thus he becomes an individual and thus he becomes a Christian.

Instead, he would have been thrilled to learn that his defense of the individual had a direct effect on the "philosophers of dialogue." For Ebner and later for Buber it was a spiritual revulsion, an intellectual conversion and staff. Both explicitly acknowledge this. For Martin Buber it was also a great inspiration for his social thought, to oppose fascist and communist totalitarianism, which in some way follow Hegel, where the individual becomes only a piece or a moment in the construction of society, which is the true end and subject of politics. With Ebner, the influence of Kierkegaard enters into the set of personalist ferments that renew Catholic morality and, with Buber, also into Christian anthropology.

On the other hand, it would be unfair not to recognize here the role that the convert and intellectual Theodor Haecker played in the reception of Kierkegaard in the field of language German. He immediately grasped the power of his message, translated it and introduced it. Through him, many German language thinkers encountered Søren Kierkegaard. And in addition, Haecker wrote remarkable essays about him, such as Kierkegaard's Hump.

Kierkegaard saw that the Christians in Denmark were perfectly well off and called themselves Christians because they registered their names in the civil registry, because they participated sporadically in ceremonies and because they tried to live with standards of public decency. Everything was Christian by inertia, but without any tension, without any drama, without any cross. At one time that society had been transformed by Christianity, but then everything went the other way around: Welfare had transformed Christianity into a harmless decoration.

It was precisely this critique that provoked the awakening of the conscience of many Protestant theologians, especially Karl Barth. Liberal Protestant theology had done precisely what Kierkegaard criticized: it had ironed out all the uncomfortable aspects of Christianity to make it acceptable to an affluent society, turning it into a vague openness to "the divine" and an inspiration of solidarity (Schleiermacher) for people who sought to be upright citizens.

Reading Kierkegaard, Barth realized the dissolution that this entailed. It is not reason with the culture of each epoch that must judge faith (because it dissolves it). On the contrary: it is faith, revelation, that will judge all epochs and everything human, in order to convert them into Christians. This is Barth's famous change between the first and second editions of his commentary on the Letter to the Romans. Although, later on, the mature Barth would not feel so close to Kierkegaard, as his ecclesial awareness increased. Kierkegaard, in the end, turns out to be quite individualistic. We will see this later.

Between the difficulty of interpreting Kierkegaard and the intellectual tics of the histories of the Philosophy, one can find presentations where it is omitted that he is a Christian or mentioned as a secondary feature, or even drawn as an anti-Christian, more or less close to Nietzsche, because of his criticism of the established church.

There is a small book by publishing house Aguilar (Mi punto de vista, 1988), with a translation (probably from Italian) by the poet José Miguel Velloso. In passing it must be said that the history of Spanish translations of Kierkegaard is "endless". And it is obligatory to mention Unamuno, who wanted to learn Danish in order to read him directly and imitated him as much as he could. Velloso's translation (despite its Italian debt) has some advantages: first, it reads very well; second, it brings together three key writings of Kierkegaard where he states how he feels Christian and how he understands his mission statement. The longest, My Point of View, is from 1846 and was edited posthumously by his brother (bishop of the Church of Denmark). In addition, the short text That Individual, where he defends that to become fully an individual is also to become a Christian. Then, also very brief, On my work as a writer (1849) and My position as a religious writer (1850). These writings, signed by him without a pseudonym, leave no doubt as to the intensity with which Kierkegaard wanted to be and to bear Christian witness. They are like his intellectual testament.

Of course, Kierkegaard is not a conventional Christian. Precisely his mission statement was to oppose turning Christianity into a social convention. He had received an intensely Christian and pious Education from his father, although this point is sometimes exaggerated. He kept it in his heart all his life.

The most exciting thing is that one can observe a kind of growing identification with Christ, especially in his last period. In this he is very reminiscent of Dostoyevsky. He not only admires the figure of Christ and moves his devotion, he also identifies with him when he suffers the misunderstandings to which his mission statement leads him.

When I consulted José García Martín, a Spanish specialist in Kierkegaard, he wrote to me: "Regarding his adhesion to Christ, I must say that it was total and existentially committed from his spiritual conversion, although without reaching a 'blood martyrdom', although he did sacrifice his life and fortune. In fact, we can consider her the most significant and determining figure in her life and work".

By the way, this author has a B essay on the reception of Kierkegaard in Latin America. Many articles that can be found online, and, among them, an excellent Introduction to the reading of Søren Kierkegaard.

To access Kierkegaard's soul there are, certainly, those little works that we have mentioned in My point of view. And there are his Diaries. We have only a selection at Spanish .

In this field and in that of the general Christian interpretation of Kierkegaard, the Thomistic philosopher Cornelio Fabro has played a very important role. He made a very meritorious Italian translation in many volumes, as well as many programs of study and an excellent introduction to the diaries, which occupies an entire volume of the Italian edition and gives a clear-sighted overview of his life and work. There is an interesting recorded interview, which can be found online. Fabro also did an Italian edition of his Exercitation of Christianity.

The Exercise of Christianity (1848) is one of Kierkegaard's great Christian works. It was published under the pseudonym Anticlimacus. As we have said, pseudonyms in Kierkegaard's work often introduce difficult changes of perspective. But here he uses the pseudonym because, as it were, he does not feel up to speaking in his own name. In the preface he clarifies: "In this writing [...] the demand: to be a Christian, is forced by the pseudonym to the highest Degree of ideality [...]. The demand must be heard; and I understand what I have said as having been said only to myself - that I should learn not only to seek refuge in 'grace', but to trust in it with respect to the employment I make of 'grace'." I quote from the first volume of Guadarrama's meritorious translation of several of his works (1961).

Observing these mentions of 'grace', as well as his criticism of the established Protestant church, some understood him to be close to Catholicism.

The question is complex. Perhaps it would be better to say that Kierkegaard is an "ecumenical" character, not quite fitting in with anyone, although he has a message for everyone, because he touches on some authentic and central aspects of Christianity: a passionate love of Christ, an awareness of the need for God in the human being, and a longing for his salvation.

Kierkegaard failed to perceive the beauty of the liturgy and its profound relationship to the being of the Church. That experience did not belong to his world. He saw an established church that blended with traditional Danish society and whose most authentic center was preaching.

He had prepared himself at the university to become a pastor; it was his father's dream, and, at different times, he strongly desired it and took steps. He was also attracted to and exercised preaching in various ways, leaving a curious and complex bequest of "edifying sermons". But he soon realized that his mission statement was much more solitary and Socratic Christian. It was not from within the system, but rather from outside, from where he had to challenge and die for the cause.

One of the most surprising things in the immense bibliography on Kierkegaard is the work of the American philosopher Jon Stewart. In addition to several monographs written by him, he has directed a very extensive series of collaborations on the influence of Kierkegaard in all aspects of thought, including theology (3 volumes). From the Catholic point of view, we have mentioned Cornelius Faber, and the classic essays of Régis Jolivet should also be mentioned. At Philosophy, Mariano Fazio has a guide of Kierkegaard's thought, which can be consulted online, and the corresponding voice in the online encyclopedia Philosohica. And Sellés, a study on Kierkegaard's anthropology.

Of course, there is much more. Kierkegaard is an author who needs introductions in order not to get lost in the labyrinths he himself set up and in those set up by his commentators. Without ever forgetting that My point of view, with its extensions, is really his point of view.