International Journal for Philosophy of Religion

, Volume 72, Issue 3, pp 157–175

A cure for worry? Kierkegaardian faith and the insecurity of human existence



In his discourses on ‘the lily of the field and the bird of the air,’ Kierkegaard presents faith as the best possible response to our precarious and uncertain condition, and as the ideal way to cope with the insecurities and concerns that his readers will recognize as common features of human existence. Reading these discourses together, we are introduced to the portrait of a potential believer who, like the ‘divinely appointed teachers’—the lily and the bird—succeeds in leading a life that is full of care, but free of worry. Such a portrait, we claim, echoes Kierkegaard’s portrait of the knight of faith in Fear and Trembling. In this essay we suggest that faith, as characterized in the ‘lily and bird’ discourses, is a kind of existential trust that would allow us to overcome worry, while remaining wholeheartedly engaged in the finite realm of our cares and concerns. We claim that Kierkegaard’s goal in these discourses is not to belittle our earthly cares, but to invite us to develop a modified attitude toward all that we are susceptible to worry about.


Faith Kierkegaard Love Ethics Existentialism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, R. M. (1990). The knight of faith. Faith and Philosophy, 7, 392–393.Google Scholar
  2. Beabout G. R. (2006) The silent lily and bird as exemplars of the virtue of active receptivity. In: Perkins R. (eds) International Kierkegaard commentary: Without authority. Mercer University Press, Macon, GA, pp 127–146Google Scholar
  3. Ferreira M. J. (2001) Love’s grateful striving. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, p 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Furtak R. A. (2005) Wisdom in love: Kierkegaard and the ancient quest for emotional integrity. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, INGoogle Scholar
  5. Gordon R. M. (1987) The structure of emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 68–70Google Scholar
  6. Hall R. L. (2000) The human embrace. Penn State Press, University Park, TX, pp 78–79Google Scholar
  7. Kierkegaard, S. (1985). Philosophical fragments and Johannes Climacus (Howard & E. Hong, Trans., pp. 171–172). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kierkegaard, S. (1988). Stages on life’s way (Howard & E. Hong, Trans., p. 236). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kierkegaard, S. (1990). Eighteen upbuilding discourses (Howard & E. Hong, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kierkegaard, S. (1993). Upbuilding discourses in various spirits (Howard & E. Hong, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (1993).Google Scholar
  11. Kierkegaard, S. (2009). Concluding unscientific postscript (A. Hannay, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Krishek S. (2009) Kierkegaard on faith and love. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Malantschuk, G. (2003). Kierkegaard’s concept of existence (Howard & E. Hong, Trans., p. 126). Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mooney E. (2007) On Søren Kierkegaard. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 236–237Google Scholar
  15. Nussbaum M. C. (1986) The fragility of goodness. Cambridge Univerisy Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Pattison, G. (2010). A note on the translation. In S. Kierkegaard, Spiritual writings (G. Pattison, Trans., pp. xxxi–xxxii). New York, NY: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  17. Possen D. (2005) Faith’s freedom from care. In: Perkins R. (eds) International Kierkegaard commentary: Upbuilding discourses in various spirits. Mercer University Press, Macon, GA, pp 153–172Google Scholar
  18. Stokes P. (2007) Kierkegaard’s mirrors. Inquiry 50: 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vogel L. (1994) The fragile ‘We’. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, ILGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyColorado CollegeColorado SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations