[pro610]

Dont take this as an insult but your knowledge of Kierkegaard seems to be limited.
If you are going to research Kierkegaard from a Christian viewpoint you must come to the conclusion that Kierkegaard,s existentialist philosophy is unChristian and negative.

Here is a better example of what Kierkegaard says.
He says "After all the world is absurd,and everything we do is absurd anyway,why not do the most absurd thing imaginable? and what can be more absurd than believe in God?So why not? The atheist don,t have any reason to believe in anything else,or really disbelieve in that.
So we may as well Go for It!

According to Kierkegaard since there is no objective reality upon which we can rely we must make a "leap of faith" and in this leap of faith there is a personal experience which is valid because the truth is the truth as it relates to me.

It,s obvious that Kierkegaard did not believe in being Born Again as in John 3:3 and John 3:7 because he replaced it with his "leap of faith" philosophy.
John3:3
Jesus answered him,
Truly,truly,I say to you
unless one is born anew,
he cannot see the kingdom of Heaven

John 3:7
Do not marvel that I said to you,
You musy be born anew.

So when I see certain Church Growth Movement leaders using the words Leap of faith it concerns me as it should anyone.

Peter Drucker,s influence on the CGM is easily exposed and Peter Drucker is on record calling Soren Kierkegaard his mentor.
Robert Schuller Bill Hybels and Rick Warren all praise Drucker and call him their mentor or very influential person in their life.

I,m not necessarily claiming guilt by association but
there are certain pattern,s here and it,s foolish not be on guard.

[P-Marlowe]

So when I see certain Church Growth Movement leaders using the words Leap of faith it concerns me as it should anyone.

Everybody uses the term "leap of faith".

Surrendering to Christ is a leap of faith. Heck, driving in the snow is a leap of faith.

Of all the silly turns of phrases to latch onto as evidence new age thinking, that has to be the silliest.

Give it up, pro610.

Find a new cause.

Join a protestant church.

[blue-duncan]

"and what can be more absurd than believe in God?"

And if you were arguing with a rationalist what would be more absurd to him than a belief in a transcendant God? You are critiquing a man from a 21st century mindset, not the context in which he wrote and thought. His existentialism is a 20th century construct. He was a devout Christian who was almost singlehandedly fighting the smug Deist complacency of his state church.

Have you read any of his devotional or theological writings or are you just quoting excerpts and opinions from his critics?