Even if faith, hope, and love are not simply internal, but actively manifested in individual action, and even if faith struggles, hope recruits courage in oppression, and love reaches out maieutically to the neighbor, this still does not touch the question of the social and political implications of these Christian virtues. Does Kierkegaard's understanding of these passions of Christian faith give one resources for critique of one's society? Another way to put this is: does the religious imagination simply strive to endure and attend, or does it do more? Can we stand outside of our social worlds and critique the images of the age? And how does one Christianly justify a stance of opposition?

The common interpretation of Kierkegaard is that his religious thought does not address these problems, that despite his critique of institutionalized self-deception (chapter 1) he is radically individualistic, not only acosmic in his alleged ethics of inwardness, but cut off from the political world. Given his frequent references to the contrast between Christianity and politics, his hatred of “the crowd,” his concern with the individual, his respectful regard for the monarchy, Kierkegaard is often labeled a conservative. He is viewed, as Bruce Kirmmse says,