Kierkegaard’s celebrated focus on subjectivity problematizes the possibility of understanding a religion of which an individual is not a passionate adherent. The pseudonym Climacus, a humorist, exemplifies this conundrum. He vociferously insists that an individual must share the pathos of a religion in order to understand it. However, Climacus dares to outline Christianity while admitting that he does not practice it. But Climacus may not be engaging in a self-contradiction here, for his pathos as a humorist allows him to appreciate some aspects of the pathos of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Some passional contiguities between humor and Christianity make a partial understanding possible. Climacus’ practice may provide a model for a non-practitioner’s imperfect understanding of any specific religion.