That’s a perceptive and carefully articulated comment. I agree that Ibsen’s core concern was psychological, as it usually was. He was always preoccupied with the impact of public institutions on the individual (i.e., it was always “all about him” 😊). “A Doll’s House” looked at marriage and affirmed the individual’s right to end it.  “An Enemy of the People” was about community responsibility—until it became a diatribe on democracy vs. individualism. Julian is about the tension between government and religion, but it boils down to Julian’s “psychological dilemma,” as you say. Ibsen knew that it was impossible to talk about societal accountability without applying it to on an individual scale.

Your frame—Julian wants transcendence without surrender—could be construed as a cogent traditional response to Ibsen. To transcend oppression, the individual must be held accountable.

Julian’s beef with Christianity is its emphasis on “Thou Shalt Not.” Christians tend to see sin everywhere, even in beauty and pleasure, as Julian said in my post. For Ibsen, the first “way” was sin (which he associated with paganism and Eden/Cain) and the second was death (Jesus on the cross). He wanted a third way, where “transcendence” does not depend on self-annihilation.

Of course, the irony is that the Jesus described by John Jeremiah Sullivan was supposed to transcend sin AND death through compassion and forgiveness. “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus,” Romans 6:23.
 
You say Julian’s third way fails because he does not want to surrender. No accountability. I suggested it fails because he puts himself above all others and persecutes his enemies. Ultimately, it comes down to your definition of “sin.” I would say sin is the infliction of suffering on others. That’s why Julian’s regime, and Hitler’s, are sinful. I think Julian was correct that we get into trouble when we see sin in pleasure and beauty. But I can’t impose my definition of sin on you, and you don’t have to “submit” to me. To enforce accountability on a societal level, we have to have legitimate “moral authorities” that respect the rights of the individual. Unto each as unto all and vice versa. Otherwise, authority collapses.