A Revelation of the Inward: Schleiermacher’s Theology and the Hermeneutics of Interiority Gregory A. Thornbury

Gregory A. Thornbury is Instructor Introduction Schleiermacher. Schleiermacher forces of Christian Studies at Union University, For nearly two centuries, the theology of theologians to declare their commitments Jackson, Tennessee. He is co-editor of Friedrich Schleiermacher has provoked about modernity, historical criticism, and the forthcoming volume Who Will Be controversy. During the nineteenth and theological method. Widely acclaimed as Saved? The Doctrine of Salvation at twentieth centuries, theologians have “the father of modern theology,” Friedrich Century’s End (Crossway). He has also debated, sometimes intensely, the mean- Schleiermacher irrevocably changed the written a chapter on A. H. Strong for ing and applicability of Schleiermacher’s terms of modern theological debate. No the revised edition of Baptist Theolo- contribution for modern theology. Sym- one can afford to ignore Schleiermacher. gians (Broadman and Holman). He is a pathy with Schleiermacher’s theology has Schleiermacher’s influence has, at Ph.D. candidate at The Southern Bap- often composed the dividing line between times, turned up in rather surprising tist Theological Seminary. liberal and conservative, orthodox and places. At the close of the nineteenth cen- heterodox. For example, Stephen Neill tury, conservative evangelical theologians told the story of J. C. Thirlwall, a fellow began to look to Schleiermacher for inspi- of Trinity College, Cambridge, who ran ration. In the Southern Baptist tradition, afoul with authorities in the Anglican E. Y. Mullins drank deeply from the well church in 1825 for translating Schleier- of Schleiermacher’s thought. Mullins macher’s Essay on the Gospel of Luke. As a incorporated Schleiermacher’s emphasis result of his translation of Schleiermacher, on feeling and experience into his own Thirlwall was denied the bishopric of system, and significantly altered the Norwich, due to suspicions about his or- course of twentieth century Southern Bap- thodoxy. Several years later, when the see tist theology. Although Mullins expressed at St. David’s was vacated, Lord Mel- disappointment with Schleiermacher’s bourne requested an interview with position on Scripture, he praised Schleier- Thirlwall in order to confirm Thirlwall’s macher’s success in “harmonizing the orthodoxy. Neill recounted, “The Prime rationalistic and supernaturalistic tenden- Minister received Dr. Thirlwall in his bed- cies” in religion.2 Mullins appreciated room; after an interview of some length, Schleiermacher’s location of epistemo- Melbourne turned to his departing guest logical claims within the self-conscious- and said: ‘I have done you a favor by pre- ness. By doing this, Mullins thought, senting you with a bishopric; now I want Schleiermacher protected Christian truth you to do me a favor in return.’ claims from the challenges of skeptical …Melbourne continued: ‘What the devil empiricism. Summing up Schleier- made you translate Schleiermacher?’ His- macher’s contribution, Mullins asserted, tory has, alas,” Neill wrote, “concealed the “Schleiermacher restored Christianity to answer to the question.”1 Few theologians the inner life of men…. Christian con- have felt apathetic about the theology of sciousness [was] henceforth to be reck- 4 oned with as a new force. The witness macher, he has often remained unrecog- of the spirit within was of the utmost nized by those who have appropriated his importance—experience and not theory theology. Schleiermacher inherited the [became] the basis of certainty.”3 “Schle- epistemology of the Enlightenment and iermacher restored the experience to its offered a subjectivist account of theology place as an authority,” Mullins concluded, to his culture. Although Schleiermacher “and legitimized mysticism in the Chris- ultimately failed to persuade the “cul- tian churches—hitherto this only a mere tured despisers of religion” of the value sect. Now all are mystics.”4 Mullins’ of religion during his own time, he reorientation of the theological task nonetheless greatly influenced a subse- around experience changed the course of quent generation of church leaders and Southern Baptist theology, and subse- lay people who, like Schleiermacher quently helped to produce a populist the- placed heavy emphasis upon personal ology among Southern Baptists which experience as the guiding norm for extolled the importance of feeling and theology. Schleiermacher’s long shadow experience. None of this would have been falls across many theological traditions, possible without the impact of Schleier- in both the liberal ones that praise him, macher’s theological contribution. and the conservative ones unaware of Although Schleiermacher’s thought his influence. remains one of the most complex contri- butions in the history of systematic theol- Personal Background ogy, some of his ideas nonetheless have “If one should imagine both a religious received wide popular acceptance, even interest and a scientific spirit,” wrote though Schleiermacher himself stays Friedrich Schleiermacher in 1830, “con- unacknowledged as the source. joined in the highest degree and with the After Karl Barth declared in “The finest balance for the purpose of theoreti- Strange New World Within The Bible” cal and practical activity alike, that would that “One can not speak of God simply be the idea of ‘a prince of the Church.’”5 by speaking of man in a loud voice,” some Throughout his theological career, observers declared the obsolescence of Schleiermacher attempted to be the Schleiermacher’s theology. Conventional “prince,” presiding over an entirely new wisdom held that Barth and Brunner dealt statement of the theological disciplines a decisive deathblow to Schleiermacher’s eminently fit for his age. Schleiermacher anthropocentric theological method. But sought a theological approach for the new as the influence of neo-orthodoxy has intellectual day asserting itself upon the waned at the end of the twentieth century, Church, a method capable of rescuing the current scholars have declared the pro- theological disciplines from the brute fact found and ongoing influence of of the Enlightenment. Any attempt to re- Schleiermacher on both the church and claim the legitimacy of theology for the the academy. Perhaps more than any other educated German needed to meet Enlight- modern theologian, Schleiermacher’s enment skepticism on its own terms—and ideas have found the most wide-ranging surmount them. acceptance in the popular theological Schleiermacher faced the challenge of imagination. Unfortunately for Schleier- reestablishing the importance of dogmat- 5 ics in an era that hardly believed doctrines cal task. As Rudolf Otto explained, mattered. Commenting on the rebellion against authority which marked the No matter what one’s attitude toward Schleiermacher’s method “enlightened” mind, Peter Gay observed, and his utterances on religion may be, “Theirs was a paganism directed against one is time and again enthralled by their Christian inheritance and dependent his original and daring attempt to lead an age weary with and alien to upon the paganism of classical antiquity, religion back to its very mainsprings; but it was also a modern paganism, eman- and to re-weave religion, threatened cipated from classical thought as much as with oblivion, into the incomparably rich fabric of the burgeoning intellec- from Christian dogma.”6 Consequently, tual life of modern times.8 Schleiermacher wanted to reclaim theol- ogy, but his reclamation proceeded on the Despite his well-known condemnation terms of modernity. If “classical thought” of Schleiermacher’s theological method, suffered the same casualties as the doctri- Karl Barth esteemed his predecessor’s nal distinctives of the Christian faith, work. In Barth’s understanding, Schle- Schleiermacher thought, then any pro- iermacher remains our contemporary. gram for recovery could not prosecute a He writes, “conserving” or “conservative” theology. The old metaphysic of Protestantism, Schleiermacher is not dead for us and his theological work has not asserted in the dogmatic sentences of the been transcended. If anyone still Church and summarily deflated by Kant, speaks today in Protestant theology he held, could not carry the weight placed as though he was still among us, it is Schleiermacher. We study Paul and on the faith. For Schleiermacher, theology the reformers, but we see with the at the turn of the nineteenth century stood eyes of Schleiermacher and think in shambles, unfit to answer a culture along the same lines as he did. This is true even when we criticize or unconvinced by its necessity and unable reject the most important of his to support a tottering post-Enlightenment theologoumena or even all of them.9 faith. “Piety,” he asserted, “cannot be an instinct craving for a mess of metaphysi- Schleiermacher offered a theology for cal and ethical crumbs.”7 moderns—simultaneously obtuse and Schleiermacher’s entire theological lucid, rigorously structural, and radically contribution served as a search for, articu- discontinuous with traditional Protestant lation of, and systematization of the orthodoxy. At its very core, Schleier- princely “idea” to which he alluded in his macher’s understanding of the Christian Brief Outline on the Study of Theology. faith reads like an intellectual biography Schleiermacher sought to wed the reli- of early modernity. It is inward, monadic, gious spirit to the sensibilities of a scien- anthropologically absorbed, and unques- tific age, thereby achieving a new Begriff, tionably driven by the Sitz im Leben of an organizing idea to rehabilitate theol- modern man. ogy. Schleiermacher’s successors, despite Lest one view Schleiermacher’s theol- their internal divisions concerning the ogy as a purely altruistic attempt to res- success of his theological rescue attempt, cue theology from the prison of admired the scope and sheer comprehen- Enlightenment rationalism, one needs to siveness of his renovation of the theologi- understand Schleiermacher’s own per- 6 sonal situation that gave rise to his radi- He never expressly said so Himself; and I cannot believe it to have been cal reinterpretation of the Christian faith. necessary, because God, who evi- While Schleiermacher sought to prove dently did not create men for per- himself a faithful son of the Church, he fection, but for the pursuit of it, cannot possibly intend to punish did not see himself as a preserver of them eternally, because they have orthodoxy. Schleiermacher’s methodol- not attained it.10 ogy found its voice early in his theologi- cal career. Correspondence between With this remarkable phrase, Friedrich Schleiermacher and his father during his Schleiermacher repudiated Christianity. career as a student at the Moravian Semi- He could not, and would not believe nary at Barby and the University of Halle orthodoxy any longer. He never changed reveals the profound departure of the that belief. With this critical passage from theologian from orthodoxy extremely his own pen, the interpreter of Schleier- early in his intellectual development. macher immediately understands the Frustrated with the “traditional doctrines” development of his future theological pro- taught to him at the seminary, Friedrich gram. His was no gradual modification of readied himself for larger pursuits. Christian theology, or a mere updating of Despite the protests of Gottlieb Schle- theological expression in a new linguistic iermacher, his son entered Halle and form. Rather, Schleiermacher rejected quickly began appropriating his instruc- Protestant theology at its core. He sum- tors’ critique of Protestant theology. Panic- marily denied the God of the conciliar stricken, Gottleib wrote letters to his son creeds, and the metaphysic of the biblical seeking to reclaim him for orthodoxy. worldview. Still, he continued to love the Faith in the Gospel traditionally under- Church. He wanted to see the Church sur- stood by the Church, he argued, is indis- vive and thrive because he felt its piety pensable to one’s salvation. Friedrich energized human existence. tortured himself with his father’s solemn Despite all his infidelities, Schleier- warnings, but refused to heed them. In a macher was not an atheist, customarily remarkable letter, dated January 21, 1787, defined. He unswervingly held that con- the nineteen-year-old Friedrich admitted sciousness of God fundamentally consti- to his father that the old theology no tuted the authentic human being. In longer held its sway over his thinking and reaction to the cold transcendence of affections. Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote Deism, and to maintain a place for God in to his worried father, modernity, Schleiermacher placed God where He would be safe: in self-conscious- Faith is the regalia of the Godhead, ness (Selbstbewußtsein). Schleiermacher’s you say. Alas! dearest father, if you theological system achieved a place for believe that, without this faith, no one can attain to salvation in the next God in piety—but at the expense of the- world, nor to tranquillity in this— ology. Circumscribed by consciousness, and such, I know, is your belief—oh! Schleiermacher’s God sacrificed his meta- then pray to God to grant it to me, for to me it is now lost. I cannot physical transcendence, his personhood, believe that He, who called Himself and his independent interaction with the the Son of Man, was the true eternal God: I cannot believe that His death world. Given all of this, one may wonder was a vicarious atonement, because why Schleiermacher did not sacrifice 7 Christian theology altogether. The answer from a perceived need for a restatement lies in the fact that Schleiermacher saw in of Christian themes but from a fundamen- Christian theology a coherence for belief, tal desire to reject categorically the ortho- an area in which pure philosophy igno- dox faith of his father, the Reformers, the miniously failed. Schleiermacher saw that ecumenical councils, and the Church. philosophy left to itself ignored the essen- tially religious character of humanity. In The Intellectual and Cultural his understanding, systematic theology Background to Schleiermacher’s distinguishes an advanced religious belief Thought from lower ones: “None but the subordi- Schleiermacher’s new vision of Chris- nate forms of religion and smaller sects tianity and the theological task grew fail to aim at completeness.”11 Systematic out of a simultaneous conflict with and theology, for Schleiermacher, further embrace of the new worldview produced legitimizes religion. by the Enlightenment. As a student enter- Scholars of Schleiermacher’s theology ing Halle, the demands of a German uni- largely have avoided the issue of Schleier- versity immediately confronted the young macher’s early embrace of heterodoxy Schleiermacher. Thrust into an environ- and its importance for the emergence of ment in which education meant a com- his theological system. Perhaps partly prehensive knowledge of numerous driven by an impulse to justify his mod- disciplines, Schleiermacher pursued his ernism, or a lack of awareness of his sub- studies with vigor, demonstrating consid- stantive rejection of historic theological erable ability in linguistic and biblical positions, Schleiermacher’s interpreters studies. Considerably different from his offer either approbation or imprecations studies at the Moravian seminary at Barby, regarding this great figure’s theological life at Halle forced Schleiermacher to con- method, with the notable exception of one front the major philosophical options charge: heresy. A term already outdated prevalent in eighteenth century Germany. by means of neglect from eighteenth and Between the time he was a Moravian nineteenth century German clergy, heresy seminary student and the time he wrote as a concept ceded to the prevailing spirit Glaubenslehre, Schleiermacher encoun- of the times. Unless one realizes that tered the stolid tradition of German ratio- his work in Glaubenslehre constitutes an nalism and the monumental work of apology for Schleiermacher’s early, sus- Immanuel Kant. This experience altered tained and avowed rebuff of such virtually everything in Schleiermacher’s fundamental doctrines as the deity of intellectual development. As William C. Christ, substitutionary atonement, and Fletcher notes, “He immersed himself in eternal damnation, one cannot under- the learning of the philosophers, and this stand Schleiermacher’s theological pro- gave the direction of his later theology.”12 gram. Schleiermacher’s flirtation with But Schleiermacher did not follow any pantheism, his subordination of the doc- system slavishly. He remained critical and trine of the Trinity to an appendix in his distinguished himself far above the order major expression of theology, and his of routine philosophers. As Terrence Tice massive reinterpretation of the doctrines rightly remarks, “Schleiermacher has of anthropology and sin stem not merely had an undeservedly minor place in the 8 histories of philosophy.”13 Combining Wolff’s rationalism with the burgeoning field of biblical criticism, Schleiermacher and Rationalism at Semler gave rationalism a methodology the University of Halle by which it could deconstruct the biblical The University of Halle achieved a truth claim. Intellectually emboldened by reputation in the eighteenth century for the power of a purely scientific world- the seminal work of its faculty members view, Semler claimed that the age of Christian Wolff and Johann Semler. Wolff Enlightenment provided the tools by (1679-1754), the University’s premier phi- which the historicity of the biblical losopher and a devoted follower of accounts could be judged either as Leibniz’s philosophy of monadic rational- adequate or inadequate. Semler con- ism, posited the verifiability of knowledge cluded that while the Bible does not teach on purely rational and empirical grounds. us actual history, it conveys to us impor- Wolff rejected the supernatural metaphys- tant spiritual truths that illumine the true ics of his pietist background and univer- meaning of its words. Theology, Semler sity, and drew a sharp distinction explained, comes to an impasse when it between language (Wort) and reality consigns its doctrine to the historical (Sache). According to Wolff, one comes to conditionedness of the Bible. Rather than know the degree of correspondence relying on a simple application of the between word and fact by a rational in- literal meaning of Scripture, Semler vestigation of their relationship, mediated maintained, the theologian must uncover by the senses. Following both Leibniz and the affections and sentiments behind Spinoza, the authority of biblical revela- the biblical accounts. In this way, truth tion suffered the greatest casualties on achieves an actuality in each individual. Wolff’s account of truth. As such, Hans Lewis White Beck explains Semler’s view Frei remarked, “Among German philoso- by saying, phers, he (Wolff) more than anyone else shaped the conceptual instruments We use our moral reason and ‘senti- ment’ in order to find the ‘true Chris- required for liberating principles of tian religion’ or the ‘private religion’ explicative meaning from the fetters of (Semler calls it both) which is the pietist reading.”14 Wolff’s philosophy same for all Christians.... Thus Semler went beyond ordinary reflected the height of German rationalis- church history and biblical exegesis, tic thinking. By questioning the veracity which were his professional fields, of biblical references to miracles and his- to achieve the beginnings of an understanding of the development tory and dismissing any affirmation of of dogma itself.15 them by means of rationalistic and scien- tific principles, Wolff effectively separated Understanding the respective contribu- faith from fact, with the implied intention tions of Wolff and Semler plays a pivotal of undermining faith as classically defined role in charting the development of altogether. Schleiermacher’s thought during his time Johann Semler (1725-1791), who at the University of Halle. Wolff’s influ- taught theology at Halle in the generation ence was mediated to those of after Wolff, pioneered the use of higher Schleiermacher’s generation by its faith- critical views in biblical interpretation. ful proponent J. A. Eberhard. Eberhard 9 advanced a philosophy of pure rational- with pietism to maintain the theological ism, setting forth the proofs for the exist- task in the wake of the Enlightenment’s ence of God as a certain path to meta- refutation of scriptural inerrancy. In physics. Schleiermacher admitted the addition, Semler offered an explanation as initial attraction that a Wolffian rational- to how individual and public or church ism held. “For a long time,” he reflected piety function mutually to change and in his Soliloquies, develop doctrinal expression.18 In a sig- nificant sense, Semler served as a forerun- I too was content with the discovery ner for Schleiermacher’s theological of a universal reason; I worshipped the one essential being as the high- amalgam of rationalism and pietism. est, and so believed that there is but a single right way of acting in every The Influence of Spinoza’s situation, that the conduct of all men should be alike, each differing from Rationalism the other only by reason of his place Baruch Spinoza exerted considerable and station in the world. I thought humanity revealed itself as varied influence on Schleiermacher’s life and only in the manifold diversity of out- work. Spinoza, the Dutch rationalist, ward acts, that man himself, the advanced “panpsychism” in his approach individual, was not a being uniquely fashioned but of one substance and to metaphysics. Panpsychism identifies everywhere the same.16 God and Nature as one substance, and thus eliminates virtually any notion of a Eberhard ultimately did not convince distinct personal dimension to the divine Schleiermacher of rationalism. Schleier- being. Spinoza taught that through ratio- macher viewed Wolff’s and Eberhard’s nal appropriation of the world, the mind rationalism as a failed attempt to justify perceives the world as it actually is, the pursuit of metaphysics as a thereby becoming a “mode of God,” an prolegomena to theology. Thus, outworking of the divine activity in the Schleiermacher remarked, “Wolffian lan- world. Schleiermacher opposed Spinoza’s guage remains unmistakably connected to purely rationalistic approach to knowl- scholastic language, which was nothing edge, but appreciated Spinoza’s attempt but a confusion of metaphysics and dog- to locate God in the world. In his Speeches, matics.”17 Nevertheless, Wolff’s critique Schleiermacher seems quite favorably of the supernatural elements of Christian- disposed to a Spinozaic pantheism. Com- ity found sympathy in Schleiermacher’s menting on the way in which piety sur- thinking. After studying Wolff, Schle- renders itself to the fabric of the universe, iermacher came to the conclusion that a Schleiermacher notes, “here the Universe simple return to revelation was not pos- is put for God and the pantheism of the sible. Wolff’s rationalism allowed no room author is undeniable.”19 Although Schle- for a God to function outside of the world iermacher came under criticism for his of the mind and the historical process. pantheistic comments in both the Speeches For his part, Semler confirmed for and the Glaubenslehre, he never revised the Schleiermacher the power of religious sen- comments or excised them from his pub- timent in overcoming the difficulties lished work.20 Schleiermacher disdained posed to biblical authority by higher criti- any distancing of God from the world, cism. Semler utilized a critical interface whether in his self-revealing nature or in 10 his action in the universe. Schleiermacher May of 1791. Although their meeting was saw Spinoza as an ally in this respect, brief, Kant impressed Schleiermacher. even if he rejected the rationalistic way in Schleiermacher admired the rigor of which Spinoza sought to resolve the prob- Kant’s philosophical method and subse- lem. As Richard Brandt put it, “Schle- quently accepted much of Kant’s critique iermacher is most sympathetic with against early German Rationalism. Spinoza’s opposition to the theistic idea Although a satisfactory summary of of a transcendent God.”21 Kant’s philosophical contribution lies beyond the scope of this essay, the central The Towering Figure of issues in his thought provide a critical Immanuel Kant insight into the philosophical method No other figure so shaped the contours from which Schleiermacher approached of Schleiermacher’s theological method the theological task. Kant’s program, as and philosophical outlook more than widely acknowledged, searched for a Immanuel Kant did. As early as his days bridge between the antiseptic and conflict- in seminary at Barby, Schleiermacher ing epistemologies of rationalism and digested The Critique of Pure Reason and empiricism. Against empiricism, Kant subsequently considered Kant’s other argued that there are synthetic a priori major works, including Prolegomena to Any judgments that are necessary to under- Future Metaphysics and Religion within the stand reality. These synthetic a priori state- Limits of Reason Alone. When considering ments do not and cannot derive their truth the impact of Kant on Schleiermacher, the status from simple observation. In contra- careful historian recognizes that Kant was diction of rationalism, Kant contended that viewed in pietist circles, at least until the pure conceptual analysis did not constitute publication of Religion Within the Limits of a proper epistemology for metaphysics. Reason Alone, as a friend to and preserver For Kant, the inability of pure reason of orthodoxy. During the days of Schle- to apprehend “things in themselves” iermacher’s early but pronounced “dark (noumena) constitutes a barrier erected night of the soul,” Gottleib Schleiermacher against a purely rationalistic account of the encouraged his son to turn to Kant for world. Consequently Kant argued that help in undergirding his faith. Worried only “things as we perceive them” (phenom- that his son might accept the explanations ena) make themselves available to our per- of Wolffian rationalism, Gottleib Schleier- ceptions for apprehension. macher wrote, “As you are now attend- Kant’s famous “shift to the subject” and ing Eberhard’s lectures on metaphysics, I the reorientation of epistemological cer- would recommend to you at the same tainty to the thinking subject irrevocably time to study and weigh maturely Profes- severed metaphysics from an objectivist sor Kant’s Kritik der reinen Vernuft, and also account of truth. In the Critique of Pure his Prolegomena of Metaphysics, so that you Reason, Kant distinguished between two may not be adventuring yourself into the approaches to theology, rational and boundless desert of transcendental ideas revealed. Revealed theology, he argued, without some safe guide.”22 Upon his failed to offer an adequate epistemology father’s suggestion, Schleiermacher vis- since its categories hopelessly emanated ited Kant at his home in Königsberg in from the noumenal world. Rational the- 11 ology suffered from the opposite problem: mediating work of the self-consciousness the fact that pure reason cannot appre- in all apprehensions of truth. Once one hend noumenal categories or “things in understands what Kant means by the themselves.” Still, Kant did not sacrifice “transcendental unity of apperception,” reason as the primary conduit through one begins to understand the way in which all theological truth must be which Schleiermacher forms theological known. As a result, Kant concluded, judgments. Schleiermacher gains the “Now I maintain that all attempts of rea- explanatory power of consciousness from son to establish a theology by the aid of the seminal work of Kant, and builds an speculation are fruitless, that the prin- entire theological system around it. ciples of reason as applied to nature do Although many intellectual biographers not conduct to us any theological truths, of Schleiermacher note his critique of and, consequently, that a rational theol- Kant’s theory of ethics, few have noted his ogy can have no existence, unless it is profound indebtedness to Kant’s philoso- founded upon the laws of morality.”23 phy for the organizing principle of his Kant thereby constituted a “metaphysics developing theological system.25 of experience” whereby categories in the noumenal realm must conform them- The Culture of Romanticism selves to the perceptions of the thinking Schleiermacher lived, preached, and self. Although “experience can never taught in an age that eschewed an authori- teach us the nature of things in them- tarian account of truth and existence. The selves,” experience serves as the only traditional domains of German author- mediator by which the self can obtain ity—religion and philosophy—suffered knowledge.24 the greatest losses during this period. The Experience, on Kant’s account, does not Romantic era sought an individualized offer meaning until sense perceptions are account of reality, and neither the pro- formed into concepts which are then nouncements of reason or revelation per- judged by the intuitions of the self. He suaded the minds of culture in which argued that in order for sense perceptions creativity emerged as the highest virtue. to become knowledge, the intuitions of If Kant’s philosophy initiated the shift to the mind and concepts must coincide to the self, romanticism extended the notion form judgments. But what unites intui- to idealize self-realization. Regarding the tions and concepts in the mind? The spirit of the age, Jacques Barzun wrote, answer is the self-consciousness, what “Romantic striving may therefore be Kant termed the “transcendental unity of summed up as the effort to create some- apperception.” On this account, all knowl- thing out of Experience individually edge must pass through the self-con- acquired. It is a striving because human sciousness in order for judgments to be experience does not automatically dictate possible, and judgments according to its own forms or point out its own values. Kant, comprise our grasp of truth. That the task of man is to discover these This review of the basic features of for himself is shown by his possession of Kant’s epistemology form the most criti- energies and desires.”26 Schleiermacher’s cal element to the background of Schle- rejection of the traditional German ratio- iermacher’s theological method: the nalism of Wolff and Leibniz coincided 12 with a culture that increasingly despised himself. The life of individual fulfillment it as well. so stressed by the cultured despisers, Schleiermacher’s own colleagues at the Schleiermacher proposed, could not be University of Halle, Schlegel and Hegel, attained apart from the very thing they so helped define the distinctive feature of despised: religion. “In your ornamented romantic thought, following the seminal dwellings, the only sacred things to be met work of the idealist philosophers Fichte with are the sage maxims of our wise men, and Schelling. Schlegel, Schleiermacher’s and the splendid compositions of our close friend whom he met during his years poets. Suavity and sociability, art and sci- as preacher at the Charité Hospital in Ber- ence have so fully taken possession of lin, introduced him to the romantic ethos your minds, that no room remains for the by reading the great poets of the age such eternal and holy Being that lies beyond as Goethe. Schlegel helped Schleier- the world.”29 Piety, the true expression of macher understand the romantic turn God-consciousness, appeared with such away from religion.27 More specifically, infrequency in the post-Enlightenment Schlegel’s friendship with Schleiermacher world, Schleiermacher argued, that only greatly contributed to the pointed apolo- very few attain it. “Religion of such a sort getic genius of the Speeches. Because is so rare, that whoever utters anything Schleiermacher understood the world- of it, must necessarily have had it, for view of the religious “cultured despisers” nowhere could he have heard it. Of all that of romanticism, he was able to offer I praise, all that I feel to be the true work an “insider’s critique” to their objections of religion, you will find little even in the to religion. sacred books. To the man who has not Ironically, the same Schleiermacher himself experienced it, it would be only who years earlier denied so many central an annoyance and a folly.”30 doctrines of the historic Christian faith Schleiermacher offered an account of emerged as the champion for its continu- religion that offered the benefits of reli- ance in the modern world. As William gion without the strictures of an authori- Dilthey observed, “Surrounded by indif- tative interpretative tradition. By locating ference, he began, before anyone else, to religious feeling within the consciousness, assert the great historical task of the truth in piety rather than doctrines, Church which many years of preaching, Schleiermacher’s culture could achieve serving the Church and theology had the self-fulfillment they desired. The life impressed upon him: he became the spiri- of the pious achieves true greatness due tual head of the Church of his time.”28 to Christianity’s relation to the highest Schleiermacher knew how to appeal to form of self-actualization: the life of Jesus. the sensibilities of his romantic audience. Schleiermacher’s speeches accomplished The opening pages of the Speeches indi- their intended purpose when they piqued cate his keen perception, as Schleier- the curiosity of his culture to listen to his macher reversed the tables on the cult of account of the Christian faith. self-enhancement. If one seeks to achieve the ultimate end to human existence, Moravian Pietism Schleiermacher argued, one must experi- Despite Schleiermacher’s rejection of ence piety and share in the life of God the central theological convictions of his 13 Moravian background, he salvaged what lations cannot and will not change. For he thought was the energetic principle of Schleiermacher, “orthodoxy” and “hetero- the tradition: piety. Given his appropria- doxy” do not refer to some objective, tion of the cohesive feature of Kant’s external standard, but rather to the notion of self-consciousness, Schleier- received interpretation of the Christian macher saw a correlation between his own community.34 Both participate in a herme- epistemology and the pietism of his neutical process by which the Church Moravian background. Consequently, the stands in continuity with, but also in explanatory feature of religion consists not freedom from its existing body of primarily in terms of doctrine or missions statements.35 but in a distinct piety. Since doctrinal Given this understanding and back- proposition no longer formed the center ground to Schleiermacher’s thought, one of the theological enterprise, Schleier- begins to see clearly the path undertaken macher saw the opportunity to redefine in his theological method. The Glauben- the whole system on an entirely new slehre is an exercise in maintaining conti- organizing principle, the religious self- nuity with the structure of previous consciousness. As Brian Gerrish observes, church dogmatics while simultaneously “In Schleiermacher’s own experience, reinterpreting the system with an innova- the religious feeling remained relatively tive set of guiding principles and a con- constant; what changed was his explica- siderably different doctrinal language. tion of it.”31 In contradistinction to the other Development of Schleiermacher’s branches of the Reformation tradition, Theological Method and two features underscored the pietist theo- His Architecture of Thought logical tradition. First, Pietism expressed With all of this prolegomena to a “relative lack of interest in the theologi- Schleiermacher’s intellectual develop- cal systems of Protestant orthodoxy.”32 ment, we understand his theological sys- Although historic Pietism never encour- tem as an attempt at a fundamental aged a separation of life from belief, rehabilitation, not only of theology, but reform of life undeniably received the also of modern thought. Schleiermacher’s majority of consideration. Furthermore, theology proposed an answer to the pietism stressed the communal nature of intellectual and cultural challenges of his theological reflection, with holy living re- day while simultaneously claiming con- sulting in correct belief. Schleiermacher tinuity with larger church tradition. In incorporated this perspective into his order to accomplish this, Schleiermacher understanding of the “development of invited his hearers to look inward for the doctrine” set forth in his Brief Outline on fountain of religious truth, into the essence the Study of Theology.33 Consequently, of the religious self-consciousness. In the Schleiermacher is careful to state that dog- process, Schleiermacher constructed a matic propositions (the pronouncements tightly construed approach to religious of the Church) must stand in continuity discourse, and interiorized truth in the with the Church’s agreed upon statement process. “You must transport yourselves,” of doctrines and propositions. This does he told the cultured despisers of religion, not mean, however, that dogmatic formu- “into the interior of a pious soul in order 14 to understand its inspiration.”36 Such statements take on greater mean- This interiorizing of metaphysics ing when compared with Schleier- required a complementary denouncement macher’s early denials of cardinal of the theological methods that so doctrines such as the deity of Christ, offended early nineteenth century Ger- vicarious atonement, and eternal damna- man culture. Appealing to Romantic tion.39 Schleiermacher’s derogatory state- prejudices, Schleiermacher eschewed the ments about propositional theology do existing theological propositions found in not refer merely to his disdain for its the systems of Protestant orthodoxy, vili- method, but also disdain for its content. fying them as the “undertakers of vital As Schleiermacher extended the ideas religion.” He writes, initiated in the Speeches into systematic theological expression, he constructed the What are all these systems, consid- system in such a way as to maintain a ered in themselves, but the handi- work of the calculating under- grammatical continuity with the confes- standing, wherein only by mutual sions of the church without sharing its limitation each part holds its place? epistemological or metaphysical presup- What else can they be, these systems of theology, these theories of the positions. Schleiermacher felt as though origin and end of the world, these he could not simply return to the old Prot- analyses of the nature of an incom- estant metaphysic of Calvin that began prehensible Being, wherein every- thing runs to cold argufying, and the with the transcendent God who makes highest can be treated in the tone of himself known through an externally common controversy? And this is given, rational, and objective revelation. certainly—let me appeal to your feel- ing—not the character of religion.37 Reflecting on his proposition that “Dog- matic Theology is the science that system- The theologians, Schleiermacher atizes the doctrine prevalent in a Christian charged, with their dogmatic pronounce- Church at a given time,” he remarked, ments and tightly argued theological proofs, are to be held responsible for the It is obvious that the text-books of the seventeenth century can no deplorable image of religion. The more longer serve the same purpose as they dogmatize, the less they offer by they did then, but now in large mea- means of explanation of true religion. sure belong merely to the realm of historical presentation; and that in Caricaturing his opposition for rhetorical the present day it is only a different purpose, Schleiermacher queried, set of dogmatic presentations that can have the ecclesiastical value which these had then; and the same Name one among those [theolo- fate will one day befall the present gians] who have brought down any ones too.40 kind of new revelation to us?… You will not blame me if I do not reckon among them the theologians of the Christian doctrines, therefore, are not letter, who believe the salvation of objectively revealed by God, but merely the world and the light of wisdom are to be found in a new vesture of “accounts of the Christian religious affec- formulas, or a new arrangement of tions set forth in speech.”41 Consequently, ingenious proofs.... Doctrine is only Schleiermacher developed a theological united to doctrine only occasionally to remove misunderstanding or epistemology with internal controls. By 38 expose unreality. locating the confirmation of all truth state- 15 ments within self-consciousness he serves as the means by which all theologi- interiorized doctrine into a place safe from cal judgments are made and as the bridge the harsh objectivity of orthodoxy and the between knowing and doing. “For, skepticism of the Enlightenment.42 indeed, it is the case in general that the The progression of Schleiermacher’s immediate self-consciousness is always theological method unfolds with remark- the mediating link in the transition able consistency, from his early skepti- between moments in which Knowing cism, to the defense of a newly redefined predominates and those in which Doing religion in the Speeches and his subsequent predominated, so that a different Doing Monologen, and finally to the systematic may proceed from the same Knowing in expression of his thought in the Glauben- different people according as a determi- slehre. No major shift marked Schleier- nation of self-consciousness enters in.”44 macher’s theological career. Although he Drawing upon his Moravian background, pursued other interests during his teach- Schleiermacher roots right belief in piety, ing career at the University of Berlin, such not on an external claim based upon an as the nature of hermeneutics, Schleier- objective revelation. “Accordingly, on macher focused on a new vision for the the hypothesis in question” he argues, theological task with astonishing concen- “the most perfect master of Christian tration and devotion. Dogmatics would always be likewise the In developing his alternative system, most pious Christian.”45 Schleiermacher Schleiermacher dismissed traditional goes on to say, “Knowing refers not so theological and philosophical modes of much to the content of that knowledge discourse with one remarkable phrase at as to the certainty which characterizes the beginning of his Glaubenslehre: “The its representations.”46 piety which forms the basis for all ecclesi- For Schleiermacher, “there are both a astical communions is, considered purely Knowing and a Doing which pertain to in itself, neither a Knowing nor a Doing, piety, but neither of these constitutes the but a modification of Feeling, or of imme- essence of piety.”47 By essence he means diate self-consciousness.”43 In this brief that irreducible reality which undergirds statement, Schleiermacher rejected tradi- the human as a spiritual being. Moving tional Protestant dogmatics (a knowing), beyond Kant, Schleiermacher gives his co- rationalism (a knowing), and Kant’s moral hesive principle an explicitly theological solution of practical religion and the ethi- reference, stating, “The common element cal accounts of religion (such as Fichte’s) in all howsoever diverse expressions of which followed him (a doing). Having piety, by which these are conjointly distin- eliminated the other options, Schleier- guished from all other feelings, or, in other macher offered his own proposal, built words, the self-identical essence of piety, upon a seemingly invulnerable category is this: the consciousness of being abso- (a modification of Feeling, or of the lutely dependent, or, which is the same immediate self-consciousness). thing, of being in relation with God.”48 The In a manner strikingly similar to Kant’s feeling of absolute dependence of which transcendental unity of apperception, Schleiermacher speaks (das Gefühl Schleiermacher’s notion of feeling and Schlechthiniger Abhangigkeit) refers to the self-consciousness in the service of piety fact “that the locus of religion is the inner- 16 most realm of human existence.”49 consciousness” and “God-conscious- Schleiermacher uses the terms “feeling ness,” leaving his interpreters to grapple of absolute dependence” and “conscious- with the question of where theology ness of God” interchangeably, consider- begins and anthropology ends in his sys- ing them “an essential element of human tematic theology. Schleiermacher gained nature.”50 This explanation offers an ac- a significant benefit from his method— count for how each human being pos- a theology attractive to modernism. His sesses fundamentally the same religious method intentionally operated at a highly consciousness, thus providing Schleier- aggressive level, so aggressive that every macher with a ready-made theology of doctrine within the system by necessity world religions. On this view, Christian- drastically accommodated itself to its ity is the highest level of religion, prima- organizing principle. Schleiermacher’s rily because its founder exhibited the uniform application of his method so highest degree of God-consciousness. overwhelmed his system that few of his Although I will have to say more on this followers missed its lack of objective in the next section, I note here that for referents that were once so characteristic Schleiermacher, given the basic constitu- of Protestant theology. tion of each person as possessing God- consciousness, all religious systems exist Critical Issue in Schleiermacher’s in a continuum with each other. Rather Thought: Consciousness and the than viewing different religious world- Nature of Doctrine views as discontinuous and antithetical As the “father of modern theology,” with Christianity, Schleiermacher sees Schleiermacher forsakes the theological every religious expression as moving precedents set by his forebears. By inevitably to a Christian God-conscious- beginning his Glaubenslehre with an ness, the highest level of belief shared by ecclesiological focus (“we must begin with all monotheistic faiths. For Schleier- a conception of the Christian Church, in macher, the non-Christian religions are order to define in accordance therewith wrong because they are arrested in an what Dogmatics should be”) Schleier- inferior stage of development. “It can macher makes it clear that, unlike Calvin’s therefore justly be said,” Schleiermacher The Institutes, his work does not propose explained, “that as soon as piety has to be a theology of revelation.53 Calvin anywhere developed to the point of begins The Institutes with the assertion that belief in one God over all, it may be theology must start with the knowledge predicted that man will not in any region of God the Redeemer. But as quickly of the earth remain stationary on one of as Calvin introduces the subject, he the lower planes.”51 demonstrates that all human attempts to By placing the source for religious truth comprehend God come to nothing. Con- within human experience, Schleiermacher sequently, The Institutes begins with a constructed a system whose “teleological helpless humanity desperately in need of end” was discovery of the self, a self which God’s own self-disclosure, a revelation was the extension of the world, the external from the world of fallen human Universe, and of God.52 Essentially, beings. This God accomplishes through Schleiermacher conflates the terms “self- his gift of the Scriptures, the only source 17 whereby “God bestows the actual knowl- be said even of the imperfect forms of edge of himself.”54 religion...that they rest upon revelation, In stark contrast to Calvin, Schleier- however much error may be mingled in macher by his own admission avows the them with the truth.”57 Glaubenslehre to be a theology of inward With revelation conceived in this way reflection, of relationship, and of shared and doctrine construed in this fashion, consciousness. Displacing the metaphys- every subsequent doctrine in Glaubenslehre ics of scriptural revelation for the sensu- receives a radical revision. With respect ous impressions of consciousness, to the doctrine of God, Schleiermacher Schleiermacher denies any notion that averts any traditional discussion of the revelation entails a body of doctrinal issue, bizarrely treating his largest section propositions.55 He asserts, on God under the section “explication of the consciousness of sin.”58 In fact, I am unwilling to accept the further Schleiermacher avoids a sustained reflec- definition that it [divine communi- cation] operates upon man as a cog- tion of theism. Schleiermacher’s consign- nitive being. For that would make ment of truth to the self-consciousness, to revelation to be originally and essen- feeling and relationship, frames every tially doctrine; and I do not believe that we can adopt that position, doctrine in such a way as to limit its whether we consider the whole field expression to human feeling. Conse- covered by the idea, or seek to de- quently, doctrine in Schleiermacher’s fine it in advance with special refer- ence to Christianity. If a system of system lacks an external referent, an propositions can be understood ontological truth status that denotes that from their connexion with others, the doctrine describes something objective then nothing supernatural was re- quired for their production. But if about God and his ways of interacting they cannot, then they can, in the from the world. With regard to the first instance, only be apprehended …as part of another whole, as a attributes of God, Schleiermacher clearly moment of the life of a thinking makes this very point in §50: “All attri- being who works upon us directly butes which we ascribe to God are to be as a distinctive existence by means of his total impression on us; and taken as denoting not something special this working is always a working in God, but only something special in the 56 upon the self-consciousness. manner in which the feeling of absolute dependence is to be related to Him.”59 Not only does Schleiermacher reject the Stated differently, knowledge of God for idea that revelation imparts doctrine in Schleiermacher does not objectively cor- this passage, but he significantly alters the respond to the person of God himself, but locus for divine communication. For Schle- only offers us an ostensive internal refer- iermacher, Scripture does not mediate ence to the self-consciousness.60 God’s self-revelation to human beings. Schleiermacher’s treatment of the Trin- Instead, God communicates directly to the ity serves as the most infamous example self-consciousness of the human beings. of his approach to doctrinal formulation. This communication comes in the form of Traditionally considered in the first sec- impressions, not intelligible sentences. As tion of theological explication after the a result, Schleiermacher sees every human doctrine of revelation, Schleiermacher being as a positive receptor of divine rev- consigns the doctrine of the Trinity to little elation. He writes, “therefore it may truly 18 better than a footnote in his system. Speak- to regard this doctrine as finally settled ing of the Trinity, Schleiermacher since it did not receive any fresh treatment explained, “this doctrine itself, as ecclesi- when the Evangelical (Protestant) Church astically framed, is not an immediate was set up; and so there must still be more utterance concerning the Christian self- in store for it a transformation which will consciousness, but only a combination of go back to its very beginnings.”64 several such utterances.”61 The reason By interiorizing Christian doctrine for Schleiermacher’s displacement of the within human experience, Schleiermacher doctrine immediately surfaces: the Trin- sacrifices God’s transcendence and the ity does not arise naturally from the foundation of the biblical metaphysic. human consciousness, and therefore must Therefore one might be scandalized, but be regarded as an issue of subordinate not surprised, that Schleiermacher cannot importance. reconcile the Trinity with his theological After recovering from the initial shock method. God as transcendent Sovereign of Schleiermacher’s casual devaluation of does not exist in Schleiermacher’s theol- the doctrine which produced seven ecu- ogy; he appears only as an abstraction, menical councils and numerous creeds, “the divine causality” which provides a one recognizes that Schleiermacher’s cohesive fabric to the Universe. Karl Barth treatment of the Trinity simply follows his called Schleiermacher’s God “a neuter,” methodology for the nature and formula- not a person, but a “thing.” Barth tion of Christian doctrine. Schleiermacher remarked regarding Schleiermacher’s torturously struggles even to discuss the account of God, “God is given to us in Trinity, and finally admits that in his view, feeling. Not given to us externally, as one must sacrifice either a unity of Per- Schleiermacher assures us at length. But sons or of essence, despite the witness of surely the neuter that is posited and given the history of the Church to the contrary: is obviously not Spirit, not God, but, no matter how abstract, a thing.”65 Barth The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trin- was correct. Despite his emphasis on ity demands that we think of each of the three Persons as equal to the relationship, Schleiermacher does not Divine Essence, and vice versa, and present God as Father, or even fundamen- each of the three Persons as equal to tally as Person. the others. Yet we cannot do either the one or the other, but can only rep- Schleiermacher focuses his attention resent the Persons in a gradation, and primarily on the person of Jesus Christ thus either represent the unity of the and the believer’s relationship with Essence as less real than the three Persons, or vice versa.62 him. But like every doctrine in his system, his consideration of the person of Christ Dissatisfied with the doctrine of the undergoes a drastic transformation. Trinity, and frustrated by its unwillingness For Schleiermacher, Jesus of Nazareth to fit into his system, Schleiermacher achieves his place of high honor not expresses hope that the doctrine can be because he is the second person of the reordered so as to accommodate the Godhead, but because he possessed the consciousness of the human being, the uni- highest form of God- or self-conscious- versal principle of doctrinal interpreta- ness. Richard R. Niebuhr comments that tion.63 He writes, “We have the less reason Schleiermacher “present[s] the figure of 19 Christ not as the ‘celestial’ but as the they relate to issues such as miracles. historical ‘intelligence’ that seeks to bring Schleiermacher critiques miracles on this anarchic inner world under the gov- pragmatic, epistemological, and meta- ernment of its motions.”66 physical grounds.70 He objects to the con- According to Schleiermacher, Christ is cept of any necessity for the supernatural the Urbild, the perfect or ideal man who in religion: “It can never be necessary in shows humanity the way to God through the interest of religion so as to interpret a reliance on the feeling of absolute depen- fact that its dependence on God absolutely dence. Despite Schleiermacher’s denial of excludes its being conditioned by Jesus’ full deity, he enthusiastically affirms Nature.”71 As Schleiermacher wrote to his humanity to the end that all of human- Lücke, “As for the miracles in the New ity might participate in his example. “For Testament...it will not be long before they this Second Adam is altogether like all fall once more.”72 Of course, Schleier- those who are descended from the first, macher claims this because in a doctrinal only that from the outset He has an abso- system predicated on consciousness, one lutely potent God-consciousness.”67 does not need external or transcendent Again, “The Redeemer, then, is like all categories to accomplish human perfec- men in virtue of the identity of human tion in feeling and sensation. Despite his nature, but distinguished from them all protestations to the contrary, Schleier- by the constant potency of His God-con- macher remains unmistakably a Kantian sciousness, which was a veritable exist- slave.73 Since we cannot actually know ence of God in Him.”68 With self-, things-in-themselves, Schleiermacher religious-, or God-consciousness as the thought, why flatter metaphysics by only pole of theological reference, every dwelling on the unattainable?74 Schleier- doctrine emanates from a variation on that macher interiorized every subject within theme. Schleiermacher defines sin as a feeling, and thus feeling served as the- denial of the feeling of absolute depen- ology’s revelatory principle. As such, dence. Redemption is construed as Christ’s Schleiermacher deemed feeling “a revela- rescuing us from this denial: “The Re- tion of the inward.”75 Protestant meta- deemer assumes believers into the power physics as historically employed never of His God-consciousness, and this is his entered the equation. redemptive activity.”69 As expected, this definition of Christ’s salvific work defies Assessment of Schleiermacher’s an orthodox definition due to Schle- Theological Method and Its Impact iermacher’s novel recasting of meaning in Throughout this discussion, I have Christian doctrine. Schleiermacher makes traced Friedrich Schleiermacher’s system- no mention of Christ’s coequality with the atic interiorization of doctrine into the Father, homoousios, God of very God, religious self-consciousness. While many because homoousios connotes a metaphysi- interpreters of Schleiermacher have re- cal status about the person of Christ. garded him as a hero of modernity for his Throughout his work, Schleiermacher significant restatement of the faith, I carefully avoids making metaphysical argued that his life and work were a pronouncements as they relate to the simple outworking of an early and Godhead, and rejects such statements as avowed denial of doctrines central to 20 Christianity occasioned by early moder- of Christian doctrine?”78 nity. Having never retracted this denial, Actually, it is a question that and given his massive redefinition of the Schleiermacher clearly answered in his entire landscape of Christian theology, I construal of consciousness and the nature suggested the possibility that Schleier- of doctrine. For Schleiermacher, “truth macher (whether intentionally or unin- content” is an unfortunate category mis- tentionally) constructed a way for take that indicates a failure to ask the right Christian theology to make an apology for questions of religion and theology. Truth the heterodoxy of modernity. His theol- content presupposes transcendent revela- ogy transformed the faith as opposed to tion, an objective means of verification, translating it.76 and a body of propositional truths, all of Schleiermacher’s theological system which Schleiermacher expressly denied. brilliantly and consistently employed an His theology made simple claims of co- epistemology worthy of the greatest phi- herence, not correspondence. “Dogmat- losophers of his age. By critically interact- ics,” he writes, “stays within its limits and ing with and against the philosophical seeks to be nothing more than a suitable options available to him, he constructed and skillful arrangement of what is simul- a theological method that kept the taneously present and mutually interre- Enlightenment at bay while simulta- lated.”79 Schleiermacher constructed a neously mollifying the cultured despisers theology of limits (consciousness) not of religion. By framing his discussion metaphysics (revelation). within the life of the Christian community, Schleiermacher irrevocably changed Schleiermacher found a mode of discourse the theological landscape of Protestant- to see the Church life which he had grown ism. Conventional wisdom holds that The to love survive his own generation. In Christian Faith was the most significant many respects, Schleiermacher was every theological work since Calvin’s Institutes. bit the champion, a “prince of the Church.” Schleiermacher made every subsequent Still, Schleiermacher remains a Janus- form of liberal theology possible. No one faced theologian. By retreating into the in the nineteenth century met Schleier- safety of the self-consciousness in order macher’s challenge with a statement of to save religion, Schleiermacher severed theology that even approached the the Church from the referent that made breadth and scope of his work. As Karl its own internal dialogue the vibrant pro- Barth remarked, “Not until E. Brunner in cess he so admired. As this essay has 1924 did anyone write against Schleier- shown, Schleiermacher’s doctrines do not macher with presuppositions that were claim to be the personal verbal witness of really different (even if they were perhaps a self-revealing God.77 James B. Torrance only relatively free from Schleier- expressed the thoughts of many interpret- macher!).”80 Barth may have just as well ers of Schleiermacher when he queried, included himself in that statement. As “if faith is defined non-cognitively as the Richard Niebuhr and many others have feeling of absolute dependence, and care- concluded, Barth never totally broke from fully distinguished from any kind of sub- the liberalism of Schleiermacher. Never- ject-object relationship, how is it possible theless, the latter’s conflation of nature to do adequate justice to the truth content and grace so disturbed Barth that much 21 of the work from his dialectical phase Stanley Grenz’s current fascination with seems to be his attempt to exorcise Pietism as the evangelical essential, it is Schleiermacher’s theological demons. only a matter of time before evangelical Despite the withering criticism that he theologians increase their appropriation received from Barth within, and from the of Schleiermacher. More concrete post-World War II neo-evangelicals with- examples exist. Timothy Phillips and out, Schleiermacher’s theology has seen Dennis Okholm’s recent Christian Apolo- a reversal of fortunes in recent years. getics in the Postmodern World contains Approbation for Schleiermacher comes an article by Nicola Creegan entitled, increasingly from an unlikely front: “Schleiermacher as Apologist: Reclaiming evangelicalism. In his 1990 Bampton Lec- the Father of Modern Theology.” Creegan tures, The Genesis of Doctrine, Alister argues that in a post-modern world that McGrath claims that George Lindbeck recognizes only subjectivist claims to mislabeled Schleiermacher as an “experi- truth, the need for an individualist ential-expressivist” in The Nature of Doc- account of Christianity makes Schleier- trine.81 McGrath argues, “Schleiermacher macher’s approach made to order for our is arguably closer to Lindbeck’s notion of times. With anti-propositionalist and anti- a ‘cultural-linguistic’ approach to doctrine foundationalist Evangelicals on the rise, on account of his emphasis on the role of the reclamation of Schleiermacher has the community of faith.”82 Since McGrath already begun. views church tradition as such a critical part of the “hermeneutical spiral” in doc- ENDNOTES trinal development, McGrath views 1 Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the Schleiermacher as more friend than foe in New Testament: 1861-1961 (New York: his understanding of the construction of Oxford Univ. Press, 1966) 9-10. doctrine. Further, in his book The Making 2 E. Y. Mullins, “Outline of Lectures to of Modern German Christology, McGrath Graduate Theology Class, Southern Bap- applauds Schleiermacher’s theology for tist Theological Seminary,” TMs, p. 45, being “Christ-centered.”83 Although Special Collections, James P. Boyce McGrath’s appropriation of Schleier- Library, The Southern Baptist Theologi- macher falls short of a ringing commen- cal Seminary, Louisville, KY. dation, his placement of Schleiermacher’s 3 Ibid., 46. theological hermeneutics within the 4 Ibid., 46. parameters of Lindbeck’s postliberal 5 Friedrich Schleiermacher, Brief Outline on position enhances the likelihood of a the Study of Theology, trans. Terrence N. revival of Schleiermacher among those Tice (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, evangelicals enamored with all things 1966) 21. postliberal. 6 Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Inter- The recent anti-foundationalist and pretation. The Rise of Modern Paganism pietist emphases within evangelicalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1966) xi. should also help Schleiermacher once 7 Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: again emerge from the shadows. Between Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, trans. Clark Pinnock’s current exaltation of John Oman (New York: Harper & Row, experience in theological formulation and 1958) 31. 22 8 Rudolf Otto, “Introduction,” in ters. After excoriating Schleier- 15Lewis White Beck, Early German Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Reli- macher’s father for his negative Philosophy: Kant and His Predecessors gion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despis- reaction to this statement, Gerrish (Cambridge, MA: The Harvard ers, trans. John Oman (New York: seeks to explain this admission as Univ. Press, 1969) 292. Harper & Row, 1958) vii. the beginnings of a new, more sub- 16Friedrich Schleiermacher, Schleier- 9 Karl Barth, The Theology of Schle- stantive faith for Friedrich Schleier- macher’s Soliloquies, trans. Horace iermacher, ed. Dietrich Ritschl, trans. macher. Gerrish states, “If we did Leland Friess (Chicago: The Open Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rap- trace the story to its conclusion, we Court Publishing Co., 1926) 30. ids: Eerdmans, 1982) xiii. Barth would have to decide that what 17Friedrich Schleiermacher, On the further remarked concerning Schle- Schleiermacher lost was not his faith Glaubenslehre: Two Letters to Dr. iermacher’s achievement, “The first in Christ but his first understand- Lücke, trans. James Duke and place in a history of the theology of ing of it.” See Brian Gerrish, A Prince Francis Fiorenza (Chico, CA: Schol- the most recent times belongs and of the Church: Schleiermacher and the ars Press, 1981) 83. will always belong to Schleier- Beginnings of Modern Theology 18For further consideration of the macher, and he has no rival. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) relationship between Semler and ...Nobody can say today whether 26. Gerrish’s dismissive comment is Schleiermacher’s understanding of we have really overcome his influ- far from satisfactory, and obscures the theological task, see Trutz ence, or whether we are still at heart the weight of this admission from Rentdorff, Church and Theology, children of his age…. One is more Schleiermacher, an admission trans. Reginald Fuller (Philadelphia: strongly impressed every time one which he never rescinded nor Westminster Press, 1966). considers him—by the wealth and repented of. To merely state that 19Schleiermacher, Speeches, 24. magnitude of the tasks he sets Schleiermacher’s denial of the deity 20Schleiermacher sought to explain himself, by the moral and intel- of Christ was an entrée into a more himself vis-á-vis his comments on lectual equipment with which he profound faith seriously devalues pantheism in his letters to Lücke. approached them, by the manly the importance of the doctrine of the See Schleiermacher, On the Glauben- steadfastness with which he trod the deity of Jesus Christ to the Christian slehre: Two Letters to Dr. Lücke, 48-49. path he had once embarked upon faith. The truth is that Schle- 21Richard B. Brandt, The Philosophy of right to the end as he entered upon iermacher radically redefined his Schleiermacher: The Development of it, unheedful of the favor or dis- understanding of Christ so as to His Theory of Scientific and Religious favor of each passing decade, and be utterly distinct and contrary to the Knowledge (New York: Harper & endowing it by this very playfulness Christology of historic Christianity. Brothers, 1941) 36. with the ultimate reality of all true 11Schleiermacher, On Religion, 258. 22Schleiermacher, Life of Schleier- art. We have to do here with a hero, 12William C. Fletcher, The Moderns macher, 66. the like of which is but seldom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962) 22. 23Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Rea- bestowed upon theology.” 13Terrence N. Tice, “Friedrich son, trans. J. M. D. Meiklejohn 10Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Life of Schleiermacher,” in The Cambridge (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, Friedrich Schleiermacher, As Unfolded Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Robert 1990) 356. in His Autobiography and Letters, Vol. Audi (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 24Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena to Any 1, trans. Frederica Rowan (London: Univ. Press, 1995) 716. Future Metaphysics, trans. Paul Smith, Elder, and Co., 1860) 46. 14Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Carus (Chicago: Open Court Pub- Brian A. Gerrish is the only major Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and lishing Co., 1902) 51. biographer of Schleiermacher to Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics 25To be certain, Schleiermacher’s make reference to this important (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1974) rejection of Kant’s theory of ethics statement in Schleiermacher’s let- 99. as the only path into theological dis- 23 course deserves substantive atten- Schleiermacher, Brief Outline, §196- 47Ibid., §10. tion, and has been treated signifi- 231. 48Ibid., §12. cantly elsewhere. The primary text 34Ibid., §203-204. 49Claude Welch, Protestant Thought in in this regard is Schleiermacher’s 35Ibid., §205-208. In §208, Schleier- the Nineteenth Century, Vol. 1 (New own Introduction to Christian Ethics, macher states, “Every dogmatic Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1972) 66. trans. John C. Shelley (Nashville: theologian who either innovates or 50Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, Abingdon, 1989). For secondary exalts what is old, in a one-sided §6.1. considerations of this issue, see Wil- manner, is only a very imperfect 51Ibid., §8.3. liam Alexander Johnson, On Reli- organ of the Church. From a falsely 52Schleiermacher occasionally uses gion: A Study of Theological Method heterodox standpoint, he will the word “Universe” in the same in Schleiermacher and Nygren declare even the most impeccable way he employs the word “God.” (Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill, orthodoxy to be false; and from a 53Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, 1964). In addition, for a nice sum- falsely orthodox standpoint, he will §2.2. mary of Schleiermacher’s own combat even the most mild and 54John Calvin, The Institutes of the philosophical method, see Hugh inevitable heterodoxy as a destruc- Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. Ross Mackintosh’s classic, Types of tive innovation.” McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Modern Theology (London: Nisbet 36Schleiermacher, Speeches, 18. in The Library of Christian Classics, and Co., Ltd, 1937) 36-43. 37Ibid., 15. Vol. XX. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 26Jacques Barzun, Romanticism and the 38Ibid., 17. 1950) I.vi.1. Modern Ego (Boston: Little, Brown, 39See pages 5 and 6 of this essay. 55Apologists for Schleiermacher will and Co., 1947) 132. 40Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Chris- rightly point to §27 as evidence of 27For an assessment of Schlegel and tian Faith, eds. H. R. Mackintosh and Schleiermacher’s regard for Scrip- Schleiermacher’s relationship to J. S. Stewart (New York: Harper and ture in the statement of faith. §27 romanticism, see Jack Forstman, A Row, 1963) §19.2. reads, “All propositions which Romantic Triangle: Schleiermacher and 41Ibid., §15. claim a place in the epitome of Early German Romanticism (Mis- 42The point I am arguing here is con- Evangelical (Protestant) doctrine soula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977). firmed by Richard R. Niebuhr: “The must approve themselves both by 28Wilhelm Dilthey, Selected Writings, religion that Schleiermacher appeal to Evangelical confessional ed. and trans. H. P. Rickman (Cam- described in this way is a purely documents, or in default to these, to bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, formal and abstract religion, which the New Testament Scriptures, and 1976) 43. exists nowhere in actuality...he by exhibition of their homogeneity 29Schleiermacher, Speeches,1. insisted that religion always with other propositions already rec- 30Ibid., 9. appears in a particular social and ognized.” Three observations might 31Brian A. Gerrish, “Friedrich historical form.” See Richard R. be made in this regard. First, despite Schleiermacher,” in Nineteenth Cen- Niebuhr, “Friedrich Schleier- the fact that Schleiermacher claims tury Religious Thought in the West macher,” in The Encyclopedia of Phi- the importance of Scripture in theo- eds. Ninian Smart, John Clayton, losophy, Vol. 7, ed. Paul Edwards logical formulation, he betrays his Steven Katz, and Patrick Sherry (New York: Macmillan Publishing statement by subordinating the doc- (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Co. and The Free Press, 1967) 318. trine of revelation to a sub-sub cat- Press, 1982). 43Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, egory in his system of thought. 32Harry Yeide, Jr. Studies in Classical §3. Secondly, given the fact that Pietism: The Flowering of the Ecclesiola 44Ibid., §9. Schleiermacher denies that Scrip- (New York: Peter Lang, 1997) 25. 45Ibid., §9. tural revelation actually reveals doc- 33I am referring in particular to 46Ibid., §9. trine and exalts the consciousness 24 as the focal point of God’s commu- logically about God. Using Calvin of other related doctrines” (§172.2). nication to humanity, one need as an example of this approach, 64Ibid., §172. question what positive role Scrip- Placher cites Tom Torrance who 65Barth, 217. ture could play in such a system. says that knowledge of God in 66Richard R. Niebuhr, Schleiermacher Finally, §27 speaks of the impor- Calvin “is ostensive and persuasive, on Christ and Religion, The Library tance of Scripture to Evangelical or but not descriptive. They point us of Philosophy and Theology, eds. Protestant theology. Having under- toward God and help to move us John McIntyre and Ian T. Ramsey stood Schleiermacher’s heavy stress toward lives of humility and obedi- (London: SCM Press, LTD, 1965) of the role of community in the ence before God, but they do not 210. articulation of doctrine, this state- purport to offer accounts of his 67Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, ment likely means nothing more nature.” (58) The truth is that this §89.2. than the fact that Scripture is impor- was not the perspective of Calvin, 68Ibid., §94. tant to Evangelical theology because but Schleiermacher. 69Ibid., §100. Evangelical theology grants Scrip- 61Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, 70For a detailed consideration of this ture that place of authority. §170. area of Schleiermacher’s thought, 56Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, 62Ibid., §171. see William A. Dembski, “Schleier- §10.3. 63Schleiermacher expresses sympathy macher’s Metaphysical Critique of 57Ibid. for the poor Unitarians in Great Brit- Miracles,” The Scottish Journal of The- 58Ibid., §50-56. For a more detailed ain and America who simply can- ology 49:4 (1996) 443-465. consideration of this issue, see Rob- not accept the traditional Nicene 71Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, ert R. Williams, Schleiermacher the and Chalcedonian pronouncements §47. Theologian: The Construction of the regarding the Trinity: “It is natural 72Schleiermacher, On the Glauben- Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: For- that people who cannot reconcile slehre, 61. tress Press, 1978). The unique con- themselves to the difficulties and 73Along these lines, Nicholas Wolter- tribution of this work lies in its imperfections that cling to the for- storff’s recent article “Is it Possible suggestion that Schleiermacher mulae current in Trinitarian doc- and Desirable for Theologians to was a proto-phenomenologist who trine should say that they repudiate Recover from Kant?” takes up the focused on the structures of mean- everything connected with it, issue of modern theology’s existence ing rather than existence. whereas in point of fact their piety under the long shadow of the phi- 59Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, is by no means lacking in the spe- losopher from Königsberg. See Mod- §50. cifically Christian stamp. This is the ern Theology 14:1 (January 1998) 1-18. 60This proposal by Schleiermacher— case often enough at the present 74In this sense, we may view Kant as the construal of truth as ostensive moment not only in the Unitarian Schleiermacher’s superior. Kant at rather then objective—is a charac- societies of England and America, least was willing to attempt a teristic statement by twentieth cen- but also among the scattered oppo- knowledge of metaphysical catego- tury postliberals. An example of this nents of the doctrine of the Trinity ries, despite the obstacles. But can be seen in William C. Placher, in our own country. That circum- perhaps in the final analysis, Schle- The Domestication of Transcendence stance supplies a further reason iermacher was more honest. If (Louisville: Westminster/John why we should strive to secure free- epistemological certainty of meta- Knox, 1996). Placher essentially dom for a thoroughgoing criticism physical categories is impossible, argues that human language is in- of the doctrine in its older form, so then avoid a discussion of them capable of speaking univocally as to prepare the way for, and intro- altogether. about God. Moreover, he disclaims duce, a reconstruction of it corre- 75Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, the ability of theology to speak ana- sponding to the present condition §6.2. 25 76Millard Erickson’s now familiar typology for theology fits Schle- iermacher’s approach. 77This point is clearly demonstrated in his tacit rejection of the revelatory witness of the Old Testament. 78James B. Torrance, “Schleier- macher’s Theology: Some Ques- tions,” The Scottish Journal of Theology 21 (1968) 273. 79Schleiermacher, On the Glauben- slehre, 69. 80Karl Barth, as cited in Gerrish, A Prince of the Church, 20. 81See Chapter 2 of Alister McGrath, The Genesis of Doctrine (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990). 82Alister McGrath, “Doctrine and Dogma,” in The Blackwell Encyclope- dia of Modern Christian Thought, ed. Alister McGrath (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1993) 117. 83Alister McGrath, The Making of Mod- ern German Christology: 1750-1990 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994) 49.

26