Hans Lassen Martensen's “The Present Religious Crisis”
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Jon Stewart Hans Lassen Martensen’s “The Present Religious Crisis” Abstract: Thisarticle provides an English translation of Hans Lassen Martensen’s “The Present Religious Crisis” from 1842. In this work Martensen outlines two importanttrends that weremuch discussed at the time. The first part of his article is dedicated to the Anabaptist movement in Denmark, which wasin open conflictwith the DanishStateChurch about the question of infant baptism. In the second part,Martensen treats the work of the left Hegelian David Friedrich Strauss and his followers,who regarded the gospel accounts of the life of Jesusas, by and large,myths. Although polar opposites,these two movements are, for Martensen, symptoms of the religious confusion of the day. Martensen attempts to defend the DanishState Church in the face of these criticisms. Kierkegaardseems to refertoMartensen’sarticle in his “Public Confession,” whereherefers to the rise of sects in Denmark and makes explicit referencetoboththe Anabaptists and the Straussians. Like Martensen, he is at painstodistance himself from Strauss and his followers. Martensen’sarticle also represents alandmark in the history of the Danish Hegel reception since it signals the alarm about the new Straussian trend. Hans Lassen Martensen is well known as the constant target of Kierkegaard’s critique.Hewas also an importantand influential figure in the Danish culturaland religious life of the day. On April 15,1842, he published an article in the Intelligensblade,the newlyinaugurated journaledited by his friend Johan Ludvig Heiberg. This article, entitled “The Present Religious Crisis,”¹ is sig- nificant for anumber of different reasons. By using the term “crisis” in the title, Martensen picks up on acentral motif of Heiberg’streatise from almostadecade earlier, On the Significance of Philos- ophyfor the Present Age.² In thatwork Heiberggives anegative diagnosis of his Hans Lassen Martensen, “Nutidens religiøse Crisis,” Intelligensblade,vol. 1, no. 3, 1842, pp. 53–73. Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Om Philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende Tid,Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel 1833 (ASKB 568). (English translation in Heiberg’sOnthe Significance of Philosophy for the Jon Stewart,RadcliffeInstitute for AdvancedStudy,Harvard University, Byerly Hall, Office 212, 8Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA, [email protected] https://doi.org/10.1515/kierke-2017-0018 424 Jon Stewart own age, which he regards to be in aperiod of crisis. He characterizes this crisis as one of relativism and nihilism thathas resulted in the lapse of older beliefs and traditions that took place in the context of the Enlightenment’scriticism of religion, absolutemonarchyand different forms of culture. Like Heiberg, Martensen is concerned thatthe Church is losing its meaningfor educated people and is being transformed into an institution thatcaters onlytothe lower classes. Martensen is thus keen to make acase for the continued relevance of the Church among educated people. LikeHeiberg, he believes that the erosion of faith is aworryingtendencyfor which asolution urgently needs to be found. Martensen’sunderstanding of the crisis is somewhat different from that of Heibergbut can be understood as buildingonHeiberg’sinterpretation of the then current Zeitgeist in Denmark. ForMartensen, the underminingof religious belief in the Enlightenment led in his time to ageneral confusion sur- roundingreligion. In “The Present Religious Crisis,” he tries to sketch two trends in modern religious thinking which he takes to be symptomatic of this confusion. One trend is that of the Anabaptists who wereinopen conflictwith the Danish State Church. Bishop Mynster attempted to impose his willand ordered the children of the Anabaptists to be removedfrom their parents by forceand baptized.³ But when some of the pastors of the Church, includingPeter Christian Kierkegaard, refused to participate in this heavy-handed practice, Mynster wasobliged to relent.This was amajor controversy of the day, and much ink was spilled on it.Ayear after his article, Martensen himself dedicated an entiretreatise to the topic,⁴ and Kierkegaardowned acopy of it. Kierkegaard treats this issue in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript,and it is clear from his drafts that he is respondinginpart in to this work.⁵ The second disturbing trend that Martensen describes is the academic movement of left-Hegelianism that found expression in the work of the theolo- Present Age and Other Texts,ed. and trans.byJon Stewart,Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel 2005 (Texts from Golden Age Denmark,vol. 1), pp. 85 – 119.) See Hal Koch and Bjørn Kornerup, Den Danske Kirkes Historie,vols.1–8, Copenhagen: Gyldendal 1950 –66,vol. 6, p. 305;Jens Rasmussen, J.P. Mynster Sjællands Biskop 1834–54. Kampen for en rummeligkirke. Forholdet til N.F.S. Grundtvig og Grundloven,Odense: Odense Uni- versitetsforlag2000,pp. 175f. Hans Lassen Martensen, Den christeligeDaab betragtet med Hensyn paa det baptistiske Spørgsmaal,Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel 1843(ASKB 652). SKS 7, 49 / CUP1,43f. SKS 7, 331– 335/CUP1,363 – 368. SKS 7, 347–350 / CUP1,381–384.See also Pap. VI B98:15 / CUP2,29f. Pap. VI B24:1/CUP2,30. Hans Lassen Martensen’s “The Present Religious Crisis” 425 gian David Friedrich Strauss.Inhis controversial TheLife of Jesus,⁶ Strauss analyzes in detail the gospel writingsinorder to demonstrate that much of what they contain amountstonomorethanmyths constructed afterthe fact. This work had caused astir in Prussia and the German-speaking states and was important in defining the schools of right and left Hegelianism. In 1835 duringhis long Bildungsreise,Martensen had been afirst-hand witness to the controversy surrounding the publication of Strauss’ TheLife of Jesus. He recalls in his memoirs, “During my stayinHeidelberganincident occurred that contributed much to the tremorinthe Hegelian school…the publication of David Strauss’s TheLife of Jesus. Thiswork created an enormous sensation, one can say, in the whole of Christendom.”⁷ Shortly after this, Martensen met Strauss personallyinTübingen and wasskeptical of Strauss’ views from the start.⁸ Martensen’sarticle appeared at an important junctureinDanishcultural life. Heiberghad been leading apro-Hegelian campaign for years, and although he was often criticized for this,his views were not regarded as overtlyseditious or dangerous to the Danish Church. But now with the rise of the left Hegelians, the specter of freethinking appeared to be areal threat.Hans Brøchner had causedacontroversy at the University of Copenhagen towards the end of 1841when the Faculty of Theologyrefused to allow him to sit for his examination afteritbecame known that he shared some of Strauss’ views.⁹ Although not directlyinvolved, Martensen followed this controversy David Friedrich Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet,vols. 1–2, Tübingen: C.F. Osiander 1835–36.(In English as TheLife of Jesus Critically Examined,ed. by Peter C. Hodgson, trans.by George Eliot,Ramsey,New Jersey:Sigler Press 1994.) Hans Lassen Martensen Af mit Levnet. Meddelelser,vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: Gyldendal 1882–83,vol. 1, p. 122. Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 129ff. Forthe Danish reception of Strauss, see Rudolf Schmidt, Grundtvig og den tyske Orthodoxi. En historiskSammenstilling. Copenhagen: F.H. Eibes Forlag1883, pp. 98ff. Foraccounts of this scandal, see JonStewart, AHistory of Hegelianism in Golden Age Denmark,Tome II, TheMartensen Period: 1837–1842,Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel 2007 (Danish Golden Age Studies,vol. 3), pp. 678 – 686.S.V.Rasmussen, Den ungeBrøchner,Copenhagen: Gyldendal 1966,pp. 16–31. Harald Høffding, “Hans Brøchner,” in his Danske Filosofer,Copen- hagen: GyldendalskeBoghandel, Nordisk Forlag1909,pp. 196–206. Frederik Nielsen, Minder, Oplevelser og Iagttagelser,Aalborg: M. M. Schultz 1881,pp. 43 f. F.L. Liebenberg Nogle Optegnels- er om mit Levnet,Copenhagen: GyldendalskeBoghandels Forlag1894,pp. 26f. Robert Leslie Horn, Positivity and Dialectic:AStudy of the Theological Method of Hans Lassen Martensen. Co- penhagen: C.A. Reitzel 2007 (DanishGolden Age Studies,vol. 2),pp. 183ff. Otto Borchsenius, Fra Fyrrerne. Litterære Skizzer,vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzels og OttoB.WroblewskysForlag 1878 – 80,vol. 2, pp. 40 –42. 426 Jon Stewart closely.¹⁰ Ever since his popular lectures at the UniversityofCopenhagen in the second half of the 1830s, Martensen himself had been associated with Hegel’s philosophy, and due to this, the rise of Strauss’ popularity was potentially damagingfor him. He had seen the example thatthe Faculty had set with Brøchner and presumablyfeared thatgiven his interest in Hegel, he would be associated with Hegel’sstudent Strauss and his free-thinking views. So apart of Martensen’smotivation for writing “The Present Religious Crisis” was presum- ablytodistance himself publiclyfrom Strauss and his followers.Thishas been interpreted to mean that Martensen modified his views on Hegel and that this article marks the change.¹¹ However,this view is problematic since although he playedanimportant role in disseminating knowledge of Hegel’sphilosophy in Denmark, Martensen wasinfact consistentlycritical of certain aspects of Hegel’sphilosophy.¹² Thus, it is inaccurate to claim that this article signaled a major shift in his position. Admittedly, it does, however,show thatMartensen was becomingincreasinglyalarmed by the rise of left Hegelianism. The article is thus framed by an analysis of two completelydifferent trends, representing opposite ends of the social-political spectrum. The Anabaptists tend to be highlyconservativeand