friedrich schleiermacher

37
The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology Index of Articles MWT Course Wildman's Weird Wild Web Home Links Jokes Other Courses Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst Contents Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834) (Holly Reed, 2004) Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834): Progenitor of Practical Theology (John Tamilio III, 2002) Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834) (Chijen James Wu, 2000) Friedrich Schleiermacher: The Father of Modern Protestant Theology (Peter Heltzel, 1998) Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (Charles Demm, 2000) Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834) Holly Reed, 2004 Life & Context Upon even a cursory review of Schleiermacher’s writings, one cannot maintain a neutral stance on his theological presentation. Some have found his work to be problematic and troubling in its focus and tenor, while others have found it to be expansive and liberating. Almost everyone who has written on Schleiermacher has indicated his profound influence through the reformulation and rethinking of theological propositions, which has earned him the title “the father of modern theology.” Schleiermacher was born into a religious family within the Reformed, Calvinist, tradition. His father served as a Prussian army chaplain. Schleiermacher attended Moravian schools, where he was influenced by the pietism of the Moravians. Their piety called for an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ, and focused on one’s personal experience of God and how to make that an active, visible reality in daily life. Though the young Schleiermacher began to study at the Moravian seminary, against his father’s wishes he left the seminary and enrolled for study at the University of Halle in 1787. It was there, perhaps for the first time, that he began to read writers such as Kant and Spinoza. Despite his enthusiastic engagement with Enlightenment thinkers, Schleiermacher did go on to receive ordination, though not without a reconceptualization of his relationship to pietism and Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm 1 of 37 2013/09/28 11:38 ﻕ.ﻅGenerated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Upload: or

Post on 27-Oct-2015

174 views

Category:

Documents


7 download

DESCRIPTION

Schleiermacher

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Friedrich Schleiermacher

The BostonCollaborativeEncyclopedia ofModernWesternTheology

Index of ArticlesMWT Course

Wildman'sWeird WildWeb

HomeLinksJokesOther Courses

Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst

Contents

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834) (Holly Reed, 2004)

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834): Progenitor of Practical

Theology (John Tamilio III, 2002)

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834) (Chijen James Wu,

2000)

Friedrich Schleiermacher: The Father of Modern Protestant Theology (Peter

Heltzel, 1998)

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (Charles Demm, 2000)

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher(1768–1834)

Holly Reed, 2004

Life & Context

Upon even a cursory review of Schleiermacher’s writings, one cannot

maintain a neutral stance on his theological presentation. Some have foundhis work to be problematic and troubling in its focus and tenor, while others

have found it to be expansive and liberating. Almost everyone who haswritten on Schleiermacher has indicated his profound influence through the

reformulation and rethinking of theological propositions, which has earnedhim the title “the father of modern theology.”

Schleiermacher was born into a religious family within the Reformed,Calvinist, tradition. His father served as a Prussian army chaplain.

Schleiermacher attended Moravian schools, where he was influenced by thepietism of the Moravians. Their piety called for an intimate relationship with

Jesus Christ, and focused on one’s personal experience of God and how tomake that an active, visible reality in daily life. Though the young

Schleiermacher began to study at the Moravian seminary, against his father’swishes he left the seminary and enrolled for study at the University of Halle

in 1787. It was there, perhaps for the first time, that he began to read writerssuch as Kant and Spinoza. Despite his enthusiastic engagement with

Enlightenment thinkers, Schleiermacher did go on to receive ordination,though not without a reconceptualization of his relationship to pietism and

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

1 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 2: Friedrich Schleiermacher

his community of faith. At one point he wrote his father: “…I may say that

after all I have passed through I have become a Moravian again, only of ahigher order.” (Livingston, 94)

In 1796, at the age of twenty-eight, Schleiermacher was called to serve as thechaplain at the Charity Hospital in Berlin. During his years in Berlin he

associated with a variety of literary and social circles that placed him in themidst of the growing movement now known as Romanticism. Essentially,

Romanticism, at its height between 1780 – 1830, was a theologicalmovement reacting against the rational theology of the Enlightenment.

Romanticism did not merely seek to replace or discredit previous thinking:Romanticism sought to expand the boundaries and limitations imposed by a

rigid captivity to rationality and empiricism. Romanticism cannot becharacterized by a single writer or school of thought, and it took different

directions in different locations. But Romanticism did uphold a willingnessto return meaning and value to imagination and mystery; it acknowledged

the diversity of human experience in all realms of existence; and it validatedboth individual and corporate experience as a source of belief and meaning.

While participating in the cultured, literary groups that espoused these sortsof Romantic ideals, Schleiermacher was encouraged to write a book. Though

he was always warmly welcomed into these milieus,Schleiermacher was a puzzle to his friends. Here he was, a Reformed pastor

eagerly associating with Christians and Jews alike who had jettisonedorganized religion as irrelevant and restrictive, and he shared many of their

sentiments! In 1799 he answered their request for a book, and published was revised in

1808 and again in 1821, when explanatory notes were added. was written as an apologetic piece aimed at those people (like his friends)

who had left religion behind.

After the failure of a passionate romance, Schleiermacher left Berlin in 1804

and became a professor of theology at the University of Halle, which he hadonce attended. His tenure there was short, however, because Napoleon

defeated Prussia in 1806 and Halle was taken out of Prussian hands. As astrong patriot and political activist, Schleiermacher did not remain in Halle;

he returned to Berlin in 1807. During this time he collaborated with FriedrichWilhelm III to make Berlin the new intellectual center of Prussia, and to

open a new university. In 1809 Schleiermacher accepted a call to preach atHoly Trinity Church in Berlin, a position that gave him great public exposure

and prestige. It was also the year he married. In 1811 he was appointed to thechair in theology at the newly formed University of Berlin, and he also

published . It was in this book thathe elaborated upon his position of theology having three distinct divisions.

The three divisions of theology are philosophical theology, which has as itspurpose the identification of Christianity and its distinctive form of religious

self-consciousness; historical theology, which relates the church to theteachings and traditions of the church throughout history; and practical

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

2 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 3: Friedrich Schleiermacher

theology, which has as its intention the instruction of church leaders.

Dogmatics is considered by Schleiermacher to be a part of historicaltheology because it deals with church as it connects with history.

Traditionally, dogmatics was more likely to be found as a branch ofphilosophical theology. But Schleiermacher contended that dogmatics

needed to be firmly embedded within the church because its purpose is toserve the church. Because of its historical context and specific purpose,

dogmatics must also be reflective of the contemporary, situation and it mustrelate the consciousness of God to the particular community it serves (Duke

& Fiorenza, 3).

During these years in Berlin Schleiermacher lectured and wrote on an

astounding array of topics, including all the divisions of theology he haddelineated, New Testament, hermeneutics, and psychology. He was also

active in forming the merger of the Evangelical and Reformed churches,which created the United Church of Prussia, and he remained involved in the

political arena. It was also during these years that he wrote his greatesttheological piece, (1821-1822; second edition, 1830).

There were other significant writings as well, though none of equal stature to. Schleiermacher died in 1834 after a brief illness, and

many of his writings were published posthumously.

Thought

Schleiermacher was seeking to communicate to a generation of readers whofelt liberated from the bonds of religion with no need to return to such

corrupt or archaic forms. He was also writing to believers who werequestioning and wondering and seeing a way to understand their faith in light

of the ongoing “progress” of Enlightenment thinking and its effects oncultural developments. Schleiermacher did not write to these two groups

simultaneously. To the first group he addressed his first work, , published anonymously in 1799. It was

an apologetic, laying forth the definitions and values of religion in theparticular form of Christianity in his contemporary context. He was, in turn,

cajoling and coercive, and always passionate. He would lead his readersalong, acknowledging the many flaws and damning consequences of

religion, only to propose a fresh new way of looking at “the facts,” theagreed upon characteristics and attributes of human experience. This

particular group of readers – the “Cultured Despisers of Religion” – are also,frequently, a part of the Romantic movement, which while despising religion

was seeking alternative visions to the cold, mechanical facts and limitationsof reason and empiricism. Into this arena Schleiermacher introduced his

refreshingly new vision of religion as a feeling: “Religion is to seek this andfind it in all that lives and moves, in all growth and change, in all doing and

suffering. It is to have life and to know life in immediate feeling, only assuch an existence in the Infinite and Eternal.” ( 36) He goes on

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

3 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 4: Friedrich Schleiermacher

to say: “…true religion is sense and taste for the Infinite.” ( 39)

Schleiermacher is arguing against religion as mere “knowing,” which wouldcharacterize the rational approach of doctrinal orthodoxy, and would fall

within the realm of speculative theology. Nor is religion simply “doing,”which is a critique of religion-as-morality, natural religion and behaviors

associated with Pietism. Instead, Schleiermacher places religion in the realmof feelings, making it an interior, personal experience with an element of the

unknowable and the mysterious. He will go on to argue in the fifth speech of that this interior feeling will be expressed in determinate forms

– a particular religious context – because humans are social creatures andfeelings are not abstract and disembodied and will therefore be experienced

in a definite form. Religion, or feelings, cannot be experienced abstractly;only specifically. Nor can they be totally divorced from knowing and doing:

they exist together, though it is feeling that is properly the arena of Godconsciousness. God-consciousness is the feeling of absolute dependence

upon God. In Schleiermacher goes on to say “Thefeeling of absolute dependence, accordingly, is not to be explained as an

awareness of the world’s existence, but only as an awareness of the existenceof God, as the absolute undivided unity.” ( , 132)

These particular themes remain constant in Schleiermacher’s later writings.When he switches to his dogmatic approach, Schleiermacher continues to

operate out of a context that is affirming the mystery and unknowability ofsome things, as well as the value of non-empirical feelings. He will maintain

the claim that religion is part of human experience accessed through feelings,and he will describe and analyze this existence – but he does so within the

embrace of human limitations.

This particular approach is embodied in the structure and even the title of the

second German edition of . Interestingly, the 1960German edition of does not include all the information

Schleiermacher included on the 1928 edition’s title page, and none of theinformation is included in the English translation. The English translation of

the full German title of what we know as is “TheChristian Faith presented as a coherent whole according to the principles of

the Evangelical Church.” In the middle of the 1828 title page is a Latinquotation from Anselm stating “I do not seek to understand so that I may

believe, but believe so that I may understand…For anyone who has notbelieved will not experience, and anyone who has not experienced will not

understand.” (Gerrish, vi) Both the title and the quotation contextualize for his audience. If was an apologetic for

non-believers, this is to be a document for the church. Schleiermacherassumes a level of belief and familiarity with the doctrines he is about to

present. Nonetheless, he defines his terminology laboriously, for he is usingfamiliar words in very new ways. Despite his attempts to define his language

and method in The Christian Faith (most notably through the lengthyIntroduction to explain his understanding of dogmatics), Schleiermacher is

frequently misunderstood or disagreed with. He is variously accused of

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

4 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 5: Friedrich Schleiermacher

pantheism, of anti-intellectualism, of writing an anthropology rather than a

theology, of forfeiting human freedom for the sake of absolute dependence,and of being essentially non-Christian in his presentation of Christ in what

critics often view as an ancillary position.

Misunderstandings of Schleiermacher’s are frequently

due to an erroneous judgment about its structure. Schleiermacher was notmaking a linear presentation, nor did he view faith as linear. There was not

necessarily a particular, logical progression to faith or to verbal descriptionsabout it. In his two letters to Friedrich Lucke printed in a popular journal of

his time in 1828 as a way to preface and comment on the second edition of, Schleiermacher notes that the three parts of

could be presented in any order, but he chose the current oneso that the best would be saved for last: he wanted the message about the

Redeemer to come last rather than earlier, so the ending would not beanticlimactic! (Duke & Fiorenza, 55-60) As it is, the Introduction provides

the methodological foundation, Part I develops themes of natural theologycommon to all religions, and Part II offers revealed Christian theology. This

structure reflects Schleiermacher’s understanding of Christian religiousself-consciousness, with Part I reflecting the consciousness of God through

“absolute dependence,” and Part II reflecting the “antithesis of sin andgrace.” He moved from a more general relationship of God to the world to a

more specific relationship found in Jesus Christ.

Having defined religion as “a sense and taste for the Infinite” in ,

Schleiermacher now goes on to define his concepts more precisely in theIntroduction to . His definitions include the following:

: “3. The piety which forms the basis of all ecclesiasticalcommunions is, considered purely in itself, neither a Knowing nor a

Doing, but a modification of Feeling, or of immediateself-consciousness.” “4. The common element in all howsoever

diverse expressions of piety, by which these are conjointlydistinguished from all other feelings, or, in other words, the

self-identical essence of piety, is this: the consciousness of ourabsolute dependence, or which is the same thing, of our relation to

God.”

: “32. Every religious and Christian

self-consciousness presupposes and thus also actually contains theimmediate feeling of absolute dependence, as the only way in which,

in general, one’s own being and the infinite being of God can be one inself-consciousness.” “33. This feeling of absolute dependence, in

which our self-consciousness in general represents the finitude of ourbeing, is therefore not an accidental element, nor a thing which varies

from person to person, but is a universal element of life; and therecognition of this fact entirely takes the place, for the system of

doctrine, of all so-called proofs of the existence of God.”

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

5 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 6: Friedrich Schleiermacher

: “11. Christianity is a monotheistic faith of the

teleological type, and is essentially distinguished from other suchfaiths by the fact that everything in it is related to the redemption

accomplished by Jesus of Nazareth.”

: “14. There is no other way of obtaining

participation in the Christian communion than through faith in Jesus asRedeemer.”

: “15. Christian doctrines are accounts of the Christianreligious affections set forth in speech.”

: “19. Dogmatic Theology is the science whichsystematizes the doctrine prevalent in a Christian Church at a given

time.”

Schleiermacher’s intent is to reposition the dogmatic task in such a way that

there is room for diversity, change (within the bounds of orthodoxy!), andindependent thought and action. In doing so he walks a thin line on a number

of orthodox issues, and his critics contend that he slips over the edge onmany of them. For example, Schleiermacher is accused of being

anti-intellectual in his emphasis on piety and feeling over reason.Schleiermacher, however, would not deny the need and value of “knowing:”

he simply would not give it primacy over feeling. His concern was to enforcethe fact that human knowing is limited and does not have access to all there

is to know. We are not God, and our abilities are not as broad or deep. Interms of the elimination of human freedom by the definition of absolute

dependence, Schleiermacher would defend freedom as compatible withdependence. Yet this freedom is only partial, because absolute dependence

would imbue a constant “immediate self-consciousness” that mediates ourrelationship between the self and God. His emphasis is on relationship and

he rejects the urge to dichotomize freedom and dependence.

Throughout his writing Schleiermacher continuously holds in tension the

polarities that characterized Christianity in his time…the tensions betweenknowing/doing, emotion/reason, individualism/communalism,

dependence/freedom, experience/tradition, speculation/empiricism,diversity/unity. Trying to stop the reduction of religion to a set of cold facts

or to a quaint historic reliquary, Schleiermacher faithfully seeks tocontextualize the faith in order to serve the community of faith right where it

is at the present moment. It is a task he would encourage even now, for as hesaid, “Dogmatic Theology is the science which systematizes the doctrine

prevalent in a Christian Church at a given time.”

Bibliography

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

6 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 7: Friedrich Schleiermacher

Gerrish, B.A. “Schleiermacher,”

Edited by Adrian Hastings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000

Livingston, James C.

. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1997

Redeker, Martin. . Translated by JohnWallhausser. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973

Schleiermacher, Friedrich D.E. Edited by H.R.Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart. London: T & T Clark, 1999

________. Translated by D.M. Baillie.Edinburgh: W. V. Henderson, Publisher, 1922

________. . 2nd ed.Translated from the 1st German ed. of 1799 by Richard Crouter. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1996.

________. . Translated by

James Duke and Francis Fiorenza. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher(1768-1834): Progenitor of Practical Theology

John Tamilio III, 2002

I. Life and Thought

Hailed by many as the father of modern theology and dubbed by others as aPrince of the Church, a term he coined to describe one “who knows how to

do theology in the service of the community,” Schleiermacher is a pivotalfigure in the pantheon of modern western theologians and possibly the first

practical theologian (Christian 1979, 31). His writings (over two and a halfdozen of which have been translated into English) span the spectrum of the

practical and scholarly subdivisions within Christian religious studies, saveOld Testament, which he claimed does not “share the normative dignity or

inspiration of the New” (Schleiermacher 1999 ed.: 608). To truly appreciateSchleiermacher’s thought, and the contribution it has made to modern

western theology, one must examine the world into which he was born andthe influence his upbringing and education had on him.

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher was born on 21 November 1768 in

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

7 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 8: Friedrich Schleiermacher

Breslau, Silesia, Prussia into a family of Reformed (Calvinist) ministers. He

was also born at the height of the Enlightenment — an age whose definitionis elusive, but has been aptly characterized by Schleiermacher scholar

Stephen Sykes as having a three-fold agenda: “a strong confidence in thepowers of human reason and natural enquiry to uncover truth in every field;

a preparedness to open the area of discussion of religion beyond thecategories of Christianity and Paganism to include the possibility of

discovering a religion ‘natural’ to humanity; and pronounced educational andsocial aims designed to release the promise of development towards an

enlightened order of society” (Sykes 1971: 2-3). Whether accepted orrejected (both seem to be the case at various times in Schleiermacher’s

work), the objectives of the Enlightenment, coupled with the teachings ofpietism, had a profound influence on Schleiermacher’s thought.

Both of Schleiermacher’s parents, Gottlieb and Katharina-Maria, were raisedin clerical families. Gottlieb was a Prussian court chaplain and a member of

the — the Movarian Brethren pietistic community. In 1778,Gottlieb decided to have his three children (Charlotte, Friedrich, and Carl)

educated in the Movarian school. In 1785, Friedrich enrolled in theMovarian Seminary at Barby to begin his formal theological education.

Although Friedrich benefited greatly from the pietistic foundation laid by theMovarian Brethren — later in life he would to refer to himself as a pietist “of

a higher order” — they soon became the object of his rebellion. Schleiermacher had difficulty subscribing to many of their teachings,

particularly the atoning sacrifice of Christ. As a result, he left Barby twoyears later (1787) to enroll in the University of Halle to study philosophy.

This decision seriously fractured Schleiermacher’s relationship with hisfather — a split that was not reconciled until 1794, shortly before Gottlieb’s

death.

At Halle, Schleiermacher’s horizons spread. He was greatly influenced by

both Enlightenment thought and Romanticism. C. W. Christian tells us thatduring this time, Schleiermacher read Goethe’s

“encountered the critical theologies of Wolf and Semler,” and thephilosophy of Immanuel Kant, the latter having as profound an effect on

Schleiermacher as the dialogues of Plato, of which Schleiermacher was tobecome a noted translator (Christian 1979: 33). Interestingly enough, it was

during this period that Schleiermacher suffered greatly from self-doubt andskepticism. Schleiermacher biographer and critic Martin Redeker refers to

this time (i.e. the winter of 1789/1790 in Drossen) as “by far the lowest pointin Schleiermacher’s personal history” (Redeker 1973: 17).

Things soon changed, however. Schleiermacher entered a professional lifethat personified the crux of his thought. A product of the Reformation, he

became a scholar-pastor. After spending a year with his maternal uncleSamuel Stubenrauch (another scholar-pastor), “Schleiermacher took the first

theological examination prescribed by his church, doing well or excellentlyin all subjects except dogmatics, and a post was found for him as tutor in the

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

8 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 9: Friedrich Schleiermacher

family of Count Dohna in Schlobitten, East Prussia (1790 to 1793)” (Gerrish

1987: 108). His experience with the Dohna family made a deep influence onhim and, as a result, his theology, having witnessed the faith that unites

people in spite of doctrinal differences. “After the second and finalexamination, in which his performance in dogmatics was again

undistinguished, he assumed an assistant pastorate at Landsberg (GorzowWielkopolski, 1794-1796)” (Gerrish 1987: 108). During this time, he also

became chaplain at Charité Hospital in Berlin (1796). This was a formativeperiod in Schleiermacher’s intellectual life. He formed a friendship with

Friedrich Schlegel, became increasingly influenced by the Romantics, beganhis translations of Plato’s dialogues, and published (anonymously) “what

even today remains his best-known writing” — his first book, (Christian 1979: 35).

Renowned Schleiermacher scholar B. A. Gerrish tells us that is“often said to have inaugurated the modern period in Christian thought”

(Gerrish 2000: 644). is a work of apologetics, whichSchleiermacher aimed at his friends to show that feeling (as associated with

Romanticism) is of primary importance to religion over Enlightenmentrationalism. “Religion is something antecedent to beliefs and dogmas, which

only arise out of second-order reflection on religion” (Gerrish 2000: 644). Inthe vein of Kant, Schleiermacher argued that it is impossible to known God

through reason, but feeling, that which is fundamental to the universalhuman condition, is the means by which we can experience God. In the

“Second Speech” (of five), Schleiermacher maintains that religion is amingling of the theoretical and the practical:

Religion is for you at one time a way of thinking, a faith, a particularway of contemplating the world, and of combining what meets us in

the world: at another, it is a way of acting, a peculiar desire and love,a special kind of conduct and character. Without this distinction of a

theoretical and practical you could hardly think at all, and thoughboth sides belong to religion, you are usually accustomed to give

heed chiefly to only one at a time (Schleiermacher 1958 ed.: 27).

Schleiermacher proceeds by examining “both sides” of religion, yet, as

Gerrish tells us, in Schleiermacher, “religion is an indispensable ‘third’ inbeing human, alongside knowing and doing, and the humanity the Romantics

so eagerly cultivated is diminished whenever religion is neglected anddespised” (Gerrish 2000: 644). These thoughts were to find a deeper and

more mature expression in his later work.

In 1804, Schleiermacher served a brief tenure as a professor and preacher at

his alma mater, the University of Halle. In 1809, he returned to Berlin wherehe became pastor of Trinity Church. While serving as pastor of Trinity,

Schleiermacher was also appointed professor of theology and dean of thetheology faculty at the University of Berlin (1810). Part of his duty as dean

was “to structure the theological curriculum. The program he designed was

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

9 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 10: Friedrich Schleiermacher

given the title when it was first

published in 1810, and serves as an excellent introduction to his subsequentworks,” in particular the piece that is regarded by many as “one of the most

significant theological achievements of modern Protestantism”:

or what Schleiermacher often called his(“doctrine of faith”) (Christian 1979: 35, 36). Whereas

is an outstanding work of Christian apologetics, is a supreme work of Protestant dogmatics.

II.

First published in 1821-1822 and revised shortly before his death in

1830-1831 to dispel misunderstandings spawned by the original, outlines Protestant theology in two parts with an introduction

equal in length to the first part. All three segments will be examinedcarefully in order to grasp the full scope of Schleiermacher’s argument.

In this work, which many compare to John Calvin’s (1536-1559) for its contribution to Reformed thought,

Schleiermacher begins by distinguishing the cognitive from the visceral:knowing God intellectually and experiencing God affectively. The latter is

the foundation of Schleiermacher’s systematics. Religious experience isgrounded in a feeling of absolute dependence on God. Absolute dependence

is both the “primary datum of religion” and the way in which we are “to in relation to God” (Christian 1979: 81, 86). This is a precognitive

experience. Schleiermacher explicates this by distinguishing the reciprocalnature of experience: (abiding-in-self) and

(passing-beyond-self). In sum, we are influenced by external reality and ourexistence influences (however slight) the world. This, the subjective

abiding-in-self that is influenced by the external world and the objectivepassing-beyond-self that affects the world, corresponds respectively to

Schleiermacher’s categorization of knowing and doing. However, “truepiety” is the realization that we depend on something (i.e. God) that does not

dependent on us (Christian 1979: 81). This not only lies at the heart of histheology, but, for Schleiermacher, it also proves the existence of God.

Absolute dependence is evident in all religions, though most supremely inthe redemptive work of Christ.

Two other foundational elements of Schleiermacher’s thought need to beunpacked at this point. First, for Schleiermacher, faith is not the experience

of isolated individuals, but rather the lived experience of a faith community. Second, theology — the best that our limited language can do to express

reality (let alone the experience of faith) as deconstructionists would laterargue — should reflect the experience of a specific community, hence

status as a classic of theology. This has led

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

10 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 11: Friedrich Schleiermacher

Schleiermacher’s critics to label him a relativist, yet Schleiermacher

maintained that the shared experience of faith must not only be coherent, butalso “true to the faith from which it springs” (Christian 1979: 93).

Referring to as a work of theology is somewhatproblematic, because, as Christian tells us, “the greatest significance of

Schleiermacher for modern theology lies less in the substance of his thoughtthan in the revolution he brought about regarding the nature and method of

theology” (Christian 1979: 88). The Enlightenment subjected all history andthought to critical scrutiny, including religion. On what legs could

Christianity stand if its pillars — historical witness, Scripture, theology, thecreeds, and so forth — were shown to be errant? Schleiermacher answered

this question by offering a new approach to theology that emphasized thepractical over the theoretical without sacrificing reason for faith. In any

event, if the skeleton of is methodological, its flesh isstill laden with doctrinal content.

It is pertinent to note at this juncture, as Gerrish does, that does not present the whole of Schleiermacher’s theology, but only one

division of his dogmatics” (Gerrish 2000: 644). In the “First Part of theSystem of Doctrine,” Schleiermacher develops his doctrine of creation, in the

second his doctrine of redemption.

The opening to part one reflects the opening of Genesis: “the world was

created by God, and…God sustains the world” (Schleiermacher 1999 ed.:142). This is not so much a scientific observation as it is a faith claim:

humanity is utterly dependent on the God who creates and sustains life inevery epoch. This is evident in the interdependence of nature and the

timelessness of the omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God. Insection three, Schleiermacher provides the segue to the often neglected

“Second Part of the System of Doctrine.” Here he posits the claim that “Theuniversality of the feeling of absolute dependence includes in itself the belief

in an original perfection of the World,” which includes nature and humanity(Schleiermacher 1999 ed.: 233). In other words, in their conception God

created humanity and nature for perfection. The reality of sin and the needfor redemption provide the basis for the subsequent section.

Sin, in Schleiermacher’s system, much like faith, originates not just inindividuals, but also (and especially) within community. Intimately

connected to evil and having its source inside and outside of the self, sin isdefined as “a positive antagonism of the flesh against the spirit” and “a

derangement of our nature” (Schleiermacher 1999 ed.: 271, 275). Our actualsin, rooted in original sin, can only be removed by redemption through the

fully human and fully divine Christ “through the communication of Hissinless perfection,” which humanity assimilates by being assumed by Christ

in his “God-consciousness” (Schleiermacher 1999 ed.: 361, cf. §100 and101). Humanity is as conscious of this need as it is of its sinfulness.

Redemption, according to Schleiermacher, is the second act of creation —

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

11 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 12: Friedrich Schleiermacher

the completion of it. Redemption in Christ is achieved through an act of

conversion (which is achieved through repentance) and justification (whichis achieved through faith in Christ). This, in turn, results in the believer’s

sanctification: a life that reflects the “perfection” and “blessedness” ofChrist. Yet, as mentioned above, this life is corporate. This leads to

Schleiermacher’s ecclesiology.

The Church is the corporate life of predestined, “regenerate individuals” who

“form a system of mutual interaction and co-operation” (Schleiermacher1999 ed.: 532). Predestination is not blind election, but rather God

foreseeing faith in those whom he elects. Believers are then driven, havingbeen assimilated by the Holy Spirit, to grow with one another in

sanctification. The Church becomes the perfect reflection of Christ on earth,with each individual being an integral part of it. The Church, however, is not

an isolated gathering of pristine souls. It must live in the world yet maintainits identity. This is accomplished through the marks of the Church: reading

and proclaiming the inspired Word of God as found in the canonized NewTestament, a public ministry rooted in the Word of God, initiation into the

salvific life of the Church through baptism (followed by an act ofconfirmation for baptized infants), spiritual strengthening and reaffirmation

of life in Christ by sharing his body and blood in his Supper, administrationof church identity (“the Power of the Keys”), and prayer in the name of Jesus

Christ. Through such acts, the Church, both visible (the imperfect anddivided branches of the Church) and invisible (the infallible and united

Church Universal), is a reflection of the consummated Church at the end oftime when Christ will judge the living and the dead and the Church will be

fully separated from the world “in a state of unchangeable and uncloudedblessedness” (Schleiermacher 1999 ed.: 717).

Schleiermacher ends with a brief discussion of thedifficulty of accepting the reality of damnation and a slightly longer

treatment of the Trinity (the co-existent and mutually inclusive God aseternally three-in-one). He also ends this work by leaving a tremendous

legacy for Christian theology.

III. Schleiermacher’s Legacy

Schleiermacher died of pneumonia on 12 February 1834, shortly after herevised He left behind a wife, Henriette von

Mühlenfels (twenty years his junior and the widow of his friend ArmyChaplain von Willich), and was predeceased by their son, Nathaniel, who

died at the age of nine from diphtheria. Schleiermacher’s death may have“moved the entire population of Berlin,” as Redeker tells us, but his life and

work changed the course of modern Christian theology (Redeker 1984: 212).

Schleiermacher’s contributions to modern western theology are immense.

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

12 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 13: Friedrich Schleiermacher

Although he would be considered an inclusivist by today’s standards, his

insights into ecumenism and religious pluralism were novel. He can also beconsidered, in many respects, a patriarch of practical theology. His focus on

religious experience as a precursor to dogmatics paved the way for much ofthe mediating work that is being done in this burgeoning field. This

proposition needs to be unpacked a bit further.

Schleiermacher’s theology and methodology had a profound impact on the

development of practical theology as a formal, theological discipline. Ray S.Anderson makes a similar claim in his recent study,

(2001: 24). Likewise, in his series of lectures on Schleiermacher,B. A. Gerrish states that “no theologian has ever insisted more emphatically

that ‘the crown of theological study’ (to say in his own words) is (Gerrish 1984: 20-21). Proposing a comprehensive definition of

this discipline is difficult (in part because it is still in the process ofself-definition as its critics and adherents maintain), but a good working one

is that practical theology “deals with contextual religious research, i.e., thepractices in which people engage that indicate their intersection with the

sacred, or the holy, or their ultimate concern, whether or not these practicesare formally organized as a religious body” (Burch 1999: 19). This, in many

respects, cuts to the heart of Schleiermacher’s thought.

Simply put, Schleiermacher believed, as mentioned above, that theology is

second-level reflective activity on the lived experience of faith, particularly faith. “He concerned himself with facts and phenomena — with

real, live religion, not simply with ‘God’ as a philosophical construct. Heunderstood Christian theology to be (in his terms) ‘empirical,’ not

‘speculative’” (Gerrish 1984: 21). I have illustrated the development of thisthought (above) in the two works for which he is best known: his first book,

(1799), and the text thatmany claim inaugurated the modern period in western theology,

(1821-1822). In his shorter and

lesser-known fictitious colloquy, (1805), this point is illustrated more dramatically.

In this work, which Wilhelm Dilthey claims is “the best introduction to thestudy of Schleiermacher’s dogmatics,” three women reflect on their joyful

memories of Christmas and the maternal love that Mary had for the babyJesus (Redeker 1984: 84). This is followed by the more laborious

talk of the men, who debate (from a historical-critical perspective) themeaning of the incarnation The entire company is then brought

back into the festive spirit when one of the guests draws them to the pianofor a sing-a-long (Schleiermacher believed that “music [and the other arts] is

a more basic medium of religious expression than the spoken word”)(Gerrish 1984: 28). Stephen Sykes claims that “begins to

show some of the fruit of [Schleiermacher’s] increasing attention to theproblems of Christian doctrine” (Sykes 1971: 11).

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

13 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 14: Friedrich Schleiermacher

In light of all this, it is easier to see that Schleiermacher’s theology is the

careful marriage of experience and Christology. For Schleiermacher, Christis the one who supremely embodies “God-consciousness” and redeems

humanity “by drawing men and women into the power of his own awarenessof God” (Gerrish 1984: 48). This is expressed by what he believed is

universal to the human condition and all religions: “absolute dependence” onGod. As controversial as this claim was (and is), it enabled Schleiermacher

to 1. resurrect Christian faith at a time when Enlightenment thought buriedits authoritative foundations and 2. to unite the practical with the theoretical.

It is safe to assume that Schleiermacher’s influence on Christian theologywill extend far into the post-modern era.

Bibliography and Works Cited

Primary

Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst. . Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850.

-----. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999 edition.

-----.

Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1890.

-----. . 2nd ed. Translated

from the 1st German ed. of 1799 by Richard Crouter. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Secondary

Anderson, Ray S.

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Browning, Don S.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Burch, Sharon Peebles.

New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1999.

---. “Practical Theology and the Seminary,” from

Winter/Spring 1999. (NB: this is the Burchsource cited above.)

Christian, C. W. Waco: Word Books, 1979.

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

14 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 15: Friedrich Schleiermacher

Funk, Robert W., ed. New York: Herder

and Herder, 1970.

Gerrish, B. A.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

---. “Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst,” from

vol. 13, ed. in chief Mircea Eliade. New York: MacmillanPublishers, 1987, pp. 108-113.

---. “Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst,” from eds. Adrian Hastings, Alistair Mason, and

Hugh Pyper. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 644-646.

Redeker, Martin. Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1973.

Sykes, Stephen. Richmond: John Knox Press,

1971.

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher(1768-1834)

Chijen James Wu, 2000

It is very true that most modern Protestant theologians consider Friedrich

Schleiermacher the “Father of the Modern Protestant Theology.” Schleiermacher’s bountiful theological legacy, which has influenced the later

Protestant theologians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, earns thisprestigious title for him. He is truly a great theologian because he has

rescued the Protestant theology out of an era that religion was coming todemise so to speak. As he has pointed out in his speeches on religion, “I do

not chime in with the cry for help of most of them concerning the demise ofreligion” (Schleiermacher 2000, 4). It is apparent that he simply, at that time,

did not agree with the allegation that the demise of religion has come as thecost of Enlightenment. By disproving the allegation, he successfully paved a

new path for later Protestant theologians to reconstruct the so-called “modernProtestant theology.” He made theology possible in the face of philosophy,

history, and science that were prevailing in the Romantic Movement of thenineteenth century. As a result, modern Protestant theologians often regard

him as the most important theologian between John Calvin and Karl Barth(Livingston 1997, 93). Nevertheless, Schleiermacher earned his reputation

in not only the Protestant circle but also the Catholic circle. As B. A. Gerrishhas pointed out, “Shortly after Schleiermacher death . . . a leading Catholic

theologian testified that . . . he along could be compared with Thomas

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

15 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 16: Friedrich Schleiermacher

Aquinas” (Schleiermacher 1999, v). Without a doubt, Schleiermacher’s

theology has developed into a significant theological legacy that inspires thelater theologians in both circles.

This article seeks to present Schleiermacher’s theological system in his mostmature theological work, namely, (second edition,

1830). To this end, a thematic approach adopted in this article is required forthis presentation. Nevertheless, to deal with Schleiermacher’s theological

system, we must briefly discuss his contemporary philosophical context,namely, Kant’s philosophy and Romanticism. It is evident that Kant’s

philosophy and the Romantic Movement profoundly influencedSchleiermacher’s theology.

Kant’s Philosophy and the Romantic Movement

Kant’s philosophy was in particular attractive to Schleiermacher when hebecame a student at Halle University in 1787. Although he read some of

Kant’s philosophy before his matriculation at the university, he devotedhimself to study Kant’s philosophy during his student years at the university

(Redeker 1973, 14-16). Kant’s three critiques were significant toShleiermacher’s thinking system. Schleiermacher found Kant’s threefold

category of the human faculties completely persuasive. Nevertheless, he didnot agree with Kant’s identification of religion with morality. He found

Kant’s approach to religion stemmed from his second critique, . This critique led Kant to study religion in terms of

ethics or morality. Schleiermacher, instead of following Kant’s approach,selected the third category of Kant’s critiques as his own approach to

religion, namely, . He found the significance ofaesthetic sensitivity in the third critique, and therefore he highlighted it as the

ground of religion. Apparently, Schleiermacher intended to keep Kant’sparadigmatic framework intact, while he sought another approach to religion

than Kant. As a result, Schleiermacher was able to identify religion with aquality of feeling rather than morality as Kant had proposed (Capps 1995,

7-13).

In addition to Kant’s philosophy, the Romantic Movement was another factor

that influenced Schleiermacher’s thought. According to Claude Welch’sanalysis, one aspect of the Romantic Movement boldly underlined the

concept of individuality. This emphasis shaped individual’s concept of selfin relation to the world. The primary relation of individual to the world was

no longer through the noble structure of reason but through the immediacy ofindividual feeling. It is worthy of note that the word “feeling” calls attention

to the sensuous impulse as well as aesthetics. Hence, the empirical andaesthetic approaches in examining the world were vital characters of

Romanticism. Another aspect of the Romantic Movement was its concernfor history. This emphasis rendered a new perspective for the contemporary

study of religion. Some philosophers of this era argued that studying historyprovides another ground for studying religion. Historical facts were the

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

16 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 17: Friedrich Schleiermacher

foundation of religion. Religion could only be accessible in history; it must

itself constantly become living history. Consequently, they argued, thehistory of the divine revelation was only present in the history of humanity.

Neither was God an object discovered by rationality alone, nor standing inopposition to human beings. Rather, God existed in relation to human beings

throughout the human history. The final, but not the least, aspect of theRomantic Movement was its emphasis on diversity. Diversity was set in

contrast to uniformity. This emphasis allowed human beings to seek forvarious imaginative expressions of their experiences (Welch 1972, 52-55).

Based on the above discussion, it is not difficult to identify some Kant’sphilosophical and Romantic elements in Schleiermacher’s theological

system. Now let us turn to the thematic approach of the work,

.

In this section, I divide the Christian Faith into two subsections, namely, the

work and its theological meaning (dogmatics). Apparently, Schleiermacherpresents his theological view on the Christian faith in a systematic

arrangement throughout . There are four sectionscontained in the work, dogmatics, the Christian religious affection, the

Christian faith, and the doctrine of Trinity. In the first section (i.e.introduction), he defines what the Christian theology should be and how to

formulate a Christian theology. In the second section (i.e. the first part of thedogmatic system), he explains how one’s religious self-consciousness is

contained in one’s religious affection in terms of the human condition, thedoctrine of God, and the constitution of the world. In the third section (i.e.

the second part of the system), he explicates how the religiousself-consciousness becomes the existential facts by examining one’s dialectic

structure of self-consciousness of sin and grace. In details, he also explainsthese facts in terms of the human condition, the doctrine of God, and the

constitution of the world. Without a doubt, this section boldly signifies themain thought of the work. The final section (i.e. conclusion), he revises the

ecclesiastically formed doctrine of Trinity into his anthropological views onChrist and the Holy Spirit. In short, as we have seen, the concept of “self-

consciousness” is boldly set in tone in his theological construction.

We have briefly analyzed the structure of this work. Consequently, we may

find that Schleiermacher’s purpose for writing this work was simply topresent the Christian faith “as a coherent whole according to the principles of

the evangelical [Protestant] church” (Schleiermacher 1999, vi). Accordingly,the Christian faith should be coherent with the principles of the church. In

fact, dogmatics is about the principles of the church. In this sense, dogmaticsexplains the Christian faith not only in terms of the individual sense of

feeling but also in terms of the social communion of the church. Schleiermacher defines the character of the Christian faith as follows:

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

17 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 18: Friedrich Schleiermacher

“Christianity is a monotheistic faith, belonging to the teleological type of

religion, and is essentially distinguished from other such faiths by the factthat in it everything is related to the redemption accomplished by Jesus of

Nazareth” (Schleiermacher 1999, 52).

In short, we can briefly summarize the above definition in the following

way: one’s self-consciousness of faith in Jesus as the Redeemer(Schleiermacher 1999, 68). For Schleiermacher, the Christian dogmatics

ought to affirm this Christian faith. Moreover, he also considers piety a formof the Christian faith. Piety is “a modification of feeling,” a feeling of

absolute dependence. Yet, feeling is neither a knowing nor a doing, butself-consciousness which links the other two categories (knowing and

doing). A feeling of absolute dependence is an immediateself-consciousness of being in relation with God. Not only does piety

portray a personal character, but also a communal character, for this religiousself-consciousness forms the foundation of the ecclesiastical communion

with Christ (Schleiermacher 1999, 5-26). Thus, the church, as theecclesiastical communion with Christ, becomes a historical medium of

redemption.

Dogmatics

For Schleiermacher, the dogmatic theology is merely a branch, not the

whole, of the Christian theology. It is to systematically illustrate theChristian faith by using the “dialectic character of language.” This linguistic

character elevates the dogmatic theology to a field of scientific disciplinethat ultimately seeks the ecclesiastical interests by explaining the doctrines

(Schleiermacher 1999, 78-88, 118). Building up a system of dogmatics is atheological discipline, we can only proceed to construct or respond to the

dogmatics within the church context (Schleiermacher 1999, 3). In otherwords, Dogmatics emerges out of the church where the account of “the

Christian religious affections set forth in speech” (Schleiermacher 1999, 76). Thus, dogmatics is a confessional theology, not an apologetic theology. It is

impossible for the Christian theology to begin with natural reason since theChristian religious affection only emerges out of the Christian experience. In

this sense, the starting point for constructing a Christian theology must be aChristian experience of redemption in Jesus. For Schleiermacher, this

experience is to which all Christian doctrines should refer. Apparently,Schleiermacher’s theology is then fundamentally Christo-centric (Livingston

1997, 100-101).

According to Schleiermacher, we can never know God as He is in Himself;

rather we can only know God as He is in relation to us. In other word, wecan know God through our self-consciousness of the relation between God

and us (Schleiermacher 1999, 52). All the divine attributes in a Christiandogmatics should refer themselves to this religious affection, this feeling of

absolute dependence. Yet, how do we feel our absolute dependence onGod? There are two modes of apprehending this dependence in

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

18 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 19: Friedrich Schleiermacher

Schleiermacher’s theology. First, we can feel God in our experience of the

world or nature. The feeling of absolute dependence is a universal elementof life, and which urges us become conscious of our creatureness. In other

words, we become conscious that we are part of the world (Schleiermacher1999, 133-138). Second, we can feel God in our antithetic consciousness of

sin and grace. This antithesis of sin and grace characterizes our religiousform of self-consciousness (Schleiermacher 1999, 259). These two modes

elucidate Schleiermacher’s theology on human condition, the doctrine ofGod, and the constitution of the world (cosmology).

Christology

Christology is the center of Schleiermacher’s dogmatic theology. Heinterprets the person and the work of Christ from an anthropological

perspective. This makes him turn away from the traditional interpretation ofJesus Christ. Nevertheless, before we enter the further discussion of his

Christology, we ought to briefly analyze his antithesis of sin and grace. ForSchleiermacher, the antithesis of sin and grace is a crucial structure of

dialectics in building up the facts of the religious self-consciousness. Thisantithesis characterizes Schleiermacher’s understanding of human sin and the

redemptive activity of Jesus Christ. Sin, for Schleiermacher, is present as astate of man. We experience our sin in a state that a conflict between our

sensuous nature and spiritual nature hinders our inner God-consciousness(Schleiermacher 1999, 271). This conflict separates us from God, this is

what we call sin. On the contrary, we are conscious of fellowship with Godand know that it rests upon a communication from the redeemer, this is what

we call grace (Schleiermacher 1999, 262). Grace is our religiousself-consciousness of blessedness. The reason that we can know sin is our

feeling of grace. Grace stands in opposition to sin. Hence, Schleiermacherrelates sin to its antithesis grace to explain our religious self-consciousness.

As Jesus Christ presented in his perfect consciousness of God, grace convictsus how we have obscured our God-consciousness through our sin. By

rejecting the ancient concept of sin (caused by the Fall of Adam),Schleiermacher stresses that the power to recognize our sin comes from

Jesus Christ not from Adam (Livingston 1997, 102). Accordingly, thispower to recognize sin characterizes our self-consciousness of grace. In

short, grace comes from the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

The person and the redemptive work of Christ are inseparable in the

discussion of Schleiermacher Christology. For Schleiermacher, Christ, theRedeemer, is similar to all human beings “in virtue of the identity of human

nature, but distinguished from them all by the constant potency of HisGod-consciousness, which was a veritable existence of God in Him”

(Schleiermacher 1999, 385). Jesus Christ perfectly realizes hisGod-consciousness in his earthly life span. In this sense, we can speak of

Jesus’ perfection and sinlessness. Thus, Jesus Christ is an exemplar thatshows the ideal humanity to all. We can also understand Jesus in a way that

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

19 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 20: Friedrich Schleiermacher

he is a mirror in which we see our true image and measure, for he has

brought something new into humanity and the world. Yet, Schleiermacheralso argues that we are not able to produce perfect humanity by our own

consciousness since our religious self-consciousness had infected by sin. Thus, we need a mediator who is the medium for the communication of

God’s redemptive power. The redemptive work of Jesus Christ signifies thiscommunication between God and human beings. In this sense, Christ is both

exemplar and redeemer (Niebuhr1964, 226). In terms of the work of Christ,the redemptive work of Christ includes two modes of activities. First, the

redeemer assumes the believers into the power of His God-consciousness(redemptive activity); second, the redeemer assumes the believers into the

fellowship of His unclouded blessedness (reconciling activity). Accordingly,the center of Christ’s redemptive work shifts from the crucifixion to the

incarnation by which something entirely new entered human history and isforming a new humanity and a new world (Schleiermacher 1999, 425-438).

The Trinity

For Schleiermacher, this doctrine is not an immediate concern about theChristian self-consciousness. It does not relate to the feeling that is integral

to the Christian experience of dependence. It presents a combination ofChristology and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the church. Although

Schleiermacher does not include this doctrine in the main body of the work,it does not mean that he thought this doctrine is unimportant. For

Schleiermacher, this doctrine signifies the union of the divine essence withhuman nature, both in the personality of Christ and in the common spirit of

the church (Schleiermacher 1999, 738). In the above discussion ofChristology, we have seen that Schleiermacher identifies Jesus Christ as a

truly man, but one thing makes him distinctive from other human beings arehis constant potency of His God-consciousness (Schleiermacher 1999, 385).

This is Schleiermacher’s anthropological Christology. In order to explain thedoctrine of Trinity, Schleiermacher also employs an anthropological doctrine

of the Holy Spirit in the church. That is to say, Schleiermacher examines thedoctrine of the Holy Spirit in the context of the Church in which believers

share their communion with Christ. Schleiermacher argues “the Holy Spiritis the union of the Divine Essence with human nature in the form of the

common Spirit animating the life in common of believers” (Schleiermacher1999, 569). In other words, animating the believers’ common religious life

is a form of the work of the Holey Spirit. An anthropological Trinity hascome to existence by Schleiermacher’s theological interpretation.

Bibliography

Works Cited—Primary Sources

Schleiermacher, Friedrich D.E.

. 2nd ed. Translated from the 1st German ed. of 1799 by Richard

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

20 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 21: Friedrich Schleiermacher

Crouter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

________. 1999 [1830]. . 2nd ed. Edited by H. R.Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart. With a Forward by B. A. Gerrish. Edinburgh:

T & T Clark Ltd.

Works Cited—Secondary Sources

Redeker, Martin. 1973 [1968]. . Translated by John Wallhausser. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Capps, Walter H. 1995. .Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Welch, Claude. 1972. . Vol.1,. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Livingston, James. 1997 [1988]. . 2nd ed. Vol.1,. Upper Saddle River:

Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Niebuhr, Richard. 1964.

. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Friedrich Schleiermacher: The Father ofModern Protestant Theology

Peter Heltzel, 1998

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1786-1834), the German philosophical theologian,was a "critical realist" working among post-Kantian idealists. He is truly the

greatest Protestant systematic theologian after John Clavin (Niebuhr 1978,6). This article seeks to provide commentary on his most mature theological

writing, namely the second edition of (1831). In (1799)

Schleiermacher posits his theory of piety as a basic, universal religiousexperience when writing to his sophisticated friends. He developed the

doctrinal implications in a cogent, coherent whole in . Athematic approach to this work will be taken here to elucidate the theological

thinking of Schleiermacher, with a brief discussion of his conception oftheology, theological education, theological method and Christology, with

some brief concluding remarks on his legacy.

The Experience of God: The Brilliance of Schleiermacher

At the root of Schleiermacher’s theological achievement was a reconception

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

21 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 22: Friedrich Schleiermacher

of religion. For him religion is primarily neither morality ( Kant) nor

belief or knowledge ( Hegel) but an immediate self-consciousness orfeeling of absolute dependence on God. The roots of faith are pre-moral and

pre-cognitive, and this religious consciousness is common to all people,though very variously recognized and expressed. While the God of Kant (the

absolute or unconditioned God) is present through our sense of moralobligation, God is present as an immediate dynamic relationship that grasps

our whole being in the theology of Schleiermacher. However, it should benoted that Schleiermacher does not systematically exclude knowledge and

morality from the realm of religion, rather he argues that "the experience ofabsolute dependence" should be the primary emphasis of religion. This

experience is transferred and embodied in religious communities likeChristianity.

Christianity is the specific form of the God-consciousness shaped throughJesus Christ and the community of faith in him. The church (or Christian

community) is foundational to the experience of God which works itself outin a moral, thoughtful life of love. (Schleiermacher 1994, Fourth Speech,

147-209). This was a view of religion which had an integrity of its own inthe subjective realm of feeling or consciousness, but which yet could be

reflected upon and discussed intellectually in theology and could inform thewhole of practical living. Schleiermacher’s theory of religion offered an

idiom through which all of Christian doctrine could be expressed afresh.

Schleiermacher’s Conception of Theology

Theology for Schleiermacher involved drawing out the doctrinal implications

of this "feeling of absolute dependence." This feeling was analyzed in threedifferent ways: philosophically, historically and pastorally. Thus,

Schleiermacher divided the theological encyclopedia into three differentdisciplinary topics: philosophical theology, historical theology and practical

theology. These three types of theology were implemented in the theologydepartment at the University of Berlin, of which Schleiermacher was

cofounder with Humboldt (1808-1810). Schliermacher’s threefold model oftheological education at Berlin would have a major influence on university

theology curriculums in America at the turn of the century (Kelsey 1993,52-65).

Theological study began for Schleiermacher with a more generalphilosophical analysis of the "feeling of absolute dependence" within the

world religions. According to Schleiermacher, Philosophy of Religion(Schliermacher 1928, 31-52) should replace Natural Theology (after the

critiques of natural theology by Hume and Kant) as a preamble to systematictheology. Although Brunner criticizes Schleiermacher for his "catholicizing"

traits such as the corruption of theology by philosophy (Gerrish 1978, 21),Tillich rightly points out that Schleiermacher never clearly related this

borrowed philosophical truth with theological truth (Tillich 1951:1/30).Regardless, this move by Schleiermacher was a major curricular

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

22 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 23: Friedrich Schleiermacher

breakthrough for connecting traditional theological studies with the

soon-emerging study of the world religions.

Historical-critical study dominated the intellectual scene of the early

nineteenth century. Schleiermacher appropriated this historical methodologyto be the interpretive key of his theological encyclopedia, for he saw the

subject of theology as the life of church unfolding in history. ForSchleiermacher expanded the discipline of historical theology; he thought it

encompassed the entire development of the Christian religion, incorporatingin its purview the Bible, the subsequent history of Christianity, and the

dogmatic theology of the contemporary church. By this inquiry into the riseand development of Christianity, historical theology aimed to discern the

historical essence of Christianity and to exhibit that essence as thesubstantive unity of theological studies. Historical knowledge of the church,

in sum, was the requisite knowledge for practical leadership of the church,built upon "the realization that this community, regarded as a whole, is a

historical entity, and that its present condition can be adequately graspedonly when it is viewed as a product of the past" (Schleiermacher 1966, 26).

Once pastors fully understand the past, then they are prepared to minister inthe present. It was practical theology (or training in the actual preaching,

teaching and shepherding of the parish to pious living: ) whichSchleiermacher saw as the most important of the three, calling it the "crown"

of theology.

Schleiermacher’s Theological Method

While broadly in the Reformed tradition (for he saw to be a dogmatics

of united Church including both Lutheran and Calvinist communions) ofsystematic theology, Schleiermacher made many innovations in his

theological methods. One major methodological difference from traditionalreformed theology was Schleiermacher’s starting point. Schleiermacher

started with religious experience, with religious feeling, and then worked hisway up to God. Part of the reason for his anthropological starting point was

his apologetic posture in . To his sophisticated, skeptical friends,Schleiermacher posed the question, what if it could be shown that religion in

general and Christianity in particular are not inimical to humanity butessential to its true fulfillment? Schleiermacher answered strongly in the

affirmative.

For Schleiermacher asserting religious experience as the primary source of

theology rather than authoritative propositions about God was the only wayhe saw as a possible solution to the pressing problematic of his day, the

impasse between rationalism and orthodoxy. Orthodoxy viewed theology asreflection on supernaturally revealed truths and thus practiced a "theology

from above." Enlightenment theology (deism), viewed the enterprise asreflection on rational thoughts about God, engaged in a type of "theology

from below." Schleiermacher believed the Enlightenment rightly rebelledagainst authoritative theology which stifled human creativity and confused

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

23 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 24: Friedrich Schleiermacher

the church’s dogmas about God with God himself, but the deist alternative

was too sterile and bland. So in the spirit of Goethe, Schleiermacher set outto paint a new portrait of God, by painting a picture of human experience of

God. For Schleiermacher, theology is human reflection on human experienceof God. In the broadest and most general sense theology is simply human

reflection on religion, that is, on piety.

In Schleiermacher defines theology as the attempt to set

forth the Christian religious affections in speech. Although has many formal similarities to Calvin’s

such as the division between God the Creator and God theRedeemer, Schleiermacher innovates in the way he treats these doctrines. In

Schleiermacher all of the traditional doctrines correspond with theexperience of God. He writes, "Christian doctrines are accounts of the

Christian religious affections set forth in speech" (Schleiermacher 1928,15/76). Thus, Schleiermacher is drawn to doctrines that pattern and bring

form to our God consciousness such as Christology. The doctrine of theTrinity on the other hand is not found very helpful by Schleiermacher for

explicating our experience of God. One wonders if he had a more modernpyscho-social anthropology (e.g., Volf 1998) if the Trinity could have played

a more central role in his dogmatics. However, there was a broader movetoward a radical monotheism through the Deism and Romanticism of

Schleiermacher’s day that prevented him from this insight.

Schleiermacher’s reconstruction of the doctrine of God has been one of his

most controversial contributions to modern theology. It was determined bythe pious God-consciousness of Christian people, their feeling of absolute

dependence on God. According to Schleiermacher, the attributes of God arenot to be taken as actually describing God. To "describe" is to limit and

divide, thereby taking away from God’s infinity and implying a dependenceof God upon the world. In the place of the traditional understanding, he

offered what has become a classic reformulation: "All attributes which weascribe to God are to be taken as denoting not something special in God, but

only something special in the manner in which the feeling of absolutedependence is to be related to Him" (Schleiermacher 1928, 50/194). In other

words, talk about God is always talk about human experience of God. Suchstatements describe not God-in-himself but a certain mode of experiencing

God. In drawing out the implications of the experience of total dependence,Schleiermacher concluded that God is the all-determining reality, the

ultimate cause of everything—both good and evil. God is the one who acts,but can not be acted upon.

Christology

Although Schleiermacher begins with "the feeling of absolute dependence,"this feeling is brought to fruition in the life of Christ. For Schleiermacher the

feeling of being totally dependent is squarely placed on the redemptive workof Jesus Christ for one’s relationship with God. Because that experience is

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

24 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 25: Friedrich Schleiermacher

fundamentally an experience of God mediated in and through Jesus Christ,

all doctrines must be centered around and related to him and his redemptivework (Schleiermacher 1928, 29/125). Schleiermacher criticizes the classical

doctrine of Jesus’ two natures (human and divine) as illogical(Schleiermacher 1928, 96/391ff.). According to Schleiermacher, the ideal

God-consciousness that Jesus posses is sufficient to express what Christianscall his "divinity."

In the beginning of when Schleiermacher develops histheory of religions, he has some very prejudicial readings of non-Christian

religions, and like Hegel argues that Christianity is the consummate religion.Schleiermacher writes: "Christianity is a monotheistic faith, belonging to the

teleological type of religion, and is essentially distinguished from other suchfaiths by the fact that in it everything is related to the redemption

accomplished by Jesus of Nazareth" (Schleiermacher, 1928, 11/52) ForSchleiermacher, it is only Christianity that can properly interpret and deliver

true God-consciousness because Jesus Christ was the only person who everachieved complete God-consciousness.

Redemption in Christ is a central motif in Schleiermacher’s theology, but ittranscends a traditional view of the atonement. Somewhere in his early

education he began to develop doubts about certain of the key doctrines oforthodox Protestantism. In a letter to his father he expressed skepticism

about the substitutionary doctrine of atonement—that Christ suffered at thehands of God the just punishment for human sin. Schleiermacher’s principle

argument against substitutionary atonement is similar to Kant: for someoneto vicariously suffer for someone else’s wrong doing is immoral. This act

does not undo the prior guilt. So when he gets to the work of Christ(Schleiermacher 1928, 425-475), Schleiermacher does not want to reduce

Christology to the atonement. While Kant subsumes the man Jesus (ourmoral archetype) into the work of Christ, Schleiermacher reasserts the

necessity of the historical Jesus to enact our redemption.

Legacy

The influence of Schleiermacher on modern theology can not be

overestimated. His powerful account of religion’s validity rooted in thedynamics of awareness of God has influenced many subsequent theologians

including Soren Kierkegaard (Kierkegaard 1946, 18; cf. Crouter 1994,205-225). After Schleiermacher theology must take account of what is

actually felt as the experience of God’s activity in human awareness. God’sactivity in human awareness had been a major motivational force in many

contemporary theological movements including feminism, Pentecostalism,and liberation theology.

From the vantage points of these contemporary movements, Schleiermacheris often viewed as a great mediator, if not the Father of mediation theology

(Welch 1974, 61). Schleiermacher tried to reassert religious consciousness in

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

25 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 26: Friedrich Schleiermacher

a post-Kantian world which was skeptical of such a project.

Schleiermacher’s theology was in part an attempt to answer Kant’s critiqueof religion while accepting the limitation he placed on reason.

Schleiermacher’s project challenges all systematic theologians to craft theirtheology creatively in the thought forms of the day.

Bibliography

Primary

Schleiermacher, Friedrich D.E. 1966. ,

Trans. Terrence N. Tice. Atlanta: John Knox.

________. . 1928. Ed. by H.R. Mackintosh; J.S. Stewart.

Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark. Tr. Of the 2nd German ed. of

, 1930-31; 1st German ed., 1821-22.

________. . 2nd ed.Translated from the 1st German ed. of 1799 by Richard Crouter. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Secondary Sources

Gerrish, Brian. . 1984. Philadelphia: Fortress.

________. . 1978. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kelsey, David. 1993. . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Niebuhr, Richard R. 1963. . NewYork: Scribner.

Tillich, Paul. 1976. , 3 Vols. Chicago: University ofChicago, 1951, 1957, 1963. Phoenix paperback ed.

Welch, Claude. 1974. , Vol. 1:1799-1870. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1974.

Volf, Mirslov. 1984. . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Supplemental

Barth, Karl. , Eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. 14

Vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1951-1963. Tr. Of .Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1932-1952.

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

26 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 27: Friedrich Schleiermacher

_____.

. trans. B. Cozens and H. Bowden. London: SCM, 1972. Tr. Ofeleven chapters of .

Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1932-1952.

Crouter, Richard. "Kierkegaard’s Not so Hidden Debt to Schleiermacher."

. 1/2(1994):205-225.

Dembski, William A. "Schleiermacher’s Metaphysical Critique of Miracles."

. 49/4 (1996):442-465.

DeVries, Dawn. .

Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996

Fiorenza, Francis S. "Schleiermacher and the Construction of a

Contemporary Roman Catholic Foundational Theology." 89 (4:1996):175-194.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. . New York: Seabury, 1975.

Hardy, Daniel W. "The English Tradition of Interpretation and the Reception

of Schleiermacher and Barth in England," , edited by J. Duke and R. Streetman. Minneapolis: Augsburg

Fortress, 1988.

Kant, Immanuel. . New York:

Harper and Row, 1960.

Kierkegaard, Soren. . Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1946.

Makintosh, Hugh Ross. .

New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1937.

Mariña, Jaqueline. "Schleiermacher’s Christology Revisited: A Reply to His

Critics." 42/2 (1996):177-200.

Sonderegger, Katherine. "Must Christ Suffer to Redeem? The Doctrine of

Vicarious Atonement in Schleiermacher and Baeck." . 2/2 (1995):175-192.

Williams, Robert R. . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher

Charles Demm, 2000

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

27 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 28: Friedrich Schleiermacher

Biography

Friedrich Schleiermacher assumed many prominent roles in his lifetime; he

was a Reformed preacher, a theologian, a university professor and dean, anationalist, a government official, and a husband and father. His many

activities have generated many responses that are often wildly disparate innature. Schleiermacher has been called not only the ‘Father of Modern

Theology’, but also a mystic, and a heretic. Yet even Karl Barth, nowide-eyed fan of Schleiermacher, considered him the falls over which every

preceding Christian theologian has had to navigate. Before we cast our ownvote either way, a glimpse at Schleiermacher’s personal life and era will

provide background to his thought.

On November 21, 1768 Friedrich was born to Gottlieb and Katharine-Maria

Schleiermacher. He was the second of three children, and the fourthgeneration of Reformed pastors in his family. His paternal grandfather Daniel

Schleiermacher (b.1695) was a Reformed pastor of ill repute. A pastor inElberfield (Western Germany) he associated with Rhenish sectarians.

Parishioners brought charges of witchcraft and sorcery against Daniel forreasons lost to history forcing his wife and son (Friedrich’s father) to testify

against him. Fleeing to Holland Daniel escaped prison, but he never againserved a pastoral office. Gottlieb (b.1727) earned a theological degree from

the University of Duisburg when he was nineteen. He was employed asteacher until 1760 when he became chaplain in royal Prussian army during

the Seven Years’ War. Both Friedrich’s maternal grandfather and great-grandfather were court chaplains at the Reformed cathedral in Berlin

(Redeker, 1973, 6-7).

As a royal chaplain, and the only Reformed pastor in his province, Gottlieb

spent much of the year traveling among the garrisons. During these trips healso served the pockets of Reformed communities in the region. During these

years Gottlieb had grown anxious over the tensions that had developedbetween Reformed orthodoxy and the ideas of the Enlightenment. In 1778

Gottlieb encountered a Moravian community while visiting soldiers inGnadenfrei. Witnessing the life and worship of this community stirred a

pietistic reawakening in Gottlieb. So impressed were they that Gottlieb andhis wife decided to have their children educated by the Moravians (Redeker,

1973, 8). As we have read in the Schleiermacher dated his spiritualawakening to this period.

Run much like a monastery, the Brethren frowned upon contact with theoutside world. As a result, Friedrich would never again see his parents. His

mother died in 1783, but Schleiermacher continued to correspond with hisfather until Gottlieb’s death in 1794. Schleiermacher blossomed during his

stay with the Moravians. The pietistic curriculum had two prominentfeatures. First, it sought the development of an inner experience of the

Christian message. It was hoped that each student would have his ownpersonal experience of sin and grace. Second, it offered a humanistic

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

28 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 29: Friedrich Schleiermacher

education that taught its students Latin, Greek, Hebrew, English,

mathematics and botany. Swimming and skating, however, were strictlyforbidden (Redeker, 1973, 10).

In 1785 Schleiermacher entered the secluded Moravian Brethren’stheological seminary in Barby. It emphasized personal piety and censored

modern belles letters and philosophy. Schleiermacher and his precociousfriends, however, did manage to smuggle in works by Goethe, Kant, and

Wolff.

Like his father before him, Schleiermacher’s orthodox belief was shaken by

the enchroachment of Enlightenment ideas. In the correspondence betweenfather and son Friedrich’s growing disillusionment can be traced. When the

son complains to his father that orthodox teaching have failed to cure hisdoubts, the father failed to recognize his son’s earnest struggle. Finally, in a

letter dated 21 January, 1787 Friedrich dropped a bombshell admitting to hisfather that he no longer believed in Jesus’ divinity. His father’s reply was

swift and damning. He disowned his son (temporarily) accusing him ofhaving a false pride and an unholy love for the material world (Redeker,

1973, 14; Gerrish, 1984, 25). Unfortunately, the complete correspondence,available when Dilthey published some of Schleiermacher’s letters in

has been lost, making the exact details ofthe reconciliation unknown because Dilthey only published a portion of the

letters.

The two would eventually reconcile, but Friedrich’s decision to enter the

University of Halle in 1787 further upset his father. He immersed himself inthe reading of Greek philosophy and Kant. Schleiermacher’s time at Halle,

however, was limited to only two years, as he was pressed to take theReformed theology exams by his father. At this time Schleiermacher also

became a private tutor to Count Dohna’s family. He instructed the children inFrench, mathematics, history, geography, ethics, philosophy, and religion.

Schleiermacher also fell in love with their seventeen-year-old daughterFriederike. Unfortunately, she died of tuberculosis at a very young age, their

mutual affection remaining a secret, no doubt due to the social barriersbetween a countess and a tutor.

From 1794 to 1796 Schleiermacher became an associate pastor in Landsberg.And in 1796 he accepted the position as pastor of the Charite Hospital in

Berlin. His arrival in Berlin would open a new chapter in Schleiermacher’slife. In Berlin Schleiermacher entered the newly formed salon society, a

circle of Berlin romantics, poets, and high society who gathered to throw offthe yoke of the Enlightenment, in favor of new ideals and a greater

appreciation of art and culture. The home of Henriette Hertz, a young widow,became one of the centers of the new salon society. Schleiermacher and

Henriette were soon the talk of society. She defended Schleiermacherwhenever he was criticized for his vocation and beliefs. Redeker admits that

their affection was indeed strong, but described it as a relationship “on a high

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

29 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 30: Friedrich Schleiermacher

intellectual plane” (Redeker, 1973, 27). Schleiermacher’s own thoughts,

however, may lead the reader to disagree with Redeker. In a letter to hissister Charlotte, Schleiermacher’s denial of romantic feelings for Henriette

seems strained. He writes:

“It is a close and heart-felt friendship, having nothing to do with

man and woman…if I were to consider only the externals, thenshe is not all that attractive to me, although her face is

incontestably very lovely and her full queenly form so muchstronger than my own. But I always find it so laughable and

absurd to imagine us both free and in love and married that I canonly get over my amusement with real effort” (Rowan, 1860, 7).

Through his connection with Henriette Schleiermacher met and befriendedFriedrich Schlegel, a leading proponent of the Romantic movement. How

much influence Romanticism had on Schleiermacher’s writings has remaineda subject of debate. Since Schleiermacher’s writings reflected the death of

the traditional image of a supernatural God, he was also criticized for beingboth a mystic and a pantheist. Schleiermacher’s ecclesiastical superior,

August Sack, asked if he were even Christian (Gerrish, 1978, 19).

It was Schlegel who pushed Schleiermacher to begin his literary career. In

1799 when he was thirty years old Schleiermacher anonymously published. The work provoked outrage

from many sides. Goethe’s reaction was typical of the romantic salon,approving the first half of the , while rejecting the latter half for its

Christian tone. And Church authorities grew increasingly suspicious ofSchleiermacher and his association with Romantics like Schlegel who was

seen as immoral and a threat to all that was sacred to the older generation.

The same authorities and society were scandalized by Schleiermacher’s open

courtship of Eleonore Grunow, an unhappily married wife of a Berlinclergyman. Redeker admits that Schleiermacher’s opinion of marriage

changed with age. But the young pastor firmly believed that if a marriagethwarted a person’s individuality, it was no marriage at all. What kind of

relationship they had is not certain. Redeker says that Schleiermacher’sgreatest intention was to “assist this woman, who was frequently tormented

by depressions and anxieties, to freedom and inner peace throughunderstanding…” (Redeker, 1973, 72). In the end Eleonore remained with

her husband, while Schleiermacher left Berlin to accept a poorly fundedposition as court chaplain in Stolp, a provincial town in Pomerania. Redeker

maintains that his departure was voluntary.

After a two year pastorate in Stolp (1802-04) Schleiermacher was given a

professorship in ethics and pastoral care at the University of Wurzburg. Itwas a new institution of learing that was dedicated to equality of rights for all

confessions and included both Roman Catholic and Protestant on the faculty.Yet, Schleiermacher’s tenure at Wurzburg was short lived. He was called

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

30 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 31: Friedrich Schleiermacher

away by the crown to become the first Reformed professor at the University

of Halle which dismayed many of the entrenched Lutheran faculty whoviewed him as a mystic and heretic. The crown wanted Halle to be on the

vanguard of a burgeoning movement that moved beyond the limitations ofthe Enlightenment. Interestingly, Schleiermacher was given a much warmer

reception by the non-theological faculties (Redeker, 1973, 76).

Schleiermacher’s passion for nationalism was stirred by political events

when Halle fell to Napolean’s army in 1806. While many fled for Berlin,Schleiermacher remained behind until the University Church was

appropriated as storehouse for grain in September 1807. While Goethe andHegel cheered on Napolean’s defeat of the Prussian state, Schleiermacher

was an outspoken critic, repudiating Napolean as a foreign conqueror anddictator. Returning to Berlin Schleiermacher became politically active in

Berlin, as an official in the State’s department of education from 1808-1814.In this capacity Schleiermacher helped restructure the educational system.

He also became editor ‘The Prussian Correspondent’ a newspaper whichpublished four times a week. From this position Schleiermacher called for

the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, which drew the ire of thestate censor and the suspicions among the ultra-conservatives. Hegel even

charged Schleiermacher as a revolutionary against the King.

In this period Schleiermacher finally found a woman with whom he could

marry without scandal. In 1809 Friedrich married Henriette von Muhlenfels,a young widow with one child from a previous marriage. Nathanael, their

one child together, would die of diptheria in 1829 when he was nine yearsold.

Schleiermacher was chosen to be a professor and founder of a new stateUniversity in Berlin in 1810 to fill the vacuum created by the close of Halle.

Schleiermacher’s guiding hand not only gave shape to Berlin, but to thestructure of future universities. His influence is most visible in three areas.

First, he created a space for the burgeoning field of science within theuniversity. Second, he tied teaching together with new research. Third,

professors were given the autonomy to carry out their research and teachingassignments. Schleiermacher felt that the state was best served, not by

stifling innovative ideas, but by granting the University independence, aslong as it sought the idea of truth (Redeker, 1973, 94).

Schleiermacher’s influence on the Church in Germany was equally great.Independent of Schleiermacher, there was a movement in Prussia towards the

unification of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, led by the King andQueen. Since he was Reformed and she was Lutheran, they were pained by

the fact that they could not celebrate the Lord’s Supper together. This questfor union was not without its share of difficulties, however. Heated debate

centered on the shaping of a new liturgy, the wording of the new constitution,and the role of the state in the entire process. The union occurred in 1817 on

the anniversary of the Reformation. But Schleiermacher was not satisfied. He

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

31 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 32: Friedrich Schleiermacher

pressed for a new harmony between the confessions, but not a union of the

two. He was completely against the state-directed imposition of liturgical anddogmatic rules on individual communities. The king retained the right to

design the new constitution, which led Schleiermacher to utter his famousreply, “The Reformation still goes on!” A resolution was not reached until

1829, when the crown allowed congregations to follow their previous ordersof worship (Redeker, 1973, 198). This debate colored the writing of

Schleirmacher’s opus which was first published in1820-21.

Schleiermacher’s untimely death came in February 1834. Burdened with acold Schleiermacher continued his usual teaching and administrative duties

until it developed into a case of pneumonia. He died in his bed February 12surrounded by his family after celebrating the Lord’s Supper. When the news

spread throughout Berlin there was a massive outpouring of grief. It has beenreported that between 20-30,000 people attended the funeral.

On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers

(Refer to Oman’s 1894 trans. of the 3rd ed. [1821].)

First Speech: Defense

Schleiermacher’s intended audience for his first book was the salon societyof Berlin. Its circle included a strange mix of people: aristocrats, artists,

Jewish women, and young clergymen. One of the circle’s many interestsincluded a concern for individual spiritual self-improvement. In the wake of

the Enlightenment orthodox religion no longer offered a possible avenue forcultivation. And yet the Enlightenment’s own quest for a rational religion

was too sterile for many of the cultured elite. It was to this disaffected crowdthat Schleiermacher offered his apology. Their goal was to build up a rich,

creative life on earth, and they were endowed with both the education andthe leisure to create such a life. They had many interests, ranging from the

arts and sciences to ethical issues, so they zealously pursued authorities fromthese many fields. They were interested in everything, but religion,

Schleiermacher protested. Hoping to deflate this belief in humanisticself-imrovement, Schleiermacher argued that a person could not be fully

human without also being religious. Therefore, whatever world the culturedattempted to create by its own merits would be hollow, if religion were

excluded. The salon society had been too hasty in their rejection of religionby confusing its outward forms with its essence. Popular opinion viewed

religion as a fearful acceptance of the external authority of the church. In thefinal assessment, religion was believed to orbit around two views: a belief in

providence and immortality (Schleiermacher, 1821, 14-15). In a move thatshocked both the cultured and the orthodoxy, Schleiermacher echoed the

disgust felt by the cultured at those who blindly followed ecclesiasticaldogma and creeds. He agreed with them that dogma had been a source of

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

32 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 33: Friedrich Schleiermacher

unnecessary suffering and harm, but Schleiermacher had a radically different

view of dogma and the role doctrine should play in a community. He wrotethat religion did not begin with theological systems, but with an internal

feeling he labeled ‘religion’. This feeling or intuition signaled the ‘Infinite’and ‘Eternal’, and it was an essential element in human nature

(Schleiermacher, 1821, 16). Failure to realize this fact would undermineevery attempt at self-improvement. In fact, this sense of the Infinite within

the individual was the inspiration behind the creative achievements socherished by the salon set. People needed to regain the ability to hear the

Deity who continuously revealed itself by roaring within our hearts(Schleiermacher, 1821, 17).

Second Speech: The Nature of Religion

In the second speech Schleiermacher reiterated his claim that religion is notyet known if the person’s understanding is based on either memories or

preconditions. Knowledge derived from either one would distort and corruptthe religious feelings. In the second speech Schleiermacher wanted to strip

away these mistaken assumptions and replace these false images with adefinition that cut closer to the essence of religion (Schleiermacher, 1821,

27). Despite the majority view, religion was something other than rightthinking or right actions. Religion did not derive from quantity of

knowledge, Schleiermacher wrote, nor could God be found at the apex ofscience (Schleiermacher, 1821, 35). He was also opposed to equating moral

action with religion because morality is manipulative by nature, whilereligion remains passive. It does not instigate action instead religion is

moved by the Infinite that stands against the finite creature (Schleiermacher,1821, 37). Piety can be equated with neither of these two spheres, yet as a

third facet it is indispensably interrelated to them. Only when there is unityamong knowledge, action, and piety can human potentiality be achieved.

Each sphere is distinct, but each in interwoven. To understand how they arerelated, Schleiermacher asks his reader to ponder a moment in his/her life.

Feeling derives from the sensations of the World. These feelings are theexclusive domain of religion. Knowledge begins to occur when we think

about these feelings. Our moral life is triggered when we begin to impressourselves on these moments. When this happens the individual is linked to

the Infinite, granting him/her contact with the universal.

Once the unity of knowing, doing, and feeling had been established

Schleiermacher proclaimed that the “chief point” of his speech had beenmade. He then proceeded to write another sixty pages, discussing several

topics that have influenced the future shape of theology and the academicstudy of religion.

Scientific knowledge is not religion, but it is permitted, evenwelcomed, to investigate religion (its history and dogma).

1.

Schleiermacher acknowledges the plurality of religions in the world.2.

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

33 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 34: Friedrich Schleiermacher

Each is a distinct expression of the one religion.

Scleiermacher’s reading of Scripture differed from his contemporaries.For example, the creation story is interpreted as a “sacred legend”,

rather than literal truth (Schleiermacher, 1821, 72).

3.

Third Speech: The Cultivation of Religion

In this speech Schleiermacher takes a closer look at the current state of

religion. Despite its present state, Schleiermacher believed religion could beglimpsed within the material world. As an example, Schleiermacher

described a child’s capacity to experience joy when confronted by themysteries and marvels of the world. This feeling was nothing less than

religion, Schleiermacher wrote. If the child were allowed to follow his/herinterests, religion would naturally blossom from within. But, too often these

nascent stirrings were crushed, separating the individual from feelings of theInfinite. Foes of religion, Schleiermacher continued, are not the cultured, but

middle class promoters of practicality and discretion. They object to the useof imagination because they conclude that it produces nothing of tangible

value. Quiet contemplation was considered to be idle folly. ForSchleiermacher this worldview strips the religious element from life leaving

only a small, barren existence, which is less than human (Schleiermacher,1821, 126-28).

Schleiermacher conceded that the middle class presently held the field, buthe remained confident that their position would crumble in time. Thus,

Schleiermacher was able to offer an expression of gratitude to the ‘cultured’.Their activities and their critique of the status quo had unintentionally begun

to reinvigorate true religion.

Fourth Speech: Association in Religion, or Church and Priesthood

In the fourth speech Schleiermacher repeats the common perceptions of

religion among the salon set. Some viewed religion as simply an absurdity,while others believed it to be the root of evil in the world. Rather than

confront their perceptions, Schleiermacher sought to “subject the whole ideaof the Church to a new conclusion, reconstructing if from the centre

outwards…” (Schleiermacher,1821,148). He drives home the point that ifthere is to be religion at all, it must be social, as we are social creatures by

nature.

Since we are finite creatures our experience of the Infinite will always be

incomplete. Thus, we naturally desire to communicate our experiences toothers, and in turn remain open to the experiences of others, for these

additional representations give us a fuller picture of the world. However,much of the originality of the experience is lost in the process, so no

communication is ever pure. But those freely bound together in piety areboth priests and laity. A person who is blessed with talents in certain areas is

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

34 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 35: Friedrich Schleiermacher

a ‘priest’ to the community, but only in this specific role. So the person is

also part of the ‘laity’ in areas where he/she does not excel (Schleiermacher,1821, 153). Schleiermacher set particular parameters for these free

associations:

There should be no proselytizing, nor any belief that salvation exists

only for the ‘insiders’.

1.

There should be no limits placed on the individuality of the pious.

Creeds cannot be forced upon others.

2.

Every new doctrine based on religious feeling is a new revelation. In

the 1799 edition the young Schleiermacher seemed to advocateopening the Canon to make room for new revelations, but the older

Schleiermacher backpedaled from this position in 1821.

3.

There should be a strict separation of Church and State, for the State

pollutes religion by imposing on it its own interests.

4.

Fifth Speech: The Religions

Only in the last speech does Schleiermacher show his hand to his readers: the

particular religion they need is in fact Christianity. He had previously shownthat a confessional religion was unavoidably impure. He also hoped that they

would accept, and even embrace, the reality of pluralism as a naturalconsequence due to space and time. Schleiermacher goes so far as to say that

Jesus was not the only mediator, nor necessarily the last mediator(Schleiermacher, 1821, 248).

He disposes of natural religion in short fashion. It professes to be all thingspositive religion cannot be: liberating and pure. But, Schleiermacher protests

that natural religion not only fails to correspond to reality, as it does notbegin with an original fact, it also denies the true individuality in people,

unlike positive religion. And it is easily corrupted by machinations of theState.

The truly religious person is a historical person. The sum of religion and thereligious culture is always greater than the individual. But religion is not

bound historically produced dogma rather, it is found in the pious whorealize that they lack a complete picture of the Infinite (Schleiermacher,

1821, 238).

All finite creatures need a higher mediator. For Christians Jesus Christ is the

mediator, for he alone did not require mediation. Interestingly, however,Schleiermacher did not claim that Christ could be the only mediator. So,

Schleiermacher concludes this important first work with the possibility thatsomething even better might come in the future.

Brief Bibliography

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

35 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 36: Friedrich Schleiermacher

Sources and Translations

Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst, . Edited by Ludwig Jonas and Wilhelm Dilthey. 4 vols. Berlin: Georg

Reimer, 1853-63.

_____. [1820-21] Translated from the 2nd German ed.

Edited by H.R. MacKintosh and J.S. Stewart. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1976.

_____. . Translated by S. MacLean Gilmour. Edited by JackC. Verheyden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

_____. . Translated by Frederica Rowan 2 vols. London: Smith, Elder, 1860.

This is a translation of the first two volumes of .

________. . 2nd ed.Translated from the 1st German ed. of 1799 by Richard Crouter. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1996.

_____. . Translation from

the 3rd German edition of 1824 by John Oman (1958). Louisville, Kentucky:Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.

_____. .Translated and edited by Dawn DeVries. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

Secondary Sources

Gerrish, B.A.

. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

.

. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Redeker, Martin. . [1968] Translation by

John Wallhauser. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973.

Tice, Terrence. . Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1966. This work contains 1,928 entries of primary sourcesand secondary literature dating up to 1966.

The information on this page is copyright ©1994 onwards, Wesley Wildman (basicinformation here), unless otherwise noted. If you want to use ideas that you find here, pleasebe careful to acknowledge this site as your source, and remember also to credit the originalauthor of what you use, where that is applicable. If you want to use text or stories from these

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

36 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Page 37: Friedrich Schleiermacher

pages, please contact me at the feedback address for permission.

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Friedrich Schle... http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/mwt_themes_470_schleiermacher.htm

37 of 37 ق.ظ 11:38 2013/09/28

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.