friedrich schleiermacher
DESCRIPTION
SchleiermacherTRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
: “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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
_____.
. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.