You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Theology' category.
In recent years Molinism has made a come-back in philosophical circles thanks to the work of Alfred J. Freddoso, Thomas Flint, and William Lane Craig. As a result, Molina’s ideas are creeping their way back into theological discussions as well. Slowly but surely, pastors and seminary students are becoming acquainted with, at least, the term Molinism. Often, this minimal acquaintance leads the uninitiated to do a quick search on goggle. Upon searching, they are confronted by the blog-post of Dr. C. Matthew McMahon on A Puritan’s Mind entitled: The Heresy of Middle Knowledge. Curiosity gets the best of them and they eagerly click on the post with the inflammatory title. As they read the first paragraph of McMahon’s article, and encounter his thesis statement, any positive interest in Molinism which might have existed quickly fades away:
“In this paper, the heresy I am re-refuting surrounds Theology Proper, or the doctrine of God. It is specifically in terms of the doctrine of the knowledge of God, or His Omniscience. The error is called Molinism, or Middle Knowledge (Today Open Theism is its close brother.)”
After reading the final words of his thesis the troubled pastor or seminary student dutifully stuffs Molinism in a black file-folder marked, “Heresies that must not be named,” and forego any more research on the matter.
For many, Dr. McMahons malicious and poorly researched blog-post is both their first and last introduction to Molinism. I find this situation very sad, because Dr. McMahon’s description of Molinism is filled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations. To rectify this unfortunate situation I will correct four of the biggest mistakes in McMahon’s post.
(1) McMahon claims that the Doctrine of Middle Knowledge is Open Theisms “close brother.”
This claim is truly baffling considering Molina’s doctrine of Middle Knowledge is actually Open Theisms worst nightmare; for, it ascribes to God what Molina terms supercomprehension. Without getting into too much detail, this means that God has knowledge of how a person would freely act in any and all possible worlds. He calls this supercomprehension because it says that God has comprehensive knowledge of states of affairs that may never actually obtain (something far beyond regular comprehension.) On top of this, Molina believed that God had this knowledge prior to his decision to create. To put it in the crude vernacular of modern language: the doctrine of middle knowledge is like foreknowledge 2.0.
Open Theism argues that it is impossible for God to have foreknowledge—especially foreknowledge of the free actions of human beings. So, it is entirely false and nonsensical to claim that Molina’s Doctrine of Middle Knowledge is Open Theisms “close brother.”
(2) McMahon says, “middle knowledge states that God cannot know the future free acts of men in the same way He knows other things absolutely. Thus, this middle knowledge is dependent upon the free acts of what men will do. God, in His “omniscience”, waits for men to act and then will choose them to be saved based on their choice to be saved.”
It’s clear from this statement that McMahon has grossly misunderstood the thrust of Molina’s argument. Molina holds to a libertarian view of free-will which basically means that human beings are the efficient cause or first cause of their own actions. Naturally, if man has libertarian free-will then God’s middle knowledge is partly contingent (dependent) upon man because man is the one producing the action. However, it does not follow from this that, “God, in His “omniscience,” waits for men to act and then will choose them to be saved based on their choice.” This is the Arminian position.
The crucial part of Molina’s theory is not that God has middle knowledge but that he has middle knowledge prior to his free act to create. Accordingly, God knew that Peter would deny him when placed in situation A (A being the situation described in the gospels) before the foundation of the world. Furthermore, God knew how Peter would act in any and all possible situations that he could put Peter in. Based on both his natural and middle knowledge God chose to create a world in which situation A would obtain.
So, it is not that God waits for men to act and then chooses them. God chooses what creatures to make, what world to create, and what situations to place them in—knowing what free choices they will in fact make. Thus, God predestines but this does not impinge upon mans free will. Man is still responsible for his actions because he is the cause of his actions.
(3) McMahon says, “The Molinian logician will argue that an action must first occur before it can be true. God, then, cannot know anything in this manner as true and absolute unless it has first occurred.”
This statement is obviously false, because Molina believed God possessed middle knowledge before his free act of creation. In other words, the Molinist does not believe an action must first occur before it can be true—that is Open Theism. The Molinist believes that God has supercomprehension, and thus can have knowledge of actions before they occur and even if they never occur.
(4) McMahon says, “It is certainly easy to see what the doctrine of Middle knowledge is attractive here. Men are ultimately their own little saviors.”
Well, actually, the doctrine of middle knowledge says no such thing. In fact, the doctrine of middle knowledge has only indirect implications on matters of soteriology—it is directly concerned with matters of God’s omniscience. There may be some crazy exception (there always is) but Molinist’s do not believe man can save himself. They do believe salvation comes from the Lord—through the work of Jesus on the cross.
Michael Dowd recently made the oxymoronic claim that he was a Christian Naturalist on his blog Evolutionary Times. According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, an oxymoron is a, “combination of contradictory or incongruous words . . . something that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements”—and this is precisely what Michael Dowd’s claim amounts to.
Christians believe in God—an all-powerful, all-knowing, personal agent who exists outside of space and time. Simply put, Christians believe in the supernatural. This is a foundational belief upon which all other Christian beliefs and doctrines are built upon. There is no confusion on this point because the Judeo-Christian worldview is crystal clear about the nature of God—he is a person and he is the creator and sustainer of all things (this includes both material and immaterial (spiritual) elements.)
Naturalism asserts that nature is a closed system of material causes and effects—it denies the existence of God and the existence of immaterial substances (spirits or souls). Simply put, Naturalism is a repudiation of the Christian worldview; it stands as the complete antithesis of the Christian picture of reality. There is absolutely no confusion on this point because naturalists are very clear about their position on the nature of reality—the physical/material world is all that exists.
Accordingly, Michael Dowd’s assertion that he is a “Christian Naturalist” is incoherent and can only be explained by one of three ways: (1) Dowd misunderstands what it means to be a Christian, (2) Dowd misunderstands what it means to be a naturalist, or (3) Dowd misunderstands what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be a naturalist. Now, we can easily eliminate numbers (2) and (3), because it’s quite clear from his writings that Mr. Dowd understands naturalism. As he says,
“I am a Christian Naturalist, not a supernaturalist . . . my focus and locus of inspiration is found in the cosmos and in this life.” (emphasis mine)
To that extent, it seems clear that Mr. Dowd misunderstands what it means to be a Christian. In fact, we can be sure of this for one important reason: Mr. Dowd espouses a naturalistic worldview which, by definition, rejects the foundational Christian belief that God exists. “But wait,” you say, “Mr. Dowd talks about God all the time; he even dedicated his book Thank God for Evolution to him!” Mr. Dowd may very well believe in god, but not in the Christian God. This is made very clear in his book:
“What a difference it makes to be groping our way forward in faith—in partnership with God, or, should you prefer less traditional terminology: trusting the Universe, trusting Reality, trusting Time.” (pg. 30)
For the Christian, using terminology like, “trusting the Universe,” is not the same as using terminology like, “trusting God.” This is because the most basic Christian belief is that God is not the universe—God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. The universe, the complex arrangement of matter and energy, is not the same thing as a personal, immaterial, God who created matter and energy. So, when Michael Dowd suggests—as he does throughout his book—that we can interchange these terms it becomes evident that he grossly misunderstands what it means to be a Christian.
In short, Mr. Dowd might as well take the word ‘Christian’ out of his self-description and simply call himself a naturalist—for that is what he is.
Last Wednesday night I got the opportunity to attend The Church Basement Roadshow: A Rollin’ Gospel Revival, with my friend Joel Borofsky. Joel and I are working on a book which critiques the emergent church movement; so we couldn’t pass up the chance to meet some of its key leaders. Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Mark Scandrette, all of whom contributed to the recent book, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, were there.
The Church Basement Roadshow is touring churches across the country in an attempt to garner interest in the emergent movement and promote their latest books. The show is interesting to say the least; a surreal experience that will stick with me for a long time. Jones, Pagitt, and Scandrette play the parts of Duke Arnold, A. B. Hawthorn, and A. L. Withee; old time revival preachers from 1908. As you walk in, they greet you; in full costume and in character. A guitar player and backup singer set the mood, playing everything from old-time hymns to Johnny Cash. After a brief performance, they invite the audience to stand and join them in song; while Duke and Withee revv up the crowd; yelling, “Amen!” and “Gl-o-o-r-y!”
Joel and I found ourselves on the front row; unable to sing along. The whole thing felt wrong. Was the crowd really singing to Jesus, or was it all part of the show?
Eventually, the enthusiastic trio took the stage and sang their theme song; a humorous revival tune boldly declaring that, “love is the way.” In between their crazy antics and humorous skits, Jones, Pagitt, and Scandrette took turns reading selections from their books (which were on sale in the back) and desperately pleading for reform. After each monologue, promo videos were played; and they even urged the crowd to adopt a child through compassion international.
By far, the most interesting presentation of the night was made by Mark Scandrette; a compassionate man with an honest desire to reach out to the “dregs” of society. He read a selection from his latest book, Soul Graffiti. In it, he recalls how he and his friend Joseph befriended an aging transvestite who called himself, Emperor Arcadia.
The Emperor lived in an old bus with a peculiar message inscribed in bold letters on the side: “I HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING EXPERIMENTS ON MYSELF FOR 30 YEARS—EXPLORING THE MYSTERIES OF CHEMISTRY AND HEALTH. MY PRESCRIPTION: EAT A CLOVE OF GARLIC AND DRINK OUR OWN URINE AND SEMEN TWICE A DAY.”[1] Suffice to say, the Emperor’s mind suffered from years in a mental institution, excessive drug abuse and a lifetime of sexual immorality. Mark provides this bleak picture of the Emperor’s life in his book,
Estranged from his family after years in mental institutions, he had moved west from Wisconsin. During the sexual revolution of the 1970’s he was something of a celebrity in San Francisco’s gay club scene, hosting “naked pool” on Sunday afternoons at a popular bar South of Market where he would prance nude around the pool table exchanging fiery jabs with patrons. The club owner let him live in the basement of the building for many years . . . Emperor Arcadia was [also] locally famous for crashing society balls, civic celebrations, and parades, announcing himself swathed in a velvet cape and crown and accompanied by his matching miniature poodles on leashes. As he got older and more peculiar, he lost his social currency and became more isolated.[2]
I sat on the front row, engrossed by Mark’s story, starving to hear more about their interaction with the Emperor, dying to know how it would end.
However, as the story progressed, and Mark recounted all of the time he and his friends had spent with the Emperor-bringing him food, celebrating Christmas, listing to him rant and rave about his chemical concoctions—I began to wonder, “when are they going to share the gospel?” This thought lingered in my mind, and I waited patiently, yearning to hear the saving message of Jesus preached to this lost and dying soul.
Finally, the moment I had been waiting for arrived. One Sunday, Mark and his friend Joseph, found the Emperor collapsed in his bus after taking a lethal dose of Phenobarbital. They quickly called for an ambulance which rushed him to the hospital. Mark rode along holding his hand . . .
At the emergency room after he was stabilized, a nurse invited me into the examining room where I stood alone by his side . . . With his eyes still shut he murmured, “I wanted to die. Why did you save my life?”
I hesitated for a moment, searching for words. “You are my friend and I care about you.”
Agitated, with speech still slurred, he asked, “But why do you care about me?” And then louder and more desperately he repeated, “Why do you care about me?”[3]
“This is it,” I thought to myself, “the moment I’ve been waiting for.”
Slowly I lifted my hand and began to caress his bald head. “Emperor, we are all loved,” I said.[4]
How desperately anticlimactic! Who loves everyone? Why are we all loved? Why didn’t he speak to him about Jesus? How could he pass up such an opportune moment? Talk about a total let down! This was not the ending I had hoped for.
After the show I approached Mark, and having introduced myself, I inquired as to what ever happened to the Emperor. Mark explained that they had lost touch and weren’t sure where he was. Then I dropped the bomb, “I was just curious,” I said, “did you ever share the gospel with the Emperor?”
Mark kindly explained that the Emperor got upset when Jesus’ name was mentioned, and that he and Joseph had opted not to speak of Jesus around him.
I marveled at his reply. “So,” I asked, “there was never a point in which you confronted him to change his lifestyle or challenged him to repent?”
Mark seemed surprised, “No” he said.
“But it was his depraved lifestyle that got him where he was,” I insisted, “how could you withhold from him the one message that could drastically change his life?”
Mark was visibly upset with my comment and informed me that I was being extremely judgmental. He asked me how I could possibly make such a statement, especially since I didn’t know the whole story (It was surprising how quick Mark criticized my point of view considering the Emergent Church constantly espouses toleration and open minded conversation). Mark didn’t seem tolerant of my point of view; and I got the distinct impression that he was not open to what I had to say.
Frankly, this did not bother me. Mark has convictions, and just like me, he is willing to fight for them. Despite what the Emergent Church wants us to believe, it is no different from any other movement or institution; its proponents passionately think they’re right and everyone else is wrong. I wish they’d be as forthright in their writings as Mark was in our conversation; it’s refreshing when people are honest.
I tried to explain to Mark that it was not judgmental to speak the truth; that it was, in fact, the most loving thing that one could do. He disagreed. He didn’t think it was as necessary to share the gospel with someone as it was to show them love (in a practical way). He lamented over the terrible ways in which Christians treat people like the Emperor and argued that it was more important for Christians to show love and compassion like Jesus.
I told Mark I agreed with him: Christians do need to show genuine love and compassion to people like the Emperor (in a hands on practical kind of way). Christians do need to reevaluate how they treat homosexuals and transvestites. However, Christians also need to share the gospel; because, ultimately, Jesus is the only real hope for our world.
Again, Mark disagreed. He feared that sharing the gospel with people like the Emperor would come off as judgmental and would only drive them away. He argued that the message of Jesus could be better communicated by loving action. I stressed to Mark that both the practical and the propositional had to be presented to the lost in order for the full message of Jesus to be received. It simply isn’t enough to show love in a practical way.
The message of Jesus is not simply one of practicality; it has content which can only be communicated through words. As Christians, it’s our responsibility to communicate, not only the practical side of Jesus’ message, but the content. For, “How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14 NASB)
The lost cannot be found without hearing the word of God; the sinner cannot be saved without hearing the word of God, and it’s up to Christians to make sure that a sick and dying world hears it. Sharing the gospel is not intrusive or judgmental, it’s the most loving gesture that anyone could make toward someone as hopeless and lost as the Emperor. As the Apostle Paul noted, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!” (Rom. 10:15)
Despite my best efforts, Mark never seemed to grasp what I was saying. Eventually, I decided to back off and let our conversation come to a close. That night, as I lay in bed, I wrestled for a way to explain to Mark, and others like him, the gravity of the situation. How could I demonstrate that one could be loving, in both a practical and a propositional sense? How could I show the tremendous importance of sharing the content of the gospel?
Several days later, I realized what must be done. The ending of Marks story was all wrong; it had to be rewritten . . .
The Emperor sat in the hospital bed in tears, screaming, “Why do you care about me? Why do you love me?”
I began to stroke his head and with tears running down my face I replied, “Because you were created by God and that makes you incredibly valuable.”
The Emperor peered deep into my eyes, obviously wrestling with what I had said, “I’m not valuable,” he screamed, “I’m worthless! God could never accept a man like me!”
“None of us are worthy to be accepted by God,” I exclaimed, “we’re all broken and distorted, but this is precisely why Jesus died on the cross for our sins, so that we could be accepted. God does think your valuable; he loves you Emperor.”
The Emperor buried his head in his hands, weeping in agony he whimpered, “I’ve been running from God for so long . . . h-how could I turn to him now?”
I wrapped my arms around the Emperor and gently whispered into his ear, “Repent, turn away from these things that are destroying you. Believe in Jesus with all your heart. It’s never too late Emperor . . . never.”
[1] Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Mark Scandrette, The Church Basement Roadshow (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2008), 61. This was the handout given to everyone who attended the show. It has selections from each of their books.
[2] Ibid., 64.
[3] Ibid., 66.
[4] Ibid., 66.
Introduction
Scholars in the first half of the twentieth century sought to answer the question of the historical origin of religion; today, however, most, “simply accept the existence of religion as a given part of our humanity,” employing what is known as the subjective approach to religious studies.[1] The subjective approach bypasses the question of the historical origin of religion by centering its attention on man. In other words, it understands religion to be an intrinsic part of what it means to be human and rejects the notion that it is the, “product of an encounter with an external reality.”[2] Accordingly, the study of religion becomes the study of various expressions of man’s subconscious, non-rational thought.
The subjective approach finds its beginnings in the mid-19th century, in the writings of noted German theologian and philosopher, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834). Facing the criticisms of his day, Schleiermacher sought to defend religion from its “cultured despisers.” His arguments redefined religion and mark the birth of liberal Protestantism.[3] This paper seeks to define Schleiermacher’s understanding of religion, and explain how his thought has impacted modern scholarship. To accomplish this goal, it will: (1) provide a brief synopsis of his life and explain the times in which he lived, (2) outline his concept of religion, and (3) demonstrate the effects his ideas have had on modern religious thought.
The Life and Times of Friedrich Schleiermacher
When examining complex ideas one should take the time to understand the context in which they were developed. Hence, before analyzing Schleiermacher’s philosophy, one should acquaint himself with the man. A brief look at his early life, academic career, and the cultural environment in which he lived and wrote is of inestimable value.
Early Education and Adult Life
Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher was born November 21, 1768 to Gottlieb and Katharina-Maria Schleiermacher. His father was a second generation reformed clergyman, who served as a chaplain in the King of Prussia’s army during the Seven Year’s War. In 1778 he and his family were exposed to the teachings of a Moravian community in Gnadenfrei, during which time Friedrich claims to have had his first, “conscious religious experience.”[4]
In 1783 Schleiermacher entered the Moravian school in Niesky which had a profound and long lasting influence on his life. While at Niesky, Schleiermacher immersed himself in Moravian life; growing in his knowledge of Jesus and enjoying the camaraderie of his fellow classmates. He also received a modern humanistic education in which he studied Latin, Greek, and Hebrew and was introduced to the works of Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Cicero, and other great thinkers.[5]
In 1785, Schleiermacher was advanced to the Moravian seminary at Barby. There, he was subjected to an almost monastic lifestyle. The Moravian seminary stressed the importance of personal piety and separation from the world; as a result, “the reading of modern belles lettres and philosophy . . . was forbidden by strict censorship.”[6] For, there was great suspicion of modern philosophical thought among the brethren; unfortunately, this frustrated Schleiermacher and other students who began to wonder if the objections made to faith by modern philosophy were too difficult to refute.[7] Consequentially, Schleiermacher formed a secret society in which he and fellow classmates read Kant, Goethe, and other modern German writers. Exposure to these writings lead Friedrich to have serious doubts about his faith; and he began to question Christian doctrines and beliefs.[8]
Growing increasingly unhappy with his situation at Barby, Schleiermacher eventually transferred to the more liberal University of Halle. There he continued in his studies in theology, philosophy, and philology in a more congenial setting.[9] While at Halle, Schleiermacher studied under the universities foremost philosopher, Johann August Eberhard, who gave him a firm foundation in all of the various fields of philosophy and further developed his interest in Kant. [10]
Throughout his adult life, Schleiermacher served in various capacities as a professor of theology and philosophy, as a pastor, and even as a hospital chaplain. However, he spent the breadth of his career teaching at the University of Berlin, where he was four-time dean of the theological faculty and a member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences.[11] During his lifetime, Schleiermacher showed incredible depth of interests, writing and lecturing on philosophy, theology, ethics, religion, hermeneutics, and psychology. At his death in 1834, some 20,000 to 30,000 mourners filled the streets, “proof of the esteem in which Schleiermacher was held by all.”[12]
Cultural Environment
As a young man Schleiermacher was challenged by the writings of contemporary German Philosophers and poets who questioned traditional Christian beliefs and practices. These writers were part of the broader movement known today as the Enlightenment. Enlightenment thinkers, reacting to the long-standing social and religious problems of the past, questioned the authority of traditional religious beliefs, exulting in the power of human reason in an effort to reshape the future . . .
In the eighteenth century, western Europe, emerging from the chaos of the religious wars, began to make rapid progress over its long-prevailing natural and social problems. The result was a great burst of optimism and confidence in the power of man to master himself and his universe. The tool of this mastery . . . was seen to be human reason. Man could overcome the past and create the future if only he could restructure his world by the power of his own mind.[13]
The Enlightenment had deep and long lasting effects on the Church throughout Europe, as Christianity, and religious faith in general, was, “subjected to scrutiny and reappraisal.”[14]
Do to the success of scientific research and innovation, the rationalism of Enlightenment thinkers rested increasingly on inductive reasoning; thus, empiricism and “experimental methodology” became the underlying basis for all knowledge. This was in direct opposition to the Church, which was operating under the pretense of a deductive logic grounded in biblical history, church tradition, and the propositional truth of Scripture. What resulted was a “dethronement” of God who was replaced by the power and ingenuity of man. The effects of this shift are still felt today.[15]
In Germany, nothing reflected this new wave of thought more than the writings of Immanuel Kant. Noted for his groundbreaking work in the area of epistemology, “Kant tried to show that both the laws of nature and the laws of morality are grounded in human reason itself.”[16] Thus, Kant dispensed with the need to explain external reality using metaphysical constructs; arguing that external reality could only be understood in terms of human reason and understanding.
The writings of Kant and other humanistic authors had a profound impact on Schleiermacher, who found his fragile childhood faith under immense pressure. Ultimately, the critiques of enlightenment philosophy drove Schleiermacher to defend religion against the arrogance of the intellectual elite in his famous work, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. [17] His response to religious critics in the Speeches and in subsequent writings is the primary focus of this paper.
Schleiermacher on Religion
Schleiermacher’s first book, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, “launched modern theological reflection in a very decisive manner,” shifting religion out of the realm scientific rationalism and into the realm of feelings.[18] It was his attempt to redefine religion to a generation enthralled by the power of human reason and accomplishment. The “cultured despisers” referred to in the title were actually close friends of Schleiermacher; all belonging to an intellectual gathering in Berlin known as the Romantic circle.[19]
Schleiermacher’s purpose for writing the Speeches was to, “carve out a space for religion significantly different from what Kant and Fichte had done . . . He wanted to . . . [provide] . . . a new understanding of religion.”[20] He knew that religion could never provide the type of information about the world that natural science could, but was unwilling to categorize religion as simply being moral or artistic action, as Kant had. Thus, Schleiermacher relegated religion to a third category: that of the ‘experiential,’ that of feelings.
The feeling he described was the inherent, “awareness of the infinite,” that everyone senses as they interact with the universe.[21] It flows from the idea that “the infinite” or “God” is somehow tied to or exuded through external reality. However, these feelings are not based upon any previous knowledge, “ideas and principles are all foreign to religion . . . If ideas and principles are to be anything, they must belong to knowledge which is a different department of life from religion.”[22] Thus, when man subconsciously experiences the infinite he is experiencing something apart from himself and nature and expresses these feelings in terms of religion. Put in his own words, “true religion is sense and taste for the Infinite.”[23]
It’s important to note that Schleiermacher was not advocating a completely subjectivist view, as some have accused. Total subjectivity places religion in the hands of one’s feelings alone; Schleiermacher believed that there was an “Infinite” that all humans could experience, “We have in Schleiermacher an intensely relational view of humanity. Emotions are significant not simply because they are ‘felt’, but because they are inward witnesses and responses to realities other than the self.”[24]
It’s also worthwhile to mention that Schleiermacher’s choice of feelings to describe religious experience was rooted in his time spent with the Moravians. For, he held their commitment to piety with much esteem.[25] The Moravian’s stressed inner devotion and relationship with Christ, and one can see the faintest hint of this in Schleiermacher’s concept of the inner subconscious experience.
While Speeches was a defining moment in the field of religion, it was never meant to be an academic piece. Martin Redeker states, “Stylistically the book is neither a sermon nor a philosophical treatise, but rather a typical literary performance in the spirit of the romantic age.”[26] It’s clear that Schleiermacher’s original audience was his circle of friends, those intellectuals of the times, known as the Romantics. It was they who scoffed at religion and reveled in the new philosophy.[27]
For a more mature and fully developed presentation of Schleiermacher’s ideas one must turn to his later work, The Christian Faith. In this work, “Schleiermacher’s formula for the ‘essence’ of religion-or more precisely, of ‘piety’ or personal religiousness-is that it is a ‘feeling of absolute dependence.”[28] One can see the evolution of his thought; while previously, he had defined religion as an experience, the feeling of the infinite, in The Christian Faith this definition is narrowed. Religion is the feeling of absolute dependence.
Schleiermacher argued that God (or, the Infinite), “ is the source toward which the self-consciousness of absolute dependence is directed.”[29] As God reveals himself to man through his interaction with the finite, man becomes increasingly aware of his complete and total dependence upon God to sustain his very existence, and this feeling of dependence is ultimately what defines religious experience.[30]
On the surface level, Schleiermacher’s argument, that religion is the feeling of absolute dependence, seems abstract and convoluted, but in actuality the logic behind it is easy to follow. In its most basic form, it simply points out a common feeling sensed by most human beings, that man does not exist on his own, but is dependent upon something bigger than and outside of himself. Ultimately, Schleiermacher uses this reasoning to conclude that the Infinite does exist, because, “we can hardly be absolutely dependent unless there is something, other than ourselves, on which we are absolutely dependent.”[31] This “something” he concludes is God.
By ‘God’, however, he does not mean the God of the Bible. Schleiermacher argues that God is simply an “expression” which one uses to describe the feeling of absolute dependence. It’s the personification of one’s interaction with the Infinite, and by no means finds its basis in prior knowledge.[32] The word God is simply a linguistic convenience used by Schleiermacher to express something which is abstract and almost non descript.[33]
Schleiermacher’s Impact on Modern Religious Scholarship
Keith Clements believes that Schleiermacher, deserves the title, “Pioneer of Modern Theology,” and surely this is no exaggeration.[34]
Schleiermacher’s ascription of religion to the realm of feeling marked the start of modern Protestantism’s [liberalism’s] habitual emphasis on the knowledge of God as inward and experiential. It is an emphasis seen variously in a succession of figures as diverse as Soren Kierkegaard (1813-55), Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89), Adolf von Harnack (1851-1931), Ernst Troeltsch (1855-1923), Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), Rudolf Otto (1869-1937), John Oman (18601939, H.H. Farmer (1892-1981), and John Baillie (1886-1960) . . . Post-Enlightenment theology not only allows but often insists upon the place of ‘subjectivity’ in belief.[35]
Of course, this list is not exhaustive. Winfried Corduan traces some of the most significant effects Schleiermacher’s ideas have had on the study of religion in his textbook, Neighboring Faiths.
Influenced by Schleiermacher’s subjective approach, philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach taught that the idea of God is simply a conglomeration of “idealized” human traits. He reasoned that common characteristics or traits, such as love or power, that all humans share, could be idealized internally and expressed in terms of “God.”[36] Thus, like Schleiermacher, he traces the idea of God back to man, but goes further by claiming that the concept of God is simply a part of our imaginations.
Sigmund Freud explored the psychological aspect of religion, believing he had discovered the need in every human being for a father figure or “image.”[37] Note how similar this is to Schleiermacher’s claim that in every man is an inherent feeling of absolute dependence. Reflecting the ideas of both Schleiermacher and Feuerbach, Freud believed that God was simply mans “idealized” image of a Father.[38]
Famed religion scholar, Rudolf Otto, also mentioned in Clements list, “traced the basic religious impulse back to an encounter with the consciousness of holiness.”[39] As with the others, one can easily spot Schleiermacher’s influence in Otto’s thought. However, instead of speaking in terms of absolute dependence, Otto uses words like “fear’ or “awe” to describe one who is faced with the reality of his own insignificance in the universe. These feelings, of course, lead to the foundation of religion.[40]
To present a comprehensive list of all who have been influenced by Schleiermacher’s work is far beyond the scope of this paper. However, one can sense the tremendous impact this man has had on modern thought in these few pages, and can easily understand his part in shaping the new subjective approach to religion.
Conclusion
In today’s world, religious pluralism reigns supreme. People no longer think of religion in terms of verifiable fact or objective truth, but simply as a grouping of abstract feelings and emotions. The subjective approach to religion taught in most world religion courses, bolsters this belief when it places man and his subconscious feelings at the center of religious thought. These presuppositions, while distinctively modern or post-modern in their conclusions can easily be traced to the man Friedrich Schleiermacher. His concept that religion is the subconscious feeling of absolute dependence ignited a revolution in religious thought, and helped form the basis of liberal Protestantism. C. W. Christian sums up best when he states, “it is no mere matter of convenience to call Friedrich Schleiermacher the ‘father of modern theology.’ By almost any standard, he must be judged among the most significant figures in the history of Christian thought.”[41]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bongmba, Elias K. “Two Steps Forward, One Step Backward.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa (March 1997): 81-96.
Christian, C. W. Friedrich Schleiermacher. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979.
Clements, Keith. Friedrich Schleiermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology. London: Collins Liturgical Publications, 1987.
Corduan, Winfried. Neighboring Faiths. Illinois: IVP Academic, 1998.
Heard, Gerry C. “Schleiermacher’s Concept of Religion.” Perspectives In Religious Studies (Fall 1980): 19-43.
Marina, Jacqueline, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Redeker, Martin. Schleiermacher: Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. Translated by John Oman. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1958.
Sykes, Stephen. Friedrich Schleiermacher. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1971.
[1] Winfried Corduan, Neighboring Faiths (Illinois: IVP Academic, 1998), 21-22.
[2] Ibid., 22.
[3] Martin Redeker, Schleiermacher: Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), 2.
[4] Ibid., 8-9.
[5] Ibid., 9-11.
[6] Ibid., 12.
[7] Stephen Sykes, Friedrich Schleiermacher (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1971), 6.
[8] Jacqueline Marina, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 2.
[9] Ibid., 2.
[10] Redeker, 15.
[11] Marina, 2.
[12] Sykes, 15.
[13] C. W. Christian, Friedrich Schleiermacher (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979), 20.
[14] Sykes, 3.
[15] Christian, 20-23.
[16] Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1st ed., s.v. “Immanuel Kant.”
[17] Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, trans. John Oman (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1958), ix.
[18] Elias K. Bongmba, “Two Steps Forward, One Step Backward,” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa (March 1997): 81.
[19] Ibid., 81.
[20] Ibid., 82.
[21] Ibid., 82.
[22] On Religion, 46.
[23] On Religion, 39.
[24] Keith Clements, Friedrich Schleiermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology (London: Collins Liturgical Publications, 1987), 37.
[25] Christian, 55.
[26] Redeker, 34-35.
[27] Bongmba, 82.
[28] Marina, 37.
[29] Gerry C. Heard, “Schleiermacher’s Concept of Religion,” Perspectives In Religious Studies (Fall 1980): 22.
[30] Ibid., 23.
[31] Marina, 37.
[32] Ibid., 37.
[33] Ibid., 38.
[34] Clements, 7.
[35] Ibid., 36.
[36] Corduan, 22.
[37] Ibid., 23.
[38] Ibid., 23.
[39] Ibid., 23.
[40] Ibid., 23.
[41] Christian, 11.
