Is Schleiermacher Sharing Your Pulpit?
Some say it doesn’t matter the path you take so long as you arrive at the proper destination. According to this advice, the final destination is assumed to be more important than the path taken. But the path and destination are not so easily separated. Whether discussing travel or life, we’re all aware that paths shape us, for good or ill. What’s more, they always determine our condition when we arrive at our destination—and often whether we arrive at all.
Theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) is one such person who believed that the final destination was more important than the path taken. Often referred to as the “Father of Protestant Liberalism,” the ripples of this theological juggernaut’s legacy are still felt in classrooms and pulpits today.
It’s common to note Schleiermacher’s influence upon liberal scholarship and mainline Protestant preaching. But his influence upon conservative evangelical theology and preaching is frequently overlooked. In this essay, we’ll examine some of Schleiermacher’s theology and its implications for orthodox Christianity. We’ll then consider potential ways in which Schleiermacher has crept even into the most conservative evangelical churches. In fact, it may be that Schleiermacher is sharing your pulpit.
Surveying Schleiermacher’s Theological Formation
Schleiermacher’s early life may help us better understand his theology. Schleiermacher’s parents were devout Pietists. He came of age, however, as Romanticism was sweeping through Berlin. While German Pietism valued and affirmed Christianity’s core doctrines, it imbibed Romanticism’s high premium on emotion and feeling. Translation: German Pietism heavily emphasized the experiential and subjective side of Christianity. As a result, Schleiermacher was less intrigued by what he perceived as the stale doctrines of orthodoxy, and was instead gripped by the power of religious experience and feeling.
As science progressed and the world became increasingly less mysterious, many found Christianity’s doctrines, which were rooted in God’s supernatural acts, no longer plausible. Schleiermacher joined the fray. In fact, at a young age, he admitted to his sister that, though he found traditional Christianity untenable, he was still a Pietist—simply of a “higher order.” Thus, he rejected Pietism’s affirmation of doctrine, but retained their emphasis on experience and feeling.
By doing so, Schleiermacher believed that he had constructed a form of religion that retained what he believed was Christianity’s most essential elements, while discarding everything else. The problem, as we can see, was that “everything else” included orthodoxy. Schleiermacher believed his approach could withstand the Enlightenment’s attacks by avoiding such attacks altogether. What were the Enlightenment’s attacks?
“Utter Dependence Upon God”
Much of the Enlightenment critique centered on Christianity’s rootedness in divine revelation and the miracles recorded therein. So how could Schleiermacher’s theology avoid the Enlightenment attack? His thought went something like this: “What if those miracles weren’t essential to religion, and divine revelation itself unessential? A religion devoid of the miraculous and rooted in something other than divine revelation would be completely free from Enlightenment attack.”
But if Christianity were rooted in something other than divine revelation, what would it be? In answering this question we must remember that Schleiermacher lived in an age that valued innovation and self-expression, and privileged human potential. Attempting to synthesize Enlightenment Rationalism, Romanticism, and German Pietism (minus their affirmation of doctrine), Schleiermacher rooted Christianity in human feeling—the feeling of utter dependence upon God. It was, as Roger Olson describes it, a “synthesis pietism” [1].
He defined Christianity, then, not by any set of biblical doctrines, but by a feeling of utter dependence upon the Divine Being [2]. In other words, we are desperately in need of an awakening to our utter dependence upon God’s unchangeable will [3]. For Schleiermacher, this reawakening (or “God-consciousness”) is the essence of redemption. It is a “cosmic awe” [4]. Jesus, according to Schleiermacher, had perfect “God-consciousness,” or awareness of utter dependence upon God, and He came in order to restore this feeling of dependence to humanity. It’s in the act of reawakening our feeling of utter dependence that Jesus acted as mankind’s unique Redeemer.
“What then constitutes a church for Schleiermacher?” you may ask. For him, a church is a gathering of those who share this feeling of dependence. They are gathered according to feeling, not belief. Put another way, Christians are united not by their affirmation of doctrine, but by their common feeling of utter dependence upon God (this is one of many reasons why it is important for churches to emphasize a confession of faith).
When Schleiermacher does speak of doctrines, he defines them as “accounts of the Christian religious affections set forth in speech” [5]. As one might imagine, the absence of formalized doctrine radically alters preaching as we know it. In fact, it does away with traditional preaching altogether. What remains is a confession of feeling, not an exposition of Scripture. The objective (Scripture) is supplanted by the subjective (feeling). The exposition of an ancient text is exchanged for the confession of an internal feeling.
The Influence of Schleiermacher’s Theology
(a) Among Liberals
Schleiermacher’s influence on liberal theology is massive. He is, after all, the father of modern Protestant Liberalism. Roger Olson provides a helpful assessment: “He is to Christianity what Copernicus was astronomy, Newton was to physics, Freud was to psychology and Darwin was to biology. That is to say, he is the trailblazer and trendsetter, the one thinker subsequent theologians cannot ignore” [6]. After Schleiermacher, every theologian was forced to either reject his theology, or imbibe and appropriate it. Many took the latter approach.
(b) Among Evangelicals
Is it possible though that evangelicals have unknowingly imbibed and appropriated Schleiermacher’s theology? I think so. We may find ourselves acting as his heirs in more ways than first imagined. At least two examples illustrate how this may be true:
(1) A Traditional Approach: Gospel Devoid of Scripture
We’ve all heard sermons that start off well, quickly depart from the text for a purely emotional appeal, and miraculously tack on a Gospel presentation at the sermon’s conclusion. Oddly enough, many who preach this way frequently contend for Scripture’s inerrancy, infallibility, and full inspiration. Unfortunately, such preaching betrays all heralded sentiments. We might say of such an approach that the preacher valued the final destination (a stirring invitation producing a feeling of dependence), but thought the path there was inconsequential.
Can a preacher completely forsake the biblical text without rendering Scripture unnecessary for conversion and sanctification? Such a departure implies that a passionate presentation, rather than God’s life-giving Word, awakens the conscience to feelings of utter dependence upon God. Such a feeling of dependence cannot be separated from Scripture, though. Manufactured feeling divorced from the God-given means of Scripture is foreign to biblical Christianity. Such an approach is more fitting for Schleiermacher and his heirs than those who are co-heirs with Christ.
(2) A Modern Approach: Feeling Devoid of Doctrine
We live in an age driven and led by inner feelings. Much like Berlin’s culture in Schleiermacher’s day, our age values feeling over revelation. Revelation carries with it the baggage of a spiritual authority that is beyond us and speaks into our lives. We would prefer to allow our inner experience to guide our religious experience, rather than Scripture. We can be guilty of attempting to conjure up mere feelings of dependence upon a higher power, rather than pursuing God as revealed in Jesus Christ and recorded in Scripture. Just as feelings (more helpfully understood as “affections”) cannot be separated from the Christian life, they also cannot be separated from biblical doctrine. Christianity is, after all, a revealed religion. Affections are certainly not foreign to Christianity, but Christianity is not a religion rooted in any feeling.
Returning to our travel metaphor, sound doctrine, when cordially embraced, is the path to right affections. And right affections include the heart, head, and will. Said another way, doctrine is the gateway to the deep things of God, and consequently, deep affections concerning His unalterable nature and our utter dependence upon Him. Biblical doctrine is the path to biblical affections, but affections devoid of doctrine are not biblical affections at all.
Conclusion
Our discussion of Schleiermacher and his theology was brief, but even a cursory survey opens the door for a better understanding of liberal theology. It also provides a tool to evaluate modern evangelical theology and practice. Rooting Christianity in a subjective feeling of dependence upon God is much more of a danger than we might think. If we’re not careful, we may find ourselves guilty of allowing Schleiermacher to share our pulpits.
We do well to remember that Christianity is rooted in objective truth. God’s grace, relentless love, and providential control of the cosmos are truths that provoke awe within us. This cosmic awe or feeling of utter dependence upon God is proper. But it is only proper when it is a response to God’s divine revelation of Himself ultimately manifested in Jesus Christ, but faithfully recorded by His prophets and apostles in His Word. And perhaps our best means for knowing and experiencing God is not through bare emotional and experiential appeals, but through the Spirit-led exposition of God’s Word.
_______________________________________
[1] Roger Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 132-133.
[2] Keith W. Clements, Friedrich Schleiermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology (San Francisco: Collins Liturgical, 1987), 145.
[3] Ibid., 189.
[4] Olson, 136.
[5] Clements, 134.
[6] Olson, 130.
April 21, 2014
Jesse,
Thanks for skill in understanding as well as communicating.
April 22, 2014
Thank you, Mr. Carter!
April 21, 2014
Excellent article! I am afraid this is even true among some of our churches.
April 22, 2014
I think you’re right. This is a real danger for preachers and churches of every sort.