A ‘Positive Science:’ Internal and External Description in Schleiermacher’s Theology (original) (raw)
Related papers
In his The Theology of Karl Barth, Von Balthasar wrote: "Schleiermacher gave Barth a powerful intuition into the unity, grandeur and totality of theology as a scientific discipline." 1 With this, von Balthasar proposed that Barth's thought exhibited a degree of genetic dependence upon Schleiermacher at both a formal and material level. The concern of this essay is not to inquire into such genetic dependence. Rather, it is concerned with the phrase "theology as a scientific discipline." How did these two modern theologians conceived of theology, and in particular dogmatics, as a "scientific discipline"? What is the nature and task of theology under the conditions of modernity, conditions prominently marked by the ascendancy of "science" and the modern research university?
A Review of Deutungen des Subjekts: Schleiermachers Philosophie der Religion by Peter Grove
International Journal of Systematic Theology, 2006
principle, the trinitarian worldview is not always as self-evident in discussions of pluralism as Schwöbel assumes. In fact, the task of Christian theology in the wider circumstance of contemporary pluralism is precisely the study of trinitarian faith in devotional gestures, in liturgical practices, and in the daily lives of Christians determining the meaning of their faith in dynamic relation to the three persons of the one God. The Christian faith can be seen in the light of heavenly ordained individuality when the Trinity is brought down to earth in embodied relationships. Empirical determination of the concept requires a listening to the vibrations, tones, and moods of the experience of faith. A theology responsible to the emerging differentiation of religious experience must open its eyes to those experiences located in regions outside a male-dominated, primarily German and North American context. Yes, German Protestantism is the cradle of Protestant concept formation with world-historical consequences. Nevertheless, the cultivation of theological readership lies precisely with the inclusion of dialogue partners beyond one's linguistic purview. It is here where Schwöbel gravely fails the test of pluralism. A brief look at his index of names reveals his almost exclusive indebtedness to the European male tradition, with a few transatlantic forays. The omission of female scholars and theologians emerging from non-European traditions is glaring. Even the three references to 'my wife' (meine Frau) in the preface are only once met with a concretization of her name (Marlene). Enough is enough! Theological writing on pluralism demands an ethical opening of the field of dialogue partners. Whatever the specific reason-whether mutual enrichment of positions, demonstration of ethical respect, a gesture to epistemological modesty, or the goal of persuasion-a theology responsible to the contemporary context cannot continue to select its conversants from within a tradition privileged by history's continency. Rather than assuming readership, invitation should be the privileged ethic. Schwöbel's book may best be thought of as a resource for learning the concepts necessary for passing theological German. At the most, it launches a challenge to contemporary theologians to pay earnest attention to the adequacy of form and language to content. Christian faith is alive in many contexts, and its concepts shimmer with many facets of meaning. When regarded from this perspective, Christianity has something to live, so that theology has something to talk about.
A Twofold Method: Schleiermacher's Dogmatic Method and the Interpretation of 'The Christian Faith'
AAR Annual Meeting - Schleiermacher Section, 2023
This paper begins by surveying contemporary scholarship in relation to Schleiermacher’s dogmatic method, first comparing contrasting interpretations of Schleiermacher that nonetheless share a basic strategy of elevating the Introduction over the material dogmatics. I survey the critical reading of Karl Barth and the interpretation of Andrew Dole, arguing that they privilege the Introduction in relation to the material dogmatics in a parallel fashion, though Dole does so far more approvingly and in service to a somewhat distinctive project. In contrast, I then survey the interpretations of Shelli M. Poe and Daniel J. Pedersen and their respective moves to elevate the material dogmatics in relationship to the Introduction. I then offer my own interpretation of Schleiermacher’s dogmatic method, first by examining the significance of §20.2, and then by delineating the two “hands” or “moments” in the theological method and their relationship to the Introduction and the material dogmatics. I then describe the relationship between the two “moments” by examining each in turn, following Thomas Pröpper and Maureen Junker-Kenny in identifying the steps of the critical transcendental enquiry conducted in §§3-4 of the Introduction and the ways this enquiry both grounds and limits the other “moment” before going on to show how the empirically and historically oriented second “moment” determines or specifies the basic material grounded in the first. The result is an understanding of Schleiermacher’s dogmatic method that highlights the importance of both the Introduction and the material dogmatics in the Glaubenslehre, identifies the distinctive levels of analysis on which each tends to operate, and describes the way each provides “warrant” to the other.
Proceedings of the 6th Batusangkar International Conference, BIC 2021, 11 - 12 October, 2021, Batusangkar-West Sumatra, Indonesia, 2022
This study aims to analyze the influence of Friedrich Schleiermacher's thoughts on Christian theology and its relation to Christian education. The method used in this research is qualitative with a literature study approach. The results of the study found that Friedrich Schleiermacher emphasized feelings and experiences in understanding the Bible and rejected the authority of the Scriptures. As a result, Christian theology that is absolute is possible to be relative and this is certainly a setback in the study of Christian theology. The danger that lurks about Christian education is the content of learning whose substance is the finality of Christian doctrine to be absolute.
Mysticism and Metaphysics: Schleiermacher and a Historical-Theology Trajectory
The Journal of Religion, 2003
At the turn of the nineteenth century, a scathing criticism was launched against Friedrich Schleiermacher that was to have a significant impact on the interpretation and reception of his work in theology. In his book Die Mystik und das Wort, Emil Brunner accused Schleiermacher of committin a double error. According to Brunner, Schleiermacher grounded his the ology in a philosophy of identity that was itself to be identified with mysticism.2 Although the double-pronged attack against mysticism and meta physics had already been heralded by the nineteenth-century theologian Albrecht Ritschl, Brunner isolated what he perceived to be the two pillar of Schleiermacher's thought. First, Brunner saw mysticism as a threat to the theology of the word. Mystical human subjectivism undermined th radically alien and objective divine word ofjudgment and gospel. Second mysticism's illegitimate conflation of nature and spirit was due to its un holy alliance with philosophy. Together, mysticism and metaphysics provided grounds for a theology that betrayed the witness of the Bible and the Reformation. The implications of this criticism proved to be harmful no only to interpretations of Schleiermacher's thought but also to theolog generally. Theology was significantly severed from two of its essential links, links necessary to its vitality as well as to the rationality of its claims. Theology lost a viable connection to the experiential intensity of a determina *I thank the reviewers of theJournal of Religion who provided thoughtful suggestions for improvement, which I have attempted to incorporate into this article and without which this article would have been severely deficient. Emil Brunner, Die Mystik und das Wort, 2d ed.
Theology as a Science: An Historical and Linguistic Approach A Position Paper By
Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry, 2019
PREVIEW ONLY: READ THE FULL TEXT HERE: https://doi.org/10.33929/sherm.2019.vol1.no2.07 This article argues that, given the historical and linguistic background of the terms involved, the study of theology can, in fact, be considered a scientific endeavor, but one must clearly note what is inferred by the term "scientific." Historically, the term "science" or "scientific" has dealt with the realm of knowledge of both the natural and supranatural world. The question of whether theology should be classified as a science arose during the formation of the medieval universities in the thirteenth century, as well as the formation of modern German universities in the nineteenth century. Theologians from Aquinas to Schleiermacher argued that theology should be considered a science and, therefore, a proper subject of study in the university. The affirmation of theology as a science in this article is based on this historical survey, as well as the broader linguistic understanding of the term "science."
Boyd Blundell, Paul Ricoeur Between Theology and Philosophy: Detour and Return. Reviewed by
Philosophy in Review, 2011
One of the problems affecting the current state of theology as an academic discipline concerns how secular discourse has directed the way theologians respond to provocations from their critics. An 'either/or' dilemma emerges: Do theologians attempt to maintain the integrity of theology by refusing to compromise on terminology, concepts, and practices? Or, do they make an attempt at some type of revision through which theology can accommodate and respond directly to these criticisms? The former maintains integrity with the risk of remaining parochial and irrelevant to secular concerns. The latter allows for the application of theology but with the danger of reducing theology to something it is not.