Karl Barth opines on the power of impact that Friedrich Schleiermacher, so called Father of Theological Liberalism, has on all of the readers of theology and the Bible in his early 20th century German/continental context. I think what Barth says here is just as applicable for many in my own “Evangelical” Free Church context. My own upbringing resonates more with the von Zizendorf, Jacob Phillip Spener pietistic (and thus realized Schlieremacherean pietism) spirituality than that of some sort of hybrided Reformed spirituality in mood. I’m not really going to get into that, but I think what Barth says about Schleiermacher has relevance for many “Evangelicals” in America today (even if “Evangelical” meant something different in the German context than it does in the American — I see plenty of over-lap). Here’s Barth:
[L]ittle need be said about the importance of the subject and the legitimacy of devoting a whole semester to it. Scheiermacher merits detailed 
historical consideration and study even if only because he was the one in whom the great struggle of Christianity with the strivings and achievements of the German spirit in 1750–1830, in whose light or shadow we still stand today, took place in a way which would still be memorable even if he were dead and his theological work had been transcended. None of his contemporaries with the possible exception of Hegel took up that struggle so comprehensively or with such concern, and none of the theologians of his age has anything like the same representative siginificance for what took place at that time. But Schleiermacher is not dead for us and his theological work has not been transcended. If anyone still speaks today in Protestant theology as though he were still among us, it is Schleiermacher. We study Paul and the reformers, but we see with the eyes of Schleiermacher and think along the same lines as he did. This is true even when we criticize or reject the most important of his thelogoumena or even all of them. Wittingly and willingly or not, Schleiermacher’s method and presuppositions are the typical ferment in almost all theological work; I need only mention the basic principle, which is so much taken for granted that it is seldom stated, that the primary theme of his work, both historically and systematically, is religion, piety, Christian self-consciousness. Who is not at one with Schleiermacher in this regard? In 1859 the Bremen preacher F. L. Mallet wrote concerning Schleiermacher: “It once seemed [even then!] as though his day was over, as though he had done his work. . . . But it is not the same with Schleiermacher as with the discovering of thinking faith [Paulus in Heidelberg]: he has a tenacious life, and to the surprise of his detractors and despisers he is suddenly remembered in a way and from an angle which cannot be overlooked or missed” (“Biographie,” 16). (Karl Barth, “The Theology Of Schleiermacher,” xiii)
This was written back in 1923/24 during Barth’s Lectures at Gottingen; so clearly this is removed both from our era, and then region (me writing as an American in the early 21st century). Nevertheless, I think there is something very ironic and parallel about all of this. Much of American “Evangelicalism” finds its rootage in the pietist background, in ethos (and of course pietism is not monolith, so I generalize). There is a certain mood wherein personal fulfillment and spiritual experience are at the center of even American Evangelical Christian spirituality. It is this mood that I think would feel very comfortable with much of Scheliermacher’s own method and spirituality (his being more thoughtful and articulated, in most cases). I think this makes for an interesting thought-experiment; viz. to try and see some analogous relationship between then in Germany, and now in America. I think many American Evangelicals today are going full circle right back to a Schleiermacherean pietistic spirituality wherein “my feeling” is the norm for “my theological existence;” one that is shaped by a “me and my Jesus,” “me and my Bible,” “holy huddle” mode. It seems to me that Karl Barth, for many American Evangelicals, could be the perfect antidote for such an ailment. We’ll see, I’ll keep reading and let you know ;-).
PS. I don’t really think The Gospel Coalition is the answer. (You know . . .Β Evangelical Calvinism is able to fit into the mood that could very much so be part of the antidote that Karl Barth also helps to provide . . . in fact maybe even better π
Biblical Theology needs much more than a “mood”, as we see the Church slipping more and more into apostasy, and modern Israel coming more and more under attack from so-called Christianity! We simply cannot sit in our Ivory Towers and seek some intellectual theological mood! Sorry, just the way I see it as both a pastor & a teacher. π
Fr Robert,
You have every right to hold to your mood. π We’re not talking about the Israel stuff though anymore, at least not in this post. There are plenty of Ivory Towers to go around for everyone, it’s not just the Fundamentalists.
Fr Robert,
What I’m referring to in this post is the problem of American individualism, and how that has affected American Christian spirituality. I see parallels between this and the anthropology as theology that Schleiermacher articulated. Let’s keep the comments in line with this trajectory.
Bobby: I was also refering to the High Tower of Barthianism, and this also can include the EC! This is a friendly jab at all of our ability to get lost from the Bible itself! So much theological effort today is simply in the human flesh! Yes, I am again being affected by a more simple “Biblicism”. I hope and pray “the simplicity that is Christ”! (2 Cor.11:3)
But I will say no more here.
Fr Robert,
I know what you think about Barthianism and EC; your jabs are unnecessary at this point, in that regard; you’ve made them enough for me to understand your point. Your point is not mine. I really would rather that you refrain from making anymore said jabs in the future. If you have something to say about a particular post, and the material therein, then I look forward to more of your comments. You and I are at different points, apparently, in our theological development. I am quite ideal about the Spirit’s continued work in the Church of Christ, and so I move forward with my EC methodology in tact. If you have an actual constructive critique towards EC, when a particular post warrants it; then I look forward to hearing it. But jabs are unnecessary at this point. Thanks.
Bobby: Isn’t that what the blog really is…jabs? π We all make them! But I will quit. And indeed we are all hopefully moving along in our biblical and theological development! At least those of us that love the Word! π
Fr Robert: I suppose. But at a certain point they aren’t helpful.
Bobby: The blog is so imperfect! I am certainly not a blogger in the strict sense! I like to see the people I am speaking to! π
I know we were supposed to take a break, but you might think this is funny, I thought of you when I saw it.
http://youtu.be/6-GxkAJ1OBU
That’s hilarious, Kenny π ! I think that’ll make it into a post. We don’t have to be in a break if you don’t want.
No break sounds good. I’m over using profanity and I’ll try to stay respectful. I think I’m over being annoyed at people who disagree and I have a new found desire to actually engage with what the writer of the blog is saying rather than just saying what I want to say.
Bobby,
I hope my question isn’t too far off topic, but it does pertain to Barth and by extension EC.
As I undestand the EC critique of Federal Calvinism–and I fully agree with it–is that Federal views of election say that God the Father chooses to save/damn humanity “behind the back” of Christ. Yet, when I read the Reformed sources, even the WCF, it speaks of election in Christ, which would seem to blunt the EC critique.
What am I missing?
That sounds good to me, Kenny! I will try to stay respectful too brother. I am really tired of just being provocative. I am going to try and frame my posts much differently. That’s not to say they won’t deal with provocative topics, but I’m going to try and spend a little more time putting my posts together which will hopefully mitigate some of my past tone, and provide more thoughtfulness in the “way” I communicate my points.
Jacob,
Who is Ansgar Olav?
Yes, I know they say “in Christ” too. It’s that Christ meets the demands of the absolute decrees, and thus it depersonalises the whole schema; not only that, but his meeting the demands of the absolute decrees subordinates him to the dictates of creation and thus challenges his truly free self-determined being/life. Does that help?
Thanks Bobby. “Angsar Olav” is a collation of two Western Orthodox saints by the respective names. In particular, St. King Olav II of Norway was martyred on the field of battle in the middle ages defending Christian Norway from a renewed paganism. His last words were, “Fram! Fram! Kristmen, Korsmen, Kongsmen!” Forward, forward, Christ-men, Cross-men, Kingsmen!”
Jacob,
Okay, thanks for filling me in on Angsar π . . . I get it, “Kingsmen”.
Pingback: Elsewhere (06.07.2011) « Near Emmaus