Karl Barth and Friedrich Schleiermacher: Theological Fair Play
*** Barth on Schleiermacher:
“We have to do with a hero, the like of which is but seldom bestowed upon theology. Anyone who has never noticed anything of the splendor this figure radiated and still does―I am almost tempted to say, who has never succumbed to it―may honorably pass on to other and possibly better ways, but let him never raise so much as a finger against Schleiermacher. Anyone who has never loved here, and is not in a position to love again and again may not hate here either.”
No more profound, no more thoroughgoing, no more devastating critique of the theology of Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher compares to the one Barth would bring. Barth traced most of what he found objectionable in modern theology from around 1825 until his death in 1968 to the influence of Schleiermacher. When it comes to theological persnicketiness and the leveling of withering critiques against rival theological approaches, Barth takes a back seat to no one.
But Barth evidenced acceptance of two convictions held and propagated by my doctoral supervisor: (1) We cannot critique what we have not understood and (2) we usually do not understand what we have not first engaged sympathetically. Barth’s tip of the hat to Schleiermacher was prompted in part by the appearance of a scathing rejection of Schleiermacher published by Emil Brunner in 1924. By not taking seriously the two pre-conditions for understanding and critique, Barth believed Brunner not only “got Schleiermacher wrong,” but fell into the trap Schleiermacher set for theology in the 19th and 20th centuries; namely, the abandonment of theology for anthropology.
Be that as it my, the two convictions certainly help define a “do unto others” context for theological dispute.
“We have to do with a hero, the like of which is but seldom bestowed upon theology. Anyone who has never noticed anything of the splendor this figure radiated and still does―I am almost tempted to say, who has never succumbed to it―may honorably pass on to other and possibly better ways, but let him never raise so much as a finger against Schleiermacher. Anyone who has never loved here, and is not in a position to love again and again may not hate here either.”
No more profound, no more thoroughgoing, no more devastating critique of the theology of Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher compares to the one Barth would bring. Barth traced most of what he found objectionable in modern theology from around 1825 until his death in 1968 to the influence of Schleiermacher. When it comes to theological persnicketiness and the leveling of withering critiques against rival theological approaches, Barth takes a back seat to no one.
But Barth evidenced acceptance of two convictions held and propagated by my doctoral supervisor: (1) We cannot critique what we have not understood and (2) we usually do not understand what we have not first engaged sympathetically. Barth’s tip of the hat to Schleiermacher was prompted in part by the appearance of a scathing rejection of Schleiermacher published by Emil Brunner in 1924. By not taking seriously the two pre-conditions for understanding and critique, Barth believed Brunner not only “got Schleiermacher wrong,” but fell into the trap Schleiermacher set for theology in the 19th and 20th centuries; namely, the abandonment of theology for anthropology.
Be that as it my, the two convictions certainly help define a “do unto others” context for theological dispute.
posted by Mark DeVine at 12:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home