Karl Rosenkranz on Friedrich Schleiermacher (3 of 3)

Conclusion, continuing from Part 2: Rosenkranz defended Schleiermacher from some of the criticisms directed against him. For instance, in Der christliche Glaube § 170, Schleiermacher writes that the teaching of the Trinity cannot be derived philosophically. Rosenkranz writes that this is not because Schleiermacher rejects the teaching of the Trinity but rather a statement that it cannot be derived from his philosophy. It's notable that in § 170, Schleiermacher accurately argues that the dogma of the Trinity cannot be lifted directly from the Gospel of John. The doctrine of the Trinity developed over time through much controversy, and was first clearly established as Christian orthodox doctrine by the Council of Nicaea of 325 CE.

At the same time, Rosenkranz was not satisfied with Schleiermacher's treatment of the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, as something like a metaphor for the Christian church itself, the church in the sense of the mystical body of Christ. "Der heilige Geist ist nach Schleiermacher die Vereinigung des göttlichen Wesens mit der menschlichen Natur in der Form des das Gesammtleben der Gläubigen beseelenden Gemeingeistes." (The Holy Spirit is, according to Schleiermacher, the unity of the divine essence with human nature in the form of that of the common life of the believers annimated by the spirit of the community.) Rosenkranz argues that with this conception, "hat Schleiermacher auch den Begriff des göttlichen Geistes nicht erreicht." (Schleiermacher also did not reach the concept of the divine Spirit.) Rosenkranz argues that the doctrine of the Trinity requires a more clear designation of the Holy Spirit as a divine Person with an identity distinct from the Church. He argues that Schleiermacher only makes "Analogieen vom Geist eines Volkes und vom Geist der Menschheit." (analogies with the spirit of a people and with the spirit of humanity.)

Rosenkranz describes the period of Schleiermacher's thought represented by Der christliche Glaube as one in which "verwicklete Schleiemacher sich immer bestimmter in den Widerspruch, die Theologie philosophisch begründen und sie nichts desto weniger von der Philosophie unabhängig machen zu wollen." [Scheiermacher became more and more decidedly entangled in the contradiction, that he wanted to ground theology philosophically and nevertheless to make it independent of philosophy.] (emphasis in original)

The criticisms sketched above are the major ones identified by Rosenkranz in his critique of Schleiermacher's theology. Along the way, he deals with numerous other provocative aspects of it. Rosenkranz treats Schleiermacher's work with respect although in places he makes emphatic arguments against it.

For example, Rosenkranz is partially critical and partially supportive of Schleiermacher's approach to the more fantastic aspects of the Christian Scriptures. Schleiermacher argued for the application of reason to Christian religious understanding and contended that the "signs and wonders" of the Bible should be understood as stories conveying important religious truths, not as actual physical events. And Schleiermacher dismisses angels and the Devil as products of the imagination. As Rosenkranz characterizes Schleiermacher's position:

In Bezug auf die beiden Anhänge zum Lehrstücke von der Schöpfung, nämlich von den Engeln und vom Teufel, müssen wir Schleiermacher's [sic] Folgerichtigkeit rühmen. Diese Vorstellungen sind für ihn inhaltslos und können nur als ein durch die Tradition entstandenes Anhängsel des frommen Gefühls genommen werden. Ein so in sich seinem Begriff ruhendes Selbstbewußtsein, wie das seinige, ist gegen solche Imaginationen absolut sicher gestellt.

[In relation to the two attachments of the angels and the Devil to the portions of the teachings on the Creation, we must praise Schleiermacher's consistency. These concepts are for him without content and can only be taken as appendages of pious feeling. A self-consciousness that is so content in its notion as his is absolutely fixed against such imaginary figures.]

Although it wouldn't have been the best translation to put it this way, what Rosenkranz is saying there is that Schleiermacher is confident enough in his basic conception of Christian theology that he has no problem excluding such notion as angels and the Devil which are inconsistent with his conception. And Rosenkranz praises him for his consistency, which would even today would cause discomfort among many of the pious.

But while Rosenkranz makes it clear that he's no fan of the resurgent "mystical obscurantism" of that time which embraces concepts like Satan and angels in a superstitious way, he also expresses concern that a superficial dismissal of those Scriptural notions risks missing important aspects of Christian teaching about good and evil.

Friedrich Schleiermacher

Another notable aspect of Rosenkranz’ evaluation of Schleiermacher’s theology is his observation that Schleiermacher undervalues the Old Testament:

In Bezug auf das alte Testament, §. 132., geht Schleiermacher aber so weit, daß er ihm die normale Dignität und die Eingebung der Neutestamentischen Schriften abspricht und als Grund für seine Aufnahme in unsere Bibel theils nur die Berufung der Neutestamentischen Schriften auf die Alttestamentischen, theils den geschichtlichen Zusammenhang des christlichen Gottesdienstes mit der Jüdischen Synagoge anführt. Sollte aber der Grund, weshalb wir Christen das Alte Testament mit dem Neuen immer zusammengefaßt haben, wirklich nur ein so äußerlicher sein? Sollte nur die anfängliche Beschaffenheit unseres Cultus, sein erster Hervorgang aus dem Jüdischen, und wieterhin das Bedürfniß der historischen Erklärung des Neuen Testamentes das Band dieser Schriften sein. Ist nicht auch ein innerer Zusammenhang derselben da, eine innere gegenseitige Ergänzung, welche auch für uns Christen das regste Interesse an dem Alten Testament aufrecht hält, unabhängig von aller Historie, Philologie und Enrichtung des Cultus?

[But in relation to the Old Testament, § 132, Schleiermacher goes so far as to deny it the normal dignity and the inspiration of the New Testament. And as a basis for its inclusion in our Bible, partially he partially cites the historical connection of the Christian religious services with the Jewish synagogue. But should the reason why we Christians have always combined it with the New really be such a merely superficial one? Should only the early condition of our religious tradition, its original emergence out of the Jewish tradition, and further the need for the historical clarification of New Testament, be the link of these Scriptures {Old and New Testament}? Is not there also an inner connection between the two there, an inner supplementation, which continues to hold the most intense interest even for us Christians, independent from all history, philology and the establishment of the religious tradition?] (italics in original)

Schleiermacher shared with other Romantics the notion of united nature and reason and of the centrality of love to his philosophy of the Christian religion. But his philosophy of religion departed significantly from that of Hegel and an Old Hegelian like Karl Rosenkranz. Hegel himself wrote, in lines that he likely applied to the philosophy of his colleague Schleiermacher in Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, Teil 3: Die vollendete Religion (1924), "Wäre Gott nur in der Empfindung, so ständen die Menschen nicht höher wie die Tiere; er ist zwar auch für das Gefühl, aber nur in der Erscheinung." (If God existed only in feeling, then humans would stand no higher than the animals; he also exists for feeling, but only in the appearance.) Hegel and Rosenkranz believed Schleiermacher relied too exclusively on the subjective view in describing the reality of God, that his philosophy failed to describe the objective aspect of God's reality.

Tags: christian theology, karl rosenkranz, schleiermacher