Schleiermacher: What Went Wrong?

2 April 2009

Schleiermacher: What Went Wrong?

As we peer through the history of the church, it’s doctrine and even the glorious Scriptures, which are the basis for each, we must see something very disturbing, which has occurred. That would be the fact that so many factions have branched from the institution of Christianity. The apostle Paul says that God is not the author of confusion in I Corinthians 14:33, so how do we derive so many meanings from his word, and how are so many people at odds in agreeing on what His wishes are, pertaining to how a church operation is to be performed? Why are there so many different beliefs regarding God the Father and His most precious Son? There are Pentecostals, Messianic believers, Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses to name a few sects of those who call themselves Christians, and they certainly have very different and varied convictions and beliefs, but we see that Protestant Evangelicals, such as Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and the comparable congregations really aren’t that much different – or are they?
Well, it just depends. There are variations in each denomination, and some are more conservative and fundamental, and some are more liberal, each in their own theology. But how have these deviations occurred and how has the truth of God’s Word so blatantly encountered modifications? We will attempt to answer some of these questions in this document as we uncover the philosophy of Friedrich Schleiermacher, who has so affected the relevant topic in this discussion.
Prior to doing this, however, I believe it would be most proper and beneficial to examine exactly what the differences between conservative and liberal thoughts are. John David Garcia, in his book, The Moral Society, says that a person who is enormously liberal is agreeable to accepting any change, whereas the conservative will not abide by even the slightest conversion. He also states that the liberal person usually holds the better education of the two, and that conservatives have a fondness for elemental religious beliefs. From this definition, we gather that this ideology is what the apostle Paul was referring to when he said, “Professing themselves wise, they became fools” in Romans 1:22. In other words, liberals are people who disregard God and His commandments to do what is right in their own mind, making up the moral society, as Mr. Garcia suggests. The problem is that their morals are not God’s morals. How do we arrive at that?
There are basically two types of morals. One is subjective, meaning what the individual deems right as his own personal ethical truth. On the other hand we have objective morals, which indicates that they are absolute and goal oriented. The latter is the type, which God sets for mankind, but the prior are ones that man sets for himself. Subjective morals stem from humanist theology, which states, “If it feels good and doesn’t hurt anyone, do it.” Really, this goes back to the philosophical sect of Epicureans. So what does all this have to do with Friedrich Schleiermacher and how his works were taken to create a basis for liberal theology and attacking the Word of God? Let us see.
Friedrich Schleiermacher was born the son of a reformed pastor, but grew up to acquire interests in humanist philosophy, and sought to pursue those interests. After leaving the University of Halle, he became chaplain at a hospital in Berlin, where he met and began to mingle with several parties of the Romantic Movement. After beginning to associate with them, they encouraged him to write his views on religion, and so he ended up with the work, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. According to Forster, the book “sought to save religion in the eyes of despisers by arguing that human immorality and even God are inessential to religion, diagnosing current religion’s more off-putting features in terms of its corruption by worldly bourgeois culture and state-interference, and arguing that there are an endless multiplicity of valid forms of religion.” By his ideology shown to appear in this last quote, it is evidence to assume that Schleiermacher was a liberal, when we compare him to our definition above, which was provided by Mr. Garcia, wherein he said that a liberal is very apt to change, whereas a conservative is intolerant to change. By Schleiermacher’s approach to religion, wherein he believes that there are many forms of it, which are deemed valid, we see his vast tolerance to change. In addition, the following years, he wrote many pieces, which would later be used to form a basis for the liberal movement of feminism, and even defended Friedrich Schlegel’s novel Lucinde, which was pornographic in nature. From just these few examples we can tell that he did, in fact, have liberal tendencies in his philosophical standards, which liberal theologians today would definitely grab to accomplish their purpose of showing there is no right from wrong.
Also, in his work, On Freedom, Schleiermacher states that the soul is a force or an amalgam of forces. This is incompatible with the Bible, where in the Hebrew root word for soul is naphash, meaning to take breath. Genesis 2:7 also states, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” So, if we believe the Bible, then we know that mankind’s soul is a living, breathing being. It is the man himself, and the body is just an encasement to survive in while on earth; however, Mr. Schleiermacher reduces God’s creation into an impersonal energy, much like pantheism and panentheism does. As he is described as a neo-Spinozistic, this seems to be the case. Essentially, this makes man into an animal; just some animated object with social tendencies, who desires to create his own morals, based upon what instincts he has and what pleasure he seeks.
Mr. Schleiermacher also argues that human minds are similar, but also distinct, and that this distinction affects the populace in both political-ethical culture and in thoughts and art. The part, which is a concern here, is his direction to political-ethical culture. What this statement is saying is that each man is distinct in his political and ethical traditions. He believed that man had no objective goal, but that each man’s morals were a form of a larger system of beliefs, in which anyone could believe anything, as long as it hurt no one else, which is discussed above, in the paragraph about liberal humanism. This type of philosophy puts God and His holy commandments to no effect. This is also confirmed in his works, On What Gives Value to Life, and Soliloquies, where he stresses the importance of individuality and range in the moral area of interest, but says that they must be limited so that they are compatible with the central principle of humanity. Forster says by Schleiermacher’s limiting man’s morals, that this makes him “guilty of a naturalistic fallacy, known as deducing an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’”.
Also in Mr. Schleiermacher’s writings, On the Highest Good, and On What Gives Value to Life, he rejects Kant’s philosophical belief that morality is a basis for the proof of God, but states that “religion can no more be based on morality than on metaphysics or science” and in his work, On Religion, he shows his skepticism regarding the thoughts of God and human immorality. All these evidences in Schleiermacher’s writings provoke Forster to wonder what the “content and epistemological basis of religion are for Schleiermacher.”
Taking into consideration this sketchy bit of information on Schleiermacher and his writings, let us now try to see where exactly his writings were taken to progress the liberal agenda. Earle E. Cairns, in his book, Christianity Through the Centuries, says that a combination of views from Schleiermacher, Hegel and Ritschl “created a philosophical background favorable to a critical approach to the Bible,” but more specifically, he states “Friedrich Schleiermacher made feelings or emotions the element out of which religious experience develops.” He goes on to say:
In his book, The Christian Faith, religion is presented, not as a set of beliefs and obligations based on the authority of the church, but as the result of man’s feelings of absolute dependence in a majestic universe in which he is but a small entity. Christianity best brings man into harmony with God as man passively realizes his dependence on God. Religion thus becomes a mere subjective apprehension of Christ, who serves as the Mediator to reconcile man to the Absolute who is immanent in the universe. Thus man is freed from dependence on a historical revelation of the will of God and needs only to cultivate the feelings of dependence on God in Christ to enjoy a satisfactorily religious experience. Because of this view that the essence of religion is subjectivity, Schleiermacher is often referred to as the Father of Modern Theology.
I apologize for that extensively long quote, but felt it was most important to get the point across; that Schleiermacher did indeed have a prevailing worldview of morals as being that of subjective, which is against God’s plan for mankind’s life. Therefore, liberals, who are all too anxious to acquire justification for their “I can believe what I want to and do what I want to” theology, seize Schleiermacher’s writings, in order to prove their line of reasoning. Cairns explains that the procedure of Biblical criticism, which the liberals have invented, “seeks to destroy the supernatural nature of the Bible and makes it into a subjective evolution of religion in human consciousness.” In other words, it just takes us back to the point that liberals believe that there are no absolute objective morals, but that religion is evolved to suit the purpose of the mass majority of humans and what they believe. It revolves around the toleration, and not only toleration, but also encouragement of change, and rejects any absolute truth or fundamental values.
Veering a little off the subject here, but still within the confines of liberalism, I would like to compare Cairns’ observation of Schleiermacher’s claim that religion is based on emotion to John MacArthur’s observation of how praise is performed in a liberal church. He is speaking regarding praise music specifically, which is nothing more than repetitive stanzas with no doctrinal truth or didactic purpose, and says:
I believe this modern notion of worship as a mindless exercise has taken a heavy toll in churches. It has led to a decreasing emphasis on preaching and teaching and an increasing emphasis on entertaining the congregation and making them feel good. All of this leaves the Christian in the pew untrained and unable to discern, and often blithely ignorant of the dangers all around.
I felt that comparison was necessary, and will come back to it at a later time. Now I would like to focus more on Schleiermacher, subjectivity and the liberal agenda. That agenda, according to Cairns is “common ideas of a God immanent in history and in each person to guarantee progress toward an ideal human order on earth.” Again, this goes with the idea that subjectivity brings about what is most agreeable to the majority of society, and forgets what God wants or even demands of us. This is shown too, in Mr. Garcia’s book, The Moral Society, wherein he states:
The Moral Society represents a logical extension of the current form of humanity. The Moral Society is the joining of human beings – all of whom are moral. The joining will be made possible by machines, knowledge, and morality. Science and technology will be used to amplify and unite the individual components of intelligence of many men into a single collective intelligence greater than the sum of its parts.
In effect, liberalism is, or at least brings about, COMMUNISM! Subjective morals and reasoning are used to accomplish the goal of “bringing about common ideas of a God immanent in history and in each person to guarantee progress toward an ideal human order on earth, ” if I may jog your memory from above by using Cairns’ quote again. Please notice that this utopia is devoid of God, but depends on science, technology and machines. In other words, they want God in history, but that is as far as they want Him. In their minds, the new utopia would depend upon man’s reasoning and morals, which they have set. That is what subjective theology is really all about. And that is why it is so dangerous to have a democracy. When the people rule, their minds get off God and to the lusts and desires of the people. Romans 13 tells us that we are to be set under a ruler, but that ruler is to be subject to God. A prime example is Moses and the Hebrews. If the people had been allowed to rule themselves, they never would have gotten to the Promised Land. They would have tried to make a perfect world within themselves, and would have failed miserably – because they did not trust nor look objectively toward God and His morals, which He instructed them in. It took Moses, one who subjected himself only to God, in an objective manner, but not to the masses, to lead them in any constructive way. And if we remember, Moses set up, at Jethro’s instruction, councils of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens – but they too had to be godly, just as Moses was. Any nation cannot stand without God at the center.
Now what does all this really have to do with religion? This can be explained in an article, written by Robert Wuthnow, entitled, “After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950’s.” If I may be allowed to insert another quote, I will cite what he alludes to pertaining to subjective, liberal worship:
In the 1950’s and before, American spiritual practice emphasized a physical location where God was to be worshipped… and religiosity was measured by the frequency that one went to church… Beginning in the 1960’s, however, religion was a matter of personal negotiation; it involved seeking God in places and spaces outside of institutional religion… In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, a new trend emerged which revealed that the individualism birthed in the 1960s had not been totally eclipsed, nor had secular society won the day. There was a strong desire by many to experience the mysterious, the supernatural, but not necessarily in church… Talk of miracles, divine healings, and cosmic encounters became popular, with this movement being led by journalists, writers, psychics, and holistic health practitioners (rather than clergy).
In other words, not only does subjectivity bring about liberal theology, but also seeks to leave God out of the picture, with the person rather seeking divine encounters with psychics and holistic health practitioners, as mentioned above. It goes to create a spiritual renaissance in a secular world. The whole purpose is to omit God from the world. Subjective morals and thought is at the core of the whole process. “Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law” be the rule!
Once again, I repeat myself from above in saying, “In effect, liberalism is COMMUNISM! Subjective morals and reasoning are used to accomplish the goal of ‘bringing about common ideas of a God immanent in history and in each person to guarantee progress toward an ideal human order on earth,’” and I do this for the reason of introducing a new quote by Lola A. Davis, who wrote in her book, Toward a World Religion for the New Age, “We need a world religion that will teach us a world value system and some common one-world goals. Only when we share worldwide values and goals will be motivated to practice world citizenship in our interdependent world.”
Therefore, I would like to begin to draw this document to a close by suggesting that nothing went wrong with Schleiermacher’s writings, regarding how they were in turn used to attack the Bible. I believe that it all flows together in a smooth plot, designed and produced through the inspiration of Satan himself, to bring about his world religion, world government and short-lived reign as antichrist. I believe that Schleiermacher never had any intentions of defending the Scripture, because if he had – he would never have given into the demand of subjective morals and reasoning, but would follow the wishes and desires, and even commands, of our Father in Heaven, with an objective look at His goals and will for us.
Now, going back up to the first questions, which I asked at the introduction of this paper, “How do we derive so many meanings from His word, and how are so many people at odds in agreeing on what His wishes are, pertaining on how a church operation is to be performed? Why are there so many different beliefs regarding God the Father and His most precious Son?” I will attempt to answer that by referring once again to John MacArthur, whom I also promised that I would return to. In doing so, please allow me to quote him once again as well:
Sadly, Christians today need to exercise discernment in their local churches probably more than anywhere else. Whether due to poor preaching or a wrong philosophy of ministry, many local churches suffer because they lack the ability to distinguish sound doctrine from false teaching. To complicate matters, many believers have different opinions about preferential issues – sometimes causing unnecessary splits in the body of Christ. Discernment is needed for these situations as well, such that Biblical principle and Christian grace may prevail.
With this in mind, we may know that pure and simple, it is the lack of discernment that causes so many churches to be at odds, regarding which path to take in finding truth in Scriptures. Not only does it cause splits within the body of Christ, as MacArthur says, but lack of discernment also causes one to be fooled into taking the liberal path, which does ignore God altogether. To avoid this lack of discernment, we are ordered to put on the whole armor of God, as we always remain in prayer. Chuck Missler says in a teaching, called Isaiah 14 – 18 The Whole Armor of God, that:
It is common to think in the 20th century that there is no absolute reality or truth that we can know about, and everyone manufactures his or her own truth. It we fall into that puddle of uncertainty, and then there really is no method of determining what is good or bad, true of false, moral or immoral.
I hope that I have done my job of convincing you how all this fits together – subjective theology, liberalism, socialism and communism, and how it can all be avoided by those who are in diligent study, as commanded in 2 Timothy 2:15 – 16, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” Constant prayer and painstaking study should be of utmost importance in the Christian’s life. Cultural relativity is one way to increase subjectivity. Many Christians are falling into this hole. God does not change, and His Words last forever. We must abide by them, and not what culture or the masses of society dictate, according to what looks good to their eyes. Otherwise, we, too, will fall into the “what went wrong” agenda.















Bibliography
Blue Letter Bible. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5314&t=KJV
Cairns, Earle E., Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.
Davis, Lola A., Toward a World Religion for the New Age. Farmingdale: Coleman Publishing, 1983.
Defining Good. http://www.lmpchurch.org/032209.htm.
Forster, Michael, Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schleiermacher/#1.
Garcia, Jerry, The Moral Society. New York: The Julian Press, Inc., 1971.
MacArthur, John, Fool’s Gold. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005.
Missler, Chuck, Isaiah 14 – 18 The Whole Armor of God. http://www.khouse.org/6640/CD022-06.
Wuthnow, Robert, “After Heaven: Spirituality in America since the 1950’s,” Social Forces. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1999.

© 2010 Kimberly Padilla, A.A Religion