Schleiermacher in 5 Minutes
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 бер 2021
- No one can learn Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher in five minutes, of course. But here I aim to introduce you to what I think are a few of the central ideas in his theology.
Enjoy my work? Buy me a coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/MorrisonSDM
My website: www.sdmorrison.org
My book on Schleiermacher: amzn.to/3kPpwqX
Really appreciate your work here! Thank you for making these 5 minute intros.
Thanks for watching!
I’m apprx. 150-160 off pages into The Christian Faith right now and am loving it. Thanks for putting Schleiermacher on my radar. And your book in him has been a very helpful aid.
Excellent! It is a brilliant system. Enjoy!
Thank you for this. I'm doing a short paper on Schleiermacher and this was very helpful. I'm going to go get your book.
Thanks, Christopher! Glad to hear this video was helpful, and I hope the book is too.
Thank you very much
very interesting, thanks
I just started reading The Christian Faith and knew where to turn for some help along the way. Thanks Stephen!
Glad it was helpful! Enjoy reading CF! It's a masterpiece. I recommend focusing on Section two, which is the real "heart" of his thought, especially the sections on "God is Love" and God is wisdom. That helps contextualize Section 1, which is more of an "entryway" or "boundary" to dogmatics proper. Also, read Schleiermacher's short guide "On the Glaubenshlehre." Lots of great insights and clarifications in that book.
@@StephenDMorrison Dully noted! Thanks!
I find hermeunitics very interesting.
Does schleiermacher hold to the divinity of Christ? Do you address his Christology in your book?
Yes, I talk about this in my book, pp. 64ff. It is a complex issue, but I will try to restate some of the points I made there, though it is important to see all of this in the light of the rest of Schleiermacher's highly unique dogmatics. His Christology is easy to mischaracterize, but I think it is best understood here by what he is trying to do. He aimed for a more dynamic/relational doctrine of Christ instead of the static definition. So, in short, Christ was only human in nature but by virtue of His absolutely strong God-consciousness, he must also be ascribed the being of God (see CF §94.2). Christ's absolutely strong God-consciousness is the same as saying, for Schleiermacher, that "God was in Christ" or "the Word became made flesh." Both phrases are central to his Christology.
Schleiermacher was critical of the dual nature thesis of traditional Christology (the hypostatic union) because divine and human nature cannot be situated on the same status or plane of being. So he would not say that Christ possessed a "divine nature" because this is not something capable of being possessed, and it would lead to problematic conclusions by implying two wills in Christ. Rather, by virtue of his absolutely strong God-consciousness, Schleiermacher does say that God was in Christ as the incarnate word of God, but this is a dynamic (relational) statement about Christ's God-consciousness, not a static statement about Christ's "nature." Schleiermacher strived to push theology towards a more phenomenological basis rather than a merely static or propositional. So this is the outworking of that as well as his doctrine of God. It is also important to note that Schleiermacher did not think his Christology was unorthodox but was indeed a faithful interpretation of what the early Church attempted to describe with Chalcedonian Christology. Pannenberg praised Schleiermacher quite highly in his great Christology book and thought him orthodox even though he worked to move Christology further. Hopefully that's helpful!
Ah. Yes. Ok that makes sense! Thanks for taking the time to reply!
@@StephenDMorrison very helpful explanation! Thanks!
My doktorvater (Prof. Paul Nimmo) once remarked that if you think Barth's reading of Schleiermacher is bad, Brunner's is worse!
Great video!
Yes, that is definitely true. Barth at least admired Schleiermacher and wanted to appreciate him more, but Brunner seemed pretty set on misunderstanding him. :D Thanks for watching!
Schleiermacher's Doctrine of God sounds a bit like Karl Rahner's Immanent Trinity
I'm not terribly familiar with Rahner, but it would be fascinating to read a comparision of their work!
While I agree that there is a general misreading of Schleiermacher in contemporary thought, I think there's also a misunderstanding of Feuerbach's inversion of the former's and Hegel's attitudes towards Christianity. Feuerbach interrogates the notion of grace, election, and the like from the standpoint of phenomenology of the so-called activity of God. I would say that, while Schleiermacher tries hard to resist post-Kantian tendencies to limit to discussions of the world and God as it is for humanity, Feuerbach is trying to ask where do you get that from without starting from man-in-the-world. I might pick up your book and see for myself, but I think Feuerbach has quite successfully, especially in his later works, used the language of Schleiermacher to defang most of what Christianity has to say about the "practical" as opposed to theoretical use for God. As for the latter, Feuerbach inverts Hegel and uses Fichte's notions of the for-us and for-itself to show that, in the end, God and philosophy are both objects-for-man's-self-knowledge.
I hope that made sense
Thanks for watching and for the thoughtful comment! I can't say I know enough about Feuerbach to comment on what you've written. I do think there's something to be said about a figure's legacy vs their intentions. Thanks again.
The moment that schleiermarcher said that “Christian doctrine is nothing more than the collection of Christian affection set forth in speech” - (paraphrasing) Schleiermarcher has ipso facto excluded the possibility of supernatural revelation. It is clear that for Schleiermarcher Christian doctrine and any assertion of God is just a matter of conventional discourse rather than Divine objective personal revelation.
I'd disagree with this reading. Terrence Tice and other recent Schleiermacher scholars have worked hard to correct this misreading, but I understand this is a common misperception. So I would suggest giving Schleiermacher another shot and perhaps reading some of the recent publications about his work. My book talks about this at length but there are others I can recommend if you'd like.