Postmodern Christianity Came and Went...150 Years ago

An example of the poor job done by seminaries in equipping Christian leaders in the history of theological thought is the emerging church, or postmodern church, movement itself. Most of the insights and discoveries evident in the writings of those in this movement have been made before and, in my opinion, better by the first go-round of postmodern Christianity - Berlin from 1800-1850. (A significant exception to this generalization is Brian McLaren, who writes from a deep engagement with the history of theological thought.)

The first half of the 19th century in Berlin was a hotbed of postmodern Christian thought that covered most of the territory covered by today's postmodern Christian writers. I am using the term postmodern anachronistically, however. Postmodern wasn't the term used to describe the thought of the period. Rather, German Idealism was the term of the day. Both German Idealism and postmodern Christianity share the essential feature of being reactions against Enlightenment thought. The fact that German Idealism is barely mentioned in the recently published Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology is an unfortunate consequence of the fate of relearning the lessons of the past for those who are not taught about the past.

In the summer of 1799 in Berlin, Friedrich Schleiermacher's On Religion hit the street. Animated as he was by the first serious reaction against the Enlightenment, by Rousseau and Kant, in the latter half of the 18th century, Schleiermacher drops the following denunciation of foundational Christian theology onto the Berlin scene.

[T]hose systematizers are less anxious to present the details of religion than to subordinate them one to the other, and to deduce them from a higher. Nothing is of less importance to religion, for it knows nothing of deducing and connecting. There is no single fact in it that can be called original and chief.

This is in the Second Speech of On Religion, a postmodern tirade against "systematizers of religion" that includes the constructive argument,

But while man does nothing from religion, he should do everything with religion. Uninterruptedly, like a sacred music, the religious feelings should accompany his active life... Were I to compare religion in this respect with anything it would be with music, which indeed is otherwise closely connected with it. Music is one great whole; it is a special, a self-contained revelation of the world.

Such language is clearly Rousseauean, which is consistent with the fact that Rousseau's reaction against Enlightenment thought caught hold much more in Germany in what became German Idealism, or German Romanticism, than it did in Rousseau's France. What is this reaction against the Enlightenment of Rousseau, Kant and German Idealism to which I refer incessantly?

Enlightenment thought can be broadly separated into three stages: Early Modern, Romantic and Postmodern Thought. (1) Early Modern thought is characterized by philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke and philosophical scientists such as Bacon, Newton and Leibniz. The early moderns sought to build modern thought on sure and solid ground - what some today call foundationalism. Hobbes built on the low ground of man's fear of death while Locke built on the only slightly higher ground of man's desire for property. These fundamental principles of nature were the beginning of a mechanistic process in which man rationally responds to these universal passions by erecting a society that protects life and property. Mechanism was a central principle in the science of the day, which served to buttress the mechanistic philosophy of Hobbes and Locke. (2) Rousseau was suspicious of this tidy move from nature to rational society. For Rousseau, the road from the state of nature was very long, and now nature is distant from us. To enter society, man traded nature for artifice. Bourgeois man is the result. Rousseau thus kicks open the basement door that leads beneath the foundation of early modern thought to reveal a second foundation, a second state of nature, one that is too far back in our past to reach. Rousseau's famous comment, "Man is free, and everywhere he is in chains" indicates the reaction against the Enlightenment that shaped the following 100 years of thought, particularly German Idealist thought which included numerous Christian ministers and leaders overlooked by today's seminaries. (3) Nietzsche launched the 2nd reaction against the Enlightenment with his attack on the existence of even the Romantic state of nature, and consequent rejection of the existence of a true world and thus any natural foundation for values or religion. The heirs of Nietzsche's reaction include Heidegger, Foucault and other postmodern thinkers, whom some in the emergent or postmodern Christian movement trace their lineage to. However, the nihilism of such thinkers is usually missed by well-meaning Christians eager to get a fresh perspective on Enlightenment thought by turning to contemporary postmodern thought. We Christians got a fresh perspective in Berlin from 1800-1850, and we lost it because our seminaries got distracted.

Back to 19th century Berlin. Schleiermacher's concern for "feeling" over against systematic theology can only be understood in this context of the history of thought in which he found himself and was immersed. The line from Rousseau to Schleiermacher is clear. That doesn't mean Schleiermacher is wrong, because most of the rest of Christian theology today is unknowingly continuing a line from the early moderns. Rousseau launched the first reaction against Enlightenment thought; German Idealism or Romanticism was the result; and for 50 years in Berlin an important period of Christian thought produced the likes of Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky, and numerous lesser writers and thinkers.

Briefly, Schleiermacher taught at the University of Berlin from 1809 until his death in 1834. On Religion was written, as the subtitle (Speeches to its Cultured Despisers) suggests, to the cultured despisers of religion, who were all Schleiermacher's friends in the Berlin circle of Romantic thinkers, including Schlegel, Schelling and Fichte. It was Schelling's lectures at the University of Berlin in 1842 where Soren Kierkegaard learned the history of modern philosophy. Kierkegaard would write his masterpiece, Fear and Trembling, on his second trip to Berlin a year later, and he returned throughout the 1840s to join the conversations of the German Idealists. German Idealism would go on to influence Russian thinkers, particularly via Ukrainian academies and Russians attending Berlin lectures, thanks to the 18th century openness to the West introduced by Peter and Catherine the Great. This formed the environment in which Dostoyevsky wrote in the 19th century.

Perhaps no Christian thinkers have responded to the structure and assumptions of Enlightenment thought better than Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky. They struggled to the death with the same issues that have been newly rediscovered by postmodern Christians: subjectivity vs objectivity, foundationalism, feelings vs systems. The Emergent movement of postmodern Christian thinkers would get a needed shot in the arm of substance were they to engage these predecessors in the conversation.

Comments

[djchuang]

Good thoughts! What little I've read and heard about the German theologians you mentioned seemed to give me an impression that they had been wrestling with at least some of the Gospel vs. culture issues, that's a part of this whole postmodern mix. I had been curious about Karl Barth, and what his contribution could be to the postmodern/emergent conversation, and am surprised to see his absence. And perhaps the lack of comments here is a case in point that the contemporary version of this similar conversation is not engaged historically -- though to their credit, they do try to reach a broader span of the historical church, beyond the myopic focus of the stereotypical evangelical church on a selective narrow reading of the Reformation.

[jen lemen]

there are plenty of barth fans in emerging church circles, especially among uk, nz and canadian emergers. of course, being a notorious name collector and dropper, i have no idea what this means, but my steel trap brain has collected the info just in case. :) (ah, input!)

[len]

And now I know why Kierkegaard has always appealed to me so greatly, and why a good friend of mine is bugging me to read more of his work :)

[Greg]

Len, after you've read some Kierkegaard you'll change your above post to say:

"And now I know why this friend of mine has always appealed to me so greatly, and why Kierkegaard is bugging me to read more of his work." ;-)

If anyone's interested, I wrote a post on my blog called "Postmoderns Ignore Kierkegaard at Their Own Peril." Here's the link:

http://suppliants.blogs.com/the_suppliants/2004/05/index.html

[toeke]

excellent examination of the roots of the issue. very informative.

youve inspired me to dust off some books and re-engage some ideas i havent considered for a long while. thanks. Ü

[Alan Corlew]

I am in complete agreement with Ken on this matter. I presented a paper at the SW Regional meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society a few years ago where I argued for Schleiermacher as the ignored historical antecedent of postmodernism. My masters thesis was on Schleiermacher's contextualization of Christianity within Romanticism and the significance of the that in the development of thought in the 19th and 20th centuries leading up to postmodernism.

[Jimmy Nerantzis]

Nuts and bolts, nut and bolts please, for my benefit. I came upon your site and was interested
in what I read. However, because I have not studied past philosophers, only knowing a bit of each, its hard for me to understand really what your needs are, and how these guys in the past seem to give you life and validation. It may seem to sound like I am being cynical, I am not, but I do notice an almost complete unsatisfaction
with things Christian. I know we all should be dissatisfied with any shallow teaching of scripture, but I find there are still some great thinkers bringing depth to Christain education.
I guess I'm sticking my neck out in this forum and in this postmodern community saying this, but
I read McLaren's book ,"A New Kind Of Christian",
and it disturbed me because I felt he was knocking everything...everything, but never offered anything in its place. He even admitted that in the book. Is that what postmodern's enjoy, someone who makes invalid, and wrong all the theology that has come down, and offers only a wish for something to get developed.
So, again, will you be real clear, and basic what self proclaimed postmodern Christians need.
Thank you for considering this.

Could you also comment on this please, because I'm not sure the answer. I have read quite a bit of Francis Schaeffer, and it is clear, rather, he is clear that he puts quite a bit of blame on the persons of Kierkegaard and Karl Barth for being instrumental in bringing about what he saw
as the problem with current intellectual thought and theology. He is serious. He repeats that from book to book.
What I'm confused about is, that Schaeffer seems to be one that many postmoderns love to read. So, I read some articles where Schaeffer is adored, then I read this website where Kierkegaard and Karl Barth are adored -I just don't get it.

Jimmy

[Mark Diebel]

Terrific post... I've said something similar to my friends... so it may be that this is in the air, so to speak.

I would add another to your list, "Perhaps no Christian thinkers have responded to the structure and assumptions of Enlightenment thought better than Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky. They struggled to the death with the same issues that have been newly rediscovered by postmodern Christians: subjectivity vs objectivity, foundationalism, feelings vs systems" and that is S.T. Coleridge.

Regards,

[blake]

i am interested that so many ppl have come across this site and i was just wondering is the factor that ties all of u to this one particulary site a college report on postmodernism

[Nic Nelson]

Um, Ken, you might want to delete the previous six comments, I don't think they are legit. Delete this one too while you're cleaning up.

Hey, a real question which I might email to you as well: How does an appreciation for the ecclesiastical calendar get along with German Idealism? Is it too much of a Mechanism, or would they embrace it as a continual out-living of salvation history, making it "ourstory"?

(that's obviously my own idiom-- I'd love to know how Schliermacher et. al. characterized the church year)

[Google Jobs]

Few Big,centre at chemical presence cell flow shape possibility joint car build indicate pay few extra fast surprise lady away distribution thing near assembly advice night half piece train end true vote dress point speak switch victory produce include remind ear one worry law male class fruit provision true for attach sorry whose match destroy sum motion client rain institute head pleasure read ground process future wash say protect file memory image policy past currently necessary prison funny morning young letter where much god actual cold transfer perform collect tree figure wing

[Tobblinny]

Hi, Just found this forum, I'm not sure if this is the place section to post this, I am Tom from Australia.