I've been fascinated with Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768—1834) for a decade, and was introduced to him through Karl Barth's criticisms of him that caused me to believe Schleiermacher was Barth's vanquished foe. Apart from Barth, I had read many condemnations of Schleiermacher as the heresiarch of Protestant Liberalism horrifically exemplified by Emil Brunner when he burned his collection of Schleiermacher books in his yard after publishing his critique Die Mystik und das Wort (1924). Barth's criticisms were harsh but never as reckless as Brunner and they included expressions of appreciation and admiration nested within his criticisms. In time, as I studied Barth more, I realized he appreciated Schleiermacher far more than I realized and Barth was not so dissimilar to Schleiermacher. As I arduously studied Schleiermacher's life and works, I eventually realized that Schleiermacher is among the greatest theologians in the history of the church, and has not truly been vanquished by Barth (or anyone else) afterall.

I was pleased and surprised to learn as I read Stephen D. Morrison's newest book Schleiermacher In Plain English that he had a similar experience in transitioning from a critic to an apologist as he studied this great Berliner. Morrison's "Schleiermacher" is not only an introduction to Schleiermacher but also an apologetic for Schleiermacher that is medicinal to anyone that does not yet appreciate and admire Friedrich Schleiermacher. The remainder of this post will be my review of Morrison's Schleiermacher In Plain English.

Unlearning Schleiermacher

Morrison begins his book with this quote from Schleiermacher: "The best that can be said of me is that I am not what they take me to be" [1]. This quote introduces and epitomises his book well, and it could have been added as a subtitle to the book too! If Schleiermacher had a life verse, it would be "they hated me without cause" (John 15:25) because not only is he misunderstood, Schleiermacher has been hated based upon misunderstandings too, both unintentional and intentional misunderstandings. In other words, Morrison is right that Schleiermacher has been plainly misunderstood. Morrison's book has a double strategy to help his readers understand Schleiermacher in plain english and is an apologetic to vindicate Schleiermacher from his bad reputation. I hope to see more books emulate this strategy in the future.

"My goal for this book is simple: I want to reevaluate Schleiermacher and come to a new understanding of his legacy, to show how vital his work is for theology today and how severe our loss whenever we ignore him. This will require not only the difficult task of understanding him rightly but of unlearning what we were once taught." —Stephen D. Morrison [2]

Morrison acknowledges that Karl Barth is largely to blame for tarnishing Schleiermacher's reputation and writes that "I hope to overcome the damage his critique has done to Schleiermacher's name." [3] In many ways, Morrison seeks to rehabilitate Schleiermacher from Barth's criticism in a similar way that David Congdon rehabilitated Rudolf Bultmann from Barth's criticisms—but in far less pages! I propose an alternate title for this book may be "Unlearning Schleiermacher" because we must unlearn the slanderous myths about Schleiermacher or else we will never benefit for his indispensable theological contributions to the church. Morrison suggests an alternative title might be "Surprised by Schleiermacher" in the spirit of C. S. Lewis [4]. Either way, Schleiermacher must be demythologized (or unlearned) so that we may truly learn and be surprised by the great Schleiermacher.

Features of Morrison's Schleiermacher

Schleiermacher in Plain English is the fourth book in Stephen D. Morrison's "In Plain English" series, preceded by his installments on Karl Barth, T. F. Torrance, and Jürgen Moltmann. As for the series, I was pleased that this book did not have the page long quotations that I complained about in all my previous reviews—a page of Schleiermacher is never understandable in plain english—and the book follows a similar format to the previous books in this series.

Morrison's book includes many Schleiermacher quotes that are illuminated with secondary scholarly quotes too. I appreciated that Morrison distinguishes between quotes that were helpful (e.g. Terrence Tice) and unhelpful (e.g. H. R. MacKintosh) by secondary scholars, demonstrating that Morrison not only strived to understand Schleiermacher but also understood and explained Schleiermacher scholarship too. Morrison's recommendations for reading this translation and not that translation for each of Schleiermacher's works (like the old and new editions of the Christian Faith) was quite useful (especially in the appendix listing Schleiermacher's works). I didn't realize that the old edition of the Christian Faith was written by Barthian critics and the new edition was written by sympathetic (and more fair) scholars. Now I have a pressing reason to finish reading the new translation of the Christian Faith.

Overall, the structure of the book is laid out consistently with the previous books; beginning with a biographical introduction to Schleiermacher (that was one of my favorite sections of the book), and then topical chapters followed by "sidebars" with relevant examples of Schleiermacher's theology. The bulk of the book is divided into two parts, the first long part is a survey of Schleiermacher's theology and the short second part is an assessment of Schleiermacher's major works available in english translation. The book ends with a glossary and reading plans for reading Schleiermacher's Christian Faith—beginning with the end first and reading it twice through!

Highlights from Morrison's Schleiermacher

Here are a few selections from Morrison's Schleiermacher In Plain English that I found particularly helpful. In addition to the following selections, I also recommend Morrison's summary of Schleiermacher's positions on universalism, resurrection, emphasis on the life of Jesus, and the Schleiermacher's concept of an 'eternal covenant' that explains the relationship between science and theology. Also, Morrison's criticism of Barth's view of Schleiermacher in the introduction, final chapter of Part I, and in the afterword were very good too—I wish Morrison had discussed Barth's criticism of Schleiermacher at length but such a topic deserves a book of its own.

Luther, Calvin and Schleiermacher on Election

In the first chapter on "Election, Community, and Grace", Morrison includes several bulleted lists of one-line answers from Luther, Calvin and Schleiermacher on various questions regarding the doctrine of election that was a surprising helpful and simple way to show how Schleiermacher's doctrine of election differs on questions of "Who are the elect?", "What is death's role in election?", "Is salvation universal or particularist?" etc.

Here is an example from the book:

Who are the elect? LUTHER: Those whose faith God has foreseen.

CALVIN: Those preordained to election due to God's good pleasure.

SCHLEIERMACHER: All humanity. Who are the reprobate? LUTHER: Those who resist faith.

CALVIN: Those preordained to reprobation.

SCHLEIERMACHER: Temporarily, those not yet regenerated. Eternally, no one. [5]

Sadly, these useful Q&A were not used throughout the book, and didn't include Barth responses; nevertheless, it was helpful for understanding Schleiermacher's doctrine of election and I hope Morrison employs them (and other diagrams) more often in his future books.

A Proper Introduction to Schleiermacher

Morrison argues most people are introduced to Schleiermacher through selections from his On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (especially the second speech) and the Introduction to the Christian Faith that do not represent Schleiermacher's maturest theological work and this causes Schleiermacher to be (intentionally?) mistaken for a philosopher instead of a theologian. I agree that these selections alone do not represent Schleiermacher well because they are dissimilar to the subsequent bulk of the Christian Faith that contain his theological writings. Also, Morrison is right that these selections favor the earlier Schleiermacher, because On Religion is one of Schleiermacher's earliest works too.

On of the major causes behind misreading Schleiermacher is an overemphasis on the Introduction to and Part One of Christian Faith. Theology students are commonly introduced to Schleiermacher by reading the second speech of On Religion and these early sections from Christian Faith, but this presupposes that the most essential elements of Schleiermacher's theology are contained in these sections. That is just not true, and in Schleiermacher's own day, he regularly argued against such a reading. [6]

Morrison is proven correct by going into any used book store and observing that Schleiermacher's On Religion is the only Schleiermacher book to be found (if any at all). At the end of the book, Morrison provides an alternate reading plan for Schleiermacher that is an improved introduction to Schleiermacher. Ultimately, the sad truth is that to understand Schleiermacher, one has to read the Christian Faith at least twice (as Morrison said and has done), and I admit that Schleiermacher is the most difficult theologian I've ever read—even more challenging than Karl Barth. Perhaps the real barrier to Schleiermacher is that his genius is too much for common person to comprehend. Rejecting Schleiermacher because he is too hard to read is an unacceptable and anti-intellectual conclusion. Understanding Schleiermacher is like understanding Einstein—it can be done but only through hard labor and scholarly assistance—so Schleiermacher's vindication among the common people may have to wait for more people (like Morrison) to simplify Schleiermacher in plain english.

Schleiermacher's Appendix on the Trinity

Another reason many do not read Schleiermacher is due to unfair criticism of Schleiermacher, and the iconic example of this petty criticism is the dismissal of Schleiermacher for ending the Christian Faith with a short chapter on the trinity, as if the trinity was a dispensable appendix. Morrison argues that Schleiermacher is a thoroughly trinitarian theologian and that Schleiermacher concludes his Christian Faith with a chapter on the Trinity because it is the "copestone" (i.e. keystone) of his entire Christian Faith [7]. (Paul Tillich criticized Karl Barth for beginning recklously with the Trinity in the Church Dogmatics, without laying the foundation like Schleiermacher.)[8]

Morrison corrects this petty criticism with an effective analogy of a pyramid to explain how the concluding chapter on the trinity in the Christian Faith is not a dispensable appendix, but a test case and culmination of Schleiermacher's entire theology. According to Morrison, the trinity forms the peak of the pyramid, and the Introduction to the Christian Faith is the broad beginning that serves to show where Schleiermacher's theology fits broadly within the greater landscape of philosophy and the sciences (and not as a foundation).

Why did Schleiermacher place the doctrine of the Trinity in the conclusion of his dogmatics? Schleiermacher's Christian Faith may be thought of as a pyramid. The beginning sections—the infamous Introduction and Part One—are the most abstract, the broadest. Although, unlike a pyramid, these sections do not establish a foundation for the rest of the construction, but rather, these are the boundary lines that must be set before the proper work of dogmatics can be done. In fact, the pyramid is upside down. The peak or culmination of the work is its true foundation and basis, that which holds the whole project together. . . . By placing the doctrine of the Trinity in the Conclusion of his dogmatics, Schleiermacher is not attempting to downplay its significance but, on the contrary, to highlight its validity. [9]

Morrison strengthens his argument that Schleiermacher was a trinitarian theologian with his "Sidebar: Sabellius Reconsidered" (1822) that he calls an "unofficial postscript to his dogmatics" [10]. After finishing the Christian Faith, Schleiermacher wrote An Essay on the Trinity (1822) that was a reevaluation of early third century heresiarch Sabellius, and therefore this essay was the true trinitarian appendix to the Christian Faith. This Sabellian sidebar was the best sidebar in the book, and the side bars on "Eternal Life" and on "Scripture" were quite good too. I will defer the reader to read this sidebar and conclude whether Morrison is correct in concluding that Schleiermacher is a thoroughly trinitarian theologian.

Schleiermacher and Barth

Barth is a notorious critic of Schleiermacher (but not a Brunner book burner). Barth criticized and admired Schleiermacher; Barth said it was "historical truth" that "he [Schleiermacher] did not found a school, but an era." [11]. Throughout his works, Barth frequently reminisces upon Schleiermacher's life and theological works. Many times, Barth declares that Schleiermacher was a believing Christian and justifies this by retelling the story how "Schleiermacher wanted to celebrate the Holy Communion" [12], to which Barth remarked "Ultimately we can only believe that Schleiermacher, too, was a Christian theologian; that, I repeat, is something he has in common with Luther and Calvin and (lest it be forgotten!), upon the lower plane, with all of us." [13].

Morrison includes his own example of Barth's appreciation of Schleiermacher that led him to appreciate Schleiermacher (as I have). Morrison retells a story of when Barth was singing a psalm or hymn in Bonn with some students, he found a bust of Schleiermacher in the rubble and then put him in a rightful place of honor. We all would benefit by responding to Schleiermacher in this way.

The restoration of Schleiermacher's statue to its rightful place of honor is an ironic testimony to Barth's own contribution to Schleiermacher-studies. We could not accurately describe Barth as either an enemy or an ally of Schleiermacher's theology, but this ambiguity does not negate Barth's steadfast conviction about Schleiermacher's significance. In his own way, Barth's massive influence has resulted in a revival of interest in Schleiermacher. I can personally attest to be being among those brought to Schleiermacher because of Barth. [14].

Morrison's experience with Schleiermacher, also describes my own. Morrison also argues through a Terrence Tice quote that Barth's criticism of Schleiermacher leads to a revival in Schleiermacher scholarship, and I agree! (Morrison's has caused me to read more Terrence Tice).

Karl Barth wrote a lengthy chapter on Friedrich Schleiermacher in his Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Morrison does not cite it, but it is an insightful summary of Barth's view of Schleiermacher. I agree with Morrison's opinion that Barth primarily addressed his criticism against Schleiermacher's On Religion, and the Introduction and Part I of the Christian Faith, but Barth also acknowledges that Schleiermacher was a Christian theologian based this assessment upon the later bulk of the Christian Faith as well:

"The standpoint of the Schleiermacher who later, from Paragraph 32 onwards, was to present the Christian faith, is different from that of the Schleiermacher who in Paragraphs 1-31 is explaining what the Christian faith and teaching of the Christian faith can and should be about." —Karl Barth [15]

Criticisms of Morrison's Schleiermacher

Morrison's Schleiermacher in Plain English begins strong and ends strong, but the middle to later chapters—especially his survey of Schleiermacher's works in Part II—may have covered more material and in the same amount of words or less. Morrison understands how hard it is to read Schleiermacher, and that it is an impossible task to explain Schleiermacher In Plain English. The book would have been improved by having more diagrams and bulleted lists (like the ones in the chapter on election) throughout and other mechanisms to simplify Schleiermacher's massive genius. I've read the books he summarized, and I wish that Morrison had included more specific examples from these books that showed Schleiermacher's genius to inspire readers to read them.

Morrison does a good job explaining Schleiermacher's famous phrase "an absolute feeling of dependance" but he does not do a good job of explaining the origin of feeling as a dialectic between knowing and doing. In the beginning of the Christian Faith, Schleiermacher explains that the synthesis of knowing and doing is feeling, feeling is identified with piety, and so forth. I was surprised that there wasn't a detailed analysis of these selections from Introduction and Part I, but I understand that Morrison wanted to introduce Schleiermacher in a better way and focus on other selections instead.

Morrison says that the introduction to the Christian Faith is "infamous" [16] but doesn't give a sufficient explanation why it is infamous and doesn't summarize it's contents. I agree that this introduction to the Christian Faith does not represent Schleiermacher's later more developed theology, but this introduction is what fascinated me and caused me to be infatuated with Schleiermacher at first and it drove me to complete the impossible task of reading the entire Christian Faith. Morrison does a good job of explaining the speeches in On Religion in detail, and I think the book would have been better with a similar analysis of the beginning of the Christian Faith because it would have helped Morrison's argument that Schleiermacher was a Christian theologian and not merely a philosopher. Perhaps the best way he could have done it was to expand his pyramid analogy to cover this material in detail.

Morrison is rather quick to argue that Schleiermacher affirmed the resurrection as the one and only one true miracle, and he appeals to the Life of Jesus as proof. I read this excellent (and undervalued) book, and Schleiermacher's concluding statements about the resurrection are second hand reconstructions of Schleiermacher's lecture notes and it was published posthumously. Morrison quotes Schleiermacher's distressing letter to his father that describes his doubts about the resurrection at the beginning of the book, and I agree that it was an early moment of doubt and weakness does not prove that Schleiermacher denied the resurrection his whole life (the early Schleiermacher had his doubts about it, but doubt is a form of faith); yet I disagree that the Life of Jesus proves that Schleiermacher affirmed the bodily resurrection of Jesus. In the book, Morrison explains that Schleiermacher emphasized upon the whole life of Jesus, and not just the passion narratives or resurrection of Jesus, and this may also signify Schleiermacher's appreciate for a realized eschatology (especially considering how Schleiermacher favored the gospel of John over the synoptics) or betray his doubts about the resurrection as well. Who knows? The problem is that there are many evangelicals that use this or that theological doctrine as litmus test for orthodoxy, and if you fail then be damned. I admit that Morrison may be correct about Schleiermacher though based upon his hilarious criticism of evangelicals that "talk about Jesus in such a way that He might as well have been born and died the very next day, and the Gospel would remain the same. Schleiermacher's refocusing of redemption back onto the life of the Redeemer is a helpful step forward beyond this reductionistic presentation." [17].

As for the Trinity, I agree with Morrison that the final chapter is not a dispensable appendix, but this is hard to prove. I agree that Schleiermacher was trinitarian in the sense that the Apostles' Creed is trinitarian (without mentioning the trinity), especially in Schleiermacher's description of Jesus as having a unique and unparalleled feeling of absolute dependence, but I doubt that Schleiermacher is trinitarian in the sense of unquestioning loyalty to the later formulas for the trinity and christology including the Nicea, Chalcedon and Athanasian creeds (which Morrison admits too). Schleiermacher may represent and vindicate the early form of Jewish Christianity (i.e. pre-Greek or non-Greek) that precedes the centuries later Greek symbols and Latin decrees from ecumenical councils.

Lastly, there have been some surprising ancient reformers who have appreciated and admired Schleiermacher. Most notably was Charles Hodge, who abandoned his family in America for two years so that he may visit Friedrich Schleiermacher in Europe, and sat at his family table and sang hymns. Evangelicalism is derivative of Charles Hodge's theology, so I believe Hodge is one of many surprising witnesses to the greatness of Schleiermacher that may ultimately prove Morrison's thesis is correct—that Schleiermacher is not a villain but a Church theological doctor.

A Concluding Remark

Even with my lengthy criticism, Stephen D. Morrison's Schleiermacher In Plain English is an excellent book and I highly recommend reading it. It was very difficult to put the book down, and it revived my love for Schleiermacher. I also love that Stephen Morrison is self-published and how he skilfully cuts through and bypasses the hubris of publishing theology books in the academic world today. So buy a copy and buy a copy for a friend to support Stephen Morrison and to encourage him to keep writing more books in the In Plain English series.

Sources:

1. Stephen D. Morrison, Schleiermacher In Plain English. Introduction. (Beloved Publishing LLC: Columbus. April 2, 2019). p. vii.

2. Morrison. Ibid. p. vii.

3. Morrison. Ibid. p. vi.

4. Morrison. Ibid. p. xi

5. Morrison. Ibid. p. 6.

6. Morrison. Ibid. p. 87.

7. Morrison. Ibid. pp. p33-34.

8. Paul Tillich, Perspectives on 19th and 20th Century Protestant Theology.

9. Morrison. Ibid. pp. 32-33.

10. Morrison. Ibid. p. 41.

11. Karl Barth, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century, p. 411.

12. Barth. Ibid. p. 418.

13. Barth. Ibid. p. 418.

14. Morrison. Ibid. p. 120.

15. Barth. Ibid. p. 427.

16. Morrison. Ibid. pp. 32-33.

17. Morrison. Ibid. p. 76.