Abstract
Friedrich Schleiermacher frequently lectured on what he referred to as his “theological encyclopedia,” but apparently, he did not leave a manuscript of these lectures. What we do possess are student notes, and while they are not always reliable, they are more than sufficient to help us understand his conception of theology. S. was not the first theologian to formulate a theological encyclopedia; however, what he published was not entitled Theologische Enzyklopädie, but Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studiums (Brief Outline of Theological Study). The Brief Outline was published first in 1811, with a second edition in 1830. In the Kritische Gesamtausgabe of S.’s works, the Brief Outline is found in volume six of the series devoted to S.’s writings (I/6); this book is volume two in the series containing his lectures (II/2). A comparison of the two Kritische Gesamtausgabe volumes shows that they cover much of the same material, yet the lectures are much fuller and somewhat easier to understand.
The lectures have three goals: (1) to introduce students to the formal and abstract part of theology, (2) to introduce them to the material and empirical part of theology, and (3) to show how theology ought to be studied. The lectures are divided into three main parts: (1) philosophical theology, (2) historical theology, and (3) practical theology. There are two sets of lectures: one from 1816/17, and the other from 1831/32; and while S. covered the three parts in each lecture series, he did so in different ways. As an example, in the 1816/17 lecture series, the section on practical theology is divided into a two-part “theory” of church organization, whereas in the 1831/32 series, S. discusses practical theology in terms of “principles” (Grundsätze). Perhaps, the difference derives from a realization at the conclusion of the earlier lectures that theory alone is insufficient, and that practical experience and historical knowledge are necessary as well to do justice to the material.
Philosophical theology is concerned with the essence of Christianity, but this essence cannot be discovered through speculation or by empirical means; rather, it can only be found by understanding Christianity’s history. However important philosophical theology and practical theology are, S. maintains that historical theology should be the largest and the most developed part of theology. Historical theology covers both the beginning and the development of Christianity, and it has two areas of focus: the history of dogma, and the history of the church. Only by understanding both histories together can students understand the present and prepare for the future. S. shares this emphasis on history with Hegel, but unlike him, S. sees history as living, and not as a reflection of “Reason.” That is also why S. stresses the different dogmatic epochs; dogma is not eternal but is a “living principle” (183). He warns that a lack of concern with the “living present” reduces dogma to “a dead letter” (225). This also explains why he referred to his own doctrine as a “doctrine of belief” (Glaubenslehre) instead of a “dogmatics” (202). Similarly, he insists that the church is more than a formal institution; it is also a living community.
One of the most thought-provoking discussions is S.’s differentiation between church and state in the second lecture series. Earlier he had argued that a state is simply the opposition between those who rule and those who are ruled. Here he expands upon this: both church and state are community institutions, but the state is inherently inegalitarian because it is comprised of those in authority and those who are compelled to obey by threat of force. In contrast, the church is opposed to force and is inherently egalitarian. This distinction reflects S.’s growing interest in the philosophy of law as well as his emphasis on equality in Protestantism. In other places, he discusses the significant differences between Protestantism and Catholicism, but here he is silent about the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Although he accuses the Catholics of making errors, he insists “Protestantism is not comprehensible without Catholicism” (212).
These lectures are as thoughtful and stimulating now as they probably were when S. first gave them. They show his attention to detail, and his concern for clarity; moreover, they add to our understanding of his conception of theology. S. insisted “The theologian is a Christian”; but he also said “No one is a better Christian because he is a theologian” (48, 8). That he lectured on the notion of a “theological encyclopedia” almost a dozen times indicates the importance that he attributed to it. These lectures provide a clear idea of what he thought a theology student should know, and anyone wishing to gain a richer sense of S.’s conception of theology should read them carefully.