Friedrich Schleiermacher

Nineteenth century Christian thought about self and relationality was stamped by the reception of Kant’s groundbreaking revision to the Cartesian cogito. For René Descartes (1596-1650), the self is a thinking thing (res cogitans), a simple substance retaining its unity and identity over time. For Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), on the other hand, consciousness is not a substance but an ongoing activity having a double constitution, or two moments: first, the original activity of consciousness, what Kant would call original apperception, and second, the reflected self, the “I think” as object of reflection. Both are essential to the possibility of an awareness of a unified experience. Such an awareness is achieved only insofar as the self is capable of reflecting on its activity of thinking. As such, the possibility of self-consciousness, or the capacity to reflect on one’s own acts of thought is essential to the constitution of the self. This new model of the mind became the starting point to the thought of central 19th century figures such as Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), J. G. Fichte (1762-1814), Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) and Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). This chapter will explore their reception of Kant’s model of self-consciousness, the controversies surrounding its development and exposition, and the advantages of this model for theological reflection. The idea of mind as essentially capable of reflection provided an account of how the self can stand in an ontologically immediate relation to God constitutive of the self, while at the same time allowing that the self’s consciousness of itself is distinct from this original moment, so that a limited or false consciousness of self is possible. As such the task of the self is to recognize (that is, to realize in and through self-consciousness) who it most truly is, both in relation to God, and in relation to self and other.

A few years ago, WWJD was all the rage in Christian circles. What would Jesus do? was the question, so I asked the follow-up - About what? What would be so important for Jesus to do today?

Of course, everyone has an idea - that's the whole point of doing a christology (making Jesus our contemporary to justify our behaviors as if Jesus were offering commentary on our world today). It almost sound silly to put it that way, but that's what theology is - silly sometimes.

And everyone serious has/had an opinion about what Jesus would do today and about what - including H. Richard Niebuhr and Karl Barth to Albert Schweitzer and Friedrich Schleiermacher (to name a few classic heavyweights). And I had to name them because this paper is a lecture I gave at Elmhurst College (the home of Niebuhr papers and once-upon-a-time college president Reinhold Niebuhr himself.

It's among several pieces I put together while exploring the possibility of doing (another) christology - this time with some contemporary seriousness (see the questions about Jesus' gender, for example, suggested toward the close of the lecture).

People (students, that is... and students are people too)  loved it - but publishers wouldn't give me a second look. Their loss...

This paper traces the roots of the modern hard line materialist evolutionism which appears to be taking control of the universities globally and the withdrawal of some Christian groups from the arena of public discourse to the realm of spiritual “certainty”. This “old old story” originates already in the Enlightenment debate between the Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant. In opposition to the dualisms entertained by beginning with conceptual knowledge or beginning with empirical knowledge, the position of Rudolf Schleiermacher
is re-envisaged. For him, the human being, as the locus of both conceptual and empirical knowledge, is the source of meaning which requires and transcends both. The paper explores the implications of this for the critical role of the Humanities in the university in general and theology in particular in the light of the social construction of reality.

Este artigo tem o intento de compreender o desenvolvimento, em Friedrich Schleiermacher, não apenas de uma análise filosófica da religião, mas, a partir de um olhar que abrange sua primeira obra filosófica e a última teológica, uma religião filosoficamente desenvolvida. Para isto, a princípio, ocorrerá uma análise de seu exame filosófico da religião, cujo intento é compreender o que vem a ser a essência religiosa do ser humano, desenvolvido na obra, “Sobre a Religião”, com um foco maior, todavia, no segundo discurso, que expõe a metodologia utilizada e o conteúdo, propriamente dito, da essência religiosa, que é definida como intuição e sentimento do Universo. Como ponto intermediário, entre o estudo do “Sobre a Religião” e o desenvolvimento teológico posterior, haverá a análise donde Schleiermacher derivou as bases para sua estrutura epistemológica e ontológica a partir de dois pontos essenciais: o “chão transcendental”, que servirá como objeto da intuição (o que, posteriormente, Schleiermacher vai modificar) e agente causativo do sentimento, e o nível mais elevado de consciência humana, que será desenvolvido como o “sentimento de absoluta dependência”. Todavia, como dito acima, Schleiermacher não permanece na análise filosófica da religião, mas, levando as bases e as consequências desta análise para dentro do cristianismo, re-estrutura as doutrinas essenciais desta religião, na obra Fé Cristã, com explícita exposição de seu ponto de partida na Introdução desta obra como sendo a “consciência de dependência absoluta”, que, por ele, é definida como estar em um relacionamento com Deus, ou, conceitualmente, também conhecido como piedade.

The article compares the doctrine of election in the theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher, particularly his magisterial essay on the topic from 1819, and the theology of Karl Barth between 1920 and 1925. It argues that both positions are strikingly similar, in regard to both their critical evaluation of the tradition and their constructive proposals for a new foundation. Both theologians offer a theocentric reassessment that shuns the particularism of previous approaches and affirms the unity of the divine will. Schleiermacher defends the Augustinian-Calvinist view of election as a bulwark against Manichaeism and Pelagianism. Still, he criticizes the idea of eternal damnation and argues that the concept of reprobation instead should be understood as a temporal ‘passing over’. The kingdom of God is realized gradually, not in one instant. Similarly, for Barth predestination is not a pre-temporal decree that divides human beings into two separate groups of persons but is actualized ever anew in history, when God’s address entails the miracle of faith through the work of the Holy Spirit. The twofold possibility of faith and unbelief is constitutive for the human encounter with God, and it concerns believers and unbelievers alike, since no person is forever exclusively elect or reprobate. Barth also insists that the relation between reprobation and election is non-dualistic and teleological: predestination is a movement from reprobation to election, and never the other way around. The ultimate goal is salvation.

"Abstract:
This paper argues that Terrence Malick’s film The Tree of Life can be read as a post-religious film that offers its audience an experience of the “beyond” of the non-cinematic real. In order to make this argument, the paper employs Schleiermacher’s concept of religious experience as the beyond of human existence, experienced in moments of openness to the infinite-divine otherwise blocked in the natural state of finite human being. In western culture, cinematic experience is enclosed within the apparatus of melodrama, serving a quasi-religious function by offering audiences an amelioration of human existence in a world from which God has withdrawn. Hollywood melodrama subjectifies the audiences’ belief in the moral good within the mythic presentation of a world defined by ideals of historical progress linked to the power of industrialised capitalism and the nation state. The cinematic real is simply this reality presented as an experience of an ameliorated state of being unfolding in the film melodrama itself. Terrence Malick’s film The Tree of Life breaks with the apparatus of melodrama, and opens into the non-cinematic-real – the nothing of the cinematic world opened up by the film breaching its own framework. My reading will show how The Tree of Life presents human life as an evolved way of being blocked in a masculinised mode in mid-twentieth century America. The film releases this blocked way of being through the unwilling of the will of masculinised power, shown in visions of nature as the “beyond” of the cinematic real. These visions of nature, appearing through cracks in the film frame, enable the feminine way of being, otherwise blocked by the masculine will to power, to lead the way into the beyond of the non-cinematic real.

Key terms: Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life, post-religious film, Schleiermacher, film melodrama.

""

ABSTRACT:

Karl Barth is perhaps most clearly differentiated from Friedrich Schleiermacher when the two are compared in the context of their unphilosophical vs. philosophical soteriology. They each seek to answer the core question, ‘How can we be saved?’ but in radically different ways.

Schleiermacher’s answer is plainly philosophical. He argues that redemption is a ‘sense and taste for the Infinite’ where redemption takes place in the coincidence of opposites (coincidentia oppositorum) when the Infinite (the Whole) and the finite (the individual) participate in Christ’s perfect God-consciousness. Romantic rhetoric, i.e., the ‘feeling of absolute dependence,’ also enters into this Neoplatonic-panentheistic construct when the individual relates to God as a redemptive contact. Thus Schleiermacher’s soteriology is romantic, Neoplatonic and subjectively Christocentric, and is thus philosophized.

On the other hand, Barth is decidedly unphilosophical. He seeks to erase all philosophical tenets from his theology, in particular rooting it out of his entire soteriological structure in the process. For Barth, redemption is not Schleiermacher’s fulfillment of the coincidentia oppositorum where God is ‘the whole’. God is instead the ‘Wholly Other’; it is Immanuel who fulfills the covenant and reconciles God and human beings. Barth holds that redemption is grounded objectively ‘in Christ by Christ,’ not in romantic rhetoric or existential or subjective experience. The whole redemptive process is concentrated in Christ the electing God and the elected or rejected man, not in romanticized philosophy. Barth’s soteriology is objectively Christocentric and thus unphilosophized.

Through the comparative study, theological strengths and weaknesses of subjectively philosophized soteriology and objectively unphilosophized soteriolgy will be beneficially appeared.

한글 초록:

본고는 철학적 구원론과 비철학적 구원론의 맥락 속에서 칼 바르트와 프리드리히 슐라이어마허의 구원론의 차이점을 대비시키는데 목적을 두고 있다. 바르트와 슐라이어마허는 ‘우리가 어떻게 구원에 이를 수 있는가’라는 질문에 대해 극명히 다른 대답을 내놓았다.

이 질문에 대한 슐라이어마허의 답변은 대단히 철학적이었다. 슐라이어마허에게 구원은 그리스도의 완전한 신의식에 참여함을 통해 유한이 무한을 느끼고 맛보는 지점에서 일어나는데 이는 극단과 극단이 만나는 구원론적 일치점이다. 유한이 무한과 만나는 구원론적 일치점은 신플라톤주의-만유재신론적 구조 속에서 낭만주의적 ‘절대 의존 감정’으로 이루어진다. 그러므로 슐라이어마허의 구원론은 낭만주의적-신플라톤주의적-주관적 구원론이므로 철학적 구원론이다.

이와 반대로 바르트의 구원론은 명백히 비철학적 구원론이다. 바르트는 구원론 내에 서려 있는 철학적 요소들을 최대한 제거하려고 노력했다. 바르트의 구원론은 유한과 무한이 만나는 일치점이 아니었는데 그 이유는 바르트에게 하나님은 ‘전적 타자’였기 때문이다. 바르트의 구원론은 하나님과 인간 사이에서 벌어진 ‘그리스도를 통한, 그리스도 안에서의’ 임마누엘 그 자체였다. 이는 낭만주의적 수사도 아니며 실존적, 혹은 주관적 느낌 및 경험도 아니었다. 오히려 바르트의 구원론은 홀로 선택되고 동시에 홀로 유기되는 그리스도에게만 집중된 그리스도-중심주의 구원론이다. 그러므로 바르트의 구원론은 지나치게 객관적으로 비철학화된 구원론이다.

이런 비교 탐구를 통해 주관주의적 철학적 구원론과 객관주의적 비철학적 구원론의 신학적 장단점과 기여점을 살펴볼 수 있는 유익이 있다.

The historical overview covering Schleiermacher
and the disciplinary status of translational hermeneutics was
written by Cercel, the sections on important concepts and research
within the paradigm of translational hermeneutics was
authored by Stolze, and Stanley wrote the last three sections
dealing with language games, a concrete research project and
the role of phenomenology in research. The text was geared
towards providing some background information on translational
hermeneutics, a field which has bearing not only on the
practice of translation but also on research in TS. From the
vantage point of translational hermeneutics, research in translation
studies takes its point of departure from the translator’s
perspective: The guiding question is one centered on how a
translator deals with the texts he or she has to translate.

The article analyzes the concept of universal salvation-apokatastasis in the thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher especially with reference to his early Speeches on Religion and the later treatise The Christian Faith. It moves from Schleiermacher's understanding of religion per se to his soteriological and eschatological theories. He understands the nature of religion as the feeling-intuition of the Infinite and points to a certain aspect of mystery, which religion contains. He rejects in the Speeches on Religion the anthropomorphic understanding of God and speaks of God-Universum. In the treatise Christian Faith, he reinterprets the theological concept of original sin and depravation, and points to a natural process of development of humankind from Godless-consciousness to God-consciousness. From the Protestant-reformed tradition, Schleiermacher adopts the concept of predestination. However, he rejects the so-called "double predestination" of salvation and condemnation. According to him, all people are chosen to be saved "in Christ". This way, Schleiermacher continues the Reformed tradition, however, he understands the election in universal categories. He rejects God, who chooses for salvation only some people, but accepts God-Universum, who maintains the unity of creation and leads people to perfect communion. This drives the German thinker to universalistic beliefs. In the convictions pointing to the final unity of humankind, Schleiermacher exposes his deep humanism. He assumes that it is impossible to reconcile the traditional view of eternal hell with God's love. Divine punishment can serve as an aspect of overall paidagogia, leading to the maturing of humanity. However, it cannot be understood as retribution, based on God’s wrath and cruel lex talionis. Such an understanding of God is for Schleiermacher unacceptable. Understanding soteriology in these terms, Schleiermacher refers to the apokatastatic tradition of the Church Fathers and the classical concept of apokatastasis. In the modern context, he continues and develops the personal aspect of apokatastasis, but also—through his affinities to the thought of Spinoza—draws near to its macroscale, cosmological form.

This paper was presented at the Ratzinger Symposium on The Gospels: Christological and Historical Research, held at the Lateran University in October 2013 (draft). It is published in  The Gospels: History and Christology; the Search of Joseph Ratzinger—Benedict XVI, Vol. 2 (eds. Bernardo Estrada, Ermenegildo Manicardi, Armand Puig I Tarrech; Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2013), 63-81. The second link has the original printing, just posted on the GFU Digital Commons Website.

"ABSTRACT:
    This study assumes the subject's pursuit of meaning is generally incapacitating and should be suspended. It aims to demonstrate how such a suspension is theoretically accomplished by utilizing Lacan's formulae of sexuation integrated with his work in discourse theory and topology.
    Part I places this study into context by examining scholarship from the established fields of hermeneutics, phenomenology, (post)structuralism, aesthetic theory and psychoanalysis in order to extract out their respective theory of meaning. These theories reveal that an historical struggle with meaning has been underway since the Reformation and reaches near crisis proportions in the 20th century. On the one hand this crisis is mollified by the rise of Heideggerian-Gadamerian hermeneutical phenomenology which questions traditional epistemological approaches to the text using a new ontological conceptualization of meaning and a conscious rejection of methodology. On the other hand this crisis is exacerbated when the ubiquitous nature of meaning is itself challenged by (post)structuralism's discovery of the signifier which inscribes a limit to meaning, and by the domains of sense and nonsense newly opened up by aesthetic theory. These historical developments culminate in the field of psychoanalysis which most consequentially delimits a cause of meaning said to be closely linked to the core of subjectivity.
    Part II extends these findings by rigorously constructing out of the Lacanian sexuated formulae a decidedly non-hermeneutical phenomenological approach useful in demonstrating the sexual nature of meaning. Explicated in their static state by way of an account of their original derivation from the Aristotelian logical square, it is argued that these four formulae are relevant to basic concerns of textual theory inclusive of the hermeneutical circle of meaning. These formulae are then set into motion by integrating them with Lacan's four discourses to demonstrate the breakdown of meaning. Finally, the cuts and sutures of two-dimensional space that is topology as set down in L'étourdit are performed to confirm how the very field of meaning is ultimately suspended from a nonsensical singular point known in Lacanian psychoanalysis as objet a. The contention is that by occupying this point the subject frees himself from the debilitating grip of meaning."

Teresa Seruya & José Miranda Justo, Editors --
This volume is organised in two sections. The first is dedicated to theoretical issues and the second to practical research. The theoretical issues range from the contextualisation and interpretation of Schleiermacher’s lecture to themes which include the relations with the functional approach, hybridity of authorship. The section on practical research reunites a great variety of working directions ranging from case studies in the field of literary translation, or the transposition of literature into cinema, to cognitive-oriented research, topics of cultural resistance and translation into minor languages.
(This book was made available at the following website: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-662-47949-0.pdf)

"Exoteric Teaching” is arguably one of the most important finds among the Leo Strauss papers. As his first attempt at an explanation of the controversial concept of “exotericism” in general terms, the fragment enables the reader to cast a unique glance at the genesis of Strauss’s hermeneutics. Its peculiar approach distinguishes the essay, which was written in December 1939, not only from its next of kin, “Persecution and the Art of Writing,” but from most other studies, written and published mainly during the 1940s, in which Strauss applied his thesis of exoteric writing: While the main subjects of these articles are writers from the Jewish and Islamic Middle Ages, “Exoteric Teaching” takes a different route by presenting the issue exclusively from what may loosely be called a Western perspective - focusing especially on Lessing and Schleiermacher.

The 18th century was the era of the Enlightenment. The Western world went through new episodes, and the emphasis shifted to human reason. The growing influence of modern science encouraged many theologians and philosophers to new reflections on faith. The liberal theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher was one of them. Today, he is considered one of the main founders of liberal theology. In this essay I will discuss his ideas, and how these related to the traditional dogmas of 19th century Protestantism.

Kosmos und Subjektivität – dieses Begriffspaar stellt sogleich einen Antagonismus vor, denn Subjektivität konstituiert sich alleine im irreduziblen Bruch mit der kosmischen Einheit. Gegen Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts kommt es zu diesem Bruch, der sich durch ein Ineinanderwirken von wissenschaftlichen, philosophischen und ästhetischen Diskursen auszeichnet. Als entscheidender Schritt dieser Entwicklung, so die These der Untersuchung, lässt sich die Frühromantik verstehen: Sie insistiert zum einen auf dem Bruch mit der tradierten Vorstellung des Kosmos und entdeckt darin die Möglichkeitsbedingung moderner Subjektivität. Zum anderen hat sie die Erfahrung einer solchen Destruktion noch zur Voraussetzung ihrer eigenen Poetik.

After researching Tillich’s life and reading a portion of his works it is unmistakeable that he tends to leave his philosophical-theology open-ended. It is for this reason, I believe, that many have trouble understanding him. Tillich’s book The Shaking of Foundations clearly establishes his existential understandings for his audience. In fact, in the preface he writes, “Many of my students and friends outside the Seminary have told me of the difficulty they have met in trying to penetrate my theological thought.”4 To rightly understand Tillich, one must understand the full scope of who he is, his experiences, and worldview. Obviously, this is true of most people but especially with Tillich for example, one cannot sit down and read The Courage to Be and walk away better acquainted with his philosophy.

I will argue that it was his time as a German Chaplain on the frontline of the First World War that shaped his existential worldview laying the foundation for his philosophical-theology of what many label as 'universal salvation'.

Translation negotiates otherness. Hence, otherness can be regarded as a central component of the translation process. Moreover, via disciplines, such as philosophy and anthropology, otherness in the last two decades has entered Western theories and studies of translation and become an important analytical and normative category in the field of translation studies. Nevertheless, there is an apparent lack of research considering the concept itself as well as its history and current use in the field and its relevance for the practice of translation. This book can be regarded as a first attempt to fill this gap. It reconsiders the translation theories currently known as ‘foreignizing’ and shows that some of these draw on the same nationalist agenda that they try to transcend. Moreover, the ensuing case study proves that current translation practice is still governed by a nationalist assurance of linguistic and cultural differences. This book therefore concludes by calling for a change of perspective in the theoretical and practical approaches to translation. Translation should no longer be regarded as a means of delimiting our selves from a national other, but as a way to uncover the otherness underlying these alleged selves.

Yerlileştirme ve yabancılaştırma çeviri stratejilerine değinen ilk çeviribilimci Schleiermacher’in görüşlerini ve  Romantik akımın çevirinin yabancılaştırılarak aktarılması gerektiğine dair düşünceyi yirminci yüzyıldaki koşullara göre yeniden  ele alan Venuti bunları farklı bir potada eriterek çevirinin görünürlüğü ve görünmezliği kavramlarını ortaya atmıştır. Venutiye göre çevirmen kaynak metni erek kültüre adapte ederek aktardığında, bir diğer ifade ile yerlileştirme çeviri stratejisine başvurduğunda görünmez olmayı ancak yabancılaştırma çeviri stratejisine başvurduğunda görünür olmayı tercih etmektedir. Bir diğer ifade ile çevirmenin görünmezliği çevirinin  orijinal dilinde yazılmış gibi okunması,  görünürlüğü ise çevirinin erek kitle tarafından çeviri olduğu bilinerek okunulması anlamına gelmektedir.  Bu çalışmada, çevirmenin görünür olmayı tercih ederek bir simulatör rolünde çeviri yapmasının mı yoksa görünmez olmayı tercih ederek gerçek bir yazar gibi çeviri yapmasının mı etik olduğu tartışılmış ve çeviribilimsel açıdan en somut araştırma nesnesinin çeviri ürünü olduğu düşünüldüğünde, çevirinin bir bilim dalı olarak olgunlaşmayı sürdürebilmesi ve çeviri metnin de en az kaynak metin kadar orijinal bir metin olduğunu vurgulamak için çevirinin çeviri gibi okunması gerektiği sonucuna varılmıştır. Çalışmada betimleyici yaklaşım uygulanmıştır. Anahtar Sözcükler: Çevirmenin görünürlüğü, çevirmenin görünmezliği, yerlileştirme, yabancılaştrma, Venuti, simulatör.

Leo Strauss's claim that many philosophers of the past wrote exoterically is without a doubt his most fruitful contribution to the study of the history of ideas. However, to this day this claim remains highly controversial. To gain a better understanding of Strauss's position, this essay analyzes his three thematic discussions of exotericism, "Exoteric Teaching" (1939), "Persecution and the Art of Writing" (1941), and "On a Forgotten Kind of Writing" (1954). I show that each of the three essays begins its exploration of the phenomenon from a different starting point in order to emphasize a different reason that led philosophers to practice exoteric communication. Whereas "Persecution and the Art of Writing" highlights the threat of censorship and other forms of oppression, "On a Forgotten Kind of Writing" is almost completely silent on this topic and instead focuses on the tension that exists between philosophy and the political community. "Exoteric Teaching," the least known of the three texts, differs from the other two in its concentration on the reader's experiential response to exoteric writing or, as Strauss puts it, on "the irretrievably 'occasional' character of every worthwhile interpretation."

In this essay, I contend that Karl Barth supported a theology from “above”, which originates not by way of human experience (for example: piety, ethnicity or viewpoint) but exclusively because of divine revelation in Jesus Christ, and Scripture. Firstly, the antithesis of Barth’s view was any configuration of anthropocentric natural theology or any effort made at natural knowledge of God. Secondly, he refused to acknowledge all attestations of God’s reality as merely showing the way to a fetish, or an idol, or a simulacrum, and not to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thirdly, Barth’s theological methodology was branded “dialectical” – or as Heinrich Emil Brunner (one of Barth’s many antagonists) called it “the theology of crisis” – because he held that all understanding of God encompasses divine-human remonstration and not connection or continuity (as Natural Theology proposes) between God and humanity through Jesus Christ.

Although it is rapidly growing worldwide, Pentecostalism is a relatively young Christian tradition and, in consequence, has not yet developed a thorough systematic theology. The most unifying aspects of Pentecostalism tend to be its emphasis on the Holy Spirit and its commitment to oppose what are deemed to be inappropriate and heretical theologies. While there are many theologies and theologians that Pentecostals resist, Friedrich D.E. Schleiermacher is almost universally opposed due to what Western Pentecostal theology views as his liberal, subjective, and academic theology. In this essay, I argue that these claims are misguided and that there is important common ground between Schleiermacher and Western Pentecostal theology, as seen through Schleiermacher’s theology on redemption, ecclesiology, and preaching. Thus Western Pentecostal theology can confidently adopt Schleiermacher as a theological ally, thereby allowing his theology to inform Pentecostal theology as it continues to develop.

This article analyzes the philosophical background of Schleiermacher’s doctrine of redemption. The two philosophical strands of dialectic Neoplatonism and Romanticism form the basis of Schleiermacher’s soteriology, in which Christ’s redemption is seen not just as an act to liberate from sin, but the fulfillment of the coincidentia oppositorum (the coincidence of opposites) between the finite (individual) and the Infinite (the whole) within the dynamic dialectical interrelationship between them. By participating in Christ’s perfect God-consciousness through receptivity to “absolute dependence,” the individual experiences redemption. In its philosophical context, Schleiermacher’s soteriology may be labeled as Christ-Centered Dialectic-Neoplatonic-Romantic-Soteriology.

The article considers the relationship between Albrecht Ritschl and Friedrich Schleiermacher. It is argued that beyond the frequent polemics there is both genuine, fundamental agreement and equally fundamental disagreement between the two theologians. Ritschl accepted that Schleiermacher’s ethical insight in the specific interaction of individual and community was pivotal for his own theology, while averring that Schleiermacher had failed to share Kant’s sharp ontological dualism of nature and spirit. This finding leads to far-reaching questions concerning the continuity and discontinuity in 19th-century theological development as well as today’s theological options in the reception of Schleiermacher.