Band 16, Heft 2

Friedrich Schleiermacher's (1768–1834) theological anthropology re-articulated the Christian doctrine of sin in novel and important ways. Albrecht Ritschl (1822–89), however, was very critical of Schleiermacher on this topic, claiming that the concept of sin became too individualistic. In the wake of contemporary critiques of individualistic conceptions of sin, this article examines the Schleiermacher-Ritschl anthropological debate in historical perspective and identifies areas of continued value for theological development.

Schleiermachers klassische Bestimmung der Dogmatik als historische Disziplin wird zunächst nach ihrem enzyklopädischen Sinn genau bestimmt (1.). Dabei treten die Themen „Sprache“ und „Geschichte“ besonders in den Blick. Abschnitt (2.) entfaltet diese im Anschluss an W. v. Humboldt unter den Gesichtspunkten: Sprache und Denken wie auch: Sprache und Geschichte weiter. Im letzten Abschnitt (3.) entwickelt der Verf. theologische Folgerungen für die Dogmatik und ihre geschichtliche Dimension, die sich wesentlich aus der traditionellen Sprache der Bibel herschreibt. Dieser Zusammenhang hat auch Konsequenzen für den Zusammenhang von Sprache und Bewusstsein (gegen Schleiermacher). Schließlich wird die Geschichtlichkeit des Wortes Gottes reflektiert, sofern es eschatologisch ist.

This paper discusses theological responses in the Church of England to the South African War (1899–1902) as reflected in sermons by theologians and church leaders and the limited amount of theological writing on the subject during the period. Three points emerge: first is the strong sense in which the mission was to civilise and Christianize. The fact that the war was being fought against a white enemy led to a characterisation of the Boer as uncivilised and primitive. Secondly, the British Empire was not understood simply as a means of promoting the British interest across the world. Instead it was regarded as at least potentially a Christian Empire which embodied higher universal values. The emphasis was on humility and judgement, whereby moral absolutes were relativised by the vision of a more universal goal. This undoubtedly helped lessen the strength of some of the imperialist rhetoric. Finally, the higher values of self-sacrifice created a sense of moral seriousness: the universal values displayed in love for the community were prioritized over those of a narrow patriotism or individualism. Like the early days of the First World War, the Boer War functioned as an “antidote to anomie”. All in all, the strong dose of Platonism injected into Anglicanism in the nineteenth century meant that it functioned as a modest check on unfettered jingoism. A limited degree of prophetic critique – albeit deeply ambiguous, compromised and sometimes racist – remained the dominant theological discourse of Anglicanism, even at the highest point of imperialism.

Wilhelm Bousset, a leading member of the religionsgeschichtliche school and author of a seminal work on early Christology, Kyrios Christos , is typically regarded by reviewers of his work as a classic nineteenth-century liberal who sought a secure foundation for faith in the historical Jesus. However, this view of Bousset fails to appreciate the significant development of his theological perspective on the relationship between faith and history, a perspective that underwent a profound shift due to the influence of the English historian Thomas Carlyle and the Kantian philosopher Jakob Friedrich Fries. It is the influence of these two figures that enables Bousset to justify a full-scale flight from history and to seek faith's foundation elsewhere, in the poetic symbol of Jesus Christ. The resulting solution to the problem of faith and history represents a unique and compelling alternative to the solutions of the leading theologians and New Testament scholars of the early twentieth century.

Some scholars have speculated whether the conservative New Testament Calvinistic scholar, Machen and the New Testament critical scholar, Bultmann attended Marburg University at the same time. We now know that they did. They even attended two courses together which were taught respectively by Weiss and Jülicher. Although these men were strong opposites with respect to the environment in which they were raised as well as their theological presuppositions and conclusions, they both enjoyed the engaging environment of Marburg as students. Mainly using personal letters, we learn that a comparison of these two young students goes further than their theological and biblical interests. Both had encyclopedic academic interests which carried over into a fascinating interdisciplinary way of life.