Archive for history
The Lasting Influence of Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard
Posted by: | CommentsLet us take a brief departure from politics to some theological history, shall we?
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) had an enormous impact upon the history of theology and western philosophy (besides having some really cool names). They may have been contemporaries, but they developed their ideas in tremendously different circumstances and cultural backdrops. Both had great success with their respective cultures as well, so we would be wise to understand their work.
Schleiermacher lived in a time and place where Christianity was despised by the culture because of the conflict it supposedly had wrought among them. He writes in a German culture strongly affected by the memory of the Thirty Years War, one of the most destructive conflicts in history during which Protestants and Catholics were convinced to kill each other at the whim of their corrupt political leaders. If religious diversity – a seemingly good thing – could cause so much death and destruction, then why give it any credence at all?
Kierkegaard, however, comes later in the Enlightenment era, post-Immanuel Kant. His culture in Denmark was questioning how faith was even possible in their brave new world of knowledge. Kant had cast much doubt on being certain of God, and Kierkegaard was responding to this influence (but others as well).
Their different cultural situations resulted in different doctrinal emphases. For Schleiermacher, the important point to convey was that all men had an awareness of absolute reality, of absolute truth. If men would just see this as their starting point, perhaps they could move past their conflicts. Kierkegaard, however, was primarily interested in people ceasing their indifference to religion and making a choice. He believed that God meets you when you take a leap in faith toward him, because God never enforces himself upon anyone. He wants to tell others that faith is not irrational , but rather not approached in the realm of rational-irrational dichotomies at all.
If I am certain of one thing about American culture (no offense, international readers, this may be exactly true of your culture as well), it is that American culture is not uniform. In my hometown of Austin, Texas for instance, you can walk through a grocery store and hear five different languages before you reach the bread aisle. Your colleagues at work could include three or four cultures you’ve never experienced in your life. I think we live in a culture that reflects aspects of both Schleiermacher’s and Kierkegaard’s times. Many people see religion as divisive and conflict-inducing, and thus they reject Christianity as part of the problem. Others are simply indifferent to religion, or see faith as irrelevant.
Schleiermacher’s approach may appeal to the former group – the modern “cultured despisers” of Christianity. His emphasis on inner awareness could help them to understand that Christianity doesn’t need to be about causing destruction (though Leo Tolstoy would probably do it just as well or better). The danger, though, is that an attitude that suggests “all religions are created equal” could emerge and “New Age” attitudes de-emphasizing absolute truth could develop. This is an undesirable result, but can be avoided with careful teaching.
Kierkegaard’s approach may appeal to the latter group – those who simply do not care and those who see faith as irrational. Kierkegaard pushes people to cease indifference and consider a life of faith more carefully. He challenges those who conveniently do not believe by showing them that they have a kind of religious anxiety, like any other person, and that their disbelief is primarily a matter of laziness rather than intellect. In a way, Kierkegaard frees us from solely appealing to apologetical arguments, in favor of experiencing God in the leap of faith. The danger, however, is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Reason is ultimately on the side of the Christian, and should never be abandoned. Kierkegaard reminds us that there is more than one way to talk to people about God.
Does any of this resonate with you? What questions does this bring to mind? Please encourage more discussion by commenting below…
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: history, philosophy, theology
Related Content:
In memoriam
Posted by: | CommentsOn this day, not-so-many years ago, over 200,000 people died because an evil man thought it would be politically useful. Now, if I left it at that, no one I know would hesitate to condemn such an action. But if you tell them it was Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the same people will rise up in defense of their beloved Harry Truman and how he did it to keep more people from dying, elevating the office of president from politician to prophet for who else could tell the future and make such a claim.
Don’t let your ends justify your means.
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Related Content:
New FAQ Questions Added
Posted by: | CommentsSince the opening of the new Christian Libertarian FAQ last week, I have already received a number of interesting questions. Here are the latest inquiries from readers, and since some of them did not leave an email address (naughty, naughty!) it seems more than appropriate to post them directly on the blog as well:
Q1: When Paul wrote Romans 13, the government was distasteful to our 21 century sensibilities for sure. Yet Paul commands believers to honor the rulers, even calling them "servants of God." Coupled with Peter’s instructions to honor them, pray for them, etc., this shows that God has a role for government. Is it possible to determine if Paul personally prefers a small or large government? If God has a purpose for government should Christians be advocating it’s disappearing?
A: The problem with saying that Romans 13 proves there is "a role for government" is that it is conflating government being within God’s plan with government being sanctioned and declared inherently moral by God. When one considers the numerous negative references to the State in the Bible, such as Matthew 4, 1 Samuel 7, Genesis 11, and the book of Revelation, one cannot but admit that the State is, at core, rooted in rebellion against God. So while it is impossible to speak directly for Paul, it seems to me that the State itself is the problem and not merely the size. In conclusions, a Christian can admit that the State is not outside of God’s plan, and yet still advocate for it’s abolition as the greatest oppressor of the innocent in history.
Q2: What in the Bible suggests that followers of Jesus should subscribe to the ideas of libertarianism?
It would be incorrect to say outright "God/Jesus is a libertarian," but what I find very compelling in Scripture is that Christian ethics and libertarian ethics end up being very similar. Other instances: (1) The Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 is very similar to the non-aggression principle. (2) Scripture is consistently skeptical toward power concentrated into the hands of rulers (cf. 1 Samuel 7). (3) The "Kingdom of God" is never characterized with the aggression of the State. Can you think of any more?
But besides Scripture, libertarianism has more or less emerged from the Western tradition, which is tied very strongly to historical Christianity. It’s ideological predecessor, classical liberalism, was primarily promoted by Christians in its infancy. So, we have an interesting historical argument as well supporting libertarianism from a Christian perspective.
Q3. What in the Bible suggests that followers of Jesus should not subscribe to the ideas of statism?
Besides all the positive reasons that support libertarianism, one of the greatest rejoinders to statism I know of is Matthew 20:25-28, where Jesus says: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant… just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Q4. Where does LibertarianChristians.com make a distinction between resistance to unjust Government action and the directive to "submit himself to the governing authorities"? (Romans 13, NIV)
The position of LibertarianChristians.com is that Romans 13 is about prudence in action toward governmental intrusion in life. While civil disobedience is not immoral and certainly is great to do in certain cases, one must be very careful in executing such measures. For instance, my first responsibility is the caretaking of my family, and then serving the church. I will not do things that bring unreasonable risk upon them. Frequently enough there are better ways of making a difference. But most of all, LibertarianChristians.com does not and will never advocate violence as the answer to our problems.
Would you like to add anything to these answers? Comment below. Or if you like, ask your own question today!
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: Blog News, christian libertarian, Christianity, government, history, libertarian christian, libertarianism, Romans 13, romans13, statism, The State, theology
Related Content:
Why Every President Sucked
Posted by: | CommentsLCC Reader and Humble Libertarian Blogger Eric Olson informed me recently of his latest project: Why Every President Sucked. You absolutely must check it out.
Besides having a really cool and creative site layout, his content is fantastic. Essentially, he has gone through the history of each United States President and shown why each and every one, from George to Barack, was terrible and a blight to liberty. He is cataloguing “America’s Undying Pursuit of a King.” You heard us right: the United States has never had a “good” president. Every single one has exacted tyranny in some way or another. Eric doesn’t excuse anyone because some foolish historian or civics teacher told us once that “Presidents have to make the hard decisions.” As if it’s hard to make a decision to do the right thing, like not incinerate 250,000 Japanese civilians with an atomic bomb, or imprison those who dissent against your policies. But I digress, back to Eric…
On every page, he gives in short form what exactly each President did that was so heinous. Then – and this is where it gets great – he has written a short song for all 44 presidents about their crimes against humanity. Every song has been recorded as a short video and posted on YouTube. When you think about it, just writing, say, 20 of these to start up the site would be quite an achievement, but he has already written a song for each one!
After each song, he has posted the lyrics and guitar chords so you can read along or even learn the song yourself, if you like.
I have to hand it to Eric; he really did a great job here. It is truly an achievement of note, and worthy of remark. It’s just so, I don’t know, simple. Not simplistic, just the good kind of simple. If you know the history, you can enjoy the songs and learn quick facts that you can bring out in a jiffy when talking to people. If you’re not as aware, then you’re being exposed to great information in short form, with an entertaining way of remembering it.
I mean, seriously, how can you forget that John Adams wrote the Alien and Sedition Acts after hearing Eric sing, “Is it ‘cause you kind of look like an alien?” Really, what’s your problem, John?
This video/song about John Adams is definitely one of my favorite. I also really like the songs about Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.
So thanks Eric, for telling the truth and making it ever easier to learn and retain the truth. GREAT JOB!
Check it out, here’s the link once more: http://whyeverypresidentsucked.com
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: history, music, politicians, politics
Related Content:
Anarchy and Christianity
Posted by: | CommentsBook review of Anarchy and Christianity, by Jacques Ellul. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, MI. 1988 / trans. to English 1991. 105 pages. Retail: $14.00
Jacques Ellul (1912-1994) was a French sociologist, philosopher, and theologian, but his main profession was teaching law at the University of Bordeaux. He held strong views about the nature of government as antithetical to Christian faith, and is counted among the 20th century Christian anarchists.
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: anarchy, ethics, free market, free society, gospel, government, history, Marx, philosophy, The State, theology
Related Content:





