§ 30. No One-sidedness

This is a self-deception which nevertheless contains a germ of truth. If in order to be a theologian one must believe in the existence of the object of his Theology, the claim is of itself implied that what he takes to be valid must also be valid to every one else. This is no presumption, but only the immediate result of the firmness of conviction which is the motive for his scientific investigation. All scepticism causes science to wither. But from this there flows an obligation. Just this: to point out in the other theologies what is untenable and inconsequent, to appreciate what is relatively true, and to a certain extent to show the necessity of their existence. No one Theology can claim to be all-sided and completely developed. This is not possible, because every Theology has to deal with an object that is not susceptible to an abstract intellectual treatment, and which can therefore only be known in connection with its historical development in life. Aberrations very certainly occur which furnish only negative or reactionary results for the knowledge of the object of Theology, and these can only be refuted. But there are also elements in this object of Theology, which do not find an equally good soil for their development with every individual, with every nation, or in every age. Every theologian, therefore, knows that neither he himself, nor the stream of history in which he moves, are able to make an all-sided and a complete exhibition of the object of his investigation.

Thus to him also there are theologies which are not simply aberrations but merely one-sided developments, whose relative validity he appreciates and with whose results he enriches himself. But even that which is relatively true and complementary in other theologies he is not allowed to leave standing loosely by the side of his own theology, but is bound to include it organically in his own theology, being ever deeply convinced of the fact that in spite of their relative right and complementary value these other theologies interpret the essence of Theology one-sidedly and understand it wrongly. Thus the aim is always to show in a scientific way that the Theology that has the love of his heart is entitled to the love of all hearts, wherefore he corrects and enriches his own Theology with whatever acquisitions he can borrow from the other theologies in order thereby to vindicate the more effectively the universal validity of his object of Theology. No reduction therefore is practised of the several theologies to a common level, for the mere sake of investigating encyclopedically what is common to them all; but on the contrary the start is taken from one’s own conviction, with an open eye to one’s own imperfections so as sincerely to appreciate the labors and efforts of others, and to be bent upon the assimilation of their results.

§ 31. View-point here taken

This attempt to write a Theological Encyclopedia, too, purposely avoids therefore every appearance of neutrality, which is after all bound to be dishonest at heart; and makes no secret of what will appear from every page, that the Reformed Theology is here accepted as the Theology, in its very purest form. By this we do not mean to imply that the Reformed theologians are to us the best theologians, but we merely state, that Reformed Theology, 1, has interpreted the object of Theology most accurately, and 2, has shown the way most clearly by which to reach knowledge of this object. Let no one take this statement to intend the least infringement upon the respect which the writer of this Encyclopedia is also compelled to pay to the gigantic labors of Lutheran, Romish, and other theologians. His declaration but intends to make it clearly known, that he himself cannot stand indifferently to his personal faith, and to his consequent confession concerning the object of Theology, and therefore does not hesitate to state it as his conviction that the Reformed Theology with respect to this has grasped the truth most firmly.

Does this put a confessional stamp upon this Encyclopedia? By no means; since “confessional” and “scientific” are heterogeneous conceptions. “Confessional” is the name that belongs to the several streams in the historical life of the Church, and is no distinguishing mark for your manner of scientific treatment of the theological material. The difference lies elsewhere. The fact is that until the middle of the last century Theology received its impulse from the Church, in consequence of which Theology divided itself into groups which maintained their relation to the groupings of the churches according to their confessions. Since that time, however, Theology has not allowed itself to be governed by the life of the Church, but by the mighty development of philosophy, and consequently we scarcely speak in our days of a Lutheran, Romish, or Reformed Theology, but of a rationalistic, a mediating, and an orthodox Theology. With this custom this Encyclopedia does not sympathize, but takes it as a matter of course that even as the medical, juridical, and philological sciences, the theological science also is bound to its object such as this shows itself in its own circle in life; i.e. in casu the Church. Every other grouping of theological schools rests upon a philosophical abstraction which really ranks Theology under philosophy or under history and ethnology, and in that way destroys it as an independent science. Hence our aim is to seek the object of Theology again in its native soil; to examine no piece of polished cedar in the wall, but the tree itself on Lebanon; and in this way also to study the object of Theology in the history of the Church.

But even thus the choice of the Reformed stamp is not yet scientifically justified. The Encyclopedia obtains its right to this only when it shows that the historical distinction between Romish, Reformed, etc., Theology flows of necessity from the very essence of Theology, and that the current distinctions of our times are foreign to its essence and are attached to it from without. And thus every Encyclopedical writer is entitled and obliged in his Encyclopedia to honor as Theology whatever is Theology to himself, but this should be done in such a way that he shows how with this interpretation the organic character of this science is best exhibited.

§ 32. Compass of its Task

On this condition it is the task of Theological Encyclopedia: 1, to vindicate the scientific character of Theology; 2, to explain the relation between Theological science and the other sciences; 3, in its own choice of the object of Theology to exhibit the error in the choice of others, and to appreciate what is right in the efforts of others and to appropriate it; and then, 4, to do for Theology what it is the task of general Encyclopedia to do for science in general.

With reference to the first point, Dr. Räbiger goes too far when (p. 95) he says: “The only problem of Theological Encyclopedia is to build up Theology as a science.” It certainly has more to do than this. It can even be said that only after this task has been performed does its real Encyclopedic task begin. If Encyclopedia is truly the science of science, everything that is done to place the science as object before oneself is only preparatory work. Only when Theology lies before you as a science does your real Encyclopedic study begin. His proposition therefore to give the name of “Theologik” to Theological Encyclopedia will not do. “Theologik” isolates Theology from the organism of the sciences, and the very point in hand is to grasp the science of Theology as an organic member of the body of sciences. This is expressed by the word Encyclopedia alone, for which reason the name of Theological Encyclopedia can under no consideration be abandoned. From this follows also the second point already indicated. Theological Encyclopedia must insert Theology organically into the body of sciences; which duty has too largely been neglected not only in the special Encyclopedias of Theology, but in those of almost all the special sciences. The third point follows of itself from § 31, and calls for no further explanation. And as regards the fourth, this flows directly from the subordination of the conception of Theological Encyclopedia to that of general Encyclopedia.

§ 33. Its Relation to Methodology

This task includes of itself the scientific description of the method of Theology, and of its parts, and its insertion into organic relation with its object. No general Methodology is necessary, for this may be assumed to be known. But it must show the paths of knowledge, mapped out by general Methodology, which Theology is to travel in order to reach her end. Then it must show what modifications are introduced into this general method by the peculiar character of Theology. And finally, what nearer method flows from this for the subdivisions of Theology. There is no cause for a separate treatment of Theological Methodology. He who places it as a separate study outside of his Encyclopedia, must invoke its help in that Encyclopedia; neither can he furnish his Methodology without repeating the larger part of the content of his Encyclopedia. Just because of the strongly subjective character which is inseparable from all Theology, it is dangerous to separate the method too widely from the object, neither can the object be sufficiently explained without dealing at the same time with the method. Hence it should be preferred to treat the method of Theology taken as a whole in the general volume of the Encyclopedia, and then, so far as this is necessary with each subdivision, the modifications which this method undergoes for the sake of this subdivision.

§ 34. Its Aim

The aim of Theological Encyclopedia is in itself purely scientific. Since Theology belongs to the organism of science, the Encyclopedic impulse itself compels the investigation of this part also of the great organism of science, in order that we may know it in its organic coherence and relation. This is its philosophical aim. But its aim is equally strong to bring Theology itself to self-consciousness. No more than any other science did Theology begin with knowing what it wanted. Practical interests, necessity and unconscious impulse brought it to its development. But with this it cannot remain satisfied. For its own honor’s sake, Theology also must advance with steady steps to know itself, and to give itself an account of its nature and its calling. This is the more necessary since in our times Theology as a whole is no longer studied by any one, and since the several theologians choose for themselves but a part of the great task. Thus every sense of relation is lost, and a writer in one department infringes continually upon the rights of the others, unless the sense of the general task of Theology becomes and remains quickened. In the third place, the aim of Encyclopedia of Theology is defensive or apologetic. Much presents itself as Theology with the assumption of the right to translate real Theology into that which is no Theology. The conflict which arises from this may not be left to chance, but must be decided scientifically, and this cannot take place until Theology fixes its scientific standard. And finally its aim in the fourth place is, for the sake of non-theologians, who must nevertheless deal with Theology, to declare, in scientifically connected terms, what Theology is.

§ 35. Result

As the result of the above it is evident that the conception of Theological Encyclopedia consists in the scientific investigation of the organic nature and relations of Theology in itself and as an integral part of the organism of science. As such it forms a subdivision of general Encyclopedia, and with it belongs to the science of philosophy. As such it is formal, not in the sense that it must furnish a mere scheme of departments and of names, but in the sense that it is not allowed to become material, as if it were its duty to collect the theological content in a manual. It may enter into the material only in so far as it is necessary for the sake of exhibiting the formal nature and relations of Theology. Distinguished from Hodegetics and Historia litteraria, it is not called upon to furnish a manual for beginners; though nothing forbids the addition to it of a brief historia litteraria, provided that this is not presented as a part of the Encyclopedia itself.

---

← Division I, Chapter III. The Conception of Encyclopedia · Contents · Division II. The Organism of Science →