Schleiermacher’s position after 1810 as a teacher, a member of the government, and a prominent ecclesiast gave him personal experience in the various provinces of ethics distinguished in his Sittenlehre: the state, the school, the church, and fellowships. A witness to his own principle that human development requires “an intimate and necessary tie between practice and theory,” he subjected each of these realms to theoretic analysis. In 1817 and 1829 he lectured on politics, in 1813, 1820, and 1826 on pedagogy.1 But the field in which his practical experience was greatest, and where his theory proved most fruitful, was certainly that of religion and the church.
The basis of his thought in this field was laid before 1799, when in his Speeches on Religion he conceived religion as essentially an emotional reaction of the individual to the universe.2 The perfection of his thought in this field came, however, in later years, when as a leader in the religious life of his time, he conceived of the Kirchenfürst, a veritable philosopher-priest of the church. The Kirchenfürst is one “who attends to the theory and the practice of his church with the highest measure of religious interest and of scientific spirit combined.”3 Of course, he shares the essential feelings of his church, and wishes to see them promoted as an integral part in the good of mankind. But in addition he has a knowledge of the conditions necessary to this end, and thereby weaves the life of his church like a fine thread into the growing texture of society. He mediates his religion to the world, not in a spirit of blind partisanship, but in the spirit of a philosophic knowledge of human good. Thus he becomes the genius of his church, the reason active in its prosperous development.
But where is the Kirchenfürst to be found? Like Plato’s philosopher-king he is the product of an ideal education. In 1810 the University of Berlin was opened with Schleiermacher as head of the theological faculty. This post of leadership in a new university, inaugurated with so many idealistic hopes, gave him the opportunity to propose a program of ecclesiastical education commensurate with his idea of a Kirchenfürst. In 1811 he published a Brief Exposition of Theological Studies, which outlined the entire field of theological study as he conceived it, but did not develop any portion of that field in detail. Ten years later he published Der christliche Glaube, a systematic exposition of dogmatic theology. Taken together these two books show his conception of the Kirchenfürst’s equipment fairly well.4
Theology, according to Schleiermacher, is in the broadest sense identical with that equipment, and has an essentially practical object, which may be defined as the harmonious guidance of a church. “Christian theology is the sum of scientific knowledge and of practical precepts which are necessary for the harmonious guidance of the Christian Church, i. e., without which the ecclesiastical organization of Christianity would be impossible.”5 This association of theology with institutionalized religion is significant. Schleiermacher expressly states that the “Christian faith itself does not need theology in order to take effect in the individual soul or in the family.”6 Theology arises with the church, and only becomes a unified, coherent discipline in relation to the end of church government. Without this end the materials of theology might still exist as parts of other disciplines, such as history and philosophy, but in relation to this end they are united and constitute a positive science. It follows that a theologian, however much he specializes in exegesis, or church history, or what not, must keep the architectonic end of church government in view. Failing in this, his work has no overt theological significance, and he does not merit the name of theologian. Theological education must produce a general comprehension of all that appertains to the guidance of a particular church.7