I was reading about F. Schleiermacher today. One of the few things we have in common is our discontent for what the Enlightenment did to theology.
A passage reminded me of the banal position of many in this generation, that of being 'spiritual, but not religious.'
He writes, "The emptiness of a rational religion consists in the fact that it is not a real religion at all, but an eclectic collection of dead fragments. It has not grown from a living intuition, but has been distilled from a dying form. It is attractive to many because, lacking any positive character, it offends no one. It creates discussions groups, but not churches; it rests on thought and not on feelings. It is not wonder that it appeals widely to the religiously indifferent, for it is an abstraction, and thus it stirs up on of the strong feelings aroused by concrete realities. Who can hate an abstraction? But then again, who can love one? (Makers of the Modern Theological Mind: Friedrich Schleiermacher, by C. W. Christian).
It makes me wonder... how many of our churches are already mere 'discussion groups.'
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Shouldn't we be both?
Post a Comment