You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The European Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries posed the most fundamental intellectual challenge Christianity had faced since its early encounter with Greek philosophy. Where the ecumenical councils had argued within a shared framework of revelation, the Enlightenment questioned the framework itself. Its thinkers championed reason, empirical evidence and individual autonomy as the supreme authorities, displacing the traditional triad of Scripture, Church and tradition. For AQA candidates this topic is pivotal, because the responses that Christian thinkers made to the Enlightenment — Deism's reduction of religion to reason, the rise of historical-critical biblical scholarship, Schleiermacher's relocation of faith in experience, and the atheistic critiques of Feuerbach and his heirs — set the agenda for every subsequent movement in modern theology, from liberalism through neo-orthodoxy to the present. This lesson examines those challenges in turn and weighs their lasting impact.
The Enlightenment (the Age of Reason, or in German the Aufklärung) is best understood not as a single doctrine but as a cluster of commitments held in varying combinations by very different thinkers:
Key term: Autonomy — literally "self-rule" (Greek autos, "self", and nomos, "law"). The Enlightenment prized the autonomous individual who reasons for himself, in deliberate contrast to heteronomy, the acceptance of a law or authority imposed from outside (such as the Church or Scripture).
It is important to grasp that the Enlightenment was not uniformly hostile to religion. Many of its leading figures were sincere theists who believed they were purifying religion of superstition rather than abolishing it. The challenge it posed was therefore not crude atheism but something subtler and harder to answer: the demand that Christianity justify itself at the bar of reason and evidence, on the same terms as any other claim to knowledge.
Deism was the characteristic religious position of much of the early Enlightenment. Deists affirmed the existence of God on the basis of reason and the observation of nature, but rejected revealed religion — miracles, prophecy, the Trinity, the incarnation and the authority of the Church — as later corruptions of a simpler, rational, natural religion.
Key figures associated with the movement include:
Key term: Deism — the belief that God created the universe and established its natural laws but does not subsequently intervene through miracle, providence or revelation. God is conceived as a watchmaker who designs the mechanism, winds it up and lets it run; religion is reduced to natural theology plus a rational morality.
The watchmaker image, drawn from the period's confidence in Newtonian physics, is double-edged. It allowed Deists to argue for God from the evident order of the cosmos — an early version of the design argument — while removing any need for the supernatural traffic between God and the world that orthodox Christianity required. The Deist God starts the machine and withdraws.
This is exactly why Deism, for all its rational tidiness, proved religiously unstable, and the point is worth pressing as part of any evaluation. From the orthodox side, the Deist deity is religiously empty: a God who neither answers prayer nor acts providentially nor reveals himself nor enters into relationship offers nothing to worship, hope in or love, and reduces "religion" to a deistic metaphysics plus a code of ethics. From the sceptical side, the watchmaker is philosophically redundant: once Hume had shown that the design inference is weak and Darwin had later supplied a natural mechanism for the appearance of design in living things, the one argument on which Deism rested began to crumble, and many Deists' heirs slid into agnosticism or outright atheism. Deism thus occupies an unstable middle ground — too thin to satisfy the believer, too dependent on a contested argument to satisfy the sceptic — which helps explain why it flourished briefly and then largely dissolved, leaving behind the sharper alternatives of orthodox faith on one side and Feuerbachian atheism on the other.
Perhaps the most enduring Enlightenment legacy for Christianity was the birth of the historical-critical method: the study of the Bible by the same scholarly techniques applied to any other ancient text, attending to authorship, date, sources, literary genre and historical context. The implications were revolutionary, because they bore directly on the doctrine of Scripture.
This scholarship cut to the heart of traditional claims for biblical inspiration and inerrancy. If the Pentateuch is a composite document, if the Gospels contain mythic elaboration, then the Bible can no longer be treated as a uniform deposit of divinely dictated facts. The question this forced upon theology — in what sense, if any, is Scripture still the Word of God once it is read critically? — would dominate the next two centuries and reappears directly in the work of Schleiermacher, Bultmann and Barth.
The Lutheran dramatist and critic Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781) crystallised the Enlightenment's epistemological problem for Christianity in a famous image. In On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power (1777), he argued that "accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason". Between the contingent reports of the past (that, say, certain miracles were witnessed) and the eternal religious truths Christianity wished to ground upon them, there yawned, he said, an "ugly, broad ditch" (ein garstiger breiter Graben) that he could not cross, however earnestly he tried. Even if the historical evidence for the resurrection were excellent, Lessing held, no merely historical fact could necessitate an eternal truth such as the divinity of Christ. The "ditch" names a problem — the gap between historical evidence and religious commitment — that liberal theology, neo-orthodoxy and Bultmann's existentialism would each, in different ways, attempt to bridge or circumvent.
The seeds planted by Spinoza and Simon bore fruit in the nineteenth century in the disciplined scholarship that still shapes how the Bible is studied in universities today, and a candidate should be able to indicate its concrete results rather than gesturing vaguely at "biblical criticism". Two examples illustrate its reach. In Old Testament study, the source-critical work that culminated in the Documentary Hypothesis (classically associated with Julius Wellhausen in the 1870s) argued that the Pentateuch was woven together from several originally distinct strands of differing date and outlook — conventionally labelled J, E, D and P — rather than composed by a single author, Moses. In New Testament study, the Synoptic Problem — the puzzle of the close yet divergent relationships among Matthew, Mark and Luke — led most scholars to conclude that Mark was the earliest Gospel and was used as a source by the other two, alongside a hypothetical sayings-source ("Q"). Whatever one makes of the details, the cumulative effect was to establish that the biblical books have a history: they were written, edited and compiled by human authors in particular times and places.
For Christianity this posed a sharp doctrinal question. If the Bible is a humanly authored, historically conditioned set of documents, in what sense can it still be called inspired or authoritative? Three broad responses emerged, each of which reappears later in the course. The fundamentalist response (hardening especially in early-twentieth-century America) reasserted the verbal inerrancy of Scripture and rejected critical scholarship outright. The liberal response (Schleiermacher's heirs) accepted the critical results and relocated authority from the text's factual accuracy to the religious experience it expresses. The neo-orthodox response of Karl Barth, examined in a later lesson, would attempt a third path: accepting biblical criticism while insisting that Scripture, for all its human fallibility, remains the indispensable witness through which the living Word of God addresses the reader. The historical-critical method thus did not merely answer questions about the Bible; it set the terms of the modern theological debate about the Bible's very status.
It would be a serious distortion to present the eighteenth century as a one-way assault on faith to which Christians had no answer. Three responses are worth noting, and they reveal the range of options Christianity explored.
First, some thinkers attempted to meet the Enlightenment on its own rational ground. John Locke (1632–1704), in The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), argued that the essential Christian message is rational and can be defended as such, while also insisting (against the Deists) that reason itself recognises its limits and may legitimately receive a revelation that lies "above reason" provided it is not "contrary to reason". Locke thus tried to hold revelation and reason together rather than collapsing the one into the other. Later, Bishop Joseph Butler (1692–1752), in The Analogy of Religion (1736), argued shrewdly that the difficulties Deists raised against revealed religion (its obscurities, its apparent injustices) have exact parallels in the natural world that the Deists themselves accepted — so that if such difficulties do not disprove the God of nature, they cannot disprove the God of revelation either.
Second, and very differently, the Pietist and Evangelical movements responded not by argument but by a renewal of experiential religion. German Pietism, associated with figures such as Philipp Jakob Spener and August Hermann Francke, and the evangelical revival in Britain under John Wesley (1703–1791) and George Whitefield, stressed conversion, the "religion of the heart", personal holiness and active charity. Where the Deists offered a remote watchmaker, the revivalists preached a God experienced in the transformation of the believer's life. This experiential emphasis is historically significant for the course, because it forms part of the background to Schleiermacher's relocation of religion in feeling and, much later, to the global growth of Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity. The Enlightenment, in other words, provoked not one Christian response but several — rationalist, experiential and, eventually, the great theological reconstructions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Two philosophers gave the most rigorous form to the Enlightenment critique of natural and revealed theology.
David Hume (1711–1776) attacked both the rational proofs of God and the rationality of believing in miracles. In the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (published posthumously in 1779) he subjected the design argument to devastating scrutiny: the analogy between the universe and a designed artefact is weak; the order we see might arise from other causes; and even if a designer is granted, nothing follows about its being one, infinite, perfectly good or the God of Christianity. In Section X of the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (1748), "Of Miracles", he argued that a miracle is "a violation of the laws of nature", that the laws of nature are established by the firmest and most uniform experience, and that the wise person therefore proportions belief to evidence: it is always more probable that the testimony to a miracle is mistaken or deceitful than that a law of nature has actually been broken. Hume did not claim to prove that miracles never occur; he argued that testimony can never make belief in one rational.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.