MONISM DEFINED
In this first part of the chapter, monism will be defined. First, the general classification to which it belongs will be identified, and several dictionary definitions will provide the general parameters of the concept. Second, distinctions will be observed between major varieties of monistic systems. A historical survey of monistic systems will provide examples of these varieties. Special attention will then be given to the nature of the image of God in which man was created, to see if this image means there is a monistic relationship between God and man, and between God and the universe. In the section on monotheism, a dualistic system that excludes monism will be examined.
Metaphysical Classification
A name is needed to identify the concept that God and the universe are basically one in nature. Monism is a word that has this meaning, according to dictionary definitions. Monism is a noun that comes from a Greek word meaning "single" or "alone."1 Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language identifies monism as a philosophical term meaning "the doctrine that there is only one ultimate substance or principle, whether mind (idealism), matter (materialism), or some third thing that is the basis of both."2 Baker's Dictionary of Theology says, "Monism is a doctrine of the unity of things. It may have reference to their origin, to their substance, or to the way by which they are known."3
The New Catholic Encyclopedia says that monism is "a philosophical system or doctrine that reduces all of reality to some type of unity... where other doctrines admit two (dualism) or more (pluralism)." The Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "Monism is a name for a group of views in metaphysics that stress the oneness or unity of reality in some sense."4
Focus on Unity of Substance
These definitions call attention to several aspects of monism. It is a philosophical term, meaning it is a mental concept. In this classification, it can be further categorized as a metaphysical term because it attempts to go beyond the physical appearances of reality to discover its basic substance. Is the real substance something material or something idealistic? Not mentioned in these definitions is its close relationship to the study of ontology, which deals with the nature of being or reality. Monism assumes that beneath the pluralistic appearance of the world there lies a monistic substance that can be manifested in many ways, including both material and spiritual appearances.
Secondly, monism focuses attention on the basic unity of reality. To understand how a monist must understand the relationship between God and the world, it is necessary to be able to think of two apparently different existences being one in reality. The word can also be used to speak of the unifying factor in smaller categories, calling attention to a oneness that may not be obvious. For instance, the universe itself (whether or not God is part of it) is often thought to be a monism in itself, even though at first glance it appears to be a plurality of diverse objects. How could any observer conclude that such diverse things as earth, air, and water could have a common substance? Yet atomic theory can explain them all as being made of atoms, the common substance. Atomic theory thus reduces the universe to a monism; it truly is a uni-verse.
Does this monism extend to encompass God also? Are they really one in nature? A basic concern of this study is the relationship of God's nature to the nature of the universe. Is God part of the universe? In this study, the word monism may sometimes be found to refer to a limited category of things, but it should be kept in mind that the main concern is a monism of God and the universe that also involves a monism of God and man.
Footnotes
Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1958). ↩
Webster's New World Dictionary. ↩
John H. Gerstner, "Monism," in Baker's Dictionary of Theology, ed. Everett F. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 361. ↩
Paul Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, V (New York: The Macmillan Co. and The Free Press, 1967), p. 363. ↩
Comparative Models of Monism
Thirdly, the definitions note that monism may refer to the common substance from which things are made, their origin, or the way in which they are known (epistemological). Substance in monistic systems is usually either some form of materialism or some form of idealism, though there is sometimes the idea of finding something “that is the basis of both.”1 Such a "third thing" is elusive; it is hard to think of anything apart from the categories of a material state or a spiritual or idealistic state. For instance, we can think of matter being convertible to energy, but if we try to imagine something neutral between them, it tends to be either matter or energy. Likewise, with monisms based on origin or epistemology; they also tend to reduce to something either materialistic or idealistic in our imagination. History reveals a variety of monistic systems. Apparently, the idea that all reality can be reduced to one common denominator has attracted people as far back in time as we can find records. Whether these systems intended to include God is not always clear; yet each system had the potential to influence followers who were not instructed to look elsewhere for their concept of God.
HISTORICAL SURVEY OF MONISTIC SYSTEMS
Pre-Grecian
There is evidence that pantheism of some form existed before the monism of the Greeks was developed. Areas that might be researched in this regard include the early religion of Egypt. Some think so.2 This would suggest that the Exodus was a deliverance from that kind of society. Another area for study includes the possibility that Israel’s calf-worship led the surrounding nations to identify Israel’s God with the nature of the universe as symbolized by the calf. Note that monistic Buddhism and monistic Greek philosophy arose from approximately the date that Israel was dispersed among the nations as a consequence for following the sin of Jeroboam. Archaeologists have discovered an ancient altar to the god named Pan located in the northern area of Israel near where Dan’s golden calf stood previously.3 Did monotheism degenerate into monism through Israel’s use of the golden calves to represent its God?
Greek Concepts of Monism
Milesian School: Thales, the first known Greek philosopher (who lived at Miletus 624-550 B.C.), obviously assumed that the world is a monism. He thought water to be the basic stuff from which the world developed. Then came the first Greek philosopher from whom we have a direct quote, Anaximander, who thought the basic stuff is apeiron, the boundless. Anaximander thought this monistic stuff is infinite in space and time. He considered it to be incorruptible, which suggests he considered it eternal. The existing quotation from Anaximander is rather obscure but seems to mean “that individual existence is a wrong which can be righted only through the return to the universal whole.”4
Pythagorean School: A second school of Greek philosophy, the Pythagorean, searched for the essence of things as being something different than the matter in which they are embodied. Pythagoras (570-490 B.C.) took Orphic doctrines, which affirmed that a universal spirit or soul animates all nature,5 and combined them with the study of mathematics, astronomy, and music. He found regularities and harmonies in the sciences which he could express through the relationship of numbers.
Eleatic School: The third school of philosophy in the ancient Greek world looked for the monism to be somehow in the perception man has of the constantly changing world. The true nature of the world can only be apprehended by man’s understanding when he can see beneath the deceptive appearance of constant change. This school centered in Elea, a city actually in western Italy. The first Eleatic was Xenophanes, whose god was not a person but the unity of the universe. Xenophanes had a famous polemic against anthropomorphisms of deity. The principal Eleatic philosopher was a man named Parmenides (born c. 514 B.C.), whose main thesis was the unity and unchangeableness of true reality. It is eternal because it is uncreated and indestructible. Parmenides debated against Heraclitus of Ephesus, who saw only the constantly changing surface of things. Heraclitus, who monistically considered cosmic fire to be the basic nature of the universe, wept as he concluded that everything is unstable. Empedocles tried to reconcile Parmenides and Heraclitus by postulating a plurality of four basic elements: water, air, fire, and earth. Empedocles described change as being the mingling or separating of these four elements. Democritus (c. 460-370 B.C.) renewed the monistic quest and developed a theory that sounds very modern, suggesting “atomism” as the solution to the controversy. These early philosophers grappled with the concept that the world is a monism. They may or may not have intended to include God in their monistic models. They were primarily concerned with finding the nature of the unity they assumed to be in the universe. Their thinking appears to have been at a pre-theological level, or a low-theological level. Greater theological significance is found in the monistic thinking of Plato and Aristotle who followed them slightly later.
Platonistic Monism
Plato (427?-347? B.C.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) have had a greater impact upon the Christian church than have the other Greek philosophers. They provided ideas or methods by which the monistic universe of the Greeks has been expanded to include “God.” Plato’s seemingly dualistic idea of an unseen world, of which the things of this world are only reflected images, is really a monistic idea. It has had a monistic influence upon Christian theology because it assumes a basic likeness exists between the two worlds of heaven and earth, or the seen and the unseen. Plato’s dichotomous unity between the image and the reality it reflects was dogmatized into the church’s concept of God about a millennium later when the Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.) decreed that the church should use images to represent divine persons in the worship and education of the church. Neoplatonism had been influencing the church to think that heavenly forces work through earthly symbols.6
Aristotelian Monism
Aristotle’s syllogistic logic provided the method for intellectually combining all knowledge into a unified system. While it did provide a framework for excluding and negating areas of reality, making a distinction between thesis and antithesis, it nevertheless made them parts of its epistemological universe. Satan and evil, although they were negative poles, still were poles in the same epistemological universe in which God and good are the positive poles. Aquinas used Aristotle’s logical method to systematize the theology of the church. Here, the monistic possibility inherent in Aristotelianism became evident.
Gnosticism as a Monistic Quest
The Gnostics were the first monistic threat to the church; such epistles as Colossians and First John were evidently written to oppose Gnosticism. As many-headed as Gnosticism was, the monism issue was the quest of the Gnostics. The term Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning "knowledge," and was used to mean a special kind of knowledge, mystical and supernatural wisdom, "by which the initiates were brought to a true understanding of the universe and were saved from this evil world of matter."7 Gnosticism was a dangerous heresy that flooded into the church during the second century and was all the more dangerous because "nearly all the more intellectual Christian congregations in the Roman Empire were markedly affected by it."8
Footnotes
Webster's New World Dictionary. ↩
Raymond L. Cox, “An Hour with Avraham Biran,” The Sunday School Times and Gospel Herald (November, 1974), pp. 14-15. ↩
Ibid. ↩
Jacques Choron, The Romance of Philosophy (New York: MacMillan Co., 1963), p. 1ff. Choron gives Anaximander’s quote as: “From whence however things have their origin, thence they perish, according to that which is ordained; for they pay penalty and reparation to each other for their injustice according to the order of time.” ↩
J. G. R. Forlong, “Orpheus,” Encyclopedia of Religions (New Hyde Park, New York: University Books, 1964), p. 51. ↩
J. L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, I (Philadelphia: The Muhlenberg Press, 1946), p. 168. ↩
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1950), p. 54. ↩
Alexander M. Renwick, “Gnosticism,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 237. ↩
The Gnostics emphasized mysteries or secret rites, which they believed held everything necessary for salvation. This was especially evident in the Ophite sect of Gnosticism, which likely viewed salvation as a return of the universe to the bosom of the Deity. The Ophites referred to an ineffable power named Bythos, meaning "the Deep," as they found no adequate name for it. This same name was later adopted by other Gnostic groups and appears in a hymn by Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, where it sounds more Gnostic than Christian.
Male thou and female,
Voice thou and silence,
Nature engendered of Nature.
Thou King, Aeon of Aeons.
What is it lawful to call thee?
In another section, Synesius writes:
Father of all Fathers, Father of thyself,
Propator (Forefather) who hast no father,
O Son of thyself.
But the initiated mind says this and that,
Celebrating with dances The Ineffable Bythos.
This mystical and elusive portrayal of Bythos points to the ineffability and transcendence they ascribed to this power, one that resisted clear or literal definition. The Ophites engaged in rituals that may have been difficult to comprehend, not necessarily because they were profound but due to the superstitious practices of an uneducated group attempting to enact their beliefs in Gnostic mysteries.
Valentinus
Valentinus was the leader of a Gnostic movement that posed a serious threat to the church. Against him, Bishop Irenaeus wrote five books, which we still have today.1 Although his teachings were opposed by Irenaeus and other Christian writers, Valentinus evidently considered himself a Christian and part of the church. He developed a system aimed at transforming Gnosticism from mystical pagan beliefs into a form of Christianity.2 A native of Egypt, Valentinus studied Platonic philosophy in Alexandria, where he may also have encountered Gnostic philosophies, such as those of Basilides, who was slightly older. Valentinus then went to Rome, where he taught the system he had developed.
Like all Gnostics, he started with a Bythos (Deep) as the origin of all. This “Unknowable Father,” according to some of his followers, had a female consort named Silence (Si-ge) or Grace (Charis), from whom all subsequent aeons or manifestations descended. Other Valentinians thought that the Father (Bythos) was without a spouse. “However this may be, all the Valentinian schools seem to have agreed upon the emanation which immediately proceeded from the Deep or the Father of All.”3 The wide influence of Valentinus in his day, or in the days following him, is indicated by the many ancient writers who quote or cite him.
Simon Magus
Simon Magus, mentioned in the book of Acts (chapter 8) as the man Peter rebuked for trying to buy the power of the Holy Spirit, was evidently a significant leader of early Gnosticism. Legge states, “... the Fathers of the Church were unanimous in describing [him] as the parent and origin of all later Gnosticism,”4 citing Irenaeus (Book I, Chapter 16, p. 191, Harvey), Hippolytus (Philosophumena, Book VI, Chapter 20, p. 267, Cruice), and Augustine (de Haeres., Book I, Chapters I-III; Praedest. de Haer., Book I, Chapter 1). Simon is thus viewed as the founder of a Gnostic school.
Influence of Gnostics on the Church
Other Gnostic schools included one founded by Saturninus at Antioch, flourishing around 125 A.D. At Ephesus, there was Cerinthus, an early Gnostic contemporary of the apostle John. Marcion (c. 140 A.D.) was also classed as Gnostic.5 Though many Gnostic teachings appeared philosophically absurd (“mazes of absurdity”),6 and although they are often labeled dualistic for their spirit-matter dichotomy, the Gnostics were ultimately pursuing a monistic relationship between man and God. This hidden knowledge was fundamental to Gnostic beliefs, as some scholars affirm that monism was a foundational assumption in their theology.
An Encyclopedia Britannica article notes that Gnosticism:
“laid the foundation of Christian science, and of the Christian schools of Antioch and Alexandria... it lost importance in the middle of the third century but lingered on till the sixth, dominating mostly all other forms of Christianity. It burst forth again in the 12th century as Paulism (the Paulicians), spreading from its old centers into Greece, Italy, Germany, and France, where for a time it almost displaced Catholic Christianity.”7
Aristotelian Monism and Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274)
Scholasticism, where “the doctrines of revealed truth are explained and systematized with the help of philosophical concepts,”8 reached its peak with Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae. Utilizing Aristotelian philosophy, Aquinas shifted the church from “the Christian Platonism of Augustine”9 to Aristotle.
“The Church had perfectly understood, from bitter experience, that in Neoplatonism the danger of pantheism lay concealed, and that the personal God of Aristotle, the master of the world and yet distinct from it, was competent to combat this peril.”10
The transition from a Platonic to an Aristotelian orientation wasn’t easy. The church initially condemned Aristotle’s Physics in 1209 and Metaphysics in 1215, with Pope Gregory ordering against all Aristotelian teaching in 1228 and 1231. However, figures like Alexander of Hales, “the irrefutable doctor” (d. 1245), Albertus Magnus (d. 1280), St. Bonaventura, “the seraphic doctor” (d. 1274), Thomas Aquinas, “the angelic doctor” (d. 1274), and his rival Duns Scotus (d. 1308) eventually led to its acceptance.11
Aquinas showed remarkable skill in organizing data into a hierarchy with God (“i.e., practically, the Church herself”12) at both the top and foundation, thus protecting the church from overly liberal interpretations in natural theology while providing a system acceptable to those engaging with other natural theologies.
Link to Hegel’s Dialectical Method
Aquinas’ system, while avoiding accusations of Neoplatonic pantheism in his time, doesn’t entirely escape the charge of developing a monistic hierarchy with God at the top of a unified realm. Gordon H. Clark describes Aquinas' approach as bordering on pantheism, relating it to Hegel’s later system.
“If it seems strange to accuse St. Thomas of aiding and abetting atheism and pantheism, the direction of natural theology can better be seen as it worked itself out in Hegel and the theologians who followed him.”13
Clark critiques how Aquinas adapted the concept of God for natural theology:
“The connection [of Hegel] with St. Thomas lies in the fact that his terms denoting God are all neuters; ens perfectissimum, primum movens, and so on. This Aristotelian construction, essentially pagan, obscures the personality of God, with the result that an elevation of this neuter to the status of the Christian Trinity becomes an insuperable difficulty. With the advent of Hegelian absolutism, a person becomes an individual mode of the Absolute Spirit, while the Spirit, being Absolute, cannot be a person.”14
Footnotes
Let me know if this section meets your needs, or if you have further adjustments.
Footnotes
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, Volume I, edited by A. Cleveland Coxe; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953), pp. 309-567. ↩
T. Legge, pp. 93, 125. ↩
T. Legge, p. 98. ↩
T. Legge, Volume I, p. 177. ↩
Alexander M. Renwick, “Gnosticism,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 237. ↩
A. Cleveland Coxe, ed., “Introductory Note to Irenaeus Against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, p. 311. ↩
J. G. R. Forlong, Volume II, p. 154. ↩
Martin Anton Schmidt, “Scholasticism,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 475. ↩
Ibid., p. 475. ↩
Charles Guignebert, Ancient, Medieval and Modern Christianity: The Evolution of a Religion (New Hyde Park, New York: University Books, 1961), p. 265. ↩
Ibid., pp. 264-265. ↩
Ibid., p. 265. ↩
Gordon H. Clark, “Revealed Religion,” in Fundamentals of the Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 13. ↩
Ibid., p. 13. ↩
Monism of Protestant Liberalism
Clark notes that theologians who followed Hegel, such as Siebeck, Lotze, Rothe, and Ritschl, although they attempted to preserve the personality of God, found their principles inadequate for the task. "God became merely the content of the highest human values, so that in modernism the object of worship became man himself."1
Schleiermacher's Pantheism
Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834), known as the "father" of liberalism in the Protestant church, was accused in his time of being a pantheist. A German theologian and philosopher, Schleiermacher’s influence extended over many years. His mother was from the Reformed church, while his father, an army chaplain, leaned toward the Moravians and sent young Schleiermacher to them for his education. In this pietistic setting, where discipline was aimed at fostering an experience of the risen Christ, Schleiermacher developed a “higher” theology based on Gefühl, or feeling—essentially, religious experience.2 During this formative period, he also became familiar with philosophers like Plato, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Fichte, Schelling, and Kant, with Kant having a particularly profound influence.
For Schleiermacher, “the feeling of dependence” was the true essence of religion. Christianity, he argued, was not primarily a set of dogmas or intellectual propositions but rather an inner experience. "I ask, therefore, that you turn from everything usually reckoned religion, and fix your regard on the inward emotions and dispositions."3 Schleiermacher defined religion as “to have life and to know life in immediate feeling... to experience one’s existence in the Infinite and Eternal.”4 He further described it as “a life in the infinite nature of the Whole, in the One and in the All, in God, having and possessing all things in God, and God in all.”5
When accused of being a pantheist and replacing God with the Universe, Schleiermacher replied that the feeling resulting from surrender was what mattered. He argued that these feelings arise when a man surrenders himself to the Universe and become habitual in a spirit where such surrender is ongoing.
“Not only in general, but on each occasion we are conscious of God and of His divine power and godhead by the word of creation, and not by any one thing taken by itself, but by it only in so far as it is embraced in the unity and completeness in which alone God is immediately revealed.”6
For Schleiermacher, it wasn’t the concept of God that was important, but rather the feeling he discovered within himself. He asserted that "it matters not what conceptions a man adheres to, he may still be pious. His piety, the divine in his feeling, may be better than his conception, and his desire to place the essence of piety in conception only makes him misunderstand himself."7
Schleiermacher acknowledged that he had departed from the concept of God he had held in his youth, but he believed he had retained the essential quality—his piety. He likened this departure from his childhood faith to the honorable rejection of improper images, as practiced by “the profoundest Christian teachers,” who sought “to annihilate anthropomorphism in the conception of the Highest Being.”8 He argued that if they were not departing from the faith when they forsook anthropomorphic images of God, he should not be accused simply because he had abandoned dogmatic symbols. He emphasized that he was neither an unbeliever nor an atheist, despite moving beyond his initial conception of God and immortality, which had been influenced by childhood “when the soul lives entirely in images.”9
Schleiermacher was not opposed to using images to represent God. He suggested that even a person who prays before an idol might possess more piety than one with a more accurate conception of God. His monistic view of God is further implied by his frequent use of terms like "World-Spirit," "the Whole," and "the Universe." However, his focus was less on monism itself and more on the necessity of experiencing the Universe.
"The Universe is ceaselessly active and at every moment is revealing itself to us."10
"The sum total of religion is to feel that, in its highest unity, all that moves us in feeling is one; to feel that aught single and particular is only possible by means of this unity; to feel... that our being and living is a being and living in and through God."11
He further elaborated, “Yet the true nature of religion is neither this idea nor any other, but immediate consciousness of the Deity as He is found in ourselves and in the world.”12
Schleiermacher’s broad acceptance in Germany and surrounding areas suggests that monistic assumptions were widely held. His influence indicates that his emphasis on religious feeling as central to faith was seen by many as a revitalizing force in the church.
Footnotes
This section now includes the full range of Schleiermacher's theological stance with the related footnotes. Let me know if this aligns with your expectations or if there’s more you'd like to add!
Footnotes
Ibid., referring to Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I (New York: Harper and Row, [n.d.]), pp. 286-297. ↩
Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953), p. 1121. ↩
Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, trans. John Oman (New York: Harper and Row, 1958), p. 18. ↩
Ibid., p. 36. ↩
Ibid., p. 36. ↩
Ibid., p. 24. ↩
Ibid., p. 95. ↩
Ibid., p. 23. ↩
Ibid., p. 22. ↩
Ibid., p. 48. ↩
Ibid., pp. 50-51. ↩
Ibid., p. 101. ↩
Hegel's Pantheism
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) monistically attempted to develop a philosophical system that would incorporate everything. According to Francis Schaeffer, "the western world has not been the same since Hegel,"1 as Hegel introduced dialectical thinking, which seeks to create a synthesis between every thesis and its antithesis in an ongoing process. Such a system requires a monistic worldview, where there is no fundamental distinction between thesis and antithesis. Hegel’s comprehensive system can, in some ways, be likened to that of Aristotle and Aquinas, who also aimed to integrate all existing knowledge into an organized framework.
Hegel’s first book, The Phenomenology of the Spirit (or Mind), published in 1807, exerted considerable influence throughout the next century. It assumes the progressive development of an idealistic universe. "In this book, Hegel viewed a variety of outlooks as so many states of mind and regarded these as stages in the development of the spirit toward ever-greater maturity."2 His second book, Logic (1812-1816), systematically analyzes concepts, while his Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1817) is a condensation of his entire system. His last book, Philosophy of Right (1821), demonstrates the further development of his monistic assumptions. Posthumously, his lectures on the philosophy of history, religion, and art were published, and "Hegel, more than anyone else, established the history of philosophy as an important field of study."3
Hegel’s fundamental doctrine was that "thought and being are one,"4 as W. L. Walker explains, quoting Dr. Hutchison Stirling: "Hegel sought the one principle to which he might reduce all. To be in earnest with Idealism, Hegel said to himself, is to find all things whatever [are] but forms of Thought."5 While Kant separated the natural world from the spiritual world, Hegel sought to combine the two. Kant had concluded that natural theology cannot describe God, as nothing can be known about God; we can know with certainty only the natural world. Hegel synthesized these realms through his dialectical method, merging all dualisms into a progressive monism. (Kierkegaard, living from 1813-1855, attempted to escape Hegelian thought through a leap of faith in search of a more transcendent God, who could be experienced outside the "fruitless reasoning channels.")
David Friedrich Strauss
David Friedrich Strauss's book Life of Jesus, published in 1835, "split the century into two theological eras—before and after 1835."6 "No single theological work ever created such consternation in the theological world as Strauss' Life of Jesus,"7 which he published at the age of 27. Influenced by Hegel’s Phenomenology of Mind, Strauss differentiated between Begriff ("the truth grasped in the form of logical thought and pure abstract ideas")8 and Vorstellung ("the truth grasped in the form of sensuous, pictorial imagery").9 Strauss believed philosophy and religion conveyed the same content, though Hegelian philosophy employed pure ideas, while Christianity used "inadequate and immature pictorial images of the sensuous imagination."10 Some of the images Strauss deemed suitable for abstraction, depending on the maturity of the congregation, included angels, the Holy Ghost, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection.11
Strauss also became convinced by Vatke, whom he viewed as a sophisticated interpreter of Hegel, that biblical images did not correspond with historical facts. He concluded that Moses recorded the ideals and myths of his people, not history.12 Strauss’s aim was to demonstrate that the Gospel record about Jesus could not be trusted for historical accuracy, though he defended his work by arguing that the core ideas remained intact as eternal truths. In the preface to The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, he wrote:
"The author is aware that the essence of the Christian faith is perfectly independent of his criticism. The supernatural birth of Christ, his miracles, his resurrection and ascension, remain eternal truths, whatever doubts may be cast on their reality as historical facts."13
Strauss devoted nearly 800 pages to highlighting apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in the Gospel records. This exhaustive critique cast doubt on the Gospel's historical credibility, making it difficult for believers to rebut such an extensive compilation of material.
Strauss’s work also targeted church Christology. Near the end of Life of Jesus, he includes a section titled “Objections to the Christology of the Church,” agreeing with Schleiermacher’s critique of the doctrine of Christ's two natures:
"Before all else he finds it a difficulty, that by the expression, divine nature and human nature, divinity and humanity are placed under one category, and what is more, under the category of nature, which essentially denotes only a limited being, conceived by means of its opposite."14
Strauss and Schleiermacher argued that it was inconceivable for Christ to embody two distinct natures, viewing this doctrine as incompatible with reality. Strauss is explicit about the significance of his critique, seeing it as an endeavor to strip away biblical imagery to reveal the idealism beneath, which he considered to be true reality:
"The results of the inquiry... have apparently annihilated the greatest and most valuable part of that which the Christian has been wont to believe concerning his Saviour Jesus... Piety turns away with horror from so fearful an act of desecration, [but] strong in the impregnable self-evidence of its faith... pronounces that, let an audacious criticism attempt what it will, all which the Scriptures declare, and the Church believes of Christ, will still subsist as eternal truth... Thus, at the conclusion of the criticism of the history of Jesus, there presents itself this problem: to re-establish dogmatically that which has been destroyed critically."15
Albert Ritschl (1822-1889)
"After Schleiermacher, the most prominent German Protestant theologian of the nineteenth century was Albrecht Ritschl," observes historian Latourette. Ritschl, the son of a Lutheran bishop, rejected the subjectivism and mysticism he experienced in Pietism. He left Hegelianism after exploring it for some time, aiming to create a theological approach that did not rely on metaphysics or philosophy and would be acceptable to scientifically minded individuals.16 As a professor of theology at Bonn and later at Göttingen, Ritschl’s influence culminated in his work, The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation.
Rejecting both church dogma and philosophy, Ritschl dismissed an external law-giver, including concepts like propitiation and law as a strict code.[^71] Instead, he raised man’s ability to make value judgments to a position of authority. Divinity itself became a value judgment, attributed to whatever aligns with one's value system.[^72] Religious knowledge develops as we experience pleasure or pain, and value judgments form based on these experiences, rather than through dogma or philosophy. Thus, Ritschl saw God as known through love within the community of believers, rather than as a transcendent being. In this view, God is irrelevant; all we know is what we experience, and we derive meaning from these experiences by ordering them in a value hierarchy that culminates in divinity.
Despite his rejection of subjective emotions, Ritschl sought a scientific basis for theology. He aimed to identify the genesis of beliefs and establish a rational, experiential foundation.
Footnotes
Footnotes
Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1968), p. 20f. See Schaeffer’s discussion for more insights. ↩
Walter Kaufmann, “Hegel,” World Book Encyclopedia, Volume IX, p. 157. Kaufmann observes that dialectical idealism influenced Western liberalism, while dialectical materialism went East in Marxian Communism. ↩
Ibid., p. 157. ↩
W. L. Walker, Christian Theism and a Spiritual Monism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907), p. 196. ↩
Ibid., p. 199. ↩
Horton Harris, David Friedrich Strauss and His Theology (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), p. ix. ↩
Ibid., p. ix. ↩
Richard S. Cromwell, David Friedrich Strauss and His Place in Modern Thought (Fair Lawn, New Jersey: Burdick, Inc., 1974), p. 33. ↩
Ibid., p. 33. ↩
Ibid., p. 39. ↩
Ibid., p. 39. ↩
Ibid., p. 42. ↩
David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, trans. George Eliot (New York: Macmillan and Co., 1892), p. xxx. ↩
Ibid., p. 765, citing Glaubenslehre, II, paragraphs 96-98. ↩
Ibid., p. 757. ↩
Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953), p. ↩
A Christian Theology According to the Ritschlians
A Christian theology, according to the Ritschlians, should limit itself to those convictions that genuinely arise from the believer's vital connection to the historical Jesus. It is thus a description of actual experience, finding the norm for this experience in the revelation of God in Jesus.1 The Ritschlian movement produced a vast amount of literature with wide influence in Germany, England, and America. An American liberal, Gerald Birney Smith, summarized Ritschl's significance by stating, "The most important movement in Christian thought during the latter part of the nineteenth century was the development of the Ritschlian theology." He added, "It is impossible to read modern theological discussions intelligently without a knowledge of Ritschlianism."2
Adolf von Harnack
Classified as one of the Ritschlian writers,3 Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) was a liberal theologian who sought to portray Jesus primarily as a teacher, not as divine as Paul had claimed.4 During the winter of 1899-1900, Professor Harnack delivered 16 lectures at the University of Berlin on the essence of Christianity. The 600 students in attendance were deeply stirred; the lectures were published, igniting a surge of interest across Germany. James Orr, in his study of Ritschlianism, described the impact of Harnack’s work:
"Probably no book has created quite so great a stir since the appearance, in the beginning of [the nineteenth century] of Schleiermacher's celebrated Discourses on Religion, with which the lectures of Harnack have repeatedly been compared."5
Harnack’s book raised both fierce opposition and a significant following, as he advocated that Christ was purely human.
Liberalism’s Continuity, Immanence, and Naturalism
Liberalism was characterized by a sense of continuity between nature and God, revealing its monistic tendencies. "It has been said that the one great 'unit idea' that characterizes the nineteenth century is that of continuity,"[^78] and another defining term for liberal theology was immanence. The notion that God’s presence was so immanent in nature negated the need to seek Him elsewhere: "the age of immanence had begun."[^79]
Prominent figures in this immanence movement included Hermann, Herder, Fichte, Schelling, Fechner, and Lessing. Pietism also contributed by bridging mind and God with feeling. John Wesley, for instance, found that God was so continuous with humanity that He could be experienced directly. Romanticism supported this view, depicting the world as a living entity that poets like Shelley described as "the everlasting universe of things," in line with German idealists’ vision of a unified universe. Both naturalism and idealism rejected dualism and provided "a framework for immanentist doctrines."[^80] Darwin’s theory of evolution, reflecting this spirit of continuity, emerged as an expression of the era’s temperament, rather than as a cause of it.[^81]
The 19th-century “doctrine of continuity” manifested in various monistic trends, including romanticism, pietism, idealism, naturalism, and evolution. Liberalism became the theological movement paralleling and intertwining with these others: "The theological movement reflecting various degrees of the temper of continuity is commonly known as liberalism."[82] Liberalism sought to remain connected with religious history while also engaging with science, philosophy, and other fields. Its focus on immanence "was derived from a continuity metaphysics,"[^83] positioning God within the continuum rather than outside it.
In Europe, liberalism’s influence spread widely. Figures like Fechner, Lotze, and Hartmann, Hegelians who attempted to synthesize science and philosophy, were among those contributing to this movement, while thinkers like Schelling, Kierkegaard, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, and Marx reacted to or against Hegelianism.[^84]
Liberalism in England
In England, liberalism sparked significant controversies within the Anglican and Free Churches, also affecting other major denominations. Neo-Hegelian leaders such as Bradley and Bosanquet promoted these ideas, while in the Free Church, the “New Theology” controversy (1907-1910) marked the height of the immanence movement. After this period, idealist philosophical theology in England increasingly focused on personalism through figures like Pringle-Pattison, C. C. J. Webb, and W. H. Moberly. However, immanence remained the prevailing mood in England until the 1930s.
Liberalism in America
In America, liberalism was first promoted by Unitarians like Channing and Parker, followed by the influence of Schleiermacher and Ritschl through figures such as Bushnell, who studied in Europe. Adopters of evolutionary frameworks for theology included Drummond, Fiske, and Abbott. Liberal theology was embraced by theological institutions like Oberlin, Union, Yale, Colgate, and Andover, which hired liberal professors such as H. C. King (Oberlin), Shailer Mathews, and Gerald Birney Smith (Chicago), and W. N. Clarke (Colgate).[^85]
Most of this liberal shift had occurred by the early 20th century. Notable works on God’s immanence from the 1920s included:
J. M. Snowden, The Personality of God (1920)
H. A. Jones, Faith That Inquires (1922)
C. A. Beckwith, The Idea of God (1922)
G. B. Foster, Christianity in Its Modern Expression (1924)
J. F. Newton, ed., My Idea of God (1926)
D. S. Robinson, The God of the Liberal Christian (1926)
J. E. Turner, The Nature of Deity (1927)
J. W. Beckham, The Humanity of God (1928)
Richard Roberts, The Christian God (1929)
E. S. Ames, Religion (1929)
Liberalism in Major Protestant Denominations
Liberalism gained control of various major Protestant denominations during this period. James DeForest Murch, who later helped found the National Association of Evangelicals as a counter-movement, described the strategy used by liberals in the Methodist Episcopal Church:
Place a liberal in every English Bible chair at church colleges.
Liberalize the church’s book concern.
Liberalize church rituals.
Liberalize the required course of study for ministers.
This strategy was so effective that within a generation, liberals had significant control over the denomination, influencing Sunday Schools, foreign missions, ministerial training, and even the appointment of bishops.[^87] In the Presbyterian Church (USA), liberalism spread rapidly enough that by 1923, 1,292 ministers signed the liberal Auburn Affirmation, summarized by Murch as follows:
Denial of the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures and rejection of their authority in faith and practice.
Acceptance of Christ’s Incarnation as a fact but denial of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth.
Rejection of the belief that Christ’s death satisfied divine justice and reconciled humanity to God.
Skepticism regarding the resurrection of Christ in the same body in which He suffered.
Denial of the supernatural elements in Christ’s miracles.[^88]
Both fundamentalists and modernists saw liberalism’s concept of God as incompatible with traditional views. Charles Clayton Morrison, editor of the liberal Christian Century, wrote:
"There is a clash here as grim as between Christianity and Confucianism... The God of the fundamentalist is one God; the God of the modernist is another... The future will tell."[^89]
Liberalism’s immanent and monistic view of God dominated the theological landscape during the early 20th century, especially in Germany, England, and America. Only after the social catastrophes of the 1920s and 1930s did liberalism’s foundational assumptions come under scrutiny.[^90]
Monism in the Wesleyan Movement
A strong monistic influence on the Wesleyan "second work of grace" movement emerged through the teachings of mystics who testified to experiencing God directly. Wesleyan scholars John L. Peters and George Allen Turner, sympathetic to Wesley’s view of Christian perfection as a second work of grace, note the significant impact of mystical writers on Wesley.
Wesley read William Law's Treatise on Christian Perfection and A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life after becoming a fellow at Lincoln College, Oxford, in 1726. These books opposed Deism and were widely influential. Wesley concluded that "only one thing is needful, even faith that worketh by the love of God and man, all inward and outward holiness."[^91]
Footnotes
Footnotes
Gerald Birney Smith, "Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics," in A Guide to the Study of the Christian Religion, ed. Gerald Birney Smith (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1916), p. 501. ↩
Ibid., p. 500. ↩
Ibid., p. 503. ↩
L. J. Trinterud, “Harnack,” World Book Encyclopedia, Volume IX (Chicago: Field Enterprises, 1976), p. 65. ↩
James Orr, *Ritschlianism ↩
Count Zinzendorf
Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700-1761) was another mystical influence on Wesley. A German Pietist, Zinzendorf led the Moravian Brethren, a movement "fathered" by Philipp Jacob Spener (1633-1705). Spener’s Pia Desideria, published in 1665, articulated the principles of this new pietistic movement, including beliefs such as: knowledge of God comes from the heart, not the head; and sermons are meant to edify believers rather than defend doctrines. Turner points out that these principles are now almost taken for granted in American evangelical churches, a testament to the lasting influence of both Spener and Wesleyan Methodism.1
Wesley spent significant time with Zinzendorf and the Moravians, who believed in the possibility of achieving perfection in this life. The Moravian Brethren focused on "religion of the heart," speaking of a personal knowledge of Christ that inspired deep conviction in their listeners—a quality that greatly moved Wesley.2
Additional Mystical Influences on Wesley
Turner notes that, beyond influences like Clement of Alexandria, Thomas à Kempis, Richard Baxter, and William Law (all of whom Wesley acknowledged), there is also evidence of direct influence from figures like Plotinus, Augustine, Molinos, the Cambridge Platonists, Antoinette Bourignon, and Madame Guyon. Although Wesley later claimed to repudiate the "mystical writers" due to their perceived de-emphasis on Christ's redemptive work, these mystical antecedents significantly impacted his theological development. Turner observes that Wesley was predominantly influenced by Anglicanism from 1725-1735, and by German Pietism from 1735-1740, a period during which Wesley made crucial, formative decisions, finding spiritual discovery and assurance.3
Monism of Sects
Monism of Mormonism
American metaphysical trends in the 19th and 20th centuries leaned toward monism, creating an environment for the emergence of sects that, while generally rejected by orthodox Christianity, still claimed Christian roots. The monism of Mormonism is evident in the teachings of its founder, Joseph Smith, who implied a fundamental similarity between God and man. He taught, "First, God himself who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret...,"4 suggesting that God's nature is akin to human nature. This idea aligns with the Mormon doctrine that man can become what God is, and that God was once what man is. Whether or not modern Mormonism officially teaches this doctrine, it still appeals to the idea of God possessing a physical body resembling a human's.
The Mormon approach to proselytizing reflects this monistic view. A training dialogue provided to Mormon elders demonstrates how they use this belief in outreach:
Elder: Mr. Brown, we are here today to tell you about a prophet called by the Lord in our time, Joseph Smith... As he prayed, he saw a pillar of light above his head, brighter than the sun, and two personages in the form of men appeared to him. One called Joseph by name and said, "This is my Beloved Son." Mr. Brown, who were these two personages?
Brown: God and Jesus Christ.
Elder: Yes, Joseph saw the Father and the Son as clearly as you see Elder Jones and me. He realized that his body was truly made in the image and likeness of God.5
This teaching, along with the Mormon doctrine of man's eternal progression (suggesting a lineage of divine fathers), presents a clear monistic stance, positing that the Creator and creation share the same essential nature.6
Mormonism, which began in the early 19th century, has since grown into a worldwide faith with millions of members, projecting to reach ten million by the year 2000.7
Christian Science
Christian Science, founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879, represents another monistic sect. Its "science" entails monistic thinking—asserting that whatever is good is real, and whatever is not good (e.g., sickness) is unreal.8 In Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, Eddy interprets biblical passages through a monistic lens, claiming that monism is the "key" to understanding Scripture. This monistic interpretation is apparent in the Six Tenets of the Mother Church, which affirm "the allness of Soul, Spirit, and the nothingness of matter."9
Each tenet subtly reinterprets orthodox Christian vocabulary:
The First Tenet: Claims the Bible as "our sufficient guide to eternal Life," creating the impression of orthodoxy but hinting at a new vocabulary interpretation.
The Second Tenet: Redefines the Trinity with unitarian language: "We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness."10
The Third Tenet: Denies the reality of sin, viewing it as a false belief to be overcome.
"We acknowledge God's forgiveness of sin in the destruction of sin and the spiritual understanding that casts out evil as unreal. But the belief in sin is punished so long as the belief lasts."11
Christian Science’s conception of prayer reflects this monism, interpreting prayer as a means of transformation through meditation on a monistic conception of God as "incorporeal, divine, supreme, infinite Mind, Spirit, Soul, Principle, Life, Truth, Love."12
Unitarianism, Universalism, and Related Movements
Closely related to Christian Science in its monistic philosophy, Unitarianism also emphasizes the unity of God and man. Early Unitarian leaders included Francis David in Transylvania, Faustus Socinus in Poland, and John Biddle in England. Unitarianism spread through Congregational and Presbyterian churches in America in the 1700s, leading to the establishment of the Unitarian Church in 1805.13 Prominent figures like William Ellery Channing argued for basing religious truth on universal experience rather than ancient texts. This view, known as Transcendentalism, suggested that men could experience truths beyond their senses, aligning with a monistic perspective.14 In 1961, Universalism, a group with similar beliefs, merged with Unitarianism to form the Unitarian Universalist Association, advocating complete freedom of belief and rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity.
Footnotes
Let me know if this meets your requirements or if you would like further sections formatted!
Footnotes
George Fox, Journal, abridged by P. L. Parker, p. 31. ↩
George Allen Turner, The More Excellent Way (Winona Lake, Indiana: Light and Life Press, 1952), pp. 139, 142, 147, 200. ↩
Ibid., p. 143. ↩
Times and Seasons, Volume V, pp. 613-614, quoted in Sandra Tanner, The Bible and Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Co., [n.d.]), p. 1. Also found in Jerold and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Co., 1972), p. 163. ↩
A Uniform System for Teaching Investigators (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1961). ↩
Bruce R. McConkie, ed., Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: [n.n.], 1966), pp. 322-323. ↩
Deseret News, Church Section, October 21, 1967, p. 1; cited in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?, p. 1. ↩
"Christian Scientists," World Book Encyclopedia, Volume III, p. 406. ↩
Lyman P. Powell, Mary Baker Eddy: A Life Size Portrait (New York: Macmillan Co., 1930), pp. 200-201. ↩
Ibid., pp. 200-201. ↩
Ibid., pp. 200-201. ↩
Ibid., p. 156. ↩
The American Unitarian Association was organized in 1825. ↩
Ibid., citing Theodore Parker's sermon, "The Transient and Permanent in Christianity," and Ralph Waldo Emerson’s "Divinity School Address" in 1838. ↩
Unity School of Christianity
The Unity School of Christianity was founded in 1889 by Charles Fillmore in Kansas City, Missouri. In 1885, the Fillmores attended a lecture by Dr. E. B. Weeks of the Illinois Metaphysical College, founded by Emma Curtis Hopkins, who had previously been associated with Mary Baker Eddy. Shortly afterward, Mrs. Fillmore experienced a healing, attributing it to an idea she received during the lecture. Charles Fillmore, a mystic who often prayed for four to six hours a day, named his organization "Unity," emphasizing that it was not a denomination but instead embraced the goodness of all religions.1
According to James Dillet Freeman, a protégé of co-founder Myrtle Fillmore, Unity’s central teaching is to “Go within.” Freeman explains, “Go within—seek, ask, knock, meditate, pray—and you cannot miss God.” He notes that Unity does not emphasize doctrinal specifics: “If you can experience God yourself, my description of Him is comparatively unimportant. You will yourself know your relation to Him.”2 To aid in achieving this experience, Unity offers specific teachings aimed at helping Christians approach God and the teachings of Jesus monistically. Freeman describes Unity’s philosophy as a “practical mysticism,” a “practical Christianity” with elements of objective idealism, teaching that “reality is of the nature of the mind.”3
Unity makes extensive use of the Bible, viewing it as God’s Word meant to guide daily life, and offers interpretative resources to help people apply its message practically. Unity publishes literature in 12 languages, reaching most countries. In 1961, they were distributing five million pieces of literature monthly, including two million magazines, and provided free materials to more than 10,000 hospitals, prisons, schools, and other institutions worldwide.
The Bahá’í Faith
The Bahá’í Faith teaches that all religions worship the same God, believing that God has sent a succession of prophets to reveal eternal truths and social principles suitable to their times. These prophets include figures like Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad, and Bahá’u’lláh, a Persian prophet who founded the Bahá’í Faith in 1863. The Bahá’ís advocate for mutual acceptance among all people and religions, oppose discrimination based on race, gender, or age, and promote a federated system of world governance. Today, the Bahá’í Faith has approximately 17,000 Local Spiritual Assemblies worldwide, with about 1,000 located in the United States.4
Summary
From the time of the Greeks (and likely before) to the modern era, humanity has frequently assumed that God is, in some manner, part of the universe. Although many assume that He is a distinct being, they often conceptualize Him as something familiar within the universe. Concurrently, there has been a consistent effort to unify the diversity of the universe under a single system or basic substance. If God is in any way integrated into the universe, it is feasible to view Him as monistically connected to it.
The Greeks viewed the universe as a monism and included God within this unity. The Gnostics also held a monistic view of spirit, merging God with spiritual beings. Preoccupied with avoiding a dualism between matter and spirit, they overlooked any ontological distinction between God and created spirits. Irenaeus countered this spiritual monism by asserting that the Christian concept of divinity fundamentally differed from the Gnostic notion, emphasizing the substantial difference between the Christian God and the Gnostic Bythus.
In the Catholic Church, two significant developments encouraged people to think of God as part of the universe. First, the Platonistic use of images to represent God, established at the Second Council of Nicaea, assumed a unity between the image and its divine referent. The second influence was the Aristotelian philosophy that Aquinas used to integrate God into the natural world, making natural theology a means of knowing God.
Protestant liberalism similarly sought to harmonize theology with contemporary natural sciences, which were making the monistic nature of the universe increasingly accessible to human understanding. Liberalism assumed continuity between nature and God, rejecting the notion of a “supernatural” God existing independently of the universe.
Various sects that arose during this period, such as Mormonism, Christian Science, and Unity, reflect the prevailing monistic thinking of the time. These movements, among others, developed philosophies based on the widespread belief in a fundamental unity between God and the universe.
Footnotes
Conrad Wright, “Unitarians,” World Book Encyclopedia, Volume XX, pp. 19-20. ↩
James Dillet Freeman, “What is Unity?” Christian Herald (January, 1961), p. 79. ↩
Ibid., pp. 79-80. ↩
“Bahá’ís,” World Book Encyclopedia, Volume II, p. 24. ↩