International Journal of Systematic Theology Volume 9 Number 4 October 2007 doi:10.1111/j.1468-2400.2007.00261.

The Precarious Status of Resurrection in Friedrich Schleiermachers Glaubenslehre

NATHAN D. HIEB*

Abstract: The Glaubenslehre provides the context for this exploration of Schleiermachers understanding of Christs resurrection in relation to redemption, the nature-system and eschatology. In spite of Schleiermachers afrmation of the historicity of Christs resurrection, he proceeds to empty the resurrection of redemptive signicance, thereby maintaining consistency with a nature-system that implicitly disallows miracles, and resulting in an eschatology in which the resurrection of individual believers is posited in severe tension with the consummation of the church. Thus, the weight of Schleiermachers consistent argumentation regarding redemption, the nature-system and eschatology suggests that there is no room for resurrection in the Glaubenslehre in relation to either Christ or individual believers.

Upon reading Friedrich Schleiermachers Glaubenslehre1 one is immediately struck by the detail utilized by the author in his construction of a profoundly interconnected theological system. Self-consistency is a tremendous strength of this work in which proposals ow seamlessly from presupposition to conclusion and relate intricately to preceding and subsequent passages. When examining any single idea, therefore, one must look at multiple planes, various doctrines and diverse associations in order to understand fully the choices guiding Schleiermachers theological developments. Thus, when we consider Schleiermachers treatment of the work of Christ, in particular his view that Christs resurrection has little redemptive signicance ( 100105), we must be willing to examine a wider scope, inclusive of several doctrines, in order to understand adequately the reasons behind this decision and its full implications for Schleiermachers theology. With this aim in mind, I propose to examine the relation of Christs resurrection to Christs work of redemption in the Glaubenslehre, the underpinning for this relation in Schleiermachers preceding discussion of the nature-system, and the

* Princeton Theological Seminary, SBN 326, Box 5204, Princeton, NJ 08543, USA. 1 Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, ed. H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928).
The author 2007. Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Resurrection in the Glaubenslehre

399

resulting implications for eschatology. My central claim is that, in spite of his afrmation of the historicity of Christs resurrection ( 99), Schleiermacher proceeds to empty the resurrection of redemptive signicance, thereby maintaining consistency with a nature-system that implicitly disallows miracles, and resulting in an eschatology in which the future resurrection of believers is posited in severe tension with the consummation of the church. Thus, the weight of Schleiermachers consistent argumentation regarding redemption, the nature-system and eschatology suggests that there is little room for literal resurrection in the Glaubenslehre in regard to either Christ or individual believers. For these reasons, Schleiermachers system would gain greater consistency and internal coherence if all references to resurrection were abandoned.2

Schleiermachers doctrine of redemption

Schleiermacher interprets redemption as the assumption of the believer into Christs powerful God-consciousness and regards this as closely related to, yet distinct from, his understanding of reconciliation as the participation of the believer in Christs blessedness.3 Schleiermacher distinguishes between Christs active and passive obedience within his doctrine of redemption which leads to the assignment of marginal importance at best to the accidental details of Christs suffering.4 This move occurs in conjunction with another, namely, the emptying of the resurrection of theological content. The active obedience of Christ, prioritized over the passive, refers both to Christs continual experience of his God-consciousness, which can manifest itself only as activity, and to his self-activity in relation to the tasks set before him of assuming humanity into fellowship with himself and of instituting the corporate life of the church.5 Central to these tasks is the transmission of Christs powerful God-consciousness to humanity. Schleiermacher argues that we should not regard Christs active obedience as fullling the law of God because the concept of law always differentiates between a higher will which commands, and an imperfect will which is subordinate to it, therefore for Christ to fulll the divine law would
Precedent for demonstrating the problematic nature of resurrection within Schleiermachers thought may be found in Nico F.M. Schreurs excellent article, Keine festbegrenzte und wahrhaft anschauliche Vorstellung: Schleiermachers Schwierigkeiten mit dem Lehrstck von der Auferstehung des Fleisches, trans. Yvonne van de Akker, Frieburger Zeitschrift fr Philosophie und Theologie (Schweiz) 38 (1991). Schreurs approach differs fundamentally from my own in that he begins with eschatology, gives only passing attention to resurrection in relation to redemption, and does not adequately address the importance of the nature-system for this question. 3 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 42532. 4 Schleiermacher does not separate active and passive obedience as though one preceded the other or one occurred without the presence of the other; both active and passive obedience are inseparably present throughout Christs life. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 4523. 5 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 4523.
The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

400

Nathan D. Hieb

mean that Christ is inferior to something, namely the law.6 Further, to speak of Christ being under the law is to assume that the divine law and Christ differ to such a degree that Christ could choose whether or not to be under that law. But this is not the case. Rather, it is more correct to understand the active obedience of Christ as His perfect fullment of the divine will, a will that he embodies and in which he participates.7 Further, Christs active obedience does not fulll the divine will in such a way as to remove our responsibility of also fullling it. Rather, our experience of redemption as assumption into Christs powerful God-consciousness results in the animation of our will by his own so that we ourselves are led to an ever more perfect fullment of the divine will.8 It is through fellowship with Christ, through contact with his historical sphere of inuence perpetuated by the church, that his obedience benets us through the transmission to us of Christs motive principle which empowers us to fulll the divine will.9 Simply put, Christ does not satisfy Gods requirements on our behalf but through our assumption into his God-consciousness Christ enables us to fulll the divine will for ourselves.10 Thus, Schleiermacher writes, the active obedience of Christ has its properly high-priestly value chiey in the fact that God regards us in Christ as partners in His obedience.11 Christs passive obedience, on the other hand, is his openness and receptivity towards the events of his earthly life, including the historical details surrounding Christs suffering and death, and his utilization of these events for the goal of effectively communicating his powerful God-consciousness.12 I will limit my discussion of Christs passive obedience to its role within Christs high priestly ofce and to Schleiermachers opposition to wounds theology. Schleiermacher embeds Christs passive suffering within the universal scope of Christs priestly ofce by arguing that Christ suffered the punishment associated with the sins of the Jews and Gentiles immediately surrounding him; Jews and Gentiles here comprising general categories that together represent all of humanity. As such, the mistreatment suffered by Christ at the hands of particular Jews and Gentiles represents by metaphorical extension the sin of the whole world.13 The primary task of Christs suffering within redemption is illustrative in function; it displays the dissolution of the connection between sin and the experience of evil.
Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 4556. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 456, emphasis in original. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 456. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 4567. Hinze states, Schleiermachers conception of the work of Christ was based on his interpretation of the salvic revelation of Christ as an educative inuence, rather than as specically effected by the passion and cross of Christ, or by the victory of the resurrection. Bradford E. Hinze, Narrating History, Developing Doctrine: Friedrich Schleiermacher and Johann Sebastian Drey (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), p. 265. 11 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 459. In this section, Schleiermacher seems to be sharpening the Protestant lines of his theology by differentiating it from Catholic thought with its understanding of the treasury of merit. 12 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 459. 13 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 4578.
The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

6 7 8 9 10

Resurrection in the Glaubenslehre

401

Though evil once carried the status of punishment for sin, Christs brutal death grants us a fresh interpretive framework in which we are able to regard Christs experience of evil as disconnected from any sin on his part, thus setting us free from the notion that there exists a necessary connection between sin and punishment. When we experience the fellowship of His blessed life through assumption into his powerful God-consciousness we are also able to regard our suffering as disconnected from our own sin. In short, Christs death offers to us an interpretive shift for our understanding of sin and guilt rather than an ontological or forensic change in our status before God, and as such we would be mistaken to view his death as necessary.14 Though evil persists, and we may suffer, we should not regard our suffering as punishment for our sin because in relation to sin the divine will is satised by Christs active obedience and the transmission to us of Christs motive principle15 which enables us to live in conformity to Gods will. In spite of Schleiermachers positive utilization of Christs passive obedience within his theological system he adamantly opposes a wounds theology which seeks to draw undue meaning from the specic details of Christs suffering. According to Schleiermacher, at the heart of wounds theology is confused thinking because such a perspective attributes to Christ as High Priest what should only be attributed to him as sacricial victim. A victim, for Schleiermacher, is entirely passive in regard to the event which victimizes him or her. Likewise, Christ was entirely passive in relation to his physical suffering because he had no choice in regard to its form, and therefore the specic features of his suffering should not be conceived as being for Him signicant elements in experience.16 We would thus be mistaken to seek redemptive meaning in the accidental details of Christs passive suffering, such as how many times Christ stumbled along the path to Golgotha or the fact that he died by crucixion.17 Schleiermacher rejects traditional notions that Christ bore the punishment for humanitys sin demanded by the justice of God by arguing that the sin of humanity cannot be conceived as anything less than innite and that therefore any punishment connected to, and resulting from, this sin must also be conceived as innite.18 Yet, Christs humanity alone, which suffered within

14

15 16 17

18

Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 4589. Schleiermacher writes, in the fellowship of His blessed life even the evil which is in the process of disappearing is no longer at least regarded as punishment. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 458, emphasis added. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 4567. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 459. Hinze states, Schleiermacher not only criticized, but also rejected, the dogmatic claims about the pre-existence of Christ and the Virgin Birth, as well as the allegorizing tendency to nd some specic causal worth in the death, resurrection, or ascension of Christ as attested to in the Scriptures and afrmed in dogmatic claims. Hinze, Narrating History, Developing Doctrine, p. 264. . . . it naturally follows, since the total sin of the human race cannot be reckoned anything less than innite, that the suffering also was innite. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 459.

The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

402

Nathan D. Hieb

the bounds of localized space and time, could not have suffered innitely. Therefore, if Christ experienced innite punishment resulting from humanitys innite sin then it is necessary that Christs divinity also suffered.19 Schleiermacher dismisses this possibility on the grounds of the impassibility of God. Schleiermacher further opposes any theology of the atonement that mistakenly attributes to Christs personal self-consciousness that which arose only in connection with his sympathy. Thus, when Christ cries out My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?20 Schleiermacher believes he is not actually claiming to be forsaken but rather is giving expression to his compassion and sympathy for suffering, sin-ridden humanity who feel the sting of God-forsakenness.21 The culmination of Christs redemptive and reconciling act is his self-offering; Christs suffering simply reveals his sympathy and love but is not theologically signicant in relation to redemption or reconciliation.22 Schleiermacher in this way counters all traditional emphasis upon the physical suffering and death of Christ by prioritizing Christs active obedience over his passive obedience. Schleiermachers decision to empty Christs suffering and death of atoning signicance bears a direct relation to his treatment of the resurrection. If the accidental details of Christs suffering and death do not relate to redemption other than as illustrations of self-offering, then it follows that the historical claims regarding Christs resurrection from the dead also have no direct bearing on the redeemed life of the believer.23 For this reason, Bernd Oberdorfer states, according to Schleiermacher, Christs resurrection is not an essential element of the doctrine of Christs person as being the principle of our redemption.24 Schleiermacher is careful not to deny the historicity of the resurrection since to do so would mean either that Christ chose his disciples poorly, for they would be revealed to be unreliable purveyors of testimony, or that Christ intended to deceive humanity. These are untenable options for Schleiermacher.25 Yet, Schleiermacher succeeds in emptying the resurrection of theological content by simply ignoring it in relation to redemption and reconciliation to the extent that it could be denied and his doctrinal system,

19 20 21 22

Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 45960. Matt. 27:46; Mk 15:34. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 436, 45960. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 436. Christs imperturbable blessedness is attested only in an indirect manner by his sufferings; his sufferings serve a direct, instrumental function in revealing Christs sympathy and love. 23 Markus Schrder offers a different interpretation. Markus Schrder, Die kritische Identitt des neuzeitlichen Christentums: Schleiermachers Wesenbestimmung der christlichen Religion (Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1996), p. 198. 24 Bernd Oberdorfer, Schleiermacher on Eschatology and Resurrection, in Ted Peters, Robert John Russell and Michael Welker, eds., Resurrection: Theological and Scientic Assessments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 172 n. 8. See also Schreurs, Keine festbegrenzte und wahrhaft anschauliche Vorstellung , p. 52. 25 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 420.
The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

Resurrection in the Glaubenslehre

403

derived from the feeling of absolute dependence, would survive relatively intact.26 Oberdorfer agrees: . . . according to Schleiermacher, Christs resurrection is not essential to his redemptive work. We share subjectively in redemption by participating in his consciousness of God, which was accessible before his resurrection and is still accessible independently of it. Schleiermacher thus represents a type of soteriology that focuses on the teaching of the historical Jesus rather than on his work in resurrection.27 In short, the historicity of the resurrection while not denied is dispensable within Schleiermachers doctrine of redemption.

Schleiermachers Naturzusammenhang28
We must temporarily leave Schleiermachers view of resurrection in relation to the work of Christ in order to explore the underpinning of this treatment in his previous statements concerning the nature-system. Although it is generally acknowledged that Schleiermachers theology proposes a consistent system of nature in which divine intervention does not occur,29 I will argue in this section that Schleiermachers system implicitly requires by necessity that nature operate in a uniform manner. Schleiermacher believes that the manner in which we conceive of the naturesystem will determine whether we view the redeeming activity of Christ as magical, empirical or mystical. The magical view destroys all naturalness30 because it claims that Christ is able to inuence the believer personally and immediately, leading adherents to interpret every signicant moment [as] a supernatural one31 and to regard each of these moments as an example of God interrupting the normal functioning of the nature-system. According to Schleiermacher, the magical view also
26 Schleiermacher makes this move after admitting that Paul closely links both the cross and resurrection to redemption citing Rom. 4:25. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 418. Schrder states that the resurrection of Christ has die marginale Rolle within Schleiermachers Christology. Schrder, Die kritische Identitt des neuzeitlichen Christentums, p. 199 n. 43. Oberdorfer, Schleiermacher on Eschatology and Resurrection, p. 182. Though John Thiel regards the translation nature-system as an overly simplied rendering of Naturzusammenhang, I will use these two terms interchangeably. See John E. Thiel, God and World in Schleiermachers Dialektik and Glaubenslehre (Peter Lang: Las Vegas, 1981), p. 196 n. 103. . . . it is perfectly clear that Schleiermacher did not countenance the idea of a God who performed miracles or answered prayer other than as a part of His eternal plan. Schleiermachers Gods providential activity is limited to the products of the natural order. Richard B. Brandt, The Philosophy of Schleiermacher: The Development of His Theory of Scientic and Religious Knowledge (New York: Harper, 1941), p. 250. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 434. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 430.

27 28

29

30 31

The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

404

Nathan D. Hieb

often assigns inappropriately analogical meaning to the accidental details of Christs suffering and death. By contrast, the empirical view holds that there is nothing supernatural, that everything is derivative of natural processes, and that Christs redemptive activity consists solely in providing a good example through his life and teaching that we may choose to emulate.32 Schleiermacher rejects both of these options in favor of what he terms the mystical view, in which God is the supernatural origin of redemption but this work of redemption becomes fully naturalized immediately upon its entrance into reality.33 Schleiermacher believes that Gods redemptive action in the world and the processes of nature are so intertwined that they are indistinguishable, and it is for this reason that he regards redemption as a process that is fully bound to the connes of the nature-system while also being a process that has its origin in the single divine act of creation/preservation.34 Christs redemptive work qualies as divine activity because it proceeds from the being of God in Him, and thereby participates in the single and continuous divine act of creation/preservation by forming within us the will to assume Him into ourselves.35 Yet at the same time Christs redeeming work remains thoroughly naturalized because redemption is conditional upon the recipient entering into the historical sphere of Christs inuence.36 Through contact with the church, the transmitter of Christs inuence through natural and historical means, the believer may encounter Christs redeeming activity, but Schleiermacher claims that in redemption the believer does not experience a supernatural encounter with Christ that is either immediate or personal. At this point we may begin to appreciate how deeply Schleiermachers theology of redemption is shaped by his conception of the nature-system deriving from the act of God which is both single and continuous and which encompasses both traditional doctrines of creation and preservation. If we consider the doctrine of creation from the perspective of origins, then we must conceive of it as a single act of God which has not ended but which sustains all reality continuously. Likewise, if

32 33

Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 430. Schleiermacher states, the beginning of the Kingdom of God is a supernatural thing, which, however, becomes natural as soon as it emerges into manifestation. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 430; see also pp. 42931, 434. For this reason Schreurs writes, Aber nach der ersten entscheidenden gttlichen Initiative seien bernatrliche Interventionen nahezu ausgeschlossen. Schleiermacher lehnt sie ab als eine magische Interpretation vom Handeln Gottes. Der natrliche Lauf der Dinge muss in einem Entwicklungsprozess das Werk Gottes weiterfhren. Schreurs, Keine festbegrenzte und wahrhaft anschauliche Vorstellung , p. 51. 34 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 174. Hinze states, The supernatural character of creation, christology, and the church should continue to be afrmed, but it should be conceived in such a way that permits the recognition of their natural determinants. Hinze, Narrating History, Developing Doctrine, p. 244. The single divine act of creation/preservation will be explicated clearly in the following pages. 35 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 426. 36 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 4267.
The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

Resurrection in the Glaubenslehre

405

we consider the doctrine of preservation from the perspective of our continuous existence, then we must conceive of it as the original, unprecedented act of God. Therefore, for Schleiermacher, the doctrine of creation may be entirely absorbed into the doctrine of preservation, and vice versa, because each traditional doctrine contains the entire scope of the other and neither exerts dominance. Limited as we are by the connes of our existence, we only have knowledge of preservation because we simply cannot access data concerning creation through the self-consciousness, Schleiermachers methodological starting-point, lending a certain epistemological priority to preservation over creation. Though the tradition has separated them, we must conceive of creation and preservation as the result of a single, continuous divine act from which our world originated and in which our world is sustained.37 Schleiermacher bases his conception of the nature-system upon the perception of our sensuous self-consciousness that reality beyond our personal existence is regular and consistent as well as upon the feeling of absolute dependence through which we sense that all nature is absolutely dependent upon God.38 In our sensuous self-consciousness we process our interactions with the nature-system and individuate ourselves as beings located within this system.39 Schleiermacher claims that this nature-system is universal because in our apprehension of it through our self-consciousness, This system . . . is not posited as having limits; hence it contains within itself all nite being.40 Further, Schleiermacher argues that by identifying with the whole world we may extend the feeling of absolute dependence in such a way that it denotes the dependence of the entire natural order upon God.41 Because Schleiermacher claims that we never exist outside of the nature-system due to the universality of nature, we must strive to explain all occurrences and events in terms of natural processes.42 Our location within a nature-system which, like ourselves, is completely dependent upon God means in practical terms that the feeling of absolute dependence, and by extension every doctrine of the Glaubenslehre that has this fundamental feeling as its basis, cannot exclude or contradict the normal functioning of the nature-system and that the consistent functioning of nature is presupposed by every instance of religious feeling. Schleiermacher states: From this follows, on the one hand, the possibility of pious self-consciousness in every moment of the objective consciousness, and on the other the possibility of complete world-consciousness in every moment of pious self-consciousness.

37 38 39 40 41 42

Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 1429, 426. In light of Schleiermachers formulation I refer to this single, continuous act as creation/preservation. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 1389, 1735; Thiel, God and World in Schleiermachers Dialektik and Glaubenslehre, pp. 1746. Schleiermacher states, the whole system of nature or the world exists in our selfconsciousness in so far as we recognize ourselves to be a part of the world. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 138. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 138. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 173. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 1389, 1705, 179.

The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

406

Nathan D. Hieb For with regard to the latter, where a pious feeling is actually existent, there the interdependence of nature is always posited . . . 43

The importance of clearly understanding the dynamics of Schleiermachers nature-system, and its dependence on Gods act of creation/preservation, becomes evident when we consider that Schleiermachers theology not only advances but requires a consistent nature-system which precludes the possibility of all miracles such as resurrection. David Hume44 had already shown by the time of the Glaubenslehre in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding that testimony regarding an aberration in the laws of nature does not provide an adequate epistemological basis for belief in a religious system because of our reliance upon the uniformity of nature when analyzing testimony. The problem with testimony of a miracle, such as resurrection, is that this testimony contradicts the basis whereby all testimony is evaluated, namely the uniformity of nature. If the assertion is made that nature is no longer uniform, then we no longer have the means by which to weigh the validity of this assertion. Therefore, according to Hume, a system of religion has no legitimate basis for utilizing testimony of a miracle as validation for its truth claims.45 Schleiermachers dilemma is different, though related.46 For Schleiermacher, because of the manner in which he has constructed the nature-system, divine causation and natural causation are completely intertwined. Schleiermacher writes: . . . divine preservation, as the absolute dependence of all events and changes on God, and natural causation, as the complete determination of all events by the universal nexus, are one and the same thing simply from different points of view, the one being neither separated from the other nor limited by it.47 Schleiermachers creation/preservation is a sustained, single act that not only provides the origin of all things but also the sufcient conditions for the true
43 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 1734. 44 While we do not know the exact extent of Schleiermachers knowledge of the philosophy of David Hume, there is evidence that he was at least roughly familiar with Humes ideas and that he had a competent grasp of the philosophers of his day. Brandt, The Philosophy of Schleiermacher, p. 200. 45 David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1977), pp. 7290. Schleiermacher, like Hume, believed that appeals to miracles should not be made in efforts to inspire belief in the Christian religion, see Glaubenslehre, pp. 713. Hinze writes, [Schleiermacher] was . . . critical of the apologetic use of external proofs from prophecies and miracles; he was persuaded by the arguments of the historical and natural sciences that this mode of argument was not valid. Hinze, Narrating History, Developing Doctrine, p. 263. 46 Schleiermacher sounds very Humean when he states, On the whole, therefore, as regards the miraculous, the general interests of science . . . and the interests of religion seem to meet at the same point, i.e. that we should abandon the idea of the absolutely supernatural because no single instance of it can be known by us, and we are nowhere required to recognize it. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 183, emphasis added. 47 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 174; see also pp. 17884.
The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

Resurrection in the Glaubenslehre

407

continuity of natural processes. Since the divine act of creation/preservation and natural causation are intertwined in this way to the point of being indistinguishable, it follows that if one were to posit an inconsistency within the nature-system then one would also be positing an inconsistency within the divine act. Such a contradiction or inconsistency, though, cannot exist within the divine act because Schleiermacher conceives of it as unitary and continuous, not multiple or sequential, and because of the impossibility that a single act may oppose itself.48 For this reason, no miraculous interruption of the normal processes of nature, such as resurrection, is possible within Schleiermachers nature-system. Further, the occurrence of such a miracle would call into question either Gods foreknowledge or his omnipotence. Simply put, if God knew that a further intervention would be necessary before he created the world then he could simply have adjusted the original act in order to remove the need for future intervention. On the other hand, if God has perfect foreknowledge, and yet still needs to correct or modify the original divine act through intervention within the natural order, then it would seem that God is unable to effect his complete will in the one act of creation/preservation, thus casting his omnipotence into doubt.49 John Thiel provides a second reason why Schleiermachers theology necessarily precludes the possibility of miracles, namely, because the existence of pious feeling presupposes the existence of a consistent nature-system. John Thiel writes: The constitution of mediate self-consciousness provides a context necessary for the temporal emergence of pious feeling. The integrity of the Naturzusammenhang an integrity established by the operation of the intellect and reected in the noetic composition of proper thinking must not be destroyed if the actuality of pious experience is to be preserved.50 Thiel draws his argument from 34 of the Glaubenslehre in which Schleiermacher argues that not only are we located within nature but that the nature-system is also contained within our self-consciousness as its original possession.51 It is through our mediate sensuous self-consciousness that we experience reality beyond our own being and formulate conceptions that enable us to interpret and structure the world

48

Schleiermachers view of creation/preservation is not far from Leibnizs view of constant creation arising from one total decree in which God considers all possible worlds and chooses to create that which is best. See Gottfried W. Leibniz, Theodicy (La Salle: Open Court, 1985), pp. 1678, 2678. 49 This insight concerning foreknowledge and omnipotence was gained through a conversation with Bruce McCormack. 50 Thiel, God and World in Schleiermachers Dialektik and Glaubenslehre, p. 176. Elsewhere (p. 211) Thiel states, Completely inadmissible, [Schleiermacher] claims, is the conception of miracle as an absolutely supernatural event which interrupts the natural chain of cause and effect. Such a view of the divine power would be inconsistent with the given conditions of mediate experience. 51 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 138.
The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

408

Nathan D. Hieb

beyond ourselves. Further, the feeling of absolute dependence is (at each moment) accompanied by the sensuous self-consciousness, and is itself grounded by, and accessed through, the mediate sensuous self-consciousness.52 The feeling of absolute dependence, the epistemological foundation of Schleiermachers doctrines, presupposes an internally consistent nature-system because only within such a nature-system could the consistent functioning of the mediate sensuous selfconsciousness provide the opportunity to observe pious feeling. Therefore, if violations in the processes of the nature-system occur, then the existence of the feeling of absolute dependence, as well as access to it through the mediate sensuous self-consciousness, is jeopardized and dogmatic investigation by means of Schleiermachers methodology becomes uncertain. In this way the feeling of absolute dependence is dependent upon the proper functioning of the mediate sensuous self-consciousness which itself is deeply tied to a consistent and universal nature-system. To claim that the nature-system is not universal, that is, that there are certain instances in which the normal functioning of nature is suspended, is to jeopardize the integrity, proper functioning and trustworthiness of the mediate sensuous self-consciousness and thereby to render as unreliable the experience of the feeling of absolute dependence upon which the epistemological structure of the Glaubenslehre depends. In short, a true violation of the nature-system would destroy the possibility of dogmatic investigation by means of Schleiermachers methodology.53 Thus, whether intentionally or not, Schleiermacher follows Hume by committing himself to the consistent and uniform functioning of nature because of epistemological concerns. Schleiermacher is also aware that placing too much emphasis upon miracles would exacerbate the division between science and faith which he wants to avoid at all costs. Schleiermachers keen interest in maintaining a relationship of harmony between theology and science may be clearly seen in his second letter to Dr Lcke in which he states: Unless the Reformation from which our church rst emerged endeavors to establish an eternal covenant between the living Christian faith and completely free, independent scientic inquiry, so that faith does not hinder science and

52 53

Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 138; see also pp. 214. Schleiermacher mentions the devastating consequences of a miracle for his system when he states, every absolute miracle would destroy the whole system of nature. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 181. Thiel adds further support to this claim: So consistently does proper thinking correlate intellection and sensibility, God and world, that Schleiermacher rejects the traditional conception of miracle . . . As a divine interruption of the natural laws and therefore as an absolutely supernatural event, the traditional conception of miracle annuls the pervasiveness of the Naturzusammenhang, the integrity of mediate self-consciousness, and the noetic correlation of God and world in proper thinking. Thiel, God and World in Schleiermachers Dialektik and Glaubenslehre, p. 188.
The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

Resurrection in the Glaubenslehre

409

science does not exclude faith, it fails to meet adequately the needs of our time and we need another one, no matter what it takes to establish it.54 Indeed, in this letter he goes on to state that this aim shapes his treatment of miracles in the Glaubenslehre, even the miracle of miracles, the appearance of the redeemer.55 Schleiermacher readily admits that we do not yet possess complete knowledge of the nature-system, and that strange, seemingly supernatural events may occur, but that instead of concluding that we have witnessed a miracle we should look for mechanisms of causation within the deeper movements in physical Nature itself.56 Thus miracles are always only apparent miracles whose explanation according to natural process is yet to be discovered57 because actual violations of the laws of nature have no place within Schleiermachers system.58

Schleiermachers eschatology
Central to Schleiermachers eschatology is the tension inherent in his dual aim, designated by some doppelte[s] Interesse[. . .]59 and by others Doppelaufgabe,60 to hold to the future consummation of the church on one hand and to the survival of the personal identity of believers after death on the other. The tension between these two commitments is located in the continuity necessitated by personal survival after

54

55 56

57 58

59 60

Friedrich Schleiermacher, On the Glaubenslehre: Two Letters to Dr Lcke, trans. James Duke and Francis Fiorenza (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981), p. 64. Schleiermacher sees the miracles of the NT as being particularly vulnerable to the critique of science. Schleiermacher, On the Glaubenslehre, p. 61. See also Schreurs, Keine festbegrenzte und wahrhaft anschauliche Vorstellung , pp. 523. Schleiermacher, On the Glaubenslehre, p. 64. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 73. Schleiermacher states, everything . . . is a problem for scientic research. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 184; see also pp. 1789. For this reason, Schreurs states, Die Wundertaten Jesu . . . nicht ausserhalb des natrlichen Lebenszusammenhangs stehen. Schreurs, Keine festbegrenzte und wahrhaft anschauliche Vorstellung , pp. 512. To investigate further rationalisms inuence on Schleiermacher and Johann Sebastian Drey as well as their attempts to provide rational explanations for miraculous accounts, see Hinze, Narrating History, Developing Doctrine, p. 243. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 72, 1834. Schleiermacher writes, the conception of miracle will not be able to continue in its traditional form. Schleiermacher, On the Glaubenslehre, p. 61. See also Thiel, God and World in Schleiermachers Dialektik and Glaubenslehre, p. 211. I agree with Schreurs when he states, Ziel der Glaubenslehre war es, die christliche Botschaft mit dem modernen Denken zu vershnen. Schreurs, Keine festbegrenzte und wahrhaft anschauliche Vorstellung , p. 53. Schreurs, Keine festbegrenzte und wahrhaft anschauliche Vorstellung , pp. 358. Martin Weeber, Schleiermachers Eschatologie: Eine Untersuchung zum theologischen Sptwerk (Gtersloher: Chr. Kaiser Verlagshaus, 2000), p. 113.

The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

410

Nathan D. Hieb

death and the discontinuity required by the consummation of the church.61 I will reverse this tension by arguing that a deeper discontinuity is linked to the personal survival of believers beyond death and that a deeper continuity is attached to the consummation of the church resulting in a tension that may be resolved by jettisoning the concept of resurrection from Schleiermachers system. I will then propose that Schleiermachers greatest eschatological weakness springs from the theological marginalization of the resurrection in his doctrine of redemption and the underpinning of this move in his conception of the nature-system. The tension between continuity and discontinuity profoundly affects Schleiermachers eschatology. For personal identity to survive after death, memory must persist enabling the individual to link ones post-death self with ones previous mortal life. Such memory, though, being fundamentally rooted in the physical processes of the body, requires similarity and continuity between the present state and future state of the individuals existence.62 This continuity, though, contradicts the idea of the consummation of the church which requires discontinuity to the extent that a sinless reality is achieved entailing at the minimum, in Schleiermachers view, the cessation of human procreation which continually produces new sinners.63 This state of reality entailed by the consummation of the church, though, is so far removed from our current lives that we have little way of understanding how its discontinuity may be reconciled with the continuity necessary for memory and human personality to persist beyond death. Schleiermacher does not resolve this tension between continuity and discontinuity, but admits: we nd that the various ideas of how the future life is attached to the present are incapable of being made perfectly denite.64 Nevertheless, there is a deeper tension implicit within Schleiermachers eschatology that he does not mention but that forms an even greater barrier to the possibility of the simultaneous occurrence of both the personal survival of believers
Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 70910; Oberdorfer, Schleiermacher on Eschatology and Resurrection, p. 179. 62 Schreurs correctly states, Die Seele kann nicht ohne leibliches Leben gedacht werden. Schreurs, Keine festbegrenzte und wahrhaft anschauliche Vorstellung , p. 37. See Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 70911. 63 Oberdorfer, Schleiermacher on Eschatology and Resurrection, p. 171. Eilert Herms, Schleiermachers Eschatologie: nach der zweiten Auage der Glaubenslehre, Theologische Zeitschrift (Schweiz) 46 (1990), pp. 11213. 64 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 713. Oberdorfer, Schleiermacher on Eschatology and Resurrection, pp. 17980. Schleiermachers theological methodology fundamentally shifts when he turns to eschatology because the feeling of absolute dependence is only able to grant information regarding the present but is incapable of providing data regarding the past or the future. For this reason Schleiermacher does not base his statements regarding eschatology upon the religious self-consciousness but rather upon scriptural exegesis and a certain degree of speculation. For more on Schleiermachers methodology in relation to eschatology, see Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 6978, 7036; Herms, Schleiermachers Eschatologie, pp. 11213, 123; Hinze, Narrating History, Developing Doctrine, pp. 2856; Oberdorfer, Schleiermacher on Eschatology and Resurrection, pp. 1678, 170; Schreurs, Keine festbegrenzte und wahrhaft anschauliche Vorstellung , p. 53.
The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

61

Resurrection in the Glaubenslehre

411

beyond death and the consummation of the church. The assignment of continuity and discontinuity to aspects of Schleiermachers eschatology, in light of his understanding of the nature-system and redemption, must be reversed. While Schleiermacher points to the continuity of memory entailed by the personal survival of the believer beyond death, he does not mention the deeper discontinuity involved in the resurrection of the believer after death, an event inherently disjoined from the consistent functioning of nature that marks our current reality. Likewise, while he argues that the consummation of the church within history would be discontinuous because of the sinless reality inherently required for such an event to be achieved, he does not mention the deeper continuity which the consummation of the church entails by its possible occurrence within a perfectly consistent nature-system.65 It seems that this latter, implicit tension between continuity and discontinuity is far deeper and of greater signicance than the eschatological tension which Schleiermacher explicitly mentions.66 The consummation of the church could be construed in a way consistent with Schleiermachers entire system if we regard it as an event that occurs at a future point in history in which humanity has learned to experience perfectly Christs powerful God-consciousness. The question of the persistence of memory beyond death would be rendered irrelevant for, as an event within the nature-system, Schleiermachers consummation of the church would only exist as an actualized reality for the future generations that are able to experience perfectly Christs God-consciousness. Previous generations would participate indirectly in this consummation as they transfer Christs God-consciousness to the generations after them by functioning as the transmitters of the sphere of Christs historical inuence, which is the church, during their time on earth. Yet, no resurrection would be necessary; indeed, any possibility of resurrection must be precluded in order to avoid rendering the nature-system inconsistent and threatening Schleiermachers dogmatic edice. Thus, believers who have died would not directly experience this consummation, though they would indirectly participate in its eventual actualization. Unlike within Schleiermachers current doctrine of redemption, Christs death would then be imbued with theological signicance in an almost pseudo-Pauline fashion. Instead of Christs death conquering death, and his resurrection being the rst-fruits of the resurrection of all the dead,67 Christs death would symbolically represent the eventual death and non-existence of all the living, even those most perfectly connected to Christs powerful God-consciousness.

65

66 67

A sinless future reality in Schleiermachers terms, that is, a reality that entails the cessation of human procreation in order to avoid the production of new sinners, does not violate a consistent nature-system and therefore does not require any appeal to miraculous intervention. How the human race would survive such a reality, though, is another question entirely. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 70910. 1 Cor. 15:2026.

The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

412

Nathan D. Hieb

Weaving the threads together: Schleiermachers view of resurrection as derived from his doctrines of redemption, the Naturzusammenhang and eschatology
We may now discern that the greatest difculty regarding Schleiermachers eschatology relates to his previous move within the doctrine of redemption in which he empties Christs resurrection of theological content and to his conceptualization of a nature-system that implicitly disallows resurrection. Ever since the church Fathers the future resurrection of all believers has been explicitly tied to the actuality of the resurrection of Christ.68 Indeed, Paul states that the core of our faith rests upon the reality of Christs resurrection.69 It is thus not difcult to understand that a system which places no theological emphasis upon Christs resurrection, and which has a conception of nature in which such a miracle could not occur, has difculty constructing a compelling eschatology. Schleiermachers system of theology is functional only for this life and he oversteps the bounds of his methodology when he attempts to offer any description of an eschatological future.70 Thus, Schleiermachers only inconsistency, in light of his doctrine of redemption, his view of the nature-system and his conception of eschatology, is that he does not contest the bodily resurrection of Christ and rmly renounce the future resurrection of believers. Someone may object to this criticism by maintaining that Schleiermacher never denies either Christs resurrection or the future resurrection of all believers, rather he supplies logically convincing arguments for each. As we noted earlier, Schleiermacher argues for the acceptance of Christs resurrection based upon the reliability of Christs disciples and Christs truthful intentions.71 Schleiermacher goes on to argue in favor of the future resurrection of all believers based upon the unity of Christs divine and human natures. Christs human nature must necessarily be immortal in order to be joined to the Divine Essence; if Christs human nature is immortal, then everyones human nature must also be immortal for incarnational docetism to be avoided.72 Further, Schleiermacher believes that Gods purpose in the union of Christs divine and human natures is to perfect humanity as it essentially exists already rather than to add new capabilities to human life, implying for Schleiermacher that humanity is essentially immortal.73 Yet, I would respond that the rhetorical strength of Schleiermachers brief arguments in support of Christs resurrection and the future resurrection of believers
68 Hinze, Narrating History, Developing Doctrine, p. 284. 69 1 Cor. 15:1319. 70 See n. 64 above. 71 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 420; Oberdorfer, Schleiermacher on Eschatology and Resurrection, p. 178. 72 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 7012; Hinze, Narrating History, Developing Doctrine, p. 287; Oberdorfer, Schleiermacher on Eschatology and Resurrection, pp. 171, 174. 73 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 702.
The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

Resurrection in the Glaubenslehre

413

pales in comparison to the brilliant, systematic consistency of his detailed development of the doctrine of redemption, which has no use for resurrection, the nature-system, which implicitly disallows the possibility of resurrection, and eschatology, which posits the future resurrection of believers in severe tension with the consummation of the church. Schleiermachers arguments in support of Christs resurrection do not address the more troubling difculty, namely the existence of a nature-system that by necessity cannot allow for the possibility of such a miracle. In regard to his arguments concerning human immortality, docetism is avoided if neither Christ nor humanity are immortal, and there does not seem to be any greater difculties with uniting Schleiermachers understanding of the Divine Essence to a mortal Christ than there would be with non-eternal persons participating in Christs God-consciousness. Further, Schleiermacher himself admits that the doctrinal epistemology he has set forth based upon the feeling of absolute dependence does not necessitate the existence of an afterlife.74 I propose that the lack of convincing argumentation for either the historicity of the resurrection of Christ or for the personal survival of believers beyond death in the face of the overwhelming challenge of explaining these events within a profoundly self-consistent naturesystem which disallows miracles, combined with a doctrine of redemption which marginalizes the resurrection of Christ, and an eschatology which presents future resurrection as deeply problematic, reveals Schleiermachers rejection of resurrection within the substructure of his theology. Even in the sermon preached at the graveside of his young son Nathaneal he does not reference hope in future resurrection.75 To take his brief afrmations of the historicity of Christs resurrection and of the future resurrection of believers at face value is to regard insufciently the depth and breadth of his systematic argumentation throughout the Glaubenslehre. Schleiermachers only inconsistency is that he does not follow through with the implicit ramications of his entire system by explicitly jettisoning all belief in Christs resurrection and denying all possibility of survival beyond death.76

74 75 76

Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, pp. 698700. Also, there is no necessary link between belief in the survival of personality and God-consciousness. Oberdorfer, Schleiermacher on Eschatology and Resurrection, p. 173. Friedrich Schleiermacher, Sermon at Nathaneals Grave, in Servant of the Word: Selected Sermons of Friedrich Schleiermacher, ed. Dawn De Vries, trans. Albert Blackwell (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 20914. Yet perhaps Schleiermacher viewed resurrection as part of nature, instituted by God in his single creative/preservative act. As such, resurrection would only be apparently miraculous because we have not yet discovered the natural processes whereby resurrection and immortality occur. The methodological lack of data regarding eschatological reality would still remain, but no inconsistency would exist between resurrection and Schleiermachers Naturzusammenhang. For Schleiermacher to advance such a fantastic idea, though, would surely place him at odds with the scientic community, something he desired to avoid at all costs.

The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

414

Nathan D. Hieb

Conclusion
In this article I have sought to demonstrate that the substructure of Schleiermachers thought, as seen in his treatment of redemption, the nature-system and eschatology, reveals his fundamental rejection of the resurrection of Christ and the future survival of believers beyond death. To afrm briey the historicity of the resurrection while simultaneously emptying it of theological content within a system in which resurrection is untenable is to posit an implicit rejection of resurrection. Indeed, one could imagine the deletion of all references to resurrection in the Glaubenslehre without detriment to the logic or conceptual content of this volume. In light of Schleiermachers profound inuence upon modern theology, we must ask ourselves if conformity to Enlightenment views of nature is worth the sacrice of eschatological hope. Perhaps by conforming to the intellectual currents of our age we as theologians risk losing the ability to offer a vision able to meet our age at the point of its greatest need. Perhaps by discounting the resurrection of Christ because it does not conform to our modern sensibilities, or by interpreting it as a simple metaphor divorced from actual space and time events, we have distanced ourselves from the central proclamation of Christianity, that Christ is risen indeed, which has proven throughout the ages and in many different cultural contexts to possess an inherent power far greater than philosophical systems derived from human experience alone.

The author 2007 Journal compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007