[Introduction to Fifth Point of Doctrine]
§144. On account of its coexistence with the world, there exists in the church a legislative and administrative power1 that flows as an essential element from the kingly office of Christ.
1. Suppose that the church had reached its culmination, so that no remnant of the world had remained in all those who belong to it. Suppose, too, that, instead, the soul of every single Christian, as regards the whole system of the church’s powers,2 were wholly an organ of the Holy Spirit. Then, in the church everything would proceed—everywhere and always, indeed of itself—only in conformity with this Spirit. Moreover, at that point, on account of the uniform presence of the Spirit, everything that would happen would of itself also be in harmony with all the rest. Because of all this, no difference would arise between the general will and that of individuals, and nothing would provide any occasion for a law; rather, those who held the capacity to conceive general ideas applied to the domain of the church would always be able to express simply what human beings would do on their own initiative.
However, this state of affairs has never been the case, except in Christ himself. Thus, the expressions and impulses of the Spirit are expressed and received as law wherever resistance is stirred up against them. Yet, the analogous activity of those who are animated by the Spirit then also assumes a relation to the law and to the resistance and thus takes the form of executive power.3 This response arises not in any sort of external manner after the pattern of civil power,4 for an external feature lacking in an internal counterpart from which it sprang has not even the slightest value for the church. Rather, it happens by virtue of the natural ascendancy of the common spirit over merely personal existence, just as those who belong to a community have a sense of such a common spirit, viewing it as something which everyone has freely acknowledged. Yet, suppose that someone does not sense this common spirit, or in one’s personal capacity knowingly strives against what it requires. Then this attitude signifies an element in one’s life that moves outside the church. Then, moreover, the ascendancy of the common spirit has first to be reinstated internally before the person in whom it has been violated can be viewed as a true member of the church once again.
Now, precisely this ascendancy of the Spirit, apart from any external means whatsoever yet effecting a free, steadfast acquiescence, has also been the very power5 that Christ has exerted. Moreover, that union with him of which we have spoken has been expressed precisely in such a way that the impulses that proceed from him would be recognized as law, and in such a way that his judgments concerning human beings would be viewed as sterling witnesses to what exists in human beings by which precisely this new community would become his reign. Then, in this relation, the Spirit also calls forth within the church what is to be derived from the fullness of Christ. Or, in other words, in that Christ breathed his Spirit into the community of his own, thereby this power was at the same time communicated to that community, a power that is inconceivable independently of that original governing activity of Christ. In fact, without this activity the continuing union of the divine being with human nature that continues in the church would either have to be far greater than what is contained in the ordinary concept of a ruling common spirit, or it could only be far less than what is contained in that concept.
2. At first glance, however, this activity might not appear to lead at all to what is usually understood by “the power of the keys.” This is true in that usually one relates this spiritual power to the broadening and solidarity of the church. Accordingly, it would be up to the church to determine who is to be received into the Christian community or not and, likewise, who may remain in it or must be expelled—a matter mentioned not at all up to now and one that would have to be implied only as an addendum to what has been said earlier. However, it is also easy to join these two interests together, and doing so is simply more suitable to the path taken here, for the purpose of combining church government in its entirety under this concept, as ought to be done in any case. That is, if we proceed from a recognition of that resistance already mentioned, every steadfast acquiescence, brought about after such resistance through the legislative respect6 in which the church is held, comprises a new way of being owned by the common spirit. This common spirit adopts a place in an individual who was previously at least questionably possessed of it, wavering on the border between world and church. Moreover, the territory of the church is thus expanded by every such overcoming of a person’s wavering by means of legislative7 activity. Yet, even the initial entrance of an individual results from this same activity. The reason is that regeneration is also an effect of this activity, which first brings to individuals the strength8 of God-consciousness, viewed as the rule of spiritual life. The same thing applies, however, to the power being employed with respect to this rule in particular judgments and declarations. This is so, in that these declarations determine the place each individual will occupy as a result of the individual’s situation within the community and whether much or little can be entrusted to this individual in that community.
Another divergence may seem to lie in our having described the power of the keys above9 as a continuation of the efficacious kingly action of Christ, whereas here we describe it more as an outflowing of this action mediated by the Spirit. In this respect, however, only a slight difference obtains among the institutions brought together in this second division.10 That is to say, the mediation of the Spirit enters into every one of these institutions, because otherwise they could not be observances of the church; and, on this account, they are all also an outflow from Christ, because the Spirit always derives its creative activity only from Christ.11 In this context, however, we are less able to call this process a continuation of Christ’s activity, because this differentiation between legislative and administrative activity essentially refers to an organized community, but Christ’s own activity preceded this formation. Hence, if this difference does not emerge in him, then, in the strictest sense, whenever the office of the keys is bifurcated in this way, it cannot be called the continuation of his activity, though it does simply develop further the basic features of life shared in common that Christ sketched out, without importing anything alien from elsewhere.
1. Macht. Ed. note: Here “power” is more closely aligned with a capacity that has some authority behind it, whereas Kraft, the word ordinarily translated by “power” or “force” in this book, refers more closely to an originative or inherent force.
2. Kräfte. Ed. note: Regarding the Holy Spirit, see §116n1.
3. Macht.
4. Gewalt. Ed. note: See §145n8 for a definition.
5. Macht. Ed. note: Unless otherwise indicated, this is the term used in the remainder of this discussion.
6. Ansehen. Ed. note: Although this term is sometimes translated “authority,” that meaning might well be misleading in Schleiermacher’s case, because he could have used the usual Authorität or gesetzmässige Macht and because Ansehen for him is a communal respect in which the church’s decision-making leaders are held by virtue of their responsibility for Seelsorge, care of souls. This kind of authority is won, not simply imposed. See CF §164 and Brief Outline §§263 and 290–308 (on practical theology).
7. Ed. note: gesetzgebenden. In all of this discussion, “legislative” activity is only roughly distinguished from administrative activity, because it refers not only to making laws, which are in any case simply to be recognized as appropriate, but also to giving out the law appropriately in decision making, treating people properly under the law.
8. Kräftigkeit. Ed. note: Or “powerfulness.”
9. In §127.
10. Ed. note: §§126–56.
11. Ed. note: See also §§122.3 and 124.1, where Christ’s continuing presence and the work of the Holy Spirit are treated as one and the same thing.
§145. Doctrinal Proposition. The office of the keys is that power by virtue of which the church determines what belongs to the Christian life and makes provisions concerning each and every individual according to the degree of an individual’s appropriateness in relation to these determinations.
(1) Augsburg Confession (1530) XXVIII (On Abuses of the Church’s Power VII): “The power of the keys … is a power and command of God to preach the gospel, to forgive or retain sin, and to administer and distribute the sacraments. … Ibid.: “Our people reply that bishops or pastors may make regulations for the sake of good order in the church.”1
(2) Second Helvetic Confession (1566) XIV: “Concerning the keys of the kingdom of heaven … we say that all properly called ministers … exercise the keys or the use of them when they … keep in discipline the people committed to their trust.” … XVIII: “There ought to be discipline among ministers. In synods the doctrine and life of ministers is to be carefully examined.”2
(3) Basel Confession (1536) XVII: “The authority to preach the Word of God and to tend the flock of the Lord, which properly speaking is the office of the keys … is a high and sacred trust not to be violated. … and ought to be conferred … only by those appointed and elected as a committee of the church.”3
(4) Gallican Confession (1559) XXXII: “We believe, also, that it is desirable and useful that those elected to be superintendents devise among themselves what means should be adopted for the government of the whole body.” … XXXIII: “… and we receive only that which conduces to concord and holds all in obedience, from the greatest to the least. In this we must follow that which the Lord Jesus Christ declared as to excommunication, which we approve and confess to be necessary with all its antecedents and consequences. Rom. 16:17.”4 Cf. Belgic Confession (1561) XXXII.5
(5) Tetrapolitan Confession (1530) XIII: “These (ministers) have the keys of heaven, the power to bind and to loose, to remit and to retain sins, yet in such a manner that they be nothing else than the ministers of Christ, whose right and prerogative alone this is.”6
(6) Saxon Confession (= Melanchthon, Repetitio Confessionis Augustanae, 1551): “And these things pertain to ministry … to exercise the judgments of the church in a legitimate fashion over those who are guilty of evident crimes in behavior or doctrine, and to bring a sentence of excommunication against the insolent, and to absolve and take back the converted. So that these things may be done properly, consistories have been established in our churches.”7
1. The expression “office,” or “power,”8 of the keys is connected with the expressions “bind” and “loose” to be found in one of Christ’s discourses,9 expressions that relate to the first part of our proposition. Those expressions “bind” and “loose” likewise turn up in another related discourse,10 where, to judge by the context, they at least also relate to the second part of our proposition, and this second part, in turn, is very similar to a third discourse,11 which probably has to do exclusively with the latter part. That something is that to be “bound” means that it is to be determined by command and prohibition,12 and for something to be “loosed” means to leave whatever is not so determined to the self-determination of each individual.13 As long as a good conscience can be presupposed in each one, the self-determination occurs in such a way that the shared feeling of the community relates equally to someone who determines a matter for oneself in one way as to someone who determines it in a contrasting way. Moreover, here we have, at the same time, the legislative activity of the church described in the previous proposition along with its limitation. That is to say, the shared feeling of the community has no more occasion to express itself in a determinative fashion except (1) in instances where certain individuals who, on account of their being insufficiently animated by the Holy Spirit, do not want what that shared feeling actually deems to be an essential expression of faith to come about, or (2) in instances where something is continually going on in some individuals that, if not reproved, would bring some harm to the efficacious action of the Spirit in others.
Equally essential, however, is another factor that also belongs to that same legislative activity, namely, that something be let loose that could, as it were, serve to bind arrogance and spiritual pride. That is to say, the unity of the church cannot endure when certain individuals desire to give currency to their merely personal way of thinking or of doing things, as if it expressed the common spirit.
Now, suppose that this passage,14 because it is the one on which this doctrine can chiefly rely, were taken so literally that Christ would have transferred this power15 to Peter alone. Then one would also have to take this event in the strict sense, so that at Peter’s death legislative activity in the church would have come to an end—that is, it would do so insofar as it rested on this charge putatively made by Christ. No one would doubt, however, that this legislative activity would still have had to emerge anew. Otherwise, if everything had already been established for all time in the first generation, this could only have happened in a supernatural manner that would have destroyed its truly historical character. In that case, however, no further living and free development could have taken place. By implication, then, if this were the literal meaning of what Christ said, the church’s legislative activity could not rest on him alone. However, it would not have ceased to be a continuation of his activity on that account. That is to say, it would always flow from the intention of Christ, namely, that a communal body16 should endure that could not possibly exist without an activity conceived in this way. However, Peter himself must not have understood Christ’s words in this way, because wherever statements of this kind were at issue, he did not arrogate the right to decide to himself alone but brought the matter to the communal body. The activity of applying law by judgment and of taking responsibility for carrying out that judgment was already finally assigned, in the second passage cited here,17 to the communal body itself. Moreover, it is therefore self-evident that, even earlier, individuals were to work in the name of the communal body and as an organ of it, all the more so since the Redeemer certainly had not wished to accord to anyone who might be personally annoyed the right to call one’s brother to account. However, if on some occasion we consider an individual to be an organ of the communal body with respect to one’s brother, everything that sins against the whole also sins against the individual. In every instance, moreover, that individual is a natural organ of the whole to whom sure notice of a given fact comes first. If, however, we also draw upon the third-cited passage for this purpose—one that has already been repeatedly brought into accounts of the matter—this passage can, to be sure, be understood above all from the fact that forgiveness was first imparted at baptism, consequently even for those whose baptism would be postponed to a later date, the sins in question would still be “retained.”18 This consequence too we would in no way want to exclude.19 Furthermore, the proper management20 of baptism, or of confirmation among us today, which management is to be expected to occur by the efficacious action of the Spirit, patently belongs to the office of the keys, essentially so. Yet, certainly the content of this passage is not exhausted by these connections. Rather, the apostles themselves, and the most ancient church after them, also applied that passage to persons already received into the church,21 and, at the time, this practice also then included Christ’s promise regarding each judgment by them that would declare whether an individual would find oneself within community with Christ, in which community with Christ sin would disappear.
Now, all regenerate persons are found in this community, hence their actual sins, which alone can call for some judgment of the church, are also forgiven all along. Yet, let us add to this observation the fact that no one exists in the church who is, as yet, entirely an organ of the Spirit, also the fact that in the church an efficacious action can take place only with powers22 that have already become organs of the Spirit—that is, its gifts—since wherever there is still some resistance against quickening by the Spirit, sin must also necessarily be present. Then, the following becomes evident. First, it becomes evident what an essential component of this promise of the Redeemer it is that a proper judgment should also be made by the church as to what, and how much or little, can be entrusted to any one individual in the church. Second, it becomes evident to what degree an individual’s influences on the church, or on any cooperative efforts within it, would have to be restrained, in such a way that an individual’s condition would produce the least possible disturbances to the church. By this means, moreover, we also discover that everything that belongs to the second part of our proposition is grounded in what Christ has spoken.
2. Now, if we put together the passages from confessional symbols noted above, we will find therein the same main aspects that constitute the office of the keys, though not everywhere expressed with total distinctiveness or divided with even clarity. Thus, it might suffice simply to add the following comments.
First: Frequently we find the ministry of the Word to be calculated in connection with the office of the keys. This reckoning stands to reason with respect to a minister’s proffering of the sacraments, an activity that is so closely connected with forgiveness of sin. Moreover, what we have already claimed of baptism must be true of the Lord’s Supper, that the proper administration23 of it belongs to the office of the keys. However, with respect to preaching, regarded in and of itself, this claim would be a mistake. Indeed, a correct determination of who is to be admitted to this ministry of the divine Word does indeed belong to the office of the keys as a particular application of the general account of that office given above, and this determination is indisputably one of the most important aspects of the office of the keys. Further, given this presupposition, one can find it to be only natural that almost everywhere the church has also tied the practice of dispensing both sacraments to this ministry.
Second: Taken by themselves, many of these passages in the confessions seem to infer that the entire office of the keys would be exercised by the totality of ministers of the Word. Suppose that this were the case. Consequently, since examination and authorization24 of ministers of the Word is an important function of this entire body, the totality of teachers in the church would be constantly self-propagating, and in this way the power25 of the keys would be exclusively entrusted to them. Then there would be such a sharp division between the clergy in this narrower sense and the laity that the distinction from the Roman church would entirely disappear.
This disjunction, however, cannot be what is intended, since Christ himself assigned a portion of this function to the communal body, and from the very outset onward the communal body was involved in the most important functions of administrative activity.26 Moreover, in this way even the passage that assigns the function of carrying out the judgment of the communal body to spiritual leaders27 still presupposes that the communal body pronounces this judgment. As concerns legislative activity, however, that could not arise, to be sure, until a significant contrast had developed in the church, only this contrast is different. That is to say, those to whom preaching is entrusted have the responsibility, above all else, to form themselves into increasingly better interpreters of the divine Word in Scripture. It is one thing, however, to understand the sayings of Christ and the apostles aright and something entirely different to employ them appropriately to more or less general determinations in a comparatively very diverse formation of life. Moreover, the way in which Scripture is utilized in the pulpit is quite different from the way in which rules are developed for life in the communal body under distinct circumstances and based on a spirit of being faithful to Scripture, often without being able to rely on a word from Scripture for the purpose. Hence, at that juncture, the contrast between the person who conceives the religious significance of various circumstances and tasks in life quickly and surely enough to express the corresponding law and the person who takes something to be law because one recognizes one’s own true inner voice28 within it is quite different from the contrast between a spiritual leader and anyone who is listening. Hence, too, in public teaching it is most advisable to avoid even the appearance of ecclesial legislation and management being assigned chiefly to spiritual leaders. Therefore, certain passages ought not to be overlooked: those which bestow the task of deliberation concerning governance of the whole upon the collective overseers of communal bodies and those which29 reckon among these not only elders but also deacons, even though they have taken no part in the teaching office. Moreover, in the last analysis both of these activities, legislative and administrative, proceed from the communal body itself.
Third: Although this take on the matter can also be drawn from our confessional symbols, they do not make clear what the scope of this office is with respect to a communal body or how that body is to exercise it. That is, a given communal body exercises it not only indirectly, in that the body arranges for and distributes the officeholders to whom legislation and judgment are formally transferred but also, in an originative and informal way, in which each individual member does actually practice the office of passing judgment through one’s forming judgments concerning what happens in the communal body and through forming one’s corresponding praise or blame. This is so, for how are these officeholders to arrive at the point of having the readiness and proficiency for such activity unless they will already have had some practice? Moreover, each individual not only practices in this way but also practices legislative activity through everything that can contribute to forming public opinion,30 which must always be the living spring from which express acts of legislation flow. Exactly taken, the latter, in turn, are nothing but the distinct manner in which such public opinion is brought to recognition in matters of the church. Suppose, for example, that in this domain something is attempted that is not a pure expression of the way in which human nature in union with the divine Spirit actually endeavors to shape itself and what belongs to it in a given time and place. Then the attempt will also smack of failure, and the resultant law, which will not be able to obtain such a recognition of public opinion, will simply reveal a defective situation in the church. The church will then be unavoidably disturbed, and only through conflict can agreement return—which agreement, however, will at that point be more fully conscious—and thus, with that agreement, a clearer state of the whole.
Fourth: Yet, what directly follows from this account is not anywhere found to be so clearly expressed that we could spare ourselves the trouble of laying it out, though to a certain extent it does refer back to our initial statements concerning our undertaking. The point is that all acts of legislation in a communal body always remain subject to being repaired. Imagine a time when all the particular acts of legislation that now have currency could not yet be promulgated as law because they would not have been acknowledged as such. Likewise, there can come a time when law that has currency now will no longer be acknowledged. Moreover, if at that point there is still a desire to retain it as something having currency, a faulty semblance of law would emerge that would not survive without carrying some disadvantage with it. In no way does this observation mean to assert that everything set forth publicly as a rule of faith or of life is immediately alterable. Rather, what is to be asserted is simply that nothing ought to be presented as if it were inalterable, in that we may trust that some matters go through a process of gaining currency over and over again.
If, finally, the right to decree excommunication is also attached to the aspect of administrative activity, this must be understood with considerable restriction. If we refer this branch of the office of the keys back to the undivided governing activity of Christ, then what we indeed find, contrary to this practice, is that not only did Christ choose the apostles and call disciples and assign functions to both, but he also called out “woe” concerning the scribes and Pharisees and concerning those places where he had not been received. However, those were all people who had not yet been taken up into his community. All he would have needed was to draw away from them. He would not have had to expel them. On the other hand, he would not himself have cast out the prodigal child.31 So, among us too there can be no total excommunication, one by which all relationship of community would be withdrawn. Rather, any situation that could rightly call for a judgment excluding a person from all participation in life within the church should, nevertheless, be viewed as only a temporary one, and no judgment should bear the intention of barring from its influences any individual who has once been received into the church.32
1. Ed. note: ET Book of Concord (2000), 92, 98; Latin and German: Bek. Luth. (1963), 121, 129. Ed. note: Schleiermacher referred to this document as the Confessio Augustana, citing the Twesten edition (1816), 110, and following the custom after the 1560s of referring to Melanchthon’s original 1530 Latin version of the Augsburg Confession as the Confessio Augustana Invariata: the last word tended to be omitted once the initial controversy that led to this title had ended. Throughout CF, Schleiermacher has used the Latin edition.
2. Ed. note: ET Cochrane (1972), 253, 376; Latin only: Creeds, vol. 3 (1919), 264, 285; cf. §37n3.
3. Ed. note: See §71n3. The German text on the “keys” is in article 16; in contrast the Latin text, quoted here, is in article 17. ET here drawn from the original German and Latin in Creeds, vol. 3 (1919), 220; cf. “chapter” 16 in Cochrane (1972), 105. Latin and German also in Niemeyer (1840), 119. Chapters 14 to the end are differently numbered in the German and Latin editions. Here, as in §71n3, Schleiermacher uses this title for the First Helvetic Confession, which was the second Swiss confession that was written in Basel.
4. Ed. note: ET and French in Creeds, vol. 3 (1919), 378, also Cochrane (1972), 155; Latin: Niemeyer (1840), 337. Both confessions reject “inventions” and “laws” that would “bind conscience,” to which Rom. 16:17–18 is noted in the French version.
5. Ed. note: Not quoted. ET and French in Creeds, vol. 3 (1919), 423f., also Cochrane (1972), 212; Latin: Niemeyer (1840), 382f.
6. Ed. note: ET Cochrane (1972), 69; Latin: Niemeyer (1840), 756.
7. Ed. note: ET Kienzles; Latin: CR 28:413; Schleiermacher here refers to the edition in Symbole (1816), 167.
8. Gewalt. Ed. note: Macht is used in the proposition, while Gewalt indicates some capacity for definitive choice, enablement, or enforcement—and without stretching beyond Schleiermacher’s own practice, one may add such activities as capacities for planning, negotiation, and evaluative readjustment regarding the special gifts of every person for ministry and sharing; cf. §144n1.
9. Matt. 16:19. Ed. note: Sermon on Matt. 16:13–19, Nov. 28, 1819, first separately published (1820), also in SW II.4 (1835), 87–99, and (1844), 120–32.
10. Matt. 18:18.
11. John 20:23. Ed. note: This passage concerns Christ’s appearance to the disciples and telling them that the consequences of their forgiving and retaining sins will hold. Later this was taken to be a charge and entitlement given to Peter and presumably to those holding his power in succession.
12. Gebot und Verbot.
13. Augsburg Confession (1530) 28 (On Abuses of the Church’s Power 7): “It is necessary to retain the teaching concerning Christian freedom.” Ed. note: ET Book of Concord (2000), 99; Latin and German: Bek. Luth. (1963), 128.
14. Ed. note: See §145n11 above.
15. Macht.
16. Gemeine. Ed. note: Here reference is being made to a time in which there was as yet no larger community (Gemeinschaft) but only other communal bodies (or “congregations,” to which Gemeine usually refers) where decisions had to be made.
17. Ed. note: Matt. 16:18. There Christ says that he will build his church on the “rock” that is Peter.
18. Cf. Matt. 10:14–15, for no community arose in a place from which the disciples distanced themselves in this way, and sins were “retained” for all in that place. Ed. note: See §145n11 above. That is, the sins, though forgiven, would remain intact.
19. Ed. note: Cf. §§109–11 on forgiveness and sins of the regenerate.
20. Verwaltung. Ed. note: This term can also have the closely allied connotations of “administration” or “stewardship.” Instead of this term Schleiermacher has typically used Einrichtung regarding baptism, as in other earlier contexts within this book.
21. Acts 8:20–23; 1 Cor. 5:4–5. Ed. note: Sermon on Acts 8:18–23, July 30, 1820, SW II.10 (1850), 67–82. The first passage contains the story of Peter’s admonishment of Simon for offering to pay John and Peter money if they would give him the Spirit. In the second passage Paul joins the congregation at Corinth in the prospect of its condemning a man “with the power of our Lord Jesus” that the man might eventually be saved.
22. Kräften.
23. Verwaltung. Ed. note: Cf. §145n20 above.
24. Bevollmächtigen. Ed. note: That is, they alone would be able to “empower” ordination to this ministry or to hold them to their calling.
25. Gewalt.
26. Acts 1:15–23 and 6:2–6. Ed. note: Sermon on Acts 6:1–6, July 9, 1820, SW II.10 (1850), 37–51. The first passage, referred to in the next sentence, has Peter and an assembly of about 120 choose between two men to succeed Judas among the twelve apostles. A similar procedure was followed in choosing seven men to serve tables (the first deacons).
27. Geistlichen. Ed. note: Even today, this term is often used for ministers (Diener) of the Word.
28. Stimme. Ed. note: A built-in ambiguity reveals the full meaning of this term, which means at once that the person has found a proper “voicing” on a matter, a way to be “in tune” with the situation, and a suitable way to “vote” based on conscience.
30. Ed. note: “Public opinion” here refers to opinion formed within the church, not outside it, just as “public worship” does.
31. Das verlorene Kind. Ed. note: Although the reference is clearly to Jesus’ story of the prodigal son, use of the word “child” is no doubt to suggest a favorite image of Schleiermacher, that everyone taken up into community with Christ is a “child of God.” Sometimes in sermons he called his hearers “children,” pointedly meaning God’s, not his.
32. Ed. note: The word Kirchenbann, the term used for “excommunication” above, does carry connotations that Schleiermacher is openly rejecting here.
[Introduction to Sixth Point of Doctrine]
§146. Naturally, the correct anticipatory feeling1 that is fitting for the Christian church to have regarding what is salutary2 for it in its coexistence with the world becomes prayer.
1. It is inseparable from the way in which the church takes form historically and grows that various obstacles and vacillations arise in it, stronger at one time, weaker at another. This happens through influences of all that is worldly, both in an internal sense, because every member carries something belonging to the world within oneself, and in an external sense. The same thing is also true of the church’s outward task of taking the world into itself, in that it does not achieve a smooth or easily noticed progress in this respect either. Accordingly, the collective consciousness of all this is that of the church’s incompleteness.
Now, in contrast, the desire to achieve the purpose of Christ’s mission to perfection continually lives on in the church. For this reason, that consciousness of incompleteness, in being bound to this impetus, bears the stamp of a certain needy state, namely, that since that consciousness is nothing but the proper self-knowledge of the church with respect to its love for the Redeemer, it must necessarily be regarded as itself a working of the divine Spirit. That is, it is so to the extent that such consciousness is itself pure. Further, in this way the church’s consciousness then hovers between the present and the future, and for this reason it is combined with God-consciousness in a twofold manner. That is, in relation to the fact that its every success is not exclusively the result of its own self-initiated activity but is, at the same time, the result of the divine government of the world, the church’s consciousness becomes either calm acceptance or gratitude for whatever in the present is an outcome of earlier endeavors—this depending on whether the ordinary human elements have been surpassed on balance or have remained ineffectual, respectively. In contrast, for whatever still wavers undecided, the church’s consciousness becomes prayer—that is, the intimate combination with God-consciousness of a wish directed to the best success possible.3
Suppose that we were indeed always reflecting on and carrying into clear consciousness the fact that we do, in any case, come to the point either of calm acceptance or gratitude, and both of these are states in which participation in the undisturbed blessedness of the Redeemer is expressed, with the result that we are completely confident in this aspect of our subject. Accordingly, the church, when oriented entirely to its own self-initiated activity, really should wholly refrain from wishing. Even things that would appear to be settled, moreover, are simply points of transition, such that what was taken up with an attitude of calm acceptance later comes to be marked as an object of gratitude, and vice versa. Consequently, calm acceptance and gratitude should eventually disappear, in that the church would have left all points of transition behind and attained to complete rest. The church would then, in its joy in God, hold fast simply to an untroubled surety as to the final outcome. However, in its running ahead of the development of temporal matters, the thinking subject cannot refrain from picturing what is possible in numerous forms and, comparing their value for efforts of one’s own, cannot refrain from attaching oneself, with some predilection, to those efforts for which one mostly anticipates having support. Further, as long as this activity continues, it must also combine with one’s God-consciousness and thus must become prayer. Then, since this activity does, in fact, continue in us constantly, we also have no reason to treat the injunction that we should “pray without ceasing”4 as a hyperbolic expression. This is so, for if we did not keep on praying, then either our interest in the reign of God, which produces those notions of what is salutary but uncertain, or our God-consciousness, which holds before us the absolute powerfulness of the divine governance of the world, would have to have disappeared.
2. Now, suppose that the apostle’s very prescription, just cited, were apparently given more to individuals, so that the play of thoughts with as yet indefinite results that we just recalled were also occurring only in individuals as such. If so, then the correctness of one’s anticipatory feelings5 would not by itself be conducive to one’s anticipatory feelings becoming prayer. Instead, if all this does not happen in equal measure, the difference between anticipatory feeling and prayer would chiefly rest on the importance of the given object; thus, it would appear that our proposition is not significantly explained by our discussion thus far. This will happen, however, if we attend to the relationship of the church to individuals in this respect.
That is, the individual has one’s own sanctification in view in this relationship first and foremost, and then one has in view the efficacious action incumbent on oneself within the whole body, using the gifts already bestowed upon oneself. The individual and the whole body form a single manifold, however, the parts of which are not all advanced in equal measure by each act. Moreover, the experience must very soon be borne in each individual that as one is dashing along, with one’s plans and hopes, on one path, by the divine government of the world challenges do come that steer one off onto another path. Hence, at any given moment, one cannot even have confidence in one’s anticipatory feelings regarding what will be most salutary for oneself personally. Just as little, in fact, can the individual gain a sure judgment, proceeding from one’s own standpoint, concerning what will be salutary for the whole body, given the posture of its overall task on each occasion. To be sure, individuals within that whole body will be dissimilar, and only those will be rightly suited to exercise a greater and distinct influence on the whole who will already have developed within themselves precisely this anticipatory feeling into a special gift analogous to the prophetic gift. Furthermore, this anticipatory feeling belonging to the body’s shared consciousness could be more sure at times when a particular individual still constituted a larger part of the whole6 and this anticipatory feeling came to that individual in its full truth.7 Now, in Christ we have to think of such anticipatory feeling, considered to be something human in him also, as developed to the highest degree. From Christ onward, it must be received by approximation, but, in addition, the degree of surety involved must be the more diminished the more what is merely personal is mixed into that prototypical prefiguring8 in relation to the future.
The same thing, however, that is true of the individual also applies to every association of a plurality of individuals, whether it exists more freely or more bound by nature, this according to the extent to which individuals play smaller or larger roles within the whole and attend to the others with more or less unselfish love or do not. So, after considering this sort of progress made within this one aspect, we will have to say of the whole that just as personal consciousness and collective consciousness are not different but are rather totally at one, this whole also depicts the most exact image9 of Christ possible. Thus, where the whole is manifested as a unity in this fashion, the surest anticipatory feeling possible will also be found.
As to the other aspect of the matter, however, the church is, at the same time, the collective locale for all those foreshortened anticipatory feelings which, given their varied defects, are also very often directed against each other and involved in controversy. Therewith it is then incumbent on the church, first of all in comparing itself with the complete portrayal10 of Christ, since the church does not yet carry this complete portrayal in its temporal consciousness, to make this its prayer: that those of its members who are the most cultivated organs of the divine Spirit might increasingly gain the greatest influence toward the proper discovery and introduction of that which is necessary for the increase and betterment of God’s reign. This, moreover, is an absolutely proper anticipatory feeling of the church, one which becomes prayer and in which all individuals are, accordingly, also in harmony with the whole.
Next, however, to the extent that individuals could oppose each other, the church also has the duty first to adjust the unsteady anticipatory feeling that proceeds from the incomplete collective consciousness held by individuals. Then the church has the further duty to bring the consciousness of being unsteady about the future to a state of resolution by turning to prayer. These two things already occur as people unite in common prayer, in that through the very shape of this act of collective religious life, each individual is already redirected from what is grounded more in one’s personal existence to what can be the same in all and, through the content of this act on each occasion, each individual is already redirected to whatever in this act has taken hold of all alike. At that juncture, however, through prayer both actions also reach a further point. That is, presupposing the difference between personal anticipatory feeling and wishes among them, each participant unites in the prayer for others that, facing the facts of the divine government of the world, they might be brought ever closer to pure joy in God—be it then under the form of calm acceptance or under the form of gratitude. Moreover, all the church’s prayers can be brought under these two forms.
1. Ed. note: “The correct anticipatory feeling” (Das richtige Vorgefühl) is a feeling, or sentiment, that looks ahead, not necessarily an Ahnung, which is a presentiment that contains a hint or hunch or foretaste of what is to come.
2. Heilsam. Ed. note: The word could mean “salvific,” since in other theological contexts Heil means (final, eternal) “salvation.” In this book, however, “redemption” is the key term instead, and “sanctification” (Heiligung) is the corresponding process of life in Christ. The question is What is proper and salutary for that life in Christ?
3. Ed. note: The three successive responses introduced here are these: (1) Ergebung (a giving over or surrender of oneself, or submission to God’s will and thus to the way things are, under the divine government of the world, or a letting go of anger, sadness, or anxiety with respect to past or anticipated future events, or in extreme instances even an attitude of resignation in the face of such events—withal an attitude of calm acceptance, relatively free of disquietude); (2) Dankbarkeit (thanksgiving or gratitude); and (3) Gebet (an asking for, petition, or prayer).
4. See 1 Thess. 5:17.
5. Vorgefühle. Ed. note: See §146n1 above.
6. Cf. Acts 16:6, 10. Ed. note: In v. 6 Paul and companions are prevented by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Phrygia and Galatia, but after Paul receives a vision in the night (v. 9), they successfully go to Macedonia and preach there (v. 10).
7. Vollständig zur Wahrnehmung. Ed. note: In Schleiermacher’s usage Wahrnehmung always refers to whatever “truth” (Wahrheit) can be more or less accurately brought to the use of one’s senses, including what one imagines or envisages here in one’s anticipatory feeling (Vorgefühl). He is about to make a claim about Christ’s “prophetic” gifts. Cf. §§102–3 above.
8. Vorbildung. Ed. note: Earlier (§93) Christ is depicted as Vorbild, here also with respect to his capacity for Vorgefühl. See also the account of “prefigurative prophetic doctrine” in §157 and the barely imagined “final answer” to prayer (§157.2) at the consummation of the church.
9. Ebenbild.
10. Abbild.
§147. Doctrinal Proposition: Every prayer in Jesus’ name, but only such prayer, bears Christ’s promise that it is heard.
(1) Second Helvetic Confession (1566) XXIII: “Let all the prayers of the faithful be poured forth to God alone through the mediation of Christ only, out of faith and love.”1
(2) Belgic Confession (1561) XXVI: “Therefore, according to the command of Christ, we call upon the heavenly Father through Jesus Christ, our only Mediator, … being assured that whatever we ask of the Father in his name will be granted us.”2
(3) Heidelberg Catechism (1563), q. 117: “Third, we must rest on this unshakable foundation: even though we do not deserve it, God will surely listen to our prayer because of Christ our Lord.”3
1. In using the expression “pray in Jesus’ name,”4 whether one might then be thinking more of praying in terms of his greatest concerns or be thinking more of praying based on his sensibility and spirit, the two possibilities are really not to be separated from each other. This is the case, for if we could want to advance the spiritual welfare of human beings differently than in his sense, we would also have to have thought about it differently than he did, and at that point what we took to be his greatest concern would not be addressed to God in such prayer. Thus, to the extent that each prayer is indeed already a prayer in Jesus’ name, whatever its content might also be, it is one in which prayer is made in relation to the reign of God. However, the more distinctly focused the prayer is, the more necessary it also is that its object be thought to be in agreement with the order according to which Christ governs his church, so that the one who is praying could, as such, be regarded as one who is truly and acceptably empowered by Christ. On that basis, it quite clearly follows that the only prayer that can be a genuine prayer in Jesus’ name is one in which the whole self-consciousness of the church underlies it—that is, one the content of which reflects the church’s collective condition. Certainly, this prayer is then a portion of the common prayer of the church at any given time, and it is not to be doubted that such prayer will be heard. That is to say, if the need of the church is rightly apprehended and if the guiding anticipatory feeling5 regarding the church is the outcome of the church’s full consciousness of its internal states and external circumstances, then the prayer will bear the full truth within it, as that truth also consists in Christ’s knowledge of his spiritual body and his governing activity. Consequently, by virtue of the power6 that the Son has taken over from the Father, the prayer’s content must also attain fulfillment.
Every other prayer, in arising from a defective consciousness, even though it may deal no less with Christ’s greatest concerns and proceed from a sincere effort to act in his Spirit, expects its fulfillment only in the degree to which it accords with that normative prayer. Indeed, it ought to lay claim to this fulfillment only by this measure. Hence, such a prayer can gain assurance only by submitting itself to that normative prayer and desiring to be heard only on that condition. Even regarding this conditional prayer, as it is best called, more than one passage in the Sacred Scriptures contains an example of Christ’s praying that way,7 which, because it has to do with only one event and hour, does not inveigh against what we have claimed earlier as to the complete accuracy of his anticipatory feeling. Thus, we can see by this example that a conditional prayer can occur without sin, namely, in that it already bears within it submission to God’s will as a corrective to one’s lack of surety, so it will be heard only inasmuch as what is prayed could also be a component of a normative prayer. In this manner, the usual explanations are also easily conjoined with our own, namely, either that one who would simply want to be heard for Christ’s sake would be praying in Christ’s name, especially with a view to conditional prayer, or to the extent that what is prayed for would be that God’s will be done in relation to what God has decreed in Christ.
2. Against this explanation, however, the objection is repeatedly raised that if it really exhausted the subject, the entire teaching about prayer being heard would actually be a mere delusion. This objection presupposes that one would actually believe that through prayer one could exercise an influence on God, in that God’s will and decree would be diverted by this means. This presupposition inveighs against our own initial basic presupposition that there exists no relationship of reciprocity between the creature and the Creator.8 Accordingly, any theory of prayer that proceeds from such an assumption we can only declare to be a passing over into magic. This we declare, even though some Christians who are just as submissive to God as they are faithful do continually espouse such a theory of prayer.
In that connection, people do, to be sure, refer back to Christ’s promises.9 However, in part, these promises are themselves not correctly understood and, in part, the conditions to which Christ’s promise is indeed tied are not taken into account in their full scope. That is to say: How is one to avoid coming to the point of doubting what can only be called “an incidental future event,”10 to use the customary expression, if one cannot take it to be a necessary event in some other respect? Moreover, what can a Christian, as such, take to be a necessary event, except one without which a regenerate person could not be kept in the state of sanctification or one without which Christ’s reign could not endure and progress?
However, it is only unconditional prayer to which we are referred in this manner. When Christ made faith a condition of prayer’s being heard, by this he did not at all mean an isolated faith in the hearing itself. Rather, he meant faith in Christ in the full and complete sense of the word, and, consequently, he meant faith in the imperishable nature and superordinate value of the reign of God founded by him. Moreover, all that has already been discussed here is embraced in this faith. If, therefore, we also dismiss every magical notion regarding prayer’s being heard, we do not thereby detract from Christ’s promises. This is so, for we do not in the least admit that if something for which a prayer is given is then heard, it would then occur because it had been prayed for, even if it were contrary to the original will of God, any more than we assert that it would have occurred even if prayer for it had not been uttered. Rather, there exists an interconnection between prayer and its fulfillment that rests on the fact that both are grounded in one and the same thing, namely, in the way God’s reign operates. That is to say, in this process both are simply at one: prayer, viewed as Christian anticipatory feeling that has unfolded from the collective activity of the divine Spirit, and the fulfillment of prayer, viewed as the expression of Christ’s governing activity with respect to that same object.
Regarded in this way, the fulfillment of prayer would not arise if there had been no prayer. That is, at that juncture even in the unfolding of God’s reign, the point would not yet have arrived at which the given object of prayer would have had to follow. The fulfillment of prayer would not occur, however, simply because it had been prayed for, as if the prayer given could be considered in isolation here as a cause in and of itself, but because proper prayer can have no object other than what lies within the order that derives from the divine good pleasure. The fulfillment of prayer would also not occur on account of a specific divine decision11 even if it had not been prayed for, as if there were some divine decision concerning any particular viewed as isolated from the interconnectedness of nature. Rather, in this case, fulfillment would result only because the state from which a given prayer arises belongs among the conditions that would enable the result to ensue in an effective way.
Now, this presentation of the matter also obviates another objection against the teaching that prayer is heard, namely, that it serves to cripple the activity of faithful persons—which, fully stated, amounts to saying that if one believes that prayer is heard, one is splitting “pray and work”12 apart, and it must then be possible entirely to replace work with prayer. The corresponding formulation, “Pray, then you need not work,” stands in opposition to another one uttered in denial that prayer is heard: “Work and leave yourself no time to pray.” We must reject both formulations, however, in that, in accordance with the discussion just above, proper prayer arises only while we are engaged in activity directed to the fulfillment of our Christian calling. If every true moment of prayer is formed in such a way that it depends on some moment of activity, then prayer cannot do away with activity without doing away with itself. On the other hand, the anticipatory feeling that is expressed in a prayer that has not arisen in this way can always be a merely arbitrary prayer; consequently it cannot bear within itself any surety whatsoever that it is in tune with Christ’s governing activity. Yet, just as little can activity do away with prayer, for such activity could not be oriented to God’s reign. This is so, because the doer wants to be satisfied with what the doer can attain of oneself, and such activity would then not vouchsafe any surety that it is under the influence of Christ’s governing activity.
3. Now, in that we have constantly understood prayer solely in its orientation to the concerns of God’s reign, we have proceeded from the presupposition that only this prayer in Jesus’ name would be natural to Christians. Meanwhile, our proposition itself reminds us of another sort of prayer, with which we are all familiar based on general experience. If, on the one hand, we cannot then concede to this sort of prayer any share in Christ’s promise, yet, to the extent that conditional prayer in Jesus’ name does form a transition to this other sort, we should not simply toss it out. That is to say, it is always possible to point to a combination of human sensations and stirrings13 with God-consciousness, a combination in which these sensations and stirrings become ever more dispassionate and spiritually fertile than without the combination. Now, suppose that actually this other sort of prayer—whether it then be called a prayer of personal piety14 or of self-love, and whether these be of the more noble or of the less disciplined form—is not distinctively Christian but that the hearing of it is a special promise of Christ to his own. Then this prayer too would have a share in that promise, but only to the extent that it is akin to the object of that promise. That is, it has a share to the extent that we are able to set forth the wishes brought before God as what is, at the same time, needful for the church.
Now, prayers arising out of piety fall somewhat short of that normative condition, for the higher status we give to an individual, the more easily we can be misled into believing that it is a distinct loss for the reign of God if that individual would be torn from one’s sphere of influence or hampered within it. Yet, on closer consideration, we will always have to say that, except for Christ, no individual is indispensable in the reign of God. Still further from the norm, to be sure, are situated all those wishes that refer to our own or even others’ faring well15 externally. We are also less likely to deceive ourselves on that score. Even so, as long as we have not yet arrived at a state of unalloyed calm acceptance, exclusive of all wishes, even as Christians it is both natural and salutary for us to combine these wishes with God-consciousness.16 It will be salutary for us, however, only to the extent that we are advanced toward the point of unalloyed calm acceptance, this precisely by the consciousness that we cannot bring these wishes before God in the name of Jesus. Indeed, if we do not reach this point beforehand, then while it is being uttered, as it were, the prayer would have to be turned into a prayer for calm acceptance, and this latter prayer would then be a prayer in Jesus’ name. Yet, since every such prayer is simply a part of caring for individual souls,17 it also belongs most properly within the sphere of individual and domestic life, wherein it has its natural locus.
On the other hand, suppose that the public, common prayer of Christians is always to present the pure typus of prayer in Jesus’ name, without the admixture of objects that have no evident connection with the progressive unfolding of the reign of God. Then it would have to be the case that public care of souls18 would require that through public prayer those collective wishes which proceed from a worldly interest should be turned into prayer for calm acceptance. All public Christian intercessions19 are to be arranged accordingly, just as instructions in Scripture20 for this purpose are also to be explained only in connection with the promise of Christ that underlies our discussion here.
1. Ed. note: ET Cochrane (1972), 290; Latin only: Creeds, vol. 3, (1919), 297.
2. Ed. note: ET and French: Creeds, vol. 3 (1919), 416; Latin: Niemeyer (1840), 375.
3. Ed. note: ET and German: Creeds, vol. 3 (1919), 350; ET Torrance (1959), 93; Latin: Niemeyer (1840), 458.
4. John 16:25–26. Ed. note: Sermons on (1) John 16:23–33, Sept. 24, 1826, SW II.9 (1847), 537–48; (2) John 16:24–30, May 7, 1820, SW II.4 (1835), 307–20, and (1844), 357–70; also (3) John 16:23, May 29, 1791, SW II.7 (1836), 27–41. See also §104n58.
5. Vorgefühl. Ed. note: Cf. §146, the proposition and both §146n1 and n5.
6. Gewalt. Ed. note: Cf. §145n8 for a definition.
7. Matt. 26:42ff. Ed. note: Sermon on Matt. 26:36–46, Mar. 23, 1800, SW II.1 (1834), 28–40. ET Wilson (1890), 38–51. Here Jesus’ prayer is “Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, thy will be done” (RSV); cf. a like passage in Luke 22:42. A conditional attitude (if it is thy will, etc.) is indeed to be found throughout the New Testament, though rarely directly in the form of prayer.
8. Ed. note: This presupposition of Christian religious self-consciousness was laid out in Part One, esp. §§40–41 and 51–54. In particular, the argument is that if we are absolutely dependent on God in time and space, we cannot influence God to bend God’s eternal perfect will and decree. Part Two seems to make clear that in Christ what God wills will, in any case, be ultimately fulfilled in the all-wise and all-loving divine government of the world. See the culmination of Part Two in §§164–69.
9. Matt. 17:20 and 21:21–22. Ed. note: Sermon on Matt. 17:20, Aug. 4, 1833, SW II.3 (1835), 654–66. In Matt. 21:22 Jesus says: “Whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive if you have faith” (RSV). See the similar prayer in Luke 22:42; cf. John 14:13–14; John 16:23; and sermons on (1) John 16:23, May 29, 1791, SW II.7 (1836), 27–41; ET DeVries (1987), 169–80; (2) John 16:16–23, Aug. 27, 1826, SW II.9 (1847), 524–36, followed by one on John 16:23–33, Sept. 24, 1826, op. cit., 537–48; (3) on the same topic, on John 16:24–30, May 7, 1820, first published in a periodical in 1823, then in SW II.4 (1835), 307–20, and (1844), 357–70; (4) on Matt. 7:9–11, Aug. 21, 1831, SW II.3 (1835), 56–67, and (1843), 59–70; and (5) Luke 11:8–9, Oct. 27, 1833, SW II.3 (1835), 677–88, and (1843), 700–11.
10. Ed. note: The expression is ein künftiges Zufälliges.
11. Beschluß. Ed. note: Schleiermacher’s term for the eternal divine decree is Ratschluß.
12. Ed. note: These words refer to the traditional phrase Labore et orare.
13. Ed. note: Cf. §5 on relations of sensory consciousness and other lower levels of mentation to religious self-consciousness.
14. Pietät. Ed. note: Here the discussion focuses not on Frömmigkeit, Schleiermacher’s usual word for “piety,” which in the Christian context always has its place within the collective life of grace and faith, but on purely personal or household piety (pietas). Essentially, the latter arises from self-love (Selbstliebe) or that for a narrower social circle surrounding oneself and contributing an especially personal identity to oneself, as in a household. These kinds of love he does not abjure in general terms, but in Christian terms their scope is rather narrow, and they are less attuned to a broader God-consciousness or to the reign of God, of which one can become more fully aware in community with Christ. See Schleiermacher’s sermonic treatise The Christian Household (1820).
15. Wohlergehen. Ed. note: Or prospering, versus Wohl, which could mean internal and/or external well-being or welfare.
16. See 1 Pet. 5:7; cf. Matt. 6:31–32. Ed. note: (1) Two sermon outlines on 1 Pet. 5:7, Jan. 1, 1800, Zimmer (1887), 1–2—“Cast all your anxieties on God, for God cares about you”; (2) Sermon on Matt. 6:31, Sept. 30, 1832, SW II.3 (1835), 376–88, and (1843), 389–401—“Therefore do not be anxious … for … your heavenly Father knows that you need [all these things].”
17. Einzelnen Seelenpflege. Ed. note: In contrast, the responsibility of church leaders for Seelsorge, care of souls within the congregation or other communal body as a whole, is the overarching concern of the various tasks of practical theology for Schleiermacher. See Brief Outline §§290–308. These tasks, of course, include Seelenpflege as described here, care of individual souls, as such.
18. Öffentliche Seelsorge.
19. Öffentliche Fürbitten.
20. See 1 Tim. 2:1–4; Phil. 4:6. Ed. note: The first passage refers to “supplications, prayer, intercessions, and thanksgivings … made for all.” Sermons on (1) Phil. 4:6, undated but published in 1827 as “Remarks at a Wedding,” also in SW II.4 (1835), 815–17, and (1844), 852–54, and (2) on Phil. 4: 6–7, Mar. 2, 1823, SW II.10 (1856), 754–69. The second passage reads: “Have no anxiety about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”
THE SECOND HALF OF THE SECOND DIVISION
The Variable Characteristic of the Church by Virtue of Its Coexistence with the World
[Introduction to the Second Half]
§148. For the church itself, the contrast between the visible and the invisible church is grounded in the fact that the church cannot be formed out of the world without the world’s also exercising some influence on the church.
1. Suppose that it were instantly true of everyone in the world who had been deeply moved by the spirit of Christianity1 that, in this way, within each one no moment in life would be determined otherwise than by one’s receptivity for the influences of this Spirit and that nothing contrary that was fully established earlier in one’s life would be present anymore. In that case, the world could indeed continue to exist alongside the church, in that the world would resist further pressure of the church upon it, and thereby it could also modify the church’s prior activities within it and throw them back to where they came from. In contrast, the church would nevertheless continue to exist at each moment entirely without any mingling with the world. Thus, the two would be totally separate communities, situated wholly apart from each other.
Now, regeneration is no sudden transformation, however. Rather, even though delight in God’s will has become the actual “I” of a human being,2 there still remains in every individual an activity of the “flesh” resisting the Spirit. Consequently, even in those who constitute the church, taken as a whole, there repeatedly exists something of what belongs to the world.3 Thus, church and world are not spatially and externally divorced. Rather, at every point in which human life appears, wherever the church is already in existence because faith and the community of faith exists there, the world is precisely there too, because sin and community with what is generally sinful still exists in that place. Thus, when observed more closely, every visible aspect of the church is seen to be an admixture of church and world. Moreover, only if we could isolate what is effected in human beings by the divine Spirit and so piece just those effects together would we have the church in its purity. Now, not only are these effects so surely present only as the Holy Spirit is given in this efficacious union with human nature, but these effects also constitute an intimately connected and cooperative whole. Yet, these effects are not to be presented as if they were isolated. Rather, these effects are contained within the mixture of church and world only invisibly, as what is efficacious within that mixture over against the world and as what severs it from the world.
Thus, the invisible church is the totality of all the workings of the Spirit in their interconnectedness.4 In contrast, what constitutes the visible church is those same workings of the Spirit in their connection with lingering effects from the collective life of general sinfulness, which effects are not lacking in any individual life that has been deeply moved by the divine Spirit.
2. Ordinarily, by the invisible church, people understand the totality of those who are regenerate and are truly engaged5 in the process of sanctification. By the visible church they understand both these persons and all those others who have heard the gospel and are thus called and outwardly profess to be of the church. As we would prefer to put it, those others are those who make up the outer circle of the church, in that by means of an externally grounded relationship they receive preparatory workings of grace from the totality of the regenerate.6
Now, if this externally grounded relationship is to lie in the fact that they have received baptism and call themselves Christians, then, in accordance with Christ’s original aim, such a visible church should not exist at all, in that only those who had repented and at the very moment of baptism were ready to receive forgiveness of sins and the communication of the Spirit were to be baptized. Thus, even those who were called were to remain outside the church until the communal body7 and they themselves agreed in the conviction that a community of life existed between Christ and themselves. Moreover, that outer circle was to be comprised not of church members but only of those aspiring to be of the church. One might then want to say that this original arrangement could not be withdrawn thereafter—not only in the period since child baptism was introduced but far more in the period since whole peoples were Christianized and in the period since preferential rights of citizenship were accorded to Christianity, and thus that this arrangement should be considered, as it were, as if it were altered by Christ himself. Even so, in this light it would still not be more fitting to call the community of the regenerate invisible. That is to say, even if the moment of rebirth cannot be determined, indeed even if many people cannot be sure of whether they are in the process of sanctification, then this very lack of surety concerning some individuals could not make the whole body invisible. Rather, precisely the community of those who would in this sense have to be the most visible of all also take the most vigorous steps in opposition to the world, because they are most firmly established in the process of sanctification.8 Accordingly, what is called “the invisible church” in ordinary usage is, for the most part, not invisible, and what is called “the visible church” is, for the most part, not church.
On the other hand, the way we have conceived the contrast signifies something true and necessary. This is so, for even if it were possible to keep all unregenerate persons outside the church, the totality of the regenerate would still be simply the visible church in our sense; but because it would be visible, it would also not be clear of alien admixture there. Indeed, the pure church cannot be made visible everywhere, but it is necessary also to consider it separately as that which is distinctively efficacious within that church which is mixed with alien elements.
Now, the institutions of the church treated in the doctrinal propositions of the First Half9 are the preeminent organs of the invisible church, and they most represent the strengths exercised by the invisible church within the visible church. Here, in turn,10 those general conditions of the visible church are to be considered which, viewed as the ever-renewed consequences of the world’s coexistence in the visible church, most bring to consciousness the contrast between the visible and the invisible church.
1. Ed. note: von dem Geist des Christentums ergriffen wird. Here we may recall that Geist means, at the same time, both “common spirit” and “Holy Spirit.” Ergriffen means genuinely affected, at some deep level—that is, truly grasped, not just vaguely brushed by.
2. Rom. 7:17, 20; 1 John 1:8–10. Ed. note: In context both passages affirm that insofar as sin remains in oneself, in conflict with the will (or law or word) of God, it is felt to be sin, pure and simple, not the “I” that “delights” in what God wants. Paul depicts this sin as an activity of the “flesh” within oneself.
3. Cf. §126.1. Ed. note: In §126.1 the scriptural use of “world” to denote that part of the world not yet consonant with what the church is supposed to be, and in that way not a part of the church, is appropriated for use in dogmatics alone. Because of the unsalutary separatist tendencies to which the word “world,” left unexplained, can readily lead, in §126.1 Schleiermacher counsels against its use in any activity of Christian devotion.
4. Ed. note: The “invisible” church, for Schleiermacher, is one in community with Christ’s perfection and blessedness, true and infallible, without error. It is united, unchanging in its community with Christ’s perfection and blessings (ultimately consummate and triumphant over the sway of sin), and infallible (without error), true to its internal relationship with God in Christ, thus the “true church.” To some extent, it may well be manifested in the visible church, but it is not yet identical with it. See §§149–52 for a fuller definition, also §§114.1, 120, 157–63. In relation to philosophical theology treated as “the idea” of Christianity, see BO §130. On the “true church” versus the purely or largely “external church,” see OR (1821) IV, supplemental notes 8, 9, 10, 11, and 15.
5. Begriffen.
6. Cf. §115.2. Ed. note: There the latent church, while it was still directly related to Christ himself, was depicted as comprised chiefly of an “outer circle” under the influence of preparatory grace and an “inner circle” of those who were cooperatively helping to lead this incipient church, not yet formed, into a religious community, as has constantly been the arrangement ever since. Cf. “Grace, preparatory,” in the index.
7. Gemeine. Ed. note: “Communal body” includes gatherings not specifically designated as established congregations. Gemeinde is a parish or congregation.
8. Matt. 5:14. Ed. note: This verse reads: “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid” (RSV). The similar lamp parable on being in the light versus hidden in the darkness follows in Matt. 5:15–16, paralleled by Mark 4:21 and Luke 11:33; cf. John 8:12. See the sermon on Mark 4:10–21, Jubilate Sunday, May 13, 1832, SW II.5 (1835), 196–208. Compare that on John 8:12–20, Misericordias Domini Sunday, April 17, 1825, SW II.9 (1847), 64–81; this passage begins: “I am the light of the world.”
9. Ed. note: Part Two, second aspect, section 2, division 2, first half of this work is comprised of §§126–47. See table of contents to get oriented.
10. Ed. note: In §§148–56, the second half of division 2 of section 2. This will be followed by the third section, on the divine attributes of love and wisdom (§§157–69) and the conclusion to the entire work, on the Trinity (§§170–72).
§149. The contrast between the visible and the invisible church admits of being comprised of the following two propositions. First, the visible church is a divided church, but the invisible church is one and undivided. Second, the visible church is always subject to error, but the invisible church is unfailingly reliable.1
1. We need only to return to what we have said concerning the locus and mode of the communication of Christ’s sinless perfection2 to be able to assert that what is innermost in every truly regenerate person is nothing other than the entire truth of redemption. However, it is also wholly to this domain alone that the unfailing reliability3 that we ascribe to the invisible church is also limited. Thus, the first thing to be noticed is the very consciousness of being children of God in community of life with Christ, a consciousness that each has for all and all for each. Moreover, essentially belonging to this consciousness is then a consciousness of a being-led-into-all-truth that is present in them and for them.4
However, the scattered individualizing of that innermost consciousness into distinct notions already ceases to possess this same full truth, for the notions held by an individual are the product of one’s earlier life and are developed based on one’s earlier sensibility and interest. On account of this process, rebirth cannot, then, be a sudden transformation of one’s whole manner of concept-formation. Hence, the external expression of this internal truth is falsified to a greater or lesser extent, and the Spirit takes possession of a given individual organism5 only gradually. The same thing is true of the direction that Christ’s living in us gives to each person’s will. This direction is the pure direction that Christ himself takes against sin and toward the spreading of Christ’s life. However, just as this direction derived from Christ puts its stamp on particular actions, so not only does the conception of a distinct circumstance intervene but the prefiguring aim6 of the action does too. Yet, since one’s will was situated in the service of one’s sensory consciousness, both of these elements are conditioned by notions formed over time and, consequently, will no longer be the immediately pure presentation of that inner impulse which is derived from Christ.
Accordingly, in this fashion, what is pure or impure becomes distinguished very quickly once we move from the point at which the new life begins—and indeed precisely as what is visible or invisible becomes distinguished—for from the very outset whatever passes into an arising consciousness already ceases to be pure. Yet, both pure and impure elements inhere within the community, for the fact that redemption is realized in a given individual and the fact that this individual begins to belong to the community of the faithful are simply one and the same thing. To understand why, suppose, first, that someone wanted to say that one could indeed concede the distinction between what is pure and what is cloudy,7 just as one could concede the distinction between what is visible and what is invisible. Then, suppose that this person would also claim that what is invisible does not comprise any community, but what is absolutely internal would, as such, be isolated as well, because a community is possible only by means of expression, but this very expression would already no longer be something pure and true. To be sure, this claim is to be admitted, inasmuch as the invisible church is a community that is not completely divorced from the visible community and does not exist in and of itself alone. However, this is also not the case with the ordinary use of these terms. Rather, here, as in that usage, the visible community mediates the invisible church, viewed as a community—the latter concept simply standing out more prominently in our understanding of these subjects. In one’s everyday experience, however, anyone will surely distinguish between the two, as we do. That is, in the one instance we bypass and disregard the manifold cloudiness of individual expressions and, in the same manner, we are also each made transparent to the other person, each one placing oneself in a mutually strengthening and supporting association with the innermost impulses of the other. In this way, we constitute an element of the invisible church. In the obverse instance we enter into an actual community comprised of individual actions and expressions, so as to occupy a common space homogeneously with those who are most closely akin to us and so as to keep what is extraneous out of that space. In this way, we constitute an element of the visible church.8
It is not necessary to deal with the fact that the unfailing reliability of the invisible church also includes its purity, or the fact that the capacity for error of the visible church also includes sin. This is the case, since these facts are established, in part, by individual actions’ being grounded in aims9 that determine the bounds of those actions and that underlie the actual defects present in notions, also, in part, by the development of religious notions likewise resting on activities of will that are subject to a lack of purity in individual self-determinations.
2. Now, directly cohering with these observations is the fact that the invisible church overall is essentially one, while, in contrast, the visible church is constantly engaged in acts of deviation and division.10 That is to say, since the innermost consciousness and the innermost impulses referred to are nothing other than the presence and living stirrings of the Spirit itself, so too, the community of that same presence and living stirrings of the Spirit is nothing other than the Spirit’s own cognition of itself,11 and thus this community must extend as widely as the Spirit remains the same—that is, over the entire domain of Christendom.12 However, since it is only an invisible community, it is lacking in everything that could give it any definite form, and it is always and everywhere simply the immediate relationship of all among whom the Spirit dwells,13 who, as they encounter one another simultaneously include in their innermost sensibility all who are the likes of them in the same community. That is, it is the shared endeavor of all those people to recognize and draw to themselves the same Spirit everywhere, throughout the external community. However, just as individual expressions—both notions and actions—in their role as guides are what mediates that one community, they are, in and of themselves, the agents of what is divergent in the visible community.14 This is certainly the case insofar as the force of attraction between people, moving from overwhelmingly determinative points, somewhere or other finds its limits in accordance with physical laws,15 and their interconnection is broken off. It is also especially the case insofar as the consciousness of binding affinity, as it interconnects with differences among human beings registered in our own sensibility by sensory means, forms into something self-preferential,16 consequently also something divisive and restrictive.
At this point, moreover, what we have demonstrated from a different angle in another place17 arises anew, namely, that Christian community, viewed as one, cannot possibly restrict itself—that is, it cannot possibly have an operative desire to have other religious communities alongside itself. This is so, for otherwise either (1) Christ’s power of attraction would have to be cut short, and in this way Christ’s community of life would have to be limited by a distinct periphery, and then he would not have been inspired and endowed on behalf of the entire human race, or (2) the endeavors that proceed from Christ would have to be restricted in a narrowly self-loving18 manner within the community of the faithful, a manner such that other religious communities alongside itself would not have a share in the same privileges, and then this love would not be the same as Christ’s love.
3. It can easily be shown, however, that a total difference between the visible and the invisible church is expressed in these statements. That is to say, whether we begin with Christ’s living in us or with the efficacious action of the Spirit in us,19 the two processes issue forth in a twofold manner to appropriate everything human in the individual to this divine presence and then, with what has been thus appropriated, to make those human features effective in the communality of spiritual life. Thus, whatever still works as world in the individual works as a disturbing element within this efficacious action, so that one or another of these spiritual activities must be stemmed and averted thereby. Furthermore, generally we will indeed be able to refer even what bears the semblance of a negation, or of an omission, to something that really happens, to a deed.
Now, if every work within the community is generative of that community, because the community can continue to exist only through actions pertaining to it, then, as a consequence, what disturbs this spiritual activity must likewise include something divisive of the community within it. By the same token, if the Spirit present in every individual is a guide into all truth, whatever bears a disturbing influence within an individual in this respect must likewise be a deviation into untruth.20 Moreover, that our proposition includes deviation of the will in sin under the category of untruth is justified by the fact that, since we are speaking of the church, we consider the actions of individuals only as they bear upon the community, and there they have a disturbing influence only as they are at the same time actually availed of21 and become operative, and that occurs only insofar as they are taken up as maxims that nevertheless contradict the basic expression of the new life or are given currency as false subsumptions under proper maxims—thus, in both instances, insofar as they admit of being traced back to error. In contrast, individualized sin that does not arise from any such aim fades into the community without a trace.
There exists no influence of what is still world within us, disturbing our relationship with one another in the church, other than that which “grieves the Spirit,”22 viewed as error grieving the Spirit that leads to truth and as separation grieving the Spirit that binds and unites. Not only does this happen, but these two aspects also hang together so closely that either one can be recognized only in the other. Many things can appear as a disturbance of community, but nothing is actually so unless it is also a deviation from the truth. Likewise, nothing that appears to be an error or a sin is actually so unless it also disturbs community at the same time.
1. Ed. note: untrüglich. Under trügen Cassell’s dictionary (1972) cites the German saying Gottes Wort kann nicht trügen and translates it as “The word of God cannot fail.” This scriptural statement is not found in the Luther Bible; however, it is consonant with the sixteenth-century Evangelical confessions. Moreover, Unfehlbarkeit is the term long contrastingly used for “infallibility” with regard to Roman Catholic discourses. In the explanations that follow, the allied term Getrübten (cloudy, unclear; cf. §149n7) is contrasted with Rein (pure), and at the end den Geist betrüben (grieve or distress the Spirit; cf. §149n22) appears. Also, what is unerring, or lacking in error, in the church is presented as anything that overcomes what brings distress to the Spirit, inseparably with respect to both notions and actions (cf. §149n8 and n9). Hence, the phrase “unfailingly reliable” is chosen here.
2. Cf. §88.3. Ed. note: There Schleiermacher states: “In fact, since Christ’s companions in his lifetime are no longer alive, we also do not wish to vest any assembly of individuals, however well chosen so as to complement one another, not even with the right simply to set forth doctrines, thus rules of faith or of life, with any kind of claim to unfailing reliability [Untrüglichkeit] or persistent validity [Geharrliche Gültigkeit].”
3. Untrüglichkeit.
4. John 16:13. Ed. note: This verse reads: “When the Spirit of truth comes [it] will guide you into all the truth; for [the Spirit] will not speak on [its] own authority, but whatever [the Spirit] hears [it] will speak, and [it] will declare to you the things that are to come.” Here masculine usage in the RSV is replaced in brackets. Sermon on John 16:13–14, June 11, 1832, Festpredigten (1833), also SW II.3 (1835), 549–61, and (1843), 548–60.
5. Organismus. Ed. note: That is, the way one’s overall life is organized, not one’s physical makeup alone. Schleiermacher’s psychology always presupposes a more or less integrated body-mind/mind-body.
6. Ed. note: vorbildende Zweckbegriff. That is, an anticipatory concept of a purpose yet to be fulfilled. In this sense too, the image of Christ’s presence in our common life is also to be conceived as a gradually developing Vorbild (prototype) of our own future.
7. Getrübte. Ed. note: Or unclear, disturbed, distorted; cf. §149n1 above.
8. Ed. note: The first instance is perhaps harder to envisage than is the second instance, for the first instance requires one’s having moved past the peculiarities or excrescences of another person’s words and actions to an “innermost impulse” (innersten Antrieben, or self-initiated motive or impetus) within that person, which impulse is made transparent (durch-gesehen) to one’s own and unites with one’s own. This aspect of a person-to-person process becomes reciprocal in community and is even broadly shared there, and in large part it is invisibly felt (carried in a “shared feeling,” or Mitgefühl). In this passage each reader is invited to try to imagine and recall something like such an instance, if one can.
9. Zweckbegriffe. Ed. note: Viewed as determinations of will, the indication of “aims” at this point retains the conjoint activity of notions and voluntary actions in each of the two “parts” noted in this context.
10. Ed. note: immer in Auseinandergehen und Sich-Trennen begriffen. See Brief Outline §§50–62, 155, 233–34, and 338. There Schleiermacher makes broad distinctions between “radical division” (e.g., Protestant vs. Roman Catholic), “separatism,” “schism,” “deviation,” “heresy,” and “indifferentism” (itself a result of such weaknesses, diseases, and factions in the church). Schleiermacher regularly holds that a certain cultural divergence, as it were, in the church can be sustained even when union is achieved. See also Brief Outline §§203–12 regarding the somewhat slippery distinction between “orthodox” and “heterodox” and related issues of verification.
11. Ed. note: das Sichselbsterkennen des Geistes. In Schleiermacher’s usage, “self-knowledge” would render the stricter word Selbsterkenntnis.
12. Christenheit. Ed. note: The word for “Christianity” is Christentum.
13. Begeisteten. Ed. note: In contrast, “those inspired” would render Begeisterten. The reference is consistently to a communal reality, hence to “the common spirit,” humanly speaking.
14. Cf. §6.3. Ed. note: There Schleiermacher gives a more extended account of how religious self-consciousness, like every other “essential element of human nature,” develops, in distinctly circumscribed forms and numerous uneven and fluid stages. Both in the individual and as socially defined, this element moves by such stages into an experience of community to be termed “church.”
15. Ed. note: That is, on the analogy of magnetic forces but applied to social interactions of “affinity,” or attraction to “the likes of them.” In physics, electromagnetic forces were not very well understood at the time, but what had recently come to light was understandably impressive.
16. Ed. note: selbstliebig. That is, the bond reached is one of like-attraction, mutual fondness, or attraction, something exclusive because it has come to be preferred by those who have entered into association with one another. In contrast, “self-love” would render Eigenliebe. See §149n18.
17. Ed. note: Beginning with the account in §§126 and 127, §§128–47 then lay out in detail the six “essential and invariable characteristics of the church.”
18. Ed. note: Here the phrase is eigenliebig begrenzen; cf. §149n16.
19. Ed. note: In §§121.2 and 122.3 these two processes are already set forth both as communal phenomena and as one and the same.
20. Unwahrheit. Ed. note: The proposition refers to being subject to error (Irrtum).
21. Wahrgenommen. Ed. note: In ordinary usage this particular meaning, that of being taken to be authentic, or “true,” entails being “availed of,” as is made clear in the context. The other chief meaning, that of being perceived by the senses, can likewise entail what is perceived by the senses, or a sense perception, being “availed of.”
22. Ed. note: Eph. 4:30–31: “Do not grieve the Spirit” with such things (specifically mentioned) as wrath, anger, clamor, slander, malice, lack of kindness, and failure to forgive one another.
Regarding the Plurality |
[Introduction to First Point of Doctrine]
§150. Whenever separations actually arise in the Christian church, it is also the case that the effort to unite what is separate is never lacking.
1. Now, if in individuals all that is world is, in and of itself, an element that disturbs community, then always and everywhere seeds of separations1 are scattered throughout the visible church, but each seed is, of itself, only a miniscule element. Moreover, depending on whether these elements are more individualized or combine to form a sizeable quantity, in the latter case more or less of a separation will arise in the church, whereas in the first case only a transitory disturbance will result, this within narrower circles. It is clearly evident from the very beginning onward, that those elements which were based in earlier religious conditions among the first Christians, who were Jews and Gentiles, came together most strongly but also worked most severely against each other. Hence, already in the era of early Christianity, which one must otherwise be inclined to regard as an exception to that general will to fall apart which persists in the visible church, those elements so widely formed into a predisposition toward a divorce between Jewish and Gentile Christians that only the countervailing force2 of the church’s community-forming principle,3 then operative in its originative vigor, could thwart a real outbreak of such a division.
However, based on this early situation, it is also clear that the more the Spirit that binds suffuses the whole company of Christians and, in consequence, sunders the worldly elements within that company from it, the more these elements must lose in their power4 to separate. Thereafter, this power to separate has never again resided so strongly in individual differences within the unfolding of doctrine as in the period when heresies were identified and when the general5 councils of the church were convened. On the other hand, however, the bent toward separations has always shown itself to be effective in the measure that deviations are fixed by some sort of self-seeking effort, deviations that would otherwise dissolve of themselves in turn, almost unnoticed.
2. Yet, even in the state of separation, every part of the visible church nonetheless still exists as a part of the invisible church, in that affirmation of Christ, and thus the efficacious action of the Spirit, also exists in it. To that extent, then, even the impulse from which the given division has arisen will gradually be weakened. Moreover, wherever these different parts of the church are in contact with each other, the same community-building principle within them will direct its activity against this division. Thereby an effort to achieve reunion will emerge, one that is naturally subject to the same changes and oscillations in the church-that-actually-appears-to-sight as is true in the church that is not visible. Indeed, even if this principle does not become noticeable on the historical plain, it certainly is dispersed among individuals. Further, this presupposition is as necessary as it is proper to believe that the Holy Spirit cannot at any time either have entirely disappeared or have been absent from any part of the church whatsoever, or to believe that none of the Holy Spirit’s essential occupations can ever be entirely neglected.
However, it is an undeniable experience that apart from these occupations of the Holy Spirit, attempts at union do frequently appear, attempts that cannot spring from the Spirit of the church and the success of which thus cannot be regarded as yielding any profit. This experience reminds us that there can also be separations that are not based on what is world in the church and consequently are ultimately to be reckoned to workings of the Holy Spirit, so that the truth of our assessment seems to be merely a subordinate matter and to require finer definition. Yet, just as those unions can be merely apparent and can certainly strive to divide what is united from the whole in some other fashion, so too what strives only to found a narrower association within community as a whole and without doing it any harm, or what is simply a return to some abandoned community that consists of earlier formations of the church, may appear to be a separation but, in fact, is none. Accordingly, the general truth is that the Spirit binds and that what loosens must always consist of a disposition according to the flesh.6 Application of this truth, however, can be difficult; and if several communities that are divided from each other continue to exist side by side in Christianity, the task devolves upon critical activity to determine on which side the principle behind loosing has its seat and thus where the division comes from. This is an issue that is often no easier to decide than the issue of which of two sides in a war has actually been the aggressor.
1. Ed. note: Whereas such seeds of discord (the biblical seeds that fall among thorns or on uncultivated soil) move to disturb, disrupt, or destroy community, for Schleiermacher seeds of proclamation, in both word and deed, serve to build community. See two sermons on Matt. 13:22–23, June 22 and July 9, 1826, separately published in 1827, then in SW II.4 (1835), 687–716, and (1844), 739–68.
2. Kraft. Ed. note: Cf. §144n1 and n2.
3. Prinzip. Ed. note: That is, an active, formative power, not a statement.
4. Gewalt. Ed. note: Cf. §145n8. Here, by contrast, the “power”—whether strictly authoritative or not—is one that tends to hold sway, hence bears the power to separate.
5. Ed. note: allgemeinen. These councils have also been called “ecumenical,” an inexact term that Schleiermacher tends to avoid in referring to these councils.
6. Ed. note: This is an allusion to and a further expansion on an earlier discussion of the contrast given in Matt. 16:19; cf. §145n9 and context.
§151. First Doctrinal Proposition: The total suspension of community among the various parts of the visible church is non-Christian.1
1. What was stated in the Introduction to this work2 regarding communities of piety in general can also be said of Christianity on account of its broad extension over such an abundance of peoples and of language areas: namely, that a homogeneous interconnection among people belonging to it is not possible. This is true for two reasons: not only on account of uneven internal affinity and external contact, but also on account of uneven distribution of its common spirit.
Now, it is natural that the first lack of homogeneity is established by the leading role of language as well as by the totality of social circumstances, and that Christians whose discourse is tied to one sort of language and belong to the same people would form a special ecclesial community. Such churches of peoples and territories, however, simply comprise a form in which a more sizeable community is alone possible, in accordance with the divine way of ordering things. Moreover, they do not in any way involve a suspension of community with other Christians, which rather takes place now as ever, only once the natural conditions for such community have been given. The same thing is true of associations that arise among Christians—always quite marked in their external form—that have some affinity in several respects and that link up especially with those who present these Christians’ own peculiar way of thinking in a most markedly productive fashion, for this too is possible without suspension of any sort of preexisting community with other parts of the church.
Instead, such a suspension of community first begins when closer associations that have arisen in the manner last mentioned move into opposition against each other and cannot enjoy their respectively distinctive modes of being without distancing themselves from others’ modes of being and excluding these others from their company. To be sure, such a polemical relationship does constitute a suspension of community, yet it does so only partially. The reason for this situation is that when conflict really breaks out concerning the incompatibility of their distinctive natures in relation to each other, this conflict nonetheless has its basis solely in the interest each takes in the other, and hence the conflict itself as is simply about the manner in which some community can persist between them under the given circumstances. Indeed, this qualification already lies in the presupposition that the last point of communal existence to which they refer back in their conflict is still Christian. Thus, in order to understand each other or even themselves, they will also have to distinguish the undisputed area from that which is in dispute, thereby entertaining a different mode of community in the first area than in the second. Hence, a total suspension of community is introduced only when two given ecclesial social groups3 regard no element in the other, simply because it is regarded to be Christian, as a reason for their identifying with each other. As a consequence, all religious communication of each one to the other ceases and no ecclesial hospitality is practiced between them of any sort that each would not exercise toward non-Christians. That is to say, at that point the only thing they would have in common is simply the empty title of “Christianity.”
2. In this sense, a total suspension of community is then non-Christian as long as the social group that has been cut off still retains its historical interconnection with proclamation of the gospel, by which it has been founded, and if with suspension of this interconnection it does not trace its current shape to some other source of revelation. This is the case, for as long as acknowledgment of Christ still exists within a community, some efficacious action of Christ must still exist within it, even if Christ’s efficacious action were very much repelled. Moreover, since all who are taken up into community of life with Christ are also to share community with one another, if we disengage from Christ’s efficacious action in this way, we exclude and divorce ourselves from the unity of the invisible church.4
In accordance with this basic principle, even heretics, in the more literal sense, are still in the church. No matter how many more still-later degenerations there may be in which other ecclesial communities claim to find something heretical, community with them is not to be entirely suspended. Indeed, suppose that, in order to establish some boundary, we imagine, first, that in the most heretical of heresies—for example, the Manichean—elements originating outside Christianity are admixed with Christian elements. In contrast, suppose, second, that the Indians, for example, wanted to recognize Jesus to be one of their many other incarnations of a god. As a result, this second case would be simply a mixing of what is Christian with what is not Christian, and we would not adjudge the mixture to be Christian,5 but then these individuals would not be designated as heretics either. Thus, we will probably be able to define for the external community no boundary other than this: that we must not break completely with any community that continues to attach itself to Christian tradition and that, on its own part, holds fast to the desire to belong to the Christian church.
It is also patent that ecclesial community is not entirely suspended between any religious communities that meet this condition, and in this way the unity of the invisible church is presented across this entire spectrum. Such a widespread community, however, persists not only in that each grants validity to the scripturally proper baptism of the others, but persists also in that all have in common a stretch of history that for the most part extends further back than Scripture and the apostolic age. It persists, moreover, in that each is supportive of the others’ expanding themselves at the expense6 of the world beyond where Christians now live, and thus, even though they do not join together in other Christian works, they do, nonetheless, take up this work of broadening Christianity in community with each other.
1. Ed. note: In CF, Schleiermacher does not use the term “church union” but constantly endeavors to present theological grounds for unity in diversity. The true, genuinely distinctive “invisible,” Spirit-filled church is “one” (§§148–50 and 157–58). In OR (1821), Schleiermacher indicates his change from preferring smaller ecclesial communities, stimulated by early successes in America, to gathering them, with acceptance of diversity, into larger unions. See OR (1821) IV, supplemental notes 18 and 24.
2. In §6.
3. Gesellschaften. Ed. note: That is, at that point one or both of them regards the other only as a social group (literally, as “societies”), not as Christian.
4. Augustine (354–430), On Faith and Works (ca. 413): “Such persons only make trouble for the church; they try to separate the cockle from the wheat before the appointed time. But because of their blindness they themselves rather are separated from union with Christ.” Ed. note: ET Lombardo (1988), 11–12; Migne Lat. 40:201.
5. Thus 1 John 4:5 may be understood as referring only to individuals of this sort.
6. Ed. note: Here “at the expense of “ translates auf Kosten der. Thus, presumably they do this mission work at no real loss or cost, or at no derogation from each other, though some non-Christians might experience such things. This would be the case, for example, when mission fields are pioneered by a single ecclesial community or when denominations divide these fields among them. Cf. Brief Outline §298, also Schleiermacher’s accounts of Christian activities around the globe in his lectures on church geography and statistics (KGA II/16, 2005).
§152. Second Doctrinal Proposition: All divisions in the Christian church continue to exist only as temporary ones.1
1. If community is not completely suspended between parts of the church that are divided from each other, consequently if every division is only relative, one must also assume a twofold movement in each part, thinking of each one as a distinctive life. That is, sometimes a stronger emergence of a motivation toward unity is present, sometimes a receding of this motivation and an emergence of a motivation toward division. Now, already implied therein, in and of itself, is the possibility that an element of the unitive kind would coincide with the formation of a new contrasting position within the whole that could suppress the motivation toward division within this whole, a motivation very much at work up to then, with the result that a party within the church2 that had previously existed on its own might do one of two things. On the one hand, it might pitch itself entirely to one aspect of the new contrasting position, so that it becomes a part of that contrasting position, and along with it its previous character passes over as a merely subordinate feature. On the other hand, it might also split apart entirely, in that some of its members turn to one aspect of the new contrasting position and others to a different aspect. In the latter case, however, the original contrasting position will gradually be blunted, having been subsumed under the new one. Likewise, even when this process does not occur, if any other circumstance changes interest in this contrasting position, that contrasting position might become so blunted that it would no longer hold the power3 to keep a separated community together. On the other hand, we might presuppose the best that can be said of such a party in the church, that it rests on a spiritually distinctive character that is suited to its being a special organ of the Holy Spirit. Even in that case, such a community, spatially limited as it is, would have only a passing currency. By this token, it is still possible to take notice only of those social groups in which Christian piety assumes a particularized form in all respects. Moreover, its transitory nature must be all the more evident the more meager and unsatisfying the unity is that forms the kernel of a community. Therefore, no special social group within the church should ever be grounded in the distinctive nature of an especially prominent individual.4 Further, no special social group can count on lasting very long that has desired to rest only on divergent morals without a corresponding variance in doctrine or, in reverse, on particularly distinctive doctrines without any variance in its way of life.
Divisions that have a physical basis and are limited by language and by affinity among a people are also among the more stable ones. However, in part, these natural forms are themselves transitory, and in part, Christianity has done things to promote community among different peoples and languages, more than is true elsewhere. Hence, the inner principles spurring division often overflow these boundaries; also, sometimes churches of different peoples and languages nevertheless unite into a like-minded and similarly shaped whole, and sometimes those that naturally belong together split up into opposing sides.5
2. From these observations it already follows, of itself, that even the zeal with which an individual adheres to one’s particular ecclesial community can be genuine only if that zeal remains enclosed within certain limits, in such a way that one is not deprived of full participation in the unity of the invisible church, which unity binds everything together. What is essential is that each individual has love for the particular form of Christianity, to which form one belongs only as a passing formation of the one imperishable church, which church includes within it one’s own temporal existence. This limitation is very remote from indifference, in that it positively proceeds from the fact that each individual stands in association with the entire church only through one’s own community. It is indeed distinguished from the partisan presupposition that is frequently present when some ecclesial opposition reaches a certain point, namely, where the opposition cannot be resolved unless the other side moves over to one’s own. The two extremes, which need not be dealt with here, we usually designate by the terms “indifferentism” and “proselytizing.” However, it is in no way indifferentism to remain unperturbed in face of the fact that a given form of Christianity, one that is already recognized in general terms to be transitory, will also perish one day. Rather, one can be charged with this fault of indifferentism only if one can conceive of one’s own relationship to the ecclesial community to which one adheres only as something arbitrary, not being conscious of any inner reason for deciding to be there. Likewise, just as little is the endeavor to commend one’s own ecclesial community to the members of another one in the most effective way possible what we would call a proselytizing attitude in the bad sense. This is the case, because otherwise both Christianity, in general, and even Evangelical Christianity, in particular, would have been subject to outright repudiation at their very origins. Instead, whenever we perceive a weakness or perversion of Christian piety in some other ecclesial community, that endeavor to commend one’s own community is grounded in the nature of the case. Indeed, the above-mentioned partisan presupposition assumes the very same thing in general terms; thus the same endeavor is organized by it as a general task with good reason, and we should not count such an endeavor to be non-Christian even in members of an opposing ecclesial community. Rather, the actually objectionable proselytizing attitude is that which both makes the expansion of a given ecclesial community into an unqualified purpose and which places demands on individuals as if they were mere means to that end.6
1. Ed. note: On separations, schism, and Schleiermacher’s rare use of the term “sects,” see also §2.
2. Partialkirche. Ed. note: That is, being party to certain notions or actions that themselves reflect partiality, separate and incomplete parties arise in the church possessing a partial nature (partial = partielle) as church in relation to the church as a whole. Correspondingly, as Schleiermacher observes, such parties tend either to retain a markedly limited perspective for a time or to eventually fade back into the whole.
3. Kraft.
4. Cf. 1 Cor. 1:12. Ed. note: In effect, this is the definition of a sect.
5. Ed. note: The sources of such observations are Schleiermacher’s own historical studies, which he recommended in Brief Outline as part of a well-rounded theological education. He lectured on a large part of these studies. For the contemporary period, these lectures included church geography and statistics. Cf. the corresponding KGA volumes and also related discussions in Brief Outline.
6. Ed. note: This general point is directly reminiscent of Immanuel Kant’s by-then famous absolute, “categorical imperative” that human beings should be treated with respect, as belonging to “a kingdom of ends,” never merely as “means.” In the present context, however, the kingdom is specifically the reign of God, in which both recognition and formation of Christian community in the Spirit, on the one hand, and a corresponding loving respect even for individuals who may oppose us, on the other hand, together comprise the chief moral end. This perspective is immediately reflected in the way sinful error in the church is treated in the next proposition.