A Grid for Communicating Justification
About 30 years ago, I came upon
a compelling section in Werner Elert’s Structure of Lutheranism. Elert
defined a twofold subjectivity in man, claiming that such a distinction is
necessary for an understanding of the great truth of justification by grace
through faith, especially the way the very righteousness of Christ is applied
to the believer.
I found the wisdom of Elert
challenging. A fellow pastor/golfer and I became enthralled with this
section from Elert and we walked the fairways of Bethpage State Park discussing
“twofold subjectivity.” While it made for great discussion, the golf game
did suffer. As a personal note, seeking to plumb the depths of Elert’s
thinking regarding this subject has had an impact both upon my life and the way
I communicate justification. Perhaps, if you take the time to wrestle
with the concepts you may discover a similar result.
Read very carefully a few
sections from Elert and let’s see if we can practically unpack it. I do
not believe the doctrine of justification can be fully grasped without first
understanding this “twofold subjectivity,” applying it and teaching it.
After exploring the concepts, I will share some insights for communicating
twofold subjectivity as a grid for understanding the truth of justification.
Elert writes:
The
Lutheran doctrine of justification distinguishes a twofold subjectivity of
man. This does not presuppose any critical power of discernment or
special knowledge; it is connected to the elementary fact that man himself
becomes the object of reflection. If in his reflections, he thinks to a
conclusion in the direction of what he is and in the direction of what he could
or should be, he stands before that maze of destiny and guilt which was
developed as the “primal experience….” Thus, there is a twofold subjectivity;
the transcendental I as a “mathematical point” and the psychic I that is
saturated with content…. That separation of I and I is carried through as
self-accusation. I myself am the object of my reflection because I am
compelled to look at the concrete aspects of my life or, what amounts to the
same thing, of my consciousness, with the eyes of God… Furthermore, this distinguishing
of a twofold subjectivity is the formal presupposition of the doctrine of
justification. The subject of the faith that receives the “righteousness
of God” is the transcendental I. It is altogether empty, merely a
“mathematical point”. The righteousness adjudged to it is “alien” in the
strict sense. (Elert,
Werner, The Structure of Lutheranism [Vol. 1[, [Saint Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1962], pgs. 140-141.)
The Transcendental “I”:
At first glance it seems
difficult to wrap your mind around these concepts – transcendental “I” and
psychic (or empirical) “I”. Elert defines the transcendental “I” as “the
‘I’ that remains after the abstraction of the entire content of consciousness.”
(Elert, pg. 79) What does he mean?
Think of a new-born baby.
All the parts are there, intellect, will, desire and emotions but the life of
the infant is devoid of any content. If you remove any genetic
disposition or the fact that the “operating system” contains the virus of
original sin, you would have a mere mathematical point with neither content nor
extension. The baby just “is” – a transcendental “I” – transcendental
because there is nothing to see or assess. There’s a person in there
somewhere. Herein is the wonder of the miracle of Infant Baptism.
God, in His grace, applies the righteousness of Christ to this “empty” vessel
devoid of any empirical content. Of course, as the child grows and develops
into adulthood, all kinds of content are applied and the psychic or empirical
“I” is manifest. The two “I’s” remain, evident in what is either the bane
or blessing of self-consciousness.
Self-consciousness is twofold
subjectivity. By being able to observe, assess and evaluate the concrete
aspects of my consciousness I become both subject and object. While there
is no precise sedes for doing so, I believe that Adam and Eve prior to
the Fall and the reception of the self-assessing knowledge of good and evil
were not self-conscious. They had a singular subjectivity with the
consciousness of God. The Divine question, “Who told you that you were
naked” is compelling. A dog, for example, has a singular
subjectivity. Dogs are not self-conscious. They do not look in the
mirror and lament a bad fur day. Yet, the eyes of the dog are focused on
the master. In the same way, before the Fall into sin, the eyes of Adam
and Eve were focused on the Master – their God who created them and loves
them. Elert writes, “the consciousness of man as the consciousness of
himself is in original opposition to God.” (pg. 18)
While he does not
expound on the subject, he seems to be saying the same thing -
self-consciousness is the result of sin. If the Fall changed man’s
God-consciousness into self-consciousness, it seems to me that the purpose of
salvation, redemption and justification is to produce the opposite
effect. (While I have made some effort, Georg Hegel’s understanding
of human self-consciousness and the fall into sin in Phenomenology of Spirit
remains a mystery. He does seem to be suggesting that “the fall” was a
“fall upward” into self-consciousness.)
The Psychic I:
This psychic “I” or empirical
“I” is our conscious content or “bundle of stuff,” including personality,
intelligence, feelings, emotions, desires, intentions, guilt, fears, anxieties
perception of others and their perception of you, talents, skills, strengths,
weaknesses et. al. Being self-conscious we can evaluate and assess our
stuff or, to use Elert terminology, the transcendental “I” assesses the content
of the empirical “I”. By nature, we are self-centered. While
no one is perfect, we want to feel good about our stuff. We compare our
stuff with the stuff of others. We defend our stuff against criticism
with, as Paul Tounier puts it, “the same energy we employ in defending
ourselves against hunger, cold, or wild beasts.” (Tournier, Paul, Guilt and
Grace, (New York: Harper and Row, 1959) pg. 81.) If we think our
stuff is better than the stuff of others we might become little arrogant or, if
the reverse is true, somewhat threatened. We try to make our stuff look
good by tearing down the stuff of others, and so it goes, on and on and
on. It is all about my stuff!
But when confronted with the
Law and wrath of God, as Elert defines the “primal experience,” the
transcendental “I” is called upon to judge the content of the empirical “I” by
viewing the “stuff” through the eyes of God. We thus become the objects
of our own reflection. Seeing this total content, our personal stuff,
through the eyes of God, produces self-accusation. We stand naked before
a righteous God, devoid of any conscious content we can offer as proof of our
own righteousness. Thus, the transcendental “I” shrivels to a mere
mathematical point, empty of all conscious content, prepared to hear the Good
News of the Gospel and receive in faith the alien righteousness of Christ.
It is here there is a
connection between Luther and the German mystics since both seek to obliterate
the content of consciousness or deplete the empirical “I”, yet there is a vital
distinction. For the mystics, “self-emptying” takes place via the
technique of thinking, by emptying the mind of all conscious content. For
Luther, the same result occurs via judgment – seeing oneself through the eyes
of God. For the mystics, the intention is to enter a visionary mental
state. For Luther, the intention is to exchange the content of
consciousness for the alien righteousness of God in Christ.
Elert explains:
In
his writing on the Liberty of the Christian Man…he (Luther) demands that the
Gospel must be proclaimed in such a way “that you hear your God speaking to
you, how all your life and deeds are nothing before God, but that you, together
with everything in you, must perish eternally. If you believe this aright
– that you are guilty – you must despair of yourself… But in order that you may
come out of and away from yourself, that is, out of your doom, He puts before
you His dear Son…” Luther demands “that you come out of yourself and away
from yourself” and he does so in all seriousness… Luther’s penetration to this
I is not renunciation it is judgment. It is canceling of the sum total of
the content of consciousness, not for the purpose of forgetting it, of “freeing
oneself” of it, but of exchanging it for the “righteousness of God.” Here
self-judgment and the righteousness of God are in a relationship that is
exactly reciprocal. On the negative side, at least the process of
justification can be referred only to the transcendental I, since self-judgment
is passed on the sum total of the contents of consciousness and still is
carried out by the I. (pgs. 80-81)
An Important Distinction:
The doctrine of justification
by grace through faith entails the imputation and application of the
righteousness of Christ (His active and passive obedience) to the believer.
Yet, how does that take place? What is the psychology? Elert’s
twofold subjectivity, the distinction between the transcendental and the
empirical “I”, answers those questions. Without this distinction or a
non-defined view of our personhood, we might receive in faith this alien
righteousness of Christ and locate it alongside all the other seemingly
positive aspects of our life. Or, putting it another way, we might put
the righteousness of Christ in our bundle along with all the other “stuff,” albeit
minus those elements that we might deem sinful and for which we require
absolution. So, we might confess, “Alongside my pleasing personality, my
joyful smile, happy disposition and wide variety of gifts and talents, I also
have the righteousness of Christ.” This is not the biblical truth of
justification. The Apostle writes Philippians 3:7-9: “But whatever was to
my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I
consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing
Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them
rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness
of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in
Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.”
By looking at the content of my
consciousness through the eyes of God I am confronted with the truth that all
my life and deeds are nothing before God and that everything in me, my entire
bundle of stuff, must perish eternally. This is devastating!
Hopeless! Anyone arriving at this conclusion without the alternative
presented by the Gospel would probably resort to drugs, alcohol or
suicide. It is at this place, where the transcendental “I” is altogether
empty, a mere mathematical point that the righteousness of Christ is proclaimed
and faith grasps in hope. The relationship between self-accusation and
the righteousness of God is reciprocal. Where self-accusation meets the
righteousness of God in Christ is the point of faith.
Come out of Yourself:
Luther demands that you “come
out of yourself and away from yourself.” What does this mean? Some
try to “find themselves.” Others don’t “feel good about
themselves.” One might be self-confident, self-absorbed, self-centered,
self-effacing, self-righteous, self-reliant and have a great deal of self-pity
but how do you “come out of yourself?”
Dr. Viktor Frankl, the noted
Viennese psychiatrist, as a result of being in a Nazi death camp, devised the
notion of self-detachment. He wrote,
The more one is immersed and
absorbed in something or someone other than oneself, the more he really becomes
human… Human freedom implies man’s capacity to detach himself from himself…
Self-transcendence and self-detachment are irreducibly human phenomena and
exclusively available in the human dimension. (Frankl, Viktor, The Unconscious God, (New York: Simon
Schuster, 1975), pgs. 79, 109, 111.)
Of course, Frankl’s
concepts have nothing to do with self-judgment, viewing the “self-stuff” of
life through the eyes of God, or the alternative reception by faith of the
righteousness of God. His thoughts simply confirm the human reality of a
twofold subjectivity.
Blaise Pascal spoke about
escaping oneself:
As
soon as we venture out along the pathway of self-knowledge, what we discover is
that man is desperately trying to avoid self-knowledge. The need to
escape oneself explains why many people are miserable when they are not
preoccupied with work, or amusement, or vices. They are afraid to be
alone lest they catch a glimpse of their own emptiness… For if we could face
ourselves with all our faults. We would then be so shaken out of complacency,
triviality, indifference and pretense that a deep longing for strength and
truth would be aroused within us. (Roberts, David, Existentialism and Religious Belief [New
York: Oxford University Press, 1959] pg. 99.)
At the very end of his classic
volume Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes:
But
there must be a giving up of the self. You must throw it away blindly so
to speak. Christ will indeed give you a real personality; but you must
not go to him for the sake of that. As long as your own personality is
what you are bothering about, you are not going to Him at all. The very
first step is to try to forget about the self altogether. (Lewis, C.S., Mere
Christianity, [New York: Harper Collins, 1982] pg. 190.)
For Luther, “coming out
of yourself and away from yourself” is not merely detaching from self, escaping
from self or merely throwing self away, but of passing judgment on self by
viewing self through the eyes of God leading to self-accusation. I do not believe there is any place within
Christian discourse for a positive view of the “self” concept. It is the
“self” that drives the human dilemma and underlines the root sin of human
pride. Martin Luther often spoke of the philauti – the lovers of
self. He writes:
First
of all we have the Philauti, those who are lovers of self, who are pleased
with themselves; they claim that everything they do is done well and correctly.
They consider heaven their exclusive privilege; they alone have identified the
right way of life; they alone constitute the Christian church; they alone
sustain heaven and earth. Compared with them, all other people are poor
sinners, in a perilous condition, who must purchase from them intercessions,
good works, and merit. They have brought it about that all other Christians are
referred to as secular, but they are spiritual; one can hardly find words to
express how this label tickles their fancy and how they consider themselves to
be superior to all the other classes.
(Luther, M. [1999, c1974]. Luther's Works,
vol. 52 :Page 213. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.)
Discussing this villain of
pride and conceit, Luther wrote: “we must pray God daily to suppress our
self-esteem.” But before we toss “self” on
the dung heap, we must make a distinction between man coram Deo (before
the face of God) and man coram homnibus (before the face of men).
Before God, when confronted with His utter holiness, His Law, His wrath, His
judgment there is no place for “self” to stand, no righteousness or goodness to
claim. “Self” stands accused. “Self” shrivels to nothing. But
before men, within the natural realm or, if you will, the kingdom of the
left-hand, there is a place for “self” to stand. Being self-confident,
having self-esteem are necessary positives for performance in the workplace or,
for that matter, on the golf course. Before God I declare that I am a
poor miserable sinner, but when confronted with a three-foot putt I refuse to
declare that I am a “poor miserable putter.” This distinction must be
made. BUT, what we deem of great value coram homnibus is still
nothing before God.
Old Self/New Self??
With all this in mind, I am
curious as to where the translators of the NIV and ESV came up with the idea of
“old self” and “new self” in Ephesians 4:22-24, Colossians 3:9-10, and Romans
6:6: “For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of
sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.”
Why did they take the “old man” and “new man” of the Greek and turn it into "new self" and old “self?” I’m sure it has something to do with the “self” emphasis
that has permeated our culture. I do not have an “old
self.” I have Adam cemented to me through original sin producing a
self-conscious, self-centered “old man.” I do not have a “new self” I
have Christ cemented to me in faith producing a God-conscious, God-centered
“new man.” Being baptized, I am to regard
myself as dead to the old and alive to the new.
What about Galatians 2:20?
Both the NIV, the ESV and most
other English translations translate Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified
with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in
the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for
me.” This is confusing. “I no
longer live,” and “The life I live in the body,” are contradictory. Do I
live, or don’t I? But note the KJV: “I am
crucified with Christ: nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in
me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son
of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”
The translation “I live, yet no
longer I” is the most accurate translation of the Greek (zo de ouketi ego)
and points to a twofold subjectivity. To use Elert’s terminology, the
“transcendental I” still lives but not by living in relationship with the
“psychic I” or my bundle of stuff, but the life I live in this body, I now live
in relationship with the faithfulness of Christ Jesus, who loved me and gave
Himself for me. Luther states:
Therefore,
when it is necessary to discuss Christian righteousness, the person must be
completely rejected. For if I pay attention to the person or speak of the
person, then, whether intentionally or unintentionally on my part, the person
becomes a doer of works who is subject to the Law…By paying attention to myself
and considering what my condition is or should be, and what I am supposed to be
doing, I lose sight of Christ, who alone is my Righteousness and Life. Once He
is lost, there is no aid or counsel; but certain despair and perdition must
follow.
(Luther, M. (1999, c1963). Vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians,
1535, Chapters 1-4 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.).
Luther's Works (Ga 2:21). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.)
Communicating Twofold Subjectivity:
I believe that any truth or
doctrinal distinction I learned at the Seminary over fifty years ago has no practical
value unless I am able to communicate that truth or distinction to the people
in the pew. When I hosted the radio talk show Issues etc., a
conflict arose over the content of the program. I wanted to do
theological issues and one of the heads in communication wanted social
issues. He adamantly insisted, “You can’t teach theology to lay
people.” I responded, “If I can’t teach it, why did I learn it?”
So, while Elert’s terminology
defining twofold subjectivity might even be difficult for the “seminary trained
pastors,” the problem is not in the truth but in the words Elert uses to
communicate that truth. We must unwrap his concepts and bring them “back
down to earth.” Here are some thoughts:
Self-consciousness: Everyone understands
self-consciousness. “I’m thinking about myself.” “I’m feeling sorry for
myself.” Or as country/western star Toby Keith put it, “I Wanna Talk
About Me.” There is an obvious I/Self relationship. This clearly defines
twofold subjectivity. I am both subject and object. A person might
say, “I’m trying to find myself.” You might respond, “Where did you leave
it?” There are those who are seemingly never happy. They go from
marriage to marriage, job to job, or, if you will, church to church and always
find something wrong. There is one non-variable. Everywhere they go
they take “self” along. Might one eventually arrive at the conclusion,
“Hey, maybe I’m the problem?” Probably not…
Our Bundle of Stuff: We all have our “bundle
of stuff” that becomes the object of scrutiny, through our eyes and often
through the eyes of other people. Some of it appears to be “good stuff” –
talents, abilities, pleasing personality traits, intellectual acumen,
will-power, emotional sensitivity et. al.; while some of it is “bad stuff” – bad
habits, critical spirit, boastful, lazy, procrastination, et. al. On
Sunday morning, we confess the bad stuff and receive absolution. BUT what
about the seemingly good stuff? What if we viewed all our stuff through the
eyes of God, how would we look? We would be forced to conclude that all
of it is tainted by sin. All of our stuff is nothing before God.
None of our stuff can pass “Divine muster.” After passing through
the scanner of Divine judgment, none of our stuff will make it through the jet
way into eternity. It all falls short of the glory of God. Thus,
Jesus said, “Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.” This
defines Elert’s concept that through self-accusation the transcendental “I”
becomes a mere mathematical point, devoid of all content – emptied of all stuff
via judgment and accusation.
Jesus’ Bundle of Stuff: When we speak of the
righteousness of Christ as in “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus
blood and righteousness,” we are not speaking of some abstract concept without
content or extension. Jesus lived a perfect life and was, in all points,
in thoughts, words and deeds, obedient to the Law, both the letter and spirit,
thus fulfilling the Law. Jesus willingly went to the Cross and laid down
His life to pay the price of our redemption. This is the active and
passive obedience of Christ and defines the content of His “bundle of
righteousness.” As the Law passes total judgment on our bundle, the Gospel
offers Jesus - His blood shed for our forgiveness and His “bundle of
righteousness.” So, when standing before God on Judgment Day which bundle
will you present? Your “bundle of self” thinking that perhaps you are
good enough to stand before Him or the “bundle of the righteousness of
Christ?” “Midst flaming worlds in these arrayed with joy shall I lift up
my head.”
Sanctification: When it comes to sanctification
there is a great deal that can be done with the “two bundle” imagery including
vine/branch relationship; fruit and Spirit of Galatians 5; old man/new man; significance
of Baptism. Repentance involving self-accusation, contrition and faith
becomes far more comprehensive when the entire content of consciousness comes
under scrutiny and viewed through the eyes of God.
I offer these thoughts to you
for your perusal. There is much here to think about. Perhaps your
preaching and teaching of justification will be enlivened by viewing this
incredible truth through the lens of twofold subjectivity. Of course, as
is the case with every Christian truth, before preaching it or teaching it to
others we must first apply it to our own “self.”
I completed the task in 2017, self-published it through Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing and without any publicity or promotion, made it available. I was amazed by the response. It has been discovered by over 600 purchasers, nearly 200 of them from the UK. If you "Google" The Lamentation of a Sinner you will discover that my little self-published copy is the only edition available. I can't believe that no publisher has picked up this work and released it for wider circulation as a little, hard-cover devotional. I later discovered that a second edition of The Lamentation was available on the Internet in the public domain if you took the time to search for it. It is found in the third volume of the anonymous work titled The British Reformers.
I decided to do a larger work on the life of Katherine Parr and after many months of research self-published Katherine Parr: The Life and Faith of a Tudor Queen. This work was picked-up by Amberley Press out of Gloucestershire in the UK and will be released under the title Katherine Parr: Opportunist, Queen, Reformer. This will be a hard-cover edition with thirty pages of color prints. Because of the impact of the corona virus in the UK, the publication date has been pushed back to November.
Visiting the tomb of Katherine Parr was an emotional experience. I felt that I knew this woman having researched her life for nearly two years. I guess I had "fallen in love" with a woman who had been dead for nearly 500 years ago. Of course, my wife Dianne of 56 years was not in the least bit threatened.
