Werner Elert's Twofold Subjectivity

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.”