Explorations in Unificationism edited by Theodore T. Shimmyo and David A. Carlson
To examine the ideal of marriage from a theistic or Christian point of view has not only been of principal importance for the nineteenth century theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher, but it also remains a central concern for believers in our time. As traditional family values come increasingly under attack, it becomes necessary to hear voices in defense of marriage and family. Faced with an ongoing decline of marital relations over the last three generations, such a defense can no longer adapt secular or humanistic standards, but it needs to focus on absolute values.1 In 1818 Schleiermacher preached on the Christian ideal of marriage and later published its content in his Sermons on the Christian Household2 (henceforth cited as Household Sermons). When studying
Schleiermacher's view on marriage, one can distinguish between an "early" or "Romantic" position, mainly based on his writings before 1806, and a "late," mature or Christian view as it is expressed in sources such as Outline of a System of Ethics^ and in particular the Household Sermons from 1818. Henceforth, we will focus on Schleiermacher's mature view on marriage by referring primarily to the first of his nine household sermons.
How then can we evaluate the relevance of Schleiermacher's understanding of marriage for our time? One option which is chosen for this paper is a comparative study between Schleiermacher's view and the Unification Thought position on marriage by paying special attention to the dialectical aspects of marital teaching. Such an agenda allows not only a discussion of marriage within the larger context of each of the two systems of thought, but it also highlights the importance of absolute values for marriage as it is expressed by Schleiermacher in an early nineteenth century setting, and by Unification Thought, which offers a late twentieth century theistic approach to marital teachings.
Unification Thought is best understood as a contemporary philosophical explication of Unification theology, a system of doctrine which is based on a comprehensive revelation received by Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Two sources will be used for analyzing the Unification position, namely, Explaining Unification Thought4 and Fundamentals of Unification Thought.5 Both works seem to cover adequately the Unification view of marriage, in particular with reference to its dialectical implications.
In the first part of this study we present a brief account of Schleiermacher's dialectics and how it applies to his conception of the Christian ideal of marriage. In the second part, we will analyze the Unification view of marriage and likewise focus on its dialectical foundation. It will be our task to show how a priori dialectical concepts shape the understanding of marriage in Schleiermacher and Unification Thought. Beyond pointing at the affinities emerging from the dialectical framework within the two systems of thought, we attempt to show the uniqueness of their doctrinal formulations with reference to an ideal conception of marriage.
The Christian Ideal of Marriage According to Schleiermacher One of the more distinct characteristics of Schleiermacher's thought refers to a consistent concern with ethical issues. In particular, Schleiermacher seeks to explain the intricacies of human relationships, an intention which finds one of its most articulate expressions in his teachings on marriage. Considering the task of this study to examine the dialectical aspect of marriage in a comparative setting between Schleiermacher and Unification Thought, we will first present some of the basic dialectical issues in Schleiermacher's understanding of God as the transcendent Ground of being. With that foundation, we then proceed to a discussion of Schleiermacher's mature view on marriage as it is stated in his Household Sermons.
In this section, we will briefly analyze Schleiermacher's approach to his doctrine of God and man with reference to some basic tenets of his dialectics. In fact, the purpose of this section is to show how Schleiermacher perceives the relationship between God and human beings, in order to highlight possible implications for his view on marriage.
Schleiermacher chooses an epistemological starting point for developing his understanding of God. It is the analysis of the process of knowing in the thinking subject which provides the categories for formulating the conception of God. Schleiermacher raises first the question about the certainty of knowledge, a certainty which he locates in man's consciousness about himself as a thinking and willing being.6 The two states of consciousness of thinking and willing are then described by Schleiermacher by means of two kinds of thinking, namely, reflective and creative thinking.7 On the one hand reflective thinking forms images of an already existing reality in the process of becoming knowledge while, on the other hand, creative thinking intends to shape a not yet existing reality according to a definitive intention and purpose.
Why does Schleiermacher analyze these contrasting states of human consciousness? His general goal consists of gaining insight through the correlation and combination of opposites, a goal which is at the heart of his dialectical method. Reflective and creative thinking are now in such a position as to offer a dialectical dynamic by involving opposite positions. One state of human consciousness identified as reflective thinking has its beginning in reality and ends in thought, while the other conscious state of creative thinking starts with thought and ends in reality.8 Thus, for Schleiermacher, the unity of human consciousness and with it the certainty of knowledge cannot be found only in the reflective
or only in the creative mode of thinking, for in both modes one encounters always a difference between thought and being. The point of unity must in some way combine thought and being by showing an intrinsic congruence between the two contrasting activities of human consciousness identified as thinking in the sense of being influenced by reality (reflective thinking) and willing in the sense of shaping reality (creative thinking). For Schleiermacher that point of unity is defined as the immediate self-consciousness; it is the locus where the identity of thought and being becomes conscious to human beings, but in such a way as to exclude any possibility to make that immediate self-consciousness itself the object of further intellectual reflection.9
Schleiermacher offers more reflections on the notion of immediacy in order to clarify his view on the interaction between the realms of transcendence and immanence. According to Marvin Miller, immediate self-consciousness is characterized by Schleiermacher with the concept of "transition" (Ubergang).]0 In fact, the term transition attempts to describe the meeting point of the two activities of human consciousness, that is reflective and creative thinking. This means, transition refers to that content of consciousness which marks the end of the process of reflective thinking and the beginning of creative thinking. In other words, transition is a consciousness about "nothing" because it no longer belongs to reflective thinking and it belongs not yet to the process of creative thinking. Schleiermacher speaks of "the identity of the subject in the preceding (reflective mode of thinking) and in the following (creative mode of thinking)"1 ' and, thus, identifies the content of the notion of transition as the consciousness of the self in an immediate sense.
Moreover, the concept of transition is not identified with any spatial categories since space refers to a property of reality outside of consciousness. Likewise, transition is not definable with any temporal categories because it is posited between the moments of the processes of reflective and creative thinking. Thus, immediacy as described by the concept of transition and with it the notion of immediate self-consciousness are identified by Schleiermacher in terms of ontological qualities which transcend time and space, while at the same time immediate self-consciousness marks the innermost identity of the subjective self, an identity which is rooted in an awareness of the immanence of Ultimate Reality.
At this point, Schleiermacher speaks of the necessity of the idea of God as the transcendent Ground of being because the immediate self-consciousness does not possess within itself the ground for its own unity.12 That is to say, the unity of self-consciousness rests on the identity of thought and being (also referred to as the identity of reflective and creative thinking) as applied to self-consciousness itself, but the unity of consciousness perceived in the larger context of human existence involved in a plurality of activities presupposes for its unity the transcendent Ground.13 Schleiermacher points out that the transcendent Ground marks the identity of thought and being in a universal sense, while immediate self-consciousness describes the identity of thought and being for a particular consciousness. What follows is an analogy of being between God, perceived as the transcendent Ground, and man's immediate self-consciousness as a particular manifestation of the identity of thought and being.14
In expressing the idea of God, Schleiermacher uses a variety of terms such as the absolute identity of the ideal and the real, of thought and being, of reason and nature, or the spiritual and the corporeal. In particular, Schleiermacher speaks of God as the transcendental presupposition of man's cognitive and volitional faculties inasmuch as God guarantees the compatibility of reason and nature as the Ground of ultimate unity.15 Moreover, Schleiermacher identifies the human faculty for perceiving such ultimate unity as feeling. In fact, feeling describes the immediate unity of reason and nature of thought and being, and as such, feeling becomes the locus for immediate self-consciousness. Here, Schleiermacher explores further the actual relationship between God and human beings and identifies immediate self-consciousness with God-consciousness, thus focusing on the subjective experience of God in the individual. In particular, God-consciousness manifests itself in the feeling of absolute dependence, a state of consciousness which arises from the fact that the subject finds itself in opposition to the world to which it relates as relatively free and relatively dependent. The unity in such an experience of the world can then only be found in the feeling of absolute dependence within which relative freedom from and relative dependence on the world is related back to the Absolute.16 Thus, human beings become aware of God's presence, inasmuch as they relate themselves with their inherent opposites to the transcendent Ground of ultimate unity, an awareness which springs forth in man's immediate self-consciousness in which the opposition of relative freedom and relative dependence is harmonized in the consciousness of absolute dependence.
After our discussion of Schleiermacher's Dialectics and his view of the relationship between God and human beings, we raise the question how Schleiermacher perceives the unique Christian element in that relationship. The answer shows Schleiermacher's distinct Christocentrism. Christ must become part of the self-consciousness or inner history of the Christian.17 Stated differently, the total self-consciousness of the believer needs to be related to Christ, so that there is no relation to God apart from that intimate relationship with Christ. For Schleiermacher, such a unity with Christ is lived out in the Christian community. Since the individual knows himself or herself as being dependent on God together with other individuals, God-consciousness as actualized in consciousness of Christ then becomes the unifying ground in each subject.18 This unifying presence serves to facilitate not only the establishment of the church but also the building of a harmonious marital relationship. Thus, Schleiermacher's dialectical method offers an understanding of God and man which, in fact, enriches Schleiermacher's ethics in general and his teachings on marriage in particular. Let us now turn to a presentation of Schleiermacher's view on the ideal of Christian marriage, by focusing on issues which will prove to be effective in a later comparison with the Unification Thought position.
For our analysis of the mature expression of Schleiermacher's doctrine on marriage we use the first of his Household Sermons19 as our major source of reference. We will focus our attention on three topics, namely: 1) the higher purpose of marriage, 2) the harmonizing of differences, and 3) the Christ-centered union of the marriage partners.
l. In his first household sermon on marriage Schleiermacher speaks about the love for God and the Savior as the overall purpose of the domestic life, a purpose that assigns also to marriage its central significance.20 According to Schleiermacher, it is the goal of domestic relationships to enhance our fellowship with God and to deepen our love for Christ. The temporal order serves here the fulfillment of the providential plan in the eternal order. In particular, the marital relation is singled out to fulfill that overall purpose, since it establishes the most fundamental relationship in the domestic life, from which all other human relations develop. In other words, the marriage partners are called to deepen their love for Christ through their personal relationship. Henceforth, marriage provides the foundation for active Christian discipleship and becomes instrumental for fulfilling God's providence of salvation.
That providential purpose of marriage is further specified by Schleiermacher who speaks of the holy covenant of marriage as being the foundation for three institutions, namely, the family within the Christian household, the state as the organized whole of civil society,
and the Christian community that forms the church.21 While the principal purpose of marriage within household and state consists of the propagation of the human race, there appears an additional purpose of the marital bond within the church, namely, the propagation of the divine word throughout successive generations.
In his "Christian Ethics" (Die Christliche Sitte), Schleiermacher speaks of the propagating activity of the church in terms of a process of dissemination of the Christian disposition.22 That process has its starting point in Christ, as the one perfected individual, and moves towards its end point, namely, the dissemination of the Christian disposition throughout all of mankind. Moreover, Schleiermacher points at two communities that are involved in that process of dissemination. First, there is the sexual union within marriage that marks the origin of the single individual. It also relates to the starting point of the dissemination process for the Christian disposition. According to Schleiermacher, procreation becomes here the original form of all propagating activities not only for the church, but also for the state.23 Second, there is the community of believers that is organized as the church. This community relates to the end point of the dissemination process. The church is here defined as the organic union of people who are active in propagating the Christian disposition. At this point, Schleiermacher emphasizes that the Christian church is only complete when she is fully composed of Christian households. The higher form of the church consists of a union of families and not of single people. The state of singleness is incomplete and essentially of a transitory nature. Thus, Schleiermacher affirms that the vertical relationship with Christ can only fully manifest itself through horizontal relationships within marriage and family.
2. Schleiermacher employs Biblical teachings for defining the concepts of an internal complementarity in marriage with which he describes the inner dynamics of marital life. He affirms that in the process of developing the marital relationship there appear seemingly opposite positions that need to be harmonized. For Schleiermacher, it is the unique strength of Christian marriage to deal successfully with actually or potentially conflicting positions within the marital life. He outlines the principal task of the Christian marriage in terms of harmonizing seemingly opposite or separate positions within the marital bond. The Christian conduct of marriage is then defined as a perfect balance between the mutual life that manifests the earthly dimension of the marital union with its active involvement in the world, and the mutual life in the divine spirit which represents the heavenly dimension of marriage.24 Moreover, there should be a complete harmonization between the different positions and responsibilities of sexes.
According to Schleiermacher, it is evident that the perfect balance between the earthly and heavenly dimensions of marriage leads to the final harmonization of the relationship between husband and wife.
He further explains the inner dynamics of the marital life by means of a twofold adjustment of complementing positions. That is to say, the harmonized husband-wife relationship is based on the unity between the heavenly and earthly dimensions of marriage. Vice versa, the unity between the heavenly and earthly aspects of marital life is advanced through the active mutual relation between the marriage partners. Here, Schleiermacher points to the reciprocal dependence between two internal complementing relations for the development of Christian marriage. In other words, the perfection of the horizontal interaction of the spouses has to be rooted in the complete balance of the vertical relation between the heavenly and earthly aspects of their union. However, that vertical balance can only be achieved through the process of an advancing harmonious horizontal relationship.
Moreover, Schleiermacher implies the individual participation of man and woman in the heavenly dimension of their marital union through their spiritual faculties and the basic connection with the earthly dimension of marriage on account of their natural endowments. According to Schleiermacher, the earthly dimension includes here also the dominion of the spirit over the body. The resulting unity of spiritual and sensuous aspects in the marital relation then becomes the presupposition for participation in the heavenly dimension of marriage. For the marital sexual life to be not only ethical but also Christian it has to be centered on God. The sexual union of the marriage partners can only contribute to the harmonization of their positions if it is rooted in their common spiritual life. Schleiermacher emphasizes the necessary religious aspect of that common spiritual life of spouses beyond a purely ethical conduct of marriage. Even the highest form of an ethical marital union must be oriented towards communion with God in order to develop into a Christian marriage.25
To prevent possible misinterpretations, Schleiermacher warns of any distorted notion of a seemingly fulfilled but socially isolated marital union that claims to be rooted in the common religious life of the spouses. To be religious means for him to reshape this world. Any withdrawal from the world into the seclusion of personal marital happiness is strictly rejected by Schleiermacher. The common religious life and with it the heavenly dimension of marriage can only be built by the marriage partners through their active involvement in the world.26 This participation in the concerns and sorrows of the world becomes, for Schleiermacher, a genuinely Christian characteristic of the marital bond.
At this point the mutual complementarity between the physical order and the spiritual order becomes visible. Schleiermacher not only affirms the necessary penetration of all natural aspects of the marital relation by the spirit, but he also understands spiritual growth and marital love to be rooted in the interaction of the spouses with the temporal order and the world at large.
3. Schleiermacher understands the Christian fulfillment of marital love in terms of a complete equality between the spouses. He emphasizes that the mutual penetration of the personalities of husband and wife has to be grounded in their superior love for Christ. Here the defense of perfect equality between the marriage partners presents an argument that is based on the complete Christ-centeredness of the marital bond. The love for Christ then appears as the precondition for a fulfilled marital love. Only by loving the Redeemer can human beings be elevated to communion with God. Thus, God-centered marital love can only be attained when the spouses accept Christ into their hearts with such an intensity that he becomes the third one within their marital union.27
In fact, that common love for the Redeemer becomes the ultimate ground where any inequality between husband and wife is dissolved into a most perfect equality. The marriage partners do not only become like each other, but, above all, they become more Christ-like. The consciousness about their marital union is raised to a higher level where they perceive Christ to be the third party in their marital bond.
Schleiermacher understands the innermost unity of the marriage partners not as a mere fusion of their individualities, where they seek self-affirmation in their mutual interaction, but rather their unity is now based on an implicit denial of individuality in order to make room for Christ to take the place of a third party. This means the Christian ideal of marital love does not consist of the event that the spouses find merely their own individuality confirmed in each other, but, on the contrary, true marital love emerges from the willingness to deny one's own individuality for the sake of the higher common individuality which is rooted in Christ's presence. This implicit self-denial for building the marital union then appears as the key for the spouses to find their own true being confirmed in their love for Christ and for each other.
At this point it will be our task to show some systematic connections between Schleiermacher's understanding of the dialectical foundations of reality and his view of the Christian ideal of marriage. We will discuss: 1) the mediating role of marriage between the temporal and the eternal orders and 2) the purpose of marriage according to the Christian ideal.
l. As mentioned before, Schleiermacher locates marital life, and with it the life in the Christian household, within the general principle that the temporal order serves the fulfillment of the eternal order.28 In order to accomplish such a mediating role, marriage itself has been defined in terms of earthly and heavenly dimensions. From the perspective of Schleiermacher's dialectic, we can discover a consistent correspondence between his understanding of marriage and his epistemological categories of subjective experience. In other words, the earthly dimension of marriage and with it the temporal order can be seen as corresponding to the subjective experience of creative thinking, while the heavenly dimension of marriage and its rootedness in the eternal order appear to be connected with the subjective experience of reflective thinking. Inasmuch as reflective and creative thinking are integrated through the experience of immediate self-consciousness, that necessitates the idea of God as the transcendent Ground of being; likewise the heavenly and earthly dimensions of marriage and their mediating function for the eternal and temporal orders can be seen to reflect in their interaction the unity of thought and being and with it the presence of divine reality.
It is interesting to notice that Schleiermacher expands his purely subjective approach for defining the dialectical nature of reality, when he assigns to marriage, and no longer to the individual, a mediating position between the temporal and eternal orders. That is to say, marriage becomes now the fundamental application of the general principle that temporal activities serve the fulfillment of the eternal realm. In particular, Schleiermacher sees marriage in its ideal Christian conception as the instrument for fulfilling God's providence, a task which is carried out in accordance with his earlier defined dialectical approach.
2. How then does Christian marriage advance God's providence? We have seen that, according to Schleiermacher, there exists a twofold purpose for marriage, namely, the procreation of the human race and the propagation of the divine word.29 Each of these two purposes seems to display its own dialectical structure. This means, procreation presupposes for Schleiermacher the total unity of spirit and flesh as a distinct manifestation of the unity of thought and being or reason and nature. In this ideal formulation, procreation is then seen as the paradigm for all propagating activities. In particular, the propagation of the divine word presupposes the harmony of creative and reflective thinking within each spouse. This means that the fulfillment of both marriage purposes is rooted in the God-consciousness of the marriage partners.30 Schleiermacher's dialectical framework can also be applied to the interrelatedness of the two marriage purposes. Inasmuch as the propagation of the divine word represents the spiritual life of the spouses and with it primarily their reflective thinking in the eternal order, in like manner one can perceive procreation primarily as an expression of creative thinking in the temporal order. Schleiermacher implies that for procreation to become a full manifestation of the unity of reason and nature the guiding function of the divine word has to be dominant. Thus, we can argue that the advancement of God's providence through Christian marriage is rooted in a dialectical interrelatedness of the two marriage purposes.
In our study of Schleiermacher we have discussed an early nineteenth century doctrinal formulation of Christian Marriage. Now we will focus on a contemporary view of the marriage ideal as it is stated in Unification Thought. The method of our discussion will parallel our assessment of Schleiermacher. In the first section we will examine dialectical concepts in Unification Thought that can be expressed through three universal principles. Here, we present the Unification view of God and the created order in preparation for our second section which will deal with the application of the dialectical foundations for the understanding of the ideal of marriage in Unification Thought. Although this presentation is selective and limited in its scope, we hope to cover enough ground for entering later into a fruitful comparative discussion with Schleiermacher's view.
Unification Thought affirms that human reason cannot grasp God as a being in himself; however, we can describe the attributes of God, thus being able to develop a "Theory of the Original Image."31 Such an "image" approach is fully biblical (Gen. 1:27) and allows the use of anthropomorphisms for describing God's attributes.32 Stated differently, the theory of the Original Image explains God by means of conceptual, ideal types as derived from human experience. Hence, the relationship between God and creation becomes instrumental for the understanding of God.
The Unification view of marriage is directly related to a dialectical understanding of God's attributes. Thus, we will first discuss three universal principles which provide an explanation of the major characteristics of God and creation. These principles can be identified as: 1) the primal principle of origin, 2) the give and take action, and 3) the four position foundation.
l. What then is the primal principle of origin which can also be described as the central attribute of God? Unification Thought points out that the innermost character of God is heart which in turn defines the purpose for all created reality33 Heart is explained as the "emotional impulse to obtain joy through love," thus affirming that God's motivation for creating is rooted in the desire to realize joy through love.
Such a starting point for describing Ultimate Reality implies that the principal attribute of God is expressed in terms of dialectical concepts. According to the theory of the Original Image, the dialectical nature of heart can be derived from human experience in which love and joy are identified as emotional forces which presuppose the interaction of polar positions of subject and object. Subsequently, the relationality within the Original Image is affirmed based on polar characteristics which reflect the subject-object interaction. In particular, based on the structure of the created order, Unification Thought identifies the polar attributes of the Original Image as two sets of dual essentialities, namely, internal character and external form together with positivity and negativity.34 For our considerations it is important to point out that these dual essentialities within God are not to be understood as ultimates in themselves, but they are inherently united through heart which then functions as the primal principle of origin. In other words, in a final sense the primal principle of origin guarantees that the polar attributes in God interact harmoniously and purposefully, thus excluding any ultimate conflict.35
2. The dialectical conception of the Original Image as expressed through the nature of heart includes the second universal principle, namely, give and take action. As heart provides the motivational force for the realization of love it becomes obvious from human experience that love is actualized based on the reciprocity of giving and receiving. According to Unification Thought, relationality is not only an ultimate principle in the created order, but it also refers to the Original Image. In short, the reciprocal action within God's polar characteristics are actions of giving and receiving from positions of subject and object centered on the purpose of heart.36 Thus, God's existence can be perceived as a self-relatedness of love that is determined by the presence of heart.
Unification Thought also implies a qualitative difference between the kind of love which is present within God and the loving relationship between Creator and creation. This means that the original ideal of creation would be able to offer a unique response to God's love, a response which could not be accomplished within God himself, thus representing a genuine unfolding of love according to the desire of God's heart.
3. The structural expression of the primal principle of origin and the principle of give and take action in God and creation is explained with the Unification concept of the four position foundation. This concept describes the inherent dialectical structure of both the Original Image and created beings by defining four positions (also called quadruple base), namely, heart or purpose, subject, object and finally the position of the harmonized body37 The function of the four position foundation is best described as the give and take action between subject and object based on heart or purpose which then results in advancing the fulfillment of an original intention or plan as indicated by the harmonized body. According to Unification Thought, the dialectical content of the spatial analogy of four positions is further illustrated by an identical temporal analogy of origin, division, union action.38 In short, this temporal analogy states that God's original intention or the motivation of heart leads to a division of polar interaction of subject and object which then forms a new result in a unitive state. It is interesting to note that Unification Thought applies the four position foundation to two basic modes of existence, namely, identity and development. That is to say, both identity and development are perceived in terms of a relationship of giving and receiving as it is expressed in the notions of the identity maintaining quadruple base and the developing quadruple base.39
Our discussion of three universal principles has shown the pervasive dialectical character of the theological and philosophical foundations of Unification Thought. Based on our findings we will now analyze the Unification view of marriage.
We will see that the three universal principles as stated in Unification Thought apply directly to the understanding of the marriage ideal, thus underlying the dialectical aspects of marriage. First, let us discuss the purpose of creation as related to God's heart and with its function as the primal principle of origin. According to Unification Thought, the motivation for God's creative activity lies in the impulse to seek joy through love.40 In short, joy is realized when a loving relationship between God
and created beings is established. However, the nature of love is based on the aforementioned principle of give and take action which implies that the object, as the recipient of love, just be able to offer an adequate response to the subject. For Unification Thought that response of the object is based on the quality of resembling the subject and is called beauty. Thus, love is characterized as a relational concept which involves a reciprocal exchange of love from the initiating subject and beauty from the responding object.41 Unification Thought then derives the purpose of creation from that relational concept of love and holds that, in particular, human beings were created as the objects of God's love.
Second, we need to ask the question how do human beings become qualified objects for God's love, or how do they resemble God the most. The Unification view emphasizes that the supreme manifestation of God's love in the created order is accomplished through the ideal of marriage and the subsequent building of the family.42 However, before men and women are qualified to enter the marital bond they need to attain individual maturity. That is to say, human beings are first called to resemble God on an individual level by developing the ideal of a unique personality centered on God's heart. Unification Thought describes that process of individual maturation through the aforementioned four position foundation. A person's mind and body form the subject-object relationship and growth occurs through a harmonious mind-body relationship centered on the purpose of creation in accordance with the desire of God's heart. Moreover, the uniqueness of individual growth is characterized by the right use of freedom and responsibility. Human beings do not grow exclusively based on natural law, but they are called to involve themselves creatively in the formation of their personality.43 The mature individual then reaches an intimate love relationship with God according to his or her inherent beauty, a beauty which resembles God's dual essentialities of internal character and external form through the harmonized relationships of the individual mind and body.
Individual maturity can be seen as connected with God's vertical love in which a distinct partnership between God and the individual person is actualized. However, God's love finds its further expression and fulfillment in the created order through a horizontal partnership between two spouses in marriage.
Why do human beings in a marriage relationship resemble God more than they do as individuals? Our previous discussion of Unification Thought has shown that the Original Image is not only perceived as the harmonized essentialities of internal character and external form but it also includes the harmonized secondary attributes of positivity and negativity, attributes which appear on a further developed level as masculinity and femininity. Thus, God's resemblance by human beings is fulfilled on two levels. While the harmony of character and form in the Original Image is manifested through the mature interaction of mind and body in the individual, there is beyond that level the expression of masculinity and femininity of the Original Image through an ideal partner ship of husband and wife.
One can say that the dialectical nature of love ascribes to God the position of ultimate subject while man and woman bound together through an ideal marital relationship fulfill the position of a qualified object vis-à-vis God. Here, the earlier discussed universal principle of the four position foundation further explains the dialectical aspect of the marriage ideal. As husband and wife in their respective positions of subject and object realize through their mutual give and take action the fulfillment of horizontal love, they maintain at the same time a strong loving bond with their Creator due to their achieved individual maturity. In other words, the horizontal love between the spouses is fully centered on their vertical love for God.
The partnership of a horizontal two-in-oneness then extends to a vertical and horizontal partnership of a three-in-oneness between God, husband and wife. Subsequently, the original desire of God's heart reaches its ultimate fulfillment when the complete oneness of vertical and horizontal love brings forth the new creation through the birth of children.44 In this way, the marriage ideal fulfills its inherent purpose by establishing the four positions of God, husband, wife and children. The fulfillment of the ideal marriage then means the realization of the ideal family.
We have seen that the Unification view of marriage presents a consistent application of the earlier discussed three universal principles. It emphasizes the centrality of God's heart as the primal principle of origin which determines the unfolding of loving relationships between God and human beings. In particular, the marriage relationship has been identified as the supreme manifestation of a qualified object for the love of God. This implies that the Unification doctrine on marriage speaks not only about the self-communication of God's heart through the creation of human beings, but it also affirms an indispensable human response for the actualization of love between God and man. This means that the gift of God's grace in creation is answered by human beings through their fulfillment of responsibility on the levels of individual maturation, marriage and family life.
Moreover, we have seen that the dialectical aspect of marriage is not only expressed through the horizontal love between the spouses, but that such a dialectical dimension becomes even more visible through the vertical love between God and the spouses. It can be argued that such a higher visibility of the dialectical aspect of marriage is demonstrated through the two manifestations of vertical love, one being the relationship of the individual spouse with God and the other can be understood as an actualized presence of God within the loving relationship of the marriage partners.45
We have touched on a number of dialectical considerations and a variety of marital issues in our presentation of the doctrine of marriage in Schleiermacher and Unification Thought. At this point, it will be our task to isolate three themes which lend themselves to a fruitful comparison of the two systems of thought. We will focus our concluding observations on: 1) the starting point for dialectical reflections, 2) the God-man relation and its implication for marital teachings, and 3) the principle of growth and development in marriage.
1. We have seen that Schleiermacher develops his dialectical method by starting with the individual human being as the thinking subject. The forms of thought as related to reason and will, that is, reflective thinking and creative thinking, have been used for approaching an understanding of the Absolute. It is interesting that Schleiermacher perceives God as the transcendent Ground who is seen as the identity of thought and being and whose direct manifestation is located in the immediate self-consciousness of human beings. At the same time, however, he seems to say that the notion of identity includes the affirmation of polarity. In short, God combines aspects of reason and will in perfect unity, thus implying a subject-object relation within divine Reality which would be the presupposition for an independent consciousness in God himself.46
Our presentation of Unification Thought has shown that the starting point for any dialectical activity is the notion of the primal principle of origin or God's heart. Moreover, the polar attributes of the Original Image have been identified as internal character -- external form, positivity -- negativity and masculinity -- femininity. All of these attributes perform harmonious give and take action because of the primal principle of origin. The direction of this activity of giving and receiving is then determined by the desire of God's heart and, as such, it puts the concept of purpose in a central position.47
It seems significant that both Schleiermacher and Unification Thought use a dialectical approach for discussing Ultimate Reality and, in doing so, the need for a principle of unity becomes apparent. While Schleiermacher employs an analogy of being between the transcendent Ground (as the identity of thought and being) and the immediate self-consciousness of human beings, we find that the Unification doctrine employs the central human experience of heart in order to show the analogy for the primary attribute of heart in the Original Image by way of affirming theological anthropomorphisms. In short, for Schleiermacher the unitive principle is defined as the identity of thought and being or the unity of reason and nature, whereas Unification Thought affirms the heart of God as the original unifying principle. Both systems of thought then affirm the importance of human experience and the faculty of feeling for understanding Ultimate Reality.
Schleiermacher, on the one hand, operates with an epistemological starting point of subjective human experience by introducing the concepts of reflective and creative thinking. By way of intellectual analysis, he defines the unifying point of the two forms of thinking with the subjective reality of immediate self-consciousness that in turn becomes the locus for divine reality and the faculty of human feeling. On the other hand, Unification Thought starts with the basic human experience of heart and its expression through love and joy. Divine Reality is then understood not through intellectual deduction but through an affirmation of the basic revelation that God is above all the God of heart who communicates himself through relational unity of love with creation. Feeling is here defined as the expression of heart in terms of providing the experience of loving relationships. Thus, Unification Thought ascribes to feeling an intrinsic characteristic of mutuality as it is expressed in the relational concepts of self-giving love and responding beauty.
It is interesting to point out that Unification dialectics with its revelatory starting point contrasts with Schleiermacher who chooses an epistemological analysis for developing his dialectics. In other words, Unification Thought understands the relationship between God and human beings as the image for the relationship between spirit and body in the individual, whereas Schleiermacher uses the subjective-cognitive distinction between reflective and creative thinking and the resulting polarities of thought and being or spirit and body as interpretive tools for explaining Ultimate Reality. Thus, Unification Thought sees God always in relation to creation through which the centrality of purpose is explained. By contrast, Schleiermacher perceives God as the transcendent Ground of being who is perceived primarily in terms of the identity of spiritual and temporal realities.
2. How do Schleiermacher and Unification Thought perceive the relationship between God and human beings with reference to marital teachings? As Schleiermacher defines the transcendent Ground in terms of the identity of thought and being, he offers a description of God as the universal manifestation of immediate self-consciousness. Thus, the conception of God appears as consciousness, but in an absolute sense, while man's experience of immediate self-consciousness includes a relative dimension. The crucial question is whether God in his absoluteness is somehow dependent on creation, or if such a relative dimension in God is excluded. Schleiermacher posits an absolute self-consciousness for the understanding of God and subsequently affirms absolute dependence for the order of creation. In particular, human beings have an experience of God-consciousness in their immediate self-feeling of absolute dependence. That feeling of absolute dependence then becomes the binding force not only for the relationship between God and people but also among human beings. This implies that marriage partners relate to God and to each other based on that feeling of absolute dependence within which the love of Christ assumes a guiding function.48
The Unification view presents a different paradigm for the God-man relationship. Above all, God is seen as the Absolute in his essential character of heart, but the quality of heart includes a genuine self-communication through creation in terms of actualizing love and beauty. Here, the degree of resemblance between subject and object determines that process of actualizing love. In other words, God is seen as including an element of relativity by allowing himself to be dependent on the response of human beings for the unfolding of his love in the created order. Thus, for Unification Thought, the binding power of marital love implies mutual dependence between God and human beings which operates within the unifying power of God's heart.
From a pastoral perspective there appears to be general agreement between Schleiermacher's view and the Unification position on the ideal of marriage. To see marriage as an instrument for fulfilling God's providence, to insist on the necessary interaction between the earthly and heavenly dimensions of marriage and to center the marital love of the spouses on their love for Christ are all doctrinal points within Schleiermacher's view that can also be affirmed by Unification Thought.
However, the question of how marital love is connected with the love of God seems to receive different answers in the two systems of thought. As stated above, Schleiermacher understands marital love as rooted in God-consciousness through which the feeling of absolute dependence is determined. Even if the spouses love Christ as the third party within their marital union, their relationship with God will still be confined to an awareness of absolute God-consciousness as it is mediated through Christ. Unification Thought would interpret absolute God-consciousness and the feeling of absolute dependence as an essentially passive or receptive mode of experiencing God's presence. There, the major difference from Schleiermacher's view becomes clear when Unification Thought insists that the ideal of marital love includes the ability of the spouses to return beauty to God. In other words, the active response to God's love and being able to move God's heart become qualities of marital love that elevate it to the level of divine love. Schleiermacher's paradigm of the marriage ideal, in which Christ as the third party in the marriage covenant communicates absolute God-consciousness, is now advanced through the Unification paradigm to the ideal of marital love in which God, husband and wife are forming a three-in-oneness or trinitarian union of a fulfilled love relationship that embraces both the vertical, eternal order and the horizontal, temporal order.49
3. An initial reading of Schleiermacher and Unification Thought on the issue of growth and development in marriage leaves one with the impression of considerable compatibility between the two systems of thought. We have seen that Schleiermacher operates with the principle that activities in the temporal order lead to the fulfillment of purposes in the eternal order. Furthermore, he assigns to marriage a mediating role between the two orders by emphasizing the harmonious exchange between the earthly and heavenly dimensions of marriage. In fact, Schleiermacher is adamant about the need of the marriage partners to be actively involved in the world in order to advance their spiritual life as a Christian couple.50 Likewise, Unification Thought offers a doctrine of spiritual growth that involves a distinct interaction of the spiritual and physical realms. In particular, the advancement of the spiritual life in terms of fulfilling the purpose of creation is understood to be dependent on the function of the physical body for providing vitality elements for the spirit.51 In our comparison with Schleiermacher, it is important to point out that Unification Thought defines the purpose of creation and spiritual maturation as the attainment of co-creatorhood with God. In fact, it is the purpose of the physical order to allow human beings to achieve creatorhood on the individual level, in marriage and family life, and in exercising lordship over creation.52 Ultimately, men and women in their calling to pursue the ideal of marriage as husbands and wives, attain the full image of God and are able to enter into an actual partnership of love with God.
We can conclude that there is general agreement between Schleiermacher and Unification Thought with regard to the understanding that the interrelatedness between the spiritual and physical orders is essential for developing marriage and family life. However, after closer examination it becomes clear that the different starting points in the two systems of thought lead to contrasting results. Schleiermacher, in choosing the subjective experience of knowing as the central criterion for relating the spiritual and physical spheres to each other, arrives at a rather descriptive approach by stating that the spiritual reality concerns the one who knows (comparable to reflective thinking) while the physical reality concerns that which is known (comparable to creative thinking).53 Such an epistemological agenda is then applied to the understanding of reason and nature with spirit and body as their highest manifestation. Schleiermacher seems to explain the interaction of spirit and body in terms of a need or desired goal when he speaks of the total penetration of nature by reason or the complete dominion of the spirit over the body.
While Unification Thought is fully affirming Schleiermacher's view on the goal for the spirit-body interaction, it offers also a distinct emphasis on the process of spiritual motivation by assigning a nourishing dimension to the physical body for the development of the spirit. In other words, beyond Schleiermacher's descriptive approach for the goal of the spirit-body relationship, we find that Unification Thought emphasizes the ontological purpose of the physical order, namely, to provide for human beings the necessary conditions for spiritual formation towards the end of attaining co-creatorhood with God. Here, the physical order is not merely an object to be known, as stated by Schleiermacher, but it shows a distinct function in its own right, namely, to be operative for the maturation of the spirit.
In its final analysis, agreements and disagreements between Schleiermacher and Unification Thought in the discussion of the ideal of marriage can be summarized with regard to their understanding of God or Ultimate Reality. On the one hand, we have encountered considerable agreement between the two thought systems with reference to the general purpose and structure of marriage. Both the Christian ideal, as stated by Schleiermacher, and the Unification view understand the overall goal for marriage to be the advancement of God's providence. Within that general agenda there is agreement that God's providence is advanced through procreation in marriage, the propagation of the divine word and the total involvement of the spouses in the world for developing their marital love. Another major continuity between Schleiermacher's view and Unification Thought relates to the faculty of feeling that has been identified as the ground for perceiving Ultimate Reality.
One can argue that the disagreements between the two views on the marriage ideal originate from the fact that the Unification position on the overall goal for marriage does not only speak of the advancement of God's providence but also of its fulfillment. Schleiermacher, who defines his understanding of Ultimate Reality with epistemological categories, thus arriving at the notion for God as the absolute identity between the ideal and the real or of thought and being, seems to bypass the Unification conception of the heart of God as the central category for explaining the ultimate purpose of marriage. However, as we have seen, that difference in the perception of Divine Reality is responsible for discontinuities between the two views on marriage. In short, the major disagreement between Schleiermacher's view and the Unification position concerns the meaning of spiritual maturation of the marriage partners. On the one hand, Schleiermacher suggests a spiritual development for the spouses in terms of attaining the feeling of absolute dependence that is rooted in perfect God-consciousness as mediated by Christ. The Unification view, on the other hand, defines the spiritual maturation of the marriage partners with reference to the goal of marriage in terms of an ultimate response to the heart of God. Here, the spouses become not only Christ-like in their attainment of perfect God-consciousness, but more importantly they reach their spiritual maturation by acquiring the qualifications of co-creatorship in oneness with God. Schleiermacher seems to confine creatorhood to epistemological categories within the thinking subject, such as creative thinking, imagination and speculative thinking. This quest for the certainty of knowledge then leads to a rudimentary awareness of God as it is expressed through the feeling of absolute dependence. Unification Thought, in affirming God as our Divine Parent, would agree that the feeling of absolute dependence constitutes the initial experience of God within our process of maturation.
Ultimately, however, that feeling of absolute dependence finds its fulfillment through the attainment of the ideal of marriage where the spouses enter into an actual partnership of love with God.
1. Statistics on the decline of the stability of marriages reveal that in the year 1900, out of 100 marriages, eight ended in divorce while in 1980, for every 100 contracted marriages, 50 led to divorce. See Stephen A. Grunlan, Marriage and Family, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984).
2. Friedrich Schleiermacher "Predigten iiber den Christlichen Hausstand," 1st edition; Friedrich Schleiermacher Sdmmtliche Werke, 31 Vols; three sections: I Theologie, II Predisten, II Philosophie (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1834-1864),henceforth cited as Sdmmtliche Werke (SW), Section II, Vol. 2.
3., "Entwurfeines Systems der Sittenlehre," in SW, Section III, Vol. 5. This is one of several sources in which Schleiermacher explains issues related to his mature view of marriage.
4. Explaining Unification Thought, (NY: Unification Thought Institute, 1981). Henceforth cited as EUT.
5. Fundamentals of Unification Thought, (NY: Unification Thought Institute, 1991). Henceforth cited as FUT.
6. For this summary of Schleiermacher's view on the identity of thought and being, I am indebted to Marvin Miller who offers an exhaustive study of Schleiermacher's thought in the work Der Ubergang, (Gutersloh: Mohn, 1970), p. 30.
7. Schleiermacher says: "Das Denken welches Wissen werden will bezieht sich auf ein vorausgesetzes Sein; das unsern Handlungen zum Grunde Liegende bezieht sich auf ein Sein das erst durch uns werden soil." Friedrich Schleiermacher, "Dialektic,"SW, Section III. Vol. 2 (1839), p. 518. Henceforth cited as Dialectic. Quoted by Miller, p. 31. The English translation reads as follows: "The thinking that is intended to become knowledge relates itself to a presupposed existence; the thinking that is the foundation for our actions relates itself to an existence that is still in a state of becoming based on our involvement." The first form of thinking is rendered "reflective" thinking while the second form of thinking is best translated as "creative" thinking.
8. For these reflections, I am indebted to Miller. See Miller, p. 31.
10. Ibid., p. 33. Here Schleiermacher refers to Plato's Parmenides-dialogue and substitutes Plato's "instantaneous moment" with his concept of "transition."
11. Dialectic, p. 524. Quoted by Miller, p. 33.
12. Miller, p. 36.
13. Schleiermacher says: "Die Einheit unseres Seins beruht daraufi daft wir im Selbstbewufistein den transzendenten Grund sowohl in Beziehung auf das abbildliche als auf das vorbildliche Denken haben..." Dialectic, p. 525. Quoted by Miller, p. 36. Here is the English translation: "The unity of our being rests on the understanding that we have in the immediate self-consciousness the transcendental Ground not only in relation to reflective thinking but also with reference to creative thinking..."
14. Miller, p. 38.
15. See August Dorner, "Geleitwort," in Friedrich DE. Schleiermacher, Werke. Auswahl in vier Banden, Otto Braun and Johannes Bauer, Eds. (Leipzig: 1910
12. Reprint of the second edition Leipzig: 1927-28, Aalen: Scientia, 1967), henceforth cited as Werke in Auswahl. (WA), Vol. 1, p. vii.
16. For this explanation of the feeling of absolute dependence I am indebted to August Dorner. See Dorner, p. viii.
17. Richard R. Niebuhr, "Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst" in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards Ed. 8 Vols. (NY: Macmillan, 1967), Vol. 8, p. 318.
18. Dorner, p. x.
19. Friedrich Schleiermacher, "Household Sermons," in WA, Vol. 3, pp. 223-398.
20. On account of these domestic relationships both our fellowship with God and our pious love for the Redeemer should be strengthened in our hearts, and, through us, should be stimulated in others. Ibid., p. 228.
21. From this holy covenant, all other human relationships are developed. Marriage becomes the foundation for the Christian household, and such households form Christian communities. On this holy covenant rests the propagation of the human race and with it also the propagation of the power of the divine word from one generation to the next. Ibid., p. 229.
22. It seems justified to use Schleiermacher's lecture notes and records of his students to explain further his mature doctrine on domestic life, since he continuously revised his lectures over the years. In particular, "Die Christliche Sitte" in its present form includes lecture notes from the time period between 1809 and 1831. The standard work consists of the Jonas-edition which refers consistently to the lectures from 1822/23. For a detailed discussion of the origins of the "Christian Ethics" see Hans Joachim Birkner, Schleiermachers Christliche Sittenlehre (Berlin: Topelmann, 1964), pp. 11-29. Friedrich Schleiermacher, "Die Christliche Sitte nach den Grundsatzen der evangelischen Kirche im Zuammenhange dargestellt. " Aus Schleiermachers handschriftlichem Nachlasse und nachgeschriebenen Vorlesungen, L. Jonas, Ed.
23. Ibid., p. 338.
24. We shall in the best way comprehend the idea of the apostle on the Christian conduct of marriage, by paying attention to two issues in his description, namely, first, how he shows us within Christian marriage an earthly and a heavenly dimension that are one. Second, how he points at an inequality in marriage that dissolves again into the most perfect equality (concerning the husband-wife relation). "Household Sermons," in WA, Vol. 3, p. 230.
25. See Bauer's statement on Schleiermacher's marriage sermons in his introduction to the "Household Sermons," in WA, Vol. 3, p. 193.
26. But, my friends, as that earthly dimension of marriage is not without the heavenly dimension, in like manner, there cannot be the heavenly dimension without that earthly one, and without that most intense unity of joys and sufferings, or of the sorrows and labors of this world. Two human beings, who are united by God, can only be sufficient for each other, inasmuch as an active life furnishes temptations and tests for each one, against which they should shield themselves in mutual support. "Household Sermons," in WA, Vol. 3, pp. 236-237.
27. Everyone may ponder how much greatness is necessary for marriage to be conducted in an honest manner, according to the Christian understanding. Truly, it can only happen if both partners have accepted our Lord and Master in their hearts, and if he is the third one in this covenant which is sanctified through their love for him. Ibid., p. 247.
28. See the beginning of section B. "Christian Marriage" in this paper.
30. See Section A. "Dialectical Foundations" in this paper.
31. EUT, p. 6. Explicit reference is made to an "image" ontology as opposed to a "Theory of the Original Being."
32. Here, only analogical anthropomorphisms are admitted which consist of characteristics with a conceptual nature such as truth, compassion or purity. In other words, when speaking about God we refer to images drawn from man's idealized experience. This limited use of images rules out references to metaphorical or crude anthropomorphisms which imply statements of a physical nature such as "the Lord God formed man of the dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7).
33. FUT, chapter l, p. 35.
34. The characteristics of internal character and external form refer to the original Korean terms of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang. These essentialities of character and form are supremely manifested in creation through the mind and body of human beings. Positivity and negativity as the second set of dual characteristics refer to the Chinese terms of Yang and Yin and find their most developed expression in the masculinity and femininity of human beings. Unification Thought holds that positivity and negativity are attributes that have themselves character and form, thus being identified as attributes of attributes in the Original Image. See EUT, p. 17.
35. With these reflections I am indebted to Herbert Richardson who adds that the primal principle of origin "is not invoked as a principle of transcendence but as a principle of creative harmony between the two powers of God." See M. Darrol Bryant and Herbert W. Richardson, Eds. A Time for Consideration, (NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1978), p. 301.
36. FUT, chapter l,p. 39.
37. Ibid., p. 48.
38. Ibid., pp. 53-54.
39. Ibid., p. 53.
40. Ibid., p. 35.
41. FUT, chapter 7, p. 4. See also Divine Principle, p. 48.
42. FUT, chapter 6, p. 2.
43. FUT, chapter 3, p. 7. The attainment of individual maturation is referred to as the "first blessing" according to Gen. 1:28, indicating the state of fruitfulness.
44. EUT, p. 233.
45. A further distinction can be made between the process of individual maturation in which one perceives initially a "transcendent" relationality with God and the stage of a fulfilled marital relationship in which a more "immanent" relationship with God is realized.
46. August Dorner, "Uber das Wesen der Religion" (On the Essence of Religion), in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, D. Kostlin and D. Riehm, Eds., (Gotha: Perthes, 1883), 1883, Vol. 2, p. 245.
47. See Section A. "Three Universal Principles" in this paper.
48. See sections A. "Dialectical Foundations" and B. "Christian Marriage" in this paper.
49. See sections B. "Christian Marriage" and B. "The Marriage Ideal" in this paper.
50. See sections B. "Christian Marriage" and C. "Summary" in this paper.
51. Unification Thought understands the worth and maturation of the human spirit with reference to the developing quadruple base, where mind and body perform the activity of giving and receiving centered on purpose in order to bring about the maturation of the individual human being. See section A. "Three Universal Principles" in this paper.
52. Unification Thought discusses the attainment of creatorhood in terms of fulfilling the three Blessings as outlined in Gen. 1:28.
53. Dorner, "Geleitwort," in WA, Vol. 1, pp. 2,3. For additional references, see note 15.
Primary Sources: Divine Principle, Washington DC: The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 1973. Explaining Unification Thought, NY: Unification Thought Institute, 1981. Lee, Sang Hun. Fundamentals of Unification Thought. Tokyo: Unification Thought Institute, 1991.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich Ernst Daniel. "Dialektik," (Dialectics). In Friedrich Schleiermacher Sdmmtliche Werke. 31 Vols; three sections: 1 Theologie, II Predigten, III Philosophie. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1834-1864. Henceforth cited as Sdmmtliche Werke (SW). Section III, Vol. 2 (1839).
." Entwurf eines Systems der Sittenlehre," (Outline of a System of Ethics). In SW, Section III, Vol. 5.
"Predigten iiber den Christlichen Hausstand," (Sermons on the Christian Household), First Edition. In SW, Section II, Vol. 2, Second Edition. In WA, Vol. 3.
Bauer, Johannes. "Einfuhrungzu den Predigten iiber den Christlichen Hausstand" (Introduction to the Sermons on the Christian Household). In Friedrich D.E. Schleiermacher, Werke. Auswahl in vier Bdnden. Otto Braun and Johannes Bauer, Eds. Leipzig: 1910-12. Reprint of the second edition Leipzig: 1927-28. Aalen: Scientia, 1967. Henceforth cited as Werke in Auswahl (WA). Vol. 3.
Birkner, Joachim. Schleiermachers Christliche Sittenlehre, (Schleiermacher's Christian Ethics). Berlin: Topelmann, 1964. Bryant, M. Darrol and Herbert W. Richardson, Eds. A Time for Consideration. NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1978. Dorner, August. "Geleitwort," (Preface). In WA, Vol. 1.
. "Uber das Wesen der Religion, " (On the Essence of Religion). In Theologische Studien und Kritiken. D. Kostlin and D. Riehm, Eds. Gotha: Perthes, 1883. Vol. 2.
Grundlan, Stephen A. Marriage and Family. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.
Miller, Marvin. Der Ubergang, (The Transition). Guterslohn: Mohn, 1970. Niebuhr, Richard R. "Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst." In Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Paul Edwards, Ed.8 Vols. NY: Macmillan, 1967. Vol. 8.