Read on Twitter
the integrity of Schleiermacher when he offer pastoral reflections are one of the things that I most admire about him. While the mode and style of communication changes from Christian Faith, he doesn't compromise, turn to magical thinking, or water down his theology (1)
case in point is his sermon at the grave of his 9 year old son, Nathaniel. FDES has a strong view of divine providence willing the whole, admits that 'evil' is caused by God in some way, that finitude and death aren't caused by the fall, and is agnostic about life after death (2)
given that, what does it mean to claim God's love in the face of the death of a child? You might be tempted, I would!, to offer standard assurance of Christian hope. FDES doesn't turn to theological claims that may seem to provide a quicker comfort, and names and rejects them (3)
he rejects the false consolation that God spared Nathaniel the trials of life, and instead affirms the world as the arena of God's preserving love and presence: "Why should I not have hoped in the merciful preservation of God for him also, even if he stumbled? (4)
he also eschews a quick turn to heavenly bliss or immortality of the soul as a comfort for either Nathaniel or those in his family left behind, noting how this exceeds what his piety, intellect, and faith allows him (5)
he names pain of death and trusts in a Christological eschatological agnosticism: “I stand here with my comfort and my hope alone in the Word of Scripture, modest and yet so rich: It does not yet appear what we shall be, but when it does appear, we shall see Him as He is.” (6)
In the face of death, he offers thanks and gratitude. Not for the death—nay that remains a thorn throughout the sermon—but for God’s provision, for the incalculable value of Nathaniel’s life, one that is full of worth, dignity, and honour no matter if it lasted 9 or 90 years (7)
“I say from my heart, the Lord has given him: the name of the Lord be praised, that God gave him to me: that God granted to this child a life, which, even though short, was yet glad and bright and warmed by the loving breath of his Grace;" (8)
God has so truly watched over and guided him…we have been richly blessed through this beloved child. The Lord has taken him: His name be praised, yet God has left us, and this child remains with us here also in inextinguishable memories, a dear and imperishable individual.” (9)
Is this a sufficient theology of the resurrectiony? Many have said no. You can disagree with FDES, but given his theological commitments to God's care for this world and his refusal of speculation beyond piety mediated by Redeemer, it's a turn to trust in God's loving care (10)
I don't read him saying God directly caused his son's death, but as recognising that the world is marked by finitude and thus sorrow. Nor is he ruling out eschatological transformation, but recognising how God's grace given in Christ and Spirit are irrevocable here and now (11)
the comfort of the Gospel, for him, is that the Redeemer is with us here and now-even at the grave of a child-and that even death cannot separate us from this divine love. What will come, as he says in the sermon, is not known. But whatever it is, it will be like Jesus (12/fin)
3pm, we'll be discussing this and much more in our FDES group
