The Anthem Companion to Ernst Troeltsch

By Anthem Press

‘The Anthem Companion to Ernst Troeltsch’ is a collection of eight essays devoted to many aspects of Troeltsch’s thinking. Each of the contributors is a well-respected scholar who has written extensively on Ernst Troeltsch. This collection is, therefore, groundbreaking in two ways: it brings together scholars of the highest caliber and provides the first compilation of essays on Troeltsch’s thought in English.

In the editor’s Introduction Christopher Adair-Toteff provides a brief overview of Troeltsch’s life and works and then discusses his contributions to theology, sociology, philosophy and cultural criticism. Hans Joas concentrates on one of Troeltsch’s early programmatic texts and demonstrates its relevance for a historical-sociological understanding of religion today. Arie L. Molendijk introduces Troeltsch’s famous typology of “Church, Sect, Mysticism” and demonstrates that they were crucial for addressing the “intrinsic sociological idea of Christianity.” Mark D. Chapman focuses on Troeltsch as a “systematic theologian in the History of Religion School” and offers a detailed analysis of his approach to the structure of Christian dogmatic theology. Christian Polke examines Troeltsch’s notion of personality and reveals it to be the normative core of his philosophical and theological thinking. He shows how this is important for the development of a society which is founded upon value-experience and the ethos of responsibility. Lori Pearson focuses on Troeltsch’s uses of the concepts of “modernity” and “Protestantism” and demonstrates that he offers an understanding of the latter which reduces much of the alienating individuality of the former. Ulrich Schmiedel studies Troeltsch’s attempt to combine theological and sociological accounts of the history of Christianity in order to identify the religion. He argues that instead of providing a conceptual definition of Christianity, Troeltsch offers a performative one. Jeffrey Kinlaw concentrates on Troeltsch’s contention that normative authority is the central problem of religious pluralism and shows how this is an epistemological problem with extensive theological consequences. In the concluding chapter Adair-Toteff examines Troeltsch’s conception of historicism and shows how he tried to combat the relativism and negativity present in the writings of the proponents of this philosophy of history.

The eight essays in this volume reveal the depth and scope of Ernst Troeltsch’s thinking and demonstrate that he was not only a first-rate theologian but also a co-founder with Max Weber of the sociology of religion. They also help establish Troeltsch’s place as a major philosopher and a significant critic of modern culture.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Anthem Press
• Release date: Dec 15, 2017
• ISBN: 9781783086504

Book preview

The Anthem Companion to Ernst Troeltsch

Anthem Companions to Sociology

Anthem Companions to Sociology offer authoritative and comprehensive assessments of major figures in the development of sociology from the last two centuries. Covering the major advancements in sociological thought, these companions offer critical evaluations of key figures in the American and European sociological tradition, and will provide students and scholars with an in-depth assessment of the makers of sociology and chart their relevance to modern society.

Series Editor

Bryan S. Turner – City University of New York, USA / Australian Catholic University, Australia / University of Potsdam, Germany

Forthcoming Titles

The Anthem Companion to Gabriel Tarde

The Anthem Companion to Philip Rieff

The Anthem Companion to Ernst Troeltsch

Edited by Christopher Adair-Toteff

Anthem Press

An imprint of Wimbledon Publishing Company

www.anthempress.com

This edition first published in UK and USA 2018

by ANTHEM PRESS

75–76 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8HA, UK

or PO Box 9779, London SW19 7ZG, UK

and

244 Madison Ave #116, New York, NY 10016, USA

© 2018 Christopher Adair-Toteff editorial matter and selection;

individual chapters © individual contributors

The moral right of the authors has been asserted.

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN-13: 978-1-78308-277-3 (Hbk)

ISBN-10: 1-78308-277-1 (Hbk)

This title is also available as an e-book.

CONTENTS

IntroductionErnst Troeltsch: Theologian, Sociologist, Philosopher, and Culture Critic

Christopher Adair-Toteff

Chapter OneThe Independence of Religious Phenomena: The Work of Ernst Troeltsch as a Template for the Study of Religion

Hans Joas

Chapter TwoTroeltsch on Protestantism and Modernity

Lori Pearson

Chapter ThreeChurch, Sect, Mysticism: Writing the History of Christianity

Arie L. Molendijk

Chapter FourTroeltsch’s Personalism

Christian Polke

Chapter FivePerformative Practice: Ernst Troeltsch’s Concept(s) of Christianity

Ulrich Schmiedel

Chapter SixTroeltsch and the Problem of Theological Normativity

Jeffrey Kinlaw

Chapter SevenTroeltsch as Dogmatic Theologian

Mark D. Chapman

Chapter EightErnst Troeltsch and the Problem of Historicism

Christopher Adair-Toteff

List of Contributors

Index

Introduction

ERNST TROELTSCH: THEOLOGIAN, SOCIOLOGIST, PHILOSOPHER, AND CULTURE CRITIC

Christopher Adair-Toteff

Ernst Troeltsch: Life and Work

The name Ernst Troeltsch is remembered mostly in two contexts: first as an important Protestant theologian, and second as a close colleague of Max Weber. There is much to support this view, but Troeltsch was much more than just a theologian and a colleague of Weber. He was also a sociologist, philosopher, and culture critic. The purpose of this introductory chapter is to indicate Troeltsch’s importance as a theologian, a sociologist, a philosopher, and a critic of culture. I begin by providing a brief sketch of Troeltsch’s life and work and conclude with an overview of recent editions of his work and of final comments.

Ernst Troeltsch was born on February 17, 1865, just outside Augsburg, Germany. His father was a physician, and his mother was a housewife. Troeltsch remembers that when he was a young boy his parents’ house was filled with medical books and instruments and he was encouraged to investigate natural phenomena as well as historical issues (1925b: 3–4). He was educated first in Augsburg and then at the University at Erlangen. There he listened to lectures by Gustav Claß and learned about the importance of Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher,whose writings influenced Troeltsch’s philosophical and theological thinking throughout his life. At the age of 20, Troeltsch transferred to Berlin where he studied under Julius Kaftan. But as much as he appreciated Kaftan’s theology, he was far more impressed with Heinrich von Treitschke’s politics (Drescher 1993: 18). In 1886, Troeltsch transferred to Göttingen. Not only did he want a town smaller than Berlin but also Albrecht Ritschl was there. From Ritschl, Troeltsch learned the importance of historical understanding of religion, and although he continued to respect Ritschl, he never really regarded himself as one of Ritschl’s disciples. Troeltsch finished his education and began teaching at Göttingen,but he was to remain there only a short time. In 1892, he was called to Bonn as an Extraordinarius professor, and he distinguished himself so much that he was called to Heidelberg the following year. He stayed at Heidelberg from 1894 until 1915, and it was during this time that he published his major writings on Protestantism and the sociology of religion. It was also a period when he wrote on more philosophical topics and was involved in Baden politics. And it was also the time that he got married and traveled with Max and Marianne Weber to the United States to present papers at the World Congress. During the years between 1910 and 1915 Troeltsch and his wife, Marta, lived in the upper story of the Weber house on Ziegelhauser Landstrasse in Heidelberg. Troeltsch and Weber were not only close colleagues but also close friends; however, a dispute over the treatment of enemy prisoners in 1915 put an end to their friendship.¹

In 1915, Troeltsch moved to Berlin and changed from the theology faculty to the philosophy department. It was in Berlin that Troeltsch began to be recognized as a philosopher, and his reputation as one of the leading philosophical thinkers was secured by the publication of Der Historismus und seine Probleme. As with his earlier Soziallehren, the work on historicism appeared in installments before being published as a single volume in December of 1922. It was also in Berlin that he gained his reputation as one of Germany’s keenest political observers. First as an anonymous commentator and then under his own name, Troeltsch reflected on Germany’s political, economic, and social challenges in letters that were later published as a collection called Spektator-Briefe. He witnessed Germany’s loss in the war and the murder of a number of important politicians, including his friend Walther Rathenau. He was affected by the food shortages and the beginnings of the hyperinflation, and he observed social and political unrest. For much of his life, Troeltsch had been a rather sturdy and healthy person, but as he saw the increasing storm clouds over Germany he began to suffer not just mentally but also physically. Troeltsch had long been looking forward to his upcoming trip to England, where he was expected to give lectures at a number of prestigious universities, when he died of a heart attack on February 1, 1923. His premature death affected relatives, friends, colleagues, and even much of the general public. There were numerous accounts of him that were published in news papers, magazines, and journals.² Unfortunately, because he never cultivated a school, political events and changes in trends in philosophy and in theology meant that he was no longer considered relevant. This is unfortunate because, like Weber, Troeltsch was an expert in a number of disciplines and, like him, sought interactions and connections among the various fields. Unlike Weber, Troeltsch was not inclined to polemics and did not wish to pick fights. Perhaps because of Weber’s strong personality and the sharp tone of his writings he has long been recognized as the leading sociologist of the twentieth century. It is now important that people come to recognize that Troeltsch’s contributions to sociology and other fields are on par with those of Weber.

For those who wish more information on Troeltsch’s life and writings, there seem to be only two biographies of him. The first was written by Walther Köhler, who was not only Troeltsch’s student but also later held the same chair in systematic theology at the university in Heidelberg(2002). It was published in 1941 and is rather outdated, but Köhler’s friendship with Troeltsch and his knowledge of Protestant theology make his biography still useful (Köhler 1941). The second book was published in 1991; hence, Hans-Georg Drescher was able to refer to more recent work on Troeltsch (1991). In addition, he brought a trained historian’s eye to his study of Troeltsch, so his understanding of Troeltsch’s historical and political writings is well worth considering. Drescher’s book has the additional benefit of having been translated into English (1993).

There has been some research on Troeltsch during the past decades. Wilhelm F. Kasch published Die Sozialphilosophie von Ernst Troeltsch (1963) and Ulrich Platte published Ethos und Politik bei Ernst Troeltsch (1995). As the titles indicate, both are relatively limited to Troeltsch’s social philosophy and politics. There were also some earlier studies in English. These include Walter E. Wyman Jr.’s The Concept of Glaubenslehre: Ernst Troeltsch and the Theological Heritage of Schleiermacher (1983); George Yamin’s The Absence of Fantasia: Troeltsch’s Relation to Hegel (1993): and Constance L. Benson’s God and Caesar (1999). All three are useful, but Wyman’s is largely focused on Schleiermacher and Yamin’s on Georg W. F. Hegel. Benson’s book is rather judgmental regarding Troeltsch.

Later I mention some of the recent scholarship on Troeltsch, but here it is important to note Johannes Zachhuber’s Theology as Science in Nineteenth-Century Germany: From F. C. Baur to Ernst Troeltsch (2015). Zachhuber’s book is a masterful study of nineteenth-century Protestantism, and he carefully reconstructs the changes in German theology during that century. His account of Troeltsch’s theology is excellent but unfortunately brief, and he carefully places Troeltsch’s thinking at the end of a challenging time in which theology developed from an ahistorical faith into a scholarly historically based study.

Troeltsch as Theologian

Most of the essays in this volume were written by theologians, so the discussion of Troeltsch’s theology here is brief and selective. Troeltsch never seemed very comfortable in performing pastoral duties, but he was always eager to engage in discussions regarding the historical and theoretical aspects of theology. This eagerness is shown by the titles of some of Troeltsch’s most important works, such as Die Absolutheit des Christentums und die Religionsgeschichte (1902/1912), Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Neuzeit (1906/1909/1922), and Die Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die moderne Welt (1906). As these titles indicate, Troeltsch’s major focus was almost always on Protestantism and in particular on the early Protestantism of Martin Luther (and less so of John Calvin). However, like Adolf Harnack and Albert Ritschl, Troeltsch was interested in the early church, that is, the church as it was taking shape during its first 300 years. Troeltsch was not just interested in the early church and early Protestantism but he also had a particular interest in Augustine. Troeltsch wrote Augustin, die christliche Antike und das Mittelalter because he recognized that there was a major gap in his Soziallehren. He wanted to expand upon the comments that he had made there, and he wanted especially to comment extensively on Augustine’s importance for the church, for the state, and for the Middle Ages. But he also indicated that he wrote this book because of World War I, which he regarded as a threat to culture in general (1915: v–vii). However, Troeltsch was concerned about the relationship between the church and culture long before the war, and evidence for this can be found in Troeltsch’s first major work, Die Absolutheit des Christentums und die Religionsgeschichte.

Troeltsch gave Die Absolutheit des Christentums und die Religionsgeschichte as a lecture during a conference of the Freunde der christlichen Welt(Friends of the Christian World) in 1901, and it was published in book form by J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) the following year. He later insisted that this book contained the core of all of his future thinking on theology (1925b: 9). This is evident by his insistence on the importance of scholarly historical knowledge, which must be coupled with theological values. For Troeltsch, there needed to be the inner connection between metaphysics and ethics, thus demonstrating his similarity with Kant. This is also evident in Troeltsch’s reliance on other neo-Kantians, including Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert. The major question of this work is the question of absoluteness—what is it and what does it mean? These are not purely conceptual questions because this investigation revolves around the absoluteness of religion (Troeltsch 1902: 7–13 and 20–24). That implies that it is something more than historical facts, that it has to do with values and the future. Accordingly, Troeltsch repeatedly emphasizes goals and ideals (1902: 62–67 and 87). This study of religion is not strictly an absolute science, like mathematics and the natural sciences, but is a philosophy of religion (1902: 70–77). What the pious person wants is not knowledge but salvation; the pious person wants the right path that leads to the absolute world of infinite powers and final values. Christianity is the greatest religious development in history, and it has reached the high point of clarity and strength. Troeltsch concludes by insisting that Christianity has achieved this because the most certain and the strongest path to salvation is Jesus Christ (1902: 77–81, 84–87, and 126). As much as this was intended to be an historical work, it was more of a theological treatise. Troeltsch would write similar ones, but he more often wrote historical ones.

One such historical work was the one that Troeltsch published in a volume for Paul Hinneberg’s series Die Kultur der Gegenwart. Hinneberg had invited a large and distinguished number of scholars to contribute to the volumes that make up this series. For Die Christliche Religion, Hinneberg had asked Harnack, Julius Wellhausen, and Reinhold Seeberg, among others. Thus, Troeltsch was in good scholarly company with his more than 200-page contribution, entitled Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Neuzeit, in which he devoted chapters to Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and Calvin. In this work Troeltsch took issue with the general claim that the Renaissance and the Reformation marked both the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the modern age. While he did not dispute the fundamental changes that Luther and Calvin instituted, Troeltsch argued that Luther remained primarily a Catholic in many ways and that Calvin was far more radical. Troeltsch maintained that, despite these differences, both Luther and Calvin belonged to what he referred to as Altprotestantismus. He also insisted that Neuprotestantismus began to appear in the eighteenth century. He argued that it was the Enlightenment that ushered in the modern period because Enlightenment theologians minimized the importance of dogma and extolled the virtues of thinking and tolerance. It was the Enlightenment that bought about the modern natural sciences and the modern critical-developmental history. Troeltsch acknowledges the debt that scholarly theology owes to Hegel, and he notes that there is tension between the feeling of piety and rational inquiry, but he insists that it is not the task of historians to predict the future (1906: 440–445 and 450).

Like Weber’s interpretation of Luther and Calvin for the development of the Protestant ethic, Troeltsch’s conceptions of them were also singled out for criticism. Felix Rachfahl had written a criticism of both Troeltsch and Weber, and, like Weber, Troeltsch responded to Rachfahl’s complaints. In Die Kulturbedeutung des Calvinismus Troeltsch insisted that he and Weber had different approaches and goals: Weber approached the issue from an economic-historical perspective, and he aimed to show how Luther’s notion of calling and Calvin’s doctrine of predestination helped lead to the rise of modern capitalism. In contrast, Troeltsch maintained that he approached the matter from a religio-historical perspective, and he had intended to highlight the religious implications for modern culture. Troeltsch pointed to his emphasis on his distinction between Luther and Calvin: the former was politically passive and rurally oriented, and these tendencies are found in contemporary Prussia. The latter was liberal-democratically oriented, and these tendencies are found in modern capitalism (Troeltsch 1987: 190–192 and 200). Accordingly, Troeltsch regarded Calvin and Calvinism as being crucial for the development of independent scholarship and political tolerance, which are marks of modern liberal democracies (1987: 212–214).

Many of these ideas are found in a lecture that Troeltsch gave to the German Historical Association. Weber was supposed to present a paper but persuaded Troeltsch to take his place. The lecture was later published as Die Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die Entstehung der modernen Welt. Troeltsch refers to Weber’s Protestant Ethic and to his own article in the Hinneberg collection, and he notes that many of the points he is making here can be found in Weber’s work as well as his own (1911: 7). He repeats his claim that Luther fundamentally remained a Catholic with his passive approach and his indifference to the state. In contrast, Calvin was active and aggressive, and this shows in Calvin’s emphasis on work and his belief in the state (Troeltsch 1911: 32, 43, and 65–69). Troeltsch believes that Calvin was crucial for the development of the modern world because it is in Calvin’s thinking that one finds the beginnings of the basic tenets of the modern world—the insistence on work and progress and the belief in the individual. Troeltsch believes that Protestantism was the counter to Catholicism’s collective authoritarianism because it promoted the freedom of the individual (1911: 55–60 and 103).

In addition to these major works on theology and religion Troeltsch wrote numerous smaller essays. He wrote a number of important entries for the third and last edition of the Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche. In addition, he wrote 25 entries for the first edition of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. These included the entries on Dogmatik, on Glaube, on Gnade, and on Theodicee. Finally, Troeltsch reviewed more than 270 books.³ He liked to review books because they offered him the opportunity to engage in a dialogue. As Troeltsch explained, monologues are not for me.⁴ While most of his reviews were on books of theology, many of them were on philosophy and sociology.⁵

Troeltsch as Sociologist

Troeltsch did not regard himself as a sociologist, although he was often concerned with the implications of society on theological and philosophical thought. The focus here is on Troeltsch’s two most sociological works: an important lecture and a major book.

Prior to 1909 there was no organization in Germany devoted to sociology. The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie was formed in 1909 to rectify this deficiency, and the first conference of this German Sociological Association was held in Bonn during the last week of October 1910. There has been little doubt that most of the major speakers were important sociologists. Weber, Georg Simmel, and Ferdinand Tönnies are each regarded as founders of German sociology, and much the same can be said about Werner Sombart. While Sombart’s reputation is tarnished now because of his anti-Semitism, during his lifetime he was almost as highly regarded as a sociologist as his colleagues. However, there has always been some question regarding the fifth speaker—Ernst Troeltsch. At first glance this doubt appears justified. After all, he was primarily a theologian and secondarily a philosopher, and he never held a chair in sociology. But a second look reveals what is wrong with this assumption. Much the same can be said about Weber, Simmel, Tönnies, and Sombart. Weber was a lawyer by education, Simmel and Tönnies were trained as philosophers, and Sombart was educated as an economist. None of them held chairs in sociology prior to 1920 because at that time there were no sociology professorships in Germany. And, like the other four, Troeltsch was preoccupied with questions of culture, he was a founding member of the Deutsch Gesellschaft für Soziologie, and lastly, along with Weber, he was considered a founder of the sociology of religion.⁶ Still, the reasons for the neglect of him as a sociologist are not difficult to identify. Unlike the others, Troeltsch did not write many works that could be regarded as being primarily devoted to sociology, he never wrote methodological treatises, and he always seemed to be in Weber’s shadow. However, as I show, Troeltsch had the mind of a first-rate sociologist and a keen understanding of social interaction. And his sociology writings are more numerous and far more important than they may seem.

Troeltsch’s lecture was entitled Das stoisch-christliche Naturrecht und das moderne profane Naturrecht.⁷ Two things can be noted immediately: one, that Troeltsch had tailored some of his lecture to bring it in line with the sociology of the conference, and two, that his concern was primarily philosophical. Accordingly, his lecture is not about the sociology of law but, rather, about the philosophy of law. This is underscored by the second point: Troeltsch was not interested in what is referred to as positive law, that is, the type of law that is based on human principles. Instead, his sole interest was in natural law, and his concern was with the two different types of natural law: the one that is based on divine principles and the other that is based on natural reason. While both types share the belief that human life is teleological, the first type holds that laws are divinely instituted in order to achieve the goal of human life that is directed by God, whereas the second type contends that laws are human products but based on natural reason in order to further human productivity and well-being.

Troeltsch began his lecture by pointing to the difference between what he terms sociological natural laws and ideal law-making. He believes that these two types differ fundamentally and that it is impossible to seek to unify them by means of some type of Hegelian dialectics into a synthesis (1911: 167–168). After discussing his three social types of religious communities, Troeltsch returns to the origins of natural law.⁸ He suggests that both the Stoa and the early Christian believers shared the idea regarding the turn away from the external world and toward the inner world of freedom and individuality. The difference was primarily that the members of the Stoa emphasized reason, while the Christians stressed that the child of Godwas part of the unconditional loving community. This Christian ideal had its counterpart in the Stoa’s belief in the Golden Age, and as such both had an idea of natural law in the absolute sense. Unfortunately, greed and the need for more destroyed this Stoic ideal, just as the attempt to satisfy forbidden desires led to the need for work. The original human sins meant that there needed to be regulations governing marriage, property, and family order, and Troeltsch specifically identified Cain’s crime as leading to the need for law and community order. Troeltsch then contrasts the unconditionality of the Sermon on the Mount with the demands of everyday life, and he notes that the conception of a relative natural law developed from this compromise. The full particularity of this relative natural law did not fully develop until the Middle Ages, and Troeltsch suggested that it was Thomas Aquinas who was largely responsible for this development because it was he who gave it the scientific form that continues even to today. However, Troeltsch stressed that Christian natural law was not something that belonged just to the Catholic Church, but belonged as well to the Protestant Church. He noted Luther’s rejection of the Roman Catholic Church’s double moralityand his insistence that one morality applied to both the clergy and laypeople. Yet, Luther’s notion of natural law remained fundamentally conservative, and it was Calvin who gave it a radically new direction. Troeltsch granted that Calvin adhered to Luther’s presuppositions and shared the same sense of authority; however, Calvin also insisted upon a closer connection between natural law and Christian demands. Furthermore, he rejected Luther’s idealism and passivity and promoted a more realistic and active, or to say, a stricter notion of law. Troeltsch concluded with a discussion about how Thomas Hobbes, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and others built upon the Calvinist doctrine of natural law and how they moved away from the reliance on divine authority and toward the insistence that reason is the basis for natural law (1911: 190–191). Troeltsch’s lecture was largely well received. Tönnies had some questions regarding Troeltsch’s historical account, and Weber wondered whether Troeltsch minimized the social influence of mysticism. (Verhandlungen 1911: 194 and 200–201).

There has been little disagreement that Troeltsch’s Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen was his most significant sociological work (see Köhler 2002: 276). However, there has been a long-standing dispute regarding the origins and the purpose of Troeltsch’s Soziallehren.⁹ Some of this is because most of the people who were interested in reading the work were theologians, and so it was understandable that they thought that Troeltsch was induced to write his work by another theologian. This suggestion has credibility because Troeltsch himself claimed that his Soziallehren was a total parallel to Harnack’s three-volume Dogmengeschichte.¹⁰ However, Troeltsch also noted that he never intended to write a history of dogma from a purely theoretical point of view but that he was concerned with the social implications of dogma throughout history. Just as important, Troeltsch also claimed that the impetus to write the Soziallehren came from his reading of a book entitled Soziale Aufgabe der evangelischen Kirche. Instead of writing a highly critical review of Martin von Nathius’s book, Troeltsch decided to write what became his Soziallehren.¹¹ Finally, Troeltsch acknowledged the influence of Weber’s Protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus, and he noted that both he and Weber were concerned with the social implications of theological ideas. However, Troeltsch was also convinced that he was approaching the topic from a different vantage point than Weber and that in effect he was creating a totally new discipline (Troeltsch 1925a: 11; Drescher 1993: 13). However, Troeltsch was never preoccupied with any claims to originality; instead, he believed in the importance of shared scholarly interests and scientific results (Drescher 1993: 15n15). Taken in this light, Theodor Heuss’s assessment that Troeltsch had intended to place his Soziallehren somewhere between Harnack’s theological-historical work and Weber’s religio-sociological writings is undoubtedly correct (2002: 180).

Many theologians were content to regard the Soziallehren as a theological work. After all, its full title was Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen, it focused primarily on the history of Western Christianity, and it was written by a theologian. However, this ignores that fact that Troeltsch was never content to be a church historian, because his interest was always in Christianity for the modern age. This was part of the impetus for Troeltsch to have written Die Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die Entstehung der modernen Welt (1906/1911) and Luther und die moderne Welt (1908) (2001: 199–316 and 59–98). And it was the primary motivation for Troeltsch to have written his Soziallehren. This is amply shown by his numerous remarks