Why should we still read Ernst Troeltsch’s Soziallehren ?

Friedrich Wilhelm Graf is the scholar who has undoubtedly done more than anyone else to promote the writings of the German theologian and philosopher Ernst Troeltsch. Graf has been the lead editor of most of the seventeen volumes which have already been published of the Ernst Troeltsch Kritische Gesamtausgabe, and he is the main editor of the long-awaited edition of Troeltsch’s most famous works: Die Soziallehren des christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen. First published in 1912, it is more than a century old, so it raises a legitimate question: “Why should we still read Troeltsch’s Soziallehren?” ¹ Graf offers two answers: a short one and a much longer one. The first is on a lecture that he gave in Japan (Graf, 2019), while the second one is his massive and informative introduction to the new Soziallehren volume. Given Graf’s long experience in studying Troeltsch’s works, it is not at all surprising that both of his answers are extremely compelling.

This edition of Troeltsch’s Soziallehren is more than 2200 pages and is contained in three “partial volumes” (“Teilband”). The first volume contains the editorial apparatus, including Graf’s introduction and editorial comments. It also contains the portion of the Soziallehren that Troeltsch published in installments in the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik. The second volume contains the sections on Protestantism while the third volume contains bibliographies and indices. As Graf notes in the “Einleitung” and the “Editorische Bericht,” the prehistory of Troeltsch’s favorite work is complex.

The immediate impetus for Troeltsch to write was the request from the editors of the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik for him to write a review of the third edition of Martin von Nathusius’ Die Mitarbeit der Kirche an der Lösung der sozialen Frage. Troeltsch dismissed the idea but has indicated that Nathuisus’ book was so poor, that he decided that he needed to write a corrective account (Graf, 2021: 73). A glance at Nathusius’ book provides numerous reasons why Troeltsch disliked it: Nathusius insisted that his account was no less than an account of the purpose of the founding of the Church and its role in social action. But Nathusius also spent hundreds of pages on economic history and another hundred on social life and almost another hundred on the organization of the Church (Nathusius, 1904). But what he did not do was to provide a “theory of the social task of the Church.” What Troeltsch attempted to do was somewhat similar: what was the “social” in relationship to the churches and to Christianity. But he complained that Nathusius’s attempt was both unintelligible and plagued by errors. His notion of Christianity is not clear and his concept of the social is wrong (Troeltsch, 2021: 155–159).

In the “Einleitung und methodische Vorfragen” Troeltsch not only was critical of Nathusius, he also indicated his own positive approach to the concept of the church. But rather than regarding it theologically or ethically, he sought to show how the church evolved socially through time. That is part of the reason why he explicitly referred to Max Weber’s “Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.” And it is part of the reason why Troeltsch insisted that, like Weber’s study, his own work would encompass social-economic aspects of Christianity (Troeltsch, 2021: 168–169).

Troeltsch began with the fundamentals of the old Church and he argued that it had no real need for a social organization because the early Christians were convinced that the end was near and Jesus would return. The only questions were “how” and “when” (Troeltsch, 2021: 204, 215). Troeltsch further argued that Paul’s teaching prompted a major shift toward a new sociological structure and that it rested on his conviction that all Christians were equal in the eyes of God (Troeltsch, 2021: 259–264). The terms ascetic and charisma are generally associated with Weber, but Troeltsch discussed both of them in the context of early Catholicism (Troeltsch, 2021: 321–330). And, asceticism plays a dominant role in Troeltsch’s examination of the medieval Catholic Church (Troeltsch, 2021: 590–606). Troeltsch seemed rather content with much of his account of the early church and the Catholic Church but he was dissatisfied with the account that he had given about Augustine. That dissatisfaction prompted him to study Augustine’s writings and specifically the City of God. The result of this study was Troeltsch’s remarkable 1915 book on Augustine, which one hopes will receive greater attention (see Adair-Toteff, 2019).

It was not Troeltsch’s conception of Augustine which prompted the most criticism; rather it was his ideas regarding Martin Luther that provoked the most discussion. Unlike many Protestants who glorified Luther as the great Reformer and model German patriot, Troeltsch contended that Luther was a conservative and not an ideal German. Troeltsch did not deny that Luther’s reputation was world-wide; he contended that it was not deserved (Troeltsch, 2021: 1020). Rather than being a Protestant radical individualist, Luther remained a Catholic monk. Moreover, by linking church and state, Luther ensured a social hierarchy despite his rejection of the Church’s view of “calling” (Troeltsch, 2021: 1031–1040, 1105–1115). Furthermore, Troeltsch noted the continuity of Luther’s embrace of the Catholic doctrine of natural law. However, Troeltsch shared with Luther the belief in natural law (Troeltsch, 2021: 1064–1076). Troeltsch did fault Luther for his conservative and patriarchal influence and complained that it was continuing into the 20th century (Troeltsch, 2021: 1090–1097, 1139–1141, 1154–1157, 1175–1180, 1186–1194).

If Troeltsch believed that Luther and Lutheranism remained a static, conservative, and an apolitical theology, he also contended that Calvin and Calvinism was quite different. Troeltsch allowed that Calvinism began as an outgrowth of Lutheranism and that Calvin himself placed considerable value on his theological agreement with Lutheranism. However, Troeltsch emphasized that Calvin broke with his predecessor with his Doctrine of Predestination. For Luther, grace could be earned, but for Calvin it could not. If Luther believed in the revealed and the hidden God, Calvin believed only in the latter. In other words, humans cannot begin to fathom God’s will and he noted that Calvin’s conception of God meant that, unlike Luther, theodicy was not a problem. But he also noted that this conception meant that humans were destined to isolation (Troeltsch, 2021: 1206–1229, 1252). Troeltsch acknowledges that much of his conception of Calvinism is drawn from Weber’s “Protestant Ethic” and that his notion of the “inner worldly ascetic” owes much to Weber and his sources (Troeltsch, 2021: 1262–1273). And, when Troeltsch noted the affinity between Luther and Catholicism regarding the passivity of mystics in contrast to Calvin’s activity, again there is a reliance on Weber’s conception of both Protestant theologians (Troeltsch, 2021: 1306–1308). Having dealt with Lutheranism and Calvinism, Troeltsch announced that he was not finished with Protestantism and that he was going to show how sects and mystics grew out of that. However, he argued that it was primarily Calvinism that gave rise to the sects (Troeltsch, 2021: 1551–1555, 1560, 1578, 1585). It is also clear that Troeltsch was far more concerned about sects than he was about mysticism because he devoted far more time to the former than to the latter. And he later admitted that he had not spent as much effort on mysticism (Troeltsch, 2021: 1643–1645). In fact, mysticism is a problem for Troeltsch because he noted that mystics were found in the early centuries of Christianity and that the great German mystics belonged to the Middle Ages (Troeltsch, 2021: 1648). And he admitted that it is difficult to define mysticism but he suggested that it was the immediacy, inwardliness, and the presence of religious experience (Troeltsch, 2021: 1648, 1659). And he later rejected Adolf Harnack’s insistence that anyone who claimed to be a mystic and was not a Catholic, was nothing more than a dilettante (Troeltsch, 2021: 1660, B 860). ²

The conclusion comes abruptly: Troeltsch announced that his presentation is concluded and that the end of the 18th century saw fundamental changes in the relationship between social groups and the churches. What he was suggesting was that social groups were no longer based upon theology but were becoming secularized. And he concluded that for the Church, Christ is the savior, for the sect, he is the master, and for the mystic, he is an inwardly feeling (Troeltsch, 2021: 1845, 1852). What Troeltsch did not address was that the mystic is far more individualistic than even a member of a sect, so how can mysticism be regarded as being social? (See the Einleitung, Graf, 2021-14-15).

Finally, the third partial volume is comparatively short with just over 200 pages. But one should keep in mind that this book does not contain any part of the Soziallehren but it does contain much valuable information. There are three bibliographies: (1) Troeltsch’s references listed in notes to the Gesammelte Schriften volume. In the Kritische Gesamtausgabe partial volume, this list is 75 pages. (2) This is the list of references that Troeltsch used in his additions and revisions to his work. This list is 30 pages. (3) The list of references that Graf and his assistants have used. This list is 31 pages. Then there are two indices: the index of persons (“Personenregister”) and the index of subjects (“Sachregister”). The former is 46 pages while the latter is 34. The point is that this partial volume of references and indices is larger than many monographs and it reflects the enormity of the editorial challenges that Graf and his assistants faced.

The biggest challenge was in explaining the history of Troeltsch’s Soziallehren and Graf more than meets that challenge. He not only explains its composition and its history, he also addresses the various criticisms that were given. Moreover, Graf documents the changes and additions that Troeltsch made and these are shown in the thousands of footnotes. Graf is correct in noting that this volume is the largest, the most important, and the most labor intensive of all of the Ernst Troeltsch Kritische Gesamtausgabe volumes (Troeltsch, 2021: X). Each by itself would be sufficient grounds for why we should read it. But Graf encourages us to read Troeltsch’s Soziallehren because we can apply what we learn from it to the present. But I would suggest that it is also worthwhile to read Troeltsch’s favorite book to learn Troeltsch’s own thinking as well as his particular conception of the past. Whether one decides to read the Soziallehren because of one’s preoccupation with the past or one’s concern for the present, Professor Graf has made a compelling case for why we should read Troeltsch’s Soziallehren. ³