Chapter 4 The Construction of Community

Schmiedel, Ulrich

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40832-3_5

Ulrich Schmiedel⁴

Part of the book series: Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue ((PEID))

216 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores and expands on the tripartite typology of ‘ecclesiasticism,’ ‘sectarianism’ and ‘mysticism’ which Ernst Troeltsch developed in his The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches. Ulrich Schmiedel argues that Troeltsch anticipates Nicholas Healy’s compelling critique of ‘blueprint ecclesiology.’ Schmiedel identifies three blueprints for the construction of community in which the otherness of the other is instrumentalized. Against these instrumentalizations of alterity for the construction of community, Troeltsch recommends a return to the resistance against closure characteristic of both the practice of Jesus and the memorization of the practice of Jesus. Hence, according to Troeltsch, alterity is at the center of the Christian community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
SL, viii.
2.
Ibid.
3.
For a short summary, see DR, 12–13. See also Pearson, Beyond Essence, 65–67.
4.
Arije L. Molendijk, Zwischen Theologie und Soziologie: Ernst Troeltschs Typen der christlichen Gemeinschaftsbildung (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996), offers a comprehensive account of Troeltsch’s typology. For an ecclesiological exploration, see Fechtner, Volkskirche, 79–122.
5.
Nicholas M. Healy, Church, World and the Christian Life: Practical-Prophetic Ecclesiology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
6.
Ibid., 25–51.
7.
For Troeltsch’s discussion of what he calls the ‘Marxist Method,’ see HP, 536–598. Warren S. Goldstein investigates the impact of Marx and Marxism on Troeltsch in ‘Reconstructing the Classics: Weber, Troeltsch, and the Historical Materialists,’ International Archive of the History of Ideas 26/4–5 (2015), 470–507.
8.
SL, 1–15.
9.
SL, 10. See also NR, 166–168.
10.
Pearson, Beyond Essence, 71–86, analyzes how Troeltsch draws the distinction between religious and non-religious factors in his account of history. She argues that this distinction allows him to conceive of religion as influencing social causation, on the one hand, and as influenced by social causation, on the other. See also ibid., 168–171.
11.
SL, vii.
12.
See Johannes Zachhuber, Theology as Science in Nineteenth-Century Germany: From Ferdinand Christian Bauer to Ernst Troeltsch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 275–276, 284, 286-288. Zachhuber argues that the imbalance characteristic of Troeltsch’s work stresses the impasse which contemporary discourses about theology had reached.
13.
See AK, 1154, where Troeltsch suggests to use ‘christliche Gemeinschaft’ to refer to churches after the Corpus Christianum.
14.
Healy, Church, World and the Christian Life, 25–51.
15.
Ibid., 26.
16.
Ibid.
17.
Ibid., 46.
18.
For a short summary, see Clare Watkins, ‘Practising Ecclesiology: From Product to Process,’ Ecclesial Practices 2/1 (2015), 26–30.
19.
SL, 34–35, 968–969.
20.
See the overview in Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 240–280.
21.
SL, 39.
22.
SL, 41.
23.
Ibid. See also Pearson, Beyond Essence, 86–87, 112.
24.
In SL, 41, Troeltsch refers to ‘individualism’ and ‘universalism’ both of which are qualified as ‘absolute.’ But Troeltsch’s terminology is tricky because he argues that, within the double character of Christianity, individualism does not exclude universalism and universalism does not exclude individualism. Rather, as Troeltsch assumes in NR, 168–169, for Christianity, universalism is a ‘correlate’ of individualism (ibid., 169).
25.
SL, 41.
26.
See Fechtner, Volkskirche, 60–62.
27.
SP, 213.
28.
See Jeanrond, A Theology of Love, 33–35. As Wolfgang Stegemenn, ‘Zur Deutung des Urchristentums in den Soziallehren,’ in Ernst Troeltschs ‘Soziallehren,’ 51–79, argues, Troeltsch’s account of the Jewishness of Jesus is insufficient. But, considering his context, it is noteworthy that Troeltsch is aware of the Jewishness of Jesus at all. See Pearson, Beyond Essence, 70. Moreover, whereas his colleagues and contemporaries take the conflicts between Jesus and the Jews as reported in the Gospels as a point of departure for their portrayals of Jesus, Troeltsch contextualizes Jesus within Judaism. See Johann Hinrich Claussen, Die Jesus-Deutung von Ernst Troeltsch im Kontext der liberalen Theologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 288–289.
29.
SL, 41.
30.
Conceptually, Troeltsch draws a distinction between two individualisms: a religious one with reference to God and a non-religious one without reference to God. The religious one allows while the non-religious one disallows for the inclusion of community. Pearson, Beyond Essence, 111–123, traces these individualisms to Troeltsch’s interpretation of Stoicism, where Stoicism sides with the non-religious rather than the religious individualism. The distinction is also apparent in Troeltsch’s account of the Enlightenment.
31.
SP, 212.
32.
SP, 213. See also SL, 48–49, 985–986. For the combination of these interrelated relations in Troeltsch’s notion of the kingdom of God, see Claussen, Jesus-Deutung, 184–188.
33.
The eschatology of Jesus stirred up considerable controversy among the contemporaries of Troeltsch. The core concern was whether the establishment of the kingdom of God is to be interpreted eschatologically or non-eschatologically. See the overview in Claussen, Jesus-Deutung, 78–124.
34.
SP, 213.
35.
SL, 34.
36.
I will return to the discussion of ‘utopia’ in Chaps. 5 and 8.
37.
SP, 212.
38.
Pearson, Beyond Essence, 88.
39.
Troeltsch, cited in Drescher, Ernst Troeltsch, 337n. 305, ET: 410n. 305.
40.
SL, 58.
41.
SL, 49, 968–969. For a contextualization of Troeltsch’s interpretation of Paul’s theology, see Claussen, Jesus-Deutung, 125–156. The question was whether Paul should be considered a continuation or a corruption of the person and preaching of Jesus. For Troeltsch, Paul’s ecclesiology is a consequence of the practice of Jesus. However, it is noteworthy that the early ecclesiologies of Christianity cannot be reduced to Paul’s. See Paula Gooder, ‘In Search of the Early Church: The New Testament and the Development of Christian Communities,’ in The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, esp. 17–18.
42.
SL, 60. Here, Troeltsch comes close to Albert Schweitzer, Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1931), who argued that the metaphor of ἐν Χριστῷ is crucial for what he interpreted as Paul’s mysticism. See also the exegetical and historical accounts in ‘In Christ’ in Paul, ed. Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Constantine R. Campbell (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).
43.
SL, 59.
44.
Ibid.
45.
SL, 59–60. See also Haight, Christian Community in History, vol. 1, 77–83.
46.
SL, 58–59, 69. See Fechtner, Volkskirche, 61–62.
47.
Haight, Christian Community in History, vol. 3, 86. While the metaphor of the body implies the recognition of difference and diversity, it has been interpreted to exclude the other throughout the history of theology. See Watson, Introducing Feminist Ecclesiology, 42–44. In Chap. 8 of my study, I will examine the interpretations of the metaphor of the body of Christ in the ecclesiologies of Pete Ward and Graham Ward for their accounts of the other.
48.
SL, 66.
49.
Ibid.
50.
SL, 68–69. According to Troeltsch, then, Paul adds the notion of a hierarchy to the interrelated relations to the finite and to the infinite other. See Claussen, Jesus-Deutung, 145.
51.
SL, 60–62.
52.
Ibid. See also Pearson, Beyond Essence, 115–116.
53.
Troeltsch’s argument runs through SL, 60–68. The fact that, throughout history, Christians both confirmed and criticized slavery is a case in point. See Lauster, Die Verzauberung, 549–554.
54.
Pearson, Beyond Essence, 106, 115–116.
55.
SL, 76.
56.
SL, 977.
57.
SL, 986. The distinction Troeltsch draws between the practice of Jesus and the memorization of the practice of Jesus in Paul is instructive: it allows for an analysis of the origin(s) of Christianity as plurality rather than singularity. See Claussen, Jesus-Deutung, 150–151. See also Gooder, ‘In Search of the Early Church,’ 9–27.
58.
A collection of the lectures delivered at the conference appeared as Verhandlungen des Ersten Deutschen Soziologentages, ed. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1911). Christopher Adair-Toteff translated the lectures (but not the discussions which followed the lectures). See his Sociological Beginnings: The First Conference of the German Society for Sociology (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005).
59.
NL, 323. See also NR, 168.
60.
NL, 323–324.
61.
Ibid.
62.
For a short summary, see Steph Lawler, Identity: Sociological Perspectives (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008).
63.
NL, 328. Exegetically, Gerd Theissen, Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), affirmed Troeltsch’s account. For Theissen, ecclesiasticism, sectarianism and mysticism are rooted (albeit indirectly rather than directly) in the movement which gathered around Jesus.
64.
NR, 328.
65.
Pearson, Beyond Essence, 134–135. Interestingly, Troeltsch had not developed the typology in advance; he used the historical material of his research to structure the typology rather than the typology to structure the historical material of his research. Writing The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches, he construed a variety of typologies before he concluded with the three types of ecclesiasticism, sectarianism and mysticism. See Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, ‘“Endlich große Bücher schreiben”: Marginalien zur Werkgeschichte der Soziallehren,’ in Ernst Troeltschs ‘Soziallehren,’ 27–48. For a detailed discussion, see also the chapter, ‘Die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Typologie,’ in Molendijk, Zwischen Theologie und Soziologie, 33–84.
66.
See Roland Robertson, ‘On the Analysis of Mysticism: Pre-Weberian, Weberian and Post-Weberian,’ Sociological Analysis 36 (1975), 241–266. He argues that Troeltsch’s typology has often been ‘slaughtered’—‘accomplishment of such is … one of the earliest rites of passage which sociology-of-religion neophytes have to undergo’ (ibid., 242). Molendijk, Zwischen Theologie und Soziologie, offers a comprehensive historical analysis. For a short summary in English, see Pearson, Beyond Essence, 128–130.
67.
Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism (New York: Henry Holt, 1929), lead the way for the reconstructions of Troeltsch’s typology, arguing that the context in the United States of America created a type in-between ecclesiasticism and sectarianism—namely, denominationalism.
68.
SL, 979–986. Troeltsch’s account of modernity stresses the ambiguity of the consequences of the Enlightenment. See EM, 237–272. See also Lori Pearson, ‘Ernst Troeltsch on the Enlightenment, Modernity, and Cultural Values,’ in Die aufgeklärte Religion und ihre Probleme, 449–459. For a succinct summary of Troeltsch’s interpretation of the Enlightenment, see Chapman, Ernst Troeltsch and Liberal Theology, 152–156.
69.
SL, 233.
70.
SL, 179–180.
71.
SL, 223. See also Ulrich Köpf, ‘Die Idee der “Einheitskultur” des Mittelalters,’ in Ernst Troeltschs ‘Soziallehren,’ 103–121.
72.
SL, 223.
73.
SL, 371. ‘Institution’ translates the technical term of Anstalt which Troeltsch borrowed from contemporary concepts of corporate law. The central characteristic of the institution is that it is not chosen by its members. See Fechtner, Volkskirche, 81–84.
74.
SL, 264.
75.
For Troeltsch’s account of Thomas Aquinas, see SL, 252–285.
76.
SL, 292.
77.
Ibid.
78.
SL, 292–293.
79.
Köpf, ‘Die Idee der “Einheitskultur” des Mittelalters,’ 118–120.
80.
SL, 293.
81.
SL, 179–180. See also Chap. 5 of my study.
82.
SL, 967.
83.
SP, 220.
84.
SL, 968.
85.
SL, 971.
86.
SP, 220.
87.
SL, 794.
88.
SL, 264.
89.
SL, 794.
90.
Ibid. I will discuss Troeltsch’s account of the Reformation in Chap. 6.
91.
SL, 367–368, 849.
92.
SP, 221.
93.
SL, 361–362.
94.
SL, 372.
95.
The concept of ‘association (Verein)’ is the counter-concept to the concept of ‘institution’: one can choose to join an association but one cannot choose to join an institution. SL, 838–839.
96.
SL, 372.
97.
SL, 427, 967.
98.
SL, 804–805.
99.
SL, 370.
100.
Ibid.
101.
SL, 370–372, 380–381, 968.
102.
SP, 221.
103.
SL, 372.
104.
SL, 372–373.
105.
SL, 972.
106.
Pearson, Beyond Essence, 129n. 20, points out that, for Troeltsch, sectarianism demands tolerance in-between communities but dismisses tolerance in communities.
107.
SL, 850, 967.
108.
SL, 864. I am aware of the fact that mysticism might be misunderstood if it is reduced to individualism. See esp. the introduction to the history of mysticism by Bernard McGinn, ‘The Nature of Mysticism: A Heuristic Sketch,’ in Bernard McGinn, The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism, vol. 1: ‘The Foundations of Mysticism’ (London: SCM, 1991), xiii–xx. Here, however, I focus on Troeltsch’s type of mysticism for which individualism is the core characteristic.
109.
See Fechtner, Volkskirche, 98–99.
110.
Martin Buber, cited in Verhandlungen, 206.
111.
Georg Simmel, cited in Verhandlungen, 205. The response to Simmel is instructive for Troeltsch’s reception of Simmel. For a comprehensive account, see Friedemann Voigt, ‘Die Tragödie des Reiches Gottes’: Ernst Troeltsch als Leser Georg Simmels (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998).
112.
Troeltsch, cited in Verhandlungen, 213.
113.
Joel D.S. Rasmussen, ‘Mysticism as a Category of Inquiry in the Philosophies of Ernst Troeltsch and William James,’ in Exploring Lost Dimensions in Christian Mysticism, 53. Rasmussen analyzes the impact of James’s concept of experience on Troeltsch’s type of mysticism. Although Troeltsch refers to James only once in The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches, Rasmussen argues that James’s concept of experience is crucial for Troeltsch’s third type (ibid., 62–63). Since Troeltsch criticizes James for the individualization and interiorization of experience, Rasmussen concludes: ‘Somewhat incongruously, then, Troeltsch apparently comes under his own critique here’ (ibid., 63). However, Rasmussen does not take into account that Troeltsch is critical of James because James pushes mysticism to the extreme. See also Joel D.S. Rasmussen, ‘Empiricism and Mysticism in Ernst Troeltsch’s Philosophy of Religion,’ Mitteilungen der Ernst-Troeltsch-Gesellschaft 13 (2000), 48–65. For a contextualization and conceptualization of Troeltsch’s concept of mysticism, see Arie L. Molendijk, ‘Bewußte Mystik: Zur grundlegenden Bedeutung des Mystikbegriffs im Werk von Ernst Troeltsch,’ Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 41/1 (1999), 39–61.
114.
See Johannes Zachhuber, ‘Mysticism as a Social-Type of Christianity,’ in Exploring Lost Dimensions in Christian Mysticism, 74–75. Thus, it could be argued that Troeltsch’s mysticism anticipates and augments the notion of the spiritual revolution in Paul Heelas and Linda Woodhead, The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion Is Giving Way to Spirituality (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005).
115.
Zachhuber, ‘Mysticism as a Social-Type of Christianity,’ 79–80. See also Trutz Rendtorff, ‘“Meine eigene Theologie ist spiritualistisch”: Zur Funktion der “Mystik” als Sozialform modernen Christentums,’ in Ernst Troeltschs ‘Soziallehren,’ 188.
116.
Zachhuber, ‘Mysticism as a Social-Type of Christianity,’ 74–75. The critique of secularization theory led to a re-discovery of Troeltsch’s type of mysticism. See William A. Garrett, ‘Maligned Mysticism: The Maledicted Career of Troeltsch’s Third Type,’ Sociological Analysis 36 (1975), 205–223; Karl-Fritz Daiber, ‘Mysticism: Troeltsch’s Third Type of Religious Collectivities,’ Social Compass 49/3 (2002), 329–341.
117.
SL, 850. See also NR, 22.
118.
Ibid.
119.
SL, 940.
120.
SL, 864.
121.
Ibid.
122.
SL, 858.
123.
SL, 866.
124.
SL, 858.
125.
SL, 876.
126.
SL, 968.
127.
SL, 972.
128.
SL, 864.
129.
SL, 865. In the history of theology, the distinction between ‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ church can be traced back to Augustine. It is indispensable to the ecclesiology of Martin Luther. For a succinct summary, see Ulrich Barth, ‘Sichtbare und unsichtbare Kirche,’ in Christentumstheorie, ed. Klaus Tanner (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2008), 179–230. For a Lutheran critique of this distinction, see Harald Hegstad, The Real Church: An Ecclesiology of the Visible (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2013).
130.
SL, 872.
131.
SL, 372–373.
132.
For the terminology of ‘bridging’ and ‘bonding,’ see Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000), 22–23, who refers to ‘bonding’ in order to point to the excluding effects of communities and to ‘bridging’ in order to point to the including effects of community. As Robert Wuthnow, ‘Religious Involvement and Status-Bridging Social Capital,’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41/4 (2002), 670–673, argues ‘bridging’ and ‘bonding’ have to be distinguished according to the respective point of reference. In my case, the point of reference is the identity of the community.
133.
SL, 979–980.
134.
SL, 980.
135.
Ibid. See also Molendijk, Zwischen Theologie und Soziologie, 150–151.
136.
See Pearson, Beyond Essence, 135.
137.
SL, 981.
138.
SL, 982.
139.
Ibid.
140.
SL, 982–983.
141.
For the reception of The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches, see Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, ‘Weltanschauungshistoriographie: Rezensionen zur Erstausgabe der Soziallehren,’ in Ernst Troeltschs ‘Soziallehren,’ 226–227; and Gangolf Hübinger, ‘Ernst Troeltschs Soziallehren in außertheologischer Sicht,’ in Ernst Troeltschs ‘Soziallehren,’ 230–240.
142.
Walter Bodenstein, Neige des Historismus: Ernst Troeltschs Entwicklungsgang (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1959), 207. Here, Bodenstein formulates the sharpest statement about Troeltsch’s failure. For a short summary of the reception of Troeltsch’s oeuvre in ecclesiology, see Fechtner, Volkskirche, 17–26.
143.
Pearson, Beyond Essence, 157–161, argues that, for Troeltsch, the combination of ecclesiasticism, sectarianism and mysticism can take recourse to Schleiermacher’s ecclesiology. See SK. However, even in his reading of Schleiermacher’s ecclesiology, Troeltsch neglects the fact that the ecclesiologies of ecclesiasticism, sectarianism and mysticism are—on his own account—irreconcilable. For Troeltsch’s reading of Schleiermacher, see also Fechtner, Volkskirche, 114–122. I will return to the reception of Schleiermacher’s ecclesiology by Troeltsch in the Conclusion of my study.
144.
Whether Troeltsch’s study should or should not be read as a failure depends on what Troeltsch set out to achieve. Concentrating on ecclesiology, my reading pinpointed problems in his proposal. Yet, these problems should not hide the fact that Troeltsch’s study offers a history of Christianity which is as innovative as it is instructive in its methodology. See also Pearson, Beyond Essence, 65–162.
145.
Watkins, ‘Practicing Ecclesiology,’ 30–36.
146.
Nicholas M. Healy, ‘Ecclesiology, Ethnography and God: An Interplay of Reality Descriptions,’ in Perspectives on Ecclesiology and Ethnography, ed. Pete Ward (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 182–199. The reason for his rejoinder might be that Healy’s Church, World and the Christian Life, in effect, entails elements of the blueprint ecclesiologies which it criticizes. See Mannion, Ecclesiology and Postmodernity, 36–38. Thus, I read Church, World and the Christian Life not as a critique of any normative account of ecclesiology. Rather, it cautions the ecclesiologist to be both critical and self-critical.
147.
Healy, ‘Ecclesiology, Ethnography and God,’ 188.
148.
Ibid., 187–188.
149.
Ibid., 191.
150.
See Graf, ‘Weltanschauungshistoriographie,’ 226–227.
151.
See Watkins, ‘Practicing Ecclesiology,’ 28–29.
152.
Healy, ‘Ecclesiology, Ethnography and God,’ 193.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
Ulrich Schmiedel

Authors

Ulrich Schmiedel
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schmiedel, U. (2017). Chapter 4 The Construction of Community. In: Elasticized Ecclesiology. Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40832-3_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40832-3_5
Published: 20 January 2017
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40831-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40832-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics