Search

This article provides an English translation of Ernst Troeltsch's 1907 essay titled "Prädestination" in its entirety, accompanied by a concise introduction to Troeltsch's articulation of the doctrine of predestination and the salient features of the article. Readers can also trace adaptations between the 1907 and 1913 version of "Prädestination" via the footnotes. This translation provides Anglophone readers access to the only essay in which Troeltsch addresses the question of predestination directly. Significantly, predestination provides the foundation to his understanding of that which drives the development of all of history and therefore is crucial to understanding his thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study examines for the first time Ernst Troeltsch's discussion of Johann Salomo Semler and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in the reviews and criticisms and thus makes a contribution to the historicization of his Enlightenment interpretation and his reflective historicism. The analyzed reviews show Troeltsch as an intimate connoisseur of the 18th century history of theology, who did not let his differentiated concept of modernity become one-sided in contemporary diagnostic interest, but developed it in a critical examination of cultural-historical Enlightenment research. The analysis shows in an exemplary way how Troeltsch critically and in his own language makes historical sources and literary studies his own, in order to locate himself in the analyzed cultural-historical overall picture with this appropriation. An in-depth section highlights the reflection of his review work in the different text versions of his Kant and Protestantism studies, including insightful handwritten notes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Schleiermacher's work on church history was neglected in research for a long time. In a critical examination of the common assessment of Schleiermacher as a comparatively conservative church historian, the study shows to what extent he adopts an Enlightenment category of thought with the concept of progress. In addition, the importance of this appropriation in the historicalphilosophical debate of the 20th century as well as in the more recent debate on church history is asked. It shows that although Schleiermacher's concept of progress in church history can hardly claim direct normative validity today, there is a remarkable tradition of critical reflection on its opportunities and limitations, the processing of which can serve the constructive self-historicization of contemporary theology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In diesem Aufsatz wird den Enfluss der steigenden kulturellen Autorität des naturwissenschaften Erkenntnisses auf die Entwicklung der deutschen evangelishen Theologie im Laufe des 19. Jahrunderts untersucht mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Albrecht Ritschl und seine theologische Nachfolger, Wilhelm Herrmann, Ernst Troeltsch, und Rudolf Otto. Dieser Einfluss besteht nicht in erster Linie in den direkten Antworten dieser Theologen auf die Behauptungen der Vertreter verschiedener nicht-theistischen Weltanschuungen, sondern vielmehr in der Übernahme philosophischer Begriffe und Argumentationsmittel, die ihre eigenen theologischen Programme unterschiedlich geformt haben. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Among the alternatives to contemporary capitalism being explored today, intentional communities merit particular attention. While German sociologist Max Weber is one of the most original theorists of community, his work has been used very unevenly in the analysis of intentional communities. However, a Weberian point of view on this subject can be developed. This article begins by discussing the status of communities in Weber's writings, and goes on to make note of the very meagre use of these references in North American sociological work on intentional communities. Examining some foundational research carried out in France during the 1970s and 1980s, as well as the results of a survey conducted in North American intentional communities, the article deploys a Weberian sociology of religious institutions to broaden the scope of the analysis of community utopias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a review of the new edition of Ernst Troeltsch's Soziallehren in the Ernst Troeltsch Kritische Gesamtausgabe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Friedrich von Hügel is justifiably regarded as one of the leading philosophers of religion of the twentieth century. He was born of a German- Austrian father and a Scottish mother and spent most of his life in England. He was fluent in four languages and corresponded with scholars from a half dozen European countries. Educated at home he became a famous philosopher and was granted honorary degrees from St. Andrews and Oxford and was chosen to give the Gifford Lectures. While he is remembered for an extraordinary book on mysticism, he wrote on many other aspects of philosophy. He was close to a number of scholars who at first glance seemed rather different from him – especially the German Protestant Ernst Troeltsch and the Scottish philosopher Norman Kemp Smith. It is through his connections with them and by his works that one can gain an understanding of von Hügel's philosophy. His philosophy was often focused on religion but it was expansive enough to incorporate epistemology, ethics, and even metaphysics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the influence of German thought on Baron Friedrich von Hügel's philosophy of religion. It mentions activities of the British scholar in the networks of Catholic modernism are placed within the broader framework of the international discussion on religion around 1900. It also mentions religious universalism was shaped to a great extent by the encounter of German intellectuals from a liberal Protestant background.

On September 12, 1949, the liberal politician Theodor Heuss, party leader of the „Freie Demokratische Partei" (FDP), was elected by the Bundesversammlung (Federal Convention) as the first Bundespräsident, i. e. head of state, of the newly founded Bundesrepublik Deutschland. As a young man Heuss had been a close friend and political ally of Friedrich Naumann, the protestant pastor and left wing liberal politician, supported by Ernst Troeltsch. Heuss then working as a political journalist for liberal newspapers and Naumann's weekly journal Die Hilfe, was an admirer of Troeltsch, and since 1910 they often met in Heidelberg, at Villa Fallenstein, Ziegelhäuser Landstraße 17, where Max and Marianne Weber as well als the Troeltschs lived; Heuss frequently visited Max Weber's Sunday jour fixe. When in 1915 Troeltsch became a professor at the Philosophical Faculty of Berlin University Heuss regularly kept in contact with him especially through Hans Delbrück's „Mittwochabend", a weekly gathering of liberal intellectuals, professors, politicians and journalists discussing political reforms and the ongoing war. Both Troeltsch and Heuss, 19 years younger, demanded the democratization of the Deutsches Reich, and after the end of the war and the revolution of 1918/19 they became members of the newly founded left wing liberal party „Deutsche Demokratische Partei" (DDP). After Troeltsch's sudden death on February 1st, 1923, Heuss wrote an obituary, and, together with his wife Elly Heuss-Knapp, attended the funeral service conducted by Adolf von Harnack. Heuss was a member of the „Demokratischer Klub Berlin", founded in 1919 by liberal politicians, bankers and academics to regularly discuss the political situation of the new democratic state, the Weimar Republic. Unknown until now, seven weeks after Troeltsch's death the „Demokratische Klub" invited its members (the club only had male mebers!) to a memorial act for Troeltsch. On this occasion Heuss delivered a speech „Zu Ernst Troeltschs Gedächtnis" („To the Memory of Ernst Troeltsch") which is published here for the first time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Late modernity has witnessed a growing semantic shift from "religion" to "spirituality." In this article, I argue what underlies this shift is a cultural structure I call the religion of the heart. I begin with an explication of what I mean by the "religion of the heart," and draw on the work of Ernst Troeltsch and Colin Campbell to identify what I take to be its historical antecedents. Second, I analyze the ambiguous relationships fostered between the religion of the heart and the discourses of science and religion, respectively, in late modernity. I illuminate how the social conditions of late modernity undermine or challenge what we conventionally think of as scientific and religious authorities, while at the same time creating existential needs that the religion of the heart is well adapted to meet. I conclude with a brief discussion of the implications of this process, especially as it relates to the sustainability of science and religion, as independent enterprises, in the twenty‐first century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article introduces various topics covered in the issue including dissertation on theologian Ernst Troeltsch's work, the importance of historical thinking for Troeltsch, and an essay tited "Basic Problems of Ethics".

Die University of Tokyo hatte mich zu einem Vortrag über die im Rahmen der Kritischen Gesamtausgabe als Band 9 (in drei Teilbänden) erscheinende Neuausgabe von Ernst Troeltschs "Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen" eingeladen. Das mir vorgegebene Thema lautete: "The Significance of Troeltsch's Soziallehren for the Present"'. Im ersten Teil skizziere ich die Genese von Troeltschs christentumshistorischem Hauptwerk. Im zweiten Teil geht es um die zentralen Themen seines "Lieblingsbuches". Im dritten Teil werden einige seiner handschriftlichen Zusätze und Marginalien kurz vorgestellt, die die 2020 erscheinende Kritische Ausgabe der "Soziallehren" erstmals zugänglich macht. Abschließend entfalte ich eine Antwort auf die Frage, warum es sich auch heute noch lohnt, Ernst Troeltsch zu lesen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1915 ist Ernst Troeltsch nach Berlin gezogen, wo er Professor für Philosophie wurde. Sein Wechsel aus der Heidelberger Theologischen Fakultät in die Philosophische Fakultät der Berliner Universität und sein zunehmendes Interesse am Historismus hat ihn nicht daran gehindert, theologische Studien fortzuführen. Ein Ergebnis dieser Studien war eine noch in Heidelberg geschriebene detaillierte Untersuchung über Augustins Theologie und im besonderen über De Civitate Dei. Troeltsch hat diese Studie unternommen, um zum einen eine Lücke in seinen Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen zu füllen und zum anderen wegen seinem zunehmenden Interesse an Augustins Philosophie. Das Ergebnis dieser Untersuchung ist Troeltschs Buch Augustin, die christliche Antike und das Mittelalter. Dieses Buch ist aus vielen Gründen ein bemerkenswertes Werk, unter anderem, weil es eine objektive und eine prägnante Untersuchung über Ethik und Naturgesetz darstellt. Troeltschs Buch über Augustin ist sehr wichtig zu untersuchen, aber genauso wichtig ist der Prozess, der ihn dazu geführt, es zu schreiben. Dabei handelt es sich um mehrere Rezensionen, die Troeltsch über Bücher zu Augustins Theologie, Ethik und politischer Philosophie geschrieben hat. Indem wir Troeltschs Rezensionen und sein Buch Augustin studieren, lernen wir nicht nur, was in seiner Sicht besonders wertvoll sei in den Schriften des großen Kirchenvaters, sondern wir lernen auch Troeltschs eigenes Denken zu Ethik, Geschichte und sogar Politik besser kennen. By 1915 Ernst Troeltsch had moved to Berlin where he became professor of philosophy. His move from the Faculty of Theology to philosophy and his increasing concern with historicism did not hinder him from continuing with his theological studies. One of the results of these studies was his detailed investigation of Augustine's theology and he focused specifically on de Civitate Dei. Troeltsch undertook this study partially to rectify an omission in his Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen and partially because of his increasing interest in Augustine's philosophy. The result of this study was Troeltsch's book Augustin, die christliche Antike und das Mittelalter. This is a remarkable work for many reasons, including that it was an objective and appreciative investigations on ethics and natural law – and it was written by a prominent Protestant theologian. However, this book has been mostly neglected which is unfortunate. Troeltsch's book on Augustine is well-worth exploring but so is the process which led him to write it. That entails consulting the numerous reviews that Troeltsch wrote about a number of books devoted to certain aspects of Augustine's theology, ethics, and political philosophy. By studying Troeltsch's book reviews and his Augustin, we not only learn what Troeltsch regarded as so valuable in the writings of this particular Church Father, but we also learn about Troeltsch's own thinking about ethics, history, and even politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rising popularity of the "spiritual but not religious" moniker across Canada and the West more generally has confounded scholars and laypersons alike. Against those who view the discursive shift from "religion" to "spirituality" in the twenty-first century as evidence of the incoherence of the contemporary spiritual landscape, I argue that, despite its apparent diversity, much of what goes by "spirituality" among this cohort exhibits striking uniformity in its basic structure. The implicit argument, then, is that observers who decry the fuzziness and indeterminacy of spirituality have focused too much on superficial differences at the expense of underlying similarities. In short, they have missed the forest for the trees. I begin by placing the rise of the spiritual but not religious in historical context. In this task, I follow philosopher Charles Taylor, whose insights into the massive subjective turn of modern culture have rarely been surpassed. I then outline the basic characteristics of the spiritual framework underlying the shift from religion to spirituality—what I call "self-spirituality." Drawing from my qualitative research with Canadian millennials, I seek to locate self-spirituality within the current social and political landscape. Finally, in locating self-spirituality within a particular religious tradition, I turn to the social thought of Ernst Troeltsch, whose perceptive observations, made at the outset of the twentieth century, remain invaluable for making sense of recent religious developments. As we shall see, in light of Troeltsch's insights, the rise of the spiritual but not religious looks quite different from what many have imagined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many ecclesiologists assume that pluralisation is a problem for churches. By drawing on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s reception of Ernst Troeltsch, however, the author argues that pluralisation is instead a promise. Portraits which paint Bonhoeffer as ‘alternative’ to Troeltsch (and Troeltsch as ‘alternative’ to Bonhoeffer) have been proposed persistently. But in the ecclesiological explorations which Bonhoeffer elaborated in the 1920s and in the 1940s, Troeltsch’s impact on Bonhoeffer is neither simply negative nor simply positive – and should not be underestimated. The author aims to demonstrate that Bonhoeffer develops the ecclesiology which Troeltsch demanded in critical and creative discussion with him. Since it suggests that experiences of the other allow for encounters with God as much as encounters with God allow for experiences of the other, this ecclesiology provokes a re-thinking of pluralisation which might be important and instructive for the church in its current pluralised and pluralising contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that realist invocations of Weber rely on an unrealistic reading of Weber's realism. In order to escape the allure of Weber's dramatic posture of crisis, we place his seminal lecture on 'Politics as a Vocation' (1919) in its historical and philosophical context of a revolutionary conjuncture of dramatic proportions, compounded by a broader crisis of historicism. Weber's rhetoric, we argue, carries with it not only the emotion of crisis but is also the expression of a deeper intellectual impasse. The fatalistic despair of his position had already been detected by some of his closest contemporaries for whom Weber did not appear as a door-opener to a historically situated theory of political action but as a telling and intriguing impasse. Although the disastrous history of interwar Europe seems to confirm Weber's bleakest predictions, it would be perverse to elevate contingent failure to the level of retrospective vindication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of different studies carried out in the late 20th century indicated that new religious movements (NRMs) tended to recruit individuals who were highly educated. In the present study, we confirm this pattern utilizing data from the national censuses of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England, and Wales. Additionally, we found that educational patterns for NRMs in the censuses tended to fall into at least two subgroups, one of which had educational levels comparable to mainline denominations and the other of which had significantly higher educational achievements. Furthermore, census respondents who expressed some variety of nonbelief were comparable to this latter group in terms of educational accomplishments. We discuss this latter finding in terms of Ernst Troeltsch and Colin Campbell's analysis of secularization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Folgt man den Theologen der Krise um Karl Barth, dann zeigt das Manifest An die Kulturwelt von 1914, dass eine Historisierung des Gottesbegriffs zur theologischen Unterstützung von Imperialismus und Militarismus führt. Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923) galt und gilt als der Theologe des Historismus. Obwohl er das Manifest nicht unterschrieben hat, wirft es seinen langen Schatten auch auf Troeltschs Bestimmung(en) des Gottesgedankens. Ausgehend von einer Analyse ausgewählter Kriegs- und Nachkriegsschriften Troeltschs argumentiere ich, dass Troeltsch eine politische Theologie formuliert, die kulturellem Relativismus wie kulturellem Absolutismus entgegenwirken kann, gerade weil sie den Gottesgedanken historisiert. Troeltschs Historisierung des Gottesgedankens verhindert, dass Gott für die Zwecke dieser oder jener Kultur instrumentalisiert werden kann. Seine politische Theologie kulminiert in der Begriffsbestimmung des Europäismus, auf dessen Potential für die intra- und die interkulturelle Kommunikation im heutigen Europa ich abschließend zu sprechen komme. Um dieses Potential zu nutzen, muss man aber die Theologie(n) beleuchten, auf die das Manifest seinen Schatten geworfen hat. For theologians such as Karl Barth the support for Germany's militaristic ambitions and actions voiced in the manifesto An die Kulturwelt, published in 1914, was a consequence of the historicization of theology. Ernst Troeltsch (1865- 1923), whose interdisciplinary thinking revolved around the significance of history for theology, was labeled the theologian of historicism. Although he had not signed the manifesto, it continues to throw a smokescreen over Troeltsch's theology. Examining a selection of both his war writings and his post-war writings, I argue that Troeltsch conceptualized a political theology which led him to turn from a clash of cultures to a conversation of cultures. Troeltsch's historicization of the concept of God allowed him to resist cultural relativism as well as cultural absolutism. Culminating in the concept of 'Europeanism (Europäismus)', Troeltsch's political theology is instructive for a variety of intra- and inter-cultural conversations in Europe today. But in order to unlock its potential, the smokescreen which the manifesto has thrown over Troeltsch's theology needs to be lifted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that Hermann Cohen's methodology for the study of Judaism and the biblical text is based upon his understanding of prophetic Eigenart and the prophetic ideas of morality, monotheism, and mission. In doing so, this article looks at Cohen's critiques of prophetic scholarship in the work of Alfred Bertholet and Ernst Troeltsch, as these scholars represent for Cohen the highest and the lowest points of prophetic scholarship respectively, and illustrate how prophetic and biblical scholarship are connected to the ideals of society and academia in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch constructed their theoretical frameworks in debate with historical materialism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels provided Weber and Troeltsch with the tools of base/superstructure and class analysis that they employed in their analysis of religion. The article places Weber and Troeltsch in the historical context of the rise of the Social Democratic Party and its splintering during World War I. It compares the writing on religion by Engels, Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky with those of Weber and Troeltsch. It focuses on Ancient Judaism, the origins of Christianity, Christian heretical sects, the Reformation, the German Peasant Wars, and the Puritan Revolution. Some points in common are the origins of communism in Judaism and Christianity and the association between Protestantism and capitalism. This article shows how Weber and Troeltsch critically appropriated from historical materialism and uses this with the intent of constructing a critical sociology of religion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ernst Troeltsch and Heikki Räisänen have raised significant challenges to the way New Testament theology handles the relation of history and theology. Troeltsch pushed Christian scholars to apply the historical method's three principles of criticism, analogy and correlation consistently to their work and thus embrace empiricism. Räisänen continues this trajectory by splitting New Testament theology into its descriptive and reflective tasks, resulting in a programme which questions the unity of the canon, the appropriateness of prescription and the role of church authority in New Testament theology. With these challenges in mind, this article examines four recent New Testament theologies to see how they use the historical method. It finds that these works exhibit different ad hoc ways of using the historical method, picking it up and setting it down at will. Peter Balla accepts New Testament theology as descriptive and historical while claiming it can also be theological by studying the content in the New Testament. Despite this embrace of the historical method, Balla remains uncomfortable with bare empiricism and pushes back on its naturalism. Georg Strecker splits the world into two: one part which can be investigated by the historical method and another part which lies outside its normal subject matter. The result is that he uses the historical method everywhere except where his main theological concern lies – Jesus’ resurrection. I. Howard Marshall similarly holds the historical method to be necessary for New Testament theology but largely ignores it in light of narrative-theological concerns. Frank Matera takes a purposefully literary approach to New Testament theology and generally ignores the historical method. He does invoke it, however, when the text becomes difficult and alternative readings must be found. The methodological inconsistency demonstrated by these New Testament theologies leads the article to conclude that this type of historical New Testament theology is a failed enterprise. A theological understanding of history based on work by Murray Rae is then proposed as an alternative which allows for methodological consistency in synthetic work on the New Testament. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both Protestant theologians and 'preference' economists believe that freedom is necessary for moral action, but such theologians and economists have seemingly irreconcilable accounts of freedom and, thus also, morality. Instead of learning from each other, they typically ignore each other or claim that one field reigns supreme over the other. This essay digs into the theological and economic traditions of each side to find points of similarity between them. It engages Adam Smith and Ernst Troeltsch to develop a view of 'ethical freedom' that pulls together the 'libertarian freedom' emphasized by preference economics and the 'egalitarian freedom' emphasized in much Protestant theology. The three-part view of freedom draws the disciplines together and opens possibilities for a more robust theory of moral action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In large part, Max Weber’s essay ‘Church and sect in America’ was intended as a contrast between European and American societies at the turn of the 20th century. This could be pushed so far as to say that in fact the essay was not about religions at all but rather about the relationship between an old-order class system and a new-order class system in which sectarian religion provided a conduit to validate worldly success (i.e. the Protestant ethic), which directly contrasted with the institutional ‘style’ of the established churches of Europe, into whose membership one was born and through whose structures (e.g. church schools, including the universities) one’s social position was established. ‘Church,’ then, is in some respects a residual category for Weber, more of a background that would enable him to foreground what he saw as a new basis for ordering class/status within the new world. Over time, denominationalism in America hybridized churchly and sectarian elements to create a new socio-religious dynamic by which a central core of ‘nonsectarian’ religious affirmations created a variant mode of religious participation in which multiple religious options served functions historically associated with national churches in Europe. Postmodern globalization, however, has created new opportunities and challenges as institutionalized religions reach beyond historic geopolitical borders. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Jean Seguy’s (1925–2007) research followed two intertwined paths. The principal path was that of methodology: his research on the history of Christianity was conducted within the framework of the sociology of Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch. The French social historian was also interested in apocalyptic and utopian phenomena, both on the Catholic and on the Reformation side, with the intention of grasping the similarities between them, if not their common roots. The result is an innovative reading of Christian history, with an original methodology in the French context. Séguy’s work continues to question the historiography of Christianity in both its cognitive and methodological contributions, and as a result our understanding of the classics of modern sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the relationship between the preaching of the one gospel of Jesus Christ and the different images of Jesus in the New Testament. After briefly reviewing recent debates about the ‚historical Jesus' and referring to methodological challenges in current historical and theological approaches to Jesus, the article points to the concept of ‚Übergeschichte' developed by the German biblical and systematic theologian Martin Kähler (1832-1912). His well known distinction between the ‚historische Jesus' and the ‚geschichtliche, biblische Christus' was an attempt to hold together the earthly life of Jesus and the transcendental significance of the ‚Jesus-Christus- Geschichte' as a whole. With his concept of ‚Übergeschichte' Kähler did not want to dismiss any historical research on Jesus. Rather, he intended to interconnect the universal and time-independent truth of Christian faith as part of God's revelation with the historical singularity of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ ascertainable by historical methods. The second half of the article applies this approach to several parts of the Sermon on the Mount. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Once in 1997, in a lecture on 'L'avenir des religions en dialogue', at the Church of St Paul in Strasbourg, Paul Ricoeur argued that Islam could not really take part in debates on modernity. Maybe he simply meant that Islam as a whole had not yet been worked upon by modernity, that it did not 'think' itself in modernity yet. This statement, which is certainly not to be understood as an exclusion of Islam, is indeed interesting from a philosopher of modernity who saw in the Weberian approach of history an 'anti-Hegelian solution'. This recalls how the great German philosopher handled Islam, which he undoubtedly admired, but which he also relegated to Oriental quietism. For Hegel, Islam vacated active history along with its 'progress' towards the fulfilment of the Idea of Liberty. In other words, modernity would henceforth proceed without Islam. Indeed, Max Weber did not really think about the situation of Islam in modernity, nor as an actor in modernity. At that time, much of the Muslim world was under European domination, and the army of the Ottoman empire itself was under the control of German experts. The Muslim Caliphate had moreover no other importance other than that with regard to Germany's Mitteleuropa policy. The other European powers that were to dismember the Ottoman empire were already 'Islamic powers', as can be read in Becker on the French colonial empire. Weber certainly witnessed the storm in the teacup echoed by his fellow countryman Becker and the Dutchman Snouck Hurgronje about the Ottoman Shayhẖ al-islām's call to holy war. But he did not envisage the disappearance of the Caesaropapism and its consequences for Islam as a whole and, especially, for the Islamic Church, which was his focus of interest. What interests us here is that Weber, who underlined the linkage between the configuration of modern capitalism and Christian movements stemming from the Reformation, sometimes presents Islam as the antithesis of this modernity. Yet we speak at the moment of a kind of Islamic 'protestantisation', to mark the adaptation of the Islamic ethic to the spirit of modern globalized capitalism. But what is perhaps much more interesting is that Weber had already anticipated what we can call the 'Protestant' content of Islam. This of course predated Protestantism and is not central to today's considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The social reform, theological and political backgrounds of R.H. Tawney and Max Weber are compared. These background influences are traced in respect to Religion and the Rise of Capitalism and The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Troeltsch's account of Protestantism and progress is considered. Weber's view of Puritanism and capitalism is considered as particularistic in terms of validity even though modern capitalism would seem to be universalizable. In contrast, Troeltsch and Tawney are seen as arguing for a more universal image of Protestantism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent writing in social theory has seen a renewed preoccupation with questions of religion, secularization and civilizational difference. This article reappraises the work of one early twentieth-century thinker in relation to these issues: the German historical theologian and close colleague of Max Weber, Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923). The article concentrates particularly on Troeltsch's late writings on Europe and 'Europeanism'. The thesis is defended that Troeltsch offers an important gloss on Weber's famous assertion of the `universal significance and validity' of occidental rationalism. Troeltsch offers a thicker, more concretized reading of Weber's statement that serves as a precursor to contemporary thinking about 'multiple modernities' and also as a fund of trenchant counter-responses to the claims of recent post-colonial critics about Eurocentrism in western social science. Troeltsch's writings give us one example among many of a current of cosmopolitan reflexivity in European social thought between the wars that avoided both nationalism and chauvinism, on the one hand, and nihilism and obscurantism, on the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]