Theology Compromised: A Review by Kyle Trowbridge
(In this paper my friend Kyle Trowbridge wrote a review of the book Theology Compromised: Schleiermacher, Troeltsch, and the Possibility of a Sociological Theology. I think the theology examined in this book is greatly relevant to the work of A People’s Theology and the theological project I am up to.)
Ever since John Milbank’s Theology and Social Theory, there has been skepticism about the merits of social scientific analysis and influence into the realm of theological discourse. Born in the high liberal political, ethical, and theological era, social theory and what would become social science (political science, economics, and for the sake of this review, sociology) is at best an irritant to proper theological reflection, and, at worse, pollution. The dreams of an ‘absolute consensus, agreement in desire, and entire harmony’ are only but a dream in a world wrought by modernity, by liberalized fragmentation, pluralism, and compromise. If this is what social theory hath wrought, what good is it for theology?
Enter Matthew Robinson and Evan Kuehn’s Theology Compromised: Schleiermacher, Troeltsch, and the Possibility of a Sociological Theology. This study examines two of modernity's leading theological and sociological voices, Friedrich Schleiermacher and, most notably, Ernst Troeltsch. Specifically, the book argues that, under the conditions of modernity, the critical approach offered by both Schleiermacher and Troeltsch opens up the possibilities for doing a sociological account of theology. This approach should not be left behind as liberal pollution or irritants. Instead, Robinson and Kuehn argue that Schleiermacher and Troeltsch offer opportunities for theological discourse to understand “the nature and limits of the production and exchange of “theological” knowledge” both in the broader world of globalization and inside of pluralistic and fragmented political and social orders. Likewise, Robinson and Kuehn ask how the implications of sociology in theological reflection shape the nature of doctrine. Both of these are of the same piece, indicating how theological reflection is always about the on-the-ground problems, lives, and experiences of the individuals and communities who respond to the events surrounding them.
Part one of the book traces the lineage of Schleiermacher through Troeltsch, by way of reading Troeltsch’s reception of Schleiermacher in Troeltsch’s essay “Schleiermacher and the Church,” which has been newly translated into English by Robinson. Chapter one traces nineteenth-century theology as a response to political and social upheavals. Kuehn and Robinson start this section off underscoring that what they’re after isn’t a genealogy of theological ideas. The focus here is how theology presses into social questions and offers "a practical response to social upheavals and challenges." Given the mutual recognition of both theology and social practices, what comes forth is a communicative practice of the nature of doctrine. Doctrine, for Robinson and Kuehn, is about solving problems, and solving problems requires an art (or science) of compromise. Enter Ernst Troeltsch.
Over the next three chapters, by far the meat of the book, Robinson and Kuehn trace the influence of Ernst Troeltsch on the modern theological project: how Troeltch understands the church, Troeltsch’s theory of compromise, and how compromise functions politically and socially. Echoing Kathryn Tanner's 'self-critical cultures,' Kuehn and Robinson argue that Troeltsch’s understanding of ecclesiology as dialogical. Churches are not only in conversation with themselves; they are in constant dialogue with social conditions. In a Troeltschian vein, then, the church has internal and external dialogue partners. This porousness of these boundaries allows the church to possibly re-evaluate itself in light of this dialogue. Part of the exchange is within the history of the church itself. Troeltsch, Robinson and Kuehn show, is aware that lasting churches form in times when the truth is clearly expressed and institutionalized. However, that does not preclude the church from addressing individual concerns, reevaluate forms of practice and understanding, and the social forces outside of the church walls. Compromise – in this way – is merely doing church. To think ecclesiastically in the Troeltchian vein, like thinking theologically, in the way Kuehn and Robinson articulate, is about solving problems.
Chapter four addresses Troeltsch’s theory of compromise. As before, the weight and pressure of observing, describing, and discussing how emerging social patterns press down on theology is the question Troeltsch is after. If you take it as true that a multitude of factors marks religious life, and that these factors shape how congregants and congregations communicate and negotiate with the world, you’re doing theology with Troeltsch. These factors compromise the theological task. Robinson and Kuehn quote Troeltsch, “the hardest feature of the human condition is that the purity of the ideal is never fully practicable.” As Troeltsch makes clear, the history of Christianity is bound up in compromises about itself, its doctrines, and its commitments. This doesn’t mean that truth or ideals are thwarted or tossed aside. Communicating in theology on the ground means making temporary compromises along the way. Compromise is then the conditioned possibility for any Christian idea. No mere relativist, Troeltsch’s historicity, and his theological of compromise open the door for the pluralism of different cultural value commitments. This development is, again, contingent, and compromised. As a fact of human life, compromise is part of the practices and choices we make. It helps us identify who we are, what institutions we belong to, what we’ve inherited, and what we would like them to become. But these are determined by our complicated and compromised lives. It is not determined teleologically, as if we are on some march of history outside of the choices we make. Compromise involves failure and frailty, or what Eddie Glaude might say as a “sense of the blues.” For Troeltsch, as Robinson and Kuehn stress throughout, compromise involves putting our frailty and our ideals into dialogue with each other. Compromise is how we get to the business of solving theological, ecclesiastical issues, as well as political and ethical problems.
Chapter five outlines whom Troeltsch’s theology of compromise works in the political and ethical sphere. As Robinson and Kuehn articulate in chapter three, to argue for political compromise is not a very popular position, at least as far as political rhetoric or campaigning is concerned. However, if theological and ecclesial thinking is fraught with compromise from the jump, if we govern theological reflection by compromise, Robinson and Kuehn argue, following Troeltsch, so too are Christian political ethics. In a 1904 essay “Political Ethics and Christianity” nicely summarized by Robinson and Kuehn, Troeltsch outlines four possibilities for construing a Christian political ethic: a constitutional ethic, a nationalistic ethic, and a democratic and a conservative ethic. Only two, the democratic and the conservative ethic, Troeltsch argues, are true political ethics. The democratic ethic is recognized because of its commitment to “equal participation and responsibility in society” that drives from an understanding of the moral worth of the individual, including, as Troeltsch says, “the conduct of officials and police toward the people.” Juxtaposing the conservative ethic to the democratic as the political ethic that stresses the authority of inherited institutions and, much perhaps to the chagrin of listeners of this podcast, relationships of power. However, existing institutions are never good insofar as they exist; and no promise of continued relevance or permanence. Their importance comes from their moral substance and whether they work for the common good. The Christian ethic values and affirms the absolute value of individuals and groups, while recognizing their non-perfectability – that the work of politics is fraught with “unavoidable limitations.” The pinch of political life happens in the compromise between these two poles. And so the compromise, or the pinch, of the Christian political commitment occurs in the dialogue between these two positions. An exchange that is never settled or final.
In the last two chapters, Robinson and Kuehn bring Troeltsch’s method into conversation with two contemporary thinkers: Hans Joas and Nicholas Luhmann. Joas uses Troeltsch’s method for his work on the sacredness of persons, this historical genesis of values, and the transcendent as a sociological concept. Luhmann’s work focuses on how language and communication of religious communities are conditioned and worked in modernity. Both provide different ways of thinking about Troeltchian political ethics. Though not conservative, Luhmann’s communicative approach sheds light on the contingent and institutional limitations of speech – how and why it works and when it doesn’t – under the effects of pluralism and modern political life. For both Luhmann and Troeltsch, Robinson and Kuehn explain, the task of internal ecclesiastical compromise are not moments of compromise with “the bogey of the world, and so the question doesn't revolve around a realist's “this is how the world works.” Instead, it's about asking ourselves what dialogues and compromises must be made to understand each new moment. Only then will the community begin to understand itself better, and the values it wishes to express.
For a small book, this book packs a punch. The chapters are thorough and instructive, and the translation work at the end of the book is a fantastic resource for Troeltsch and Schleiermacher scholars. However, the book is not for a lay audience. The book is more geared towards theologians, intellectual historians, and sociologists of religion. Theology Compromised gives us a window into how theologians or those interested in theology can use and think with the tools of social theory and science to push theological debate and ecclesiastical conditions forward. Compromise, for Robinson and Kuehn, as well as Troeltsch, is never about giving up on ideals. Rather, it is about how to think through those ideals in history, in each moment. If we want to speak prophetically about any given situation, or, perhaps, to understand our situation better, we would do well to understand our limitations, our boundedness, and our compromised location(s). Robinson and Kuehn give us a resource to do just that. If we want to understand better the business of doing theology in this world, under our current conditions, Robinson, Kuehn, and Troeltsch are necessary to that conversation.