Ontological Implications

Chapter 3 examines the ontological implications of Troeltsch’s eschatological Absolute by considering his critique of pantheistic and monistic conceptions of the Absolute. Monism was an important philosophical force in early twentieth-century religion, popularized by writers such as Ernst Haeckel and radical preachers such as Carl Jatho. Beginning in his own lifetime, some interpreters considered Troeltsch himself a monist or even a sort of pantheist. This chapter clarifies Troeltsch’s commitment to a metaphysical dualism and transcendence by examining critiques of Troeltsch and his responses to them. It also provides an account of the theological context within which various misreadings of Troeltsch circulated.

Conclusion

In concluding this study of Troeltsch’s eschatological Absolute, two possible applications of his theology are discussed. First, Troeltsch can lead the way in working out an eschatology that is adequate for engagement with scientific research on the eventual death of the universe. Work by John Polkinghorne and Kathryn Tanner is exemplary and offers a point of contact between current work and Troeltsch’s key insights. Second, the idea of the eschatological Absolute offers a promising possibility of rapprochement between the liberal theological tradition and apocalyptic theology. Although these two traditions of modern theology are probably not fully amenable to one another, there is significant room for a recognition of common ground, and for learning to occur between them.

An Eschatology of the Absolute

Chapter 2 examines how Troeltsch “eschatologized” the Absolute in key theological texts. Troeltsch’s eschatological Absolute was a keystone to his theory of religion and was rooted in nineteenth-century idealism and romanticism. The chapter compares his notion of the Absolute with Kant’s critical project, Fichte’s post-Jena work on the Wissenschaftslehre, the work of Schelling and Hegel, and recent research on the early German romantic tradition. It then explains Troeltsch’s idea of a “chain of reasons” sought by human understanding toward a receding absolute end characterizing a uniquely modern religious mentality, as well as his idea of a “yearning” for the Absolute that is related to eschatological expectation.

Introduction

Although Troeltsch is often read as merely a voice of criticism in theology, this book argues that he makes an important constructive contribution to theology, namely, an eschatological conception of the Absolute. Two points of clarification are made in order to curtail skepticism in areas where misconceptions about Troeltsch’s theological project may arise. First, the book distinguishes Troeltsch’s critique of absoluteness in the history of religions from his idea of the Absolute itself, which is the proper focus of the current study. Second, the coherence of Troeltsch’s theological project, even into his late work on the philosophy of history and his posthumous lectures on world religions, is explained.

Epistemological Implications

Chapter 4 examines the epistemological implications of the transcendence of the Absolute. It argues that Troeltsch did not offer a unified theory of religious knowledge, but that his attempts to explain how an experience of the Absolute is possible can be collated to offer a coherent picture of his religious epistemology. The chapter first examines his account of theological agnosticism in nineteenth-century theology developing out of the work of Kant, which puts in question the nature of human knowledge of God. Troeltsch’s constructive response to this agnosticism begins with his appropriation of historical concept formation from the thought of Heinrich Rickert and his concept of the religious a priori. Troeltsch uses the term “mysticism” to explain how these logical structures of the validity of the experience of the Absolute are actualized in religious life.

From Apocalypticism to the AbsoluteTroeltsch’s Nonapocalyptic Eschatology

Chapter 1 contextualizes Troeltsch’s approach to eschatology by distinguishing his views from those of the emerging apocalyptic interpretation in New Testament studies, while also demonstrating his constructive interaction with contemporary biblical scholars. It demonstrates how a common misunderstanding of Troeltsch as being a noneschatological thinker rests upon bad readings of an isolated passage in his lectures on theology. In fact Troeltsch concurred with the new apocalyptic conception of the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth against earlier Kantian ethical conceptions of the biblical Kingdom of God, although he did reject the possibility of modern theological appropriations of apocalyptic thought. In contrast, Troeltsch advocated a nonapocalyptic eschatology. Further, he argued that a doctrine of eschatology proper was possible only once the apocalyptic expectation of divine judgment of the world had been abandoned as an object of Christian hope.