Theological work, whatever else it may be, is always reflection on social transformations. Not only pastors but also theologians work with the sources of the Christian traditions in one hand and a newspaper in the other. But how are we to understand the relationship between social transformations and the continuously “compromised” development of Christian ideals, as these are measured by doctrinal formulations? And how might a more deeply sociological perspective on this relationship inform theological work? Matthew Ryan Robinson and Evan F. Kuehn approach this question, not by reconstructing a history of ideas, but rather by telling a story about the development of churches and theological institutions. They take the turbulent and dynamic ecclesiological situation of nineteenth-century Germany as a representative case, focusing on the sociological methodological orientation of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Ernst Troeltsch in the context of the rise of theological liberalism, the history of religions, and the German churches’ confrontation with social and political challenges. . Robinson and Kuehn then connect this orientation with the sociology of religion of Hans Joas and Niklas Luhmann, arguing for a functional focus in theological research on what doctrines do rather than what the reality behind or in any particular doctrine is.

Ernst Troeltsch is widely recognized as having played an important role in the development of modern Protestant theology, but his contribution is usually understood as largely critical of traditional modes of theological inquiry. He is best known for his historicist critique of dogmatic theology, and seen either as the closing chapter of nineteenth-century liberalism, or as a proto-postmodernist. Central to this pivotal period in modern theology stands the problem: how can we articulate a doctrine of ultimate reality such that a meaningful and coherent account of the world is available without our understanding of God thereby becoming conditioned by the world itself? Evan Kuehn demonstrates that historiographical assumptions about twentieth-century religious thought have obscured the coherence and relevance of Troeltsch's understanding of God, history, and eschatology. An eschatological understanding of the Absolute, Kuehn contends, stands at the heart of Troeltsch's theology and the problem of historicism with which it is faced. Troeltsch's eschatological Absolute must be understood in the context of questions that were being raised at the turn of the twentieth century both by research on New Testament apocalypticism, and by modern critical methodologies in the historical sciences. His theory of the Absolute is central to his views on religion and religious ethics and provides practitioners of constructive studies in religion with important resources for engaging with sociological and historical studies, where Troeltsch's status as a classical figure is widely recognized.