Suchergebnisse

Institutionen, Ideen oder Deutungsmuster lassen sich aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven erforschen. Für gewöhnlich wird vor allem die Perspektive der untersuchten Akteure analysiert. Wer als Historiker über die Sozialdemokratie, das Militär oder die Bildung in einer bestimmten Zeit arbeitet, wertet vornehmlich die Schriften, Dokumente oder Statistiken aus, die die damit verbundenen Organisationen selbst produzierten. Ähnliche Ansätze verfolgte auch die Religions- und Kirchengeschichte lange Zeit, indem sie sich auf Quellen der kirchlichen Institutionen konzentrierte, auf deren Akteure, Texte, Statistiken oder auf die Lebenswelt religiöser Gruppen. Allerdings erscheint es in modernen Gesellschaften unzureichend, Institutionen oder weltanschauliche Gruppen vornehmlich von ihrer Selbstbeschreibung her zu begreifen. Gerade Beharrungs- oder Wandlungsprozesse sind zumeist auch mit externen Veränderungen und Außendeutungen verbunden. Wer den Wandel der Sozialdemokratie, der Universitäten oder eben der Kirchen erklären will, muss die von außen an sie herangetragenen Erwartungen und Deutungen ebenfalls einbeziehen, da gerade Großorganisationen sich eher durch Außendruck bewegen.

AbstractThe article discusses the central role of the history of religion in the debate on the so-called "crisis of historicism" during the first half of the twentieth century. I argue that the seemingly marginal question of how to write the history of religion informs major debates about the writing of history and history's place in culture. Focusing on Ernst Troeltsch's On Historical and Dogmatical Method in Theology (1900) and Rudolf Bultmann's History and Eschatology (1955), I analyze how theological and historical arguments and concepts interact in their respective histories of religion. According to Troeltsch, the methods of contemporary Religionsgeschichte (history of religion) undermine not only theological dogma but also such common historicist categories as "reason," "teleology," or "essence." Bultmann, using similar methods, develops a similar critique based on the idea of "historicity," i.e. an anthropological fundament of understanding oneself historically. Here too, the simple and linear understanding of history is called into question by a decidedly religious element, namely eschatology understood as a radically different temporality. Both cases thus show how tightly religious problems, theological arguments, and historical methods are interwoven, and how much our understanding of history, religion, and their mutual relations is informed by this entanglement.

Euro-God as a Beneficent Plurality? Some approaches for a history of European religion in the 20th century Since the 1980s, general historians in the German-speaking parts of Europe have begun intensively to research the history of religion in the contemporary era. Earlier concepts such as «dechristianisation» and «secularisation» have been replaced by a new receptiveness for the formative influence of the manifold interpretations of the world and the search for life's meaning in this modern world. Astonishingly enough, this new approach to the history of religion has not led to debates about methodology. Approaches have been developed leading to a better understanding of the transformation in religion as it is affected by the specific modernity of 20th century Europe. How can historians describe the great flexibility of the symbolic languages of religion and the interplay of adaptability and formative power of religious institutions? Is there a specific pan-European development of deinstitutionalisation of religion? What role do the history of theological ideas and the theological disciplines in the history of 20th century religion play? How may the role of the Churches as the traditionally most important religious megainstitutions in European society be described? Which analytical means promise especially enlightening insights?