Volume 22, Issue 2

This paper discusses the Anglican reaction to the so-called “Appeal to the Civilised World” of October 1914 in its broader context. After briefly outlining the direct response to the Appeal it then goes on to discuss the prevailing perception of Germany by English theologians as well as the complex relationship of English theology to German liberalism. It moves on to discuss the aftermath of the inter-denominational Kikuyu Missionary Conference which had taken place in 1913. This had divided the Anglican Communion since Anglo-Catholics, led by Frank Weston, Bishop of Zanzibar, disapproved of intercommunion with nonepiscopal churches. After the outbreak of war, there were calls from Germany for unity in the mission field since Christian nations could not be seen to be at war with one another. Anglo-Catholic opposition to Kikuyu was coupled with a long-standing anti-liberalism which soon became fiercely anti-German in its rhetoric. Somewhat unwittingly the primitive German and English propaganda machines helped seal the fate of liberal theology into the next generation on account of its “Made in Germany” origins.

From von Harnack’s speech-writing for Kaiser Wilhelm II to the ‘Manifesto of the Ninety-Three’, theologians played an important role in justifying the defence of Kultur in the early stages of the First World War. This paper uses the war-pamphlet collection of William Sanday in the library of The Queen’s College to explore how English - and particularly Oxford - theologians responded to, and publically justified, British involvement in the war. Asserting that Oxford theologians were hesitantly nationalist by comparison with their German colleagues, this paper suggests that this dissimilarity cannot be explained purely by reference to the intellectual - some said, Nietzschean - arrogance of German theological liberals. Rather, the more cautious relationship of theologians in Britain to political and wider ecclesiastical discourse can, to some degree, be viewed through the lens of significant institutional differences between German and British theological faculties at the outbreak of the war.

Der Aufsatz geht von Adolf von Harnacks Unterschrift unter den “Aufruf an die Kulturwelt” vom 4. Oktober 1914 aus und beleuchtet seine Haltung zum Ersten Weltkrieg in den Jahren 1914/1915. Dabei deuten zwei bisher in ihrer Gesamtheit unpublizierte Briefe des Theologen an den politischen Publizisten und “Rassetheoretiker” Houston Stewart Chamberlain einerseits sowie an Kaiser Wilhelm II. andererseits darauf hin, dass Harnacks anfängliche Kriegsbegeisterung nicht allein durch das “Augusterlebnis” zu erklären ist, sondern in seinem politischen Denken zu Kriegsbeginn verwurzelt ist. Eine vergleichende Darstellung dieses Denkens bei Chamberlain und Harnack lässt strukturelle Ähnlichkeiten erkennen, die erklären können, wieso der Kirchenhistoriker sich in dieser Zeit von den Pamphleten des Bayreuther Publizisten so angezogen fühlte, dass er sie dem Kaiser zur Lektüre empfahl. Dabei wird auch deutlich, dass sich Harnack zeitweise völkischem Denken annäherte. Eine Edition der beiden Briefe schließt den Aufsatz ab.

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.

In 1980 I met Margot Hahl, a very close friend of Paul Tillich especially in his years as Privatdozent in Berlin. She told me a lot about their friendship and described his character to me. She explained the way he lived, and she gave me several letters Paul and Hannah had written to her. One of the documents she showed and gave me is a long letter written by herself to Hannah in December 1966. It is being published here with an introduction that describes the complex relationship between Margot Hahl and the Tillichs.