Lay Theologians as Experts in the Early Modern Period

Abstract

In the Early Modern period, many professions, including theology, did not yet have systems to validate expertise. Some laypeople were able to acquire deep theological knowledge or have more impact than church-ordained theologians. The Reformation promoted the idea of a »Priesthood of Believers,« but it remained little developed, since clergy continued to administer sacraments. Lay activity surged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries under the influence of spiritualists, who believed that all things are connected by the Divine, and thus, that people do not need clergy to access God. Christian theosophers saw nature as divine revelation, and their study of the natural world also began to undermine traditional theology. Since through confessionalization, state and church power were deeply intertwined, the state tried to enforce adherence to confession. The attempts of the early modern state to define who could act as a theologian have left traces in modern historiography.

Zusammenfassung

In der Frühen Neuzeit verfügten viele Berufe, darunter auch die Theologie, noch nicht über Validierungssysteme. Laien konnten sich teils tiefgehende theologische Kenntnisse aneignen oder mehr Einfluss als kirchlich ordinierte Theologen ausüben. Die Reformation förderte die Idee eines »Priestertums der Gläubigen«, jedoch blieb diese Idee wenig entwickelt, da weiterhin Geistliche die Sakramente verwalteten. Die Laientätigkeit wuchs im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert unter dem Einfluss von Spiritualisten, die glaubten, dass alle Dinge durch das Göttliche verbunden seien und die Menschen daher keinen Geistlichen brauchten, um Zugang zu Gott zu erhalten. Christliche Theosophen deuteten die Natur als göttliche Offenbarung, und ihr Studium der natürlichen Welt begann auch die traditionelle Theologie zu untergraben. Da durch die Konfessionalisierung staatliche und kirchliche Macht eng miteinander verflochten waren, versuchte der Staat, die Einhaltung der anerkannten Konfession zu erzwingen. Die Versuche des frühneuzeitlichen Staates zu definieren, wer als Theologe tätig sein durfte und wer nicht, haben Spuren in der modernen Geschichtsschreibung hinterlassen.

Günstiger Leser Ich vergleiche die gantze PHILOSOVIA. ASTROLOGIA. VND THEOLOGIA. Sampt ihr mutter einem köstlichen Baum / der in einem Schönen lust garten wechst. – Jacob Böhme¹

1 Lay Theology: A Contradiction in Terms?

The mystical philosopher Jacob Böhme (Fig. 1) is one of the most influential of all German authors, having helped to shape diverse bodies of thought, from Hegel’s philosophy, to German Pietism, to Kandinsky’s concept of abstract art right up to modern science fiction films like Blade Runner.² Although he began as a simple shoemaker, Böhme participated in an international network of intellectuals and was evidently familiar with learned writings. The fascination with Böhme’s writings over the centuries has derived from his creative use of language and imagery as well as his combination of the new sciences of his time, natural philosophy (especially alchemy)³ and astrology/astronomy,⁴ with a biblically based worldview, what he calls »theologia.« This approach made sense to Böhme because, as a spiritualist, he saw all things as an outflowing of the Divine.⁵ Böhme was also a theosopher, a sub-category of spiritualists, since he believed that one could understand as much or more about God by studying nature as by studying scripture.⁶ For Böhme, the study of PHILOSOVIA, ASTROLOGIA, and THEOLOGIA are three different paths to God’s revelation in the world.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, spiritualism and theosophy would present challenges to the status of church-appointed clergy in Europe. What Jacob Böhme understood as »theology« certainly conflicted with the understanding held by the mainstream churches of his time, as evidenced by the Görlitz Chief Pastor Gregor Richter who brought charges against him.⁷ In a published tract, Richter made clear that no layman – much less a lowly shoemaker like Böhme – had the right to express religious opinions publicly: »Woe to the place! Where such blasphemy is spread with impunity […], where one is freely allowed to dream up and write whatever one wants […]. Your filth, O Cobbler! Has defiled our city!«⁸ Böhme soon penned a defense: »Ihr verachtet mich, daß ich ein Lay bin, und nicht von der Hohen Schule kommen mit meiner Wissenschaft […] welch ich doch von Gott habe empfangen […].«⁹ The fact that both men died before their publications appeared in print did not deter others from continuing the debate. Richter’s supporters emphasized social order and the need for church and state to limit religious speech to office holders that were ordained and approved by authorities. Böhme’s advocates focused on his »Wissenschaft,« that is, on knowledge that he claimed to have directly from God. The same factors of knowledge, experience and ordination would be invoked in clashes throughout the Early Modern period about the proper roles for laity and clergy, with different parties asserting the primacy of one factor over the others.

Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century debates about who had the expertise to speak publicly about religion were similar in many ways to modern debates about what constitutes an »expert.«¹⁰ Then as now, knowledge, experience and forms of licensing (such as ordination) were invoked. Today’s discussions about expertise often center around public health or environmental issues, when regular citizens need to rely on specialists to determine a course of action. Conflicts arise when different experts disagree, because the public has difficulty knowing how to weigh the opinions of one professional versus another. A similar problem occurs when those with personal, not professional, experience weigh in. For example, Bryan Wynn has shown that the observations of sheep farmers were a better indicator of radiation levels after the Chernobyl disaster than the measurements of government scientists.¹¹ The farmers therefore possessed a kind of expertise not validated by degrees or certifications that might attest to their knowledge. Such cases represent so-called »lay experts.« Yet, according to most scholars of expertise, the term »lay expert« is an oxymoron, since an expert is usually defined as someone who has knowledge that laity do not have.¹² Thus, the Görlitz pastor Gregor Richter maintained that Jacob Böhme, by definition as a layman, could not be an expert on theological matters and had no purview to speak or publish.

Of course, in both modern debates about public health and early modern debates about religion, one can observe influential lay actors without deep knowledge. Often, the public does not have the knowledge necessary to judge the difference between well-informed lay experts and those with only superficial knowledge. Indeed, even accomplished theologians who studied Böhme’s writings found it difficult to judge his writings because they were so complex.¹³ At the other end of the knowledge spectrum, there are lay actors whose writings are appealing because they lack complexity. Their popularity lies in their ability to offer simple explanations. In this way, conspiracy theories and sensationalist rhetoric capture the imagination of the public without being grounded in deeper practice or learning. An early modern example of this kind of populism can be seen in the writings of Ludwig Friedrich Gifftheil, who stitched together verses from different parts of the Bible to argue for a »Holy War« to end all wars.¹⁴

Regarding early modern public debates, it is important to note that until well into the eighteenth century, a religious worldview obtained in which all of history was understood as salvation history and all of nature was understood as God’s Creation. This means that religion played a central role in nearly every major discussion. For centuries, church-appointed theologians were the most important interpreters of the world who guided rulers and regular people in making decisions, not only about specifically religious matters, but about everything (since all was seen to be religious). The Görlitz Chief Pastor Gregor Richter thus took very seriously a layman’s usurping of this critical role.

Jacob Böhme had not even studied at a university, but university-educated thinkers could also run into trouble when their results conflicted with established theological interpretations. Theology was long the supreme discipline and findings in other fields had to be integrated into a biblical-theological master narrative. In 1543 Nicolaus Copernicus published his research proving that the sun, not the earth, is at the center of »the world« (i.e., the solar system). This shocked people, since the churches had always taught that the earth is central in the universe. Yet, when Copernicus – and building on his work – Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno carried out their astronomical studies, they did so under the commonly held assumption that the movements of the stars and planets have an influence upon human lives, a system set in motion by God. They saw their studies as a way to understand God’s Creation better and they all tried to combine a biblically based worldview with new knowledge gained through logic and empirical studies. All had their books banned at different times and all faced punishments because their results refuted church-approved theological interpretations of the universe.¹⁵

These examples make clear that in discussing early modern theological expertise, it will be necessary to account for subjectivity, since the entire framework for theological knowledge is constructed by belief. That is, human perceptions are structured by identity, including confessional identity, and by cultural, political, legal and linguistic formations, as opposed to understanding things as they exist objectively in the world. While it is probably never possible to completely exclude the individual’s bias from any inquiry, subjectivity presents special problems that do not obtain in the natural sciences.¹⁶ Scholars who study expertise typically distinguish between performative experts who do things and cognitive experts who know things.¹⁷ This division also holds for theologians: Some may be more gifted at pastoral care, while others might be more knowledgeable about scripture, biblical languages and history.¹⁸ Regarding the former, pastoral care, there is no test that will prove who the best pastors are. There is only the subjective experience of parishioners who will feel more or less cared for. A pastor might therefore acquire a good reputation, but this too is subjective and based on a particular context, since one congregation might be more or less demanding than another.¹⁹ In the natural sciences, a good reputation would not be sufficient for declaring someone an expert, but it is difficult to imagine what other evidence might exist for good pastoral care. One could try to devise ways to measure the well-being of a congregation but these too would involve some degree of subjective judgement. Furthermore, even the second »cognitive« field of theological knowledge is to some extent subjective, since the interpretation of theological knowledge is subject not only to historical findings, but often also to belief. Through dogma, confessions attempt to objectify theological knowledge, but their doctrines will always only be »objectively valid« within that confession and only so long as new empirical knowledge does not disrupt that dogma.

In contrast, most modern definitions of expertise center either around knowledge that can be tested or evidence that can be proven. Thus, even a person who acquires proficiency in a field through unconventional means could be tested about that body of knowledge. Such a person – an autodidact – need not possess a particular degree or license to »prove« a certain hypothesis through evidence, such as a mathematical proof or records about the progress of an illness. The same does not hold true for theology. Of course, certain linguistic and historical knowledge that belongs to the field can be learned and tested, but here too subjectivity, belief, also plays a role. For example, many of the most important theologians of the Early Modern period believed that the events of their time had been predicted in the Bible. In particular, they saw the wars, plagues and economic upheavals of the period as »evidence« that the Book of Revelations was being lived out and many even made specific predictions based on their biblical interpretations.²⁰

All of this gives rise to two observations. First of all, determining expertise for theology (in any period) will be different from the »hard sciences« since its object – performance as a pastor or knowledge as a scholar of theology – is based at least partly upon subjective factors such as the judgement of a congregation or the religious belief of a theologian, community or confession. Secondly, expertise in pre-modern societies cannot be determined in the same ways as expertise today.²¹ Indeed, modern scholars of expertise underscore that their work pertains to knowledge societies.²² The early modern world experienced an explosion of new knowledge, but a religious worldview still held sway. For example, Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and the Catholic Church hierarchy in general all rejected heliocentrism, believing that it contradicted the Bible and church precedent. Yet, there is overwhelming evidence that Luther, Calvin and Catholic scholars acted as expert theologians within their particular historical context.²³ Similar observations can be made about early modern science. Johannes Kepler’s theory that God had constructed the universe as a series of »platonic forms,« one enclosed within the next, was revealed to be incorrect, but this has not diminished appreciation of his other achievements such as the Laws of Planetary Motion. The point is that the historian of pre-modern societies will be interested both in the expert judgements that turned out to be true and the expert judgements that turned out to be false, so long as these judgements had an important historical influence. Thus, the most important factors for determining expertise for the study of historical theology will be the function or performance of actors and their impact in history. Put simply, an expert theologian was someone who was accorded that status by contemporaries.

The scholar of expertise Eric H. Ash confirms the role of consensus in identifying experts in the Early Modern period. He points out that systems of accreditation and professional oversight had not yet been established for many fields.²⁴ In the absence of modern credentials, people were more focused on results than on forms of licensing.²⁵ Thus, broad consensus about ability served to legitimate expertise in the Early Modern period. Ash acknowledges the problems inherent in using attribution to determine expertise, but he argues that expertise is always a negotiated concept, not only in the Early Modern period, but today as well.²⁶

A reliance on consensus and reputation conflicts with the epistemological expectations of provable sciences in knowledge societies. These criteria would not work for determining expertise in a modern scientific discipline, since this might allow someone to function as a specialist but actually know very little (or even be a charlatan). By the same token, one could possess expert-level knowledge without ever making an impact or gaining a reputation. But for historians who are more interested in historical developments than in truth, the function of a particular figure in a particular context is paramount. Historically, some persons have been credited with offering superior judgements and thus influenced discourses and events in history. Whether or not their judgements were actually more competent than others is secondary for the historian, but not unimportant, since, over time, judgements that reveal themselves to be false can undermine a particular authority. The wrong judgements of early modern theologians about the physical world meant that they eventually had to give way to scientific authorities in many realms, as the example of heliocentrism confirms. With the rise of modern specialized scientific disciplines, the theologian was reduced to an expert in spiritual and ethical matters (which, however, one could argue, are the most important matters facing humanity), while experts in astronomy, medicine, botany, and other natural sciences were ceded those realms that could be proven with physical evidence. These are the mechanisms that gave rise to the modern knowledge society and which are deserving of study in themselves.

2 Definitions Yesterday and Today

2.1 Laity and the »Priesthood of All Believers«

To add context to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century debates about theological expertise, it may be helpful to take a closer look at how contemporaries understood the roles of laity and clergy. Since the figures most central to this essay were German, the Grimm brothers’ Deutsches Wörterbuch can provide a touchstone. In 1838, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm began their dictionary, which relies on examples of usage to illustrate meanings. For the word »laity« they present two definitions:

LAIE, m. λαϊκός. 1) im gegensatze zu dem geweihten priesterstande, in welcher bedeutung das wort von den kirchenvätern seit Tertullian in der lat. form laicus oft gebraucht erscheint, und mit der mission auch ins deutsche dringt, ahd. leigo gegenüber dem pfaffo; … 2) daraus hat sich schon frühe die bedeutung ungelehrt, etwas nicht gelernt habend, entwickelt.²⁷

Applied to the case of Jacob Böhme, the first definition is in line with Böhme’s own view. He freely acknowledged that he was a layman »gegenüber dem pfaffo.« But he would have rejected the secondary definition, which implies that laity as a group are ignorant (»ungelehrt«).²⁸ Böhme was not alone in arguing that laity could be equally or even more highly educated or inspired than church office holders. Böhme’s earlier pastor and friend, Martin Moller – Gregor Richter’s predecessor – had encouraged greater participation for laity in religious matters. Moller was one of the numerous devotional authors in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who published books for use in household worship.²⁹ Moller even instructed users how to conduct services such as funerals in case no pastor was available.³⁰

Positions such as Moller’s were possible because of the doctrine of a »Priesthood of all Believers« (Priestertum aller Gläubigen). The idea that all Christians are equally responsible to carry forth the Gospel and minister to one another has biblical roots.³¹ The central concept is that Christ’s sacrifice has taken away the need for clergy to mediate between God and humanity. However, in the ancient Church and throughout the Middle Ages, the idea was little stressed, because it was difficult to reconcile with practical realities. Priests administered sacraments and acted as intermediaries between God and parishioners, so that a more active participation of laity had little room to develop. Through the Middle Ages, monasticism offered the most important forum for men and women who wanted to express deeper religious commitment than that of the general populace.³²

A further limiting factor in the scope of activity for both laity and clergy was the control exercised by rulers. In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine had declared the sovereign the head of the church by asserting the Roman pagan idea that divine powers had installed earthly authorities, an argument taken up as well by Charlemagne (Karl der Große) and Otto I. The result was that, for centuries, princes and the aristocracy determined who would hold the highest church posts, a practice also justified through the educational differences between clerics and monks, who had access to education, and laity, who usually did not. When lay movements arose, they were brutally suppressed as heresy (for example Cathars, Waldenser) or else they were domesticated and made to adopt specific monastic forms under the control of the Church (Franciscans).³³ Nonetheless, the Church encouraged individual lay piety by canonizing those who stood out for charitable work (Elisabeth of Thüringen) or for the special prophetic activity of some nuns such as Birgitta of Sweden or Katharina of Siena who went beyond the role usually afforded the cloistered. Starting in the fourteenth century, renewal movements like the Devotio moderna calling for increased devotion attracted larger circles of participants. Yet for fourteenth-century reformers such as John Wyclif and Jan Hus, interest in activating the laity went hand-in-hand with a critique of the clergy, an approach that would pick up speed in the following centuries.

Indeed, in the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther made the doctrine of the »Priesthood of all Believers« central to his reforms. Starting around 1520, Luther spoke of the Priestersein of all Christians.³⁴ According to Luther, baptism makes all equally worthy and eligible to carry out the functions of a priest:

Denn was aus der Taufe gekrochen ist, das kann sich rühmen, dass es schon zum Priester, Bischof und Papst geweiht ist, obwohl es nicht jedem ziemt, solches Amt auszuüben. Denn da wir alle in gleicher Weise Priester sind, darf sich niemand selbst hervortun und etwas ohne unsere Bewilligung und Wahl übernehmen, wozu wir alle gleiches Recht haben.³⁵

Nonetheless, Luther still saw a need for ordained office holders to preach and dispense sacraments. Other Protestant reformers such as Jean Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and Philipp Melanchthon embraced the doctrine, but less explicitly, while »radical« reformers like Andreas Bodenstein (»Karlstadt«) who wanted to strengthen the laity transformed Luther’s approach into a general criticism of the clergy.³⁶ Discussion about Luther’s ideas even prompted the Catholic Church to state its position at the Council of Trent. It did not deny the validity of the doctrine of the »Priesthood of all Believers,« but refuted any practical application of it by contrasting an »inner« priesthood of all baptized and an »outer« priesthood of ordained clergy.³⁷

Although the Reformation is often viewed as a lay movement, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, new opportunities for lay participation in both Protestant and Catholic churches were limited. Reformed Protestants went furthest in offering lay positions such as Presbyter and Diacon within the established church. For the most part, Lutheran church leaders downplayed the notion of a »Priesthood of all Believers.« Despite Luther’s emphasis on the importance of the laity, church life continued to center largely around services and sacraments that were controlled by ordained office holders. Linguistically speaking, there was no new definition of the term »laity« to accompany Luther’s emphasis.³⁸ There was a shift from the opposition of priests and laity to one of office (Amt) and congregation (Gemeinde), but the basic oppositional structure of the relationship remained.³⁹ Therefore, the two main definitions of laity documented by the Brothers Grimm held both before and after the Reformation: 1) those who were not ordained office holders (»gegenüber dem Pfaffo«), or 2) those who were ignorant of deeper theological issues or less educated (»ungelehrt«).

While churches offered only limited opportunities for lay participation, lay activity grew significantly outside the structures of the large confessional churches. The ideal of the congregation as a lay body was central for Anabaptists but also took root among Protestants in general. New text genres, including catechisms (also called »lay bibles«), manuals for home worship (Hausandachtsbücher), home hymnals (Hausgesangbücher) and other similar literature stimulated laity to learn, teach, worship, sing and carry out various forms of outreach, such visiting the ill or holding private Bible study groups. Especially important was literature that bemoaned the terrible state of the churches and called on individuals to improve themselves and in turn the church and the world through their own religiously inspired activity. This literature must be understood in the context of a time of deep crisis, marked by war, economic change and a dissatisfaction with the churches’ responses to these problems.⁴⁰

Protestant devotionals were wildly popular in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but older Catholic mystical literature underwent a resurgence as well, and helped to activate both Protestant and Catholic laity. Works by Johannes Tauler, Heinrich Seuse (»Suso«), Bernhard of Clariveaux and others offered a kind of religiosity centered on the individual’s direct connection to the Divine. What is more, Catholic emblem books such as the Wierix brothers’ Cor Jesu series depicting Christ in the heart of the believer were very popular among all confessions, and in the seventeenth century Protestant versions proliferated.⁴¹ These kinds of mystical texts made the prayer and contemplation of the individual, not the mediation of clergy, central.

While Luther’s emphasis on a »Priesthood of all Believers« helped to encourage lay theology in Lutheran territories, the concept circulated among Reformed and Catholics as well. The high-profile case of Anna Maria van Schurman (Fig. 2) provided a role model for many others who turned to religious activism. The Reformed Dutch woman became known throughout Europe for her impressive mastery of multiple languages and her erudite writings, which argued, among other things, that women should study at high levels.⁴² She later rejected scholarship and joined the »wandering congregation« of Jean de Labadie (Fig. 3), who formed a new community based on the primitive church.⁴³ Labadie, for his part, was a former Jesuit.⁴⁴ Indeed, in the seventeenth century a number of Catholics became prominent lay leaders with their own followings. Jean de Labadie and Antoinette Bourignon both fled to the Netherlands to publish their writings and to establish their communities, while Jeanne Guyon managed to do so through her correspondence and writings in Catholic France, despite years of imprisonment.⁴⁵ These new religious movements participated in a milieu of reform-minded groups that spanned a wide theological spectrum and included people who had originated in all of the major confessions.⁴⁶

Fig. 1

Joseph Mulder after Jan Luyken. The Lutheran mystical philosopher Jacob Böhme Writing in his Workshop, Copperplate engraving. Kupferstich-Kabinett, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Inv. No. A 137850

Fig. 2

Portrait of Anna Maria van Schurman in her Opuscula, 1648. The Reformed Dutch woman first advocated higher education for women, but later argued that both men and women should instead make the »better choice« and live a life of religious devotion. Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica Collection Amsterdam

Fig. 3

Portrait of the former Jesuit Jean de Labadie, who formed a new community based on the idea of the early church, Der verschmißte Welt-Mann und Scheinheilige Tyranne in Engelland Olivier Cromwel … Samt einem Anhange von Johann Labadie. 1702. Bibliotheca Philosophica Collection Amsterdam

Both Protestant and Catholic literature helped to spur new religious communities, but it was Protestant literature that laid the underpinnings for a new supra-confessional movement of laity. Significantly, this literature – penned for the most part by ordained Lutheran pastors – spoke mainly of »True Christianity,« the »True Church« and the »Children of God,« as opposed to any particular confession. According to this literature, the »Church« was neither the buildings where people met for services (which most continued to do) nor the institutional structures of church governance, but the body of lay people who were deeply committed.

In the late seventeenth century, the Lutheran pastor Philipp Jacob Spener recommended a program of »Pietist« reform that included pastor-led Bible study and devotional groups.⁴⁷ The Frankfurt churchman hoped that these meetings would deepen lay experience and help improve the churches and morality in general. However, the laity in his own circles were not content to simply be led. His friends, Johann Jakob Schütz and Johanna Eleonora von Merlau (later Johanna Eleonora Petersen) soon established an independent conventicle where women and people of all social backgrounds could speak and offer biblical interpretations that deviated from those offered in the confessional churches.⁴⁸ For example, after her contact with English Quakers, Merlau emphasized that true Christians were those who were persecuted by »the world,« that is, state and church authorities.⁴⁹ Historians have seen this conventicle as the beginning of »Radical Pietism« since it was no longer under church supervision. The group attracted not only people from the local Frankfurt area, but also international reformers from across the theological spectrum.⁵⁰ Indeed, the coming together of diverse people from all confessions and nations, all of whom were seeking a reform, not just of religion but of life in general, lent credence to the notion that something of divine significance for the entire world was taking place. This communal, supra-confessional aspect of the project underscored universal spiritual principles and sidelined specific confessional dogma.

Despite strict laws prohibiting new »sects,« the period from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries saw waves of household conventicles as well as new societies devoted to gathering the »True Church,« often to prepare for »Zion« or the »New Jerusalem,« that is, the return of Christ.⁵¹ Of course, simple Bible Study circles existed throughout the period and not all had such grand goals. But some of these circles, along with prayer groups and theosophical reading societies began to see their activity as part of a larger movement, and some even formed new offshoot communities with their own rituals. While authorities often viewed the groups as threats to the established churches, many contemporaries perceived no conflict between participating in multiple groups. A given individual might attend church services on Sunday, a Bible study group or conventicle on Sunday evening and a theosophical reading circle on another day.⁵² Furthermore, ever cheaper printing, broader book distribution, rising literacy and more mobility meant that all kinds of ideas circulated more easily, crossing national, linguistic and confessional boundaries.

2.2 What is a »theologian«?

Even as laity became more active, especially in conventicles and new communities, the term »laity« appears to have been little reflected by the early modern churches, so that the definitions observed by the Grimms, 1) not an ecclesiastical office holder, or 2) a person with little theological knowledge, remained fairly stable. What is more, the Grimms’ definitions for laity mirror their definitions for »theologian«:

THEOLÓG, m. aus griech.-lat. theólogus. 1) gottesgelehrter, geistlicher … 2) ein studierender der theologie.⁵³

A theologian is thus either an office holder (»geistlicher«) or else someone who is studying or has studied theology. Here, one might also wonder what is meant by »study,« for the autodidact Jacob Böhme had surely read and learned about theological matters, but he never attended a university, which seems to be what the Grimms had in mind. Of course, Böhme never called himself a »theologian,« but he did claim to write knowledgeably about »Theologia,« which leads us to yet another of the Grimms’ dictionary entries:

THEOLOGIE, f. aus griech.-lat. theologia, gottesgelahrtheit, religionswissenschaft.⁵⁴

The Grimms expand on this definition with examples. The first example is from the jurist and diplomat Johannes Sleidanus: »der gelehrte und kunstreiche teufel, so in den rechten und theologi erfaren« and they further quote Martin Opitz: »die poeterei ist anfanges nichts anders gewesen als eine verborgene theologie, und unterricht von geistlichen sachen.« In the first example, there is an emphasis on law and theology as two disciplines that one might study at university, while the second one describes poetry as a »hidden theology« and »instruction of spiritual things,« which seems to be more a general description of a kind of knowledge than a subject one might study to obtain a degree. Böhme then, laid claim to »Gottesgelahrtheit,« a claim that Gregor Richter disputed. For the Lutheran pastor, only church ordination gave one the right to publicly express theological opinions, while, for Böhme, experience and knowledge (but not formal education) were key.

Pertinent to this discussion is the fact that a university degree was not usually expected of church theologians in the seventeenth century, but they did often have to pass an exam. The knowledge that one was expected to know could be acquired through university study, but also through attendance at a Latin school and through independent learning, a fact that Böhme surely knew, since his earlier pastor Martin Moller had taken this path. In his study, Die Erfindung des Theologen, Marcel Nieden makes clear that the understanding of what a theologian should be changed over the course of the seventeenth century from that of a »pious educated person« (frommen Gebildeten) to a »professional physician of the soul« (professionellen Seelenarzt).⁵⁵ In the sixteenth century, self-education was the norm. Only during the seventeenth century did a university education become common and, with time, the high clergy developed into an intellectual class in society. However, it was not until the eighteenth century that university study was required for clergy in most German territories.⁵⁶ Before that, the village pastor usually had only the basic »artes« courses of study in grammar, rhetoric and dialectics and even this was often not required.

This picture is further complicated by the fact that many who held positions as church theologians had studied disciplines other than theology. Luise Schorn-Schütte sees this as the cause for »a colorful mixture of Catholic and Protestant theological positions and mixed forms of pastoral care and parish piety« in the sixteenth century.⁵⁷ Prior to the seventeenth century, there was no clear curriculum for theologians of any confession.⁵⁸ What is more, wars and political machinations meant that a territory could quickly change its official confession. All of these factors relativized the importance of specific theological positions. To be sure, after the Thirty Years’ War, confessional identity and thus the education of reliable personnel for the churches took on a new importance, since rulers wanted to enforce confessional allegiance.⁵⁹ Yet, the exercise of a public office in the church was bound to ordination, not education.⁶⁰

Whereas the Grimms referred to a general »Gottesgelahrtheit« in their definitions for »theology« and »theologian,« the modern Duden definition reflects today’s educational requirements for church office holders:

Theologe: männliche Person, die Theologie studiert, studiert hat und auf diesem Gebiet beruflich, wissenschaftlich tätig ist.⁶¹

One can also look up the word »Theologin,« which has its own definition:

Theologin: weibliche Person, die Theologie studiert, studiert hat und auf diesem Gebiet beruflich, wissenschaftlich tätig ist.⁶²

While the Grimms had two different definitions for »theologian,« either someone who has learned about »geistliche sachen,« or someone who is a church office holder, the modern German definition combines these. Nowadays, a German theologian must have studied theology and be employed in this field. Thus, both knowledge and a certain profession are required. What is more, the addition of the word »wissenschaftlich« implies that this theological employment must include scholarly work on a high level. This accurately reflects the expectations for modern German-speaking pastors and priests in the large confessions who are expected to ground their sermons and other work in scripture and church precedent. The Duden definition reflects professional educational requirements for church office holders that are significantly more demanding than in the Early Modern period.

The web-site for the Oxford English Dictionary online does not need to offer two different entries for males and females, but this grammatical necessity is not the only difference between English definitions and German ones. On the English web-site one reads:

Theologian: One who is versed in theology; spec. one who makes a study or profession of theology; a divine.⁶³

According to the British dictionary, a theologian need not have studied theology and need not continue to study theology. It is enough to »be versed,« that is, to know about theology. A possible second, but not necessary, definition is making a »study or profession of theology.« Thus, the person may study theology or be employed as a professional who is paid to know about theology, but neither study nor employment is a requirement. Finally, working as »a divine« is given as a third possibility.

The definition at the US-American web-site dictionary.com is similar, but is even more pared down:

Theologian: a person versed in theology, especially Christian theology; divine.⁶⁴

Here, it is enough to be »versed,« that is, to know theological things, although work as a »divine« is a possibility. These differences point to different cultural histories that have led to different situations in German- and English-speaking countries. In English-speaking countries, there are some confessions that do not require a prescribed course of study for theologians. They may be chosen for their recognized knowledge and abilities within a specific religious community. Even in large, mainstream confessions, the usual procedure is that aspiring theologians must study Christian theology at a university or seminary, but the university does not teach (or administer tests based on) the dogma of a specific confession, since a public university would not be allowed to privilege the doctrines of one particular faith over another. Even in Germany, there are minority religions that do not require academic study for their pastors, but Duden has evidently not considered these groups. These cultural differences could be the subject of another essay. For this context, it suffices to note that what constitutes a »theologian« in one country is different in another. Dictionaries do not define what must be, but simply reflect cultural usage. The dictionary entries reviewed here confirm the subjectivity and context dependency of theological expertise, for a recognized expert in one time and place will not be accepted as such in another context. The same is not true for expertise in evidence-based fields that rely on physical evidence to confirm expert knowledge.

3 The Challenge of »All is One«

Through the Middle Ages, ordained clergy were accorded the status of expert theologians, but in the Early Modern period several factors began to undermine this assumption. Perhaps the greatest challenge came from spiritualists and theosophers. Spiritualists, that is, those who assumed the Holy Spirit to be present either in all humans or in nature in general, carried forth the mysticism of the medieval period, which itself often built upon older platonic-hermetic streams of thought.⁶⁵ Mystics of the Middle Ages like Johannes Tauler, Meister Eckhart and Nikolaus Cusanus had seen nature and Divinity as one continuum. Although the believer’s spiritual connection with God was paramount, medieval mystics were still able to integrate this idea into their understanding of the role of the clergy and sacraments. Only after the Reformation, did spiritualism as a discrete phenomenon emerge, yet it is certainly continuous with the mysticism of the past.⁶⁶ Spiritualism combined mysticism with the church criticism of the Reformation and the humanist distrust of particular translations or interpretations of scripture.⁶⁷ And while medieval mysticism focused on the relationship between the individual supplicant and God, spiritualism emphasized the connectedness of the whole church, all of humanity, and indeed all of life.

The term »spiritualism« encompasses a range of actors and groups with different theologies who made Spirit central. While the movement began and was most widespread in Protestantism, due to increased mobility, delivery of post, and the circulation of books, a spiritualist milieu arose in which actors of all confessions participated. Furthermore, the Catholic movement of Quietism can be seen as a form of spiritualism, even if its genesis is different from Protestant forms, since Quietists and Protestant spiritualists share certain common roots and since they carried forth an intense exchange and influenced one another.⁶⁸ Quietists promoted an extreme form of the traditional mystical idea of Gelassenheit, emphasizing that the individual should allow the Holy Spirit to work alone, without any human will or emotion. The Quietist Jeanne Guyon corresponded with people of all confessions all over Europe, providing pastoral advice, and new religious communities were founded in the eighteenth century by German adherents of her doctrines who hailed primarily from the Reformed church. These included, for example, the influential poet Gerhard Tersteegen.⁶⁹

Since spiritualists saw the Divine as equally available to all, their worldview levelled differences between laity and clergy. While most spiritualists still saw a place for the sacrament of communion, it became an outer verification of the more important inner transformation enacted by the Holy Spirit. For Protestant spiritualists, the notion of spiritual »rebirth« often displaced communion or baptism as the most important sacrament. Not only laity, but also some clergy took up spiritualist positions, and they too made the role of the pastor or priest less important than the individual’s inner change, which, so most believed, would in turn improve the world. Of enormous importance, for example, were Johann Arndt’s Vier Bücher vom wahren Christenthum, which were published over 200 times in German by 1800.⁷⁰ The »four books« that the Lutheran pastor referred to were the books of scripture, life, conscience and nature. These interests reflect Arndt’s educational path – he had studied Paracelsian medicine, not theology.⁷¹ The case of Arndt demonstrates that debates over spiritualism were not simply a matter of an »orthodox« clergy versus upstart »radicals.«⁷² Instead, there was a spectrum of views, including within the clergy itself. Thus, Arndt wrote in a different idiom than Jacob Böhme, but expressed many of the same ideas. Yet Arndt continually emphasized his allegiance to the Lutheran Church and even rejected heliocentrism. To do otherwise would have been to call into question Lutheran church authority.

Not only did spiritualism level differences between laity and church office holders, but also among confessions and peoples. Spiritualists looked forward to a time of healing, when Christians of all stripes might come together in love instead of being divided by theological doctrines. Many spiritualists adopted the stance that the »invisible spiritual church« (unsichtbare Geisteskirche) of the righteous scattered everywhere in all confessions constituted the »true church.«⁷³ Efforts to build the »Kingdom of God,« »Zion« or »Philadelphia« fueled popular reform movements throughout the Early Modern period and even continue today, both in the thought of Evangelical movements and in the missionary activities of mainstream churches. The most ambitious plans to bring the righteous into one union even included Jews, Muslims and native peoples.⁷⁴ Indeed, an attractive aspect of spiritualism for many was that it provided a moral solution for the problem of the fate of righteous non-Christians, including newly discovered indigenous peoples as well as local Jews. The doctrine that »All is One« even led the spiritualist Sebastian Franck to call for better treatment of animals, since they too are part of the spiritual outflowing of God.⁷⁵

Emphasizing that the Gospel should be available to all, some spiritualists railed against high levels of scholarship in theological discussions.⁷⁶ Christian Hoburg preached in Lutheran, Reformed and Mennonite congregations at different times in his life, but only accepted the positions under the condition that he would not be required to avow allegiance to any particular »Streit-Artickuln« or to participate in ceremonies; he agreed only to preach about rebirth and to follow Christ.⁷⁷ He and other pacifist spiritualists saw confessional polemics as the root of religious violence and persecution (he was exiled from German territories and had to flee first to the Netherlands and later to Danish Altona).⁷⁸ Hoburg argued that the only book a Christian needed to understand was the Bible itself. For those of his mindset, Spirit-inspired preaching and reading of the Bible were central.

At the same time, scepticism about »worldly« authorities and theological discourses promoted a new kind of spiritual empiricism. Spiritualists no longer wanted to accept external authorities in spiritual matters, so they relied only on their own experiences. Thus, Quakers from the period speak of »knowing by experiment,« since their insights were not gained second-hand from a pastor or book, but through silent group worship.⁷⁹ Scripture confirmed these experiences, but was not itself the »fountain.«⁸⁰ Quakers were in fact an entire community of laity, or rather, as they emphasized, of potential priests, since Jesus called all to minister to one another.⁸¹ The English group led missions to the continent in the seventeenth century and played an important role in spreading the idea of lay religion.⁸²

Not all spiritualists rejected learning. Some were theosophers who saw the »book of nature« as the primary way to learn about God. Jacob Böhme encouraged his readers: »You will find no book in which you could read and learn more about Divine Wisdom than you would by going out onto a green and blooming meadow.«⁸³ As more and more knowledge about the natural world and also about other lands, languages and cultures came to light, spiritualist thought became ever more theosophical. Although the roots of theosophy lie in Neoplatonism and the writings of Church Fathers, the new insights of natural philosophy were increasingly applied to religious questions, so that it is often difficult to distinguish between early modern science and theosophy, since all knowledge was interpreted according to traditional biblical interpretations of the universe.⁸⁴ When the Divine encompasses all, then all knowledge becomes relevant for theology.

For example, the theosopher Paracelsus was able to make many pharmaceutical advances by studying plants. He believed that God had encoded each plant with a »signature« that indicated how it could be used medically. Similarly, alchemist-physicians like Heinrich Khunrath and Michael Maier can be seen as theosophers. As a physical science, alchemy is today considered a discredited pseudo-science, because the early modern notion that base metals could be transformed into gold was incorrect. Yet, while some alchemists simply wanted to make gold, others were interested in developing medicines and metallurgical processes, many of which are still in use today. Furthermore, not all who studied alchemy practiced with chemicals. »Armchair alchemists« studied alchemical texts and processes because they believed that the same mechanisms that operated in chemical reactions operated in all of nature, including in spiritual processes.⁸⁵ According to early modern alchemists, spiritual rebirth is confirmed by chemistry: Substances may change in a chemical reaction, from a solid to a vapor, for example, but no substance is ever lost and, through the correct procedures, any substance can be reconstituted, that is, »reborn.«

Spiritualist and theosophical discourses had an impact on contemporaries’ judgements about theological expertise. Ordained clergy could appear to be less inspired than spiritualists, with their emphasis on a direct connection to God, or less learned than theosophers, with their knowledge of the physical world. In early modern society, divine inspiration and knowledge about nature thus became recognized as theological qualifications. For the public, they were increasingly more impressive than a university degree in theology or an official position with the church.

4 Theology and Power

4.1 Church and State

Today, people often identify experts through forms of professional licensing such as certification from a professional board that can attest mastery of a body of knowledge. However, in the Early Modern period most fields were not yet professionalized, theology included. This raises issues of the sovereignty of interpretation (Deutungshoheit) and of power. In early modern society, all of life was understood as a kind of divine semiotic, and those with theological knowledge – typically pastors – were entrusted to decode the world.⁸⁶ For example, well into the eighteenth century, pastors often interpreted bad harvests or natural disasters as God’s punishment on a sinful community and warned in their sermons against activities such as drunkenness, with mixed success. Indeed, Marcel Nieden notes that a tension existed between the relatively low level of knowledge required to attain the position of pastor in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries and the high level of authority claimed by pastors as interpreters of the world.⁸⁷

Nonetheless, ecclesiastical office signified expertise about God and the world and was a matter regulated and validated by both church and state. Beginning with the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, a process of »confessionalization« linked state, church and society through the coupling of confession and politics in the Holy Roman Empire. According to the treaty, individual rulers could determine the confession – Catholic or Lutheran – of their territory. With the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, the policy of cuius regio, eius religio (»whose realm, their religion«) was expanded, so that rulers could choose Catholicism, Lutheranism or Calvinism as the official confession of their realm. Rulers supported this process, because after the Reformation had brought them control over territorial churches, they could exercise more power over subjects by enforcing strict confessional obedience. This occurred mainly through »social-disciplining« and the establishment of police.⁸⁸ Disagreeing with the church was tantamount to disputing the authority of the state or even treason. The condemnation of those who spoke out against traditional church positions was codified in Imperial law.⁸⁹

Yet, despite attempts by church and state to enforce dogmatic conformity, early modern subjects had a multiplicity of sources for knowledge about God and the world beyond their local priest or pastor. Both the spread of knowledge and a desire for more agency in religious matters led to an expansion of (private) religious opinions that deviated from dogma. These and other factors led to a backlash against the union of church and state in confessional matters in the seventeenth century. People were weary of theological polemics, confessional violence and the persecution of those of other faiths. Since each ruler could decide the confession for his territory, and since rulers could change (or change their minds), conversion or exile was a constant threat for subjects. During and after the Thirty Years’ War, many began to call for a return to apostolic forms of Christianity, when small groups of Christians had gathered for worship and fellowship without the trappings of a clergy or confession. At the pinnacle of this kind of clerical criticism, Gottfried Arnold’s influential Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie of 1699/1700 turned confessional history on its head. According to Arnold, Christianity had been subverted when Constantine allied church and state. Arnold asserted that the »true Church« had been kept alive over the centuries by pious laity, who were labelled »heretics« and persecuted by a corrupt state-church apparatus.⁹⁰

Not all reformers went as far as Arnold, but the desire to get back to a more original form of Christianity stimulated the formation of many new religious communities in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Importantly, many of the groups and individuals active in the reforming community were in contact with one another and were reading the same literature. Some of the new groups existed as conventicles, others as correspondence networks, and some even as new kinds of cloister-like communities.⁹¹ Although these groups developed their own systems of leadership, they typically empowered everyone in the community to speak and interpret scripture.

Alongside new religious communities, many individuals participated in spiritualist and theosophical discourses by writing religious literature that offered an alternative to church-approved texts. Many of these lay figures also led conventicles. Disapproving church-employed theologians criticized these new kinds of activists for overstepping social boundaries that they argued had been put in place by God. Daniel Ehregott Colberg predicted the destruction of society if »platonic-hermetic Christianity« were allowed to continue unchecked.⁹² He and other churchmen especially objected to the more active role of women in the new »sects.«⁹³ Lay theologians defended their activities as laity by pointing out that the apostles had been fishermen and herdsmen and that Jesus himself had been a simple craftsman. They also cited Bible verses confirming that God reveals Himself to the »lowest« in society, including women.⁹⁴

These conflicts between spiritualists on one side and church and state officials on the other went beyond verbal polemics. Labelled »heretics,« »fanatics,« or »enthusiasts« (Schwärmer) by the official churches, many spiritualists were imprisoned, dismissed from their jobs, or exiled, and in Catholic regions some were even executed. For this reason, many acted clandestinely. Groups met in secret, used informal networks to send post and published under pseudonyms from fictitious places.

Due to its relative openness regarding religious difference, the Netherlands became a haven in the seventeenth-century for religious refugees from other places. Chief among the refugees were Jews from Iberia, Protestants fleeing Catholic countries, and Germans of all confessions, many of whom were exiled or who fled the policy of cuius regio, eius religio. Indeed, statistics about refugees to the Netherlands confirm the scope of persecution in German territories: Germans were the largest number of migrants to the Netherlands in the seventeenth century and constituted a full third of the entire population of the Netherlands early in the century.⁹⁵ Among these refugees were many spiritualists. Soon, they established numerous German-language presses to produce spiritualist literature, much of which was sold underground in German territories, despite rulers’ attempts to suppress the black market.⁹⁶

4.2 Competing Systems of Legitimation

According to Imperial law, rulers in the Holy Roman Empire could determine the confession of their subjects. To ensure confessional adherence, rulers and church officials worked hand-in-hand to decide who should hold church positions. Until the eighteenth or even nineteenth centuries, dogmatic conformity was primary to education, which played only a secondary role. Church ordination validated those deemed by both church and state to be theological experts.

Yet, many individuals were able to attain expert-level theological knowledge or pastoral skills without being employed by a church, and at the same time, many of those who were employed by churches had only rudimentary theological knowledge. Therefore, instead of the exclusive oppositions »expert-laity,« it may be more useful to think of three categories: laity (those not employed by a church), professionals (those who could make a living from theological activity, including pastoral work), and experts (those judged to have high levels of theological expertise). According to this taxonomy, experts could be either laity or clergy. Recognizing three and not just two categories of expertise is justified by the insight that there were competing systems of legitimation in the Early Modern period: state-church ordination versus forms of public recognition based on a person’s performance as a theological writer, lay preacher, conventicle leader or lay pastor.

Social rank played a key role in the construction of new, alternate systems of legitimation. Since politics and religion were closely intertwined, one way to gain political power was to promote religious difference. Therefore, aristocrats often acted as patrons of lay religious figures. Some sincerely wanted to protect minorities (especially those who had suffered from the religious wars of the period themselves),⁹⁷ but others wanted to enhance their own status by challenging an existing regime. As discussed above, there was a gap between the sometimes low level of knowledge of church officials and the high level of authority they claimed. Nobles could take advantage of this gap by producing their own experts, often ones that wrote or preached tenets favorable to the patrons. For example, Jacob Böhme’s most important early patrons were aristocratic Schwenckfelder.⁹⁸ Although Böhme did not take specifically Schwenckfeldian positions, he criticized the theological positions of all three major confessions.⁹⁹ Böhme’s underground popularity, especially in educated circles, surely helped to undermine the position of the official churches vis-á-vis the Schwenckfelder.

To reclaim control of legitimation processes for theological expertise, the state and church took a dual approach. On the one hand, throughout the entire period, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, educational requirements for church professionals were continuously, but only very slowly, raised. On the other hand, church and state authorities cracked down on religious minorities and lay theologians: They were exiled or imprisoned and their writings were banned. These measures took effect more quickly, but had the unintended side effect of deepening disillusionment with churches and rulers.¹⁰⁰

5 Historical Writing and the Legacy of Confessionalization

In the Early Modern period, there were competing understandings for what constitutes an expert theologian. For the state and its state-approved churches, ordination was the overriding determining factor. For many in the public, performance and results as theological writers, leaders, preachers or pastors was more important. These different ways of evaluating theological expertise and legitimacy have given rise to different discourses in scholarship, above all, the notion of a legitimate state-aligned church that had to persevere in the face of various »radicals.« For example, historians long contrasted the official (i.e. state-allied) Reformation by territorial sovereigns with the »Radical Reformation« as conceived by George Hunston Williams, who saw reformers (from the entire continent of Europe!) who were not aligned with state powers as part of one movement. Reformation scholarship of the last decade has criticized this way of conceptualizing the movement. Some historians have followed Hans-Jürgen Goertz, who wants to retain the term »radical« but use it to refer to clerical criticism in general, thus removing the idea that legitimate actors are tied to the state.¹⁰¹ Yet, Michael D. Driedger and others have emphasized that the category »radical« is itself derived from early modern polemics and thus not fitting for scholarly purposes.¹⁰² Regarding the spiritualists of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, Hans Schneider has documented the use of polemical language by church historians and cautioned them to stop calling lay figures »heretics« or »fanatics« when they do not adhere to confessional church positions.¹⁰³ All of these historians warn against a reliance on terms inherited from partisan categories of the past.¹⁰⁴

In the nineteenth century, German scholars debated the question of just how important the activities of laity are for church history, a discussion provoked by the new discipline of religious studies. A review of this debate is useful for understanding the issues that surround the inclusion of laity in church history. The central issue was whether or not church historians should apply the methods of religious studies to their field or whether religious studies should even replace church history as a subject of study. The Protestant theologian Ulrich Köpf has detailed these discussions in his study, Frömmigkeitsgeschichte und Theologiegeschichte.¹⁰⁵ He explains that the key question was whether or not scholars should write the history of a particular confessional church or rather the history of Christianity in a certain period.¹⁰⁶ The former would trace office holders and their work in a particular confession, while the second would consider developments in Christianity in the broader cultural context, regardless whether they complied with confessional doctrines or involved church office holders. Köpf identifies several interlocking issues. For example, some church historians desired to make the history of Christianity more accessible to the general public and thought that the methods of religious studies would help to achieve this goal.¹⁰⁷

A bigger issue was the establishment of faculties of religious studies, which the theological faculties generally opposed. While in France, Sweden and the Netherlands, such faculties were established in the 1870s, in Germany it was not until 1910 that the first such faculty was founded in Berlin. As early as 1873, the Göttingen Orientalist Paul de Lagarde criticized the subjective confessionalism of the German theological faculties in the face of the demands of modern scholarship.¹⁰⁸ According to Lagarde, theology should not be limited to the internal history of a particular confession.¹⁰⁹ Lagarde’s words elicited hefty reactions. For example, Adolf von Harnack worried that a less confessional approach to the study of Christianity would lead either to an abstract study devoid of meaning or to an endless broadening of subject matter.¹¹⁰ Others, like Albert Hauck, rejected the notion that Christianity could be studied in the same way as other religions as a facet of culture.¹¹¹ For his part, Ernst Troeltsch remarked that a confessional-dogmatic approach has no relationship to academic scholarship.¹¹²

Adding to these exchanges were the early, positive results of comparative religious studies on both Old and New Testament studies. A consideration of the broader cultural context of the Bible brought many new and valuable insights, which Troeltsch and others lauded in glowing words. These early positive results brought about plans to integrate the insights of religious studies into theological faculties, but the most influential plan by the church historian Karl Sell foresaw only an addition to past practice, since the main object of historical study, according to Sell, should always be the central institution of the church: »Epoche in der Geschichte macht immer nur die Kirche.«¹¹³ According to this approach, the institutional church is central and lay actors are supplemental. On the other hand, Heinrich Weinel urged that lived religion had to be the basis of study with institutional manifestations secondary.¹¹⁴ This bottom-up approach was put forth even more strongly by Christian Tischhauser of the Basler Missionsschule. He castigated theologians for ignoring the accomplishments of laity: »Der Betrieb der historischen Theologie, wie er von Jahrzehnten her vor uns liegt, ist vorwiegend aristokratischer Art. Es werden ein paar Dutzend leitender Persönlichkeiten […] behandelt, deren Theologie und etwaiger Einfluß auf die Kirche dargestellt; was jedoch weiter unten, im Kirchenleben des Volks vorgeht […], wird ignoriert oder höchstens gestreift.«¹¹⁵ Hans von Schubert even suggested that the name »church history« really only works for the Catholic Church, since it is only Catholics who conceive of only one legitimate church.¹¹⁶

For the present inquiry into the roles of laity as expert theologians, the comments of Adolf Jülicher are relevant. He asserted that the broader Christian context is actually far more important than the work of church office holders.¹¹⁷ Jülicher thus called for an expansion of sources for academic work to include newspapers, novels, letters, journals, grave stones and more, since these genres will sometimes tell us more about Christianity than collections of sermons and confessional writings. The result would be »eine Geschichte zwar nicht der offiziellen Kirche, manchmal eher der Unkirchlichkeit, doch immer des Christentums.«¹¹⁸

The discussion about the importance of laity and their concerns in church history was mainly carried out among Protestant theologians, but Catholics considered these issues too. Heinrich Schrörs, for example, advocated more integration of the insights of religious studies into church history, but at the same time warned against a focus on »outer« social forms instead of inner religious life.¹¹⁹ Several Protestant theologians went even further and disputed subjecting Christianity to historical study at all, fearing that this would reduce an interest in the transcendent world.¹²⁰

In the end, most church theologians in all the major confessions in Germany agreed that it might be advantageous to pay attention to certain aspects of the social study of religion, but that the work of church-employed theologians should remain the central object of study.¹²¹ Ulrich Köpf thus ends his discussion of these matters with an account of the plans of Johannes von Walter for a history of Christianity as a history of piety. Walter’s plan foresaw three goals. The first was to expand the methods of religious studies that had brought results for Old and New Testament studies to all periods. Köpf remarks that this effort has »im allgemeinen vor dem Mittelalter haltgemacht.«¹²² According to Köpf, Walter’s second goal, to complement church history with studies relating to piety, has been applied to a limited extent through studies on specific outstanding laity. Köpf notes that the third goal, to present all of church history or even just certain periods of church history, from the angle of piety »ist […] nie konsequent in Angriff genommen worden.«¹²³

Köpf’s review of nineteenth-century debates and his comments about how little has been achieved since then confirm that the Grimm brothers’ first definition for a theologian – holding an office as a Geistlicher – is the one that has been favored by church historians. To be sure, since the »cultural turn« in the humanities, church historians have paid more attention to lay activity. In general, they have seen the »piety« of laity as an outgrowth or supplement to the »theology« of church employees. This approach does not measure up to the wide range of lay activity and especially not to the significant intellectual achievements of laity.¹²⁴ For example, the 4‑volume Geschichte des Pietismus produced by the Historical Commission for the Study of Pietism outlines in the first three volumes a chronological history of a movement centered around the work of ordained, male church theologians. A fourth volume includes essays on aspects such as »Social Life,« »Women,« and »Piety and Prayer.«¹²⁵

In contrast, The Pietist Theologians, a volume produced by the US-American Lutheran church historian Carter Lindberg, includes chapters on Jane Leade, Johanna Petersen, Jeanne Guyon and Gerhard Tersteegen, not as »pious« figures, or even as »lay theologians,« but simply as »theologians.« This understanding of a theologian is closer to the Grimms’ second definition, »gottesgelehrt.« Lindberg comments that Pietism has often been seen as a theologically weak period in church history, precisely because historians have focused on certain »representative« figures (ordained church theologians), and excluded the laity who enacted the most important innovations.¹²⁶

These two recent scholarly books about Pietism thus display two different views about who counts as a theologian – those ordained by a state-aligned church as opposed to those who have had an impact in a given context. These results confirm that there are no essential definitions for what makes an expert theologian. There are only constructions in particular cultural contexts. The two definitions identified by the Grimms have long existed side-by-side in society. They thus reveal the tension between the official and the popular in constituting a religious community. For historians, the decision about whether or not laity count as theologians in church history will depend on their definition for yet another word: Church.