Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Max Weber on Church, Sect, and Mysticism

Author(s): Ferdinand Toennies, Georg Simmel, Ernst Troeltsch and Max Weber
Source: Sociological Analysis, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Summer, 1973), pp. 140-149
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3709720 .
Accessed: 26/06/2014 06:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and Association for the Sociology of Religion, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Analysis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:07:13 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Max Weberon Church,Sect, and


Mysticism'

Introduction
The followingdiscussionby Max Weberon church,sect, and mysticismoffersan
exceptional example of the differentways which four of the greatest German
sociologistsrelated to key issues in the domains of the sociology of religionand the
forms of religiosityin the course of a colloquy held at the first meetingof the
German Sociological Society (Deutsche GesellschaftfurSoziologie) at Frankfurtin
1910. The chief themesat issue in their colloquy, though not always so plainly
stated, were the varied patterns of relations of churches, sects, mysticisms,
rationalisms,rationalizations,and secularizationson the roads to modernity.
The main participantsin the colloquium wereErnst Troeltsch,who initiatedthe
discussionby offeringan historicpaper on Stoic-Christian
naturallaw;2 Ferdinand
Toennies, Georg Simmel, and Weber himself. (A fifth man who figured in the
backgroundof these discussionsbut was not named by any of the discussantswas
Weber'sclose friend,GeorgJellinek,about whose seminalresearchwe shall speak in
an essay on this colloquy now in preparation.3) Weshall therewish to focus on the
outcomes of Weber's interactionsand exchanges with the others in the hope of
identifyingdistinctivecontributionshe and the others, especially Troeltsch (and
Jellinek), made to a wider processual and comparative-historical
sociology of
religious orientations and movements than is usually ascribed to these men
nowadays by specialistsin thesociology of religion.(BN)

ITr. by Jerome L. Gittleman,ed. by Benjamin Nelson from "Diskussionsredezu E. Troeltsch's


Vortraguber 'Das stoisch-christliche
Naturrecht',"in Max WeberGesammelteAufsatzezur Soziologie
und Sozialpolitik (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1924), pp. 462-70. The translatorand editor thank
ProfessorStephen Bergerof the Departmentof Sociology of the State Universityof New York at
Stony Brook,N.Y., forsome helpfulsuggestionsabout the translation.
2A translationof the fulltext of Troeltsch'spaper here under discussionwill soon be appearingin a
volume of Troeltsch'sCollected Papers now beingedited by James LutherAdams. (The originalwill
now be found in E. Troeltsch,Aufsatze zur Geistesgeschichte
und Religionssoziologie.Tubingen:
Mohr, 1924.)

3The editor will have an opportunityalong with othersto clarifytheseissuesin a subsequentnumber


of Sociological Analysis.

140

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:07:13 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

141
I
Honored guests!I wish to say somethingabout the points raised by
ProfessorToennies in his remarks.*With respect to the subject we are
discussing,Toennies has-to a considerabledegree-avowedhimselfto be a
of history(an expressionwe prefer
supporterof theeconomicinterpretation
of history").One can probablysuminplace ofthe"materialist
interpretation
marizehis conceptionas a whole by meansof a modernexpressionwhichis
frequently
used but not withentireclarity,namely:thatthereligiouscontradictionswhichwerediscussedin thelecturewere"exponentialfunctions"of
therecannotbe the
or other.Now gentlemen,
some economiccontradictions
enterdeeplyhere,as everywhere.
slightestdoubt thateconomicrelationships
And my colleague and friendTroeltschhas, in his well known works,
directed our attention in the most forcefulmanner to the economic
relationshipsand conditionsof specificreligiousdevelopments.But one
ought not to think of this developmentquite so simply.I believe that
perhaps,ultimately,I agreewithToennieson manythings.But withrespect
to what he has said,at leastin some of his remarks,thereis an attemptat an
all too rigidlystraight
construction.
ProfessorToennies:For the timebeing!
ProfessorMax Weber:If I have understoodhim (Toennies) correctly,
he
has emphasized the relationshipof the religioussects to the city in
particular.Now, gentlemen,the firstspecificsect, the model sect so to
speak, the Donatist sect in antiquity4
-originated on purely agricultural
The characteristic
territory.
featureof thissect,like everysect,was manifest
in the factthatit could not remainsatisfiedwiththe Christianchurchas a
kind of entailed endowmentof grace, a church indifferent
as to which
personbestowedthisgracein sacraments,
and thusindifferent
to whetheror
not the priestwas worthy.The churchadministered
magicaland marvelous
forceswhich it dispensedas an institution,
completelyindependentof the
indwellingworthinessof the individual.Donatism turnsagainst this. It
demandsthatif the priestis to be recognizedas a priestby his congregation,
he should fullyembody his religiousqualificationsin his personalityand
mode of life.If one wishesto make a conceptualdistinction
betweena sect
and a church,a sect is not an institution(Anstadt) like a church,but a
communityof the religiouslyqualified. All the membersof the sect are
called to salvation;only a communitycomprisedin this way-which also
existed as an invisible church in the thought of Luther, Calvin, and
Augustine-passesoverintothevisiblechurch.
*Toennies,as a commentatoron the Troeltsch lecture,was the firstspeaker precedingWeberat the
GermanSociological meeting.(Tr.'s note.)
4Research since Weber's day has confirmedhis emphasis on the ruralbackgroundsof the Donatist
opposition to the so-calledOrthodox.On thisextremelyimportantsect,see W.H. Frend,The Donatist
Church:A Movementof Protestin Roman NorthAfrica(Oxford: ClarendonPress,1952).

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:07:13 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

142

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Everything
whicharose laterfromsects is linkedin thedecisivepointsto
the demand for purity,the ecclesia pura-a communityconsistingonly of
those memberswhose mode of conduct and life styledo not carrypublic
signsof heavenlydisfavour,but proclaimthegloryof God. The churches,in
contrast,permit their light to shine on the just and the unjust alike,
accordingto the Calvinistand theCatholic,as well as the Lutherandoctrine.
forexample,it is the
Accordingto the Calvinistdoctrineof predestination,
church's task to coerce even those who are irredeemablydamned to all
eternity,into externalconformityto the church.The formationof the
"isect"typeof communityoccursfirst,as was said,outsidethecity.
Now, what was the situationoutside antiquity?ProfessorToennies has
ascribed responsibilityfor the kind of developmenttypical of medieval
Christianityto the simplicityof circumstancesin the agriculturalmiddle
ages. He has stressedthattheconceptionof churchwas fractured
in thecity,
partlyin favorof a purelyworldly,or at least, the pure worldlinessof a
self-developing
rationalism,partlyin favorof the sect principle(I simplify
what he said withoutfalsification,
perhapswithhis agreement).Againstthis
view it can be ascertainedthat the power of thepapacyresteddirectly(and
by no meansmerelypolitically)upon the cities.The Italiancitiessupported
the pope in oppositionto thefeudalforces.The Italianguildsweregenerally
the most Catholic ones anywhereduringthe period of the greatconflicts.
Saint Thomas and the mendicantorderswere not possibleon any territory
otherthan that of thecity,simplybecause the orderslivedby begging.They
could not liveamongfarmers
who turnedbeggarsaway fromtheirdoor.
ProfessorToennies:They revoltedagainsttheBenedictineorder.
ProfessorMax Weber:Certainly,but fromthe territory
of the city.The
most intenselychargedthoughtsof the church,as well as thoseof thesects
(both, the highestformsof piety) are firstupon cityterritory
in themiddle
ages. . .
ProfessorToennies(interrupting
the speaker): The Franciscanshave very
to the sects!
importantrelationships
ProfessorMax Weber:Undoubtedly,thereis no questionof that.But not
the Dominicans,and I merelystate here that the Christianization
of the
middleages by the churcheswas firstcompletedaftertherewerecities.The
church form and its natural law, as well as the sect form and their
were firstdiscoveredon the territory
flourishing,
of the city.Thus I would
not concede that thereis a fundamentaldistinctionto be made here.The
idea that Protestantismwas really the form in which Christianpiety
accommodateditselfto the modernmoney economy has been advocated
endlessly.In quite the same way it has been supposed thatRoman law was
only accepted as a consequenceof the relationships
of the modernmoney
economy.But in strongcontrastto thesepositionsis the factthat-without
exception-all specificformsof capitalistlaw in moderntimesoriginatein
medieval law (directlyGermanic,for the most part),and are completely

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:07:13 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAX WEBER ON CHURCH, SECT, AND MYSTICISM

143

unknownin Roman law. It is certainfurthermore,


thattheReformation
was
firstset in motion fromregionsthat were economicallyfarbehind Italy,
Florence,etc. Also, all sects,even the Baptistsects,have developedin rural
areas (e.g. of Friesland), and especially well upon agriculturalsoil.
Nonetheless,you shall see how farwe both agree.I onlyobject to this(and
perhapsyou shall not disputewhat I say againstit). We shouldnot yieldto
the opinion (whichcould be drawnfromyourwords,eventhoughindirectly
and probably against your intention), that one might view religious
developmentsas a reflexof somethingelse, of some economicsituation.In
my opinionthisis unconditionally
not the case. If one wishesto clarifythe
relationshipbetween economic and religiousmatters,one should recallthe
following.
As ProfessorToennieswillremember,
thenobilityled theCalvinist-Huguenot revoltin Scotland and France-entirelyso in Scotlandand predominantly so in France. And thiswas the case everywhere.
The splitin the church
went perpendicularlyand verticallythroughthe social strataof the 16th
century;it embracedpersonsfromthe highestto the lowestclasses of the
population.It is certainlyno accident(and doubtlessthereare also economic
reasons) that the nobilityreturnedto the lap of the Episcopal church,and
vice versa; that the Scottishmiddle class found an outlet in the Scottish
CovenantChurch.It is no accidentthatmoreof theFrenchnobilityquit the
bannersof the Huguenotsaftera period of time,and thatwhatremainedof
the Huguenotsin Francewas increasingly
middleclassin character.But this
too should not be takento meanthatthemiddleclass as suchhad developed
the pietyin questionfromeconomicmotives.On the contrary.The middle
class thatwas shaped in Scotlandhas a JohnKeats,forexample,to showas
one of the productsof theirtype of churchman. And Voltaireknew the
genuinetypewell in France.In short,it would be entirelymistaken(and I
onlyobject to this)to wishto givea one-sidedeconomicinterpretation
(even
the sense thattheeconomicwas thechiefcause), or thatthesematterscould
be treatedas a merereflexof theeconomic.
11
Now I wish to say somethingdirectlyconcerningProfessorTroeltsch's
lecture.
Firstof all, thedifferent
typeswhichhe introducedto us. For thepresent
one must regard them as having mutuallypermeatedeach other to a
considerabledegree-that is evident.Thus, Calvinism(for example) is a
churchthat could not have enduredon the strengthof its own dogmatic
foundation.For if one manwas destinedto go to helland anotherto heaven
because of God's decreepriorto the creationof the world,theneventually
one would have to raisethequestionwhichCalvinhimselfavoided-wouldit
be possible to see whethera man was predestinedto the one place or the

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:07:13 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

144

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

other? In addition it must have awakened the following reflection: What


purpose could be servedby the interferenceof state power and the discipline
of the church? It is absolutely useless for the man who is condemned to hell.
No matter what the man does, or what he is, God has decreed that end for
him many thousands of years ago-he goes to hell and is damned. There is
nothing to be done. And this is the purpose for which those instruments
possessed by the church (in contrast to the sects) are generallyset in motion!
In fact-I simplify the matter again-it occurs repeatedly. Witness the
colossal expansion in England of a Baptism dependent upon predestination
beliefs, which was a strong supporter of Cromwell's movement. Even the
situation in New England, for instance, furnishesevidence. The only ones
who dominated the church there were those whose external conduct at least
embraced the possibility that they did not belong among the condemned.
This went so far, that the others-those who did not carry these external
signs-were, on these grounds, not invited to communion because it would
have dishonoured God. And theirchildrenwere not admitted to christening.
I wish to expand on the following point. The Greek church played a
specially significantrole. It did not quite permit itself to be placed in this
role without further development. Gentlemen, three decades ago Russia
found itself,politically and organizationally,approximately in the situation
of Diocletian's empire (and even more so of course until the abolition of
serfdom), although the cultural relationships, and in many respects the
economic relationships, were, in part, essentially different.Russian Christianity was, and still is today to a considerable measure, classically Christian
in its specific type. Wheneverone looks at an authoritarianchurch this is the
firstquestion to be raised with respect to it: Where is the court of last resort
in which the ultimate infallible power rests for deciding whether or not
someone belongs to the church, or if some church doctrine is correct or
incorrect?-and so forth.We know that in the Catholic church today, after
prolonged struggles,this authority is the Pope's alone. We know that in the
Lutheran church authorityrests in the "word," the Holy Scriptures,and also
with those who are called upon to interpretthe Scripturesin virtueof their
office,and only these.
If we now ask who representsthe court of last resortin the Greek church,
the official answer (as Khomiakov5 in particular has interpretedit) is the
community of the church united in love. And here it becomes apparent that
while the Calvinist church is permeated by sectarianism,the Greek church is
saturated, in great measure, with a very specific classical mysticism.There
lives in the Orthodox church a specific mysticism based on the East's
5For Khomiakov's views, see: S. Kuznets,s.v., "Khomyakov,A.S.," in Encyclopaedia of the Social
Sciences, ed. E. R. A. Seligman,IV (1932), pp. 562-3; RussianIntellectualHistory:An Anthology,ed.
and tr. M. Raeff (N.Y.: Harcourt,Brace and World,1966) pp. 208-29; cf. also I.V. Kireevski'svery
importantletter,"On the Natureof European Cultureand Its Relation to the Cultureof Russia," ibid,
pp. 174-207.

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:07:13 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAX WEBER ON CHURCH, SECT, AND MYSTICISM

145

unforgettable belief that brotherly love and charity, those special human
relationshipswhich the great salvation religionshave transfigured(and which
seem so pallid among us), that these relationships form a way not only to
some social effects that are entirely incidental, but to a knowledge of the
meaning of the world, to a mystical relationship to God. It is known how
Tolstoy came to termswith this mysticalbelief.
Generally speaking, if you wish to understandRussian literaturein its full
greatness,then you must regard the mystical as the substratumupon which
everything is built. When one reads Russian novels like The Brothers
Karamazov by Dostoevsky, for example, or Tolstoy's Warand Peace, one has
the impression,above all, of the total meaninglessnessof events, a senseless
promiscuity of passions. This effectis absolutely not accidental. It does not
merely rest upon the fact that all these novels were writtenfor newspapers,
and when they were begun the author had no suspicion of how they would
end (as was the case with Dumas). Rather the cause lies in the secret
conviction that the political, social, ethical, literary,artistic,and familially
shaped life is really meaninglessin contrastto the substratumwhich extends
beneath it, and which is shown and embodied in the specific forms of
Russian literature.This, however, is extraordinarilydifficultfor us to grasp
because it rests upon the simple classical Christian idea which Baudelaire
calls the "holy prostitutionof the soul," the love of our fellow creature,i.e.,
anyone at all no matter who he may be, even the second-best. That it is this
amorphous unshaped life-relationshipthat grants access to the gates of the
eternal, timeless, and divine.' The artistic unity of these productions of
Russian literature,which we customarilyfail to see, the formingprincipleof
their greatest works lies on the reverse side of what is obtained through
reading. It lies in the gravitationof the person, in his behavior, toward the
spiritualextremes,the antipodes, this man whose acts appear to occur on the
world's stage. And that is the result of Russian religiosity.From this acosmic
quality, characteristicof all Russian religiosity,is derived a specific kind of
natural rightwhich is stamped upon the Russian sects and also on Tolstoy.
In addition it is supported by that agrarian communism which still servesas
divine law directing the peasant in the regulation of his social interests.I
cannot detail the matter thoroughly now. But all fundamental ideals of
people like W. L. Solovjev go back to that basis. Solovjev's specific concept
of the church, in particular,rests on it. The concept rests on "community"
(in Toennies sense), not on "society."
I wish to point out one thing in the short time remaining.In his lecture
our colleague Troeltsch treated the contrasts between church, sect, mysti-

6Helpful suggestionson the backgroundsbroached in Weber'sremarkson Russia will be foundin the


following:M. Cherniavsky,Tsar and People: Studies in RussianMyths(New Haven: Yale Univ.Press,
1961); Robert C. Williams,"The Russian Soul: A Study in European Thought and Non-European
Nationalism,"Journalof theHistoryof Ideas, 31: 4 (Oct.-Dec., 1970), pp. 573-88, esp. 584 ff.

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:07:13 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

146

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

cism and theirrelationship


to theworldand to naturallaw structurally,7
and
But thejustificationforthis
of course he mustdeal withthemstructurally.
proceduredependsupon the factthatwhenone asksa sectarianabout those
trainsof thoughtwhich made him a sectarian,he will come at last (no
matterhow obscurelyhe expressesit) to what we gatheredtoday fromour
colleagueTroeltsch.If one asksa memberof theCatholicchurchwhyhe is a
member of this church and not a sectarian,in a similarmannerhe is
ultimatelyled to these thoughts.And you can graspthe evidenceforthis
withyour own handswhenyou discoverthatBaronvon Hertlingassuredhis
co-religionists
as follows: whetherthe Bible is construedin one way or
another,and whateverhas happened with it historically,is a matterof
forthechurchas a divinelyentailedendowmenttellsus whatis
indifference,
in the Bible no matterwho wrote it. Whateverfitsin withthisis a divine
norm,a divinetruth.If we did not have the churchthe ProtestantBible
would not help us at all. That being so, this conception of the church
manifestlycorrespondsin its ultimateconsequencesto the one reportedto
us. I have some possibleobjectionsto the lecture,namelythatthischainof
reasoningdoes not haveto be consciouslyalivein everyadherentof a church
or sect,as an anticipation
just forthe sake of belief.
Finally,I shall only point out one thing.Whenone analyzesnaturallaw
doctrinesfrom the perspectiveof the church,the sect, etc., as Troeltsch
does, one has not of coursetherebysaid thatthesedoctrinesdid not resultin
practical consequences for conduct which appear to us to be entirely
heterogeneouswithrespectto the inherentcontentof the churchdoctrine.
The principleof irrationality,
and the lack of congruityin value between
cause and effectis due to the following:A doctrine like that of sectarian
Protestantism,Calvinism, Pietism, which most piously condemns the
collectingof the earth'streasures,may strengthen
the psychologicalmotive
whichthisdoctrineset in motionin such a way,thatit leadsjust thesevery
people to become the greatbearersof moderncapitalistdevelopment.For,
theuse of treasuresforone's satisfaction
wereevenmoresharplycondemned
than the gatheringof treasures;consequently,nothingless than an ever
renewedutilizationof these treasuresfor capitalistpurposeswas brought
about. It fosteredcapitalistdevelopmentbecause the necessityforascetic
proofsin theworldbredtheman of vocationupon whomcapitalismrests.
This is frequently
the case. Whenforexample,Troeltschpointedout that
a national church (Volkskirche), a national Christianityis the only
conceivableformof churchthatis universalin accordancewithits own idea
of universality,
thenof course the objectionto be made againstthisis that
7For otherexpressionsof Troeltsch'sview that "the church,the sect,and mysticism"constituted"the
three main types of the sociological developmentof Christianthought,"see esp. Troeltsch'sSocial
Teachingsof the ChristianChurches(1919) in HarperTorchbook ed., 2 vols. (N.Y., 1960), esp. II, pp.
993, 1007.

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:07:13 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAX WEBER ON CHURCH, SECT, AND MYSTICISM

147

experience shows that America was the most pious country (measured not
only quantitativelybut qualitatively) until the threshholdof this century.It
did not know a state church for the longest time and Christianitygenerally
took on the form of the sects. If I am not mistaken, in the middle of the
1890's only 5% of the American population did not officiallybelong to a
religious community. And membership in a religious society costs unbelievably more in America than with us. It costs something even for those
who lack the means. It costs the worker who emigrated from Germany to
America (and with whom by chance I became acquainted in the region of
Buffalo) 1,800 marks, yearly revenue payments to the church of 100 marks,
quite apart from the collections and so forth.Try to find a German worker
who would pay as much for any church community, any at all. Precisely
because there (in America) the religious type is the sect type, the religionis a
national (Volk) affair. Because the sect type is not universal but exclusive,
and because its exclusiveness offers definite privileges inwardly and
externally to its supporters, the real place of Christian universalism is,
therefore,in effectivemembership in a religious community there and not,
as in Germany, among the Christians in name only, where a part of the
well-to-do pay all the taxes for the church-"to preserve religion for the
people"-and, otherwise are happy if they don't have to have anythingmore
to do with the matter. The only reason they don't leave the church is
because the consequences for advancement and for all other possible social
prospects would be disagreeable.
III
I wish to say only a few words about Simmel's remarks.* The question
concerning the genuine meaning of Christian religiosity is not up for
discussion today. Nevertheless,we have certainlybeen happy to receive these
arguments.Since they have been partlydirected against me, I shall therefore
permitmyselfto reply briefly.
Having entirely conceded the thesis that in accordance with the
metaphysical meaning of Christianity,nothing might be placed between the
soul and its god, these matters,the empirical relationshipswhich sociology is
concerned with, stand as follows. Every devoutly pious soul, even the
majority of the religious among the highly resolved souls in primitive
Christianityand in all times of religious excitement, these souls must feel
that they really had been standing face to face with their god, and not
somethingelse, to be able in any fashion to enjoy assurance (in faith) in their
everyday lives, that is, to have the "certitude salutis." This certitude can be

*Simmelcommentedon Troeltsch'slectureafterWebermade the remarkstranslatedin sectionI and II


above. Justpriorto Troeltsch'sreply,Weberrejoinedthe discussionand spoke again. (Tr.'s note.)

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:07:13 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

148

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

won in various ways. Firstof all it is not a sociologicalcertitude,but a


purelypsychologicalquestionthatis therewith
touchedupon,but one which
has sociologicallyinteresting
consequences.The most extremecontrasting
poles which exist are, on the one hand, the formsof world-rejecting
religiosities
(whichwe also experiencein moderntimes)whichare preserved
in those spiritual movementsof which I spoke earlier and were also
characteristic
of certainpartsof primitive
a kindof "acosmic"
Christianity:
love of man,thatis the one possibility.On theotherhand,thereis itsmost
extremecounterpole: the Calvinisticreligiosity
whichfindsthecertitudeof
beingGod's child in the to-be-attained
"provingof oneself"(Bewahrung)ad
majoremdei gloriamwithinthegivenand orderedworld.In otherwords,we
have on the one side the completelyamorphousformlessness
of acosmic
love; on the other side that unique attitudeextremelyimportantfor the
historyof social and political practice,that the individualfeels himself
placed within the social communityfor the purpose of realizing"God's
glory"and therewith
thesalvationof his soul.
This last peculiarityof Calvinismdeterminesthe meaningof the entire
innerconfiguration
of the social structurewhichwe see originating
on this
foundation.In the rearingof these structuresthereis alwaysa distinctive
moment which reveals the formationof the social structureupon an
egocentricbase. It is alwaysthe individualwho seeks himselfby servingthe
totality,whateverit may be called. To make use here of the conceptual
polaritiesused in one of the fundamentalbooks of our modern socialphilosophicalorientation,FerdinandTonnies' work on Gemeinschaft
und
Gesellschaft:the kind of human relationshipwhich develops on this
formationis always a "society" (Gesellschaft),an "associative social
relationship"(Vergesellschaftung),
a "civilization"whichshedsits "humanity." It is always exchange,market,goal-orientedassociations,insteadof
personalbrotherliness.
It is always thisas opposed to the otherkind-that
community"of acosmiclove on a purefoundationof "brotherhood."The
communismof primitive
Christianity
and its derivativehave empirically
the
mostvariedmotives,but motiveswhichalways(as in primitive
Christianity)
connect up to the old traditionof the primordialrelationshipof brotherhood in which the communityof eatingand drinkingtogetherfoundeda
family-like
community.The banningof usury(interest)forChristians,
even
in the time of Clementof Alexandria,was motivatedby the old principle
that one did not haggle among brothersor employ domanialrights,and
usury (interest)is a domanial right.One did not take advantageamong
brothers,but practisedbrotherhood.8Conceding everything
that Simmel
says on the meaningof the religiousattitude,stillone must,fromthepoint
of view of sociology,constantlyput the psychologicalquestion,and indeed
8Cf. B. Nelson, The Idea of Usury: From Tribal Brotherhoodto UniversalOtherhood, 2nd ed.,
enlarged(Chicago: Universityof Chicago Pressand PhoenixBooks, 1969).

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:07:13 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAX WEBER ON CHURCH, SECT, AND MYSTICISM

149

from
it has been raisedby all sides,even the most extreme,and therefore,
namely:
the religiousstandpoint,perhapsthe highest,formsof mysticism,
How, throughwhat medium,does the individualbecome certain of his
relationship
to theeternal?
ProfessorSimmel:Reason!
withoutdoubt,it
ProfessorMax Weber:That is entirelycorrect.Certainly,
not a real ground(Realis merelya cognitiveground(Erkenntnisgrund),
grund)forbliss.

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:07:13 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions