Abstract

The Protestant sources used by Max Weber in his early writings, especially The Protestant Ethic, are well known. They show his familiarity with the theological discourses of his day. Weber's conception of religious individualism and his activities in church politics, e.g. the Evangelisch-Sozialer-Kongress, are the result of his juxtaposition of Lutheranism and Calvinism, of active and passive states of religiousness. This itself was deeply influenced by nineteenth-century Protestant theology. Due to this, it is common to speak of Weber's affinity with German liberal theology. Although Weber's famous lectures on science and politics as a vocation, delivered in Munich in 1917 and 1919, have been called, the authentic offspring of The Protestant Ethic‘, the lectures have not yet been properly researched with respect to their theological sources. This paper argues that in Science as a Vocation Weber, firstly, regards modern Protestant theology and its distinction between ‘religion’ and ‘theology’ as a fundamental insight favouring the rise of modern science. This has to be understood in the context of the debate on the ‘revolution in science’ in the early twentieth century, when Weber passionately defended the right of specialised science. Secondly, Weber had been increasingly influenced by Julius Wellhausen's work on the history of Israel, especially his interpretation of the prophets, which Weber studied intensively for his own work on ancient Judaism. Wellhausen's opposition of the prophet's heroic individualism, on the one hand, and institutionalized religion, on the other, affects Weber's later interest to clearly distinguish between the Christian ethics of brotherhood and the needs of modern politics. This is of fundamental import for the well-known differentiation between ‘the ethic of principled convictions’ and ‘the ethic of responsibility’. This paper puts forward the thesis that in the lecture Politics as a Vocation Weber develops a normative and radical concept of religion and theology, which leads him to criticize the conception of liberal theology within its own terms – despite the fact that it was a major source for his own work.