Reviewed by: Theology, History, and the Modern German University ed. by Kevin M. Vander Schel and Michael P. DeJonge Walter Sundberg Theology, History, and the Modern German University. Edited by Kevin M. Vander Schel and Michael P. DeJonge. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. 358 pp. When I was asked to review this volume, I was intrigued immediately by the title. Few subjects are more important in contemporary Christian theology than the nexus of theology and the discipline of history in the context of German university culture. It is important wherever Christian intellectual life is carried on in the global church. When the volume arrived, I discovered it was a collection of fifteen essays. Reviewing a bunch of essays is like herding cats. The introduction by the editors was helpful and accurate, but not sharply focused. If I had been asked to introduce the volume, I would have said something direct and simple like this: In the Early Church, theological reflection was often led by bishops (e.g., Irenaeus, Augustine). In the Middle Ages, monks took the lead (e.g., Anselm, Aquinas). With the coming of the Reformation, and into the Modern World, theology has become largely the province of the academic professorate. (Think of Luther as the last monk and the first professor.) The professorate [End Page 226] is beholden as much to university culture, with its secular canons of criticism, as it is to the church and its articles of faith. In the emergence of the professorate, Protestant faculties in German universities have dominated. A chief reason for this dominance is the role that the discipline of history has played in the development of modern Christian theology. Church history is the youngest branch of theological study, having been first added to the curriculum at the University of Helmstedt in 1750. The editors call this "the historical turn" whose implications "are reflected in the shifting compositions of university faculties and curricula … as universities themselves grew beyond the medieval organizational structures to become centers of historical scholarship" (1). What does one do when faced with the challenge of historical criticism? One possibility is for history to go on the attack. Historical method assumes explanation by mundane causes. Claims about divine incursion and miracle have no place. Seas do not part; the dead do not return to life. Lessing famously spoke of the "ugly broad ditch" separating "accidental truths of history" from "eternal truths." A possible defense is to concede the public record of events and instead assert the interior life as the locus of religion. "Dogmas and doctrines," said Schleiermacher, are "nothing but general expressions for definite feelings." Troeltsch labeled Schleiermacher's strategy an "'agnostic theology of mediation' which recognized the inexact and symbolic character of religious language" (65). To put it another way, "theology springs from … personal conviction and … without it theology is a mere dead letter" (45). Roman Catholics of the "Tübingen School" (for example, Johann Sebastian Drey) sought to harness history. Yes, history teaches that Christian life in the church, and thus truth, are subject to constant change. But this is the work of the Holy Spirit who leads us to the discovery of further revelation beyond scripture (John 16:13). Eternal truth of revelation is not only "being," it is "becoming." History, Bible, and doctrine join together in harmony because the (Roman) church is nothing less than the continuation of the incarnation. As Drey put it, "the primitive history and the subsequent course [End Page 227] of Christianity are in fact one history … Christianity is itself only one reality" (122). This idea helped to make popular the historical/theological discipline known as "the development of doctrine." For Barth, the public record of Christian teaching in the Bible and the history of doctrine produced a rigorous discipline (Wissenschaft) with definite rules determined by the historic Christian community: "church dogmatics." Writing explicitly against Lessing's ugly ditch, "Barth stressed … that knowing God depends on God's own action; we do not reach this goal through a historical inquiry, even if such inquiry may help us understand that God alone is the source of any human knowledge" (307). These are but three examples. In all the essays, we see...