{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0361794500723589, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009406657018813314, 'mean_word_length': 5.585714285714285, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What has Prussia to do with Tübingen?

In the first volume of her new systematic theology, Sarah Coakley proposes a théologie totale—a riff on the French Annales School’s l’histoire totale—as her method.1 For Coakley, this means a work of retrieval that reads the Trinitarian theology of the Church fathers through their ascetical and mystical writing, while incorporating discussions of sexuality, personal prayer, and even fieldwork done in charismatic communities, to reach her constructive theological conclusions about the Trinity. Her work has inspired me to apply a similar, albeit more constrained, methodological ambition to an abiding problem in the work of nineteenth-century Germany’s greatest Catholic theologian: Johann Adam Möhler (1796–1838). First the problem, then the method. I apply this method not just by reading Möhler’s major works, but also by employing less obvious techniques, including: (1) reading the minor works, including anonymous book reviews; (2) placing his authorship against the backdrop of the ecclesial-political climate, in particular the creation of the Prussian Union Church (Unionskirche), and the new liturgy for that Church (Agende); (3) taking seriously Möhler’s vocation as a Church historian by retrieving his posthumous Church history, with special attention to his treatment of church-state conflict; and (4) attending to the genre