Why are Chinese Buddhists, Koreans Taoists, Japanese Shintos, Arabs Muslims, Greeks Orthodox, Italians Catholic, and Americans Protestants? This is a question that crosses the mind of any person who has taken a general survey of the living world religions and the societies in which they exist. The sociology of religion is often a vexing concept, warranted of more time than it is given. One man did warrant this question more time. The early 20th century German Protestant Theologian Ernst Troelstch took the question of why we are who we are head on.

Ernst Troeltsch was a prominent figure in the field of the sociology of religion. Troeltsch argued that Christianity was nothing more than a contingent development within European culture, a malleable product of its time and place. Troeltsch was, by all accounts, a religious relativist. Someone who believed that the beliefs are unique to their time and space, and that as time progresses, beliefs will change accordingly.

Mark Lilla, in his book The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West, portrays Troelstch’s theological beliefs according to a relativist view. As stated by Lilla, Troelstch believed that “modern society no longer represent[ed] a simple cosmological or theological order; it ha[d] become a complex mechanism with interlocking economic, political, communal, artistic, intellectual, scientific, and technological gears, turning and whirring, sometimes in harmony, sometimes at cross-purposes.” According to Lilla, Troelstch believed that the glue that holds all of these relative concepts together was “individualism, which was first discovered in Protestantism and now governs the whole of modern life.”

Although Troeltsch was himself a Protestant, he was no exclusivist; he believed he was a Protestant for different reasons than why most Protestants believed they are Protestant. Troeltcsh didn’t believe in fundamentalism or orthodoxy. “We are children of time, not its masters,” said Troeltsch. Beliefs, to Troeltsch, were relative to time and space, not a permanent system set-in-stone.

The crux of Troeltsch’s social-religious belief comes from his answer to the question of how we define ourselves. Troelstch said:

“[Christianity's] primary claim to validity is the fact that only through it have we become what we are, and that only in it can we preserve the religious forces that we need . . . We cannot live without a religion, yet the only religion that we can endure is Christianity, for Christianity has grown up with us and has become a part of our very being.” He then added, “This experience is undoubtedly the criterion of its validity, but, be it noted, only of its validity for [Christians].”

Imagine if Troeltsch had grown up in a rural Chinese society shaped by Confucius and Taoist doctrine. He would have grown up being taught different ethics, morals and norms of society. He would have likely been taught an entirely different set of theological and teleological beliefs. Instead of Jesus, Troelstch would have grown up listening to stories of Lao-zi and Confucius. These set of beliefs would have been valid for him in his social environment.

It seems that Troelstch believed firmly in the idea of religious relativism. The idea that the environment into which you are born will shape your belief structure. Everything from economics and politics to theology and the meaning of life is determined by the society into which you live. It is easy to imagine that your belief system as absolutely right, and that your religious beliefs are orthodox. However, what is often overlooked is the social influence and contribution to your certain set of beliefs. Are most of the things you believe in approved by social norms? Are they shaped by family and social traditions? What if you were born into a Buddhist household in the heartland of Tibet? Would you still be Christian?