This study offers an overdue exploration of the early years of the deaconess community in Neuendettelsau from a gender perspective. Drawing on rich archival material, it focuses on the process of the formation of a distinctive collective identity. Central to this study is the assumption, drawn from the social sciences, that collective identity is a social construction which requires the participation of the whole group through identification and which is consolidated by developing specific rituals, symbols, codes and normative texts, which facilitate integration, and by constructing external boundaries, which separate from the world and wider church. The centrifugal forces which came into play when deaconesses were sent out in isolation were counterbalanced by a communal life which offered forms of participation and identification for the individual members and which consolidated their sense of belonging. The first chapter introduces the methodology. Chapter Two explores the social, cultural and theological context of the foundation of the Deaconess Institute, and offers a brief outline of the institution's historical development. The third chapter offers an in-depth analysis of the initiation ceremony as a rite which both admitted into the community and conferred an ecclesiastical office. Chapter Four analyses formative and normative texts that shed light on the community's norms, values, and expectations. In the fifth chapter, non-literary means of consolidating and affirming the deaconesses' collective identity are explored. This study concludes that the process of the emergence of a specific deaconess culture was pervaded by bourgeois norms, values, patterns of behaviour and notions about gender roles which measured out the women's radius of action and were at times difficult to reconcile with the deaconess profession.

La liturgie a longtemps été considérée comme un marqueur identitaire fort des Églises luthériennes et réformées, qui avaient pour tradition de produire leur propre liturgie dont l’usage, normatif, ne variait pas. Les mutations socio-religieuses des dernières décennies, couplées avec les unions d’Églises en cours, ont révélé la grande diversité de liturgies mises en œuvre dans les paroisses d’une même Église. Cette diversité interroge particulièrement trois aspects ecclésiologiques : la vie liturgique, dans ses fondements et ses pratiques, la dynamique communautaire et notamment la place faite à la liturgie dans son déploiement et enfin l’identité ecclésiale, afin de savoir dans quelle mesure la liturgie traduit ou participe d’une identité. Le travail de recherche mené dans le cadre de ce doctorat part de ces trois volets pour dégager des critères liturgiques initiaux et transversaux pour les confronter aux données de terrain afin de mesurer l’écart entre ce qui est important dans la perspective théologique des Églises de la Réforme, ce qui est mis en œuvre dans les paroisses et ce qui est perçu par les paroissiens. / Liturgy has long been considered as a strong feature of the identity of Lutheran and Reformed Churches. It was their tradition to produce their own liturgy with a standardised and unvarying usage. Over the last few decades, social and religious changes, coupled with on-going unions between Churches have demonstrated the wide diversity of Liturgies used in the parishes of any one Church. In this diversity three ecclesiological aspects come particularly to the fore: liturgical life, in its foundations and practices, community dynamics and especially the place give to liturgy within this and finally ecclesial identity, in order to find out how far liturgy is a an expression of or an active part of identity. The research work carried out as part of this doctorate uses these three subjects to establish initial and transverse liturgical criteria and then compares these with data gathered in the field in order to assess the gap between what is important from a theological point of view for the Churches of the Reform, what is practiced in parishes and what is perceived by parishioners.

Une question demeure récurrente : les divisions qui subsistent depuis le XVIè siècle entre Catholiques, Luthériens et Réformés sont-elles autant d’ordre anthropologique que théologique ? Cette problématique paraissant pouvoir être soutenue, il convenait alors de déterminer les différends anthropologiques, de les analyser et de se demander s’ils sont une entrave à la Κοινωνία. L’étude de la situation au XVIè siècle a permis de conclure que les concepts anthropologiques portés par une philosophie existentielle ont joué un rôle important dans la rupture au sein de l’Église d’Occident. Le retour sur la pensée de Pannenberg, Moltmann, Rahner, théologiens de trois confessions différentes, autorise à dire qu’au XXè siècle la vision de l’homme a toujours une incidence sur les concepts théologiques, mais les différences sont de moins en moins séparatrices et deviennent souvent des dons à partager. L’analyse de dialogues œcuméniques a mis en évidence que les différends anthropothéologiques ont été partiellement réconciliés et font l’objet d’accords, voire d’une déclaration commune sur la Doctrine de la Justification. Aujourd’hui, un défi reste à relever celui d’une déclaration sur le Ministère en vue du partage à la même table eucharistique. Une démarche de consensus différencié serait une aide à la recherche d’une pleine communion. / An issue has been ever recurring : are the discords which have been going on since sixteenth century between Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists as much anthropological as theological ? As this question can be supported it seems suitable to determine these anthropological disagreements, analyse them and wonder whether or not they are obstacle to the Κοινωνία. A study concerning the situation during the XVIth century has allowed to conclude that the anthropological concepts conveyed by an existential philosophy have played a mojor role in the severing within the Western Church. The return on the thoughts developed by Pannenberg, Moltmann and Rahner, theologians of three different confessions, allows us to tell that in the XXth. century man’s vision has always an incidence on the theological concepts but are less and less separative and are often gifts to be shared. The analysis of ecumenical dialogues have clearly shown that theanthropological disagreements have been partly reconciled and are now subject to consensus, even a joint declaration on the doctrine of justification. Today we have to take up a challenge about a declaration on the ministry in order to share the body of Christ at the same table. A differing consensus method could be a help to find a complete communion.