Neo-orthodoxy

[nee-oh-awr-thuh-dok-see]

Neo-Orthodoxy can also refer to a form of Orthodox Judaism following the philosophy of "Torah im Derech Eretz", and can additionally refer to the ideas of late 20th century Eastern Orthodox theology, e.g. chiefly by Christos Yannaras

Neo-orthodoxy is an approach to theology in Protestantism that was developed in the aftermath of the First World War (1914-1918). It is also called theology of crisis and dialectical theology. It is characterized as a reaction against doctrines of 19th century liberal theology and a more positive reevaluation of the teachings of the Reformation, much of which had been in decline (especially in western Europe) since the late 18th century. It is primarily associated with two Swiss professors and pastors, Karl Barth(1886-1968) and Emil Brunner (1899-1966).

Revelation

There is a strong emphasis on the revelation of God by God as the source of Christian doctrine. Natural theology states that knowledge of God can be gained through a combination of observation of nature and human reason. Barth totally rejected natural theology. Brunner, on the other hand, believed that natural theology still had an important, although not decisive, role. This led to a sharp disagreement between the two men, the first of several controversies that prevented the movement from acquiring a monolithic, homogenous character, unusual given the tendency of theological systems to produce conformity to precepts established by a revered founding figure.

Transcendence of God

Most neo-orthodox thinkers stressed the transcendence of God. Barth believed that the emphasis on the immanence of God had led human beings to imagine God to amount to nothing more than humanity writ large. He stressed the "infinite qualitative distinction" between the human and the divine, a reversion to older Protestant teachings on the nature of God and a rebuttal to the intellectual heritage of philosophical idealism.

Existentialism

Some of the neo-orthodox theologians made use of existentialism. Rudolf Bultmann (who was associated with Barth and Brunner in the 1920s in particular) was strongly influenced by his sometime colleague at Marburg, the German existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger. Reinhold Niebuhr and (to a lesser extent) Karl Barth were influenced by the writings of the 19th century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was a critic of the then-fashionable liberal Christian modernist effort to rationalise Christianity. Instead, under pseudonymous names such as Johannes Climacus, he maintained that Christianity is absurd (transcends human understanding) and presents the individual with paradoxical choices. The decision to become a Christian is not fundamentally a rational decision but a leap of faith.

Sin and human nature

In neo-orthodoxy, sin is not seen as mere error or ignorance; it is not something than can be overcome by reason, intellectual reflection, or social institutions (e.g., schools); it can only be overcome by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Sin is seen as something unholy within human nature itself. This amounts to a renovation of historical teachings about original sin, although thinkers generally avoided legalistic interpretations of it and consequential elaborations about total depravity, as was favored by past generations in formulating dogma and--by extension--hierarchical systems of ecclesiastical domination. The means of supposed transmission of sin is not anywhere as important as its pervasive reality, to neo-orthodox minds. As such, the association of original sin with sexuality produces nothing but moralism, a rectitude that is overly optimistic and quite delusional about human capabilities to resist the power of unfaith and disobedience in all areas of life, not just sexual behavior. This core conviction about the universality and intransigence of sin has elements of determinism, and thus has caused considerable offense to those holding that human beings are capable of effecting their salvation (i.e., synergism). In other words, neo-orthodoxy might be said to have a greater appreciation of tragedy in human existence than either conservatism or liberalism, a point emphasized by a latter-day interpreter of the movement, Canadian theologian Douglas John Hall.

Relation to Other Theologies

Neo-orthodoxy is very distinct from both liberal Protestantism and evangelicalism, though its language has much in common with the former, and in partial doctrinal assent with the latter. Neo-orthodoxy draws off various Protestant theological heritages (primarily Lutheran and Calvinist ones) in an attempt to rehabilitate Christian dogmas largely outside the restraints of Enlightenment thought. However, in the political pursuit of social justice and intellectual freedom and honesty, the neo-orthodox often made practical alliances with liberals, as both groups shared a deep aversion to authoritarianism of any kind, in both church and state.

The broadness of the term "neo-orthodox", however, has led to its abandonment as a useful classification, especially after new emphases in mainline Protestant theology appeared during the 1960s. However, some of the movement's positions and worldviews persisted in later movements such as liberation theology and postliberalism.

Influence upon American Protestantism

From its inception, this school of thought has not been acceptable to evangelicalism, since neo-orthodoxy accepts biblical criticism and has remained silent on the perceived conflicts caused by evolutionary science, and in so doing, it retains at least some aspects of 19th-century liberal theology. The movement achieved its greatest receptivity in the U.S. during the mid-20th century, primarily within denominational traditions stemming from Reformation heritages such as Presbyterianism, some parts of Lutheranism, and the predecessor denominations of the present United Church of Christ. It was less influential among mainline Protestant groups with an Arminian theological orientation, such as the Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and the Northern Baptists.

Recent critical scholarship

German scholars have recently begun to warn English-speaking (i.e., "the Anglo-American world") scholarship against too serious an application of neo-orthodoxy as a theological paradigm, calling such use a "neo-orthodox reading" or "neo-orthodox misreading" of a theologian's work, especially that of the always well-respected Karl Barth. Viewing Barth, his predecessors, and his contemporaries' work in terms of historical forces and in relation to various earlier, shared, or later theological movements (e.g., theological paradigms) has, however, been and remains a valid method of scholarship.