Neo-orthodoxy is a theological movement that emerged in the early 20th century, largely in response to liberal theology and the events of World War I. The term “neo-orthodoxy” was first used in 1920 by Swedish Lutheran theologian Emanuel Hirsch to describe the new theological movement led by Karl Barth and others.
Some key features of neo-orthodox theology include:
Reaction against 19th century liberal theology
Neo-orthodox theologians reacted against the optimistic view of human nature and overemphasis on human reason found in 19th century liberal theology. Liberal theologians sought to reinterpret Christianity according to modern rationalism and jettison doctrines that did not align with Enlightenment thinking. In contrast, neo-orthodox theologians argued that sin had distorted human reason and capabilities. They re-emphasized the transcendence and “otherness” of God, the reality of sin and evil, and the limitations of human knowledge in fully comprehending the divine.
Emphasis on God’s word and revelation
At the heart of neo-orthodox theology is an emphasis on God’s revelation through his word. Neo-orthodox theologians rejected the focus on religious experience and the search for universally valid religious truths found in liberal theology. Instead, they argued that God makes himself known through his word, primarily in the Bible. God’s revelation is always a divine initiative from above, an invasion of his word into human reality. This means theology must be grounded in and obedient to God’s self-revelation, not human reason or experience.
Dialectical theology and paradox
Karl Barth, one of the leading neo-orthodox theologians, emphasized a “theology of the Word” that focused on God’s revelation in Christ as attested in Scripture. This led to an emphasis on paradox and dialectic in theology. Divine truths are not logically reconcilable; God utterly transcends human categories. There is a sharp distinction between human words about God versus God’s actual self-revelation. Theological language is not a literal description of the divine but rather an imperfect human attempt to respond to God’s revelation.
Existentialist aspects
Neo-orthodoxy has existentialist elements, likely influenced by neo-orthodox interest in Søren Kierkegaard. There is an emphasis on the personal encounter between the individual and God, particularly through God’s word. There is a focus on the human predicament of faith and our dependence on God’s grace. Some neo-orthodox theologians like Rudolf Bultmann also incorporated existentialist conceptuality and language into their approach to biblical interpretation and theology.
Christocentric theology
Neo-orthodox theology is Christocentric, focusing on God’s supreme self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Karl Barth’s massive multi-volume Church Dogmatics explores theology through the lens of God’s revelation in Christ. Emil Brunner said that the Christian faith depends entirely on the truth of the divine self-revelation in Christ. Revelation is always Christocentric – God makes himself known definitively in Jesus.
Crisis theology and divine transcendence
Neo-orthodoxy emphasized crisis theology, the notion that humans only authentically encounter God in moments of crisis or radical confrontation. Through our suffering, sin and despair, we are brought to a point of crisis where we can only rely on God’s grace. This preserves God’s utter transcendence and mystery. Normal intellectual or religious life cannot attain true knowledge of the divine, only God’s intervention into our lives does.
Influence of Kierkegaard
The neo-orthodox movement was heavily influenced by the ideas of the 19th century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard reacted against the prevalent Hegelianism of his day and instead emphasized human subjectivity, inwardness, anxiety, and the importance of the individual’s personal encounter with God. Neo-orthodox theologians incorporated many Kierkegaardian themes and ideas, particularly his view of faith as a paradoxical, suprarational leap.
Differences from Protestant orthodoxy
Despite its name, neo-orthodoxy differs in key ways from the Protestant orthodoxy of the post-Reformation era. Neo-orthodoxy rejected Protestant scholasticism, emphasizing revelation and encounter rather than theological systems. And unlike historical Protestantism, neo-orthodoxy emphasizes paradox, dialectic, and existentialist themes. So while neo-orthodox theology renewed interest in the Bible and some classical doctrines, it was also a new development rather than a simple return to the past.
Major figures
Some of the major figures in the neo-orthodox movement include:
– Karl Barth – Considered neo-orthodoxy’s most influential theologian, Barth wrote the massive multi-volume Church Dogmatics and emphasized God’s “Wholly Otherness.”
– Emil Brunner – Another Swiss Reformed theologian, Brunner emphasized divine-human encounter and authored Our Faith and The Divine-Human Encounter.
– Reinhold Niebuhr – An American Lutheran theologian, Niebuhr wrote extensively on theology and ethics from a neo-orthodox perspective.
– Paul Tillich – A German-American Lutheran theologian, Tillich correlated theology and philosophy in Systematic Theology and other works.
– Rudolf Bultmann – A German Lutheran, Bultmann used existentialist concepts to “demythologize” the New Testament in his program of form criticism.
– Eduard Thurneysen – A Swiss Reformed theologian and close friend of Barth, Thurneysen applied neo-orthodox emphases to practical ministry and preaching.
Relation to other theological movements
Neo-orthodoxy emerged as a reaction against 19th century liberal theology and represented a half-way house between liberalism and traditional Protestant orthodoxy. Neo-orthodox theology was influential from around the 1920s through the 1950s, after which it began to fade with challenges from evangelicalism, Pentecostalism, and postliberalism. The post-Vatican II nouvelle théologie movement among Roman Catholics shared much in common with neo-orthodox currents in Protestantism. Neo-orthodox perspectives continue to influence contemporary theology.
Important texts
Some important texts in the development of neo-orthodox theology include:
– Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans (1922) – An early commentary by Barth that laid groundwork for neo-orthodox movements.
– Emil Brunner’s The Theology of Crisis (1921) – An early work examining the existential crisis theology of Kierkegaard.
– Karl Barth’s The Word of God and the Word of Man (1924) – Distinguishes God’s revelation from human theological language.
– Reinhold Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932) – Applies neo-orthodox theology to social ethics.
– Rudolf Bultmann’s Jesus Christ and Mythology (1958) – Explains Bultmann’s program of “demythologizing” the New Testament.
– Paul Tillich’s Systematic Theology (1951-63) – A three-volume systematic theology influenced by existentialist concepts.
– Emil Brunner’s Truth as Encounter (1943) – A maturer work focusing on truth as divine-human encounter.
Core doctrines
Some core doctrines emphasized in neo-orthodox theology include:
– Revelation – God makes himself known by His word, primarily through Scripture. Theology rests on divine revelation.
– Transcendence – God is wholly Other, entirely distinct from creation. Human words cannot fully capture God.
– Sin – Humans are afflicted by sin which distorts reason and blinds people to truth.
– Crisis – Authentic encounter with God occurs in moments of crisis, judgment, or despair.
– Encounter – Theologians emphasized relational knowledge of God rather than propositional truths.
– Paradox – Divine truth transcends human logic and contains opposing elements held in tension.
– Christocentrism – All of God’s self-revelation is focused and fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
– Scripture – The Bible has unique authority as the Word of God written and source of revelation.
– Grace – Salvation is entirely dependent on God’s grace rather than human works.
Critiques and responses
Neo-orthodoxy prompted critiques from both liberal and conservative Christians:
– Liberals argued neo-orthodoxy was a rejection of modern knowledge, science, and scholarship in favor of an irrational “theology of the Word.”
– Evangelicals argued the movement lacked a strong view of biblical inerrancy and accommodated too much to modern skepticism.
– Some argued the term “neo-orthodoxy” was misleading since the movement differed substantially from historical orthodoxy.
– Critics said the neo-orthodox portrayal of God was irrationalist and voluntarist, grounded in God’s will rather than His reason or justice.
– Others critiqued the neo-orthodox disjunction between God’s revelation and theological language as potentially leading to theological agnosticism.
In response, neo-orthodox theologians argued they were upholding key insights of the Christian tradition while also engaging seriously with modern thought and realities of human finitude. They believed their viewpoint navigated between liberalism and fundamentalism.
Influence and continuing relevance
While neo-orthodoxy has declined as a cohesive theological movement, it continues to exert influence:
– It prompted a revival of interest in Karl Barth’s theology and biblical studies using neo-orthodox perspectives.
– Reinhold Niebuhr’s realist philosophical ethics remains relevant for many.
– Neo-orthodox existentialism anticipated currents in postmodern theology.
– Its Christocentrism provides resources for defending traditional doctrines of Christ’s divinity and uniqueness.
– Its emphasis on divine encounter and grace is carried on in experientialist theologies.
– Evangelicals integrate elements of neo-orthodox theology, such as its high view of Scripture.
So while no longer a dominant approach, neo-orthodoxy shaped 20th century theology and continues to provide relevant insights that theologians draw upon.