The next theological school of thought that we will consider is called "neo-orthodoxy." Some have referred to it as "crisis theology," or "dialectical theology," because of its emergence and roots, and also the methods and approaches used by the lead thinkers in this stream of thought.
It is called "neo-orthodoxy," because the person whose name is associated with it (Karl Barth, a Swiss pastor) spoke about "returning to the Word" as a way of constructing doctrine and a theological system. For those who subscribed to the orthodox doctrine of a divinely inspired, inerrant, and infallible book, this new school of thought generated an initial joyous greeting. But once it was discovered that Barth still utilized the historical-critical approach to the Bible (the method used by liberal theology), there was a sense of disappointment on the part of orthodox Christians.
Barth had studied and been exposed to liberal theology's approach to Scripture, which included studying the original languages of the Bible, the culture and cultural background of the biblical authors, the issues of audience, dates of writing, reasons for writing, sources of information, styles of writing, and whether or not the biblical writers went through a process of redacting or editing their original writings. This approach also left room for the possibility that the biblical writers borrowed categories and thoughts that were not original with the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It also left room for the possibility of error in the Bible. The liberal mindset lent itself to the idea that through education and science, humankind could overcome its deficiencies, and bring evil to an end. But the first World War disappointed Barth's view of humankind, and brought him into an encounter with the depravity of humankind, while at the same time witnessing the sovereignty of God. As a result of reading Paul's letter to the Romans, Barth came across these two realities and subsequently wrote a book called "Romerbrief," which was a commentary on the book of Romans. Barth spoke of "returning to the Word," but by "Word" he was not referring to the Bible, but rather to Jesus. He believed that the Bible is "a witness to the Word," rather than "Word" itself. In essence, he believed that unless we encounter Christ in the writings of the Bible, that the Bible is just another book on the shelf, but also, that when we encounter Christ in Scripture, that the Bible then becomes the "Word of God." At that point, believed Barth, the Bible becomes a mediating agent of divine revelation.
Bart also believed in the Christian walking with the Bible under one arm and the newspaper in the other. He believed that the Bible in and of itself meant nothing unless it had relevance for current events. That is why in his belief, the Scripture and current events had to be integrated.
To orthodox Christians (especially of the fundamentalist type) who insisted on an inerrant and infallible Bible, Barth would accuse them of converting the Bible into a "paper Pope," and of committing "bibliolatry (worship of the Bible)." For Barth, in the same way that Catholics were in essence guilty of attributing inerrancy and infallibility to a human being (the Pope), Protestants were guilty of doing the same thing with the writers of Scripture.
As pointed out before, Barth was a disappointment to both liberals and orthodox Christians. The liberals were disappointed in Barth retaining the traditional doctrine of Jesus being the incarnate God, through whom humankind would be redeemed and saved, while the orthodox believers were disappointed in his use of the historical critical approach to Scripture, leaving room for the possibility of human error in the Bible.
I will mention one more theologian who is considered to be part of neo-orthodox theology. His name is Rudolf Bultmann. Bultmann is known for the term "demythologization," which came as a result of an essay he wrote entitled "New Testament and Mythology." He was a New Testament professor at the University of Marburg. Like Karl Barth, he was exposed to and made use of the historical-critical approach to the Bible. There was question as to whether he was promoting a new brand of liberalism or whether like Barth, he was trying to reconstruct orthodoxy by utilizing modern categories and terms that reflected resonance with modern day science. Bultmann believed that the only way to bring out the essence of the Gospel, and for that matter, the New Testament message, was to strip the Scriptures of their mythological elements and to restate the message in terms that are compatible with modern day science. For Bultmann, it is impossible to believe in the miracle stories of the New Testament, including the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection in an age which has been freed from ignorance and superstition through the advent of science and technology. Bultmann spoke about the need for speaking about the Resurrection in terms of our resurrecting to our maximum potentials. As can be expected, Bultmann could be applauded to a certain extent by orthodox believers for specializing in biblical theology, but at the same time by the liberals for deconstructing the outmoded forms in which the biblical message is proclaimed.
Though there are other theologians in the stream of thought known as "neo-orthodoxy," and I will stop at this point and invite you, the reader to give an evaluation of neo-orthodoxy on the basis of this brief essay. In your opinion, is it a viable and valid way of doing Christian theology and arriving at "sound doctrine," or is it alien to the message of the Gospel. Tell us what you think and why. Your contributions are important.
Grace and peace,
Dr, Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
No comments:
Post a Comment