You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Neo-orthodoxy — also called dialectical theology or crisis theology — was the great twentieth-century revolt against the liberal theology examined in the previous lesson. It emerged out of the wreckage of the First World War as an attempt to recover what liberalism seemed to have lost: the transcendence, sovereignty and "otherness" of God, and the priority of God's self-revelation over human religious experience. Its towering figure was the Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968), widely regarded as the most important Protestant theologian since the Reformation, alongside whom stood (for a time) Emil Brunner, Friedrich Gogarten and the early Rudolf Bultmann. The movement's name signals its character: it sought to renew orthodoxy — the classic emphases of the Reformation on grace, revelation and the Word of God — but in a thoroughly modern, post-critical key (hence neo). This lesson sets out Barth's theology, the famous controversy with Brunner over natural theology, the witness of Bonhoeffer, the Barmen Declaration, and the evaluative debate over whether Barth's "Nein!" to natural theology was his greatest insight or his greatest mistake.
The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 shattered the confident optimism of nineteenth-century liberal Protestantism. Liberal theologians, in the line of Ritschl and Harnack, had taught that humanity was advancing toward the Kingdom of God through education, moral effort and cultural progress. The industrialised slaughter of the trenches — Christian nations destroying one another by the million — made this optimism look not merely naïve but complicit.
For Barth, then a young pastor in the Swiss village of Safenwil, the decisive shock came at the very start of the war. In August 1914 a manifesto appeared in which ninety-three German intellectuals publicly endorsed the war policy of Kaiser Wilhelm II — and among the signatories Barth found, to his dismay, almost all of the liberal theology teachers he had revered, including Harnack himself. He later described the day as a "black day" on which an entire theology was discredited: if liberal theology could lend its blessing to the catastrophe rather than stand in judgement over it, then its whole method — building upward from human culture, experience and morality toward God — must be fundamentally mistaken. The "crisis" in crisis theology is thus both the crisis of European civilisation and the krisis (judgement) that Barth believed the Word of God passes upon all human pretension.
There was also a more homely root to Barth's revolt. As a working pastor he faced, week by week, the task of preaching — of saying something true about God to ordinary people — and he found that the liberal theology he had been taught gave him nothing to say. It could analyse religious experience and recommend ethical ideals, but it could not let God speak. Barth came to believe that the preacher's predicament exposed the bankruptcy of the whole approach: we cannot, by taking thought, ascend to God; we can only listen for the Word that God himself speaks. This pastoral pressure, as much as the trauma of 1914, drove him back to the text of Scripture and produced the Römerbrief.
Key term: Crisis theology — a name for early neo-orthodoxy, from the Greek krisis ("judgement", "decision"). It expresses the conviction that God's Word does not flatter or fulfil human religion and culture but judges it, placing every human being and every human achievement under the verdict of God before grace is heard.
Barth's epoch-making early work was his commentary The Epistle to the Romans (Der Römerbrief, first edition 1919, radically rewritten 1922). The Catholic theologian Karl Adam famously said it "fell like a bomb on the playground of the theologians". Its central themes overturned liberal assumptions:
Key term: Dialectical theology — an early name for the movement, capturing its insistence that God can be spoken of only in paradoxes held in tension: God's "Yes" is heard through his "No", grace through judgement, revelation across an infinite distance. No human concept can capture God directly; theology proceeds by affirmation and negation together.
Barth's mature masterwork was the Church Dogmatics (Kirchliche Dogmatik), composed across four great volumes (in thirteen part-volumes, plus a fragment) between 1932 and his death in 1968, and left unfinished — one of the longest and most ambitious works of theology ever attempted. Its leading ideas develop the early vision into a vast, constructive system:
Key term: Analogia entis vs analogia fidei — Barth rejected the Catholic analogia entis ("analogy of being"), the idea that a natural likeness between Creator and creature lets human reason know something of God apart from revelation; he once called it "the invention of Antichrist". In its place he set the analogia fidei ("analogy of faith"): human words can speak truly of God only when God himself takes them up and sanctifies them in the event of revelation.
Two background influences help explain the shape of Barth's thought, and noting them deepens an evaluation. The first is Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855), the Danish thinker whose stress on the "infinite qualitative distinction" between God and humanity, on the offence and paradox of the incarnation, and on faith as decision rather than rational demonstration, Barth absorbed into his early dialectical phase. The second is the inheritance of the Reformation itself: Barth read his own age through the eyes of Luther and Calvin, recovering their insistence that salvation is by grace alone (sola gratia) and known through the Word alone, and turning that principle into a thoroughgoing critique of all human "works" — including the work of religion.
Barth's thesis that religion is unbelief also carries a striking implication for the study of other faiths and so connects this lesson to the wider component. Because Barth indicts all religion — Christianity emphatically included — as the human attempt to seize God, he is not making the smug claim that Christianity is the one "true religion" and the others false. His point is more radical: every religion, as a human enterprise, stands under God's "No", and Christianity is distinguished not by its own superiority but solely by the grace of the revelation entrusted to it, which it possesses as a justified sinner possesses righteousness — by gift, not by merit. This unsettles the usual exclusivist–inclusivist–pluralist typology and gives Barth a distinctive, and much-debated, place in the theology of religions.
The sharpest controversy of Barth's career was with his fellow Swiss Reformed theologian Emil Brunner (1889–1966), once an ally in the dialectical movement. In Nature and Grace (Natur und Gnade, 1934), Brunner argued for a carefully limited natural theology. While salvation, he agreed, comes only through Christ, he held that human nature retains a "point of contact" (Anknüpfungspunkt) for revelation: the imago Dei (image of God) in humanity, though gravely damaged by sin, is not utterly destroyed, so that human beings remain addressable by God and capable of recognising, when grace comes, that it answers their condition. There is, Brunner thought, a real if broken human capacity that revelation presupposes.
Barth's reply was as famous for its violence as for its content: a pamphlet bluntly entitled "Nein!" (Nein! Antwort an Emil Brunner, "No! An Answer to Emil Brunner", 1934). Barth would concede nothing. There is, he insisted, no natural knowledge of God whatsoever and no pre-existing point of contact in fallen human nature; to grant one is to crack open the door through which human self-confidence — and, he feared, far worse — would come flooding back. The only "point of contact" is the one the Holy Spirit creates in the very moment of revelation; it does not lie waiting in us beforehand. The imago Dei, as a basis for knowing God apart from Christ, is gone.
The ferocity is explained by the date. 1934 was the year after Hitler took power, and Barth was convinced — with some reason — that any appeal to a revelation of God in nature, history, race or nation was precisely the theological loophole through which the "German Christians" were baptising Nazi ideology. To allow that God might be known through the "orders of creation" (Volk, blood, the Führer) was, in that moment, not an academic concession but a capitulation. Whether Barth was right to make natural theology as such the enemy, or whether he over-reacted to a local emergency by amputating a legitimate part of the tradition, is the central evaluative question of this lesson.
Barth's theology was not merely academic; it armed the Church's resistance to Nazism. To grasp Barmen one must understand the crisis it answered. After 1933 a movement calling itself the German Christians (Deutsche Christen) sought to remake Protestantism in the image of National Socialism: it embraced the Führerprinzip within the church, agitated to remove the Old Testament as "too Jewish", promoted an "Aryan" and de-Judaised Jesus, and pressed for the exclusion of clergy of Jewish descent under the so-called Aryan Paragraph. In effect it proposed to add a second source of revelation — the German Volk, blood and the Führer — alongside, or above, the gospel. Against this, the dissenting Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche) gathered at Barmen in May 1934 and issued the Barmen Declaration, largely drafted by Barth.
Its decisive first thesis confessed Jesus Christ as "the one Word of God whom we have to hear, and whom we have to trust and obey in life and in death", and explicitly rejected "the false doctrine that the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, beyond and besides this one Word of God, yet other events, powers, historic figures and truths as God's revelation". The target is unmistakable: the Führer, the Volk, the spirit of the age. Barmen is thus the practical outworking of Barth's "Nein!": precisely because God is known only in Christ and not in nation, race or history, no political ideology may claim the Church's allegiance or supply its message. It is no accident that the same man wrote the Nein! to Brunner and the first thesis of Barmen in the same year; the rejection of natural theology and the rejection of Nazi religion were, for Barth, one and the same refusal. Barmen stands as one of the great confessional documents of the modern Church and as a model of theologically grounded political resistance — though it should be remembered that it spoke chiefly to the Church's own integrity and was largely silent, at this stage, about the regime's persecution of the Jews, a silence later confessors would mourn.
The most dramatic embodiment of this resistance was Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945), a German Lutheran theologian and pastor shaped by Barth but increasingly his own voice. His thought is best approached through three contributions.
First, in Discipleship (better known in English as The Cost of Discipleship, Nachfolge, 1937), Bonhoeffer drew his celebrated contrast between cheap grace and costly grace. Cheap grace is "the grace we bestow on ourselves" — forgiveness without repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession, "grace without discipleship, grace without the cross". Costly grace "is the gospel which must be sought again and again": it costs a person their life, and it is grace because it gives them the only true life. The German church, he charged, had grown fat on cheap grace, and could not therefore resist its seduction by the regime.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.