Changes

Neo Orthodox theologians have characteristics in common with both the [[Religious Left]] and the [[Religious right]]. Its members include the Swiss theologian [[Karl Barth]] and the American theologian [[Paul Tillich]]. They rejected much of the [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|liberalism]], emphatically embracing the doctrine of original sin, but still held modernist biblical criticism in high regard and never fully questioned the liberal foundations of science—unlike [[fundamentalism|anti-modernism]], which rejects biblical criticism and never shies away from such confrontation.  

Neo Orthodox theologians have characteristics in common with both the [[Religious Left]] and the [[Religious right]]. Its members include the Swiss theologian [[Karl Barth]] and the American theologian [[Paul Tillich]]. They rejected much of the [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|liberalism]], emphatically embracing the doctrine of original sin, but still held modernist biblical criticism in high regard and never fully questioned the liberal foundations of science—unlike [[fundamentalism|anti-modernism]], which rejects biblical criticism and never shies away from such confrontation.  

The origins of the Neo-Orthodoxy movement stem from Karl Barth's realization around 1920 that his old ideas were outmoded. Barth then rejected 350 years of German Protestant teaching—almost everything after or outside of [[Martin Luther]] and [[John Calvin]]. Barth asserted that God is "wholly other" and that man must reshape himself to God's design and not the other way around as had become the norm in 19th century Swiss, German Christian theology<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,949287,00.html "Thunder and Lightning in a Pen"], Richard N. Ostling, ''[[Time magazine]]'', Monday, Aug. 03, 1981 </ref>.

The origins of the Neo-Orthodoxy movement stem from Karl Barth's realization around 1920 that his old ideas were outmoded. Barth then rejected 350 years of German Protestant teaching—almost everything after or outside of [[Martin Luther]] and [[John Calvin]]. Barth asserted that God is "wholly other" and that man must reshape himself to God's design and not the other way around as had become the norm in 19th century Swiss, German Christian theology.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,949287,00.html "Thunder and Lightning in a Pen"], Richard N. Ostling, ''[[Time magazine]]'', Monday, Aug. 03, 1981</ref>  

Reinhold Niebuhr's 1939 complaint against [[Liberal Christianity]]:

Reinhold Niebuhr's 1939 complaint against [[Liberal Christianity]]:

{{cquote|Liberal Christianity, in short, tended to follow modern culture in estimating both the stature and the virtue of man. It did not recognize that man is a spirit who can find a home neither in nature nor in reason, but only in [[God]]. <ref> April 26, 1939 ''The Christian Century'', Reinhold Niebuhr, "Ten Years That Shook My World", pages 542-546</ref>}}

{{cquote|Liberal Christianity, in short, tended to follow modern culture in estimating both the stature and the virtue of man. It did not recognize that man is a spirit who can find a home neither in nature nor in reason, but only in [[God]].<ref>April 26, 1939 ''The Christian Century'', Reinhold Niebuhr, "Ten Years That Shook My World", pages 542-546</ref>}}

The last of the neo-orthodox theologians was [[Langdon Gilkey]]. He died in 2004.

The last of the neo-orthodox theologians was [[Langdon Gilkey]]. He died in 2004.

==European trunk and root==

==European trunk and root==

The European portion of neo-orthodoxy was in fact the movement's trunk and root.  The root is clearly the work of Karl Barth yet it was initially not his but those of his colleague Emil Brunner read by the Americans [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] and [[H. Richard Niebuhr]].  It was the Niebuhr's who helped arrange for English translations of Brunner's work.  English translations of Barth's work did not appear until after those of Brunner's.  From an Anglo-American perspective Bart's work suffers from and is mired in the swamps of German dialectical thought. Hegelian dialectical thought is steadfastly rejected by the Anglo-American Academy (for example, the British academic [[Karl Popper]] waged a war consisting of many battles against dialectical thought, which is apparently as destructive to the British and American Academy, and as incompatible, as plugging in a 120V/60Hz American appliance into a 240V/50Hz European outlet).  Unlike Barth's work,  Emil Brunner's did not dwell on what is alternatively called continental, Hegelian, and German dialectic.

The European portion of neo-orthodoxy was in fact the movement's trunk and root.  The root is clearly the work of Karl Barth yet it was initially not his but those of his colleague Emil Brunner read by the Americans [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] and [[H. Richard Niebuhr]].  It was the Niebuhr's who helped arrange for English translations of Brunner's work.  English translations of Barth's work did not appear until after those of Brunner's.  From an Anglo-American perspective Bart's work suffers from and is mired in the swamps of German dialectical thought. Hegelian dialectical thought is steadfastly rejected by the Anglo-American Academy (for example, the British academic [[Karl Popper]] waged a war consisting of many battles against dialectical thought, which is apparently as destructive to the British and American Academy, and as incompatible, as plugging in a 120V/60&nbsp;Hz American appliance into a 240V/50&nbsp;Hz European outlet).  Unlike Barth's work,  Emil Brunner's did not dwell on what is alternatively called continental, Hegelian, and German dialectic.

==Neo-orthodoxy and Christian Antimodernism==

==Neo-orthodoxy and Christian Antimodernism==

==references==

==References==

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}