Changes

Neither strictly Christian left nor right were members of the Christian '''neo-orthodoxy''' movement. These theologians have characteristics in commmon with both the [[Religious Left|left]] and the [[Religious right|right]]. Its members include the Swiss theologian Karl Barth and the first generation American theologian [[Reinhold Niebuhr]]. They rejected much of the [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|liberalism]] of the [[social gospel]], emphatically embracing the doctrine of original sin, but still held biblical criticism in high regard and never fully questioned the liberal foundations of science and academia—unlike [[fundamentalism]], which discredits, ignores, or soft pedals biblical criticism and has always, continues to, and never shys away from such questioning. The origins of the neo-orthodoxy movement stem from Karl Barth's initial preaching in the way he had been taught at seminary, soon believing many of his own thoughts and words to be hypocrises, and then, subsequently rejecting and refuting 350 years of German, Swiss Protestant teaching—almost everything after or outside of [[Martin Luther]], [[John Calvin]], and the [[Anabaptists]]. Karl 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>.

Neither strictly Christian left nor right were members of the Christian '''neo-orthodoxy''' movement. These theologians have characteristics in commmon with both the [[Religious Left|left]] and the [[Religious right|right]]. Its members include the Swiss theologian Karl Barth and the first generation American theologian [[Reinhold Niebuhr]]. They rejected much of the [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|liberalism]] of the [[social gospel]], emphatically embracing the doctrine of original sin, but still held biblical criticism in high regard and never fully questioned the liberal foundations of science and academia—unlike [[fundamentalism]], which discredits, ignores, or soft pedals biblical criticism and has always, continues to, and never shys away from such questioning. The origins of the neo-orthodoxy movement stem from Karl Barth's initial preaching in the way he had been taught at seminary, soon believing many of his own thoughts and words to be hypocrises, and then, subsequently rejecting and refuting 350 years of German, Swiss Protestant teaching—almost everything after or outside of [[Martin Luther]], [[John Calvin]], and the [[Anabaptists]]. Karl 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>.  

 

==American branch==

==American branch==

The American branch of neo-orthodoxy is the theological literature ''by'' and ''on'' [[Reinhold Niebuhr]], his brother [[H. Richard Niebuhr]], and his friend whom he helped extract from Nazi Germany [[Paul Tillich]].  Within the American Academy and mainline churches from the 1930's through the 1960's the theological work of these three men eclipsed that of any others.

The American branch of neo-orthodoxy is the theological literature ''by'' and ''on'' [[Reinhold Niebuhr]], his brother [[H. Richard Niebuhr]], and his friend whom he helped extract from Nazi Germany [[Paul Tillich]].  Within the American Academy and mainline churches from the 1930's through the 1960's the theological work of these three men eclipsed that of any others.

==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 intially 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 Bart'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 desctructive to the British and American Academy ,and as an incompatible, as pluggin in a 120V/60Hz American appliance into a 240V/50Hz European outlet).  Unlike Bart's work,  Emil Brunner's did not dwell on what is alterantively 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 intially 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 Bart'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 desctructive to the British and American Academy ,and as an incompatible, as pluggin in a 120V/60Hz American appliance into a 240V/50Hz European outlet).  Unlike Bart's work,  Emil Brunner's did not dwell on what is alterantively called continental, Hegelian, and German dialectic.