Changes

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.   

==Neo-orthodoxy as Christian Fundamentalism==

==Neo-orthodoxy and Christian Fundamentalism==

A useful but somewhat simplistic way of defining neo-orthodoxy is to define it as the rejection of Professor [[Wilhelm Herrmann]] teachings by some of his students—in this sense [[Fundamentalism|Christian Fundamentalism]] is a branch of neo-orthodoxy.  For [[John Gresham Machen]], who traveled to Germany and studied with Herrmann in 1905, is key figure in the formation of Christian Fundamentalism.

A useful but somewhat simplistic way of defining neo-orthodoxy is to define it as the rejection of Professor [[Wilhelm Herrmann]] teachings by some of his students—in this sense [[Fundamentalism|Christian Fundamentalism]] is a branch of neo-orthodoxy.  For [[John Gresham Machen]], who traveled to Germany and studied with Herrmann in 1905, is key figure in the formation of Christian Fundamentalism. Above all, the common ground between [[Fundamentalism|Christian Fundamentalism]] and Neo-orthodoxy is the acceptance and evangelism of the [[sin|doctrine of Sin]].  A fundemental difference is the solution to the problem of sin.  [[Christian Fundamentalism]] espouses the [[Salvation|doctrine of Salvation]], while neo-orthodoxy remains bizarely quiet on such a solution despite its vociferousness on the [[sin|doctrine of Sin]].