Liberal and Neo-Orthodox Anthropology

By Dave Lowe & Erik York

            Any serious discussion of Liberal and Neo-Orthodox Theology must begin with an overview of its beginnings and major influences.

THE SEEDS OF LIBERAL THEOLOGY

            In general, liberal theology developed as a way to adapt theological ideas to modern culture and modern ways of thinking. Specifically, liberalism sought to reconcile theology with the modern ideas that were being promoted by science, psychology, philosophy and other educational disciplines.

            One of the chief movements that contributed to theological liberalism was the Enlightenment, an intellectual movement that stressed human reason as the primary means for discerning truth.

            Perhaps the most influential philosopher of the Enlightenment period was Immanuel Kant. Kant's ideas emerged toward the end of the Enlightenment period and changed the way philosophers understood reality. Previous to Kant, philosophers were divided in their views of how we attain knowledge. The empiricists said that knowledge originated in the physical universe and then entered the brain. The rationalists, on the other hand, said that knowledge originated in the mind itself.

            Kant asserted that both groups were wrong. Kant believed that knowledge resulted from the interaction of sensory data with innate categories within the mind. These innate categories processed the incoming sensory data and turned it into knowledge. Kant outlined 5 categories of the mind which, according to him, processed incoming data and turned it into knowledge. Unfortunately, Kant's system made no provision for perceiving data from the spiritual world. The end result is that Kant believed that one could not reason his way to God because God doesn't exist in the physical realm and thus He cannot be sensed empirically.

            It was only a matter of time before Kant's views made their way into the theological arena. Theologians who adopted Kant's views became the forefathers of liberal theology. The key doctrine that was first affected by Kant's views was the doctrine of divine immanence. Like a domino, the liberal doctrine of immanence in turn affected other doctrines within liberal theology.

            The liberal doctrine of immanence grew out of a desire to explain truth apart from the supernatural. This was necessary because, as we've said before, Kant's new system of knowledge did not allow for the supernatural. Hence, rather than seeing God as a transcendent being who exists above or outside of His creation, liberal theologians saw God as being immanently present in all aspects of His creation not just in some revelatory book such as the Bible.

            Though this view of immanence flirted dangerously close to pantheism, most liberal theologians tried to maintain a distinctively Christian flavor to their theological and philosophical ideas. Thus, liberal theologians used the same terms found in traditional Christian theology, but redefined them in order to fit their new theology.

            Friederich Schleiermacher, who is often referred to as the Father Liberal Theology, responded to Kant's ideas by suggesting that while God's presence couldn't be known rationally, His presence could be felt. It was at this point that the theological world was flipped upside down. Instead of developing a theology based on divine revelation, religion was seen to be at its core, a subjective experience.

            These two premises, (1) the liberal view of divine immanence and (2) the source of truth being one's own subjective feeling, now made it unnecessary to think of the Bible as the sole authority of revelation of God. In addition, the Bible was not considered to have been divinely inspired or infallible because it was written by fallible humans and because it contained certain accounts that were described as miraculous. These passages seemed to contradict current reasoning and understanding. Hence, it became necessary to re-interpret the Bible in such a way that these key texts would conform to current knowledge and understanding. This form of Biblical criticism had several effects on the Biblical doctrine of anthropology.

LIBERAL ANTHROPOLOGY

            The first doctrine that was affected concerned the origin of man. Liberal theology rejected the literal account of creation in the book of Genesis and accepted in principle Darwin's theory of evolution as the source of mankind. Organic evolution fit rather nicely with the liberal view of divine immanence because it explained how God could create man through purely naturalistic methods. If evolution was God's mode for creating the human race then it logically followed that the creation account in Genesis should not to be taken literally but allegorically.

            Since the Genesis account was nothing more than a parable, it became necessary to come up with another explanation for the origin of sin. Liberal theology explained it this way: Sin did not originate in the first man but instead originated in the depths of organic life from which man emerged. Thus sin came to be redefined as that part of our nature which is irrational. In other words, our sin nature is nothing more than our animal nature.

            With evolution as the centerpiece for liberal anthropology, Hegel developed a philosophy of man that is best described as "self-confidence". Hegel believed that just as man has evolved from lower life forms, so man is also evolving spiritually. Eventually, through knowledge and through the evolutionary process, man could learn to control his animalistic (sinful) behaviors and perhaps someday rid himself of it altogether. Hegel's philosophy of optimism was reflected in the popular slogan, "Every day in every way we are getting better and better."

            Liberal theology had many other views regarding sin that were contrary to traditional views. Among these was the idea of imputed sin. While liberal theology did believe that sin was biologically transferred, they rejected the idea of imputed sin and guilt. This makes sense given the fact that they no longer believed in a literal Adam. In liberal theology, Adam was merely representative of each of us.

            Because liberal theology rejected the doctrine of imputed sin, it's not surprising that they also rejected the idea of total depravity. No longer was man born into sin. Instead, it was believed that children were born basically good and influenced either positively or negatively by society.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE SOCIAL GOSPEL

            With the problem of sin now based in society rather than in man himself, liberal theologians like Walter Rauschenbusch developed what became known as "the Social Gospel". Rather than addressing the sins of the individual, Rauschenbusch sought to address the sins of society.

            Suddenly, the goal of liberal theology was not to reform man, but to reform society, for society was seen to be the corrupting influence on mankind. The focus was no longer on the afterlife, but on creating a better life on earth. By changing society for the better, it was believed that man could transform society and usher in the Kingdom of God. In short, liberal theology believed that man could actually bring about the Kingdom of God through his own efforts. Seen in this light, liberal theology can basically be described as humanism clothed in Christian terms.

THE EMERGENCE OF NEO-ORTHODOXY

            While Liberal theology finds its roots in the philosophical movement of the Enlightenment, the Neo-Orthodox movement grew out of a response to Liberal theology.

            Liberal theology, with its emphasis on the Kingdom of God and the goodness of man, gained a strong following in the late 1800's and early 1900's. However, it suffered a serious blow with the advent of World War I.

            Karl Barth and Emil Brunner are generally accepted to be the fathers of the Neo-Orthodox movement. Both Barth and Brunner studied theology in Germany under liberal theologians. However, they could not reconcile the liberal view of man's goodness with a nation that was ravaged by war. Therefore, Barth and Brunner modified and adapted the liberal theology in which they had been trained. The resultant theology came to be known as Neo-Orthodoxy.

            Neo-Orthodoxy as a movement was not closely organized or unified. There were many points of disagreement among the major influencers. In general though, Neo-Orthodoxy represented a rejection of some of the primary beliefs of the Liberal theology that had dominated the religious scene.

            Neo-Orthodoxy rejected the divine immanence of liberal theology and like a pendulum, settled at the opposite extreme, emphasizing a completely transcendent nature of God. In fact, according to neo-orthodox theology, God is so far above man that it is impossible for man to know Him. In addition, God would not stoop down to man's level, for that would violate his transcendence. Neo-Orthodoxy attempted to reconcile this paradox with an exalted view of Christ as the incarnate Word. Through interaction with the Living Word, one can come to a knowledge of God.

            Neo-Orthodoxy also put a greater emphasis on the Bible, though they did not consider it to be infallible. Neo-Orthodox theologians did not consider the Bible to be revelation, but instead believed it to be merely a witness to revelation.

            The most striking difference between Neo-Orthodox theology and Liberal theology concerns the nature of man. Both Barth and Brunner rejected the liberal view of man's goodness. To the liberal theologian "every fall was a fall upward", causing mankind and society to be constantly evolving to new levels. Neo-orthodoxy saw this idea of an optimistic mankind to be extremely impractical. It simply didn't match reality. In this respect, neo-orthodoxy returned to a more traditional view of the sinful nature of man.

            It should be noted though that even on this point there was disagreement among the major influencers of neo-orthodoxy. For example, Emil Brunner rejected the idea of inherited sin. He believed that an individual's sins were not the result of an inherited nature, but simply a result of choice. Brunner further defined sin as selfishness.

            On the other hand, while Reinhold Niebuhr also rejected the liberal view of man's goodness, he defined sin as merely social injustice and fear. It's clear then that while neo-orthodoxy represented a general opposition to certain liberal doctrines, there was a range of disagreement even among those who are generally thought of as having influenced the movement.

            Neo-orthodoxy did not reject liberal theology on every point however. Like liberal theology, neo-orthodoxy also rejected the Biblical view of man's origin, accepting in its place the scientific explanation of evolution. Brunner in particular saw the creation story as being nothing more than an allegory.

            Neo-Orthodoxy also rejected the rational basis for faith. In the neo-orthodox system, faith requires a "blind leap". In this way, neo-orthodoxy held onto a primary tenet of liberal theology, maintaining that our subjective feeling is an authority over any objective revelation such as the Bible.

SUMMARY

            Liberal theology rejects the Biblical view of the origin of man, in favor of evolution. In addition, sin has been redefined to refer to our animal nature. The concept of imputed sin is also rejected. Instead, liberal theology teaches that people are basically born good but are influenced negatively by society. For this reason, liberal theology tends to emphasize social change rather than the conversion and change of the individual.

            Neo-Orthodoxy also rejects the Biblical view of the origin of man. However, Neo-orthodoxy maintains the Biblical doctrine of the sinfulness of man, even though there is disagreement within the group as to the exact nature of sin.

            Liberal theology and Neo-Orthodoxy both teach that man cannot reason themselves to God. In liberal theology, man can feel God, while Neo-Orthodoxy teaches that man comes to God by taking a "leap of faith". Therefore both theologies place more of an emphasis on the person's own subjective experience in knowing God rather than relying on the revelation of God as seen in His Word and in the person of Christ.

RESOURCES

BOOKS

Enns, Paul P. 1989. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press.

Erickson, Millard J. 1998. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

Ferguson, Sinclair B., Wright, David F. 1988. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. 1956. Neoorthodoxy, An Evangelical Evaluation of Barthianism. Chicago: Moody Press.

Schaeffer, Francis A. 1982. The complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, Volume One, A Christian View of Philosophy and Culture. Westchester: Crossway Books.

WEBSITES

Matthews, Terry. Lecture Sixteen: The Christocentric Liberal Tradition. From the class "Religion 166: Religious Life in the United States" at Wake Forest University. Found at the following web address: http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/sixteen.html

Matthews, Terry. Lecture Eighteen: Christocentric Liberalism--Part II. From the class "Religion 166: Religious Life in the United States" at Wake Forest University. Found at the following web address: http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/eighteen.html

Matthews, Terry. Lecture Twenty-Two, Neo-Orthodoxy. From the class "Religion 166: Religious Life in the United States" at Wake Forest University. Found at the following web address: http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentytwo.html

Sawyer, M. James. Liberalism. A theological paper found at the following website: http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/liberal/liberal.htm

"Theological Liberalism". From the Brittanica.com website. Found at the following web address:

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,73910+1,00.html

"Biblical Theology Movement". From the BELIEVE Religious Information website. Found at the following web address:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/bibtheol.htm

"Neo-Orthodoxy". From the BELIEVE Religious Information website. Found at the following web address: