neo orthodoxy

8/14/2019 Neo Orthodoxy

1/20

INTRODUCTION

One of the movements in twentieth century theology and church history is Neo-

orthodoxy. The movement began in Germany as a response to Liberal Protestantism. Its leading

lights were Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. Their ideas spread to the US through the Niebuhrs.

Though the movement is long gone, the thought of Barth, as we will see, continues to

exert an immense influence in theological education. He is considered a premier teacher of the

church, usually ranked along with Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin. More and more

Evangelicals are finding him a good conversation partner.

Expecting Barths shadow to loom larger in the horizon, we shall in this paper try to

make an initial foray into his thoughts. We shall limit ourselves to the beginning of the Neo-

orthodox movement; that was the time when Barths presence in the wider church began to be

felt. Because the movement critiqued Liberal Protestantism, we need to survey the features of the

latter. We will then look at the criticisms of Barth and his company, but mainly Barths.

This paper hopes to show that the hinge around which the Neo-orthodox turns in its

assessment of Liberalism is the infinite qualitative difference of God and human creatures,

especially as that difference is exacerbated by human sinfulness.

In the final section of this paper, we will point out the importance of the Neo-orthodox

stance.

1


2/20

LIBERAL PROTESTANTISMS DREAM

The Enlightenment was the seedbed of Liberal Protestantism.1 Two themes characterized

the Enlightenment: its rejection of authority and its enthronement of reason.2 From the time of

the Reformation, Europeans were already questioning religious authority. Nation states were also

forming and were sensitive to church interference. The religious wars that followed further

weakened the authority of churches. Political rulers used religion for their own ends, putting the

populace in danger and death. The result was that the people became less committed to religion.3

Meanwhile, the use of reason, particularly in the scientific enterprise, was making it

possible for people to understand and control their environment better. Galileo and Copernicus

showed that the cosmos was heliocentric, not geocentric as the church taught. This further shook

the churchs credibility. Explorers sailed to other parts of the world, bringing back wealth and

knowledge of new frontiers. Philosophers and doubters increased. As mans esteem for his

rational capacity went up, his esteem for God went down. God was removed from the center.4

Reason took his place. Everything unreasonable became suspect. The Bible was subjected to

historical and textual criticism. It was pronounced merely a human work, full of errors and

primitive myths to explain the world. Man did not need that artifact anymore.

1Mark D. Chapman, Liberal Protestantism, in The Dictionary of Historical Theology, ed. Trevor Hart

(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 315.

2Timothy George,History of Christianity (Worcester, PA: Samford University, no date of release indicated

in the DVD cover).

3The history of Europe right after the Reformation may be gathered from church history books such as

Justo L. Gonzalez,A History of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century, vol.

III, Revised Edition (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1987), 178-346.

4Richard V. Pierard, Liberalism, Theological, inEvangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A.

Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1984), 632.

2


3/20

3

To salvage the fortunes of religion, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) showed the

impossibility of certain knowledge of any aspect of the external world,5

that part of reality that

cannot be accessed by human measurement and observation. In this case, Gods existence cannot

be proved or disproved. Such sphere, which includes ethics and morality, is the sphere of

religion. Kant argued that there has to be God for ethical considerations to stand. Without God,

there would be no moral imperatives.

While Kant reduced Gods existence to moral usefulness, Friedrich Schleiermacher

(1768-1834) located God in subjective feelings. A persons deep sense of dependence points to

the existence of a divine being who upholds the person. Now this feeling of dependence is

universal in humanity. Everywhere and throughout history, each person who ever lived gives

testimony to this feeling. Only by positing a universal spirit can we explain this universal feeling.

This universal spirit is what we call god.6

Both Kant and Schleiermacher wanted to preserve religion by protecting it from reason

and from the quantifying reach of science. Their motive appeared to be good. It may be asked

whether their strategy was sound and their conclusions right. In the end, their thoughts would

shape the classical Liberal Protestantism in Germany and much of the world.7

Because ethics and

experience are what mattered, church creeds, confessions and professions of faith were devalued.

From Kants ethical concerns, it would be easy to trace the line down to Albrecht

Ritschls (1822-89) belief that the true teaching of the real Jesus was the universal fatherhood of

5J. Philip Wogaman, Christian Ethics: A Historical Introduction (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John

Knox Press, 1993), 162.

6Iain Murray,Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000

(Murrayfield Road, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 4-13.

7Pierard, Liberalism, Theological, 632.


4/20

4

God and the brotherhood of man.8 This is what makes Christianity the best religion. What

matters is our behavior and how we treat our fellowmen. Doctrinal differences are irrelevant.

Similarly, Schleiermachers doctrine that religion is subjective feeling leads to the

conclusion that human longing or consciousness is an expression of the divine spirit. We can

expand this to include the collective longing of a culture or society. Thus, the human desire for

freedom and progress comes from this god. The forward march of culture is the forward march

of God. In the human experience, we see the will of God.

We have to add to the mix the theory of evolution that Charles Darwin (1809-82)

expounded in the 1850s.9 Darwins theory was applied in society to mean that society (and

humanity as a whole) is moving from a low primitive state to a high, ideal, perfect existence.10

Barbarism belonged to the past. Human goodwill is ours in the present. We are aiming for a

future utopia. Ethically we are improving. As for tools for development, we have science and

technology. Industrialization had increased our wealth and built our cities. All things point to

progress. This is the human longing and experience, and so it must be Gods will.

Here then, to summarize our preceding discussion, were the three main features of

Liberal Protestantism in Western Europe,11

especially in Germany: (1) Human actions that

promote the common good are what counts, not doctrine; (2) Humanity is on the move to greater

progress; and (3) Human and divine aspirations are one.

With these three doctrines firmly lodge in the human psyche, the people were in the grip

of a good dream. But that dream was shattered by the bombs of World War I.

8Wogaman, Christian Ethics, 175.

9Colin Brown, A World Come of Age, inA Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity (Oxford,

England: Lion Publishing, 1990), 548-9.

10Alister E. McGrath, Christia Theology: An Introduction, 2

nded. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell

Publishers, 1997), 102.

11Liberalism everywhere seems to have these main features although they are expressed differently in

various parts of the world. See Chapman, Liberal Protestantism, 315-7.


5/20

NEO-ORTHODOXYS CRITIQUE

The First World War did not deal a death blow to Liberal Protestantism. It merely caused

disillusionment among its ranks. Several of its sons left and questioned its foundational

doctrines. Prominent among these sons were Karl Barth (1886-1968) from Basel and Emil

Brunner (1889-1966) from Zurich. Joining them were other thinkers like Friedrich Gogarten,

Rudolf Bultmann and Edward Thurneysen. Together they established a movement that was then

first called the dialectical school.12

These dialectical theologians faulted Liberal Protestantism for its failure to see the

difference between Creator and creature, in both being and holiness. This charge has two

components. First, the being: Blind to the important Creator-creature distinction, Liberalism

tended to conflate God with creation. It was guilty of gross immanentism, identifying God with

humanity and culture. It completely nullified Gods transcendence.13

It put humanity and God on

the same scale of being.

The second component is holiness. Liberalisms de-emphasis of human sinfulness

allowed it to unite the divine and human. It accepted that humans are basically and essentially

good. Consequently, we can only expect human progress, not degradation. Against this, the

dialecticians asserted from the Bible that not only are humans different from God ontologically,

they are also separated from Him because of sin.14

12John Webster, Introducing Barth, in John Webster, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth

(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 6. The groups dialectics should not be confused with

Hegelian dialectics.

13Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, 20

thCentury Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 24-62.

14Ibid., 64. 5


6/20

6

Thus, in both counts in being and in holiness according to the dialecticians, God and

man are qualitatively different. Effacing this difference was the grave error of Liberal

Protestantism. On this point the dialectical theologians were all agreed. But their agreement

would not be long. In the 1930s, they went their separate ways.

Karl Barth

Among the dialecticians, Karl Barth became the most prominent in the Christian world.

His 13-volume Church Dogmatics is the theological monument of the twentieth century.15

The

Roman Catholic Church considers him the greatest theologian after Thomas Aquinas. He was

invited to the Second Vatican Council, and those most influential in that council such as Karl

Rahner and Hans von Balthasar have engaged his thoughts.16 In the United States, Princeton and

Fuller seminaries disseminate his teachings. In Europe, his students Thomas Torrance and

Eberhard Jungel spread his influence. Given Barths stature, neo-orthodoxy became associated

with him, and it is through his eyes that we will try to appreciate more deeply the critique

launched against Liberal Protestantism.

Barth was the son of a Reformed pastor. He did his studies in the Liberal fold. Adolf von

Harnack and Johann Wilhelm Herrmann, his teachers, were two Liberal heavyweights.17

Like

them, he accepted the tenets of Enlightenment and embraced the positive spirit of Liberalism.

Barths first stirring towards traditional Christian faith occurred in his first small pastorate, in his

15Gerald Bray, Christ, Creeds and Confessions: Did the early Christians misrepresent Jesus? (Fearn,

Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 1997), 28.

16Paul Molnar, Barth, Karl in The Dictionary of Historical Theology, ed. Trevor Hart (Grand Rapids,

MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 57-8.

17Geoffrey W. Bromiley,Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1978), 390-421.


7/20

7

struggle to preach the Word of God to his people. Biblical criticism had robbed the Scriptures of

its authority. How can he preach the Scriptures? Liberal faith was failing him and his people.18

The bankruptcy of Liberal faith became evident in the wake of World War I. Barth could

not believe that his theological mentors, like Harnack and Herrmann, would support Germanys

war efforts. Harnack even penned the German Kaisers war speech.19 Evidently, Barths teachers

saw that the will of the German government had to be the will of God. The two wills were

unified. The voice of the people was the voice of God. The Creator and creature were one.

Barths disillusionment led him to read the Bible anew, especially the writings of the

Apostle Paul. Barth also read Kierkeegard, and the latters thought arrested him. The Danish

Christian thinker, we should recall, was critical of the deadness and hypocrisy of the state church

during his time.20 Kierkeegard saw that the state church was not walking according to the

demands of the Gospel. God became captive to the Danish churchs whims. While the state

clergy identified God with their desires, Kierkeegard stressed that God cannot be co-opted for

our purposes because He is infinitely qualitatively different.

It is from Kierkeegard that Barth got his concept of God as the wholly other, that there is

an infinite qualitative distinction between time and eternity, between God in heaven and man

on earth.21 Barth believed that the concept was biblical and Pauline. His commentary on the book

of Romans (published in 1919 and fully revised in 1922), which catapulted him to the limelight,

18Eberhard Busch, The Great Passion: An Introduction to Karl Barths Theology, trans. Geoffrey

Bromiley, ed. and an. Darrell Guder and Judith Guder (Grand Rapis, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 2004), 18.

19Clifford Green, Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom (Grafton Street, London: Collins Liturgical

Publications, 1989), 15.

20Wogaman, Christian Ethics, 170.

21Gregory G. Bolich, Karl Barth and Evangelicalism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 111.


8/20

8

made much use of the concept.22 The book was like a bomb that exploded in the playground of

the theological Liberals. Its basic message was that God is the wholly other who reveals himself

only in his Word; we cannot know him anywhere else, certainly not in culture and not inside us.

This God is free, and we cannot control him or manipulate him. We have to listen to the Divine

Spirit speaking through the Scriptures, not to the spirit of culture or humanity, however refined

and progressive.

Barth called the Christianity of his day religionistic, anthropocentric, and in this sense

humanistic where

To think about God meant, with scarcely any attempt to hide the fact, to think of

human experience, particularly of the Christian religious experience. To speak about

God meant to speak about humanity, no doubt in elevated tone, but once more andnow more than ever about human revelations and miracles, about human faith and

human works. What did it know and what had it still to say about Gods divinity? 23

Religious concerns were intimately welded to cultural assumptions. For him, this was the

exact opposite of the Bible, where the apostles and prophets judged the ways and practices of

their day according to Gods revelation.

Barths resistance to cultural Protestantism remained firm during the ascendancy of Adolf

Hitler over Germany. To his dismay, prominent Lutheran theologian Paul Althaus (1888-1966)

praised Hitler as a gift from God.24 With the help of other pastors, he gathered the Confessing

Church to provide a united front against Hitler. Barth drafted the Confessing Churchs 1934

Barmen Declaration (see the Appendix). In the declaration, Barths basic commitments were

clearly in view. We shall comment briefly on some.

22Ibid., 110-5. Cf. Busch, Great Passion, 20-3.

23Karl Barth, The Humanity of God, 48, as quoted in Green, Karl Barth, 15.

24Frank Jehle,Ever Against the Stream: The Politics of Karl Barth, 1906-1968, trans. Richard and Martha

Burnett (Grand Rapis, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 40.


9/20

9

The first evangelical truth, in Barths estimate, is the supreme lordship of the Jesus

Christ of the Bible. The article said: Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the

one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in

death (see the Appendix). It is to this Jesus voice talking in the Scriptures which we are to

submit, no one else and nowhere else. We reject the false doctrine, the document went on, as

though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart

from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as

God's revelation. Certainly not Hitler, and certainly not the compromised theologians of the

day. This was a blow to Liberal Protestantism which seeks knowledge of divine will from

subjective feelings and cultural consciousness.

The second evangelical truth read: As Jesus Christ is God's assurance of the

forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and with the same seriousness he is also God's

mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless

fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures (emphasis added). It is Christ, not

Hitler or any human government, who has the right claim over our entire life. This truth was

bolstered in the accompanying denial: We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas

of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords areas in which we

would not need justification and sanctification through him (emphasis added). Every dimension

of life needs justification and sanctification from Christ. Presupposed here is the sinfulness of

man, including his subjective feelings and cultural consciousness. This dealt a blow to

Liberalisms positive view of humanity.

The third article talked about the churchs only message (defined by the Word) and only

Lord. We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of

its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political


10/20

10

convictions. In other words, the church must not be captive to the spirit of the age, certainly not

the spirit of Liberalism.

Thus Barth, through the Barmen Declaration, assaulted the premises of Liberal

Protestantism. The church cannot rely on human rationality or religiosity because God cannot be

found there. God is not immanent in creatures, animate or inanimate. He is the Transcendent

One, the Wholly Other, infinitely distinct from all kinds of created being.

The German Reich forced Barth to leave Germany and go back to Basel, his native land.

Other Confessing Church pastors, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer were taken to concentration camps.

Rift with Brunner

Barths opposition to the political rulers and spirit of his day did not stem from

ideological, political, economic or pragmatic reasons. It branched out from his biblical-

theological commitments. That this is so may be gleaned from his Barmen Declaration, his

Romans commentary and, finally, from the debate he conducted with Brunner.25

In the 1930s, Brunner published a material arguing for a point of contact between God

and man. Barths immediate response to Brunner was so harsh that it broke their friendship and

their partnership in the theological arena. For Barth there is no such point of contact. God is

infinitely, uniquely high. There is no point of contact between God and humanity.

In the article, Brunner argued for a point of contact in terms of capacity. He argued, for

instance, that man must have the capacity for hearing if he is to hear Gods address to him. Man

must be a communicative creature if he is to communicate and commune with God. Without this

capacity, this point of contact, revelation from God would be impossible.

25What follows in this section summarizes John Hart, The Barth-Brunner Correspondence in George

Hunsinger, ed. For the Sake of the World: Karl Barth and the Future of Ecclesial Theology (Grand Rapis, MI:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 19-43, and Trevor Hart,Regarding Karl Barth: Toward a

Reading of His Theology (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), 139-72.


11/20

11

Barth agreed with Brunner that man has been endowed with creaturely capacities. What

he questioned is whether those capacities sufficiently equip man, by himself, to draw near to

God. He also pointed out that sinful mans movement is not toward God but away from God.

Worse, when sinful man ran toward God, it was to kill him. We saw this in the violent death of

Jesus Christ. When God approached man in the flesh, in Jesus, man bludgeoned him, beat him to

a pulp, and left him dying on a cross. If this is what human capacity can do, the result is death,

not salvation or progress.

No! said Barth. There is no such point of contact. Though he affirmed with Brunner the

characteristics and qualities that make creature and human existence possible, he stressed that

mans movement toward God must be due to Gods prevenient grace and initiative. Mary, like

other women endowed with child-bearing capacity, can bear a child when the conditions for

child-bearing are met. She has capacity in that sense. But of herself she cannot conceive a child.

Even if she had a husband in Joseph, they could not have a child except by the grace of God.

The formation of Jesus in Marys womb was made possible by the Spirits power alone.

In this way, Barth taught, we are to think of our reception of the Gospel in our heart. Our heart

must be prepared by the Spirit and he must put the Word there. The Word, through the Spirit,

creates its own hearers. The physical capacity of hearing might be there. But our ears are deaf to

God. When he calls, we turn the other way. Our capacities make us only guiltier. If God is to

save us, he must speak creatively, like in the first chapter of Genesis. He must command,

Lazarus, come forth! Only then will dead people rise to life. Until then, our capacities do not

help us in our deadness to God. God must provide the point of contact.

Barths harsh response to Brunner brought an end to their friendship and to their

dialectical movement. He felt that Brunner was opening the back door, ever so slightly, to


12/20

12

Liberalism. With the horrors of World War I behind him and the imminent menace of Nazism in

front, Barth had no recourse but to correct Brunner sharply.

Barths Legacy

Barth and Brunner engaged Liberal Protestantism critically. They understood, however,

that if theology was to serve the Gospel, they must move from being critical to being

constructive. Consequently, both mined the treasure of the Reformation heritage.

But Barth will prove to have the louder voice and the larger following. His movement led

to a resurgence of Calvin and Reformed studies.26

Systematic theology once again became a

respected discipline in the universities in its own right. More than that, he brought the Trinity and

Christology back to the center of theological inquiry.27

With Barths acceptance of Anselm known for faith seeking understanding and

highly regarded in the Roman Catholic Church his movement became widely catholic, just like

his Reformed tradition. That is, it became neo-orthodox. He grappled with the whole Christian

tradition as he was able. What cannot be maintained from the Scriptures, he questioned. To what

can be retained, he threw fresh light and life.

It would be wrong to suggest that Barth got everything right.28

Many theologians

disagreed with him on many points men like Jurgen Moltmann, Richard Muller and Carl

Henry. But Barth served the church by resurrecting systematic theology. He served us by putting

detonators at the foundation of Liberal Protestantism.

26Kurt Anders Richardson,Reading Karl Barth: New Directions for North American Theology (Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 28-31. Cf. Bolich,Barth and Evangelicalism, 57-8.

27Bray, Creeds, 27.

28We are not suggesting that Brunner was wrong in the doctrine where he disagreed with Barth.


13/20

CONCLUSION

We have seen that Protestant Liberalism conflated human aspiration with the Christian

Gospel. It merged the Creator and creature, setting up a theological structure that supported

cultural assumptions, societal ideals and national endeavors. As a result, German theologians and

churches gave a friendly hand to the war policies of their leaders in the two world wars of the

twentieth century. Their theological vision was wrong. The voice they heard was from the human

spirit. They lost their prophetic voice.

Barth and Neo-orthodoxy faulted Liberalism in not seeing the Otherness of God and the

sinfulness of man. Realizing the first (Gods Otherness) should have led the German Christians

to seek this God where he ordained to be found: in the Scriptures. There he speaks, and not in

our subjective feelings or cultural ethos.

Realizing the second (mans sinfulness) should have led the Protestants to look to Christ

in the Scriptures for sanctification and justification. They should have put more confidence in

him and more humility in their capacities.

Rejecting these twin truths (or one, since they are the two poles of the Creator-creature

distinction) resulted in the horrors and atrocities humanity experienced in two global wars. This

was the prime message of Neo-orthodoxy back then.

It is a message for us to learn in our time. On the personal side, the writer (eleven years

ago) had acquaintances who, as a result of participating in intense worship activities and mission

seminars, felt a call to frontier missions. They left their good jobs promptly but were unable

to go to the mission field. Discouraged, they have not set foot on our denomination since that

time. With the Neo-orthodox critique in mind, our denomination should have set up structures to

13


14/20

14

help fired up members sort out their emotions or sudden zeal. Without putting down the role of

subjectivity in decision making, the church should set up wise objective criteria in helping

people discern the will of God.

What is true individually is true for our larger culture. For many people, freedom from

everything is the Gospel. This is a massive misunderstanding of the Protestant Reformation and

the Bible. For the Reformers, freedom is being a slave to Christ. It does not mean freedom to do

anything we want, outside of all constraints. This is the freedom touted in the 1960s that led to

sexual immorality, unwanted babies and abortion by the millions. This is freedom that leads to

death and the destruction of many fetuses and, with them, many generations. This is freedom the

church cannot afford to read into the Bible. Here we need to heed Neo-orthodoxys warning.

Barth, in highlighting the Creator-creature distinction, pointed us to the Gospel. Salvation

and progress cannot be found in sinful man or in blind culture. They are found only in the one

Word of God: in Jesus Christ attested to us by the Spirit in the Scriptures.


15/20

APPENDIX

Theological Declaration of Barmen

Written by Karl Barth and the confessing church in Nazi Germany in response to Hitler's

national church. Its central doctrines concern the sin of idolatry and the lordship of Christ.

I. An Appeal to the Evangelical Congregations and Christians in Germany

8.01 The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church met in Barmen, May 29-31,1934. Here representatives from all the German Confessional Churches met with oneaccord in a confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, apostolic Church. In fidelity to

their Confession of Faith, members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches sought acommon message for the need and temptation of the Church in our day. With gratitude to

God they are convinced that they have been given a common word to utter. It was not their

intention to found a new Church or to form a union. For nothing was farther from their

minds than the abolition of the confessional status of our Churches. Their intention was,

rather, to withstand in faith and unanimity the destruction of the Confession of Faith, and

thus of the Evangelical Church in Germany. In opposition to attempts to establish the unityof the German Evangelical Church by means of false doctrine, by the use of force and

insincere practices, the Confessional Synod insists that the unity of the Evangelical

Churches in Germany can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy

Spirit. Thus alone is the Church renewed.

8.02 Therefore the Confessional Synod calls upon the congregations to range themselves behindit in prayer, and steadfastly to gather around those pastors and teachers who are loyal to the

Confessions.

8.03 Be not deceived by loose talk, as if we meant to oppose the unity of the German nation! Do

not listen to the seducers who pervert our intentions, as if we wanted to break up the unity

of the German Evangelical Church or to forsake the Confessions of the Fathers!

8.04 Try the spirits whether they are of God! Prove also the words of the Confessional Synod of

the German Evangelical Church to see whether they agree with Holy Scripture and with the

Confessions of the Fathers. If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then donot listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fearor temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word

of God, in order that God's people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith

experience what he himself has said: "I will never leave you, nor forsake you." Therefore,

"Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

15


16/20

16

II. Theological Declaration Concerning the Present Situation of the German Evangelical Church

8.05 According to the opening words of its constitution of July 11, 1933 the German Evangelical

Church is a federation of Confessional Churches that grew our of the Reformation and that

enjoy equal rights. The theological basis for the unification of these Churches is laid downin Article 1 and Article 2(1) of the constitution of the German Evangelical Church that was

recognized by the Reich Government on July 14, 1933:

Article 1. The inviolable foundation of the German Evangelical Church is the gospel ofJesus Christ as it is attested for us in Holy Scripture and brought to light again in the

Confessions of the Reformation. The full powers that the Church needs for its mission

are hereby determined and limited.

Article 2 (1). The German Evangelical Church is divided into member ChurchesLandeskirchen).

8.06 We, the representatives of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches, of free synods,Church assemblies, and parish organizations united in the Confessional Synod of the

German Evangelical Church, declare that we stand together on the ground of the German

Evangelical Church as a federation of German Confessional Churches. We are bound

together by the confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

8.07 We publicly declare before all evangelical Churches in Germany that what they hold incommon in this Confession is grievously imperiled, and with it the unity of the German

Evangelical Church. It is threatened by the teaching methods and actions of the ruling

Church party of the "German Christians" and of the Church administration carried on by

them. These have become more and more apparent during the first year of the existence of

the German Evangelical Church. This threat consists in the fact that the theological basis,in which the German Evangelical Church is united, has been continually and systematically

thwarted and rendered ineffective by alien principles, on the part of the leaders andspokesmen of the "German Christians" as well as on the part of the Church administration.

When these principles are held to be valid, then, according to all the Confessions in force

among us, the Church ceases to be the Church and th German Evangelical Church, as afederation of Confessional Churches, becomes intrinsically impossible.

8.08 As members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches we may and must speak with one

voice in this matter today. Precisely because we want to be and to remain faithful to ourvarious Confessions, we may not keep silent, since we believe that we have been given a

common message to utter in a time of common need and temptation. We commend to Godwhat this may mean for the intrrelations of the Confessional Churches.

8.09 In view of the errors of the "German Christians" of the present Reich Church government

which are devastating the Church and also therefore breaking up the unity of the German

Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths:

8.10-1 "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John

14.6). "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but

climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. . . . I am the door; if anyone

enters by me, he will be saved." (John 10:1, 9.)


17/20

17

8.11 Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we

have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.

8.12 We reiect the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge asa source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other

events and powers, figures and truths, as God's revelation.

8.13 - 2. "Christ Jesus, whom God has made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctificationand redemption." (1 Cor. 1:30.)

8.14 As Jesus Christ is God's assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and

with the same seriousness he is also God's mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him

befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful

service to his creatures.

8.15 We reiect the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would notbelong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification

and sanctification through him.

8.16 - 3. "Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the

head, into Christ, from whom the whole body [is] joined and knit together." (Eph. 4:15,16.)

8.17 The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts

presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church ofpardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its

obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it livesand wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his

appearance.

8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its

message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political

convictions.

8.19 - 4. "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great menexcercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great

among you must be your srvant." (Matt. 20:25,26.)

8.20 The various offices in the Church do not establish a dominion of some over the others; on

the contrary, they are for the excercise of the ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the

whole congregation.

8.21 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were

permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.

8.22 - 5. "Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:17.)

Scripture tells us that, in the as yet unredeemed world in which the Church also exists, the

State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace. [It fulfills this

task] by means of the threat and exercise of force, according to the measure of human


18/20

18

judgment and human ability. The Church acknowledges the benefit of this divine

appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the Kingdom of God,

God's commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of

the ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word by which God upholds all things.8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special

commision, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus

fulfilling the Church's vocation as well.

8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission,

should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus

itself becoming an organ of the State.

8.25 - 6. "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matt. 28:20.) "The word of God is

not fettered." (2 Tim. 2:9.)

8.26 The Church's commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering themessage of th free grace of God to all people in Christ's stead, and therefore in the ministry

of his own Word and work through sermon and sacrament.

8.27 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the

Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and

plans.

8.28 The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church declares that it sees in theacknowledgment of these truths and in the rejection of these errors the indispensable

theological basis of the German Evangelical Church as a federation of ConfessionalChurches. It invites all who are able to accept its declaration to be mindful of these

theological principles in their decisions in Church politics. It entreats all whom it concerns

to return to the unity of faith, love, and hope.

From: The Church's Confession Under Hitlerby Arthur C. Cochrane.Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962, pp. 237-242.


19/20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bolich, Gregory G. Karl Barth and Evangelicalism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,1980.

Bray, Gerald. Christ, Creeds and Confessions: Did the early Christians misrepresent Jesus?

Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 1997.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W. Historical Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.

Brown, Colin. A World Come of Age, inA Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity.

Oxford, England: Lion Publishing, 1990.

Busch, Eberhard. The Great Passion: An Introduction to Karl Barths Theology, trans. Geoffrey

Bromiley, ed. and an. Darrell Guder and Judith Guder. Grand Rapis, MI: William B.


Chapman, Mark D. Liberal Protestantism, in The Dictionary of Historical Theology, ed.Trevor Hart. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

Jehle, Frank.Ever Against the Stream: The Politics of Karl Barth, 1906-1968, trans. Richard and

Martha Burnett. Grand Rapis, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.

George, Timothy. History of Christianity. Worcester, PA: Samford University, no date of release

indicated in the DVD cover.

Gonzalez, Justo L.A History of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to theTwentieth Century, vol. III, Revised Edition. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1987.

Green, Clifford. Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom. Grafton Street, London: Collins Liturgical

Publications, 1989.

Grenz, Stanley J. and Olson, Roger E. 20th

Century Theology: God and the World in a

Transitional Age. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Hart, John. The Barth-Brunner Correspondence in George Hunsinger, ed. For the Sake of theWorld: Karl Barth and the Future of Ecclesial Theology. Grand Rapis, MI: William B.


Hart, Trevor. Regarding Karl Barth: Toward a Reading of His Theology. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf

and Stock Publishers, 1999.

19


20/20

neo orthodoxy

Documents