This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've done a bit of editing to make this more readable. I'm not sure about the portion that is in parentheses though, and this might need to be further defined--perhaps through an example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.35.6 ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 November 2004 (UTC)
Hope that no one minds the cross reference. Thanks. Fintor | talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:14, 10 February 2005 (UTC)
Karl Barth is listed as a
liberal theologian, so I am curious why there is the necessity to distance Barth from the existentialism of say, Paul Tillich, who is also as a liberal theologian. I wonder whether it might be better to distance him from
Modernist_Christianity as this is more related to the effect of modernism on Christianity than Liberal Christianity which is more to do with
Liberalism, although modernism could be considered a subset of Liberal belief --
Randolph 04:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I came across a redlink to Neo-orthodox Theology on the Theology page and redirected it to this page. -- FurciferRNB 12 December 2005
I believe documentation is needed for many claims in this article, not least the fundamental one that there ever was any such "movement" as neo-orthodoxy. It would help immensely if someone could document that a theologian associated with the term ever accepted it as a valid description of his or her work. I suspect it was never more than a term of derision, used first by German liberals and later by American Roman Catholics and Protestant fundamentalists, and which now has become part of the common theological vocabulary without having reeived, in English-speaking scholarship, the critical evaluation for which it calls. Moreover, it is an important question whether any one term can describe the widely varied theologies of the Niebuhr brothers (who were very different from each other), Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner (who were more or less at each others' throats theologically from 1929 until Brunner's death in 1966), and Rudolph Bultmann, who lived in an entirely different theological and hermeneutical universe from the rest. Mtalleyrand ( talk) 11:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have checked sources that use the term neo-orthodoxy for some of the individuals listed in the "Important Figures" section, and can find no published source that associates Stringfellow, Lehmann, or Ellul with this term. I am tagging them as citation needed, and will delete them if no citation is given in a day or two. Mtalleyrand ( talk) 12:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I added a section on theologians who have been called neo-orthodox, and some of the problems with that, and moved the existing statement that the term has largely been abandoned into the opening paragraph. I'm now looking for the original source of the term. Mtalleyrand ( talk) 13:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I seem to be talking to myself here, but against the possibility that someone else gets interested in this article, I will continue to do so. I believe it would be valuable to change the section on theological emphases. Much of what is there might more appropriately be part of the articles on Barth, Brunner, and perhaps others, from readings of whose work they actually derive. In this article, perhaps it would be best to use this section to describe the things scholars like Tracy and Douglas John Hall say hold allegedly "neo-orthodox" theologians together, such as a mostly negative assessment of human nature and society. Mtalleyrand ( talk) 12:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ian Barbour uses the term on pages 5, 116-19, 124, 134, 223, 229-32, 267f, 376-80, 383, 416, 422-25 of his book Issues in Science and Religion. Barbour is an A-list theologian. His usage makes it clear that Mtalleyrand is in error and his or her edits done with a lack of sources suggests extreme form of WP:OR.-- Firefly322 ( talk) 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion. I have removed the following statement temporarily and without prejudice;
Some theologians believe that two brothers, Reinhold Niebuhr [1] (1892-1971) and H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962), did more to introduce neo-orthodoxy to America than anyone else.
This is because "some theologians" looks like "weasel words", given the rather subjective evaluation the sentence represents, unless the ENTIRE statement can be attributed to some reliable source. Preferably that source should be attributed inline. Please add HERE verifiable and sourced statements of notable authorities re. the importance of the Niehburs in introducing this theology to America. Redheylin ( talk) 16:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Further please note that neither Niehbur's own article relates them straightforwardly to neo-orthodoxy. The requested data, if available, should be added there too, preferably first. Redheylin ( talk) 16:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
In the index (volume 30) of the 2002, hard-copy Encyclopedia Americana (p.516) there is this entry: neoorthodoxy (Dalectical theology; Theology of crisis) 6:660; 22:691-92
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefly322 ( talk • contribs) 19:03-19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Neo-orthodoxy, xxix-xxxi, 25, 31, 173 is listed as an entry in its index (p.252)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefly322 ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Neo-orthodoxy along with Fundamentalism is described as "anti-cultural moves, dictated by a fortress mentality. "They are defensive forms of Christian living in a complex world; attempts to remain free of or withdraw from the various cultural pressures that are thought to compromise their biblical-based accounts of Chrisitan praxis. Manuel Castells calls them 'resistance communities' (Castells, 1997: 5-67)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefly322 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
On Page 468 there is a neo-orthodoxy entry that notes
Will this do???
According to the Encyclopedia Americana it was Reinhold Niebuhr's return from Liberalism to Biblical and early Protestant points of emphasis that marked the introduction of neoorthodoxy to America. Niehbur was second to none in his concern to apply Christianity to the social realm: his brother Reinhold Niebuhr was also prominent in the construction of neoorthodox theology. [2] Redheylin ( talk) 01:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean "his brother Richard Niebuhr"? Vorbee ( talk) 16:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Firefly, I note that you have not replied nor contacted other involved editors, but have continued to edit. Would you like me to reword and reinsert the sentence, or suggest a version yourself, or what? Redheylin ( talk) 01:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Does it at all relate to Lutheran Orthodoxy? (Or I suspect not). It would possibly be profitable if the article could relate Neo-Orthodoxy to Lutheran Orthodoxy – or unrelate it. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 17:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"I don't disagree or dispute this, but would be very interested in seeing this sourced. This is a hunch I've had for a long time. It was less influential among mainline Protestant groups with an Arminian theological orientation, such as the Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and the Northern Baptists, with many pastors in these denominations opting to continue the traditions of American religious liberalism (while others firmly took their stands with evangelicalism)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.103.3 ( talk) 19:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Any relationship between neo-orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy? Were the former's proponents influenced by the latter's theology in any way? Or is the similarity in naming just a coincidence? FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 23:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like this question to be sent to an Orthodox theologian. I believe one critical point of clarification relates to the word "forensic". If you follow the link to the Wikipedia article you will only find it used as in crime scene investigations. In my limited understanding of Orthodox theology, the word is used to critique Western theology's narrow interpretation of justification, that it, seeing God as a judge who pronounces the accused as guilty, but exonerated by grace. Orthodoxy has a broader definition of salvation as theosis. Beau in NC ( talk) 14:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is full of references to revelations by God when what is actually meant is something quite different, human reports of what some, but not all, people believe to be revelations from God.
What we actually have, the reports, is three steps away from God, since a.) they are only human reports; b.) the people making the reports, no matter how sincere, well-motivated, intelligent and observant they may be, may still be mistaken; they may be delusions, or honest attempts to explain unusual occurances; and c.) even if something is a revelation it may not be from God; any other spiritual force going around making revelations has every reason to try to convince people that he/it is God when something different, or opposite, may be the case. Books which tell us about God also tell us about, e.g. The Devil...
This is a serious matter, since people who think they have revelations from God are not shy in forcing their views on others. Obviously this would be wonderful if they were right -- but there is, um, at least the possibility that they are not.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 18:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Thurneysen
Why was the English language article on Thurneysen removed? MaynardClark ( talk) 14:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to affront you, but I did a little Googling of Thurneysen and wonder if someone might have questioned whether he met the test of notability. I would think Wikipedia would have an archive of deleted pages, so that the talk page could be reviewed, but if it does, I don't know where it it. I'll asl around. Dgndenver ( talk) 02:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, that would certainly explain it! I did ask at the Village Pump, and was directed to some off-site resources for deleted pages, but didn't find anything there, either. Dgndenver ( talk) 20:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
There is now an article on Thurneysen, and viewing its history reveals it has been in Wikipedia since November 2016, so that reveals it has entered Wikipedia after the above comments were typed. Vorbee ( talk) 16:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
This article says that "Karl Barth is the leading figure associated with the movement"(i.e. neo-orthodoxy) right at the start of the article, but the article on Karl Barth says that Karl Barth rejected the term neo-orthodoxy. Vorbee ( talk) 16:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neo-orthodoxy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've done a bit of editing to make this more readable. I'm not sure about the portion that is in parentheses though, and this might need to be further defined--perhaps through an example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.35.6 ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 November 2004 (UTC)
Hope that no one minds the cross reference. Thanks. Fintor | talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:14, 10 February 2005 (UTC)
Karl Barth is listed as a
liberal theologian, so I am curious why there is the necessity to distance Barth from the existentialism of say, Paul Tillich, who is also as a liberal theologian. I wonder whether it might be better to distance him from
Modernist_Christianity as this is more related to the effect of modernism on Christianity than Liberal Christianity which is more to do with
Liberalism, although modernism could be considered a subset of Liberal belief --
Randolph 04:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I came across a redlink to Neo-orthodox Theology on the Theology page and redirected it to this page. -- FurciferRNB 12 December 2005
I believe documentation is needed for many claims in this article, not least the fundamental one that there ever was any such "movement" as neo-orthodoxy. It would help immensely if someone could document that a theologian associated with the term ever accepted it as a valid description of his or her work. I suspect it was never more than a term of derision, used first by German liberals and later by American Roman Catholics and Protestant fundamentalists, and which now has become part of the common theological vocabulary without having reeived, in English-speaking scholarship, the critical evaluation for which it calls. Moreover, it is an important question whether any one term can describe the widely varied theologies of the Niebuhr brothers (who were very different from each other), Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner (who were more or less at each others' throats theologically from 1929 until Brunner's death in 1966), and Rudolph Bultmann, who lived in an entirely different theological and hermeneutical universe from the rest. Mtalleyrand ( talk) 11:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have checked sources that use the term neo-orthodoxy for some of the individuals listed in the "Important Figures" section, and can find no published source that associates Stringfellow, Lehmann, or Ellul with this term. I am tagging them as citation needed, and will delete them if no citation is given in a day or two. Mtalleyrand ( talk) 12:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I added a section on theologians who have been called neo-orthodox, and some of the problems with that, and moved the existing statement that the term has largely been abandoned into the opening paragraph. I'm now looking for the original source of the term. Mtalleyrand ( talk) 13:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I seem to be talking to myself here, but against the possibility that someone else gets interested in this article, I will continue to do so. I believe it would be valuable to change the section on theological emphases. Much of what is there might more appropriately be part of the articles on Barth, Brunner, and perhaps others, from readings of whose work they actually derive. In this article, perhaps it would be best to use this section to describe the things scholars like Tracy and Douglas John Hall say hold allegedly "neo-orthodox" theologians together, such as a mostly negative assessment of human nature and society. Mtalleyrand ( talk) 12:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ian Barbour uses the term on pages 5, 116-19, 124, 134, 223, 229-32, 267f, 376-80, 383, 416, 422-25 of his book Issues in Science and Religion. Barbour is an A-list theologian. His usage makes it clear that Mtalleyrand is in error and his or her edits done with a lack of sources suggests extreme form of WP:OR.-- Firefly322 ( talk) 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion. I have removed the following statement temporarily and without prejudice;
Some theologians believe that two brothers, Reinhold Niebuhr [1] (1892-1971) and H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962), did more to introduce neo-orthodoxy to America than anyone else.
This is because "some theologians" looks like "weasel words", given the rather subjective evaluation the sentence represents, unless the ENTIRE statement can be attributed to some reliable source. Preferably that source should be attributed inline. Please add HERE verifiable and sourced statements of notable authorities re. the importance of the Niehburs in introducing this theology to America. Redheylin ( talk) 16:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Further please note that neither Niehbur's own article relates them straightforwardly to neo-orthodoxy. The requested data, if available, should be added there too, preferably first. Redheylin ( talk) 16:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
In the index (volume 30) of the 2002, hard-copy Encyclopedia Americana (p.516) there is this entry: neoorthodoxy (Dalectical theology; Theology of crisis) 6:660; 22:691-92
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefly322 ( talk • contribs) 19:03-19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Neo-orthodoxy, xxix-xxxi, 25, 31, 173 is listed as an entry in its index (p.252)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefly322 ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Neo-orthodoxy along with Fundamentalism is described as "anti-cultural moves, dictated by a fortress mentality. "They are defensive forms of Christian living in a complex world; attempts to remain free of or withdraw from the various cultural pressures that are thought to compromise their biblical-based accounts of Chrisitan praxis. Manuel Castells calls them 'resistance communities' (Castells, 1997: 5-67)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefly322 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
On Page 468 there is a neo-orthodoxy entry that notes
Will this do???
According to the Encyclopedia Americana it was Reinhold Niebuhr's return from Liberalism to Biblical and early Protestant points of emphasis that marked the introduction of neoorthodoxy to America. Niehbur was second to none in his concern to apply Christianity to the social realm: his brother Reinhold Niebuhr was also prominent in the construction of neoorthodox theology. [2] Redheylin ( talk) 01:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean "his brother Richard Niebuhr"? Vorbee ( talk) 16:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Firefly, I note that you have not replied nor contacted other involved editors, but have continued to edit. Would you like me to reword and reinsert the sentence, or suggest a version yourself, or what? Redheylin ( talk) 01:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Does it at all relate to Lutheran Orthodoxy? (Or I suspect not). It would possibly be profitable if the article could relate Neo-Orthodoxy to Lutheran Orthodoxy – or unrelate it. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 17:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"I don't disagree or dispute this, but would be very interested in seeing this sourced. This is a hunch I've had for a long time. It was less influential among mainline Protestant groups with an Arminian theological orientation, such as the Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and the Northern Baptists, with many pastors in these denominations opting to continue the traditions of American religious liberalism (while others firmly took their stands with evangelicalism)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.103.3 ( talk) 19:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Any relationship between neo-orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy? Were the former's proponents influenced by the latter's theology in any way? Or is the similarity in naming just a coincidence? FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 23:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like this question to be sent to an Orthodox theologian. I believe one critical point of clarification relates to the word "forensic". If you follow the link to the Wikipedia article you will only find it used as in crime scene investigations. In my limited understanding of Orthodox theology, the word is used to critique Western theology's narrow interpretation of justification, that it, seeing God as a judge who pronounces the accused as guilty, but exonerated by grace. Orthodoxy has a broader definition of salvation as theosis. Beau in NC ( talk) 14:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is full of references to revelations by God when what is actually meant is something quite different, human reports of what some, but not all, people believe to be revelations from God.
What we actually have, the reports, is three steps away from God, since a.) they are only human reports; b.) the people making the reports, no matter how sincere, well-motivated, intelligent and observant they may be, may still be mistaken; they may be delusions, or honest attempts to explain unusual occurances; and c.) even if something is a revelation it may not be from God; any other spiritual force going around making revelations has every reason to try to convince people that he/it is God when something different, or opposite, may be the case. Books which tell us about God also tell us about, e.g. The Devil...
This is a serious matter, since people who think they have revelations from God are not shy in forcing their views on others. Obviously this would be wonderful if they were right -- but there is, um, at least the possibility that they are not.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 18:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Thurneysen
Why was the English language article on Thurneysen removed? MaynardClark ( talk) 14:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to affront you, but I did a little Googling of Thurneysen and wonder if someone might have questioned whether he met the test of notability. I would think Wikipedia would have an archive of deleted pages, so that the talk page could be reviewed, but if it does, I don't know where it it. I'll asl around. Dgndenver ( talk) 02:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, that would certainly explain it! I did ask at the Village Pump, and was directed to some off-site resources for deleted pages, but didn't find anything there, either. Dgndenver ( talk) 20:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
There is now an article on Thurneysen, and viewing its history reveals it has been in Wikipedia since November 2016, so that reveals it has entered Wikipedia after the above comments were typed. Vorbee ( talk) 16:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
This article says that "Karl Barth is the leading figure associated with the movement"(i.e. neo-orthodoxy) right at the start of the article, but the article on Karl Barth says that Karl Barth rejected the term neo-orthodoxy. Vorbee ( talk) 16:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neo-orthodoxy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)