Periodical Reviews -- By: Anonymous
BSac 132:526 (Apr 75) p. 178
“An American Revival of Karl Barth?” Donald W. Dayton, The Reformed Journal, Part 1, October, 1974, pp. 17-20; Part 2, November, 1974, pp. 24-26.
“Whatever Became of Neo-Orthodoxy?” Donald G. Bloesch, Christianity Today, December 6, 1974, pp. 7-10, 12.
The chronologically close appearance of these two discussions of a theological movement considered obsolete aroused interest. Their appearance in thoroughly conservative periodicals added fuel. The basically sympathetic treatment by both authors precipitated review.
Dayton divorces Karl Barth and the revival of interest in his theology from the neoorthodoxy which his theology originally spawned. Neoorthodoxy had its day in American theology, and that day is past. Neoorthodoxy should be permitted to rest in peace. But the theology o£ Karl Barth is very much alive and is experiencing a revival of interest and analysis and is influencing the American theological scene in a number of ways. Dayton lists seven signs of renewed interest in Barth’s theology, a number which places an opponent at a perfect disadvantage immediately.
Bloesch, on the other hand, discusses the theological movement of neoorthodoxy as a whole. He notes the weaknesses of the movement which sprang mainly from its universalistic tendencies. He then lists the movement’s strengths as he sees them. Some of what Bloesch calls strengths others would consider weaknesses because of their divergence from orthodox theology. The major portion of the article is devoted to the relevance of neoorthodoxy for today.
This may be the key to the revived interest in Karl Barth and/or neoorthodoxy in American theology today. Apart from the continuing and growing orthodox emphasis today, contemporary American theology has practically moved full circle to the optimistic immanentism, the
BSac 132:526 (Apr 75) p. 179
humanistic subjectivism, and the progressive idealism that marked the heyday of modernism at the turn of the century. As Karl Barth and neoorthodoxy were the reaction to modernism, perhaps they will be to current radical theology. But how much better would be the supremacy of true biblical orthodox Christianity.
“Reconsidering ‘Limited Inerrancy,’ “ Richard J. Coleman, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17 (Fall 1974): 207-14. “Biblical Inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?” Richard J. Coleman, Theology Today 31 (January 1975): 295-303.
“How Far Can We Trust the Bible?” Harold Lindsell, Christianity Today, January 17, 1975. DD. 24–25.
The two articles by Coleman are of interest not only ...
Click here to subscribe