Liberal theology, in the early part of the 20th century, promised peace on earth, harmony with all, and a united world.  Liberal theologians believed in the basic goodness of man, his high intellectual capability, and man’s ability to love one another into utopia.  Reality set in when World War’s I & II were fought.  The wars destroyed the love, peace, and harmony tenants of liberal theology.[1] 

A new group of theologians individually developed  strategies (wittingly or unwittingly) to make the unbelief they shared with liberal theology heard and accepted.  The common ground shared with the liberal camp is higher criticism which regards the written Word as the fallible product of man.[2]  These theologians clothed their new ideas in the language of Scripture thus making them acceptable to the professing populace of the church.[3]  The result was the theology of neo-orthodoxy which means new right thinking.  

Neo-orthodox theologians declared a return to the Word of God, but they did not mean to the written Word.[4]  Neo-orthodoxy embraces higher criticism which treats the written Word as a fallible product of man.[5]  In the neo-orthodox view none of the events of Scripture need to be true historical events.[6]  “Science, the Barthians say, has delivered us from having to believe the Genesis stories…”[7]

The Word they reference is a revelation of Jesus, but without the written record to hold their teaching accountable and in check.[8] Original sin changes from the depravity of man to man’s awareness that he is not what he should be.[9]  God’s justice takes priority over His love. The resurrection becomes renewal, manifesting itself in the cause of righting the wrongs of social injustice.[10]  The cross involves the dying of self but without the blood of redemption.[11]

When neo-orthodoxy issues a call to the Word of God, it is not concerned about the historical events of Scripture or even a literal historical resurrected Christ.  Neo-orthodoxy identifies Jesus as the Word or Logos, but any connection of Him to the written Word is unnecessary for them.[12]  Neo-orthodoxy’s Jesus exists in a spiritual fog bank divorced from the Christ of Scripture.  

One of the three main voices of neo-orthodoxy was Reinhold Niebuhr who, by the way, is credited with writing the ”Serenity Prayer” which is held in high regard by most of Christendom.

Niebuhr was a Lutheran minister, who became heavily involved in the politics of his day. He was a social activist.  His activism involved championing the cause of oppressed workers before unionization.  He was also a political activist.   Early on he ran for office as a Socialist, but later moved on because of disagreement with their pacifist policies.  He was a founder of the Americans for Democratic Action and held office in the Liberal Party of the State of NY.[13]

The basic goals of Niebuhr’s neo-orthodoxy were giving  individuals a better quality of life, righting social wrongs and leveling the playing field both socially and economically or in short, social justice.  “The thing that keeps love and power in balance is justice, which is the way love is translated into social action.”[14] 

Neo-orthodoxy has permeated the theological thought of America’s seminaries.  As go the seminaries, so go the churches. The appeal of an “intellectual” approach to Christianity has enabled professing Christendom to remain religious and at the same time deny the written Word that is the very basis of all we know and believe concerning God and His Son, Jesus Christ.[15]

The Lord said concerning the Scriptures; “…and they are they which testify of me.  And ye will not come to me that ye might have life” (John 5:39 & 40).

Note:

• A few years back, IPTV ran a special on the life of Jimmy Carter.  In that special it was stated that one of Jimmy Carter’s favorite theologians is Reinhold Niebuhr.[16] 
• In an interview with the journalist David Brooks, prior to his election to his first term as president, Mr. Obama stated that one of his favorite philosophers is Reinhold Niebuhr.[17]

[1] (Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Chapter 4.” Neoorthodoxy – Chicago: Moody, 1956. 15 & 16. Print.)

[2] Hordern, William E. “Chapter 5.” A Layman’s Guide to Protestant Theology. New York: MacMillan, 1955. 112. Print.

[3] (Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Chapter 6.” Neoorthodoxy – Chicago: Moody, 1956. 24. Print.)

[4] (Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Chapter 1.” Neoorthodoxy – Chicago: Moody, 1956. 5 & 6. Print.)

[5] (Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Chapter 12.” Neoorthodoxy – Chicago: Moody, 1956. 45. Print.)

[6] & [8] (Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Chapter 6.” Neoorthodoxy – Chicago: Moody, 1956. 23. Print.)

[7] (Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Chapter 13.” Neoorthodoxy – Chicago: Moody, 1956. 51. Print.)

[9] (Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Chapter 8.” Neoorthodoxy – Chicago: Moody, 1956. 31. Print.)

[10] & [14] (Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Chapter 8.” Neoorthodoxy – Chicago: Moody, 1956. 32. Print.)

[11] (Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Chapter 10.” Neoorthodoxy – Chicago: Moody, 1956. 40. Print.)

[12] (Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Chapter 6.” Neoorthodoxy – Chicago: Moody, 1956. 22-25. Print.)

[13] Bennett, Rev. John C. “Reinhold Niebuhr.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. N.p.: n.p., 2014. Print.

[15] (Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Chapter 4.” Neoorthodoxy – Chicago: Moody, 1956. 17. Print.)

[16] (American Experience – Jimmy Carter. Iowa Public Television. 24 Feb. 2011. Television.)

[17] Brooks, David. “Obama, Gospel & Verse.” NY Times 26 Apr. 2007: n. pag. Print.

Ramm, Bernard  L.  “Neo-orthodoxy” A Handbook of Contemporary Theology – Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966. Print.