Neo-orthodoxy forum?

[LaSorcia]

Maybe it could be called Traditional Modernists?

 

[FireDragon76]

If such a forum is created, I'd like to request the disambiguation be part of the forum name itself, not just a sticky. No offense, but sometimes we struggle enough against misunderstanding of what we (Orthodox) believe.

Neo-Orthodoxy is the accepted term among academics in religious studies to describe the early 20th century theological movement in Evangelical churches in Europe.

Eastern Orthodox do not have the market cornered on the us eof the term "orthodoxy".

 

[Tigger45]

I’m interested but very ignorant about the subject. I vote for the lable most readily available for research purposes.

 

[dms1972]

There is marked divergence and disagreement amongst several of these theologians, Barth and Brunner for instance strongly disagreed on Natural Theology. Both still are thought to be within the Reformed camp. Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich were Lutheran. Neo-orthodox is what their sort of theology was termed in America, but in Europe it was call Theology of Crisis, or Dialectical Theology.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoorthodoxy

 

[~Anastasia~]

Neo-Orthodoxy is the accepted term among academics in religious studies to describe the early 20th century theological movement in Evangelical churches in Europe.

Eastern Orthodox do not have the market cornered on the us eof the term "orthodoxy".

I didn't suggest that they do.

But just as most folks think of the Church under the pope of Rome when you say "catholic" ... it would be nice to make a distinction if a forum were created with the same name.

 

[zippy2006]

Neo-Orthodoxy is the accepted term among academics in religious studies to describe...

CF is not an academic forum. That's probably why the term has already been so confusing even in this thread.

Eastern Orthodox do not have the market cornered on the us eof the term "orthodoxy".

As a proper noun, they do. That's why so many of us assumed "Neo-Orthodoxy" was an Eastern branch.

 

[dms1972]

You're right its mostly armchair theology, people giving their take, as such its prone to arguments, and posters arguing for this or that position - not a balanced setting forth and consideration of what are often very complex and difficult issues.

Maybe there should be an Academic section, for those who have studied theology to some extent, who can address some of these issues. I'd have thought that would be what a proper Theology discussion would be? I am sure some would appreciate it, but I think I am being a bit optimistic.

 

[dms1972]

The term 'neo-orthodoxy' is perhaps not the best one. It was not a term Barth and others accepted. Some writers (Francis Scaheffer) refer to it simply as the New Theology, but there are major differences between leading figures in the movement. Barth was obviously on a journey theologically, and his position was developing as he wrote.

 

[Paidiske]

An academic section would be interesting... not sure how it would work, but might be worth thinking about.

 

[zippy2006]

When topics like these come up I don't see precedent and therefore I wonder if it would require a significant change to the CF structure. CF doesn't devote forums to theological schools. The closest you would find is the Congregation section, but that's fairly different from a theological school. Beyond that I don't see enough numbers or participation for strong compartmentalization. Even the higher traffic theological forums like General Theology don't command enough users for theological compartmentalization based on schools of thought.

I'm not sure about an academic section. It's possible but hard to envision. Currently there are de facto academic threads and discussions, but they are in no way sequestered. I'm not convinced segregation would be easy or helpful, and to be honest, we don't have any active theological academics in the strict sense.

The way forward for something like the OP's desire is simple: find the forum that most resembles your theology, build a community there, and if you naturally outgrow that forum you could ask CF to accommodate you.

 

[Paidiske]

I think we do have an academic or two. Unless I'm mistaken, @SteveCaruso lectures in Aramaic. And there are others with names not immediately coming to mind. We do have a much larger body of people engaged in theological study, and I can imagine, for example, discussion of various works which come up on book lists and so forth - kind of an "academic book club" thread - which could be of significant value if we attract the right people. I think we could do something.

But I agree, I'm not sure exactly where it would belong.

 

[hedrick]

Both WWMC and moderate are underutilized. Most forms of mainline theology, including neo-orthodoxy, would fit in either place. I hate to see another forum that may not be used enough to get a critical mass of readers.

 

[zippy2006]

Sure, but no active theological academics that I know of. I don't think the differences in theological knowledge warrant segregation. If we had a handful of bona fide Biblical scholars then sure, that would make sense. I mostly think internal, organic approaches should suffice, such as the academic book club you suggested.

 

[hedrick]

Traditional theology was originally intended for serious academic discussions. It sounds like conservative theology, but that wasn't the intent. A couple of the founders were liberal.

 

[Paidiske]

Okay... if we did an academic books thread, how would it work? Would we choose a book that we'd all try to read and discuss, or would it be a bit more "talk about whatever interesting thing you're reading here"?

(I'll admit, I've sometimes also fantasised about a sermon thread - share thoughts, links, texts and so forth - but that might belong more in the ministry forum).

 

[dms1972]

When topics like these come up I don't see precedent and therefore I wonder if it would require a significant change to the CF structure. CF doesn't devote forums to theological schools. The closest you would find is the Congregation section, but that's fairly different from a theological school. Beyond that I don't see enough numbers or participation for strong compartmentalization. Even the higher traffic theological forums like General Theology don't command enough users for theological compartmentalization based on schools of thought.

I'm not sure about an academic section. It's possible but hard to envision. Currently there are de facto academic threads and discussions, but they are in no way sequestered. I'm not convinced segregation would be easy or helpful, and to be honest, we don't have any active theological academics in the strict sense.

The way forward for something like the OP's desire is simple: find the forum that most resembles your theology, build a community there, and if you naturally outgrow that forum you could ask CF to accommodate you.

I am not that bothered if there is no forum for Barth etc. Unless there is a demand, and there isn't much of one, right now. I was interested in discussing Barth mainly and some of his critics. I am not aware of any congregations that would describe themselves as Neo-orthodox, or Barthian, or how many pastors would call themselves that?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Traditional theology was originally intended for serious academic discussions. It sounds like conservative theology, but that wasn't the intent. A couple of the founders were liberal.

I would disagree that Traditional Theology was intended to be "academic". Academics might fit there - or not - but it was intended exactly as it states - for Traditional groups. Not trying to be disagreeable though - please forgive me. But some who are Traditional have their basis in something other than academic scholarship as that doesn't go so far back.

I do see somewhat a need for those with an academic bent. I'm not sure how popular it would be or how much traffic. But I sometimes greet folks who come here with that expectation, and I already know that they aren't likely to find very much of the kind of dialogue they want. In must forums they may get a little response but it's going to be interspersed with a lot of discussion from folks with other kinds of styles and backgrounds.

I'm not sure if it would be self-supporting right off. But it might be worth having a place to direct them to, and with a few members participating maybe it could gain some traction. We have several at least who can and do discuss in that way.

I do agree that a particular school of thought might not need its own forum. But to group them together in one area separate from "the masses" might be something that some would be interested in?

 

[dms1972]

Not really sure Barth represents a 'school of thought' but more of a new paradigm theologically. Its been said as you have pre-Einsteinian and post-Einsteinian Physics, so its a case of pre-Barthian, and post-Barthian theology. The difference between the Older theology and the New Theology is in the concept of Truth. So Barth's critics say it has a divided concept of Truth, that the New Theology is a form of semantic mysticism with nothing there, that it is faith in faith. These theologians they say use the word 'God', but they do not differ from secular existentials.

 

[zippy2006]

Okay... if we did an academic books thread, how would it work? Would we choose a book that we'd all try to read and discuss, or would it be a bit more "talk about whatever interesting thing you're reading here"?

I vote for reading and discussing at various intervals.

(I'll admit, I've sometimes also fantasised about a sermon thread - share thoughts, links, texts and so forth - but that might belong more in the ministry forum).

The other thing to remember is that CF doesn't have to be everything. There are academic websites and there are also websites devoted to preaching. Some specialization will improve quality.

But lots of these things could be tested in a thread to see how much interest is generated.

 

[hedrick]

Not really sure Barth represents a 'school of thought' but more of a new paradigm theologically. Its been said as you have pre-Einsteinian and post-Einsteinian Physics, so its a case of pre-Barthian, and post-Barthian theology. The difference between the Older theology and the New Theology is in the concept of Truth. So Barth's critics say the New Theology is a form of semantic mysticism with nothing there. These theologians they say use the word 'God', but they do not differ from secular existentials.

That doesn't make sense. I do agree that Barth seems vague at times, but existentialist seems like a weird characterization of him.