Talk:Neo-orthodoxy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Neo-orthodoxy falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
|
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | |
[edit] Notes
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).
Hope that no one minds the cross reference. Thanks. Fintor | talk
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've made some edits to reflect this. --Randolph 04:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm..I could have sworn I saw him listed in Liberal Theologians..oh well..strike that comment. --Randolph 06:56, 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)
