What I gather is that you're not really defending what I think of as Neo-Orthodoxy qua Neo-Orthodoxy (or what I called "core" Neo-Orthodoxy in my response to your comment on Aaron's stack). Which, as a set of ideas about the central questions of the Christian faith, still seems to me to be debatably orthodox at best. Perhaps it overlaps with orthodoxy to some degree, among some thinkers at some times. Barth is perhaps a universalist. Niebuhr himself is quoted as being ambivalent to the idea of Jews accepting Christ, implying perhaps a rejection of Solus Christus, and therefore far more liberal than anything we'd be prepared to accept from a Sunday sermon. So from what I can gather, this isn't just about how to understand Genesis 1-11.
Rather, you're defending views that are noncentral to Neo-Orthodoxy, as a school of theology that deals with the central questions of the Christian religion. You're then trying to adapt them to a context that is closer to orthodoxy, or easier to understand and digest among those who place a high value on orthodoxy. Which may well be a worthwhile project. These seem like good ideas that are worthy of discussion. The Jordan Peterson connection is helpful -- he perhaps has some good ideas that we can adapt, despite being nonreligious. Our qualms about someone's personal theology shouldn't lead us to reject good ideas that don't rely on his acceptance of that theology -- even good ideas about Christianity and the Bible. The "genetic fallacy" is the name of this error, I believe. Though I don't think it's an error for most people to examine an idea more critically and skeptically if it originates from a less reputable source.
We could go further and say that the closer someone is to our thinking, even if he's fundamentally in error, the more he might be able to speak to our context. The fact that Niebuhr is associated with Protestantism means that he might be able to speak to some issues that a Catholic could not, which you highlight.
But on the matter of Protestantism, let me voice a feeling I have here, which I'm sure many evangelicals share: we are very skeptical of liberal Protestants. Perhaps, in the case of a man who is dead and can't do any more damage and who perhaps isn't even that liberal, we're too skeptical. But let's be explicit about where this skepticism is coming from.
I generally believe that the conservative Protestant and conservative Roman Catholic have far more common ground than the conservative Protestant and the liberal Protestant, which leads me to question if there's anything meaningful at all in the "Protestant" label as applied to the liberal, aside from a reminder of the historical trajectory from whence his ideas come. Machen's ideas come to mind here -- the liberal Christian as belonging to an entirely different religion, while the Catholic may belong to a "perversion" of our religion, but it's the same Christian religion nonetheless.
One thing about liberal Protestants is that they have a tendency to lie or obfuscate about their true beliefs while infiltrating conservative institutions. Machen was complaining about this even in his day -- liberal clergymen promising to adhere to the WCF with their fingers crossed. There aren't, and to my knowledge have never been, any Catholics working to take over conservative Protestant denominations in this way.
It's natural, and to some degree prudent, to hold a special wariness towards the enemy within. Others, in times and places, might seek to feed Christians to the lions or burn us at the stake, but they're usually explicit about their beliefs and intentions. The liberal seeks to subvert from within, to seize Christian institutions and resources and use them to his own ends, and he has no scruples about breaking solemn promises or otherwise hiding his intentions as he does so.
I'll admit I'm someone who is especially sensitive to the liberal capture of Christian real estate, as my own church struggles for good real estate and marvel at the beautiful, empty buildings in my town that the liberals control. Including, most recently, our town's most prominent UMC church, the majority of whose members supported splitting from the UMC but who were defeated by, in my understanding, some rather underhanded moves by the denomination and the minister they sent to keep that church under their control.
Again, none of this is to reject Niebuhr's ideas that you highlight. It's just to make explicit some of what I'm feeling, and I imagine other evangelicals are feeling, as we work through Neo-Orthodox thought and the allegation of liberalism attached to it.
Good piece! I read a ton of Niebuhr in undergrad at UVA and not much since. Inspiring me to go back to him. Also, fwiw, Chesterton DID say that in Orthodoxy, though not in those exact words. Haha.
Yes, Richard - I’m using the term more as the sociologist or historian would use it. However, I don’t think it’s that far from how we evangelicals tend to use it, hence why Niebuhr is someone we suspect of being a theological liberal and not an evangelical.
I’ve also been analyzing it as a subculture, with a set of mindsets and habits forged in the mid twentieth century through to 80s and 90s. I’m afraid that if we use “evangelical” to refer to the apostles, it really just means “Christian who evangelizes.” I think an evangelical is something more specific, and it’s important to recognize the historical and social pressures we feel to conform to a narrow view of how to be a good Christian.
Fair enough. It’s the jargon that always gets us. I believe some of us use the term “churchianity” to describe a similar ill, something shallow or even disingenuous underlying the greater evangelical work. I confess I’ve never heard of Niebuhr. Now I’ll have to add him to my read list.
It seems that the doctrine of the Trinity would be a counterexample to the point you make about only considering doctrines that affect our day to day lives. I don't see how an Arian would behave differently, and thus this doctrine doesn't to belong to "unprofitable inter-Christian disputes", which is patently absurd. But I am probably misinterpreting you, so I would love some clarification! Thanks for the interesting article.
Thanks for this response -- it's illuminating.
What I gather is that you're not really defending what I think of as Neo-Orthodoxy qua Neo-Orthodoxy (or what I called "core" Neo-Orthodoxy in my response to your comment on Aaron's stack). Which, as a set of ideas about the central questions of the Christian faith, still seems to me to be debatably orthodox at best. Perhaps it overlaps with orthodoxy to some degree, among some thinkers at some times. Barth is perhaps a universalist. Niebuhr himself is quoted as being ambivalent to the idea of Jews accepting Christ, implying perhaps a rejection of Solus Christus, and therefore far more liberal than anything we'd be prepared to accept from a Sunday sermon. So from what I can gather, this isn't just about how to understand Genesis 1-11.
Rather, you're defending views that are noncentral to Neo-Orthodoxy, as a school of theology that deals with the central questions of the Christian religion. You're then trying to adapt them to a context that is closer to orthodoxy, or easier to understand and digest among those who place a high value on orthodoxy. Which may well be a worthwhile project. These seem like good ideas that are worthy of discussion. The Jordan Peterson connection is helpful -- he perhaps has some good ideas that we can adapt, despite being nonreligious. Our qualms about someone's personal theology shouldn't lead us to reject good ideas that don't rely on his acceptance of that theology -- even good ideas about Christianity and the Bible. The "genetic fallacy" is the name of this error, I believe. Though I don't think it's an error for most people to examine an idea more critically and skeptically if it originates from a less reputable source.
We could go further and say that the closer someone is to our thinking, even if he's fundamentally in error, the more he might be able to speak to our context. The fact that Niebuhr is associated with Protestantism means that he might be able to speak to some issues that a Catholic could not, which you highlight.
But on the matter of Protestantism, let me voice a feeling I have here, which I'm sure many evangelicals share: we are very skeptical of liberal Protestants. Perhaps, in the case of a man who is dead and can't do any more damage and who perhaps isn't even that liberal, we're too skeptical. But let's be explicit about where this skepticism is coming from.
I generally believe that the conservative Protestant and conservative Roman Catholic have far more common ground than the conservative Protestant and the liberal Protestant, which leads me to question if there's anything meaningful at all in the "Protestant" label as applied to the liberal, aside from a reminder of the historical trajectory from whence his ideas come. Machen's ideas come to mind here -- the liberal Christian as belonging to an entirely different religion, while the Catholic may belong to a "perversion" of our religion, but it's the same Christian religion nonetheless.
One thing about liberal Protestants is that they have a tendency to lie or obfuscate about their true beliefs while infiltrating conservative institutions. Machen was complaining about this even in his day -- liberal clergymen promising to adhere to the WCF with their fingers crossed. There aren't, and to my knowledge have never been, any Catholics working to take over conservative Protestant denominations in this way.
It's natural, and to some degree prudent, to hold a special wariness towards the enemy within. Others, in times and places, might seek to feed Christians to the lions or burn us at the stake, but they're usually explicit about their beliefs and intentions. The liberal seeks to subvert from within, to seize Christian institutions and resources and use them to his own ends, and he has no scruples about breaking solemn promises or otherwise hiding his intentions as he does so.
I'll admit I'm someone who is especially sensitive to the liberal capture of Christian real estate, as my own church struggles for good real estate and marvel at the beautiful, empty buildings in my town that the liberals control. Including, most recently, our town's most prominent UMC church, the majority of whose members supported splitting from the UMC but who were defeated by, in my understanding, some rather underhanded moves by the denomination and the minister they sent to keep that church under their control.
Again, none of this is to reject Niebuhr's ideas that you highlight. It's just to make explicit some of what I'm feeling, and I imagine other evangelicals are feeling, as we work through Neo-Orthodox thought and the allegation of liberalism attached to it.
Good piece! I read a ton of Niebuhr in undergrad at UVA and not much since. Inspiring me to go back to him. Also, fwiw, Chesterton DID say that in Orthodoxy, though not in those exact words. Haha.
There must be another definition of “evangelical” at work here, because I am certain by the scriptures that the apostles themselves were… evangelical.
Yes, Richard - I’m using the term more as the sociologist or historian would use it. However, I don’t think it’s that far from how we evangelicals tend to use it, hence why Niebuhr is someone we suspect of being a theological liberal and not an evangelical.
I’ve also been analyzing it as a subculture, with a set of mindsets and habits forged in the mid twentieth century through to 80s and 90s. I’m afraid that if we use “evangelical” to refer to the apostles, it really just means “Christian who evangelizes.” I think an evangelical is something more specific, and it’s important to recognize the historical and social pressures we feel to conform to a narrow view of how to be a good Christian.
Fair enough. It’s the jargon that always gets us. I believe some of us use the term “churchianity” to describe a similar ill, something shallow or even disingenuous underlying the greater evangelical work. I confess I’ve never heard of Niebuhr. Now I’ll have to add him to my read list.
It seems that the doctrine of the Trinity would be a counterexample to the point you make about only considering doctrines that affect our day to day lives. I don't see how an Arian would behave differently, and thus this doctrine doesn't to belong to "unprofitable inter-Christian disputes", which is patently absurd. But I am probably misinterpreting you, so I would love some clarification! Thanks for the interesting article.