Neo-Orthodoxy: Barth, Brunner, Bultmann, and Niebuhr
This paper examines the neo-orthodoxy movement, a twentieth-century Protestant theological current that arose in the aftermath of World War I as a reaction against liberal Christianity's optimism and its tendency to equate human progress with divine will. Drawing on the writings of Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr, Emil Brunner, and Rudolf Bultmann, the paper traces each theologian's distinct approach to shared neo-orthodox themes: rejection of religious dogma, skepticism toward literal biblical interpretation, and insistence that human reason alone cannot access God. Despite their common ground, the four thinkers differed significantly in emphasis and method, and those differences are identified and analyzed throughout.
- Introduction to Neo-Orthodoxy: Definition and post-WWI origins of the movement
- Karl Barth and the Origins of Neo-Orthodoxy: Barth's rejection of liberalism, nationalism, and dogma
- Reinhold Niebuhr's Evolving Relationship with Neo-Orthodoxy: Niebuhr's ambivalent, shifting stance toward neo-orthodoxy
- Emil Brunner on Faith, Natural Theology, and Social Ethics: Brunner's views on faith, the Trinity, and Christian ethics
- Rudolf Bultmann and the Existentialist Reading of the New Testament: Bultmann's existentialist focus on the New Testament
- Conclusion: Legacy and continuing value of neo-orthodox thought
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper organizes a complex, multi-figure theological movement into clearly delineated sections, giving each theologian dedicated treatment without losing sight of their shared neo-orthodox context.
- Direct quotations from primary and secondary sources are woven throughout, grounding interpretive claims in evidence and demonstrating engagement with the scholarly literature.
- The paper consistently highlights both agreements and tensions among the four theologians, producing a nuanced comparative analysis rather than a flat survey.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative theological analysis: it introduces a common movement, then examines how individual thinkers interpreted that movement differently. By noting, for example, that Niebuhr regarded himself as "more liberal than neo-orthodox" while still being grouped with Barth and Brunner, the paper uses internal disagreement as an analytical tool to sharpen the reader's understanding of what neo-orthodoxy actually entailed.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief definitional introduction that situates neo-orthodoxy historically. It then proceeds through four theologian-specific sections — Barth, Niebuhr, Brunner, and Bultmann — each organized around the figure's core theological positions and relationship to the broader movement. A short conclusion synthesizes the theologians' shared legacy and individual contributions. This structure is appropriate for an undergraduate survey essay in religious studies or theology.
Introduction to Neo-Orthodoxy
The term "neo-orthodoxy" refers to a twentieth-century movement among Protestant theologians — in the United States and in Europe — that emerged following the bloody carnage of World War I. The disillusionment that several Christian theologians, and millions of others affected by the war, experienced led to a rejection of the liberal Christian movement, which had urged the adoption of an ongoing optimism seemingly tied to a literal translation and understanding of the Bible. According to neo-orthodoxy, some parts of the Bible simply could not be true, and this point of view persists today, albeit no longer under the neo-orthodoxy label per se.
This paper reviews the tenets of neo-orthodoxy through the writings and philosophies of notable theologians Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Rudolf Bultmann, and Reinhold Niebuhr. These theologians are linked by their shared understanding of neo-orthodoxy and by their advocacy of it; however, each expresses neo-orthodoxy in a unique way, and those differences are examined throughout.
Karl Barth and the Origins of Neo-Orthodoxy
It is generally agreed among scholars and historians that Karl Barth was the originator of neo-orthodoxy. Barth raised serious questions about liberal theology, which in the 1930s emphasized "God's accessibility and equated humankind's work with God's activity" (von Dehsen, 2013). Among the many positions Barth took in his writings was a thorough rejection of nationalism and socialism. Author Carys Moseley explains that in order to understand Barth, one must be familiar with his writings from the 1930s, when Germany was being taken over by the Nazis and Hitler's central theme was wrapped around nationalism. Barth viewed nationalism as "a form of idolatry that is contrary to the Christian gospel" and insisted that it must be "resisted in all its forms" (Moseley, 2013). Barth also battled with the German Lutheran church, which cooperated in many respects with Nazi ideology (von Dehsen, 23).
Professor Douglas John Hall writes that even those who disagreed with Barth had to admit that his "new theology" was genuinely new and worth understanding. Barth's neo-orthodoxy became "the cutting edge of Christian thought throughout the first half" of the twentieth century (Hall, 1998). From roughly 1910 to 1960, Hall explains, Barth's views on Christianity and his rejection of liberalism within the theological community were among the more dominant viewpoints.
Barth's neo-orthodoxy rested on the conviction that the Bible was "not God's revelation, but the record of that revelation, which was Jesus Christ himself" (von Dehsen, 23). Barth believed that the liberal view — that God could be understood through "reason or human religious experience" — was incorrect, and he asserted that "Religion is the enemy of faith" (von Dehsen, 23). In other words, Barth's neo-orthodoxy rejected religious dogma and the literal translation of the Bible, a stance that gains credibility from the fact that the Bible was written by human beings who were subjectively interpreting what they saw, heard, and believed.
Reinhold Niebuhr's Evolving Relationship with Neo-Orthodoxy
Like Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr disagreed with Christian liberals on their views of human nature and their literal reading of the Bible. In the introduction to Reinhold Niebuhr: Theologian of Public Life, Larry Rasmussen points out that while Niebuhr showed an "unrelenting" opposition to Christian liberalism, he was ironically "more liberal than neo-orthodox, and he knew it" (Rasmussen, 1981). Niebuhr was aware, Rasmussen continues, that his attacks on Christian liberalism were not always supported by the facts, and he was surprised when critics "lumped him with… neo-orthodox theologians like Emil Brunner and Karl Barth" (22).
"I have never thought of myself in their category… whenever I read them or argue with them, Brunner for instance, I always feel that they are trying to fit life into a dogmatic mold" (Rasmussen, quoting Niebuhr, p. 22). Even so, Niebuhr frequently expressed a "revulsion against acculturated religion" and rejected the liberal view of "human perfectibility and the inevitability of progress" (Rasmussen, 23).
"Barth has long since ceased to have any effect on my thought," and Barth has become "irrelevant to all Christians in the Western world" (Niebuhr, quoted in McCollough, 1963). According to McCollough, writing in The Journal of Religion, Niebuhr was influenced by Barth's theology in his earlier years but ultimately rejected it completely (49). There is no harm in changing one's position on important matters; very few deep thinkers remain within a single philosophical framework throughout their lives. That said, Niebuhr did share significant viewpoints with Barth regarding how liberals perceived the Bible, Christ, God, and the Church.
Conclusion
The neo-orthodoxy movement was not an exact discipline followed in lockstep by the theologians referenced in this paper. The movement has had an enormous impact on the Christian community and its leadership. Each of the theologians' ideas and philosophies is valid within the context in which they were formed, and all the ideas presented by these four thinkers hold value for the present and for the future — particularly for believers who wish to understand how Christian thought and theology have evolved over time.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.