 With the Age of Reason (1648-1789), came the Sciences,
Darwinism, Deism, and various philosophies. All of these became
factors in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries toward the
rise of liberalism, and within the Church, liberal theology.The objective in creating a more tolerable type of theology was largely in reaction to society’s new intolerance toward the preceding wars and revolutions. They considered the contemporary ethic of being a ‘good Christian’ and ‘an enlightened academic’ was more desirable for society. The foundations of liberal theology to support this new era of religious tolerance necessarily became “inclusive modern thought” and “personal subjective Christian experience”. The intellectual moderns found safety on the one side while some liberal evangelicals held to the latter. Unfortunately, the ground beneath both is sand. Richard Niebuhr (Church historian, liberal opponent, and neo-orthodox theologian) expressed the irony of liberalism by stating “a God without wrath, brought men without sin, into a kingdom without judgement, through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross”. Generally speaking, liberals felt the Orthodox idea of a God with set laws, was unacceptable to the modern age. They tended therefore, to link the spiritual to the human consciousness of man, seeing himself in a type of potential harmony with nature. The ‘life’ or ‘personal experience’ flowing through this harmony they called God. This view of God fitted the scientific studies of the day, and accordingly some saw little distinction between Darwin’s evolutional theories and the natural workings of God. It became generally accepted by many therefore, that it was science that would lead to all truth, including truth about God. Accordingly, Protestant liberalism, particularly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, introduced the concept of presenting the gospel in a way that would be acceptable to the new contemporary age. Their approach to the bible (so not to seem fanatical) was to view it as a book written by various men “about God”, in contrast to the once accepted orthodox belief that scripture came from God, and written under inspiration through man for doctrine, reproof and instruction. Liberal theology became open to all viewpoints (except biblical Christianity) and is powerfully followed today as the desired premise for any religion. It emphasizes similarities rather than the differences between Christianity and other religions, the supernatural and natural, God and man, the Church and the world. It holds to man’s inherent goodness, and any subjective religious experience as authoritive. Jesus Christ is presented as the greatest teacher and example of morality and ethics, however his deity, substitutionary atonement, and bodily resurrection are all denied or considered irrelevant. It presents a Gnostic image of God (devoid of wrath or judgment), and a gospel that invites “societal redemption from social wrongs”, as opposed to the necessity of personal redemption from sin. The 1800s saw the result of this impact as many Christian colleges, seminaries, and some churches defected from biblical Christianity to join themselves to the new [liberal] theology. Prior to 1880, most ministers held to and accepted doctrines such as the sovereignty of God, the innate sinfulness of mankind, atonement of the Son of God, the need for forgiveness, heaven and hell etc. However, the nineteenth century saw a radical change of thought pertaining to these and similar foundational orthodox doctrines with the rise of ‘Biblical Criticism’.Two of the best-known critics were German David Strauss, and Ernest Renan. They believed that one could only understand the bible if viewed against historical roots and cultures. For example, they concluded the Psalms were not written by David but arose as common folk songs that grew out of the sufferings of the Jews while in exile and should be understood from that context. Moses and the Apostle John’s authorships were also disclaimed. The main topic under attack, however, was again the identity of Jesus Christ. Their Jesus did not claim to be Messiah, and neither did he perform miracles (which science had proven to be impossible). The impact was not so much as the result of the claims themselves, but they created doubt upon the traditional belief of the infallible authority of the Bible. Hence emphasis for many believers began to rest upon ‘supernatural experience’ instead of scripture, just as the Eastern Orthodox had 1000 years prior. The philosophy of viewing the bible in the context of a historical commentary is today accepted within some tributaries of Judaic movements. Adherents claim that unless Christianity has an intellectual appreciation of the Jewish roots of Judaism and the breadth and depth of the traditions as taught in the Talmud (comprising of the Gemarah, and the Mishna etc), the essence of Christianity and its theology cannot be fully understood. In other words, Scripture alone is no longer sufficient. The premise (or soil) upon which this belief is accepted, however, is also subject to movement since such extra-biblical commentaries are subject to conflicting interpretations of historical accounts because many were communicated orally.  Late eighteenth century saw Friedrich Schleiermacher, (picture)
father of modern theology, and German theologian, shift the
basis of the Christian faith from biblical spirituality to
‘Christian experience’ even further. He claimed that “personal subjective experience is ultimate authority”, and said, “the heart of religion was always on feeling, not proof, based upon ones dependence upon the universe”. He viewed Jesus as “our great pioneer in the realm of the spirit – the Godfilled man”, And “the Creeds and the virgin birth did not matter; the real miracle was Jesus himself”. Many liberals today, as then, will tell you Jesus’ bones are still in Palestine, but also regard that fact as irrelevant. According to them, whether Jesus rose from the dead or not, doesn’t alter their belief that “the spirit behind the universe can bring you into the living faith that Christ possessed”. Hence the “Jesus faith” in your heart was all that mattered.  Karl Marx propagated atheistic communism; Charles Darwin,
evolution; and Sigmund Freud, (picture) with his distorted
Jesus, psychoanalysis. All these denied objective revelation
from God to mankind, and denied the Bible as being divinely
inspired. All attempted to explain God from their own
elucidation – hence their error.To counter the growth and influence of liberalism within liberal Seminaries, Bible institutes under the influence of Moody and Spurgeon, were established in the late 19th Century. The extensive spread of liberal theology drew strong reactions from theological conservatives. In 1909 a set of scholarly volumes called The Fundamentals, defended biblical Christianity. In 1919 The World’s Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA) was founded to combat unorthodox teaching.  An opponent of the WCFA, Fosdick Emerson, (picture) a liberal
American Baptist, preached in 1922 “shall the fundamentalists
win?” Under pressure from conservative Baptists for such
outspoken sermons, Fosdick resigned in 1925. However, as a result of like-preaching, major controversies between liberals and fundamentalists within denominations prompted many people to separate and form new conservatively oriented denominations. With the support of John D Rockefeller jr. Fosdick went on and obtained a pastorate of his own and built his own Riverside Baptist Church. The use of decorations, in the form of carvings, identified the ecumenical spirit of “all inclusiveness under one all-loving God”. The church carvings included those of Charles Darwin, John Wesley, Confucius, Buddha, and Mohammed - all alongside Christ himself.  The Social GospelA major Christian movement for social justice in America encompassed the Social Gospel. Many theological professors opposed the capitalist system and claimed that the kingdom of God could not come without the Church embracing change. Walter Rauschenbusch, 1861-1918, (picture) father of the social gospel, (who remained more orthodox than given credit) said, “In personal religion the first requirement is to repent, and believe the Gospel”. Rauschenbusch never underestimated the root of evil in the human heart, and admitted any progress could not be made without the presence of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. He then added, “Social religions too demand repentance and faith: repentance for our social sins, faith in the possibility of a new social order”. As a result nearly all the major denominations set up departments to address social concerns. This culminated in 1908 with the formation of the Federal Council of Churches (later superceded by World Council of Churches WCC). One of the first acts of the Council was to adopt a “Social Creed of the Churches”. Some regarded any excess in emphasis toward social concern risked doing so at the expense of orthodox theology, and thereby risking departure from their God-given calling. Neo-Orthodoxy After World War I, a new theological movement called Neo-Orthodoxy, began its revolt in Western Europe against liberal theology. Contrary to liberal theology, it stressed the sinfulness of man, and the distinction between God, and the liberal view of God. But contrary to Orthodoxy, it maintained a critical view of the Bible denying it as being a source of revelation. Accordingly, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the account of miracles remained a point of contention because neither were found to fit the findings of modern science. Albeit, by the late 1940s, Neo-Orthodoxy dominated most of the European and American theological seminaries. Neo-Evanglelical The 1930s and 1940s saw a new movement from within conservative circles formed with the intention to re-ignite Orthodoxy. Harold Ockenga coined the term Neo-Evangelical in 1947. It was known as the Neo-Evangelical Movement. Neo-evangelicals held the view that the modernist and liberal groups in the church had surrendered their heritage as Evangelicals by accommodating the views and values of the world. At the same time they criticized Orthodox evangelicals for having rejected the Social Gospel. Additionally they were becoming more embarrassed by the outspoken orthodox evangelical believers (now known as Fundamentalists) so chose a middle ground. That, being between liberal modernism, and the separating ethic of what they called Fundamentalism. The Neo-Evangelical Movement developed the following characteristics: 1. A strategy to infiltrate liberal denominations to win them back to its view of Orthodoxy. 2. A tendency to minimise the importance of doctrine and biblical eschatology. 3. A tendency to interpret the Bible in the light of science, with an increased emphasis on scholarship. 4. A willingness to re-examine and modify doctrinal beliefs to fit the modern thinking. 5. Ecumenical evangelism. Ecumenical Movement The greatest expression of Ecumenism (meaning ‘inhabited’ in Greek) is the World Council of Churches (WCC). Its founding tributaries were the following: The International Missionary Council.  The Conference on Faith and Order. The Conference on Life and Work. The founding personalities of the Tributaries: When the World Missionary Conference assembled in Edinburgh (1910), it drew over 1000 delegates to consider the problems of missions in the non-Catholic world. The Chairman was John Mott, the charismatic student secretary of the YMCA, a Methodist layman, and founder of the World Student Christian Federation. Later when the “International Missionary Council” was created in 1921, Mott was elected Chairman. It is said that no man contributed more to world Christian ecumenical unity that lead to the formation of WCC than Mott. Charles Brent, a Canadian Anglican, recommended a committee to invite all Churches to discuss questions pertaining to “Faith and Order”. Due to WWI the conference was unable to meet until 1927 where delegates from 69 denominations met. Brent believed that “co-operation among Churches was possible only on the basis of agreement on the essentials of faith”. Disunity, he said, was fundamentally creedal. Thus Faith and Order originally became synonymous with agreements surrounding “belief and worship theology”. However, as time went on, Brent’s convictions and emphasis, on doctrine and unity of belief, became less a criteria in subsequent Faith and Order conferences for that of a unity toward addressing “social concerns”.  Nathan Soderblom, (picture) a Lutheran Archbishop of
Upspsala Sweden, was the founder and promoter of the ‘Life and
Work’ movement. He openly rejected faith in the divine and
human
nature of Christ because he considered it unacceptable to modern
belief. He said “true religion was based on our moral character
and not on our perception of God, or what one believed”. In 1925, 500 delegates from 91 denominations focused on “the problems of social morality”. The movement proceeded under the slogan “service unites but doctrine divides”. In 1937 both the Conference for ‘Life and Work’ and the Conference for ‘Faith and Order’ met and demanded a new and inclusive organization and called for the formation of The World Council of Churches. WWII delayed the creation but in 1948 the first assembly convened in Amsterdam representing 147 denominations. The motto of the assembly was “One World, one Church”. The secretary Willem Visser’t Hooft, (like John Mott, also now the secretary of YMCA and representative of World Student Christian Federation), led the committee that shaped the organization.  Visser’t Hooft (picture) was influenced by Karl Barth, a
Swiss Protestant theologian, widely regarded as one of the most
notable Neo-Orthodox Christian thinkers of the 20th century. Barth opposed Hitler’s regime in Germany and supported Church-sponsored movements against National Socialism. His work opposed aspects of liberalism, addressed the sinfulness of humanity, believed in God's absolute transcendence, and the human inability to know God except through revelation. His objective was to lead theology away from the influence of modern religious philosophy (with its emphasis on experience and humanism), and back to Reformation theology and the prophetic teachings of the Bible. Barth’s view on sovereignty and election was not, however, in the tradition of the Reformers. He regarded the Bible not as providing an actual revelation of God but as only the record of that revelation. He believed that the Bible is not the Word of God until it becomes that for the individual; in other words, Barth emphasised a subjective enlightenment of the Bible, without which Gods word had no effect. His views led Visser’t Hooft to Episcopal and Justinian’s Eastern Orthodox belief, which emphasized that every person within a community was a member of the kingdom of God. Like Barth, Visser’t Hooft also felt the Church had lost its soul in making adjustments to modern trends but retained the liberal view concerning higher criticism (biblical criticism) in denying the bodily resurrection of Christ. Again with the aid of J D Rockefeller Jr’s financial contribution, Visser’t Hooft set up the Ecumenical Institute in Switzerland, and with his diplomacy, the WCC became representative of a “mosaic of cultures, and socio-political concerns”. Along with “Faith and Order” and “Life and Work”, the New Delhi assembly of 1961 finally saw the “International Missionary Council” also join ranks with the WCC administration. The Ecumenical movement has gained momentum to this day and promotes unity through the following: 1. Inter-denominational cooperation, union and mergers of denominations. 2. National federations of church groups. 3. International councils and fellowships, establishing dialogues between groups within Christendom and between Christendom and non-Christian religions. 4. Catholic observers at World Council of Churches’ meetings, and Protestant observers at Roman Catholic meetings. The Roman Catholic Church initially remained uncompromising in its rejection of the movement. Church unity to them could only mean a return to the one true Roman Catholic fold. As late as 1954 Catholics were forbidden to attend any assembly of the WCC.  Change came in 1959 when Pope John XXIII (picture)
convoked Vatican II. At the close of the Council a joint working group was established between the Vatican and the WCC. In areas such as peace, international development studies, and disaster relief, the Roman Catholic Church and World Council of Churches found common ground. However, as at the end of the twentieth century, Catholics had still not joined in formal membership. The W.C.C says: “The Roman Catholic Church is a full member of many national ecumenical and several regional ecumenical organizations and has a regular working relationship with the WCC”, … and with respect to the emerging generation… “Today, both the ecumenical movement and the WCC are changing. New forms of ecumenical commitment are emerging; young people are finding their own expressions (and thus assuming ownership of) ecumenism and church”. So Ecumenism continues to change. Consolidation and mergers of Churches progressed rapidly. At the Council’s Third General Assembly in 1961 in New Delhi India, the Eastern Churches, i.e. Russian, Rumanian, Bulgarian and Polish Orthodox Churches, were accepted into full membership in the WCC. Understandably, WCC leaders were jubilant. The WCC General Secretary of the time, Dr. Eugene Carson Blake,
told newsmen in Rome that “if the Roman Catholic Church wishes
to become a member of the WCC, the Council would make the
necessary changes in its structures”. If the Church reaches this
decision, we will do what is necessary to make its accession
possible.” |