As the public view of the historic Christian Fundamentalist movement continues to deteriorate in our generation, we have observed in the previous articles several contributing factors to this decline. So many Fundamentalist ministers and their churches today cannot discern that they are caught in the powerful web of Neo-Evangelicalism partly because they have not discerned what historic Fundamentalism once was. As a result, they have come to believe there is basically no difference between the two; there is simply a conservative and a liberal side to Evangelicalism. Although these terms have long since taken separate paths, many continue to assume that Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are still synonymous terms.
A dear friend who recently took the pastorate of a Fundamentalist church asked his parishioners, "Does anyone know what Fundamentalism is? Please raise your hand if you do." Sadly, there was no one who knew. Yet the previous pastor of this church would identify himself as a Fundamentalist. This condition may be a commentary of the vast majority of Fundamental churches today: they have not been taught the historical view nor even warned of the contemporary enemies of Fundamentalism and their malignant characteristics. If we do not know what is true, how can we expect to discern what is false. Knowing the truth about a matter enables greater judgment concerning that which is false.
We have come to an hour in Fundamentalism that the battle against Neo-Christianity and its heresies no longer matters, even as it overtakes our churches. The greater need appears to be the seeking of lost souls merely to build the institutional church's financial budget. The more people, the more money there is for religious "things." So many years have now passed since we have seen and heard the clarion call of true Fundamentalism, both in its stand and preaching. Therefore the younger Fundamentalists of today do not have a way to compare the past concept of Fundamentalism with the present. There are others who were part of the Fundamentalist movement forty or fifty years ago; they heard and saw the preaching and witnessed the stands taken. But time has dimmed their memory of that past voice causing such individuals slowly to yield to the subtle changes of Neo-Evangelicalism that are now becoming part of the permanent fabric of Fundamentalism. Such individuals call their yieldings "adjustments"; God calls them "compromise."
The Acceptance of Neo-Orthodoxy
One of the growing evidences of change in modern-day Fundamentalism is the increased acceptance of Neo-Orthodox theologians. There are three possible reasons for this obvious acceptance. First, the great distance of time between the birth of Neo-Orthodoxy and its present façade tends to dim the blatant boldness of its historic error and apostasy. Time becomes an assistance to modify and embellish the artistic subtlety of its deception. Secondly, because Fundamentalists today are prolific readers of Neo-Evangelical writers who regularly promote Neo-Orthodox theologians, such familiarity breeds acceptance. Finally, the orthodox terminology and vocabulary of Neo-Orthodoxy often deceive Fundamentalists into assuming that their definitions are also orthodox. In fact, Neo-Orthodoxy was initially called Neo-Protestantism because of this strong apparent similarity. Though these men use many orthodox Bible terms, the meanings of these terms are not historical and biblical. Instead, their terminology is defined and interpreted by the contemporary philosophy of existentialism.
The biblical Christian must understand that in all contemporary theology there is the belief that the infallibility of the Bible is no longer essential to the Christian Faith. Consequentially, the Bible is subjected to ever-mutating interpretations based on current philosophical moods and trends. The Bible is viewed by many Neo-Orthodox theologians today as a collection of myths, legends, and sagas—a perspective they gained from the Liberals. The only redeemable qualities they claim to gain from the Bible are in reality derived from the hermeneutical principle of existentialism. By demythologizing the Scriptures, they seek to discover a "kernel" of truth in the legend.
Neo-Orthodox Writers—Beware of Them!
The theological book market has been deluged for many years by Neo-Orthodox writers as well as a multitude of evangelical men who are constantly quoting from them as if they are friends to biblical Christianity. We are amazed by the Fundamentalist publishers and periodical writers who quote these apostates as if they are the scholastic authority on truth. It must be clearly stated that Neo-Orthodox theologians are intellectual fools who write in such a way as to make us think they know what they are saying. To the contrary, they do not. One will rarely find two Neo-Orthodox men who believe the same, because their existential presupposition hates and abhors any concept of absolutes and biblical dogma.
Specifically who are these enemies of Truth of whom we must "take heed" that we be not deceived? A short list would include such theologians as Karl Barth, Heinrich Emil Brunner, Karl Heim, C. H. Dodd, William Hordern, Reinhold Niebuhr, Helmut Richard Niebuhr, and Gustave Aulen.
Coming out of the Neo-Orthodoxy camp are the Bultmannians and Post Bultmannians who are given more to the interpretation of this apostate theology. Among these men are Rudolf Bultmann, Hans Conzelmann, Erich Dinkler, Ernst Kasemann, Guther Bornkamm, Reginald H. Fuller, Gerhard Ebeling, Ernst Fuchs, Herbert Braun, and Manfred Mezger. Additionally, William Barclay is notorious for his Greek studies in the "Daily Study Bible Series" of the New Testament books. Beware of this man and his interpretations of the New Testament.
A second group consists of the Heilsgeschichte theologians: Werner Kummel (the successor to Bultmann), Oscar Cullmann, Eduard Schweizer, W. D. Davies, and the popular Alan Richardson.
A third group is made up of European modern theologians: Joachim Jeremias, Leonhard Goppelt, Karl Rengsdorf, and Gustav Stahlin.
But others that should be included are Helmut Thielicke, Ethelbert Stauffer, Wolfhardt Pannenberg, and the radical existentialist, Paul Tillich. Beware also of the infamous Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his subtle writings on the Christian life.
This is only a partial listing, but the above-mentioned men have been very influential among the Fundamentalists of our present generation. Mixing these men's interpretations of Scripture with the historic Fundamentalist view is creating a synthesis and a dialecticism that are destroying the dogma and absolutes of Bible preaching. May God have mercy on us in this matter!
Existentialism, the Engine of Neo-Orthodoxy
Karl Barth became the popular progenitor of Neo-Orthodox theology through his commentary The Epistle to the Romans. Rudolf Bultmann became the voice for its Bible interpretation through his Form Criticism and "demythologization." Other than Barth, Emil Brunner probably became the most widely known member of this new form of theology. All three had a voice in the ever-mutating existential interpretation of this contemporary theology.
Existentialism is a philosophy holding that existence is prior to essence, and that man makes himself what he is and is responsible personally only to himself for what he makes himself. This philosophy was greatly developed by Georg Hegel, Søren Kierkegaard, and Jean Paul Sartre. It is a philosophy that denounces all absolutes and basically is a rehashing of the old Greek philosophical belief that "man is the measure of all things." Man is allowed to subjectively believe whatever he desires to believe about a matter. Though in reality a thing may be false, one can existentially believe that it is true.
Existentialism is not only an enemy to reason, but also it is a great enemy to God's revelation. To the Existentialist, God becomes anything he desires Him to be (e.g. a grilled cheese sandwich). This belief is what allowed Paul Tillich to call himself a "Christian Atheist." From the existential perspective he was a Christian; from the literal-rational perspective he was an atheist. Yet he believed he could be both at the same time.
Though Karl Barth studied under the great liberal teachers of Europe (including the father of Liberalism, Adolf Von Harnack), he questioned that if the Bible is not to be accepted literally—because it was taught to be a book of myths, legends, and sagas—then what purpose does the Bible have in Christianity? His own response to his question declared that there was no hope for man if one totally destroyed the Bible; therefore, perhaps the Bible needs to be interpreted another way, rather than literally. Barth turned to the philosophy of existentialism for a new medium of interpretation, the engine that would make his new concept of theology work.
The False Premises of Neo-Orthodoxy
One of the reasons Neo-Orthodoxy has been misunderstood is due to the fact that the rhetoric used seems to be righteous and good. This apostasy claims to be an attack on Liberalism; it deals with the error of Roman Catholicism; it declares itself to be getting back to the teachings of the Reformers; it seems to give preeminence to Jesus Christ; it even purports to be "getting back to the Bible." However, we must remember that though much of the terminology of Neo-Orthodoxy is the same as that of Fundamentalism, the definitions and interpretations of these terms are totally different. They use Bible terminology but not Bible definitions. Again, such definitions are exclusively based on existentialism. These men are Christian in name while atheist in belief. A careful study of both Radical Theology and Theothanatology ("God Is Dead" movement) will clearly express the fact that it came from the womb of Neo-Orthodoxy.
When it comes to the belief of the Bible, Karl Barth declares that the Bible becomes the Word of God rather than that the Bible is the Word of God. Only if the Word existentially moves the reader or hearer—only if he takes a "leap of faith" and "believes" at that moment that scripture for himself—then does the Bible become the Word of God for him. Next week that same scripture may not be the Word of God for him if it does not move him. Thus, it rests upon the individual's response to the scriptures as to whether the Bible becomes the Word of God or not.
We as Christians believe in the historical Christ, His historical conception, birth, life, miracles, death, and Resurrection. It is by believing on that historical event of that historical Christ that we are saved. It is the Christ of the Scriptures that we place our trust in, not a Jesus outside of the Scriptures. Neo-Orthodoxy, on the other hand, does not believe in salvation from the perspective of "history" but rather from "geschichte." To understand the distinction between the two words, Barth divided history into two levels: Historie and Geschichte (both words are translated as simply "history," though their connotations are quite different in the German language). The term historie must be viewed as the sum total of historical facts in the past; such facts can be objectively verified. On the other hand, geschichte concerns those matters which touch the individual existentially, which make some demand upon him calling him to some commitment. How does this apply to Barth's doctrinal viewpoint? He would state that the resurrection of Jesus belongs to the realm of geschichte, not historie. Barth would go so far as to state that the realm of the historie is of no value to the Christian. Jesus must be confronted in the realm of the geschichte. It is the existential feeling or that which is behind the historical event (which they deny) that becomes our salvation. Coming out of this belief is heilsgeschichte ("salvation history") popularized by Oscar Cullmann. This is a salvation through an existential history rather than through the historic event of Jesus' death on the Cross.
Neo-Orthodoxy believes that our reconciliation to God is obtained through an existential incarnation whereby the natures of God and man are existentially brought together. As a result, they conclude that all of humanity is saved—that predestination is universal. Yes, it is one of the beliefs of Universalism. One of Karl Barth's classic works The Triumph of Grace clearly defines this universalistic "triumph of grace" that reconciled all of humanity to God because of this incarnation. To the true Christian, reconciliation took place in Christ's death (Romans 5:10).
Believing that all men are saved, Barth noted that the "Community of God" consists of those who know they are saved and those who do not know they are saved. His view of sin is "nothingness"; sin only "potentially" existed rather than literally existed. Because Barth also denied a heaven and a hell, there is no need for preaching or for the call to repentance and faith; there is no relevance to these truths in Universalism's gospel. As to election, the term only applies to his unscriptural Jesus Christ. He alone was the Elect. Since He took on man's nature (existentially), then we are in Him and thus we are saved because we are found in the Elect, Jesus Christ. Of course, Barth does not believe in the literal resurrection of Christ. How sad that Barth gave his literary life to a dialectic principle: he denied dogmatic truth and absolutes, yet he will call his mammoth theological work Church Dogmatics.
So many aspects of Neo-Christianity (e.g. the Charismatic movement) are based upon the presupposition of existentialism and are rooted in Neo-Orthodoxy. The entire foundational belief of Neo-Orthodoxy is that the Bible is not the Word of God, but only becomes the Word according to the individual's reception of it. Any theological system that denies the presupposition of the literality of the Bible will promote error in all the subsequent beliefs. Although grace is exalted in Barth's teachings, again he takes a philosophical approach instead of a biblical approach. His Swiss, Calvinistic background of predestination and election simply took him into another view of it—Universalism, and the election of all in Jesus. The Bible does speak of the triumph of grace but only in the heart of a believer—one who comes to the literal Christ of Scripture. The Bible also speaks of eternal damnation to those who do not believe on the Son of God. As to sin, it is not a matter of Barth's "nothingness"; it is a matter of total depravity and the reality of the acts of man's personal sins.
Neo-Orthodoxy claimed at the outset to be a reaction against Liberalism, but it turned out to be a strong rejection of the Bible and the literal fundamentals of the Christian Faith that are absolutely needed to be biblically saved. Orthodoxy stands for the cardinal doctrines of the Bible. But this new concept of orthodoxy means the explaining away of the miracles of Christ as well as the denial of the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, and yea, the very Christ of Scripture.
Conclusion
The context of Second Kings 4:38-41 depicts a dearth at Gilgal, the noted place of separation in Canaan. Gilgal became the first encampment after the Israelites crossed the Jordan; it was the place of circumcision for the second generation; it was the place identified with the ceasing of the manna and the new diet of the old parched corn of the land; it was the headquarters where the children of Israel returned after their central-campaign battles; it was the city where the first king of Israel was crowned. Gilgal was the placed noted for holiness, separation, and the rolling away of the filth of the flesh of Egypt.
Years later when the prophet Elisha came to Gilgal, he found a dearth. The prophet told the sons of the prophets to get food, and "one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered thereof wild gourds his lap full, and came and shred them into the pot of pottage: for they knew them not."
Christians today must be very careful amidst the proliferation of "Christian" books being printed and distributed. A terrible dearth has hit the institutional church, and it is not a famine of bread but of the hearing and preaching of the Word of God. The wild vine of apostasy is filled with a variety of wild gourds, and this Laodicean Church Age is filling their "lap full" with such heretical writings. They know not that there is death in these writings. Churches survive in keeping their pews filled by going out into the "field," the world, and gleaning from wild vines and wild gourds. When eating commences, there may be the cry, "O thou man of God, there is death in the pot." The sad reality about theological error and heresy is that people tend to partake of such "new" things to only later find out it is poison to the soul. Neo-Orthodoxy paved the way (by rejecting the Scriptures) for the birth of Situationalism, as well as Neo-Evangelicalism, Neo-Pentecostalism, and the Charismatic movement. It also was the matrix for Theothanatology. For any Fundamentalist to state there is any substantive food or water to come from this movement called Neo-Orthodoxy and its existential interpretation of Scripture truly is indicative of the blindness that marks this generation. As Fundamentalists in other countries tend to accept anything that comes from American Fundamentalism as "Gospel Truth," even so we tend here in America to accept that which has the garment of intellectual theology.
May the Holy Spirit enable us to sift through the murky and polluted rivers that are ever making their way into the pure stream of Christianity. These are the days of the mongrelization of Christianity and the hodge-podge theology that is presented to us as the next trend needed to keep the Church alive. Only the "meal" that the prophet threw into the pot will bring about life and destroy the poison of the wild gourds of our times. That meal is the truth of the Word of God, and only the Truth will set men free.