Wintertime in European Theology

Last in a Series

German theology has not wholly lacked significant criticism of neo-orthodoxy. From a quite biblical perspective, such criticism strikes two blows: first, it deplores the theological deviation of the dialectical theologians, and second, it laments the evangelistic sterility resulting from their arbitrary conceptions of divine love. Largely, although not entirely, the burden of constructive theological criticism has been borne by the confessional churches; the evangelistic concern has been kept alive mainly, although not exclusively, by the German Evangelical Alliance.

THEOLOGICAL CRITICISM

We often forget that classic liberal theology never really enlisted an overwhelming number of the German clergy. Even before Barth, liberal theologians were a small minority, but a minority that wielded great influence, even among and over the “positive” theologians. The latter, in their support of the state church’s Bund von Thron und Altar, unwittingly tended also to adopt liberalism’s leading thesis, that religion is simply the crown of cultural life. In this ambiguous situation dialectical theology could voice a necessary criticism of both liberal and positive theologies.

Certain conservative forces have nonetheless exercised a long and significant influence to the right of Barth and Brunner. In university cities, of course, the prevalent theological fashion, whatever its mood, often comes swiftly to dominate the local ministerial outlook. But elsewhere the theological perspective of the German clergy often is quite diversified, and frequently more biblically oriented than ecumenical discussions indicate, and than contemporary analyses of theological trends acknowledge.

In the main, the Bible-centered emphasis reaches back to Philipp Spener (1635–1705) and August Francke (1663–1727), founders of the Pietistic movement. This emphasis was best carried forward by Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), who aimed to unite Pietism with scientific theology. Johann Tobias Beck (1804–1878), who sought to base all doctrine on the Bible, became probably the most important representative of this strictly biblical school of theology in the nineteenth century. Adolf Schlatter (1852–1938), who championed a Scripture-controlled point of view (even if sometimes shaded by personal notions), aggressively extended this tradition’s influence.

Even in the heyday of twentieth century liberalism, the evangelical view was here and there vigorously championed. Theodore Zahn (1838–1933), spokesman for the conservatives in New Testament criticism, completed his great study of the New Testament Canon after retirement from Erlangen, regarded as Germany’s conservative Lutheran faculty. Hermann Sasse, from 1933 to 1948 professor of church history, left Erlangen in theological protest and joined the Lutheran Free Church. One might also mention Wilhelm Oesch of Oberursel, whose Theologischer Rundblick (“Theological Review”) has been directed against neo-orthodoxy and liberalism with equal force.

Grounded in such conservative history, pietistic clergymen have circumvented the dialectical and existential positions. Instinctively shying from critical theories, and relying directly upon biblical sources rather than upon contemporary theological conviction, small groups of devout believers maintain an existence in almost all denominations—in the so-called official or territorial churches no less than in the free churches.

Conservative theological leadership today comes less from Pietistic than from Lutheran and Reformed sources. At the present time Adolph Koeberle of Tuebingen, Ernst Kinder and Karl Rengstorf of Muenster, Edmund Schlink of Heidelberg, and Otto Weber of Goettingen, are among those influential in a conservative direction. While Helmut Thielicke of Hamburg is perhaps not as conservative in his views, his opposition to Barthianism nonetheless is well known, and he has taken an increasingly conservative course.

THE PIETISTIC MOOD

In many cases “the faithful remnant” in the Protestant churches has adopted a pietistic outlook alongside its simple devotion to the Bible. It is this remnant that retains a live concern for personal soul-winning and evangelism which contemporary theology seems to dissolve in many of the so-called “dogmatically alert” churches. These pietistic fellowships demand a “theology of decision” centering in biblical evangelism. The life of the Christian community is “immediately related to Christ and the Bible” as its source; a quite secondary role (and sometimes an attitude of disdain) is reserved for schematic theology. It is held that the Church “lives by faith, not by theology,” and that theology is “the product of faith.”

The Pietists therefore think that, by constantly urging personal decision for Christ, they overcome the deviations from biblical doctrine of Barth, Brunner, and Bultmann before such influences register. But this deliverance is accomplished more by the Pietistic movement’s theological isolationism than by its theological strength. The movement still perpetuates a tendency given it already in Spener’s time—the shift of emphasis from orthodox doctrine to the practical life, from the objective validity of Christian revelation to the subjective conditions of regeneration. By their one-sided recognition and emphasis that regenerating faith in Christ and some serious doctrinal errors may co-exist side by side, some Pietists unwittingly tolerate the perversion of theology.

VIEWS OF THE BIBLE

In discussions of the theological presuppositions that now govern their preaching, German ministers soon disclose their dissatisfaction over any reduction of these tenets to the views of Barth, Brunner, or Bultmann. In German preaching as a whole, one finds greater loyalty to biblical teaching than might be expected either from the ecumenical dialogue, the theological standpoint of the divinity schools, or from current religious literature. For many Protestant clergymen, Karl Barth’s word to a World Council of Churches conference in January, 1947, at Bossey, still bristles with relevance: “The ecumenical unity of the churches and of their theologians is either a truth or an illusion, according to whether or not they accept the authority of the Bible.”

This is not to say that the German pulpit is consciously Bible-controlled; far from it. In fact, sometimes the clash with Bultmann no less than with Barth and Brunner is softened by a disposition to regard the modern scientific world-view as authoritative, and scriptural references to the cosmic order as fallible. That is, some Bible-preaching pastors simply assume that Scripture deals only with salvation and has no significance whatever for science. The legitimate emphasis that the authority of the Bible rests only on Jesus Christ himself is so twisted by others as to deprive the Bible as such of authoritative significance; the declaration Thus saith the Scripture! is used merely to introduce its “witness.” In such circumstances, the uneasiness of the clergy over an emphatic Thus saith the Lord! is not surprising. While the emphasis of Martin Kahler (1835–1912) is reiterated that Holy Scripture has its authority as the source of the preaching through which the apostles founded the Church, the fact that Scripture also supplied an authoritative basis of their preaching is neglected. The plight of German theology and preaching alike relates directly to this compromise of an authoritative Bible.

Theological faculties attached to the universities provide scant support for the high theory of the Bible’s divine inspiration still accorded considerable scholarly approval both in England and in America. For a high view of Scripture one must usually turn to seminaries of the German free churches or to Bible institutes sponsored mainly by American missions. Nonetheless, university professors outside the divinity faculties here and there may be ranked with the conservative forces in opposing higher criticism. From all fields of learning the German Inter-Varsity movement has banded together a company of biblically-oriented scholars firmly dedicated to evangelical positions.

THE BURDEN FOR EVANGELISM

The European continent is today in transition not only in theology but, equally urgent, in evangelism. Earlier in this century, evangelistic ministries had left a mark upon both the German state church and upon the free churches. Names like Fritz Binde (the socialist-atheist converted around 1900), Samuel Kellar, Jacok Vedder, Johannes Warns, Wilhelm Busch, and others are unknown to most Americans; it is such men, however, who have made signal evangelistic contributions to the religious life of the Continent.

The practical consequences of neo-orthodox theology are under searching scrutiny. Except for its courageous stand against National Socialism, for which the old liberalism lacked spiritual resources, the consequences of dialectical theology for both evangelism and social ethics in the main have been disappointing. In the social sphere, Barth’s and Brunner’s divergent views of the relationship of love and justice have led more to spirited debate over questions of law and order than to concerted action. Some technical discussions among élite lay leaders have grappled with theoretical aspects of the problem of social justice, but this hardly adds up to a demonstration of Christian social ethics in the practical arena.

DULLING THE URGENCY OF DECISION

In any event, the neo-orthodox approach to the social dilemma has not issued in a renewed sense of responsibility for evangelism by the Church. Barthian theology, with its universalistic tendency of viewing all men as already included in Christ, dissolves the necessity for personal decision as a condition of salvation. Simultaneously, Brunner’s dogmatics, with its thesis of universal grace that creates a “second chance” of forgiveness after death, destroys the absolute necessity of receiving Christ in this life.

The secular press has commented that the spectacular mass interest in Evangelist Billy Graham’s crusades demonstrates the spiritual hunger of the multitudes. Of this vacuum many professional theologians and clergymen are only now becoming aware. Graham’s proclamation of the utter indispensability of the new birth, and of this life as the only arena of decision for man’s destiny in eternity, has rallied hundreds of thousands to a fresh hearing of the Gospel, has attracted many thousands in personal response to the call to repentance and faith, and is promoting a new sense of evangelistic urgency among the German clergy. While contemporary theologians pursue theological discussions at abstruse technical levels, promote a critical stance toward Scripture, and shape arbitrary conceptions of divine agape, countless German laborers, businessmen, housewives, and young people have heard the Gospel in simple New Testament dimensions and have experienced new life in Christ.

What happened in Graham’s 1960 crusades in Switzerland and Germany was far more significant than the secular press could possibly proclaim. In Graham’s Berlin meeting for students that attracted 25,000 young people, governmental leaders had evidence that German youth is searching the moral and religious dimension in new depth. Police in Hamburg, Germany’s second city, night after night estimated an overflow congregation outside that equalled the capacity throng inside the huge crusade tent. No longer could the Protestant clergy shun the comments of laymen who deplored the aridity of the churches, and the unintelligibility of much preaching, as contrasted with the vitality of the crusades and the power of the simple Gospel to win the lost. As more or less of a permanent reservoir in the churches, the Graham crusades left behind thousands of soul-winners and counselors alive with spiritual concern.

CONCERN IN BOTH CAMPS

It was the loose-knit German Evangelical Alliance which carried much of the evangelistic burden for Germany. This movement has solidified evangelical forces while resisting the dissipating effect of theologically inclusive programs. One observer assesses the ecclesiastical situation thus: “The Ecumenical Movement tries to get the churches together; the Evangelical Alliance tries to get the believers together.” Its leaders describe the Alliance as “a unity of the awakened Christians who believe in John 3:3.” It was this Alliance, without benefit of structural organization or salaried staff, that invited Graham to Germany for the 1960 crusades. Three of the movement’s leaders in fact pledged themselves personally to cover the 600,000 marks required to underwrite the huge tents for the meetings. Success of the 1960 crusades, however, disclosed far more than simply surprise of the territorial churches over the vitality of the Alliance. Evident was a growing burden for evangelism by “second generation” clergy who are more and more convinced that baptism and confirmation as outward acts are not determinate for Christian identification. As a result, the debate over the necessity for evangelistic decision does far more than simply demarcate the free from the territorial churches, for evangelistic concern now runs through both groups. The 1960 Graham crusades, in fact, had strategic personal support even at the bishops’ level in the territorial churches, including Bishop Hanns Lilje and Bishop Otto Dibelius.

THE THEOLOGY OF EVANGELISM

The need for a theology of evangelism, or put another way, for a genuinely and thoroughly evangelical theology, stems from the crisis facing evangelism in Germany. The emphasis on personal decision finds resistance for diverse reasons. Even where arbitrary views of agape are not propounded, some ministers regard the call to open or public decision as objectionably weighted with emotional appeal; or as schematizing religious decision too much in accord with mass techniques; or as ignoring the invisibility of faith and thereby inviting to potentially harmful psychological response.

Doubtless such objections can be leveled also against other types of evangelism, and even against evangelism as such, if not against fervent preaching. Most evangelists do not, however, insist that mass evangelism is the only or even the best means of soul-winning. Rather they declare that lack of local church evangelism has made mass evangelism necessary. At long last, even the World Council of Churches has recognized mass evangelism as legitimate. Where evangelism is absent at the local level, the impression can only grow that objections spring not merely from a criticism of mass evangelism, but from a lack of enthusiasm for evangelism as a whole. The liberal theology of the forepart of the century shaped a distrust of regeneration as a social change agent, and the reliance instead on political dynamisms has carried over into some expressions of neo-orthodoxy.

Whatever potential dangers may accompany any form of organized soul-winning, multitudes unquestionably are finding Christ through the avenue of mass evangelism. A hunger to make open commitment to Christ exists among many persons now denied such opportunity in their local church services. Lost in throngs and masses, the modern man looks to the Church both to sharpen his sense of personal responsibility and to confront him with the necessity for personal decision. Is it too much to expect the Church to provide opportunity for such decision? In the aftermath of the 1960 Graham crusades, many German ministers are asking this very question.

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.