Neo-Orthodoxy -- Limited Inspiration
Extreme modernism and liberalism have been found repulsive to many; and there is a great wave of reaction against the higher criticism, the rank infidelity and gross liberalism of the last century. This reaction is called neo-orthodoxy. It is not the position on inspiration which is declared by the Scriptures themselves. It is not a complete return to the position held by such reformers as Calvin. Some who hold the new position would not cal themselves by this term, but some do; hence, the term needs to be used advisedly.
One reason for some not desiring to wear the term may be the elusive or ambiguous meaning of the term itself. One writer, whose name is not momentarily available, in a religious journal defines it this way; "The tendency to subordinate the Christian Revelation to contemporary religious experience, the influence in the church of various forms of optimistic rationalism or idealism, the extraordinarily uncritical acceptance of modern western culture." This statement is from one who considers himself to be of that position. Another modern writer and educator has put his position between fundamentalism and modernism in these words:
"We are mistaken if, with the fundamentalists, we deny or ignore the fact of this transfiguration and imagine that things always were as they later seemed; but we are likewise mistaken if, in the manner of modernists, we deny or ignore the value and truth of this transfiguration and thus fail to recognize the unity and transcendent meaning of the whole event and the exalted significance of the earthly life as a part of it." (John Knox, Jesus: Lord and Christ, Harper and Brothers, 1958).
New Revelation?
John Calvin of the reformation taught that the Bible was sufficiently inspired of God to be a complete and adequate revelation except that the Spirit must work in the man to enable him to understand and appreciate the inspired text (see a former article). Many people in religious and theological pursuits realized that they did not have this extra-spiritual power. As a result they turned to rationalism and there was a great wave of criticism of, and doubt in, the inspiration of the Text. Its greatest center was among the higher critics of Germany during the last half of the nineteenth century. It was a logical reaction to the Calvinistic theology.
Neo-orthodoxy is a swinging of the pendulum from that extreme. It holds that in a sense the Bible is inspired. However, it neither claims verbal inspiration nor inerrancy in the statements of the original Scriptures. On the other hand, it makes the Scriptures themselves subject to the conceptions which the early Christians had, and makes Truth or God's revelation down through time composed of the understanding and interpretation of religious matters as held by the Christian community. This is expressed in the first quotation in this article. It makes the Scriptures inspired only to the extent to which the Christian community considers them to be inspired. It will not conceive of a complete and final revelation having been made. It teaches that there is a spreading, additional and fuller revelation of God as the Christian community grows and changes. This new theology is in direct contradiction of the Scriptures; "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3b.) Neo-orthodoxy holds that the church now must have a degree of inspiration, bringing new revelation, just as Calvinism held that the individual must have a degree of inspiration to understand the Bible. A modern prominent theologian expresses it specifically; 'Yet if the Church is the body of Christ ... it, too, should be the vehicle of inspiration, and vested with an authority beside the authority of the Bible." (H. H. Rowley, The Relevance of the Bible, MacMillan, 1953). It is the doctrine that God's revelation is produced as a result of man's experience, when the Bible was written as well as now. The above writer says in the same book; "religious advance came time and again through the private experience of some individual, that the men who gave God's word to Israel constantly received their message through their own personal experience." This is a new version of the old "experience religion" of the past generation. It is in direct opposition to the statement of the Scriptures about inspiration; "knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: But men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:21,22.)
Evolutionary Process?
The incidents related in the Bible are not to be believed in as actual happenings or facts, according to Knox in the book already mentioned. He teaches that it is to be believed as a story rather than as facts; and compares it to believing the story, as a story, of Hamlet, whether such a character ever lived or not. He considers the resurrection as a fact, however, but does not consider the miracles as fact. He considers them as being added and multiplied as the early Christians saw the need of developing their story. Notice this explanation:
"The experiences and needs of these churches, as well as of their predecessors, have undoubtedly left their mark upon the traditions the Gospel writers have compiled. All of this being true, we are bound to ask how far the 'real facts' of Jesus' life and teaching have been overlaid by legendary, theological, and utilitarian accretion."
If the things which the writers recorded are not fact; then the writers are not worthy of confidence, because they stated them as fact; and the book is nothing but a hoax. But John said; "Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name."
Perhaps the most elaborate instance in his work of showing that the Bible was of evolutionary thought and process of the early Christians is his explanation of the teaching on the pre-earthly existence of Christ. He argues that Paul was the first writer of Christian scripture, and that the church at that time was very little concerned will preserving in writing the incidents of Jesus' life, much less of his pre-earthly state; hence, seldom, if ever, referred to by Paul. He goes on to argue that even the later book of Mark does not even deal with the birth of Christ. He argues that the theological development was such that by the time Matthew and Luke were written there was a need to establish the divine elements in the birth of Jesus. His argument continues that by the time John was written the theology of the church had grown to the extent that they must establish the eternal divinity of Jesus, so that he is spoken of in that book as having been God in the beginning. Thus, actually, to him, inspiration is nothing more than mere human addition to human theology as the day to day experiences occur. But the inspired Paul said; 'And the things which thou hest heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
Why write on these things? This is the popular religious writing of the day. Preachers of the gospel and other Christians will be reading more and more of such material. They need to be on guard against the modernism of this neo-orthodox age. Though not as extreme as the liberalism of the past generation, it may have greater tendency to influence people who have a fundamental faith in the authority of the Bible. People may not find it so repulsive as the former and may read it with more credulity. We need to meditate on this phrase; 'Every Scripture inspired of God ..."