No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Neo-orthodoxy, liberalism and war: Karl Barth, P. T. Forsyth and John Oman 1914–18
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
There is a theological renaissance today’, proclaimed the American theologian Daniel Day Williams in 1952. ‘The rebirth of theology means a renewal of the effort to discover the foundations of the Christian life’. He maintained that following the publication of Karl Barth’s commentary on Romans in 1918 ‘there has been a deepening consciousness that there is a radical settlement to be made between Christianity and the thought and values of the modern world’. Williams’ assertion is better read as an indication of the mood of ‘pessimistic optimism’ manifested by many American theologians in the post world war two era than as an accurate description of the development of American theology from 1918. Moreover one man’s ‘renaissance’ is another man’s ‘reaction’, and there is something distinctly bizarre in the use of the former term in connection with a thinker like Karl Barth who devoted the most productive period of his life to total opposition to those intellectual assumptions which were characteristic of the sixteenth-century renaissance and were further developed in the European enlightenment. Nevertheless the historian of religion would be the last to deny the importance of investigating the factual basis of mythical beliefs, especially when they were as widely held as those put forward by Williams.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Studies in Church History , Volume 14: Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History , 1977 , pp. 361 - 375
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1977
References
1 Williams, Daniel Day, Interpreting Theology 1918-1952 (London 1953) pp 11 seq Google Scholar.
2 The phrase was coined by Bellah, Robert N., Beyond Belief. Essays on Religion in a Post-Traditional World (New York 1970) p xvi Google Scholar. On post-war religious optimism and pessimism in the USA: Mews, Stuart, ‘Paul Tillich and the Religious Situation of American Intellectuals’, Religion 2/2 (Newcastle-on-Tyne 1972) pp 122-40Google Scholar.
3 Richmond, James, Faith and Philosophy (London 1966) p 142 Google Scholar.
4 Zahrnt, Heinz, The Question of God. Protestant Theology in the Twentieth Century (ET London 1969) pp 15–17 Google Scholar.
5 Barth, [Karl], [The Humanity of God] (Fontana, ed London 1967) pp 12 seq Google Scholar.
6 Härle, Wilfried, ‘Der Aufruf der 95 Intellektuellen und Karl Barths Bruch mit der Liberalen Theologie’, Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche (Tübingen 1975) pp 207-24Google Scholar. My understanding of Barth’s early theological development has been greatly clarified in conversation with my colleague Dr John Powell Clayton, which I would like to acknowledge.
7 Barth, Karl, Theology and Church. Shorter Writings 1920-1928 (ET London 1962) pp 60 seq Google Scholar. See also Barth, K., ‘On Systematic Theology’, Scottish Journal of Theology 14, 3 (Edinburgh 1961) pp 225 seq Google Scholar. The conference at which Troeltsch read the paper to which Barth alluded in 1920 was actually held 13-15 March 1911 and not in 1910 as Barth recalled. Troeltsch’s paper was ‘Die Bedeutung der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu für den Glauben’: Groll, Wilfried, Ernst Troeltsch und Karl Barth—Kontinuität im Widerspruch (Munich 1976) pp 14 seq Google Scholar.
8 Barth, Karl, Gesamtausgabe 5 (Zurich 1973) p 10 Google Scholar. I have reproduced here the English translation by Smart, J. D. from Revolutionary Theology in the Making. Barth-Thumeysen Correspondence 1914-1925 (London 1964) p 26 Google Scholar.
9 Barth p 37.
10 This view has frequently been adopted as a hypothesis and empirically tested by modern sociologists, for example Golde, Günter, Catholics and Protestants. Agricultural Modernization in Two German Villages (New York 1975)Google Scholar. It is an over-simplification of Weber’s view: Hill, Michael, A Sociology of Religion (London 1973) cap 5 Google Scholar.
11 In the opinion of Horton, W. M., Contemporary English Tlieology. An American Interpretation (London nd) p 126 Google Scholar.
12 See also: Mews, [Stuart], [‘Spiritual Mobilization in the First World War’], Theology (London June 1971) pp 258-64Google Scholar.
13 [Lambeth Palace Library,] Davidson MSS: H. S. Holland–R. T. Davidson 17 September 1914.
14 Ibid, F. C. Burkitt–R. T. Davidson 17 September 1914.
15 Ibid, C. Gore–R. T. Davidson 18 September 1914.
16 Sanday, W., Bishop Gore’s Challenge to Criticism (London 1914)Google Scholar. For a detailed account of this debate: Stuart Mews, ‘Liberalism and Liberality in the Church of England 1911-22’ (university library, Cambridge: Hulsean prize essay for 1968) cap 4.
17 Davidson MSS: T. B. Strong–R. T. Davidson 18 September 1914.
18 Sanders, M. L., ‘Wellington House and British Propaganda during the First World War’, HJ 18, 1 (1975) pp 119-46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 von Harnack, Adolf, Aus Der Friedens-Und Kriegsarbeit (Giessen 1916) pp 290-9Google Scholar. Church leaders in neutral countries were much impressed by Harnack’s view. On 31 August 1914 Hensley Henson received a letter from Nathan Söderblom, archbishop of Uppsala: ‘he is evidently much impressed by the German view of England’s attitude as implying a treason against “culture”. This view has seemed to receive confirmation by the announcement that Indian troops are to be employed in Europe. The Scandinavians are petrified by dread of Russia, and they cannot see beyond the single fact that England is Russia’s ally’. Even Henson’s formidable apologia failed to convince. On 7 January 1915 he received a reply from Söderblom ‘evidently filled with an irremovable suspicion of Russia, and his liking for England only just succeeds in holding him back from accepting the German version of the war’. (Durham cathedral chapter library, Henson Diary). See also: Karlström, Nils, Kristna Samfõrstandssträvanden Under Vărldskriget 1914-1918. Med Särskild Hänsyn Till Nathan Söderbloms Insats (Stockholm 1947) pp 250 seq Google Scholar.
20 Escott, [Harry], [P. T. Forsyth and the Cure of Souls] (London 1970) p 22 Google Scholar; Hunter, [A. M.], [P. T. Forsyth. Per Crucem ad Lucem] (London 1974) p 12 Google Scholar.
21 Review in Expository Times (London November 1972) p 58, quoted in Hunter p 13.
22 Escott p 22.
23 Forsyth, [P. T.], [The Christian Ethic of War] (London 1916) pp 20 seq Google Scholar.
24 Ibid pp 121, 123.
25 Ibid p 43.
26 Ibid p 34.
27 Hunter p 15; Forsyth p 112.
28 Mozley, [J. K.], [The Heart of the Gospel] (London 1925) pp 68 seq, 66 Google Scholar.
29 Forsyth pp 39, 83.
30 Ibid p 69.
31 In later years the view was expressed that passive resistance in 1902 cheapened the concept of conscientious objection and made it more difficult for those who took that position in 1916: Dodd, A. H., ‘The Nonconformist Conscience in Public Life’, Hibbert Journal 26 (London 1938) p 233 Google Scholar.
32 SirMarchant, James, Dr John Clifford (London 1924) p 141 Google Scholar.
33 New College, London MS 537/1, A. E. Garvie, ‘Placarding Jesus Christ the Crucified. The Theology of the late Dr Peter Taylor Forsyth’ (manuscript of unpublished book) nd p 90. For Garvie’s relationship with Forsyth: Garvie, A.E., Memories and Meanings of My Life (London 1938) pp 186 seq Google Scholar.
33a Nicoli MS (courtesy of Mrs M. Kirkaldy) P. T. Forsyth–W. Robertson Nicoll, 12 April 1916.
34 Mozley p 67.
35 B[ritish] W[eekly] 18 May 1916. A misleading account of this meeting appears in Jones, R. T., Congregationalism in England 1662-1962 (London 1962) p 359 Google Scholar. See also the letters in Manchester Guardian 18 May 1916.
36 BW 5 October 1916.
37 Forsyth p 140.
38 Imperial War Museum, R. D. Rees MS: R. Roberts–R. D. Rees 9 June 1916.
39 Ibid: R. D. Rees–R. M. Rees 28 April 1916; J. H. Bateson–R. D. Rees 28 June 1917, 2 July 1917.
40 Ibid: Tommy–R. D. Rees 8 May 1918.
41 Campbell, R.J., The War and the Soul (London 1916)Google Scholar.
42 Review in Holborn Review (London October 1916) p 593.
43 Rae, John, Conscience and Politics. The British Government and the Conscientious Objector to Military Service 1916-1919 (London 1970) p 72 Google Scholar.
44 Robbins, K. G., ‘The Abolition of War: A Study in the Organisation and Ideology of the Peace Movement 1914-1919’ (Oxford D. Phil thesis 1964) p 451 Google Scholar.
45 Martin, David A.. Pacifism. An Historical and Sociological Study (London 1965) p 77 Google Scholar.
46 See Healey, F.G., Religion and Reality. The Theology of John Oman (London 1965)Google Scholar.
47 Oman, [John], [The War and Its Issues] (Cambridge 1915) pp 8 seq Google Scholar.
48 The Presbyterian Messenger (London) January 1915 p 9. Although Richard Roberts had signed Forsyth’s letter to Harnack in August 1914, it was probably the British reply to the German theologians which was the decisive factor in his decision to join the fellowship of reconciliation: ‘I was even ready to admit that the term “just” and “righteous” might be used concerning it [the war]. But to have it spoken of as being a Christian enterprise seemed to me to be going beyond fact and reason. That settled the matter for me’. Wood, H.G., Henry T. Hodgkin. A Memoir (London 1937) pp 152 seq Google Scholar.
49 Oman pp 51 seq.
50 For the bishop of London’s attitude, see Mews.
51 The evidence presented here could be supplemented by widening the perspective to include the USA. It appears that the majority of American liberal theologians remained very critical of the war and religious jingoism even after America’s entry in 1917: Hutchinson, William R., The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism (Harvard 1976) cap 7 Google Scholar.
52 Ringer, Fritz K., The Decline of the german Mandarins: The German Academic Community 1890-1933 (Cambridge, Mass., 1969)Google Scholar.