The Neo-Orthodox: Bartis Bovine

Posted by Mark on May 19, 2009
Featured

 

barth-main-imageWhenever a “new breed” appears on the theological horizon, many explorers rush excitedly to study and observe this unusual phenomenon.  These expeditions do not always meet with great success, however.  Such is the case, according to some, with the rather anemic Neoorthodox.  Though ultimately determined to be a distant member of the Orthodox family, the Neoorthodox proved to have many features far less admirable than his great cousin.  Of particular note are his bony legs and small hooves, which render him incapable of bearing the theological load typical of his ancestor. 

Experts believe the Neoorthodox’s dwarfed condition is the result of feeding upon the sparse doctrinal pastures indigenous to his native habitat, the Deutsche Drylands.  Also common to most herds is their incapacity to stomach a strong diet of Propositional Truth, which is known to be a staple to the Orthodox and the Creed. Rather, the fastidious Neoorthodox typically feed off the wild weeds of Subjective Religious Experience that sprout throughout the drylands.  As a result, numerous breeds have emerged, ranging from the slightly more sturdy Barthian to the emaciated and bizarre Tillichian (see insets).

Some explorers attempting to reclaim some practical purpose for this creature have sought to interbreed the Neoorthodox with the Orthodox.  Most of these attempts have failed, though some have produced unusual hybrids of oversized brain capacity. Many experts suspect that these particular herds have migrated to Fuller Pastures.¹ 

barth-small-image

¹For a romantic retelling of this migration, see Geoffrey Broomly’s Wagons West: New Cattle in the Upper Story. More critical accounts are found in Harold Lindsail‘s Where’s the Beef? A Closer Look at the Neoorthodox and Cal F. Henry‘s Big Hat, No Cattle: A Saga of the Fuller Frontiers.

Tags: , , ,

4 Comments to The Neo-Orthodox: Bartis Bovine

geoffc
May 20, 2009

Ha! very clever. did you write this?

These expeditions do not always meet with great success, however.

A question though, how do you determine unsuccessful? It seems to me that Barth has been pretty influential and is still filtering down from the acedemic world into the pulpit. Is it slowing down?

Or are you defining success in terms of its theological validity?

Mark
May 21, 2009

Haha, no I didn’t write it! It’d take me centuries to come up with something like this. It was written by a theologian and a cartoonist in a hilarious book which has gone out of print (but can be found in Moore library!). Sorry bro – I should have popped in same disclaimer I put in the Calvin one – check out that page.

Re: Successful/Unsuccessful, I’m not sure what the author thought. I reckon Barth’s got some good things to say, and ought to be appreciated for what he was fighting for in his day. But he’s got quite a few hairy ideas too which are a little dangerous. Remember how Mike Ovey engaged with Barth at last year’s Moore Annual lectures? He showed his strengths but also said something like: ‘Soaking up too much Barth can be bad for your health!’

I suppose it’s worth looking at the effects of the churches and/or theological institutions that have drunken deep from his theology (Princeton, Fuller… and the state of the Church of Scotland of which T.F. Torrance was the moderator).

So, my thoughts: some OK things, but many not OK things.

Toby
May 22, 2009

lovin it bro

Mark
May 22, 2009

Glad to hear it bro! Looking forward to catching up soon!

Leave a comment

WP_Big_City