The Reformed Roots of American Neo-Orthodoxy

DENNIS N. VOSKUIL

A significant shift in American Protestant thought occurred during the 1930s. Religious liberalism, the dominant theological force during the first quarter of the twentieth century, underwent a process of decline and was challenged by a movement which has come to be known as American neo-orthodoxy. 1 Neo-orthodoxy remained at the cutting edge of theological development in this country through the three succeeding decades. Spawned from within the liberal movement by theologians who had been deeply influenced by liberal thought, neo-orthodoxy, in many respects, bore the liberal stamp. For instance, it appropriated liberalism's social emphasis as well as its appreciation of certain forms of modern biblical scholarship. Essentially, however, neo-orthodoxy was a heresy from the liberal standpoint. In a direct and deliberate manner it repudiated much of its liberal heritage and adopted theological "antidotes" which served as powerful correctives to the basic motifs of liberal thought. Rejecting the monistic immanentism which had suffused liberal notions of God, neo-orthodoxy stressed the transcendence and otherness of God. Over against a liberal doctrine which assumed the essential goodness of individuals and the altruism of social groups, neo-orthodoxy emphasized that humankind was inherently sinful and incapable of betterment apart from God's grace. And disillusioned with liberalism's accommodation to modern thought-forms, neo-orthodoxy proclaimed that the church must resist acculturation. Given the nature of the theological correction, it should not surprise us that this post­ liberal movement came to be identified by the term "neo-orthodoxy." The early exponents of th.e movement resisted the appellation, however, for, while they embraced a number of pre-liberal motifs, these thinkers did not advocate an uncritical re-appropriation of Protestant orthodoxy. This was especially true during the late twenties and early thirties when American fundamentalists laid claim to the banner of orthodoxy. Further, by this time the term "neo­ orthodoxy" had become closely identified with the Continental movement known as Barthianism. This was unfortunate for, while the American exponents of post-liberal appreciated 's critique of liberalism, they fully adopted neither his radical . methodology nor his radical propositions. While related, the American movement was not simply a backwoods variety of the European original. Other labels, of course, have been attached to both the Continental and the American post-liberal movements. Among those which have gained some currency are "Neo­ Supernaturalism," "Crisis Theology," "Neo-Protestantism," "Realistic Theology," and New Theology.''2 If it has not really stuck, the last-mentioned label was perhaps the most promising, for it could be argued that the theological movement which burgeoned during the second quarter of the twentieth century was rooted in a faith which had been enunciated by the great Reformers of the sixteenth century. Indeed, the writings of the proponents of American neo-orthodoxy echo the theological refrains of and

271 especially John Calvin: divine sovereignty and transcendence, humans as sinners, salvation by grace, the importance of Scripture and resistance to modern culture. This essay argues that American neo-orthodoxy, in part, constituted a Reformed theological response to religious liberalism. Those who would insist that the exponents of this movement were "unorthodox" with respect to interpretation of Scripture or other doctrines must remember that the term "Reformed" is broad and flexible enough to include a diverse array of theological traditions. George Marsden underscores this point in his introduction to the recently released collection of essays, Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modem Development.J In his recent book on the characteristics and misunderstandings of the Reformed faith I. John Hesselink notes that there are at least ten different approaches to that tradition in America.4 Nurtured within the liberal system, the neo-orthodox were indeed cautious and selective in their adoption of Reformed theology. Nevertheless, they were demonstrably influenced by the major motifs of Calvinism.

* * * * * * *

The most noticeable formulators of American neo-orthodoxy were Reinhold and H. Richard Niebuhr, Walter Marshall Horton, Wilhelm Pauck, Walter Lowrie, Edwin Lewis, George Richards, and Elmer Homrighausen. These eight men did not comprise a particular coterie or self-conscious school of thought. Indeed, even the brothers Niebuhr developed separate theological interests and admitted disagreement on certain issues. If they did not cooperate to produce a wholly coherent system, these thinkers did share a number of important traits. First, all eight were former liberals who "converted" to neo-orthodoxy as they became increasingly disenchanted with the reigning assumptions of liberalism.s Two among this group, and Walter Marshall Horton, were even considered rising stars of the liberal movement during the twenties. Edwin Lewis, somewhat older, had already established himself as a leading spokesperson for religious liberalism. Second, the early exponents of neo-orthodoxy had been nurtured in rather conservative religious environments before embracing various facets of liberal thought. The Niebuhr brothers were reared and educated in the Evangelical Synod of North America, a theologically conservative denomination which drew most of its membership from German-speaking Lutherans and Reformed who had migrated to the heartland of the United States. The first formative influence in their lives was their father, a minister of the denomination who was once described by Reinhold as a man of "vital personal piety.'Y• Both young Niebuhrs attended denominational schools, Elmhurst College and Eden Theological Seminary. George Richards was "born in the bosom" of the Reformed Church in the United States, a larger but equally conservative denomination which later merged with the Evangelical Synod of North America. 7 At Lancaster Seminary in Pennsylvania, Richards inhaled the confessional orthodoxy of the Heidelberg Catechism and other standards of his German Reformed tradition. Another product of the German Reformed Church was Elmer Homrighausen, who remembers that his parents were deeply religious and utterly committed to traditionalism.8 Walter Marshall Horton was reared in a conservative Baptist environment in New England. He was deeply influenced by the evangelical theology of the Minister of the First Baptist Church in Arlington,

272 Massachusetts.9 T hough Walter Lowrie was destined to become an Episcopalian, he was born to a famous Presbyterian family which produced a number of miss ionaries and pastors, including his father. All were staunch traditionalists. Lowrie's childhood fait h was reinforced at Princeton Seminary which, when he attended during the 1880s, was still a bastion of Reformed Orthodoxy.10 Edwin Lewis came to li beralism by the way of evangelical British Methodism. Converted under the ministry of his Sunday School teacher in England, Lewis "bore witness to his conversion" by volunteering to become a miss ionary to Labrador at the age of nineteen. 11 Among the eight, only Wilhelm Pauck was not raised in a conservative theological environment. While his German parents were not hostile to religion, they did encourage a churchly faith. Not until Pauck entered the University of Berlin did he begin to study theology and then he encountered the high-powered brand of liberalism promulgated by Harnack and Troeltsch.12 For the most part, the proponents of American neo-or,thodoxy had been nurtured as religious conservatives before they came under the influence of liberalism. Because this was also true of many who did not become neo-orthodox, we should not make too much of this point. Perhaps it could be claimed, however, that the neo-orthodox reappropriated certain familiar and traditional motifs which had not been stressed during their liberal periods. Again caution is warranted. While the advocates of the new movement moved in the direction of the orthodoxies of their past, they never unqualifiedly reembraced conservative perspectives. Here indeed was a new orthodoxy, new because it had passed through the refining fires of liberalism. Third, the exponents of American neo-orthodoxy generall y shared a Reformed heritage. T hey breathed the intoxicating ether of Calvinism, even if it was often available in somewhat diluted forms. Richards and Homrighausen came through "pure" channels of Reformed influence, as both were reared in the German Reformed C hurch. Homrighausen had attended Princeton Seminary and served Reformed Churches in the Midwest before returning to sit on the fac ulty at Princeton. Richards became a life-long leader of the Reformed Church in the United States, and a life-long exponent of the Reformed tradition. Like Karl Barth, Richards wrote a book-length study of the Heidelberg Catec hism for his denomination.1J The Niebuhr brothers were probably influenced by the Lutheran tradition as much as the Reformed, but they were both acutely interested in the writings of J ohn Calvin. Lowrie was reared by a staunch Presbyterian family, one which saw its sons attend orthodox Princeton Seminary. Horton came to the fa ith as a Baptist, and in New England the Baptists were essentiall y Congregationalists who insisted upon believer's baptism. It was no stirring intellectual journey, then, to move from Arlington, Massachusetts, to Harvard, to Union Seminary in New York (once Presbyterian) to the Congregationalist Oberlin College where Horton taught for decades. Pauck, something of a continental anomaly, did imbibe the liberal Reformed thought of Harnack and Troeltsch before sitting under Karl Barth while he was still teaching in Germany. 14 Edwin Lewis was a life-long Methodist, and while he appreciated certain Reformed perspectives he did not have direct links to unalloyed Calvinism. Fourth, the major proponents of American neo-orthodoxy owed intellectual debts to the crisis theologians in Europe, especiall y to Karl Barth, the thunder and lightning of the continental movement, and to Emil Brunner, like Barth a son of the Swiss Reformed Church. 15

273 In fact, several of these Americans played crucial roles in introducing Barthian thought to an oft-times incredulous American audience. Walter Lowrie, best known for his translations and biographies of Soren Kierkegaard, produced one of the earliest and most sympathetic treatments of continental neo-orthodoxy, Our Concern with the Theology of Crisis, in 1932. Less favorable, but certainly more important, was Pauck's Karl Barth: Prophet of a New Christianity? released a year earlier. Pauck concluded that Barth, his one-time mentor, correctly assailed the weaknesses of liberalism but that his prescriptions were simply too arcane to supply a lasting foundation for Protestant theology. 16 Elmer Homrighausen was, at least for a time, one of the most ardent American advocates of Barth. He wrote several articles commending Barth and assisted in the English translation of many of Barth's important sermons. 17 The other exponents of American movement have also acknowledged the influence of Barthian thought. Edwin Lewis, for instance, confessed that Christian Manifesto, his most significant post-liberal writing, was "in no small measure" due to a study of Karl Barth. The Swiss theologian had given Lewis the courage "to throw off the shackles of mere contemporaneity" and to keep his mind focused upon the Bible. is Similarly, Walter Marshall Horton has testified that his Realistic Theology was positively influenced by Barth's indictment of culture-bound liberal theology. 19 Despite his well-publicized disparagement of Barth's social ethics, Reinhold Niebuhr had admitted that, in many important respects, he was the spiritual son of the great Swiss father of twentieth-century Reformed thought.20 And H. Richard Niebuhr has written that Barth, one of his two "teachers," played a pivotal role in his theological transformation during the thirties. 21 In the end, none of the American eight would confess to having "gone Barthian." To these Americans, Barth's theology often seemed irrational, obscurantist, and scholastic. Still Barth, with his bombastic indictment of liberalism, and with his clarion call to Reformation thought-forms, paved the way for the American movement. Fifth, and last, the major exponents of American neo-orthodoxy shared a common core of theological assumptions, all of which reflected basic Reformed perspectives. Dis­ enchanted by liberal doctrines, which after World War I seemed increasingly naive and unrealistic, the neq-orthodox began to develop a system of thought which stressed divine transcendence, human sinfulness, and resistance to modern culture. Essentially challenges to liberalism, the early neo-orthodox writings set forth these three themes with vigor, clarity, and persistence. Over against a liberal doctrine of God which stressed immanence and continuity with modern culture, the neo-orthodox stressed divine transcendence, sovereignty, and potency. Walter Marshall Horton complained in a 1931 article, "The Impotence of God," that the immanentized deity of the liberals was too refined, rarified and effete to be a real factor in times of human crisis. He insisted that no matter what the modern philosophers and theologians decided about divine nature, humans preferred "a roughhewn concept of God which has power to kindle the imagination and grip the emotions, to a finely chiseled concept which is emotionally sterile and practically impotent." The liberal doctrine of God had fa iled the test of reality, the test of life.22 In a similar vein during the same year Elmer Homrighausen surmised that liberal sermons lacked dynamic power because biblical theology had diss'olved the distinction between God and humanity. The Absolute had been relativized, and "the awful sense of God's sovereignty, individuality and apartness" had faded away. The liberal

274 pulpit was impotent because there was no "tremendous objective truth" coming from behind the liberal preacher, no sovereignty "standing in its own right, reaching to substantiate itse lf, independent of man's puny intellectual apologetic.''23 T he Reformed doctrine of divine sovereignty was perhaps most strongly underscored by George Richards in his book, Beyond and Modernism: The Gospel of God. In Kierkegaardian terms Richards insisted that there was a basic separation between humanity and divinity, between the finite and the infinite, between time and eternity. The deceptive fa llacy of modern liberalism, observed Richards, was the fact that theology had become anthropology. T he attempt to humanize God had bee n a terrible mistake, for "the gulf betwee n God and man is so deep and so wide that no man can cross it; God alone can bridge the chasm." T he "Gospel of God" was founded upon the reality of divine transcendence.24 Edwin Lewis agreed that the liberals had cheated themselves out of a potent God because of a "deadly fear of supernaturalism," and had therefore posited a God of immanence and process. Th ~ Methodist professor averred that he preferred to live in a Calvinistic unive rse in which every detail "was under the absolute control of the inscrutable will of a sovereign God" rather than in the kind of universe described by scientific determinism.25 Fourth, the major proponents of American neo-orthodoxy owed intellectual debts to the crisis theologians in Europe, es pecially to Karl Barth, the thunder and li ghtning of the continental movement, and to Emil Brunner, li ke Barth a son of the Swiss Reformed C hurch.15 In fact, several of these Americans played crucial roles in introducing Barthian thought to an oft-times incredulous American audience. Walter Lowrie, best known for his translations and biographies of Soren Kierkegaard, produced one of the earliest and most sympathetic treatments of continental neo-orthodoxy, Our Concern with the Theology of Crisis, in 1932. Less favorable, but ce rtainly more important, was Pauck's Karl Barth: Prophet of a New Christianity? re leased a year earlier. Pauck concluded that Barth, his one-time mentor, correctl y assailed the weaknesses of liberalism but that his prescriptio ns were simply too arcane to supply a lasting foundation for Protestant theology.16 Elmer Homrighausen was, at least for a time, one of the most ardent American advocates of Barth. He wrote several articles commending Barth and assisted in the English translation of many of Barth's important sermons.17 The other exponents of American movement have also acknowledged the influence of Barthian thought. Edwin Lewis, for instance, confessed that Christian Manifesto, his most significant post-liberal writing, was "in no small measure" due to a study of Karl Barth. T he Swiss theologian had give n Lewis the courage "to throw off the shackles of mere contemporaneity" and to kee p his mind focused upon the Bible. 18 Similarly, Walter Marshall Horton has testified that his Realistic Theology was positive ly influenced by Barth's indictment of culture-bound liberal theology. 19 Despite his well-publicized disparagement of Barth's social ethics, Reinhold Niebuhr had ad mitted that, in many important respects, he was the spiritual son of the great Swiss fa ther of twentieth-century Reformed thought. 20 And H. Richard Niebuhr has written that Barth, one of his two "teachers," played a pivotal role in his theological transformation during the thirties.21 In the end, none of the American eight would confess to having "gone Barthian." To these Americans, Barth's theology often seemed irrational, obscurantist, and scholastic. Still Barth, with his bombastic indictment of liberalism, and with his clarion call to Reformation thought-forms, paved the way for the American movement.

275 Fifth, and last, the major exponents of American neo-orthodoxy shared a common core of theological assumptions, all of which reflected basic Reformed perspectives. Dis­ enchanted by liberal doctrines, which after World War I seemed increasingly naive and unrealistic, the neo-orthodox began to develop a system of thought which stressed divine transcendence, human sinfulness, and resistance to modern culture. Essentially challenges to liberalism, the early neo-orthodox writings set forth these three themes with vigor, clarity, and persistence. Over against a liberal doctrine of God which stressed immanence and continuity with modern culture, the neo-orthodox stressed divine transcendence, sovereignty, and potency. Walter Marshall Horton complained in a 1931 article, "The Impotence of God," that the immanentized deity of the liberals was too refined, rarified and effete to be a real factor in times of human crisis. He insisted that no matter what the modern philosophers and theologians decided about divine nature, humans preferred "a rough.hewn concept of God which has power to kindle the imagination and ·grip the emotions, to a finely chiseled concept which is emotionally sterile and practically impotent." The liberal doctrine of God had failed the test of reality, the test of life. 22 In a similar vein during the same year Elmer Homrighausen surmised that liberal sermons lacked dynamic power because biblical theology had dissolved the distinction between God and humanity. The Absolute had been relativized, and "the awful sense of God's sovereignty, individuality and apartness" had faded away. The liberal pulpit was impotent because there was no "tremendous objective truth" coming from behind the liberal preacher, no sovereignty "standing in its own right, reaching to substantiate itself, independent of man's puny intellectual apologetic."23 The Reformed doctrine of divine sovereignty was perhaps most strongly underscored by George Richards in his book, Beyond Fundamentalism and Modernism: The Gospel of God. In Kierkegaardian terms Richards insisted that there was a basic separation between humanity and divinity, between the finite and the infinite, between time and eternity. The deceptive fallacy of modern liberalism, observed Richards, was the fact that theology had become anthropology. The attempt to humanize God had been a terrible mistake, for "the gulf between God and man is so deep and so wide that no man can cross it; God alone can bridge the chasm." The "Gospel of God" was founded upon the reality of divine transcendence.24 Edwin Lewis agreed that the liberals had cheated themselves out of a potent God because of a "deadly fear of supernaturalism," and had therefore posited a God of immanence and process. The Methodist professor averred that he preferred to live in a Calvinistic universe in which every detail "was under the absolute control of the inscrutable will of a sovereign God" rather than in the kind of universe described by scientific determinism. 25 If the neo-orthodox believed that the liberal doctrine of God was woefully inadequate, they believed liberal anthropology was woefully naive. Walter Marshall Horton insisted that the starting-point for a realistic theology was a realistic assessment of the human predicament. The liberals were simply wrong to assume that ignorance was the root of evil and that it could be eradicated by creative intelligence. The problem of evil resided at a much deeper level. "We are in a predicament," wrote Horton in his Realistic Theology ( 1934), "because of that weakness, division, and perversion of the will, that preference for the lesser to the greater good which theology calls sin. "26 Homrighausen complained that in attempting to

276 bridge the chasm between God and humanity, liberalism had been freed to abandon the doctrine of sin. Liberalism had "toned down the nature of sin from innate guilt which separates him from God ... to an idea of sin as a mere ignorance of the right or an impediment in human nature which will be eliminated through educational processes." Homrighausen protested the liberal effort to obfuscate the awful reality of human sin. Humans are sinners! No evolutionary development or educational process could effuse the indelible stain of sin.27 Reinhold Niebuhr, of course, was a forceful critic of liberal anthropology. It can be said that his most important contribution to modern American theology was his vigorous assertion that modern culture had become corrupted by a facile optimism regarding human nature. Concerned about corporate as well as personal evil, Niebuhr helped American theologians, ethicists, and politicans to examine the powerful perversions of collective egoisms. His initial neo-orthodox bombshell, Moral Man and Immoral Society, published in 1932, laid the groundwork for his entire enterprise. Through Niebuhr and the other exponents of neo­ orthodoxy, Americans were being reintroduced to sin. The early converts to American neo-orthodoxy persistently condemned religious liberalism for its sympathetic alliance with modern culture. Such an alliance was invariably disparaged as evidence of cultural capitulation and loss of theological integrity. Reinhold Niebuhr, for instance, suggested in 1939 that liberal Christianity had been so "pathetically eager" to justify itself before the modern mind that it had "sacrificed most of the essential Christian positions. "28 The strongest statement of this neo-orthodox concern came in the Church Against the World, a volume which was authored by H. Richard Niebuhr, Wilhelm Pauck, and Francis P. Miller, a Presbyterian layperson. In the concluding Chapter, Niebuhr warned that the church had become miserably corrupted by its alliance with contemporary civilization. To become an effective agent for social salvation the church must be freed from all forms of cultural bondage. Niebuhr worked through a litany of dangerous "isms" which had compromised the gospel in America, including capitalism, nationalism, anthropocentrism, and humanism. Since God is sovereign over this world, all "isms" are potential idols for Christians. In his warning against acculturalization Niebuhr did not propose the church's withdrawal from the world. In the fashion of transformationist Calvinism, he insisted that the church must be "in the world but not of the world," all the while avoiding the "constant danger of being resolved into the monism of otherworldliness or of this-worldliness. "29 The neo-orthodox were not anti-modern but they were opposed to forms of modernism which relativized the demands of the gospel. Homrighausen produced a volume in 1940 which epitomized the neo-orthodox concern. The book was titled simply, Let the Church Be the Church.

* * * * * * *

Through an examination of its early exponents and its essential theological message we have learned that some of the roots of the American neo-orthodox movement were Reformed. Not surprisingly, those institutions which first began to identify with the post­ liberal movement were generally Reformed in identity. The intellectual centers of nee-orthodoxy tended to be moderate Reformed and Presbyterian seminaries such as Union Seminary in New York, Union Seminary (Southern Presbyterian) in Richmond, Virginia, Lancaster

277 Seminary (Reformed Church in the United States) in Pennsylvania, and Western Theological Seminary (Northern Presbyterian) in Pittsburgh. While it is difficult to quantify early neo­ orthodox inlluence in American denominations, it is very likely that the Presbyterians and Reformed were most receptive to this "new" form of theology. We know for instance that the Presbyterian Churches later developed curriculum materials which were heavily flavored by neo-orthodoxy.JO It is also true that the Reformed communities seemed most receptive to Continental neo-orthodoxy when it fina lly made its way across the Atlantic. The first English translation of Barth came through Douglas Horton, then a Congregational pastor in Brookline, Massachusetts. Nearly all of the early treatments of Barthianism came from the pens of Reformed scholars. In addition to those of Lowrie and Pauck, a rather sympathetic assessment of Barth was written by Holmes Rolston, a Southern Presbyterian pastor and teacher at Union Seminary in Richmond.31 Emil Brunner's Theology of Crisis, an introduction to European neo-orthodoxy by an insider, was fir5t delivered as a series of lectures at Lancaster Seminary in the Autumn of 1928. 32 This was one of many neo-orthodox lecture series sponsored by Reformed and Presbyterian schools. If some Reformed individuals and institutions welcomed the new orthodoxy, others remained suspicious of the new movement. The most conservative among the Reformed believed that neo-orthodoxy was actually a new form of liberalism rather than a valid form of orthodoxy. Conservative critics assailed members of the movement for failing to accept an inerrant and infallible Bible, for dabbling with Higher Criticism, and for bringing new interpretations to old doctrines. Cornelius Van Ti!, a professor of theology at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, was the most articulate and relentless of the conservative critics of neo-orthodoxy. Insisting that neo-orthodox doctrines were built upon an antipropositional epistimology, Van Til warned fellow conservatives that the movement offered nothing but fool's gold , orthodox-sounding words but little of truly biblical and Reformed content. The neo-orthodox were especially dangerous to true believers because they were like wolves in sheep's clothing. 33 Despite rejection by Van Ti! and other conservatives, neo-orthodoxy must be viewed as a legitimate heir to the legacy of the Reformation. Like the reformers of the sixteenth century, the exponents of American neo-orthodoxy reintroduced and reinterpreted funda­ mental Christian truths for their own age. In this respect it reflected the best in the Reformed tradition which has been so ably enunciated, defended, and lived out by our mentor and friend , M. Eugene Osterhaven.

FOOTNOTES 'No major studies of American nco-orthodoxy have yet been published. Sydney E. Ahlstrom has written some tantalizing pieces on the movement. See Ahlstrom "Neo-Orthodoxy Demythologized," The Christian Ce111ury, 74 (May 22, 1957), pp. 649-51; "Continental Influence on American Christian Thought Si nce World War l;" !Zhurch History, 21 (Sept. 1958), pp. 156-72; "Theology in America: A Historical Survey," in James Ward Smith and A. Leland Jamison, eds. The Shaping of American Religion (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961) , pp. 309-17; and A Religious History of the American People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), pp. 932-48. Other helpful discussions of neo--0rlhodoxy are found in Deane William Ferm, Contempoary American :

278 A Critical Survey (New York: The Seabury Press, 198 1), pp. 13-20; Robert T. Handy. A History of the Churches in 171e United States and Canada (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 392-98; Winthrop S. Hudson, Religion in America (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1981), pp. 380-83; and William R. Hutchison. 771e Modernist l!npulse, pp. 288-311. Sec also my "Emrgc nce of American Ne o-orthodoxy, " 17ie Reformed Revieu', 30 (Fall. 1976). pp. 35-38: my "Neo-Orthodoxy" in David Well s, ed., Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modem Developmelll (Grand Rapids: Eerd mans, 1985). pp. 247--02: and my unpubli shed dissertation, "From Liberalism to Neo-Orthodoxy: The History of a Theological Transition, 1925-1935," Cambridge. Mass .. Harvard University. 1974. 2Wiliam Hordcrn employs the term "New-Reformati on" to underscore the continuities betwee n nco-o rthodoxy and Reformation theology. See Hordern, 771e Case for a New Reformation 171eology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1959), esp. pp. 11 -30. 3George M. Marsden, " Reformed and American" in David F. Wells. Reformed Theolog1 · in Amerirn: A Histury of its Modern Development (Grand Rapid s: Eerdmans, 1985). pp. 1-12. 4See I. John Hesselink, 011 Being Reformed (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Books. 1983), pp. 2 and 121. ' See Yoskuil, "The Emergence of American Neo-orthodoxy," pp. 35-38. 0See Ronald H. Sto ne, Reinhold Niebuhr: Prophet to Politicianv(Nashvillc: Abingd on Press, 1972). p. 17: and Rei nho ld Niebuhr, "Intellectual Autobiography," in Charles W. Kegley and Robe rt W. Brctall, eds .. Reinhold Niehuhr: His Religious, Social and Political Thought (New York: The Macmill an Co .. 1956). p. 3. 1See Charles E. Schaeffer, "Dr. Richards as a Reformed Churchman," Bule1in of 1he Theological Semi11arr uf 1he Evangelical and Reformed Church, 26 (Oct. 1955), pp. 1-3. ' Elmer Homrighausen, Letter to Dennis N. Yoskui l, postmarked Nov. 14. 1972; and Homrighausen. "Calm After Sto rm," 17ie Chris1ia11 Ce111t1ry, 56 (April 12. 1939), pp. 477-79. ''Walter M. Horton, "Rough Sketch of a Half-formed Mind," in Com emporary Amerimn Theologr: 17ieological Awobiographies, Vol. I, edited by Yirgi lilius Form (New York: Round Table Press. 1932). pp. 16 1-88. 111 See Al exand er C. Zabriskie, "Like All Gaul: Lowrie's Tripartite Life," in Dr. UJll'rie of PrincelOn and Rome (Greenwich. Conn .: Seabury Press, 1957), pp. 1-5. 11 Carl Mi chalson. "The Edwin Lewis Myth," 77ie Chris1ian Cemur.r. 77 (Feb. 24, 1966), p. 218. 12 Marion Hauser Pauck. "Wilhelm Pauck: A Biographical Essay," in Jarosla v Pelikan, ed., /111 erpre1ers of Lwher: Essays in Honor of Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), pp. 340-4 1. usee Richard s, The Heidelberg Ca1echis111 : Historirnl and Doclrinal Studii!s. Philadelphia: Publication and Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the U.S., 1913 . 14See Marion Hausner Pauck, "Wilh elm Pauck," pp. 338-45. "For a gene ral treatment of Barth's early impact in America. sec my. "America Encounters Karl Barth: 1919- 1939, " Fides el Historia , 12 (Spring. 1980). pp. 61-74. "For hi s concluding assessment of Barth sec the final chapter of Pauck's Karl Barth: Prophe1 011 a New Chris1iani1y' (New York : Harper and Brothers, 193 1). pp. 213-20. 17See, for instance, Homrighausen. "Barthianism and the Kingdom," 171e Chri.'1ian Ce111ury, 48 (July 15, 1931), pp. 922-25: and "Barth and the American Theological Scene." 17ie Union Seminary Revie1r , (Richmond). 46 (July 1935). pp. 283-30 1. Homrighausen assisted in the translations of Barth's Come Ho(r Spiri1 ( 1933), God'.1 Search for Man ( 1935) and God in Atlion ( 1936). "Lewis. "How Barth Influences Me." 171eology 7bday. 13 (Oct. 1956). pp. 358-59.

1'1Horton. "How Barth Has Influenced Me." 711eologr Toda.r. 13 (Oct. 1956), pp. 358-59. "'Reinhold Niebu hr. "The Quality of Our Lives. " The Christian Cen1ur.r. 77 (May 11 , 1960), p. 570. "H. Richard Niebuhr, "Reformati on: Continuing Imperati ves, " The Chris1ia11 Cemun', 77 (March 2, 1960), pp. 248- 5 1. " Ho rton. "The Impotence of God" 71ie Christian Cemury. 48 (March 18, 193 1). pp. 370-73. ' ·' Ho mrighauscn, "Can the Protestant Sermon S urvive?," 171e Chris1ian Cemury. 49 (Jan. 27, 1932), pp. 11 4-116. " Richards Beyond F1111da111 en1alis111 and Modernism: 17ie Gopel of God (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934), pp. 25. 247 . " Lewis, A Christian Manifesto, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1934), pp. 101 -104. "'Ho rto n. Realis1ic Theology (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1931). pp. 56, 77. " Homrighausc n, Chris1ianity in America: A Crisis (New York: Abingdon Press, 1936), p. 174. " Rienhold Niebuhr, "Ten Years that S hook My World," 171e Chris1ian Century, 56 (April 26, 1939), p. 544. 29 H. Richard Niebuhr, Wilhelm Pauck, and Francis P. Miler, T71e Church Again.ii 1he World (: Willett, Clark. and Co., 1935), pp. 136-37, 154-55 J-OSee William B. Kennedy, "Neo-orthodoxy Goes to Sunday School: The Christian Faith and Life Curriculum," Journal of Presby1erian History, 58 (Winter, 1980), pp. 326-370.

279 -" See Holmes Rolston. A Conservative Lnoks to Brunner and Barth. Nashvi ll e: Cokesbury Press, 1933. See also my "American Encounters Karl Ba rth, 19 19-1939," pp. 6 1-74. -''Sec "Forcward," to Emil Brunner, 771e 77ieology ofCrisi1·, (New York: C harles Scribner's Sons, 1929), p. ix. -'-'Sec Cornelius Ya n Til. The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the 77ieo/ogy of &1rth and Brunner (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publi shing Co .. 1946), pp. xx. 1-8, 364-79. For more o n the conservative response to nco-orthodoxy, see my "Neo-orthodoxy" in David Wells, Reformed T11eo/ogy in America, pp. 256-60.

280