Even before the end of the Napoleonic Era, Germany had taken over from France as the leader of the modernistic movement; a movement which is sometimes referred to as, “The Third Humanism.” Its Universities had become centers of “enlightened” thought. And so, as the French were the first to experience the fruit of the new secular thinking, the Germans would be the second.
Germany should have drawn a warning from the French Revolution. But as an old history professor of mine once observed, “The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.” And so the world would learn the truth of George Santayana’s observation, that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
In my first post on this subject, I said that the inability of the world to repudiate modernity in the wake of the failure of the French experiment has resulted in the French Revolution repeating itself in slow motion. The reason I gave for the slow motion of the revolution was that the French threw out God – or killed God — more quickly than the rest of Europe. England was slower than the rest of Europe, Russia followed the French example, and the United States is still in the process of killing God.
As the second half of the 19th century unfolded, Germany became the most progressive and secular country in Europe. Because Germany was a much more intensely Christian nation than France, the efforts of German secular intellectuals to eliminate God moved slowly. But it received enormous help from an unexpected source; the German church.
As strange as it may seem, the biggest threat to Christianity in Germany was not from without but from within the theology departments of Germany’s universities where a new generation of church leaders were being trained. And because of their new teaching, the German church, which should have been vigorously resisting modernity, was the first to feel and succumb to the pressures of Enlightenment thought.
This is how it happened. While modernity was changing the culture around it the German church was largely unaware of what was happening. Instead, it experienced a period marked by two extremes: dead Orthodoxy on the one hand and Pietism on the other.
For those unfamiliar with the terms, dead Orthodoxy is a term used to describe the situation when theology study becomes an end in itself and theological scholarship focuses on the pedantic rather than the important and practical. Pietism is an anti-intellectual revival movement that reacts against “dead orthodoxy” and worldliness by stressing a strong personal commitment, an experience of salvation, coupled with a victorious Christian life. Most evangelicals are part of the pietistic tradition.
But while the men of the church were quibbling with themselves about theological trivia or seeking a deeper personal relationship with God, the winds of enlightened thought were blowing through the theology departments of Germany’s universities, and the church at large didn’t even know what was going on.
Significant things were going on in academia. Quietly and unannounced to the man in the pew, a new theology — a new, enlightened Christianity — was being developed and taught to a new generation of church leaders. In time this new Christianity would come to be known by both its opponents and proponents as, Modernism. Soon, these new church leaders would be teaching its doctrines.
Speaking favorably of this movement, William C. Fletcher has written, “Theologians would find a way in which religion could also be freed from authority and superstition and could fulfill its high calling in the dynamic new society. Science, with its belief in the ability of man and the realization of the good society, would be joined by theology, and together they would stride forward. Theology need not deny and resist the Third Humanism; theology could and must join it, and at last fulfill its true place in the new Golden Age of civilization…Thus the new theologies no longer began in churches; they began in universities, and from there, according to their spokesmen, they would reach outward into the churches to invigorate all of Christendom with a new dynamic and power, releasing the churches from the stifling cobwebs which had ruled theology and leading them ever forward in vibrant service of mankind.”
How did they make this New Christianity? They created the new by denying the old. In other words, they denied orthodoxy. It just didn’t fit with the new, enlightened, modern way of viewing the world. The results of it all has been well stated by David Breese, “By the close of the 19th century, the churches were still there, the choirs still sang, the babies were still baptized, and the candles continued to turn, but, the substance, the core – yes – the life of Christianity was gone. The idea that God was in the midst of it all, and that He had revealed Himself in His inspired, infallible Word – that idea, that life, slipped through the fingers of an unsuspecting church.”
Nietzsche said it in a more colorful way,
“The madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: “What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”
By the turn of the century the German church had largely allied itself with secularism, but in the process it had drained itself of pretty much all of its spiritual vitality.
There were, to be sure, Orthodox Christians in Germany. But when they finally realized what was happening around them they were not prepared to answer the questions people were asking and it was too late to find the answers. In the end, both the dead Orthodoxy and the pietism became irrelevant.
Besides, this time man’s experiment with secularism seemed to be working well. It was an age of enormous optimism. Everything seemed possible to new and enlightened modern man. And the new theology, while it emptied the churches of Europe, was nevertheless a part of it all.
But the new theology, even after it was fortified by a pietistic movement of its own known as neo-orthodoxy, was unable to provide Germany with the spiritual strength to stand up to the slow motion revolution when it suddenly began to produce its inevitable fruit. It could not possibly have prevented it. It had helped destroy the foundations. What could the righteous do?
The 20th century began with much promise. But before it was half over the German church would write one of the saddest chapters in the history of Christianity. Jesus said we would know true and false teachers by their fruit. To look at the woeful performance of the German church during the Second World War is to look at the fruit of theological liberalism.
The church in Germany would be guilty of many sins. But its worst sin was committed before Hitler’s rise to power when it allied itself with modernity and created a spiritual vacuum in Germany that Hitler, like Napoleon before him, would finally exploit.
Sadly, theological liberalism and its secular masters will surely write several more tragic chapters as the Slow Motion Revolution continues to unfold in our country and in our time.
Christianity has experienced many highs and lows- as scripture teaches, there is a remant- the wheat, but unfortunately. the tares seem to be what drives Christian History, ( I do not find any joy in addressing so many “Christian” leaders as tares, but I’m driven to conclude this is so.) MY Question concerns the movement of Higher Criticisim. While my German history is sketchy, I keep bumping into the effects of this Hermenuetics resulting in the infiltration of ” The Third Humanism”, (the Third Humanism sounds a whole lot like the teaching of the Greek Philosophers to me ie. Logic wedded with a belief that Man not the Gods are the arbitors of meaning.) ? Please if you would, comment.
Secondly, Why Is Christianity so inept in answering Humanism? Why did so many years of Evangelicalism ignore the warnings of Francis Schaeffer or A.W. Tozer ?
Again, recently listening to R.C. Sproul, he is making the case for The Unity of Science and True Biblical teaching, they simply put, are correlative truths, when accurately assesed. I find the Modern Seminarians pretty weak in understanding the basic Science of the world we live in. In fact, they dissect Theology from the earth and its Science. Issac Watts and others didn’t and look what they gave to humanity. Who changed this? I know the Catholic Church was antagonistic to Science, but what is the excuse of Evangelicals? Overcoming my Humanist education is a life long journey.
Sincerely, A Pilgrim, Kim B.
By: Kim on October 25, 2007
at 3:18 pm
Kim, I think you’re right when you say that the tares seem to be what drives Christian History, but I think we should be careful about making the judgment that the leaders of Christianity are all tares. If the angels were told to leave them alone until the judgment, it might be a good idea if we do the same.
I just read something on the airplane that I think is a good reminder. It’s from Larry Osborn’s book, A Contrarian’s Guide to Knowing God. In chapter nine he talks about the blind spots that we all have, and how God uses us in spite of them. He draws an illustration from the Old Testament concerning even good kings unwillingness to remove the high places:
As to your question about the higher critcism and your observation about the third humanism resembling the Greek philosphers, I would refer you to the first article on this subject. It was more than just a revival of Greek thinking (the Catholic scolastics were great admirers of Aristotle, so I don’t think the third humanism was a revival of Greek thinking). I’m guess I not really sure how to answer your question because I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking, could you clarify?
You question about evangelicals ignroing the warnings of Schaeffer and Tozer is a good one. I agee they did, and it grieves me greatly. While I don’t agree with his chapter on premillenialism (after all, Schaeffer and Tozer were in that camp) I think Oz Guiness did an excellent job of addressing this question in his book, Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to Do About I would recomend it to you. It directly addresses your question.
I would offer this brief summary of my own views; I think the evangelical church has had a strong anti-intellectual pietistic streak. Rationalism challenge was unmet and it wore us down. And so become existentialists because of our inability to answer the challenge of humanism.
Also, I am a strong believer of the unity of truth (though I got it from Mortimer Adler rather than Sproul, the source really doesn’t matter). Historically, I think the problem between Evangelicals and science was, as I stated it in my two post on this subject, at first they didn’t realize what was happening. Then when they finally woke up and realized they face a challenge unlike any other they had ever faced, they were equiped to answer. The evangelical church has been playing catch-up ever since.
I think the thing that really caused the conflict was Darwin’s theory of evolution. But I would add, that with the truimph of Enlightenment thought, science became antagonistic toward Christianity too.
By: Mark Carlton on October 27, 2007
at 10:01 pm
Dear Sir,
My question pertains to Higher Criticism first of its history, and secondly, the philosophy which ensued.
The true beginning of the third humanism was Higher Criticism. The German Theologian and Philosophers were one in the same, were they not? Once their Hermenuetics empowered them as the arbitartors of truth, Humanism and the rise of the Aryain nation were to follow. They could take the template of Christain tradition and its social mores to evaluate the good and evil of society in accordance to societal order. Pietism born of creating social organization, based on the standard of “good” opposes Righteousness ( Righteousness is God’s standard-perfectly syncronized, correlating ideals, actions and truth.) Good always has a purveyer of truth which never is consistent because the standards are not altogether righteous. In my terms, the Church finds it too easy to be good and is unconcerned about righteousness. Parenthood is an example of “the good”. Most people I know think they are good parents if their children become productive, law abiding citizens. My children can not please me that way. I know too much about human behavour and its propensity to wear fig leaves, never willing to sacrifice self glory for God’s good pleasure. They may perfectly conform to fit well in society, while all along grooming a proud haughty heart.
Higher Criticism groomed proud and Haughty hearts. It began in the seminaries, the next generation or so would see men leave the theological institutions and go into the University systems. From there it would filter down into the psyche of the work-a- day world. The financial disaster that would wreck early 19th century Germany, would prove God did not have control and they would look for a material Saviour, and be hood-winked twice in the same Century. The English on the other hand would take about twenty more years than the Germans to be enveloped by the thinkers of the Enlightenment. Theologically speaking, I can’t get away from the salient point the Churches were as ethically charged as they were morally charged, meaning they were proud of their ethnic origins, and that was part of the template of their theology supra-Biblical understanding. Should you think I am off base,( I am well aware that this is not a commonly perceived historical base.) then why are the main leaders of the 19th century, from a Seminary- Darwin and Stalin as well as others? You see, Christianity became antagonistic towards God, and it seeems to me only then secularization took root. Humanism is the natural outgrowth of Enlightened thought, cowing any man who preaches a Sovereign above earth. The Enlightened thought really held nothing new. It really is not as profound in many levels as Aristilian philosophy. I don’t see a lot of difference in the teaching of origin, the meaning of life, and the work of man when you compare Greek mythology to Humanism. As Ravi Zaccharius has said, ( and I quote as close as my memory will allow,)” The Early founders of our country( the USA,) believed in the Equality of man, and the Elitism of Ideals. Today we have the Equality of Ideals and the Elitism of man.” I believe this is a profoundly true statement, one which even the Church- modern Evangelicalism, has embraced. This Equality of Ideals constitutes the uniformity upon which to eliminate Christianity due to its inferior posture in that It is the Ideal and intolerant of others. Isn’t it interesting how Humanism’s ideals are ” superior” to Christianity, and others,(remember ” …God is the opiate of the masses.”) I do not read a lot of todays’ writers. I am more interested in History and the prevailing Philosophies as they played out in lives. Man has always been human. Since High School when I first was taught that history records nine steps to the decay of a nation, then coupled with Nebucanezzar’s Statue, the writings of Schaffer and others,seem to correlate nicely to portray the health of a country. When Alan Blum wrote ” The Closing of the American Mind”, and I became witness to the downward spiral of American Educational system as the church aquiesed her duties to the State, many people I know, could almost write the same book-” Our Dance Has Turned to Death”. Much of what is written today is written to unbelieving Christians, who seem apathetic. Many writers seeem unaware that the power of positive thinking circumvents warnings and convictions. Did you follow the teachings of ” The Secret ” in which negative energies must be overcome with the power of positive energy ? Humanism if it is to survive must fill and fit with Spiritualism -and the power of Green.
One simple statement about truth. Truth is the beginning of a discussion. In a materislistic, image controlled culture, conscience is accepted as true, when really,I believe it was Socrates that said ( second best to scripture,) ” the eye and the ear are poor witness to the barbarous soul. ” The humanist is the one who denies evil can be the true outworking of the human heart making truth relative.
Point well taken, that the Angels will divide the Wheat from the tares, however, in these days there are many false preachers, and have been troughout time, man should not be ordained just because he has a clear perception of the truth on one matter or the other. God’s vision of the heart astounds me, after all with the failings of Sampson, what man would make him a patron saint of Faith? Then there is Judas, a “good” and level- headed man who is remembered not for His gooodness, but his betrayal.
So I ask your view of this statement. Is it true, that there is Big “T” truth, and small “t” truth ? It is said: ” Epiphemedes the Cretan said, ‘ All cretans are liars’ . ”
Is this proof of two dimensions of truth, or does scrpiture address truth this way?
Please help my recall, I know the name Mortimer Adler, but my Uncles confused me with Mortimer Snerd,:>
ps. Should you have time, I beleive you were saying Scaeffer was an amillienialist, did I understand you correctly? If so I see this as a natural outworking to his European understanding of Scripture, just as I perceive C.S. Lewis, no one has a corner on the whole of truth. When it comes to end time events, that is a much separate discussion, born in the middle ages and the terrible hermenuetics of the time, and other theologies long misinterpreted.
Sincerely, in Christ, kim
By: Kim on October 29, 2007
at 5:23 am
Hi Kim, First one correction. If I wrote implying that Schaeffer was an amillennialist I misspoke. He was premillenial, which was my point. Os Guiness cites premillennial theology as one his reasons American Christians cannot think. I disagree with him on that point and cite Schaeffer and Tozer examples of premillenialists who thought very well.
Kim, From your extended comments I think you and I are in agreement and are reaching the same conclusions. I think the reason your initial response threw me is that I see German liberal theology as involving more than just higher criticism. But I have no quarrel at all with your main point. In fact, I think we are in substantial agreement on almost everything if I understand you correctly.
In fact, your statement: “Once their Hermenuetics empowered them as the arbitartors of truth, Humanism and the rise of the Aryain nation were to follow,” is the point I’m driving at in this series of posts.
Your point on pietism, while it took me a little bit to figure out what you were saying (sometimes I a little dense) is very good too. I like the distinction you make between good and righteousness and I agree with your point.
You stated: “Higher Criticism groomed proud and Haughty hearts. It began in the seminaries, the next generation or so would see men leave the theological institutions and go into the University systems.”
I agree with your first sentence. But I really think that higher criticsm — of German rationalistic theology as I prefer to call it because it includes more than just higher criticism — was an attempt by the theological community to accommodate itself to enlightenment philosophy.
Other than that I think we’re in agreement. I think there is just Big T truth. I believe in the unity of truth (I think that’s what you’re asking.
Mortimer Adler was a philosopher, leading humanist thinker (the founder of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies), and expert in Aristotle’s and a well regarded man of letters, who became a Christian in his later years.
Finally, we read, listen to and admire the same thinkers. I think we’re pretty close to each other in our assessment of the world. I certainly hope you continue to post here. You are saying some pretty important things.
By: markcarlton on October 29, 2007
at 4:01 pm