May 14, 2012

Introduction

Emil Brunner was a man of deep conviction with a personal passion for his Lord Jesus Christ. His hair was white, and his manner animated when in 1946 he visited Southern Seminary. With perfect English and a British accent he answered questions from students while pacing the platform and sipping water, as he put it, to blow off steam. As a man Brunner had “a strong personality with a mind sharp as steel and driven by the power of deep emotion.” 1 He did not see himself as an important figure of twentieth-century theology, but rather a minister of the gospel whose chief aim was “to preach the Gospel of Christ to a generation which deemed itself too intelligent and too educated to believe the New Testament message.” 2 Although he was a prodigious writer 3 who wrote on a wide range of subjects, he believed that all of his “books were . . . a paraphrase of Romans 1:16 ‘I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation.’”4 

Emil Brunner was born in Switzerland near Zurich in the town of Winterthur on December 23, 1889. 5 Brunner’s family lineage contained an unbroken line of Zurich farmers with Swiss roots dating back to Reformation times. 6 His father taught Bible in the Swiss public schools and taught Emil by his example that “the father is intended to be the ‘priest’ in his ‘temple.’” 7 Brunner learned how to pray from his mother, 8 the daughter of a Reformed minister, whom he credited with teaching “him the sense of the reality of God by the time he was three years of age.” 9

His first published work was his dissertation written in 1913 when he was only twenty-three. The following year he taught French to students in England and learned English in exchange. The outbreak of World War I necessitated his return to Switzerland to join the Swiss militia. During this period he was called as pastor of a church in Obstalden. He studied at Union Theological Seminary in New York for a year in 1919. The liberal theology of Union Seminary was not what attracted Brunner; instead, he relished the opportunity to experience the new world. 10 When he returned to Switzerland following his study in America, he “found the theological situation profoundly changed. It was then that [he] joined these forces which seemed . . . to me to follow the line . . . started in earlier days.” 11 This change had begun when “Karl Barth had thrown a theological bomb into Germany.” 12 Brunner contended that he had written “the first line about Karl Barth in a review of Barth’s Epistle to the Romans, a ‘watershed in modern theology.’” 13 In 1924 Brunner became the Professor of Systematic and Practical Theology at Zurich University, the position which he would hold for the next twenty-six years.

Aside from Brunner’s parents there were two people who exerted a tremendous influence on his early life. The first was Christoph Blumhardt, a country pastor in southern Germany who, like his father before him, blended pietist fervor with social activism and drew thousands to his house “in order to be touched by this power of the Holy Spirit.” 14 Brunner would say later that the “spirit of these great men, who combined spiritual power and social passion, [were] at ‘the very roots of my life.’” 15 Brunner credited the elder Blumhardt’s influence on his parents with creating the spiritual climate in which he was reared. The second person who Brunner credited with having a major impact on him was a disciple of the Blumhardts, Hermann Kutter. According to Brunner, Kutter should share credit along with Søren Kierkegaard as having been very influential upon the new theology which Brunner, Karl Barth and Edward Thurneysen were recognized as having begun. Hermann Kutter, who was the uncle of Mrs. Brunner, was recognized as the founder and head of the religious socialist movement in Switzerland. He also was recognized by Brunner as being a powerful author whose books were translated into several languages and caused great debate during their time. When speaking of this man who had catechized him, Brunner became emotional 16 and summed up Kutter’s influence on him by writing simply, “He was the greatest man whom I came in contact with.” 17

In 1917 he married Margret Lauterburg. Mrs. Brunner accompanied her husband “with lively interest and feminine intuition” 18 throughout his career. She also assisted him by proofreading and reviewing his work. After Brunner’s death she prepared a bibliography which contained all of his writings, including a list of his principal works that had been translated into English. 19 Together he and Margret had four sons who enabled Brunner to stay in contact with the younger generation. His three eldest sons served in the Swiss militia during World War II as their father had served in the previous war. Two of his sons preceded him in death, one due to an illness and the other in an accident. Brunner wrote that “their deaths made their impact upon my theological work, as can be seen in my treatment of the problem of eschatology . . . in Eternal Hope.”20

Theological Methodology

Emil Brunner was a systematic theologian who, along with Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann, attempted to provide an updated orthodox response to the rationalistic liberalism that became prominent in the late nineteenth century. He wrote his Dogmatics in three volumes between 1949 and 1962. According to Brunner “the main task of theology . . . is in the area of kerygma and dogmatics. The struggle for the right understanding of faith in Christ must be its primary concern.” 21

As a theologian Emil Brunner is complex and at times difficult to comprehend. When classifying his theological positions it is helpful to try and understand the various strains of his positions. First, Emil Brunner represents the middle ground 22 in what has come to be commonly called neo-orthodoxy. Like his contemporaries he was influenced by the deficiency of liberalism which became evident following World War I. Secondly, his theology was influenced by the existential philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard which shows up throughout his theology but particularly in his concept of revelation. Third, Brunner became very impressed with the I-Thou and it-Thou philosophy of Ferdinand Ebner and Martin Buber which influenced Brunner’s view of man. 23 This led him “to a reformulation of the biblical concept of truth” which affected “all of [his] work in dogmatics” causing it to be “done in light of this aspect: the God who communicates himself.” 24

As a part of the neo-orthodox camp which had been schooled to emphasize the immanence of God by liberal theologians, Brunner and his contemporaries reacted against this imbalance by reasserting the transcendence of God in their theology. From these two seemingly contradictory truths concerning God’s nature emerged the concept of dialectical theology. As a dialectic theologian, Brunner believed that no one could know God without God having divinely revealed Himself to him. 25 This revelation, when it occurred, would necessarily involve contradictions, in that a holy God was being revealed to a sinful man, or that the transcendent God was immanently being known. The only way that these contradictions could meaningfully be described was to speak of them through the obvious paradoxes which they were. “Dialectical theology” 26 grew from these attempts to hold consistently in tension the contradictions between two conflicting ideas. This methodology is seen in Brunner’s work as he states and restates premises such as:

Only the man created as the image of God can be a sinner, a contradictor; only the man to whom God as creator is ever near can be further off from God than any star from earth; only the man in whose reason there is a divinely-caused unrest can so err in his reason as to be no longer capable of recognizing God in His own creation, but only where God manifests himself to him in the lowliness of the Son of Man.” 27

View of Revelation

Emil Brunner defined revelation as presence and expanded on this theme in his work Truth as Encounter to describe it as follows: “The Lordship and love of God can be communicated in no other way than by God’s self-giving.”28 Not mere information but God’s personal presence is communicated during the encounter. The goal of this revelation is the establishment of a relationship with God. This revelation is both historical, in that it occurs in space and time, and personal in that its content is the person of God rather than doctrines concerning God. Since God Himself is communicated in the revelatory act, any propositional form of revelation reduces God to an object rather than a person, or to use Brunner’s word, a subject.

For one who accepts an evangelical perspective of revelation, the major weakness in Brunner’s theological argument is his view of revelation. He totally rejected the verbal inspiration theory as outmoded and archaic.29 He wrote:

The error is not so much that its advocates do not see and concede the inaccuracies and human fallibility of the holy Book— that is the argument of the Enlightenment, which is indeed right, but does not touch the central point. The error is that through this (aprioristic) Bible faith, faith has been transformed into something fundamentally different from what the Bible itself means by pistis and emuna. The result of our reflections is thus as follows: Aprioristic Bible faith is not Biblical but stems from precisely the Jewish legalistic thought which was transcended by justifying faith. 30

For Brunner the Word of God becomes revelation when Christ is revealed as Lord to the individual’s heart. The Bible is a witness of this revelation but is not revelation in the same sense: “The Word which has been formulated in human speech is now only revelation in an indirect sense; it is revelation as witness to Him.” 31 Brunner thought that equating the Word of God with the words of the Scripture, and the revelation of God with the revealed doctrines about God were mistakes which had been commonly made by previous theologians. “It is a ‘word’ inspired by the Spirit of God; yet at the same time it is a human message; its ‘human character’ means that it is coloured by the frailty and imperfection of all that is human.” 32 Hence, Brunner readily accepted all forms of biblical criticism. He accepted the spurious theories that assumed the scriptures were not inerrant as a matter of fact that any educated person should accept totally. Concerning the Bible he wrote:

It is full of errors, contradictions, and misleading views of various circumstances relating to man, nature, and history. It contains many contradictions in its report of the life of Jesus; it is over-grown with legend, even in the New Testament. 33

According to Brunner the verbal inspiration theory 34 did major damage to the Church and was the major mistake of the Reformation. The Reformers were unable to shake themselves sufficiently loose from papal authority and set the Bible up as an infallible “paper pope.” 35 Like others who espoused the neo-orthodox position, Brunner, held a low view of scripture. His position was untenable, however, in that he attempts to hold on to the authority of Scripture without accepting its inspiration. In the final analysis “one must either abandon the reformer’s view of the Bible or stand with them to build a theology on the Bible, accepted as a reliable and trustworthy revelation of divine truth.” 36Brunner disagreed with Barth publicly and heatedly over the subject of general revelation. 37 Unlike Barth, Brunner held the view that inspite of human sin, man can see God in His creation. God is calling to man from this creation because, within man, there is an idea of God.

Other Pertinent Epistemological Matters

Evangelicals must not misappropriate Brunner’s refusal to accept the verbal inspiration of Scripture as a mandate to refuse to read anymore from this gifted thinker. Brunner’s theology accomplished great strides in tearing down the liberal predispositions that dominated theology during the beginning of the twentieth century. Brunner was raised in a familial environment that had suffered from and reacted against the predominant liberal views of the nineteenth century. 38 This prepared him to reject much of the liberal thought; however, he was very much a product of his time. Brunner saw himself from an early age as searching for “a scientifically satisfying formulation of . . . faith.” 39 He was unable to escape fully all influences of liberalism, although he began in a direction that would indicate he was attempting to arrive upon a different set of predispositions:

Since the Renaissance, however, at first in the minds of the more daring spirits and then increasingly in wider and wider circles, a new mentality has gradually emerged: that of complete preoccupation with the things of this world, and an immanental philosophy. . . . Whatever cannot be proved scientifically is either not quite true or not quite certain. All that lies beyond the perception of the senses and the conclusions of logic, all that cannot be proved and verified experimentally, is ‘subjunctive,’ ‘hypothetical,’ or improbable and incredible. 40

Brunner also taught that God could be known only through a subjective, personal encounter—the I-Thou relationship. 41 In this communion God does not reveal Himself in truths or propositions but in His Person. 42 Man, “I”, therefore, can only find meaning in relation to the “Thou.” All of civilization and culture is in the pursuit of the “Thou.” “Man always has God or an idol.” 43 When man has this divine encounter with God, the “Thou,” the revelation experienced is personal and supersedes dogma, church, tradition, and Scripture. It is from this plateau of encounter that all of Brunner’s theology must be understood.

Soteriology

Brunner wrote, “The history of revelation is the history of salvation, and the history of salvation is the history of revelation,” 44 and “. . . man is created for eternity and therefore his relation to the eternal is the central and in the last analysis the only decisive question of his existence.” 45  This miracle, which occurs in the human heart and causes the man who previously said “I, I” to suddenly be transformed so as to say instead “Thou, Thou,” “is the greatest miracle.” “This revolution, is called in the Bible, repentance, return, conversion.” 46 In summation Brunner wrote,

This, then, is conversion: that we seek first the Kingdom of God; that God’s desire, namely, service to our neighbor becomes our chief concern. But you cannot convert yourself; God alone can do it. He does it by addressing you both as your Judge and as your Redeemer, as He who ‘forgiveth all thine iniquities and healeth all thy diseases.’ And this conversion takes place within you whenever you permit God to say to you what He wants to say to you. 47

Brunner seemed to have taken seriously the need for conversion and the priority of the Church in this work of reconciling man to God. He spent his life preaching and pointing people to Christ. Late in his life, when considering his work in setting up the International Christian University in Japan, he spoke of this being his last great adventure for which all the lines of his development converged. 48

He also saw faith as bestowed by God to man. While this may seem to contradict the freedom God has created man to have, Brunner saw this as a mysterious paradox that no man or theological explanation could clearly penetrate. He thought that man should simply accept this “mystery of the unity of divine grace and human freedom [which] lies at the very heart of human nature.” 49Brunner’s View of the Gospel

For Evangelicals faith in the evangel, the gospel, is foundational for all theology. This gospel comes to us as God’s self-disclosure to us. For Brunner the knowledge of this message could not be separated from the event of personal revelation, or encounter with God. Therefore, rather than having a systematized doctrine concerning the gospel, he understood all doctrine to be summed up in the gospel event. This revelatory experience transcends propositional truths and is at the heart of his existentialism. In man’s encounter with Christ he comes to understand the chasm that naturally exists between self and God, and he experiences the truth of the gospel in a moment that is categorized at one time as both crisis and relief. This existential understanding is the context in which Brunner speaks of all of his books as being paraphrases of Romans 1:16.

At other times Brunner sounds more orthodox in his understanding of the message of the gospel in Scripture and writes;

Just as a sentence consists of many words but has only one meaning, so the revelation of God in scripture in the Old and New Testaments, in law and Gospel, has only one meaning, Jesus Christ. . . Everything in Scripture points to this as the fulfillment of all preparatory, predictive revelation, i.e. it points to the Mediator at the ‘central point’ of history. All of the books of the Bible spell out this name; 50

There are three uses of the Word of God in Brunner’s theology, and in this he and Barth do not disagree. Brunner wrote of the Word of God in Christ, the Word of God in Scripture, and the Word of God in preaching, as though these phrases are completely interchangeable.

Brunner’s View of the Atonement

While Brunner did not state that the atonement was a penal substitution per se, he seems to advance this position. Brunner certainly accepted the satisfaction theory, that the nature of the atonement had to compensate God for the sin of man. He went further, however, by also emphasizing the substitutionary nature of Christ’s reconciliation of man to God through the act of His death. Because the atonement “act of expiation is real: God does something; He suffers; He takes the burden really upon Himself, there is a real transaction. Sin must be really ‘covered.’” 51

“For Brunner there can be no substitute for an objective understanding of the atonement.”52  This is unexpected, given much of his understanding of Scripture, but clear in his work The Mediator.  He wrote that

the Atonement is the final and the most profound expression of the whole fact of Christ. That it had to happen, that such a ‘work’ was necessary, that it has ‘cost’ this, constitutes the final expression of the discontinuity, of the breach between God and the world. But this negative aspect is only one side of the truth. If the necessity for the expiatory sacrifice reveals to us the greatness of the gulf which lies between God and sinful humanity, the reality of the sacrifice also reveals, and not fully till then, what it means to say that ‘God is Love’. . .  53

Brunner’s View of the Work of the Holy Spirit

Brunner did not present a doctrine of the Holy Spirit in his Dogmatics, instead he included a section on the “Church and the Holy Spirit,” in which he reflects on the lack of sufficient biblical evidence in the New Testament on which to build a satisfying doctrine,54 and therefore proceeds to follow what he considers a non-biblical theological tack in order to accomplish his intent.  He believed that:

God, in so far as He intervenes in the heart of man, in so far as He bears effectual witness to Himself in the spirit of man, is the Holy Spirit, and that which then takes place within the human heart is the working of the Holy Spirit. . . Talk of the Holy Spirit is . . . an expression of the experience of faith itself. . . When we say ‘Holy Spirit’ we mean that mode of God’s being by which He is present within us, and operates in our spirit and heart. 55

Brunner spoke practically about the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer when he pointed out that not only is the Spirit the means through which God is revealing Himself to man now, and that “without the work of God’s Spirit in opening our hearts, we cannot really understand the Bible,” but that we cannot naively pretend that everything that claims to be of the Spirit is in fact, of the Spirit. We need an instrument to utilize to ensure that something is of the Spirit. The implement we need is the Bible, “the document, the original word of the Holy Spirit, the normal meter upon which all that claims to be God’s Word must be gauged. Whatever fails to agree with it, cannot be God’s Word.” 56Brunner’s View of Election 

Brunner believed in what he understood to be a biblical view of election, which he distinguished from double predestination,57 on one side and universalism,58 on the other.

 In the New Testament, faith is not directed to something general, but to something personal. Faith is the encounter between me, as an individual person, and Jesus Christ; it is not faith in a general statement, in a doctrine. Since the individual, sinful, human being meets the gracious, generous will of God in Jesus Christ the Crucified One, and through Him is ‘rescued from the power of darkness,’ from the wrath of God, and is raised to the plane of sonship, he gains an insight into the background of eternity; he experiences and hears the word of the historical calling as the word of eternal Election. Faith is, first of all, a ‘Thou-relation’, and only after that is it knowledge of God’s relation to the world, to Creation. . . Faith is directly related to the eternal, to the will of God directed to the person, with His decree of election ‘before the foundation of the world’. 59

For Brunner the doctrine of biblical election enabled him to say that

God has chosen me from eternity to eternity. That is the faith, the full, whole evangelical faith—election from eternity. Such a man knows that he is saved without his effort, out of this evil world and age out of the depravity of sin and death. It is God’s grace alone. His mercy, boundless love, His election alone is the basis of my salvation. That is the Christian’s greatest joy. 60

Brunner writes further that

Election and obedience, election and personal decision of faith belong inseparably together in the Bible. One cannot play election off against decision, nor personal decision against election, tempting though that be to reason. Reason must bow here, yet dare not abdicate. How the two can be reconciled, the free eternal election of God and the responsible decision of man is a problem we cannot understand. But every believer knows they are compatible. ‘He came to his own—and his own received him not; but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.’ Without faith, Christ means nothing to us; without Christ there is no faith. Which is more important—light or vision? Stupid question! Vision and light belong together. Therefore, believe, and you will perceive that you are elected. This is the message of scripture. But of double predestination—that God has chosen one from eternity for eternal life and has rejected the other from eternity to eternal damnation, there is no word to be found in the Holy Scripture. 61

Brunner’s View of Evangelism and Missions

For Emil Brunner “the missionary concern was always central in [his] theology.” 62 As a theological adviser for the worldwide YMCA, Brunner traveled to the Far East in 1949. From contacts made during this tour, he was asked to assist in working with the new International Christian University in Tokyo. Brunner later expressed that this opportunity was a “joyous and fitting culmination of [his] career as a missionary theologian and churchman.” 63

Brunner believed that “the way to win men of today is not at first to speak the message of Christ, but merely to live it.” 64 “Frank Buchman emphasized as the fundamental principle of all evangelization: ‘First be good friends.’ 65 This philosophy is apparently the one which Brunner utilized throughout his life and is similar to the concept of lifestyle evangelism that is promoted today.

Ecclesiology

Brunner appreciated the New Testament concept of the Ekklesia, while at the same time he was very critical of the organized churches he found in Catholicism and Lutheran state churches of Europe. The Free church and brotherhood communities he found as closer to the scriptural goal. 66 He accepted the marks of the Church as identified in the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, the communion of saints.” 67 He then used four of the words found in this line to define the marks of the Church.

The Church is apostolic not in the sense that it is to maintain a right line of succession, but that it is to concern itself with being truly apostolic when with Luther it agrees that “(only) what is true to Christ is apostolic.” 68 This appraisal involves a self-critical analysis on the part of the church of its preaching, teaching, and even biblical criticism, of its Scripture. Brunner wrote that

This community, which was founded by the Word of the Apostles and the prophetic expositors of the apostolic Word, is at the same time justified in keeping watch over the apostolic character of preaching and doctrine, and, indeed, obliged to do so. That is the ‘hermeneutic circle’ to which the knowledge of apostolicity is forever bound. Thus, the true church is always the self-critical Church within which the element of criticism is actually regarded as belonging to the prophetic office. 69

The church is also to be Catholica. Brunner understood this aspect of the church’s nature to be a primary motive in the mission enterprises of the Church to reach the whole world.

Man was created by God for the Ekklesia; that means his God-given destiny is to belong to Christ. Man as such, to whatever race, whatever class, whatever religion he may belong, whatever cultural level or whatever moral qualities he may have attained—must be regarded in the light of Christ as destined for the Ekklesia.70

The church is called to be Sancta. Not holy in that it is called to be holy and is sanctified by Christ. “The church is founded on the sanctifying act and word of God in Jesus Christ which can be received only by faith.” 71 The church consists of people: those “. . . who allow this incredible Word of God’s love in Christ to be said to them, believe it, and obey it by passing on the love bestowed on them to their fellow man in acts of love.” 72

Here perhaps influences of the Swiss religious social movement creep into Brunner’s understanding of the practice of the Church. He clearly emphasized a church’s need to be active socially in the community, rather than to focus on calling the people of the church to live holy in their inner life. 73 Clearly both aspects are present within the New Testament, but one should not be put forward at the other’s expense.

The Church is to be una, or one. The lack of unity in the churches is the major problem as Brunner understood it for the contemporary Church. The reason that we are not one already is because of our different interpretations of our creeds. Rather than understanding the Church to be an institution, Brunner thought that the Church should conceive of itself as a community, a religious society, or a spiritual brotherhood with a single purpose and goal of bringing Christ to the world. 74The Church and its Role in Evangelism

Brunner wrote little explicitly concerning the role of the Church in evangelism. As has been alluded to earlier, he did consider himself to have engaged in missionary activities; however, if he ever formally penned a missions strategy for the Church, this researcher has not yet discovered one. He did make comments in an appendix to his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans in which one may deduce his understanding of the Church’s role in evangelism.

To define the nature of the Church by saying, as has become customary since the Reformation, that the Church is there wherever the Word of God is rightly proclaimed and the Sacraments rightly administered, is far from being the intention of the apostle Paul, the missionary to the Gentiles. 75

Further on he writes:

The task of the Church is to live in the new life which she has in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit, to keep alive this message about him and to spread it throughout the whole world. 76

 The Church and Culture 

Brunner believed in engaging culture. He was a proponent of the church leaving the community of the redeemed and moving into the world. He compared this activity to the work of Christ in descending from his heavenly position and condescending to take on the form of human flesh 77 so that He might bring salvation to the world. Therefore, the church also should be willing to go into the world.

Brunner served the church as minister for much of his life, preaching in the pulpit that had been Zwingli’s, regularly, while also actively engaging Swiss society. He engaged the broader academic community by writing books on topics ranging from Christianity and Civilisation; Communism, Capitalism, and Christianity, to The Word and the World, in which he addressed issues of psychology, science, and society. While Brunner did not always take a stand against aspects of society that would be pleasing to conservative Christians of today, his experiences with two world wars impressed on him the urgency of the Church’s place in proclaiming the message of Christ to its culture while living out Christ’s mandates in the midst of that culture.

The Church and Governance

Brunner rejected those who would eliminate the problem of the divine governance of the world at the outset by transferring all responsibility to man. Although he admitted that this would be the easiest way of escape, he also admitted that it is possible to say as Job did that “I do not need to understand: that is God’s secret.” 78 He concluded, that God, in creating man to be free created the potential for this rebellion of sin to enter the world. It is ,however, only at the cross of Christ that individuals can obtain a true understanding of the suffering caused by evil and God’s resolutions of it in creation. Only

. . . at the cross [does] it become evident that evil is that which God does not will and does not do, and at the same time, that God has such power over this evil, which He does not will, that He is able to make it an instrument of his saving work. . .  Thus here in the centre of revelation, the problem of theodicy, is solved, but not in theory (as in those theories of the philosophers and the theologians), but ‘existentially’, and practically. We stand before the Cross it is true, not as innocent neutral spectators, who gaze in horror into an abyss outside themselves which appears within the world, with all its injustice and pain, but we ourselves stand in the midst of the abyss. The rift which cuts through the world passes through us. It is for us that He hangs upon the Cross. Since we know this, we also know that there is no suffering in the whole world which would be too ‘great’ or too ‘unjust’ for us to bear. The only ‘innocent’ suffering is that which He has endured, who Himself bore it for us.  In the presence of the Cross we cease to talk about ‘unjust’ suffering. On the contrary, as we look at the Crucified all our suffering gains a positive significance. 79

Brunner’s understanding of the personal experience of an individual as the pertinent fact rather than a doctrinal creed is apparent in his writings on this theological problem. The Church’s need therefore, is to continuously point individuals to the cross and not to its own authority through creeds. At Calvary people experience Christ hanging on the cross for themselves, and then the theological problems that they may have brought with them are worked out by their personal encounter with Christ.

Critical Evaluation

Evangelicals must read Brunner with the awareness that his paradigm is fully existentialist. Every theological concept is first forced through that template. With this understood one may read and profit from Brunner; however, without this understanding one can easily read Brunner intermittently and mistake his theology for a conservative Evangelical. Much of his writing, particularly his writing about Christ, on the surface sounds consistent with Evangelical positions. His writings on conversion or revelation, however, must be read with his existential presuppositions in mind.

There seem to be two theologians inhabiting the mind of Emil Brunner. Therefore, when reading Brunner one must consistently question which Brunner is speaking: the one who has encountered the “Thou” and is attempting to force all of his thought through this lens, or the Brunner who is attempting to defend orthodoxy from a liberal onslaught. It seems clear to this researcher that both exist and write. The former is very much a theologian that Evangelicals must react negatively against; the latter is an excellent resource particularly for those seeking reactions to classic liberalism.

He must be read as a classic neo-orthodox theologian. He accepted the Chalcedon Christology and emphasizes the transcendence of God so much that he distorted the nature of God. His claims regarding revelation are circular arguments because the only proof that one has received the revelation of God, the Word of God, is the word of the one claiming to be the recipient of God’s revelation. With this low view of Scripture preventing verification of what one claims to be revealed, the church is open to all forms of heresy.

The best critique of Brunner’s various views of revelation is by Paul K. Jewett. While Brunner had began closely aligned with the Reformers, he progressed to finally being against verbal inspiration. Brunner conceded that verbal inspiration was the perceived mode of inspiration in the Old Testament, and admitted that this was the view of the New Testament writers as well. According to Jewett, Brunner’s position “brings the camel’s nose in the tent door” 80 banishing any hope of consistency on Brunner’s part.

Emil Brunner was consistent, however, in his attack on the classic liberalism in which he had been schooled. His polemics against liberalism are the primary usefulness of his theology for Evangelicals. One must be careful to understand Brunner’s neo-orthodox paradigm before reading his works. If this is first understood, his works can be helpful, particularly his printed lectures. It seems that in these Brunner is less concerned with maintaining his credentials as a neo-orthodox theologian or an academician and more with edifying the practice of the Church. In these settings the more liberal elements fall aside, and the Christian man underlying the theology comes to the fore and is not only helpful but also inspirational.

End Notes

1. Dale Moody “An Introduction to Emil Brunner” Review and Expositor 44 No.3 (1947): 312.

2. Emil Brunner, “A Spiritual Autobiography” Japan Christian Quarterly July (1955): 242.

3. Margret Brunner-Lauterburg, “Bibliography of the Writings of Emil Brunner to 1962,” in The Theology of Emil Brunner, ed. Charles W. Kegley. Vol. 3, The Library of Living Theology. (New York: The Macmillian Co.., 1962), 355-384.

4. Brunner, “A Spiritual Autobiography,”  242.

5. Edward J. Humphrey, Makers of the Modern Theological Mind. Emil Brunner. (Waco: Word Books, 1977), 15.

6. Brunner, “A Spiritual Autobiography,”  238.

7. Emil Brunner, “Intellectual Autobiography of Emil Brunner,”  in The Theology of Emil Brunner, ed. Charles W. Kegley. Vol. 3, The Library of Living Theology. (New York: The Macmillian Co.., 1962), 4.

8.Ibid,. p. 4.

9. Moody “An Introduction to Emil Brunner,” 312.

10. Brunner, “Intellectual Autobiography of Emil Brunner” 8. “At the hospitable Union Seminary I was not so much intrigued by the reigning theology, but rather by my encounter with the American people.  I was impressed by the particular character of their democratic institutions.”  “Shortly before the outbreak of World War II, I was on the verge of emigrating to the United States to accept the tempting offer of a combined professorship at the university and the theological seminary in Princeton.  But my love and responsibility for our homeland and for our church made it impossible for me to leave at a time when my country was so threatened” (20).

11. Brunner, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” 241.

12. Ibid,. 241.

13. Moody “An Introduction to Emil Brunner,” 314.

14. Brunner, “A Spiritual Autobiography,”  239.

15. Moody “An Introduction to Emil Brunner,” 212.

16. Ibid,. p.212.

17. Brunner, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” 239.

18. Brunner “Intellectual Autobiography of Emil Brunner,” 12.

19. Brunner-Lauterburg, “Bibliography of the Writings of Emil Brunner to 1962,” 355-384.

20. Brunner “Intellectual Autobiography of Emil Brunner,” 12-13.

21. Ibid,. 15.

22. Humphrey, Emil Brunner, 29. “In relation to his contemporaries, Brunner has always represented a middle way.”

23. Brunner “Intellectual Autobiography of Emil Brunner,” 11.  “Here I saw the rationalistic thought-scheme of object and subject overcome by understanding the human person as basically related to the divine Thou and by the distinction between the I-Thou world and the I-it world.  Through this I came to see what was the heart of the biblical concept of man.”

24. Ibid,. 12.

25. Emil, Brunner. The Word and the World. (London: Student Movement Press., 1932), 21-26. The rational thinker or reasoner thinks of God as an object.  God is contained in his pattern or system of thought.  God is not a subject for this person.  “Christian faith maintains that God Himself asserts Himself as a subject, . . .He addresses me as ‘Thou’. . . Faith, . . . is the transcendent relationship; which means the relation towards the God who speaks to me from outside myself and whose secret is unfolded to me only in this communication through His Word.”  23;25.  In The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics. Vol. 1. Brunner writes  “ . . . God is not an ‘object’ which man can manipulate by means of his own reasoning; He is a Mystery . .  . A man who thinks he can instruct others about God has forgotten what he is supposed to be doing.  But when we say this we have already begun to know God, and to teach men about Him.  For this precisely is the knowledge of God, and the doctrine of God, namely, that He is incomparable, and that He cannot be defined.  We are here confronted with a remarkable dialectic, which will accompany us throughout the whole of our study of dogmatics.  The better we know God, the more we know and feel that His Mystery is unfathomable.  The doctrine which lays the most stress upon the Mystery of God will be the nearest to the truth.” 117.

26. Paul, Enns. The Moody Handbook of Theology. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 633.

27.  Emil, Brunner. The Word and the World. (London: Student Movement Press, 1932), 7.

28. Emil, Brunner. Truth as Encounter. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964), 100.

29. Emil Brunner. Revelation and Reason: The Christian Doctrine of Faith and Knowledge. trans. Olive Wyon, (Philadelphia The Westminister Press., 1946), 8-9.  The church has always erred in its attempt to make the doctrines iron clad and infallible, early she erred against the Gnostic’s and the reformers erred against the sects.  Early Christianity “created for herself an instrument of differentiation, which she could use in a legalistic way; this instrument was the concept of the divinely inspired, and therefore ‘infallible’, doctrine.” (8) . . . “Henceforth the Bible ranked as the source of the revealed doctrine, the God-given textbook of true theology: it is ‘Holy’ Scripture because it contains the divinely revealed doctrine.  And the revelation itself is simply the infallible doctrine, divinely ‘given’ in the Bible , and clearly stated and formulated in the system of Christian dogma.” (9) The effect of this view of revelation most clearly is evident in its impact upon the concept of faith.  “. . . revelation become doctrine and faith become doctrinal belief.  A ‘believer’ is now no longer, as in the New Testament, a person who has been claimed and transformed by Jesus Christ, but a person who accepts what the Church offers him as divinely revealed doctrine” (9) “. . . . once the Bible was regarded as the source of divinely revealed doctrinal truth— and thus everything depends upon the process of revelation as the transference of the infallible divine truth to the human system of doctrine—then of [necessity] this character of infallibility had to be transferred to the Holy Scriptures.  Thus there arose the standard doctrine of the Bible, the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.”(9)

30. Emil Brunner. The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics. vol. 3 trans. Olive Wyon. (London: Lutterworth Press., 1949), 190.  Also see Note “The True Non-Aprioristic Bible Faith: Reflections on the Formulation of a New Doctrine of Scripture,” 244-250.

31. Emil Brunner. The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics.vol. 1 trans. Olive Wyon.( London: Lutterworth Press., 1949), 27.

32. Ibid,. 34.

33. Paul K. Jewett. Emil Brunner’s Concept of Revelation. (London: James Clarke and Co. Ltd., 1954), 118.

34. This is the theory of inspiration accepted by most Southern Baptists.  During the height of the debate within the SBC an ad-hoc Peace Committee met and concluded that: 1. Adam and Eve were literal people. 2. The Biblical Books were written by those credited in the text. 3. The miracles recorded in scripture really occurred. 4. The historical events recorded in the Scriptures really happened. Fisher Humphreys, “The Disagreement about the Bible” (classroom lecture notes, Christian Theology, Pt. 1, 11 October 1990).

35. Jewett, Emil Brunner’s Concept of Revelation, 128.

36. Paul K. Jewett. Emil Brunner: An Introduction to the Man and His Thought. (Chicago: Inter-Varisity Press., 1961), 39. “Brunner in his best moments realizes this.  Therefore his criticism of liberalism is lethal, though his commitment to the teaching of Scripture is not so uncompromising as one could wish.”

37. Emil Brunner. Natural Theology: Comprising “Nature and Grace”. trans. Peter Fraenkel, (London: The Centenary Press., 1946).

38. Brunner, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” 238-39 “As a Protestant theologian I am gratefully aware of the immense impact which Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) has made on the life of my people.  The reformed tradition was the spiritual climate in which I grew up.  My father was a primary school teacher whose outlook and style of life had been formed by a great Christian educator who had fought for the rights of private Christian schools at a time of extreme rationalism in politics and higher education, which around the middle of the 19th century was prevailing in central and western Europe.  My mother was the daughter of a Reformed minister who had become a victim of the same movement because he kept faith with the Bible and the Creed of our ancestors at the time when rationalism had invaded the church in the form of a militant liberal theology.  The prayers of my parents as well as the Bible stories which my mother told me, holding me on her lap are the basis of my Christianity and of my theology as well.”

39. Brunner, “Intellectual Autobiography of Emil Brunner,” 5.

40. Brunner, Revelation and Reason, 5.

41. Brunner “Intellectual Autobiography of Emil Brunner,” 11. “I came to the conclusion that the root of the whole problem was the question of anthropology.  Every political and social system grows out of a particular concept of man. . . my thinking was stimulated by Max Weber and, above all, in the sphere of philosophy, by Ferdinand Ebner and Martin Buber.  Here I saw the rationalistic thought-scheme of object and subject overcome by understanding the human person as basically related to the divine Thou and by distinction between the I-Thou world and the I-it world.” (11)  Brunner does not accept everything Buber advances wholesalely, he does have differences, particularly with Buber’s views of Faith. See Emil Brunner. “Excurus: Martin Buber’s Teaching on the Apostles’ Misunderstanding of Faith” in The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics. Translated by David Cairns, Philadelphia (The Westminister Press., Vol. 3, 1962), 159-162.

42. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 564.

43. Emil Brunner. Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropology. trans. Olive Wyon, (Philadelphia The Westminister Press., 1947), 25.

44. Brunner, Revelation and Reason, 8.

45. Emil Brunner. The Scandal of Christianity: The Andrew C. Zenos Memorial Lectures. (Philadelphia The Westminister Press.,1951), 71.

46. Emil Brunner. Our Faith. trans. John W. Rilling, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1936), 100-101. “The natural ‘inclination’ of our heart and will is to seek ourselves.  Like the rapacious spider that sits in the center of his web, we sit in the midst of our world in a spirit of acquisitiveness.  We want men and what men have, their happiness, their possessions, their honor, their power.  All this is our booty.  But we want also from men their love, their respect, their time, and their sympathy.  Our Ego sits like a king enthroned and demands the world to serve it.  My wife, my children, my school, and— yes, even my dear God, are all to serve ‘me’.  I am the Lord my God. . . So is the natural man, the unconverted man, the godless, loveless man.  If any believes that I have made too harsh a judgement let him speak for himself.  I confess in any case that I am such a man, — and those I know  are such people” (100).

47. Ibid,. 102.

48. Brunner, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” 244.

49. Brunner. The Christian Doctrine of God: Vol. 3, 13.

50. Emil Brunner. The Philosophy of Religion form the Standpoint of Protestant Theology. Translated by A.J.D. Farrer and Bertram Lee Woolf, (London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson Limited., 1937) 152-153.

51. Emil Brunner. The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith. trans. Olive Wyon. (London: Lutterworth Press., 1949), 483.

52. Humphrey. Emil Brunner. 95.

53. Brunner. The Mediator. 485-486.

54. Brunner. The Christian Doctrine of God. 9.

55. Ibid,. 11.

56. Brunner. Our Faith. 86.

57. Brunner. The Christian Doctrine of God. Vol. 1. 321-333.  “Predestination in the sense of the double decree is the most ruthless determinism that can be imagined. . . All has been fixed from eternity.  From all eternity, before he was created, each individual has been written down in the one Book or the other.  Predestination in the sense of the double decree is the most ruthless determinism that can be imagined. . . it is clear that the net result is that there can be neither freedom nor responsibility, that decision in the historical sense is only an illusion, since everything has already been decided in eternity. . . if this doctrine be true, what use is it to preach the Gospel and to call men to repentance?” p. 331-333.

58. Ibid,. p. 334.  “ . . . the doctrine of the final restoration of all men—the statement: All have been elect from eternity, therefore all will participate in eternal life.  From the days of Origen onwards this heretical doctrine appeared in the Church, but from the beginning it was recognized and condemned as heresy.  It could not gain a footing in the Church because it too obviously contradicted the clear Biblical teaching on Judgement and the possibility of being lost” (334).

59. Ibid,. 309.

60. Brunner. Our Faith. 30.

61. Ibid,. 32.

62. Brunner, “Intellectual Autobiography of Emil Brunner,” 17.

63. Ibid,. p. 19.

64. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God. Vol. 3. 115.

65. Ibid,. Note 1 115.

66. Ibid,. 73-116.

67. Ibid,. 117.

68. Ibid,. 120.

69. Ibid,. 121.

70. Ibid,. 122.

71. Ibid,. p. 126.

72. Ibid.

73. Brunner was influenced by the Oxford group movement which swept through Europe.  He wrote The Church and the Oxford Group reflecting this influence. This influence which was very real in his practice of church seems to not have penetrated into his formal theology.

74. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God. p. 126-133.

75. Emil Brunner. The Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, (Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1938), 151.

76. Ibid,. 153.

77. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God, 123.

78. Emil Brunner. The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics. Translated by Olive Wyon. Philadelphia The Westminister Press., Vol. 2, 1952. p. 178.

79.  Ibid,. 182.

80.  Jewett. Brunner: An Introduction, 38.