 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Emil Brunner | |
|---|---|
 Brunner (left) withKarl Barth | |
| Born | Heinrich Emil Brunner (1889-12-23)23 December 1889 Winterthur, Switzerland |
| Died | 6 April 1966(1966-04-06) (aged 76) Zürich, Switzerland |
| Spouse | [1] |
| Ecclesiastical career | |
| Religion | Christianity |
| Church | Swiss Reformed Church[2] |
| Ordained | 1912[2] |
| Academic background | |
| Alma mater | |
| Thesis | The Symbolic Element in Religious Knowledge[a] (1913) |
| Influences | |
| Academic work | |
| Discipline | Theology |
| Sub-discipline | Systematic theology |
| School or tradition | Neo-orthodoxy |
| Institutions | University of Zurich |
| Doctoral students | |
| Part of a series on |
| Dialectical theology |
|---|
 |
Background |
 Christianity portal |
Heinrich Emil Brunner[b] (1889–1966) was a SwissReformed theologian. Along withKarl Barth, he is commonly associated withneo-orthodoxy or the dialectical theology movement.
Brunner was born on 23 December 1889 inWinterthur, in the Swisscanton of Zürich.[9]
He studied at the universities ofZurich andBerlin, receiving his doctorate in theology from Zurich in 1913, with a dissertation onThe Symbolic Element in Religious Knowledge.[a] Brunner served as pastor from 1916 to 1924 in the mountain village ofObstalden in the Swisscanton of Glarus. In 1919–1920 he spent a year in the United States studying atUnion Theological Seminary inNew York.
In 1921, Brunner published hisHabilitationsschrift (a post-doctoral dissertation traditionally required in multiple countries in order to attain the position of a fully tenured professor) onExperience, Knowledge and Faith and in 1922 was appointed aPrivatdozent at the University of Zurich. Soon after, another book followed:Mysticism and the Word (1924), a critique of theliberal theology ofFriedrich Schleiermacher. In 1924 Brunner was appointed Professor of Systematic and Practical Theology at the University of Zurich, a post which he held until his retirement in 1953. In 1927 he publishedThe Philosophy of Religion from the Standpoint of Protestant Theology and secondThe Mediator.
After accepting various invitations to deliver lectures across Europe and the United States, in 1930 Brunner publishedGod and Man and in 1932The Divine Imperative. Brunner continued his theological output withMan in Revolt andTruth as Encounter in 1937. In the same year, he was a substantial contributor to theWorld Conference on Church, Community, and State inOxford, a position which was reflected in his continued involvement in theecumenical movement.[citation needed] In 1937–1938 he returned to the United States for a year as avisiting professor atPrinceton Theological Seminary.[10]
Brunner's ecclesiastical positions varied at differing points in his career. Before the outbreak of the war, Brunner returned to Europe with the young Scottish theologianThomas F. Torrance who had studied under Karl Barth inBasel and who had been teaching atAuburn Theological Seminary, New York (and who would subsequently go on to distinguish himself as a professor at theUniversity of Edinburgh). Following the war, Brunner delivered the prestigiousGifford Lectures at theUniversity of St Andrews, Scotland, in 1946–1947 onChristianity and Civilisation. In 1953 he retired from his post at the University of Zurich and took up the position of Visiting Professor at the recently foundedInternational Christian University inTokyo,Japan (1953–1955), but not before the publication of the first two volumes of his three-volumemagnum opusDogmatics (volume one:The Christian Doctrine of God [1946], volume two:The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption [1950], and volume three:The Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and Consummation [1960]). While returning to Europe from Japan, Brunner suffered acerebral haemorrhage and was physically impaired, weakening his ability to work. Though there were times when his condition would improve, he suffered further strokes, finally dying on 6 April 1966 in Zürich.
Brunner holds a place of prominence in Protestant theology in the 20th century and was one of the four or five leading systematicians.[citation needed]
Brunner rejected liberal theology's portrait ofJesus as merely a highly respected human being. Instead, Brunner insisted that Jesus wasGod incarnate and central to salvation.
Some[who?] claim that Brunner also attempted to find a middle position within the ongoingArminian andCalvinist debate, stating that Christ stood between God's sovereign approach to mankind and free human acceptance of God's gift of salvation. However, Brunner was a Protestant theologian from German-speaking Europe (a heritage which did not lay nearly as much weight on theCalvinist–Arminian controversy as Dutch- or English-speaking theology). Thus, it may be more accurate to describe his viewpoint as a melding ofLutheran andReformed perspectives ofsoteriology; the Lutheran accent, in particular, was dominant in Brunner's affirmation ofsingle predestination over against both thedouble predestination of Calvin and the liberal insistence onuniversal salvation, a view he charged Barth with holding.
In any event, Brunner and his compatriots in theneo-orthodox movement rejectedin totoPelagian concepts of human cooperation with God in the act of salvation, which were prominent in otherhumanist conceptions of Christianity in the late 19th century. Instead, they embracedAugustine of Hippo's views, especially as refracted throughMartin Luther.
Although Brunner re-emphasized the centrality of Christ,evangelical andfundamentalist theologians, mainly those from America and Great Britain, have usually rejected Brunner's other teachings, including his dismissal of certainmiraculous elements within thescriptures and his questioning of the usefulness of the doctrine ofplenary verbal inspiration of the Bible. This is in accord with the treatment that conservatives have afforded others in the movement such as Barth andPaul Tillich; most conservatives have viewed neo-orthodox theology as simply a more moderate form of liberalism, rejecting its claims as a legitimate expression of the Protestant tradition.
Brunner was considered to be the chief proponent of the new theology long before Barth's name was known in America, as his books had been translated into English much earlier. He has been considered by some to be the minor partner in the uneasy relationship.[citation needed] Brunner once acknowledged that the only theological genius of the 20th century was Barth.[citation needed]
