Best of It: Reinhold Niebuhr - Prophet of Christian Realism (Part 2)

[Series Index]

So what can we learn from Niebuhr’s Christian Realism? John Stackhouse begins his reflection on Niebuhr’s theologian in Making the Best of It with the following observations:

Niebuhr is well known for admonishing us for the sin of pride, whether in thinking we can replace the current order with one that will work nicely for everyone or in congratulating ourselves that we already have achieved a perfectly just order in this or that institution.

Western culture has paid for [the] boon of historical dynamic with two evils inhering in the historical emphasis. One is the evil of fanaticism, the consequence of giving ultimate significance to historically contingent goals and values. The other is the creative, but also confusing, Messianism, the hope for a heaven on earth, for a kingdom of universal peace and righteousness.

Communism is one of Niebuhr’s main examples of the latter delusion, but he relentlessly chides his fellow liberals for their unwarranted and dangerous optimism about democracy and capitalism as well.

Niebuhr also, however, cautions against the complementary sin, a sin that is perhaps in more need of exposure today in a time of greater doubt, even despair, over the possibility of real, lasting, and beneficial transformation of ourselves or of the institutions in which we work. … (102)

Pragmatism (in the colloquial sense) was an important value to Niebuhr. He warns against allowing any nation or party to become identified with the promise of the Kingdom of God. Specifically, Niebuhr warned that, “The tendency to equate our political with our Christian convictions causes politics to generate idolatry.”

Stackhouse sums up Niebuhr’s realism this way:

We might say, then, that Niebuhr’s realism – the belief that there is a transcendent standard and, indeed, a transcendent God, which both judge us and lures us on to excellence – chastens the modern idea of progress for its pride, but also chastens the postmodern idea of radical relativism for its despair. We must not assume that we can completely remake anything in our world, but we also must not assume that things must remain as they are. Instead, we must make the best of them, neither in proud confidence nor in slothful acquiescence, but in hopeful faithfulness to, and in, the command and power of God. (105)

In some aspects, Niebuhr seems to me to have been a bit quirky. His failure to entertain the idea that Biblical “myths” could have been stylized accounts of actual events seems to me to have compromised his theology somewhat. Another area Stackhouse thinks Niebuhr was significantly deficient in addressing was the role of the Church as an institution. “How should the church as an institution, and not just as well-intentioned individuals, function on behalf of justice and the highest ideal of love?” (111) This is very fuzzy in Niebuhr’s writing.

When I read Niebuhr (many years ago in college), I remember having an ambivalent reaction. His peculiar theological views caused me to be suspicious of his broader theological project. Yet his emphasis on epistemic humility (previous post) has been a core concern of mine my entire adult life. I think it was reading Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman’s The Social Construction of Reality back in college that really jelled this concern for me. It makes me deeply skeptical of both the religious right and the liberal/progressive/emergent communities of the Church. That modernism has been dogged by hubris in its worship of scientific and economic models is a given to me. But I’m also every bit as skeptical of the certainty transformationists have (right and left), believing they have correctly divined the shape and form of the Kingdom of God and have the agenda to realize it (or approximate it) in our time. Things like young-earth creationism, the ID movement on the right, and the frequently sophomoric reflection on economic issues on the left do not fill me with confidence.

I find a lot that I like about Niebuhr’s realism in this chapter, but there are too many qualifications I would need to make to say that I embrace his views. How about you? How does Niebuhr strike you?

[Previous] [Next]

Comments

[Clay Allard]

Reinhold Niebuhr was the only modern theologian I have ever read who managed to synthesize theology and common sense. That he did not always give the Scriptures the weight of reality was always a stumbling block for me-- but where is the modern theologian who did?
I think you're on to something, Michael, with the clear-eyed distrust of the extremes. Too few of us reason, too many of us feel our way to what we believe is truth. Niebuhr's skepticism is the real foundation of moderation as a pragmatic way forward.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Thanks Clay.

And just to be clear, for me it isn't just the extreme of left and right that needs moderation. I think it also moderation of the extremes of transformation and accommodation.

Prudence and pragmatism are two values that come to my mind.

[darren]

"Another area Stackhouse thinks Niebuhr was significantly deficient in addressing the role of the church as institution. “How should the church as an institution, and not just as well-intentioned individuals, function on behalf of justice and the highest ideal of love?” (111) This is very fuzzy in Niebuhr’s writing."

That's because Niebuhr is the 20th century Protestant par excellence. This is probably the major problem with Protestantism itself.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Amen!