[Reinhold] Niebuhr is getting attention again because he has a fan in the Oval Office.
In a widely cited New York Times column, President Obama called Niebuhr his “favorite philosopher.” But how precisely has Niebuhr’s philosophy influenced Obama and his handling of everything from health care reform to fighting terrorists?
The answer may be seen by looking at Obama’s first year in office, several scholars, and a relative of Niebuhr’s, suggest.
Let’s see … that’d be the same Mr. Niebuhr who said:
[i]”Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are unsure that we are doubly sure.”[/i]
I guess Mr. Obama somehow took that as prescription.
Niebuhr advocated Marxist ideals in “Does Civilization Need Religion?” and ran for congress as a socialist. Additionally, he was an ethical relativist. The article fails to mention this.
It is, of course, much easier to dismiss someone with ad hominem remarks rather than to learn from them. Reinhold Niebuhr and his brother H. Richard were two of the most important theological and political thinkers this country has ever produced. He influenced Christians and non-Christians, and people on every level of the political spectrum. Amidst the superficial partisan soundbites that have passed for political discourse in this country for the last three decades or more, a little dose of Niebuhr would be a helpful tonic. Unfortunately, even at the height of his popularity, more claimed him as an ally than actually listened to him.
#3. William Witt,
[blockquote]It is, of course, much easier to dismiss someone with ad hominem remarks rather than to learn from them[/blockquote]If you are referring to my comments, I stand by them as accurate. It is not an ad hominem attack to say what he was and it helps us put more context on the Obama presidency. His students at Union Seminary responded to his lectures by “…running a red flag up the seminary flagpole.” (Jonathan Hill, The History of Christian Thought”) Maybe you think it is a badge of honor that the FBI kept a running file on him. Niebuhr’s damning comments following a tour of a Ford auto factory demonstrate life viewed through the lens of class struggle. Sorry, but I’m not impressed with his philosophy/theology as you.
Niebuhr was a lot of things. He began his early ministry as a pacifist and a Democratic socialist. He later renounced pacifism, supported the war against Hitler, and became an anti-communist. He was an ardent defender of democracy not because he was naive about innate human goodness, but because, having a well grounded belief in original sin, he believed that democracy was the best form of government for restraining its excesses. His observations on the difference between the moral capabilities of individuals and those of groups continues to be relevant, especially when referencing blog behavior.
He is, of course, the author of the Serenity Prayer used by Alcoholics Anonymous, and influenced people from Martin Luther King, Jr. to American presidents of both parties.
One might actually read one or two of his books in order to assess his views accurately. Or, of course, one could make one’s mind up based on what some students said about his lectures or on “damning comments” he made after visiting a Ford auto factory.
[blockquote]One might actually read one or two of his books in order to assess his views accurately.[/blockquote]
Once again a rather dismissive statement, probably similar to a comment you would write on one of your student’s papers. I am not your student but I can see as an academic that you might have time for such things. As an emeritus faculty myself, I no longer have the time or inclination to walk a path filled with brambles leading to a destination I don’t want to arrive at.
Heh William. These are your allies on the road toward theological understanding. Good luck. A little red-baiting here, a little insinuation there. It did LBJ and McCarthy a lot of good. For a while.
One thing, Deacon, that it would do well for you to understand is the difference between utopianism and realism. Perhaps if you picked up a book of his, you’d find He understood tyranny quite well. But I can see why you don’t like him. Niebuhr resisted the Manichees for a long time, which makes him, perhaps a slippery figure. Obama is a realist in a political culture that rewards conflict, which is more like the city of the Prince than the Utopia of Thomas More.
Dcn Dale, my students can provide their own assessment on how I comment on their papers. I think most agree that my comments are lengthy and fair. I do encourage my students to read carefully. I also encourage disagreement, not only with the materials we read in class, but even with their instructor. However, if a student gives no evidence of actually having read the material, my comments will be to the point. I have asked students to rewrite papers.
My statement was only “dismissive” to the extent that it was a response to statements about Niebuhr that were themselves “dismissive.” You disagree with Niebuhr. You are in good company. Richard Hays criticizes him for formulating a Christian ethic that is based more on abstract principles like “original sin” or the gospel as an “impossible ideal” rather than on a careful reading of Scripture. I think Hays is largely right here, but Hay’s own alternative is actually more (not less) radical than Niebuhr’s. He thinks we should take the Sermon on the Mount seriously as an actual norm for Christian behavior, something that Niebuhr said was beyond human possibility.
I would not respond gently if a student dismissed Niebuhr (nor any other writer) with no evidence of actual familiarity with his or her actual writings. As with my students, I would not be “dismissive” if your comments were specific to texts Niebuhr had actually written that you had made clear you had actually read. What you have provided is a third hand account based on what another author claims that students in his class had said about him, and an offhand reference to comments Niebuhr had made after visiting a Ford factory. What you wrote above does not indicate that you have read Niebuhr’s actual works or even that you had carefully read the article to which Kendall linked. Nothing you have written indicates that you are familiar with the way that Niebuhr’s views changed as he got older. (Indeed, some accused him later in life of being an ally of cold war politics. Certainly he has been claimed by both ends of the theological and political spectrum. For several examples of “conservatives” who claim him as one of their own, go to http://www.firstthings.com, and search “Niebuhr.”)
Perhaps you have read Niebuhr, and you have good reasons for your assessment, in which case I apologize if I seemed “dimissive,” but your comments above rather give the impression that you have neither done so, nor desire to do so. I call that “dismissive.”
John Wilkins, I know who my theological allies are on the “road toward theological understanding.” I have great hopes for the future of orthodox Anglicanism in North America. I work at a seminary with some of the most intelligent and thoughtful orthodox Christian biblical scholars and theologians I have met anywhere. I teach students who have made great sacrifices to pursue ordination for an uncertain future in which many of them will be starting churches in store fronts and gymnasiums. I have gotten to know just a little some of the leaders of this movement, including Archbishop Bob Duncan, and global leaders like Primate Mouneer Anis. I am amazed at how much the people in this community love one another, and at how they pray and worship together.
If orthodox Anglicans commit ourselves to be transformed by the gospel, including the challenging of our favorite prejudices, God may well bless our efforts. At the same time, there is a dark underbelly to this “conservative†Anglican movement. If we define ourselves as a church in reaction, we deserve to fail.
At the same time, I have no more tolerance for the embracing of ideology on the political and theological left than I do on the right. All ideology is a form of idolatry. It is a subtle (or rather not so subtle) denial of the principle that Jesus is Lord, and the gospel stands in judgment on all our theological and political efforts.
#8. William Witt
I confess that I have not read Niebuhr directly, but I have read a book that was a sympathetic synopsis some 20 years ago. Your statement (quoted below) game me pause because Niebuhr’s thinking may have influenced my own development and I am curious about that.
You said:
[blockquote]You disagree with Niebuhr. You are in good company. Richard Hays criticizes him for formulating a Christian ethic that is based more on abstract principles like “original sin†or [b]the gospel as an “impossible idealâ€[/b] rather than on a careful reading of Scripture. I think Hays is largely right here, but Hay’s own alternative is actually more (not less) radical than Niebuhr’s. He thinks we should [b]take the Sermon on the Mount seriously as an actual norm for Christian behavior, something that Niebuhr said was beyond human possibility.[/b] [/blockquote]
I have long thought that the Sermon on the Mount was used by Jesus to show the keepers of the Torah (the Jews) that they only thought that they were keeping the Law, but were actually breaking it in their hearts…hence, no one could actually “keep the Law”, even the scrupulous Pharisees, whose righteousness must be surpassed…hence, all were in need of a savior. As Paul later stated, “All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God”.
So, in my mature Christian life, I have not considered that the Sermon on the Mount was normative for Christian living, only that it was a deeper teaching of the Law, and that it prevents any self-righteousness in thinking that somehow sinful men can live it perfectly…both in [b][i]thought[/b][/i] and deed.
So, I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of a tome that has this portion of Niebuhr’s thought. I do not have the time to read all his works searching for it, but I would be interested in reading his development of this idea. I may even get lucky and find it on the Internet. So, please, if you are so inclined, point me in the direction of his work in this area of theology. Thank you for your consideration.
#7. John Wilkins,
[blockquote]One thing, Deacon, that it would do well for you to understand is the difference between utopianism and realism. Perhaps if you picked up a book of his, you’d find He understood tyranny quite well.[/blockquote]
You mistook an oil slick for blood in the water.
I have been surprised by David Brooks’ observations of Obama’s Niehburian influences. My read on Obama is that he is ideologically inclined. See Harvey Mansfield’s piece on Obama’s post-partisan progressive ideology.
Observing and then saying aloud that someone is “fat” is not an “ad hominem” even thought it might be a cruel and unkind remark. Observing the worldview from which someone opines or theorizes is also not an “ad hominem” in and of itself.
It *becomes* an ad hominem when someone attempts to “argue” that a premise is “wrong” by pointing out an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the premise.
If I say “Bishop Bruno’s statement in his diocesan convention address about gay love is wrong and faulty because I know he is fat, and we all know what that means” that is an ad hominem.
Pointing out Niebuhr’s collectivist political worldview is not an “ad hominem” at all. Good heavens, are we to know nothing about a speaker’s philosophies before listening to his effusions and notions with an open mind?
People may decide — validly — that one is not interested in spending one’s time “learning from” certain other people who have worldviews that are antithetical to one’s own. Shocking as it is, all of us have limited time on earth with which to read Augustine and Aquinas. And given that limited time, I choose very very carefully what I will read and to whom I will open my mind. Niebuhr is not on my top priority list or even my second-tier list, although certainly I can understand that others on this comment thread might have him higher up.
Along with most humans, I even make decisions about whom I will listen to based on word-of-mouth referrals from trusted sources. That is another way in which human beings make decisions. In this case, someone as sterling as William Witt has recommended him, though Dr. Witt and I do not share the same political worldview which makes me suspect that the esteemed Dcn Dale is most likely on to something in his observations.
On the other hand, the likes of a dissembling sophist quite likes Niebuhr as well — [although knowing this sophist as I do from his last five years of commenting and having observed the shreddings he’s received when he’s tossed around “names” of esteemed thinkers who supposedly support his ideas, I suspect that he’s actually read as much of Niebuhr as Dcn Dale.]
In fact Dcn Dale did right to limit his comments about Niebuhr based on his known worldviews, rather than attempt to comment about Niebuhr’s writings which Dcn Dale has not read. His comment was simple and to the point. People may decide to do with Dcn Dale’s observations of Niebuhr’s worldview as they please.
And yes, people will use a host of reasons to make up their minds as to whether they will “dismiss” learning from certain writers and thinkers or not. I for one will “dismiss” certain thinkers from the long list of thinkers out there, and will feel quite happy and not at all ashamed to do so; time is limited. Human beings make decisions to “dismiss” or “not dismiss” all the time as a part of being made in the image of God.
#9 (Sick & Tired),
Niebuhr’s views on the gospel ethic as an “impossible ideal” can be found in his An Interpretation of Christian Ethics as well as his essay, “The Relevance of an Impossible Ethical Ideal” in From Christ to the World. Niebuhr did not view the Sermon on the Mount as a normative ethic because he thought that it was impossible of fulfillment. What you summarize as your own view is a concise presentation of the standard Lutheran view, which is not far from Niebuhr.
It was not Niebuhr but more recent Christian ethicists like Richard Hays and Stanley Hauerwas who have argued that Matthew considered the Sermon on the Mount as a normative account of Christian ethical behavior. According to them, the teaching of Jesus in Matthew’s gospel provides an account of the kind of life the Christian community is supposed to live. It is not intended to tell us how far we fall short, but rather to tell us what God actually expects of Christians. In making this argument, they are directly challenging Niebuhr (and the standard Lutheran reading).
Sarah, I did not recommend Niebuhr. One cannot tell from what I wrote above whether I agree or disagree with Niebuhr (and on what), rather I agree with Hays and Hauerwas who disagree with Niebuhr, or, rather whether I agree with none of the above.
What I responded to was dismissive comments to the effect that Niebuhr can be disregarded because he “advocated Marxist ideals” or that he was an “ethical relativist.” Neither was true.
But regardless, it was not Niebuhr’s “collectivist political worldview” (again, a serious misrepresentation) which made him an influence on Christian thinkers from every side of the political spectrum. First Things can hardly be dismissed as “collectivist” or as fellow travelers with one you have called a “dissembling sophist,” who himself gave no indication of having read Niebuhr.
Of course, we do not have time to read everything in the world. For this very reason, we should be quite reluctant to dismiss the views of people whom we have not read based on a couple of second hand quotes. If one does not have the competency to speak in an area, it is quite permissible not to say anything.
One last comment. There is an inherent difference between a “worldview” and an “ideology.” Worldviews can be corrected should they prove to be inadequate in light of the real world in which one actually lives. Ideologies, in contrast, force the world to adjust to fit.
Niebuhr held a worldview, but he was not an ideologue. His views changed. More than once.
It is perfectly reasonable to dismiss theologians and their ideas for a variety of reasons. But, as one theologian remarked: “Conversation is a game with some hard rules: say only what you mean; say it as accurately as you can; listen to and respect what the other says, however different or other; be willing to correct or defend your opinions if challenged by the conversation partner; be willing to argue if necessary, to confront if demanded, to endure necessary conflict, to change your mind if the evidence suggests it.” It’s not always easy when being misinterpreted or insulted, but hopefully, through the grace of God, worth the effort.
Reinhold Niebuhr led me away from Liberation Theology and helped me perceive some of the more difficult challenges of Christian Just War tradition and christian citizenship. It’s a worldview that is worth understanding, even if one disagrees with it.
Dear Dr. Witt,
Thank you very much. I was indeed able to track down, “The Relevance of an Impossible Ethical Ideal†in [i]From Christ to the World[/i] online. I like the phrase that he uses, “impossible impossibility”. I think the Scripture expresses the same thought in Hebrews 7:11, 18,19, that though the Law is perfect, it cannot save because we cannot obey it…which leads us to the necessity of a priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Thank you again. This is worthy of spending a few thoughts on.
I also found this of particular interest: “In genuine prophetic Christianity the moral qualities of the Christ are not only our hope, but our despair. Out of that despair arises a new hope centered in the revelation of God in Christ. In such faith Christ and the Cross reveal not only the possibilities but the limits of human finitude in order that a more ultimate hope may arise from the contrite recognition of those limits. Christian faith is, in other words, a type of optimism which places its ultimate confidence in the love of God and not the love of man, in the ultimate and transcendent unity of reality and not in tentative and superficial harmonies of existence which human ingenuity may contrive. It insists, quite logically, that this ultimate hope becomes possible only to those who no longer place confidence in purely human possibilities. Repentance is thus the gateway into the Kingdom of God.”
Here is the link for those inclined to read the essay themselves:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JstVXOH75LwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=From+Christ+to+the+World&source=bl&ots=Mpgiz3GFXM&sig=GbvhNPtc5h-j_Pn9DifJ70M_Ra8&hl=en&ei=nQtvS56UBIXO8Qbtp8mJBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false
If the link doesnt’ work, just go to Google Books and search for “From Christ to the world: introductory readings in Christian ethics”. It is essay #42 and starts on page 241.
Oh dear! The link I provided seems to have discombobulated the web page. Help Mr. Wizard! Dear Elves, please help. I’m sorry for the trouble and most contrite. I was only trying to make it easier for others to find source documents.
Apologies all round.
“Dear Elves” . . . [i]pah[/i]!
; > )
RE: “Sarah, I did not recommend Niebuhr.”
Well, I took this as a recommendation: “One might actually read one or two of his books in order to assess his views accurately. Or, of course, one could make one’s mind up based on what some students said about his lectures or on “damning comments†he made after visiting a Ford auto factory.”
And certainly this seemed like a recommendation: “It is, of course, much easier to dismiss someone with ad hominem remarks rather than to learn from them. Reinhold Niebuhr and his brother H. Richard were two of the most important theological and political thinkers this country has ever produced. He influenced Christians and non-Christians, and people on every level of the political spectrum. Amidst the superficial partisan soundbites that have passed for political discourse in this country for the last three decades or more, a little dose of Niebuhr would be a helpful tonic.”
But I’ll take you at your word — none of the above should be seen as a recommendation of Niebuhr.
RE: “What I responded to was dismissive comments to the effect that Niebuhr can be disregarded because he “advocated Marxist ideals†or that he was an “ethical relativist.â€
Dcn Dale, in his initial comment, said this: “Niebuhr advocated Marxist ideals in “Does Civilization Need Religion?†and ran for congress as a socialist. Additionally, he was an ethical relativist. The article fails to mention this.”
It was a simple observation — accurate or inaccurate — and did not say anything at all about “disregarding” Niebuhr.
RE: “it was not Niebuhr’s “collectivist political worldview†(again, a serious misrepresentation) which made him an influence on Christian thinkers from every side of the political spectrum.”
Nor did either I or Dcn Dale say that it was that which “made him an influence on Christian thinkers.” As I have never read Niebuhr and have little intention of doing so, I didn’t postulate as to why Christian thinkers were influenced by Niebuhr.
RE: “First Things can hardly be dismissed as “collectivist†or as fellow travelers with one you have called a “dissembling sophist,†who himself gave no indication of having read Niebuhr.”
Nor have I even attempted to dismiss First Things as “collectivist.” Nor did I say that First Things was a fellow traveler with my favorite Episcopal sophist blog commenter, JW. And yes, JW did give an indication of having read Niebuhr — he said this: “One thing, Deacon, that it would do well for you to understand is the difference between utopianism and realism. Perhaps if you picked up a book of his, you’d find He understood tyranny quite well. But I can see why you don’t like him. Niebuhr resisted the Manichees for a long time, which makes him, perhaps a slippery figure.” [Personally, I doubt he’s read much or any of Niebuhr other than whatever was assigned in seminary, but then that lack has never stopped him from pretending before.]
Perhaps your point was that I should not take John Wilkin’s embrace of Niebuhr and attempted lording over Dcn Dale as indicative of Niebuhr’s quality as a thinker, and I’m with you on that. I’d not want to tar anyone with either JW’s approval or disapproval and sneering — neither attitude of his is relevant to quality or excellence in thinking
RE: “For this very reason, we should be quite reluctant to dismiss the views of people whom we have not read based on a couple of second hand quotes. If one does not have the competency to speak in an area, it is quite permissible not to say anything.”
This is probably the core of our disagreement. Dcn. Dale’s observations on a blog of what he has read about Niebuhr’s worldviews were perfectly acceptable to me and I have no need to only experience comments from the experts and the experienced in certain areas in blogland. I feel competent to do my own research if I’m interested enough, but still find non-experts and their views interesting and sometimes helpful. After all, if Niebuhr was not an ethical relativist or did not advocate Marxist worldviews, it’s certainly interesting that the “rap” from some is that he was or did.
Were I in your classroom, I’d shut right up, Dr. Witt, and I’d be thrilled to sit for hours and hear your lectures; some of my favorite time has been spent at Gordon Conwell taking theology and just soaking in the experts. But I’m on a blog, and I value Dcn. Dale’s observations based on what second-hand information he has read. It’s highly likely that I may have read the same things that Dcn Dale has read and had he not said what he has read, you would not have had the opportunity to at least attempt a correction of something you deem to be inaccurate.
In two later comments, Dcn Dale *does* dismiss Niebuhr views — “I’m not impressed with his philosophy/theology as you” and “I no longer have the time or inclination to walk a path filled with brambles leading to a destination I don’t want to arrive at.” He seems to base that dismissal on what he believes were some bedrock Niebuhr views [and it does seem that Dcn Dale still believes that] that “led” the rest of Niebuhr’s theology.
I appreciate the exchange, regardless, and I learned something in particular: “Niebuhr held a worldview, but he was not an ideologue. His views changed. More than once.”
RE: “You mistook an oil slick for blood in the water.”
Heh — true, Dcn Dale.
After reviewing Obama’s first year may he should have stuck with theology instead of governing….
[blockquote]This is probably the core of our disagreement. Dcn. Dale’s observations on a blog of what he has read about Niebuhr’s worldviews were perfectly acceptable to me and I have no need to only experience comments from the experts and the experienced in certain areas in blogland. I feel competent to do my own research if I’m interested enough, but still find non-experts and their views interesting and sometimes helpful. After all, if Niebuhr was not an ethical relativist or did not advocate Marxist worldviews, it’s certainly interesting that the “rap†from some is that he was or did.[/blockquote]
Sorry, Sarah, Dcn Dale’s comments were indeed ad hominem in the pejorative sense of the word. Their effect was to encourage readers to dismiss Niebuhr as someone not worth bothering about based on hearsay rather than responding to anything Niebuhr had actually written. The gist of the article above was about Niebuhr’s writings and their influence, not about his visit to a Ford plant or his students comments about him. By dismissing Niebuhr based on something his students had said and an account of a visit to a Ford plant, Dcn Dale introduced an irrelevancy, the effect of which was to discredit the person rather than address the writings. I could as easily argue that Niebuhr’s views must be correct because he was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom–which would also be fallacious.
Even if statements about a person are true, the ad hominem fallacy is still committed if the purpose is to distract from a person’s argument by criticizing his person instead of addressing the argument. That is exactly what was done.
A “worldview” is an all-encompassing attempt to answer basic questions about “reality”: Who are we? Why are we here? Where are we going? What has gone wrong? How can it be fixed? To attempt to assess anyone’s worldview on a couple of offhand second hand remarks is specious. Moreover, it is questionable whether Niebuhr’s political contributions could be called a “worldview” insofar as he was allergic to using politics to provide such “over-encompassing” explanations of reality. That’s what religions or metaphysical philosophies attempt to do. To turn any political position into a “worldview” is to embrace ideology, which, as I wrote above, is a form of idolatry. Niebuhr himself regarded such totalizing understandings of political positions as evidence of original sin.
Yes, that would include “collectivism” and “relativism.” But, again, since no one has actually provided any evidence that Niebuhr was either the one or the other in this conversation, one could just as well claim that Niebuhr was an Adam Smith capitalist and a devotee of Ayn Rand’s libertarian “objectivism.” After all, it is an “interesting rap” that “some have said so,” i.e., me.