Reinhold Niebuhr


Moral Man and Immoral Society From the radio program 'Speaking of Faith' with Krista Tippett


Rienhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) is perhaps the most famous American theologian of the 20th century. He did some of his most important work relating the Christian faith to society and justice in the modern world.

Niebuhr believed that Original Sin was the only empirically verifiable Christian doctrine, meaning that it is the Church’s only provable teaching. The evidence, he claimed, is all around us – the evil related by our newspapers and the television news, present in our cities and neighborhoods, permeating our society. Indeed, Niebuhr said that “individuals may strive to be moral, but collectively human beings are compromised and prone to immorality, even evil."

Because we live in a fallen society (far from the ideal of Original Justice), according to Niebuhr, very few of our choices are between two goods, and not all between a good and a bad; rather, many of the choices humans face in life are between two wrongs, an immoral and an immoral.

This conjecture was the basis of Niebuhr’s ‘Christian Realism,’ which he described as a “middle way between idealism and arrogance,” two extreme attitudes that prevent Christians from making straightforward decisions between two wrongs. (Idealism means believing that whichever decisions we make as Christians, we will inevitably come upon the end of the world, and at that time all will be at peace. Arrogance means assuming that as Christians, we can force other people to do what we think is the moral thing because we have the most intimate relationship with God and can know his will better than others.)

To Niebuhr, Christian realism meant that as a Christian, you are always measuring your responsible behavior against, on the one hand, Christ's command to love neighbor, but on the other hand you're watching out for the fanaticism that he thought always accompanied religiously-inspired social action. If Christians follow this guide, they can achieve some relative justice – an approximation of God’s kingdom on Earth.

"Human beings," he asserted, "live in the tension between nature and spirit, between knowledge of our mortality and our intimations of transcendent meaning. Our highest hope and calling," he said, "is to live responsibly in this tension."

Niebuhr believed that this quest live responsibly and improve civilization depends upon the “vigorous pursuit of the highest values by people who are intelligent enough to know that their values are qualified by their interests and corrupted by their prejudices.” In this statement, Niebuhr (probably knowingly) invokes one of the Five Foundational Lessons we studied earlier this semester – that people are inevitably biased. Niebuhr believes that humans can achieve their full potential essentially by being like Socrates – realizing that they are not all-knowing, and making judgments accordingly.

Niehbuhr knew that when humans are faced with a decision between two immorals, no matter which path they choose, the end result would be tainted by evil. However, he did not believe this meant humans should avoid choosing in such a situation. Rather, he thought that all humans have a moral responsibility that sometimes requires them to choose the lesser of two evils.

This belief fueled his argument that the United States should have joined World War II early on. He said during the late 1930s, “Has no one any responsibility for the fact that the Nazis aim to annihilate the Jews? Are they not our brothers and sisters?”

Niebuhr did not support all war, obviously. He vehemently opposed the United States’ involvement in Vietnam, for example. He believed that while there are situations when an evil must be confronted, named, and punished, there are other situations where confronting such an evil is beyond peoples’ reasonable ability to make a positive difference. He claimed that especially in American society, there was a danger of hubris – overconfidence in oneself.

Niebuhr said that Americans need not be over-ambitious in confronting a seemingly evil enemy to bring about results outside our reasonable capacity. Such hubris leads to unexpected outcomes that fall short of one that was too optimistically anticipated in the first place.

An example of a choice between two immorals today is the United States’ involvement in Iraq. The US chose to intervene in Iraq on the assumption that we know what’s best for Iraq and the Middle East; however, years into the occupation of the foreign country, the Bush administration finds itself in an unenviable position: if they withdraw troops from Iraq, it is probable that Iran will invade the newly freed and unprepared Iraq.

I have a feeling Rienhold would have opposed this war from the start; however, since he was dead, America lacked the social and political gadfly that would have helped it make a prudent decision.



Some Niebuhr - Related Links
An Archive of Niebuhr Books and Articles
The Theology of Rienhold Niebuhr - Stanford
Serenity Prayer Website (with voiceover)
Quotations from Love and Justice




Back To My Homepage