c




Reinhold Niebuhr

Nyein Aye Thu

RELI 206

Dr. Frederick Allen

William Penn University

November 18, 2010



c




Biography of Reinhold Niebuhr

Reinhold Niebuhr is the 21st Century American theologian, ethicist and political

philosopher although he regarded himself as a preacher and social ethicist more. However, it

cannot be denied that his influence was high in many areas such as social ethics and politics.

Reinhold Niebuhr was born in Wright City, Missouri, on June 21, 1892. He was the

fourth child of Gustav and Lydia Niebuhr. His father was a German Immigrant who was a pastor

in the Evangelical Synod of North America. Moreover, Reinhold Niebuhr¶s ancestors were

³German creative thinkers who participated in rational liberalism.´ (Hofmann)Therefore, he

grew up in the religious atmosphere, and eventually led him to become a minister following his

father¶s path. (Moon, 1999)

Later he pursued his education at Eden Seminary which is of his denomination, the

Evangelical Reformed Church. After graduating from Eden, he continued to study at the Divinity

School of Yale University where he earned his both Bachelor of Divinity (1914) and Master of

Arts (1915). However, he did not work on his doctorate degree but rather begin his ministry in

Bethel Evangelical Church in Detroit.

During his thirteen years in Detroit, which later concluded in 1928, he encountered with

the effect of industrialization which had a huge impact on the working class families. ³The

Detroit ministry plunged the young pastor into the problems of urban, industrial America.

Niebuhr vociferously objected to the inhumanity of the automotive assembly lines, the forced

unemployment during retooling and the abject dependence of workers upon corporations that

resisted unions´ (Shinn, 2005). Niebuhr was very frustrated by the scenes he had seen.



c




Therefore, he became an ³advocate of socialist principles in social and economic matters´

(Moon, 1999).

Later, he deeply involved in protected these industrial workers, and also in improving the

worker¶s social and economic situations. By following the Social Gospel which was part of

Liberalism, he coined a new era called ³Neo-Orthodoxy.´ He criticized the churches at that time

because the churches failed to help those workers effectively (Hofmann, p. 356-7). Moreover, he

barely caught up with the World War I at that time which made him anti-war and pacifist. His

pacifism was confirmed by seeing him ³active in countless organizations involving labor unions,

tenant farmers, and liberal or left-wing causes´ (Shinn, 2005).

Niebuhr spent other remaining years as a professor. In 1928, Niebuhr taught applied

Christianity at Union Theological Seminary in New York until 1960. Later he also became the

professor at the Columbia University too(Shinn, 2005).

Looking at Niebuhr¶s lifetime, he had ³observed the tragic life of the working class in

Detroit, and the evil capacities of human beings through two World Wars, the nuclear age, and

the Cold War´ (Moon, 1999). There is no doubt that his thoughts on pacifism eventually changed

bits by bits. He resigned his position from the ³executive committee of the pacifist Fellowship of

Reconciliation´ and the ³Socialist Party´ (Shinn, 2005). Later on, Niebuhr was clearly seen as

the supporter of war when World War II began. Although he was criticized by changing his view

points, he remained to support the just war. Later, ³he married Ursula Keppel-Compton and had

two children. He died on June 1, 1971 at Stockbridge, MA´ (Moon, 1999).

Throughout his lifetime, he wrote several books as well as quite a number of lectures.

Some of his prominent ones are u
 

  

  (1929), 





c





  (1932),  


 

 (1935) and 

 


  
Vol. I (1941) and Vol. II (1943).

Ôheology of Reinhold Niebuhr

Before talking about the main ideas or theology of Niebuhr, where his thoughts came

from originally has to be looked. His thoughts were said to be derived from Apostle Paul,

Schleiermacher and Ritschl. However, it is difficult to draw conclusion. Niebuhr did not

necessarily rely on his previous predecessors¶ opinions. His focus was more on the Bible and the

New Testament. However, it can be said that Kierkegaard and Pascal were his powerful sources

when he talked about man as sinners and God. If closely looked at the sin, it could be clearly

seen that Augustine cannot be singled out from Niebuhr¶s sources because Augustine claimed

that ³selfishness and pride are the origins of sin.´ (Kroner, p. 178-191)

The first contribution Niebuhr made was about the religion and the society in his book

 
   There, he examined if the religion is crucial in modern life. His

answer to the question was not positive. According to Hofmann in !
 
 




, Niebuhr ³declares that religion has shown itself to be almost helpless in the face

of´ industrialization (p. 358). Hofmann continued to cite from  
 

  as following to support his argument:

There are indeed many forms of religion which are clearly vestigial
remnants of another day with other interests. They have no vital
influence upon the life of modern man, and their continued
existence only proves that history, like nature, is slow to destroy
what it has found useless, and even slower to inter what it has. (p.
358)



c




Niebuhr stated this comment when he encountered the Great Depression and the

sufferings of industrial workers in Detroit. However, Niebuhr believed that religion is very

important for the society. If there were no religion, Niebuhr stated that ³the integrity of his

(man¶s) personality is undercut.´ (Hofmann, p.359) Therefore, religion is required for the

survival of the society.

Although Niebuhr mentioned about religion and society, his main focus was man and his

nature. In his book Moral Man and Immoral Society, his thesis was that´ individuals in face-to-

face settings can manifest a high level of morality that is belied by the immorality of the larger

groups and institutions in which they participate´ (Wogaman, 1993). Before talking about man,

definition of society by Niebuhr should be understood first. According to Niebuhr, society was

not the entity which ³exercises autonomy and supremacy over the individual´ (Hofmann, p.361)

It was basically a collection of individuals. Therefore, the characteristics of society are no

different than those of man. The only difference between the society and man is thatthe society

showed the characteristics of individuals more clearly in the public. In 





 , Niebuhr stated the difference between man and society:

Individual men may be moral in the sense that they are able to
consider interest other than their own in determining problems of
conduct, and are capable«But all these achievements are more
difficult, if not impossible, for human societies and social groups.
In every human group there is less reason to guide and to check
impulse, less capacity for self-transcendence, less ability to
comprehend the needs of others and therefore more unrestrained
egoism than the individuals, who compose the group, revel in their
personal relationships. (p. xxv)



c




In this book, it can be seen that Niebuhr was opposed of liberal Christian theology.

Niebuhr believed that humans are capable to be moral, but due to man¶s original sin justice is

required in a social situation. His argument is that although man has self-consciousness which is

reasoning, he has innate characteristic which is selfishness. Augustine¶s assertion of pride which

is the root of the sin can be found here. As I have mentioned above, society reflects the

selfishness of the individuals and gather to become an immoral society. According to Niebuhr,

³this collective egoism of individuals-in-groups is overridingly powerful´ (Moon, 1999).

Niebuhr also described sin in the paradoxical statement saying ³sin is inevitable gut not

necessary.´ It is because man has self-consciousness which means he has pride and ego.

Moreover, man has freedom in his choices. For example, in Old Testament, Adam and Eve were

the clear example of free will when they ate a fruit from the Knowledge of Tree. Niebuhr was

saying that this freedom attracts the temptation to sin. Due to the man¶s capability to transcend,

humans eventually pretend to be God-like. This can be clearly seen about the myth of the tower

of Babel in the Bible. Niebuhr explained his understanding of man as sinners as following in 



 
  
Vol.I:

The fact is that man is never unconscious of his weakness, of the

limited and dependent character of his existence and knowledge.
The occasion for his temptation lies in the two facts, his greatness
and his weakness, his unlimited and his limited knowledge, taken
together. Man is both strong and weak, both free and bound, both
blind and far-seeing«His sin is never the mere ignorance of his
ignorance. It is always partly an effort to obscure his blindness by
overestimating the degree of his sight and to obscure his insecurity
by stretching his power beyond its limits. (p. 181)



c




Moreover, Niebuhr talked about the political issues such as democracy relating to human

nature. His famous statement about human nature and democracy would be: ³Man¶s capacity for

justice makes democracy, but man¶s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.´ Here,

we can see that he has both good and bad impressions human nature. Although people have

selflessness, there is also the dark side of people which is pride and ego. His pessimism of

human sinfulness can be confirmed when he mentioned about supporting just wars. He stated

that ³justice should precede love.´ He also said that there are some situations where ³moral

persuasion is not enough,´ and at that time force is needed in order to have justice. He gave

example of Hitler who he believed that cannot be overthrown just by using reasoning.

ëonclusion

Reinhold Niebuhr was the most influential theologians and thinkers in the 21st Century

especially in the United States. His thoughts about human nature (sin), justice and democracy

were very powerful. I mostly agree with what he believed in. Although I may not be as pessimist

as Niebuhr, I believed that human¶s sins cannot be washed away. Just as he said ³sins are

inevitable but not necessary.´ We cannot become like God since we all are sinners. However, we

can think of how we can improve our society.

Another thing I agree with him would be the war. I personally do not like any types of

war. However, I do believe that in order to have a change, a good one, we need a sacrifice. If

people were to be killed for good, I believe war is necessary. Yes, sometimes people need to be

forced.

In PBS news, Barack Obama quoted Reinhold Niebuhr when he made his speech after he

received the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama sent more troops to Afghanistan because he thought it is



c




necessary. Although we have to embrace love and pacifism, war is necessary in order to have

peace as a result. I do also think the same way.



c




References

Hofmann, Hans (1965) Reinhold Niebuhr. In Peerman, Dean G. & Marty, Martin E.(Ed.), A

Handbook of Christian Theologians. (pp. 355-374). Ohio: The World Publishing

Company.

Kroner, Richard (1956) The Historical Roots of Niebuhr¶s Thought. In Kegley, Charles W.

&Bretall, Robert W. (Ed.) Reinhold Niebuhr: His Religious, Social, and Political

Thought. (pp. 177-191) New York: The Macmillan Company.

Moon, Yun Jung (1999) Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971). Retrieved 11/02/2010

  
 



 
 

 !  !"!


#c


$

c 


Niebuhr, Reinhold (1943) The Nature and Destiny of Man Vol. 1 & 2. New York: Charles

Scribner¶s Sons.

Niebuhr, Reinhold (1932) Moral Man & Immoral Society. New York: Charles Scribner¶s Sons.

Shinn, Roger L. (2005) Reinhold Niebuhr. In Jones, Lindsay (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Religion.

(pp. 6611-6614) Vol. 10. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from

11/17/2010

%% %

   
 " 
& '%(
$
)  * +

*c,-,./$,+
01*
+2*3.c-+
 3
 *4+ 25*)""+ 2*c

+ 
-
)  *c,16-)!-21)+ 1 % *+ )  *7
1 8+
 0


*+ 1 *3/-,9$: " ++2*3/-,9$: " +)  *3/-,+ *



c





;-
<5   "; ""=
 0 
 / 0  0
> 
?/ 
1 @

6
 1 071 (

c 
& A ""

 % 

 
 !
 B
 C " ! C"

"