No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
When the Swedish theologian George Hammar in his study of Reinhold Niebuhr tried to formulate concisely the standpoint of this religious thinker, he did so in the very words he used in the title ‘Christian Realism’.1 He thus employed a term which is used elsewhere to characterise Niebuhr's theological thinking and which is a favourite with Niebuhr himself. This term, of course, is used so often in current theological discussions and with so many different associations, as to have become rather ambiguous and vague. The use of it here does not aspire to anything more than to indicate roughly the theology which tries to show its disagreement with ethical idealism in ‘Christian practice’ and with idealistic religious philosophy in ‘Christian theory’;. Both ethical and metaphysical idealism belong as a rule to the outfit of the modernistic, liberal philosophy of religion (where in some form or other it is proclaimed as a fitting and saving interpretation of Christianity for the modern man), but so-called Christian realism is opposed to a substantial part of the heritage of liberal theology. It is from this perspective then that the work of Reinhold Niebuhr is to be judged, as is agreed by the majority of his biographers and as follows from his own formulations of his programme.
page 253 note 1 Christian Realism in Contemporary American Theology, Uppsala 1940.
page 254 note 1 Christian Century, 1939, p. 542.
page 254 note 2 Niebuhr's experience of pastoral work in the ‘classical city of capitalism’, Detroit, which appeared to him as literal hell, brought him to offer a sharp criticism of the socio-ethical idealism and reformism of the Social Gospel theology thus still influential.
page 256 note 1 An Interpretation of Christian Ethics, ‘New York 1935, p. 119.
page 257 note 1 ‘Christ, who expresses both the infinite possibilities of love in human life and the infinite possibilities beyond human life, is thus a true revelation of the total situation in which human life stands’ (Beyond Tragedy, London 1944, p. 17).
page 258 note 1 Cf. his statement in ICE: ‘The Christian believes that the ideal of love is real in the will and nature of God, even though he knows of no place in history where the ideal has been realised in its pure form’ (p. 8).
page 259 note 1 The Nature and Destiny of Man, II, London 1943, p. 62.Google Scholar
page 259 note 2 It seems to me that this criticism of the Christological dogma is justified only partly. Niebuhr is right when he protests against the speculative tendencies which so quietly penetrated into Christian theology. But is Christological dogma to be regarded simply as a manifestation of these tendencies? Is it not on the contrary a necessary historical defence against speculation which then threatened the Christian confession? Not only is the conscious ‘logical absurdity’ of this teaching a confirmation that it is not the product of the speculative reason but rather is it a barrier against a more logical—and therefore unacceptable—simplification.