What do you think?
Rate this book
The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of Its Traditional Defense
The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, first published in 1944, is considered one of the most profound and relevant works by the influential theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, and certainly the fullest statement of his political philosophy. Written and first read during the prolonged, tragic world war between totalitarian and democratic forces, Niebuhr’s book took up the timely question of how democracy as a political system could best be defended.Most proponents of democracy, Niebuhr claimed, were “children of light,” who had optimistic but naïve ideas about how society could be rid of evil and governed by enlightened reason. They needed, he believed, to absorb some of the wisdom and strength of the “children of darkness,” whose ruthless cynicism and corrupt, anti-democratic politics should otherwise be repudiated. He argued for a prudent, liberal understanding of human society that took the measure of every group’s self-interest and was chastened by a realistic understanding of the limits of power. It is in the foreword to this book that he wrote, “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”
This edition includes a new introduction by the theologian and Niebuhr scholar Gary Dorrien in which he elucidates the work’s significance and places it firmly into the arc of Niebuhr’s career.
This edition includes a new introduction by the theologian and Niebuhr scholar Gary Dorrien in which he elucidates the work’s significance and places it firmly into the arc of Niebuhr’s career.
223 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1950
79 people are currently reading
643 people want to read
About the author
Reinhold Niebuhr
126 books252 followersU.S. theologian. The son of an evangelical minister, he studied at Eden Theological Seminary and Yale Divinity School. He was ordained in the Evangelical Synod of North America in 1915 and served as pastor of Bethel Evangelical Church in Detroit, Mich., until 1928. His years in that industrial city made him a critic of capitalism and an advocate of socialism. From 1928 to 1960 he taught at New York's Union Theological Seminary. His influential writings, which forcefully criticized liberal Protestant thought and emphasized the persistence of evil in human nature and social institutions, include Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932), The Nature and Destiny of Man, 2 vol. (1941 – 43), and The Self and the Dramas of History (1955).
from The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
A 1958 interview with Reinhold Niebuhr: http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/niebuhr_reinhold.html
from The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
A 1958 interview with Reinhold Niebuhr: http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/niebuhr_reinhold.html
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
April 17, 2020
Niebuhr's Vindication Of Democracy
Reinhold Niebuhr (1892 -- 1971) was an American Protestant theologian and political thinker. His writings attracted great attention and controversy during his life and continue to be read. In recognition of his importance, the Library of America is publishing in April, 2015, a collection of Niebuhr's "Major Works on Religion and Politics" which has been offered to me for review. I began my reading of the LOA volume with this difficult book, "The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of its Traditional Defense" published in 1944. The book originated as a series of lectures Niebuhr delivered at Stanford University.
This book is an extraordinary combination of religious and political philosophy. The ongoing war against Nazism was central to the book's project. Niebuhr wanted to give a philosophical explanation of the nature and importance of democracy and to rescue democracy, so to speak, from its defenders. Niebuhr believed that traditional defenses, based on Lockean "bourgeoise" individualism were inadequate and unresponsive to contemporary life. He also took issue with what he saw as "secular" non-religious attempts to defend democracy. He relied a great deal on concepts of original sin. Many readers of Niebuhr try to read his insights into the fallible nature of humanity, prone to do evil, in a way not requiring a theological commitment.
In a short space, the book covers a great deal of ground and shows broad learning. The writing is difficult but full of short, quotable, and memorable passages and aphorisms. Niebuhr proceeds by drawing and expounding a number of distinctions, the chief of which is indicated in the book's title. "The Children of Darkness" or "Children of this world", for Niebuhr are those "who know no law beyond their will and interest." For these, "children", right is power and authoritarianism. Niebuhr defines "children of light" as "those who believe that self-interest should be brought under the discipline of a higher law"; or, in a slightly expanded formulation, "those who seek to bring self-interest under the discipline of a more universal law and in harmony with a more universal good."
Niebuhr believes that both Lockean liberalism and Marxism are in the camp of the "Children of Light". He finds that both these "children" share a common error and have a lesson to learn from the Children of Darkness: the power of self-interest and selfishness to overcome a naïve idealistic faith in reason. Put otherwise, the Children of Light underestimate the sinful human heart, whether individually or collectively, and its capacity to substitute personal interest for a search for what is right and good. Niebuhr writes:
"The children of light are virtuous because they have some conception of a higher law than their own will. They are usually foolish because they do not know the power of self-will. They underestimate the peril of anarchy in both the national and the international community. Modern democratic civilization is, in short, sentimental rather than cynical. It has an easy solution for the problem or anarchy and chaos on both the national and international level of community, because of its fatuous and superficial view of man. It does not know that the same man who is ostensibly devoted to the 'common good' may have desires and ambitions, hopes and fears, which set him at variance with his neighbor."
The book is at its best when it is broadest in its opening chapter and in the second chapter which distinguishes between "the individual and the community" Democracy tries to give credence to the needs of both. While they are often viewed in opposition, Niebuhr recognizes that individual life requires strong ties to others and that communal life requires a degree of transcendence -- individuals must be free to change and expand beyond what may be arbitrary, time-bound limits. Niebuhr writes:
"The ideal of individual self-sufficiency, so exalted in our liberal culture, is recognized in Christian thought as one form of the primal sin. For self-love, which is the root of all sin, takes two social forms. One of them is the domination of other life by the self. The second is the sin of isolationism. The self can be its true self only by continued transcendence over self. This self-transcendence either ends in mystic otherworldliness or it must be transmuted into indetermine realizations of the self in the life of others. By the responsibilities which men have to their family and community and to many common enterprises, they are drawn out of themselves to become their true selves. The indeterminate character of human freedom makes it impossible to set any limits of intensity or extent to this social responsibility."
The remaining portions of the book tend to be slightly less general. Niebuhr develops his distinctions to show issues in individual versus communal conceptions of property, the treatment of minorities in democratic societies, and the expansion of national boundaries to embrace a world community and the difficulties and perils of so doing. On my initial reading, I found Niebuhr at his best when he remains a theologian, particularly when he discusses diverging religious beliefs and religious toleration in chapter four and elsewhere.
Niebuhr's views were well on the liberal side of American politics and he wrote about them extensively. This book, however, is far different from a political tract. Niebuhr takes a serious, provocative, and nuanced look at democracy and its sources. His religious convictions, while important in their own right, may be restated by secular individuals who understand the nature of human fallibility and finitude. I was more comfortable with his treatment of religious questions than with other approaches which tend, wrongly in my view, to draw religion into public life. I learned a great deal from this book and was glad to have read it as my first sustained approach to Niebuhr.
Robin Friedman
Reinhold Niebuhr (1892 -- 1971) was an American Protestant theologian and political thinker. His writings attracted great attention and controversy during his life and continue to be read. In recognition of his importance, the Library of America is publishing in April, 2015, a collection of Niebuhr's "Major Works on Religion and Politics" which has been offered to me for review. I began my reading of the LOA volume with this difficult book, "The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of its Traditional Defense" published in 1944. The book originated as a series of lectures Niebuhr delivered at Stanford University.
This book is an extraordinary combination of religious and political philosophy. The ongoing war against Nazism was central to the book's project. Niebuhr wanted to give a philosophical explanation of the nature and importance of democracy and to rescue democracy, so to speak, from its defenders. Niebuhr believed that traditional defenses, based on Lockean "bourgeoise" individualism were inadequate and unresponsive to contemporary life. He also took issue with what he saw as "secular" non-religious attempts to defend democracy. He relied a great deal on concepts of original sin. Many readers of Niebuhr try to read his insights into the fallible nature of humanity, prone to do evil, in a way not requiring a theological commitment.
In a short space, the book covers a great deal of ground and shows broad learning. The writing is difficult but full of short, quotable, and memorable passages and aphorisms. Niebuhr proceeds by drawing and expounding a number of distinctions, the chief of which is indicated in the book's title. "The Children of Darkness" or "Children of this world", for Niebuhr are those "who know no law beyond their will and interest." For these, "children", right is power and authoritarianism. Niebuhr defines "children of light" as "those who believe that self-interest should be brought under the discipline of a higher law"; or, in a slightly expanded formulation, "those who seek to bring self-interest under the discipline of a more universal law and in harmony with a more universal good."
Niebuhr believes that both Lockean liberalism and Marxism are in the camp of the "Children of Light". He finds that both these "children" share a common error and have a lesson to learn from the Children of Darkness: the power of self-interest and selfishness to overcome a naïve idealistic faith in reason. Put otherwise, the Children of Light underestimate the sinful human heart, whether individually or collectively, and its capacity to substitute personal interest for a search for what is right and good. Niebuhr writes:
"The children of light are virtuous because they have some conception of a higher law than their own will. They are usually foolish because they do not know the power of self-will. They underestimate the peril of anarchy in both the national and the international community. Modern democratic civilization is, in short, sentimental rather than cynical. It has an easy solution for the problem or anarchy and chaos on both the national and international level of community, because of its fatuous and superficial view of man. It does not know that the same man who is ostensibly devoted to the 'common good' may have desires and ambitions, hopes and fears, which set him at variance with his neighbor."
The book is at its best when it is broadest in its opening chapter and in the second chapter which distinguishes between "the individual and the community" Democracy tries to give credence to the needs of both. While they are often viewed in opposition, Niebuhr recognizes that individual life requires strong ties to others and that communal life requires a degree of transcendence -- individuals must be free to change and expand beyond what may be arbitrary, time-bound limits. Niebuhr writes:
"The ideal of individual self-sufficiency, so exalted in our liberal culture, is recognized in Christian thought as one form of the primal sin. For self-love, which is the root of all sin, takes two social forms. One of them is the domination of other life by the self. The second is the sin of isolationism. The self can be its true self only by continued transcendence over self. This self-transcendence either ends in mystic otherworldliness or it must be transmuted into indetermine realizations of the self in the life of others. By the responsibilities which men have to their family and community and to many common enterprises, they are drawn out of themselves to become their true selves. The indeterminate character of human freedom makes it impossible to set any limits of intensity or extent to this social responsibility."
The remaining portions of the book tend to be slightly less general. Niebuhr develops his distinctions to show issues in individual versus communal conceptions of property, the treatment of minorities in democratic societies, and the expansion of national boundaries to embrace a world community and the difficulties and perils of so doing. On my initial reading, I found Niebuhr at his best when he remains a theologian, particularly when he discusses diverging religious beliefs and religious toleration in chapter four and elsewhere.
Niebuhr's views were well on the liberal side of American politics and he wrote about them extensively. This book, however, is far different from a political tract. Niebuhr takes a serious, provocative, and nuanced look at democracy and its sources. His religious convictions, while important in their own right, may be restated by secular individuals who understand the nature of human fallibility and finitude. I was more comfortable with his treatment of religious questions than with other approaches which tend, wrongly in my view, to draw religion into public life. I learned a great deal from this book and was glad to have read it as my first sustained approach to Niebuhr.
Robin Friedman
November 26, 2017
This book has all the stern rationality I would expect from Niebuhr, but it's not especially coherent. Though the book is supposed to be a "vindication of democracy", it really only spends perhaps ten pages on that. The rest of the space is used to chart a course between naivety (light) and cynicism (darkness). The analysis, while always interestingly worded by Niebuhr, doesn't really add enough to my understanding of power politics or worldstatecraft to merit much attention.
He limits himself to what I could call a level 2 analysis. It goes like this: Locke said this, but he was too optimistic about individual freedom. Hobbes said this, but he was too cynical, thinking of individuals as thoroughly egoistic. The truth is in balancing the two.
Fair enough, but saying that balance needs to be achieved isn't a very clear vision.
Certainly there is much that could be helpful to us today, such as curtailing our optimism about creating progress/justice/etc. through government action alone, or of curtailing our current cynicism about humanity generally. The typical solution is to recover a spiritual, moral, and universal element in culture that can remind us of the balance of light and dark that humanity will always be. In fact, it sounded a lot like what you see in David Brooks's moderate conservatism, lauding the impact of community, culture, and other subgovernmental sources of unity. His offhand commentary is probably the best part of his work, in fact. It speaks the least to the topic at hand, but it gives you a clearer understanding of the author's views.
He limits himself to what I could call a level 2 analysis. It goes like this: Locke said this, but he was too optimistic about individual freedom. Hobbes said this, but he was too cynical, thinking of individuals as thoroughly egoistic. The truth is in balancing the two.
Fair enough, but saying that balance needs to be achieved isn't a very clear vision.
Certainly there is much that could be helpful to us today, such as curtailing our optimism about creating progress/justice/etc. through government action alone, or of curtailing our current cynicism about humanity generally. The typical solution is to recover a spiritual, moral, and universal element in culture that can remind us of the balance of light and dark that humanity will always be. In fact, it sounded a lot like what you see in David Brooks's moderate conservatism, lauding the impact of community, culture, and other subgovernmental sources of unity. His offhand commentary is probably the best part of his work, in fact. It speaks the least to the topic at hand, but it gives you a clearer understanding of the author's views.
October 24, 2014
The main analytic point here is one that Niebuhr makes so effectively, it's all but naturalized in American political life: There's a tradeoff between idealism and effectiveness. Moral cynics are likelier to recognize and use power than are actors driven by any sort of values, however pragmatically framed. The rest, after the first chapter, is basically boilerplate of purely historical interest—if you want Niebuhr at his best, try Moral Man and Immoral Society or Beyond Tragedy.
April 5, 2025
Niebuhr is so clearly brilliant, and his social and theological analysis often on point, which is actually what made this one a tad disappointing. While he maintains his trademark intellectual rigor and insightfulness, I find myself more leaning in the Hauerwaus direction of political and social engagement, particularly when examining Christ as our model.
December 31, 2024
In this book, Niebuhr divides political theorists into children of light and children of darkness and ascribes to the children of darkness more wisdom. By children of light, he means both marxists and the bourgeoisie middle class, which we would name neo-liberalism today. Children of darkness, who he doesn’t name, but in the historical context are easy to identify. They are those who understand that naked self-interest has a dark underbelly. Something the children of light are naive about.
He identifies this as the missing element in their theory: an unrestricted optimism that fails to account for original sin. Every self-interest can be distorted to a zero-sum game where winners take from losers (Niebuhr doesn’t use those terms to describe the situation). The bourgeoise children of light are foolish in believing the laissez-faire system will solve all the problems. Something he points out that Adam Smith understood as false. The Marxists ‘children of light’ believe that with the correct society and government, men would have no need for government. A hopelessly utopian fable as is clear to anyone with an understanding of human nature as outlined in Judeo-Christian teaching.
The children of light are the unrealistically optimistic libertarian who assumes reason itself will resolve all conflicts fairly and the socialist who assumes the elimination of class conflict will erase all conflict.
He points of that the individual as transcending the community has its basis in religion (Christian). The surest bulwark against tyranny is those who ‘obey God rather than men.’ The tension between individual freedom and the good of the community cannot be successfully mediated without this religious understanding.
He then goes on to discuss property. The necessity of private property as a result of the fall, or as the Marxists put it, private property is itself the fall. Both conceptions of property (liberal and Marxist) are based on utopia ideas that free markets will tend to equality or that collective ownership will eliminate all problems of power. Overall, this analysis is economically confused. The benefits of private property are glossed over in favor of a Marxist view of property that is ‘demanded by an industrial age’ (1944 being near the height of industrialism). The essential truth he expounds is that the Christian conception of property is not without moral limits, i.e. property comes with stewardship responsibilities as well as responsibilities to one’s community. He spends no time talking about that conception, which would have greatly improved the value of this work, preferring instead to revel in the problems of left and right Utopianism.
In the chapter on democratic toleration and groups, he is on much surer ground as he is dealing with ethical matters. He explores the idea of religious tolerance and the range from the Catholic position that the state should support the ‘correct’ religion to the secularist ideal that religion should be banished. This is related to the idea of tolerance as pure indifference to truth. An idea he rightly sees as dangerous due to the inevitable filling of the religious vacuum with demonic religious ideas - all too evident today. He mediates religious difference with religious humility. As pride is the ur-sin, its opposite should be held close by all religious people. As humans, we are fallible, and our moral ideals are always mixed with self-interest. This self-interest applies to groups as well. Group morals or ideals always have a degree of self-interest. This is the best chapter.
In the final chapter titled World Community, he attempts to make the case for some type of global governance. No one today would concur with his rationale or the implementation. He talks of Christian nations and the need for Christian foundations to world solutions, never mind his talk of ethnic proclivities, all of which would frighten off modern secularist globalists. No mention is needed of how his ideas would horrify conservatives.
In the world community, he seeks order, which he admits means the sacrifice of some justice. This chapter, more than even the others, seems time-bound in the waning years of WWII. One can understand the impulse, and he recognizes that a purely idealistic world community won’t work. But his call for a global government with sufficient police powers to enforce ‘international’ law seems hopelessly idealistic. It’s hard to see how any unchecked global power would not rapidly devolve into unchecked tyranny. He does make the point that international relations have to thread the needle between moral idealism and rank cynicism. This is a helpful, if elementary, insight, one that is needed in today’s climate.
On the whole, hopelessly bound up with the life-dominating global situation of the mid-40s. If you’ve ever read a civics textbook from 1940, one can see the context in which this was written. History overtook a lot of what he has to say, particularly with regard to economics. Since 1944, economics, particularly political economics, has learned an immense amount that he didn’t have access to. He has, of course, attempted the impossible, combining theology, economics, and political realities. For political solutions and insight, one would be on firmer ground with his contemporaries Churchill or FDR, those who know how to wield power (democratic power). For economics, there are many surer guides. For the ethical insights, however, Niebuhr provides sound advice.
He identifies this as the missing element in their theory: an unrestricted optimism that fails to account for original sin. Every self-interest can be distorted to a zero-sum game where winners take from losers (Niebuhr doesn’t use those terms to describe the situation). The bourgeoise children of light are foolish in believing the laissez-faire system will solve all the problems. Something he points out that Adam Smith understood as false. The Marxists ‘children of light’ believe that with the correct society and government, men would have no need for government. A hopelessly utopian fable as is clear to anyone with an understanding of human nature as outlined in Judeo-Christian teaching.
The children of light are the unrealistically optimistic libertarian who assumes reason itself will resolve all conflicts fairly and the socialist who assumes the elimination of class conflict will erase all conflict.
He points of that the individual as transcending the community has its basis in religion (Christian). The surest bulwark against tyranny is those who ‘obey God rather than men.’ The tension between individual freedom and the good of the community cannot be successfully mediated without this religious understanding.
He then goes on to discuss property. The necessity of private property as a result of the fall, or as the Marxists put it, private property is itself the fall. Both conceptions of property (liberal and Marxist) are based on utopia ideas that free markets will tend to equality or that collective ownership will eliminate all problems of power. Overall, this analysis is economically confused. The benefits of private property are glossed over in favor of a Marxist view of property that is ‘demanded by an industrial age’ (1944 being near the height of industrialism). The essential truth he expounds is that the Christian conception of property is not without moral limits, i.e. property comes with stewardship responsibilities as well as responsibilities to one’s community. He spends no time talking about that conception, which would have greatly improved the value of this work, preferring instead to revel in the problems of left and right Utopianism.
In the chapter on democratic toleration and groups, he is on much surer ground as he is dealing with ethical matters. He explores the idea of religious tolerance and the range from the Catholic position that the state should support the ‘correct’ religion to the secularist ideal that religion should be banished. This is related to the idea of tolerance as pure indifference to truth. An idea he rightly sees as dangerous due to the inevitable filling of the religious vacuum with demonic religious ideas - all too evident today. He mediates religious difference with religious humility. As pride is the ur-sin, its opposite should be held close by all religious people. As humans, we are fallible, and our moral ideals are always mixed with self-interest. This self-interest applies to groups as well. Group morals or ideals always have a degree of self-interest. This is the best chapter.
In the final chapter titled World Community, he attempts to make the case for some type of global governance. No one today would concur with his rationale or the implementation. He talks of Christian nations and the need for Christian foundations to world solutions, never mind his talk of ethnic proclivities, all of which would frighten off modern secularist globalists. No mention is needed of how his ideas would horrify conservatives.
In the world community, he seeks order, which he admits means the sacrifice of some justice. This chapter, more than even the others, seems time-bound in the waning years of WWII. One can understand the impulse, and he recognizes that a purely idealistic world community won’t work. But his call for a global government with sufficient police powers to enforce ‘international’ law seems hopelessly idealistic. It’s hard to see how any unchecked global power would not rapidly devolve into unchecked tyranny. He does make the point that international relations have to thread the needle between moral idealism and rank cynicism. This is a helpful, if elementary, insight, one that is needed in today’s climate.
On the whole, hopelessly bound up with the life-dominating global situation of the mid-40s. If you’ve ever read a civics textbook from 1940, one can see the context in which this was written. History overtook a lot of what he has to say, particularly with regard to economics. Since 1944, economics, particularly political economics, has learned an immense amount that he didn’t have access to. He has, of course, attempted the impossible, combining theology, economics, and political realities. For political solutions and insight, one would be on firmer ground with his contemporaries Churchill or FDR, those who know how to wield power (democratic power). For economics, there are many surer guides. For the ethical insights, however, Niebuhr provides sound advice.
September 3, 2017
Here are the words I would use to describe Niebuhr, whom I've never directly read before: balanced, open-minded, wise, wordy. The last part is the only significant problem I had with the book. Luckily it was short because almost every sentence was a multifaceted workout that made you really focus. If you aren't at least somewhat used to dense philosophical writing then this might not be the book for you. But if you are interested in charting out a vital center liberalism (as I am) this is an essential read.
Niebuhr spells out two philosophical schools in this book. The children of light include most liberals, French Enlightenment figures, Marxists, and almost any idealist with an overly positive view of human nature. Their big mistake is that they underestimate or ignore the power of human partiality and selfishness in all systems and all historical periods. They believe that human beings can be bound in cooperation by a common recognition of what is right and by the best set of laws or incentives. the CoL also tend to ignore their own partiality and self-interest, believing that they are merely imparting a beautiful ideology unto the world. This can become dangerous as they tend to persist in believing that whatever they do to bring about a better world must be acceptable because they couldn't POSSIBLY be the bad guys. He says at one point, for example, that liberals like Wilson believe that the only reason there isn't a world government is that no one has thought up a good enough organizational scheme yet.
The CoL's naivete leaves their ideas open for manipulation from the children of darkness. Fascists might be the main children of darkness he's talking about in 1944. The CoD have such a dark and corrupted view of human nature that they believe only tyranny and violence can hold human societies together. From the inside and outside, they take advantage of the "stupid" CoL and corrupt their systems toward partial ends. He gives the example of Lenin and Stalin corrupting the more humane doctrines of Marx (this is disputable btw) in order to seize power and create a tyranny never seen before in history. Another example might be Christian plutocrats using charitable giving as a screen or justification for otherwise rapacious economic practices.
Niebuhr's main defense of democracy is not the overly sunny one of the CoL, although he's a little vague on the "traditional defense" of democracy. Rather, he says that democracies must be founded on an accurate conception of human nature, one that he finds in his liberal Protestantism. He argues that human beings are not so evil that we are incapable of justice, enlightened self-interest, cooperation, and charitableness, because these positive traits democracy and a civil society would be impossible. On the other hand, human beings are not so good that they can be trusted with each other's interests indefinitely, nor that they can live without a variety of restraints: legal, communal, moral, etc.. I think that this is a very balanced view of human beings that is a crucial philosophical basis for democracy.
Niebuhr's best chapter relates to the regulation of the economy and property. Here he once again charts a brilliant course through the extremes. On one side is the free market capitalism of Smith and the physiocrats, who believe that economic interests will be held in balance by the mechanisms of the free market. They follow the Lockean understanding of property wherein if an individual puts his labor into something it becomes his property. Niebuhr says this understanding of property is hopelessly outdated in the modern industrial age, when so much power and property are concentrated in a small set of hands. He concedes to the socialists and Marxists that they correctly argue that property in the modern era must be understood in part in a communal sense: we are all so wrapped up in the policies and fate of the local factory, for example, that it is unfair to the community . This is why Niebuhr supported New Deal type political controls on capitalism and the unfettered wielding of property. It would be a wise doctrine for us to revive today: how many towns and small cities turned to Trump (however foolishly) in part because companies with no concern for the communities that relied on them mechanized jobs or took them overseas? Niebuhr rightfully conceives of capitalist property as an instrument of power, something that can be wielded in a way that can destroy democracy and community if not held in political check.
Just before you think this guy is some kind of weird Marxist Protestant, he also says our understanding of property and the community should be far to the right of Marxist dogma. The thing the Marxists get wrong is that ownership of property is not the only way to wield property as an instrument of power. Marxists expect that when property ownership is dissolved the main reason for injustice in the world will also dissolve. Never mind the fact that injustice is rooted in our partial, flawed nature, not just in social relations. The bigger problem is that someone in any hierarchical system will still have to manage property even if they don't own it (I'm looking at you, dictatorship of the proletariat), which opens the door for them to wield it as an instrument of power and self promotion, but now without any checks on their authority. If these managers of property have a CoL sense of self-righteousness (as the Marxist-Leninists did), we have a recipe for disaster. Thus Niebuhr has many uses for capitalist competition and private ownership of property, albeit within restrictions set by an accurate reading of human nature. This is just really great stuff: Niebuhr is anti-dogmatic, and he pulls the good stuff out of two diametrically opposed traditions to create something that will work in practice.
The only philosophical problem I found in this book was the plea for religious humility as an important way to sustain religious tolerance and liberty in a free society. He means that believers should recognize that their view of what God wants is a faint shadow of his true intentions, given how far off and awesome God is, so we should never go into a political or religious debate with confidence or close-mindedness or a sense that we're "doing God's work." Coming from my skeptical perspective, I can buy many people are capable of this, but I'd say they are a minority. Holy texts and most religious traditions don't exactly encourage doubt about their followers having chosen the one true path to salvation. Why, then, should their followers approach the rest of the world with humility? History seems to attest to the unrealistic nature of what Niebuhr is calling for here. I don't doubt that he is capable of this kind of humility, but I don't think that faith (belief without evidence) encourages this in the vast majority of believers who aren't also brilliant philosophers.
Ultimately this book is a plea for humility in what one believes and knows. The possibility that you could be wrong is one basis of respecting the right of others to worship, think, and speak freely, as well as to challenge your own beliefs. This is something I'd say does not come naturally to human beings, but Niebuhr makes a strong case that working toward this is essential for sustaining democracy.
Niebuhr spells out two philosophical schools in this book. The children of light include most liberals, French Enlightenment figures, Marxists, and almost any idealist with an overly positive view of human nature. Their big mistake is that they underestimate or ignore the power of human partiality and selfishness in all systems and all historical periods. They believe that human beings can be bound in cooperation by a common recognition of what is right and by the best set of laws or incentives. the CoL also tend to ignore their own partiality and self-interest, believing that they are merely imparting a beautiful ideology unto the world. This can become dangerous as they tend to persist in believing that whatever they do to bring about a better world must be acceptable because they couldn't POSSIBLY be the bad guys. He says at one point, for example, that liberals like Wilson believe that the only reason there isn't a world government is that no one has thought up a good enough organizational scheme yet.
The CoL's naivete leaves their ideas open for manipulation from the children of darkness. Fascists might be the main children of darkness he's talking about in 1944. The CoD have such a dark and corrupted view of human nature that they believe only tyranny and violence can hold human societies together. From the inside and outside, they take advantage of the "stupid" CoL and corrupt their systems toward partial ends. He gives the example of Lenin and Stalin corrupting the more humane doctrines of Marx (this is disputable btw) in order to seize power and create a tyranny never seen before in history. Another example might be Christian plutocrats using charitable giving as a screen or justification for otherwise rapacious economic practices.
Niebuhr's main defense of democracy is not the overly sunny one of the CoL, although he's a little vague on the "traditional defense" of democracy. Rather, he says that democracies must be founded on an accurate conception of human nature, one that he finds in his liberal Protestantism. He argues that human beings are not so evil that we are incapable of justice, enlightened self-interest, cooperation, and charitableness, because these positive traits democracy and a civil society would be impossible. On the other hand, human beings are not so good that they can be trusted with each other's interests indefinitely, nor that they can live without a variety of restraints: legal, communal, moral, etc.. I think that this is a very balanced view of human beings that is a crucial philosophical basis for democracy.
Niebuhr's best chapter relates to the regulation of the economy and property. Here he once again charts a brilliant course through the extremes. On one side is the free market capitalism of Smith and the physiocrats, who believe that economic interests will be held in balance by the mechanisms of the free market. They follow the Lockean understanding of property wherein if an individual puts his labor into something it becomes his property. Niebuhr says this understanding of property is hopelessly outdated in the modern industrial age, when so much power and property are concentrated in a small set of hands. He concedes to the socialists and Marxists that they correctly argue that property in the modern era must be understood in part in a communal sense: we are all so wrapped up in the policies and fate of the local factory, for example, that it is unfair to the community . This is why Niebuhr supported New Deal type political controls on capitalism and the unfettered wielding of property. It would be a wise doctrine for us to revive today: how many towns and small cities turned to Trump (however foolishly) in part because companies with no concern for the communities that relied on them mechanized jobs or took them overseas? Niebuhr rightfully conceives of capitalist property as an instrument of power, something that can be wielded in a way that can destroy democracy and community if not held in political check.
Just before you think this guy is some kind of weird Marxist Protestant, he also says our understanding of property and the community should be far to the right of Marxist dogma. The thing the Marxists get wrong is that ownership of property is not the only way to wield property as an instrument of power. Marxists expect that when property ownership is dissolved the main reason for injustice in the world will also dissolve. Never mind the fact that injustice is rooted in our partial, flawed nature, not just in social relations. The bigger problem is that someone in any hierarchical system will still have to manage property even if they don't own it (I'm looking at you, dictatorship of the proletariat), which opens the door for them to wield it as an instrument of power and self promotion, but now without any checks on their authority. If these managers of property have a CoL sense of self-righteousness (as the Marxist-Leninists did), we have a recipe for disaster. Thus Niebuhr has many uses for capitalist competition and private ownership of property, albeit within restrictions set by an accurate reading of human nature. This is just really great stuff: Niebuhr is anti-dogmatic, and he pulls the good stuff out of two diametrically opposed traditions to create something that will work in practice.
The only philosophical problem I found in this book was the plea for religious humility as an important way to sustain religious tolerance and liberty in a free society. He means that believers should recognize that their view of what God wants is a faint shadow of his true intentions, given how far off and awesome God is, so we should never go into a political or religious debate with confidence or close-mindedness or a sense that we're "doing God's work." Coming from my skeptical perspective, I can buy many people are capable of this, but I'd say they are a minority. Holy texts and most religious traditions don't exactly encourage doubt about their followers having chosen the one true path to salvation. Why, then, should their followers approach the rest of the world with humility? History seems to attest to the unrealistic nature of what Niebuhr is calling for here. I don't doubt that he is capable of this kind of humility, but I don't think that faith (belief without evidence) encourages this in the vast majority of believers who aren't also brilliant philosophers.
Ultimately this book is a plea for humility in what one believes and knows. The possibility that you could be wrong is one basis of respecting the right of others to worship, think, and speak freely, as well as to challenge your own beliefs. This is something I'd say does not come naturally to human beings, but Niebuhr makes a strong case that working toward this is essential for sustaining democracy.
May 15, 2016
Niebuhr posits that the virtues of democracy require more justification (and more work) than is typically assumed by democratic idealists. He casts his discussion in terms of the children of light, who naively assume that good intentions are enough and that there is an "invisible hand" of progress pushing human civilization toward a structure of global democracy, and the children of darkness, who display a crafty ability to leverage the naivete of the children of light to fulfill their own aims and desires. Woven throughout the book, Niebuhr emphasizes his overarching theme that conflict between the needs of the individual and the needs of particular communities and groups colors ALL issues of politics and justice. This is a complicated and nuanced reading of the issues of justice and democracy that ultimately concludes that a real worldwide democracy is an example of impossible possibility; its implementation requires the radical love of God through Jesus Christ to overcome the particularities of human interests, foibles, and frailties.
Want to read
May 10, 2025Humanity’s “capacity for justice makes democracy possible,” and its “capacity for injustice makes democracy necessary.”
Niebur knew that we need governmental protections from corporate power. See Mark Juergensmeyer's post on the Supreme Court's decision to limit the power of the Environmental Protection Agency:
http://juergensmeyer.org/why-regulati...
However: Christian theologian Reinhold Niebur, in his book, /Children of Light and Children of Darkness/, ridiculed as naive those who sought egalitarianism, anti-colonialism, and anti-imperialism. Niebur's creed was anti-communism: for him, the West needed Zionist Israel as a shield against the USSR and its Arab allies. /Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic/, Ilan Pappe, 2024, p. 137.
Niebur knew that we need governmental protections from corporate power. See Mark Juergensmeyer's post on the Supreme Court's decision to limit the power of the Environmental Protection Agency:
http://juergensmeyer.org/why-regulati...
However: Christian theologian Reinhold Niebur, in his book, /Children of Light and Children of Darkness/, ridiculed as naive those who sought egalitarianism, anti-colonialism, and anti-imperialism. Niebur's creed was anti-communism: for him, the West needed Zionist Israel as a shield against the USSR and its Arab allies. /Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic/, Ilan Pappe, 2024, p. 137.
July 26, 2016
A primer on the promise and peril of great power and the importance of democracy. Not particularly well written. Many of the arguments made here are more eloquently made, for example, by J.S. Mill in On Liberty and by Hamilton and Madison in The Federalist Papers--to whom, inexplicably, Niebuhr makes no reference. But Niebuhr adds a religious sensibility which is missing in the others and which makes this a valuable contribution. Full review: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/schaeffe...
September 27, 2022
I hate this guy.
February 10, 2023
Superficial. Can see why President Obama loves this guy.
October 16, 2014
Niebuhr was an American theologian and political thinker active in public life from the 1920s to the 1960s. In a very helpful introduction to my edition of The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, Gary Dorrien (Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics, Union Theological Seminary, and Professor of Religion, Columbia University) provides a useful account of Niebuhr’s thinking over his long career. Dorrien also provides a succinct statement of some of Niebuhr’s most important themes and insights about politics and ethics:
the problems of human “fallibility, sin, and ambiguity”;
the understanding that human groups will always place self-interest first and foremost and therefore a struggle for power will ensue;
occasionally individuals could overcome self-centeredness when motivated by love; and
Jesus provides no direction with the issue of political ethics.
This last proposition severs Niebuhr from the Social Gospel proponents with whom he once shared allegiance. In arguing that Jesus taught no political ethic, Niebuhr identified a central lacuna in the Gospels that later tradition sought to rectify. Thus, Niebuhr takes up issues that St. Augustine struggled with near the beginning of Christianity in Late Antiquity. Following the lead of Augustine, along with influences (theologically) from Luther and Calvin, Niebuhr develops a realist stance of Christian (and secular) ethics toward the political world. In his Introduction, Dorrien describes The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, as “written at midcareer as Niebuhr was coming fully into his own, is the most comprehensive statement of his political philosophy.” Niebuhr, Reinhold, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of Its Traditional Defense. University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition (Introduction by Gary Dorrien). A careful consideration of this work suggests ways in which we can think about bridging the gap between individual ethics that require love and eschew violence against the realities of political power.
In a quote that should rival Churchill’s for its pithy and ironic defense of democracy, Niebuhr wrote: “Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Id. (Forward to the First Edition (1944)). Niebuhr identifies democracy with the rise of the bourgeois in Europe and then in America. It arose because individuals wanted to protect themselves and their property. So a new balance was struck, one in which freedom from constraint and arbitrary exercise of power became of the utmost importance. But Niebuhr also realized the larger issues of freedom and community that arise from this background. He writes:
Democracy can therefore not be equated with freedom. An ideal democratic order seeks unity within the conditions of freedom; and maintains freedom within the framework of order. Man requires freedom in his social organization because he is “essentially” free, which is to say, that he has the capacity for indeterminate transcendence over the processes and limitations of nature. This freedom enables him to make history and to elaborate communal organizations in boundless variety and in endless breadth and extent. But he also requires community because he is by nature social. He cannot fulfill his life within himself but only in responsible and mutual relations with his fellows.
Id. (pp. 3-4)
Niebuhr is not a simple cheerleader for bourgeois democracy; to the contrary, he is a sharp critic of it and of capitalism as a social and economic system. He states:
Bourgeois individualism may be excessive and it may destroy the individual's organic relation to the community; but it was not intended to destroy either the national or the international order. On the contrary the social idealism which informs our democratic civilization had a touching faith in the possibility of achieving a simple harmony between self-interest and the general welfare on every level.
Id. (p. 7)
But it is this faith that Niebuhr spurns, the belief in progress and the inevitability of social improvement endorsed by those he terms “the children of light”. Niebuhr describes the children of light:
Those who believe that self-interest should be brought under the discipline of a higher law could then be termed “the children of light.” This is no mere arbitrary device; for evil is always the assertion of some self-interest without regard to the whole, whether the whole be conceived as the immediate community, or the total community of mankind, or the total order of the world. The good is, on the other hand, always the harmony of the whole on various levels. Devotion to a subordinate and premature “whole” such as the nation, may of course become evil, viewed from the perspective of a larger whole, such as the community of mankind. The “children of light” may thus be defined as those who seek to bring self-interest under the discipline of a more universal law and in harmony with a more universal good.
Id. (pp. 9-10)
He then describes the “children of darkness”: “The children of darkness are evil because they know no law beyond the self. They are wise, though evil, because they understand the power of self-interest.” Id. (p. 10). Where the children of light are naïve, the children of darkness are knowing. Niebuhr argues that for the children of light to succeed in bringing about a better world, they must learn the ways of their cynical counterparts. And in what may shock some contemporary readers, Niebuhr includes Marxists (at least some) among the children of light: idealistic in believing self-will and conflict can be finally resolved. He writes:
The Marxists, too, are children of light. Their provisional cynicism does not even save them from the usual stupidity, nor from the fate, of other stupid children of light. That fate is to have their creed become the vehicle and instrument of the children of darkness. A new oligarchy is arising in Russia, the spiritual characteristics of which can hardly be distinguished from those of the American “go-getters” of the latter nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. And in the light of history Stalin will probably have the same relation to the early dreamers of the Marxist dreams which Napoleon has to the liberal dreamers of the eighteenth century.
Id. (pp. 32-33)
Note that Niebuhr wrote this during the war, when Stalin led one of our allies in a great titanic struggle and when Roosevelt believed he could woo Stalin into joining a liberal post-war world. While Niebuhr’s equivalence of American “go-getters” with the leaders of the Kremlin seems far-fetched, his comparison of Stalin to Napoleon and crushed dreams is prescient.
Niebuhr sums up his brief for the children of light:
The preservation of a democratic civilization requires the wisdom of the serpent and the harmlessness of the dove. The children of light must be armed with the wisdom of the children of darkness but remain free from their malice. They must know the power of self-interest in human society without giving it moral justification. They must have this wisdom in order that they may beguile, deflect, harness and restrain self-interest, individual and collective, for the sake of the community.
Id. (pp. 40-41).
Niebuhr recognized the modern nation-state as the primary actor in international politics. About it, he writes: “The morally autonomous modern national state does indeed arise; and it acknowledges no law beyond its interests. The actual behaviour of the nations is cynical. But the creed of liberal civilization is sentimental.” Id. (p. 33). Thus a conflict, especially open and obvious (and continuing) in American history between the idealists (Wilsonians we may say) and the moral realists (of whom Niebuhr is perhaps the most articulate). This dichotomy in American practice runs all through American history in the 20th century. Our most “Machiavellian” president[i], Richard Nixon, admired Wilson and saw himself carrying on the Wilson legacy while he proved himself a master of geopolitical realism in the American interest. President Obama, who cited Niebuhr as his “favorite philosopher”, walks a fine line between brutal realism, Niebuhr-like caution, and American idealism, sentimentality, and nationalism.
Lest one think Niebuhr too pessimistic, we should note that he supports efforts to limit conflict and build institutions: “The problem of overcoming this chaos and of extending the principle of community to worldwide terms has become the most urgent of all the issues which face our epoch.” Id. (p. 153). In fact, that we may think of a “world community has two important sources that allow such a concept to enjoy any reality. The first source is religion. Niebuhr writes:
While the religions of the east [earlier referring to the Confucian and Daoist traditions of China and the Hindu and Buddhist traditions of India] were generally too mystic and otherworldly to give historic potency to universal ideals, their emerging universal perspectives must be counted as added evidence of the fact that there has been a general development in human culture toward the culmination of religions and philosophies in which the meaning of life and its obligations were interpreted above and beyond the limits of any particular community.[ii]
Id. (pp. 156-157).
Niebuhr identifies the developments in the technical realm as the other impetus toward a world community. Taken together, the reality of a single world community is more than a liberal pipe dream. Yet, against this, Niebuhr identifies the centrifugal force and predicts that “international politics of the coming decades will be dominated by great powers who will be able to prevent recalcitrance among the smaller nations, but who will have difficulty in keeping peace between each other because they will not have any authority above their own powerful enough to bend or deflect their wills.” Id. (p. 171).
In making these observations, Niebuhr criticizes realism in international relations almost as harshly as liberal institutionalism:
It is indicative of the spiritual problem of mankind that these realistic approaches [to international relations] are often as close to the abyss of cynicism as the idealistic approaches are to the fog of sentimentality. The realistic school of international thought believes that world politics cannot rise higher than the balance-of-power principle. The balance-of-power theory of world politics, seeing no possibility of a genuine unity of the nations, seeks to construct the most adequate possible mechanism for equilibrating power on a world scale. Such a policy, which holds all factors in the world situation in the most perfect possible equipoise, can undoubtedly mitigate anarchy. A balance of power is in fact a kind of managed anarchy. But it is a system in which anarchy invariably overcomes the management in the end. Despite its defects the policy of the balance of power is not as iniquitous as idealists would have us believe. For even the most perfectly organized society must seek for a decent equilibrium of the vitalities and forces under its organization. If this is not done, strong disproportions of power develop; and wherever power is inordinate, injustice results. But an equilibrium of power without the organizing and equilibrating force of government, is potential anarchy which becomes actual anarchy in the long run. The balance-of-power system may, despite its defects, become the actual consequence of present policies. The peace of the world may be maintained perilously and tentatively, for some decades, by an uneasy equilibrium between the three great powers, America, Russia and Britain. [iii]
Id. (pp. 173-175)
Niebuhr goes on to consider the histories and practices of particular nations: the U.S., Britain, Russia, and China, and how they will relate the new order in the post-war world, displaying prophetic insight through his observations. He also notes (again) the tension between individual morality and political realities that create tensions: “Hypocrisy and pretension are the inevitable concomitants of the engagement between morals and politics. But they do not arise where no effort is made to bring the power impulse of politics under the control of conscience. The pretension that it has been brought completely under control is thus the hypocritical by-product of the moral endeavour.” Id. (pp. 184-185). He sums up the quandary with this pronouncement: “The field of politics is not helpfully tilled by pure moralists; and the realm of international politics is particularly filled with complexities which do not yield to the approach of a too simple idealism. Id. (p. 186). In the end, Niebuhr concludes that we must strive for the impossible: community where none is fully realized peace where it is never final.
This book seems to me less fundamental and comprehensive than Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society, but both works give us guidance as far as guidance can be found. As with Buddhism, we have to conclude that we have no definitive standards for conducting political life from the founders. The Christian tradition has built theories (often conflicting), but none can fairly claim to have arisen directly out of the Gospels or the New Testament. And we cannot turn to Niebuhr for rules of ethics: he provides none. He opposed Roosevelt’s arms build-up before Munich, and then he rallied in support of the fight against Fascism. In the early 60’s he supported the U.S. effort in Vietnam, but he later became a vocal critic of the war. Niebuhr’s thought is marked by ambiguity, irony, and equivocation. One shouldn’t turn to it if you are looking for the answer to whether a particular policy or course of political conduct meets a given test of morality or ethics. There are no easy answers. For instance, should the U.S. use drones on known Islamic terrorists plotting the death of Americans when we know that innocents will be killed? Should we arm rebels and bomb when American are murdered, even though the “collateral damage” (so Orwellian) will claim innocent lives? The litany of tough practical and moral choices could continue indefinitely. There is no existing answer book unless one takes a position of absolutism.
the problems of human “fallibility, sin, and ambiguity”;
the understanding that human groups will always place self-interest first and foremost and therefore a struggle for power will ensue;
occasionally individuals could overcome self-centeredness when motivated by love; and
Jesus provides no direction with the issue of political ethics.
This last proposition severs Niebuhr from the Social Gospel proponents with whom he once shared allegiance. In arguing that Jesus taught no political ethic, Niebuhr identified a central lacuna in the Gospels that later tradition sought to rectify. Thus, Niebuhr takes up issues that St. Augustine struggled with near the beginning of Christianity in Late Antiquity. Following the lead of Augustine, along with influences (theologically) from Luther and Calvin, Niebuhr develops a realist stance of Christian (and secular) ethics toward the political world. In his Introduction, Dorrien describes The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, as “written at midcareer as Niebuhr was coming fully into his own, is the most comprehensive statement of his political philosophy.” Niebuhr, Reinhold, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of Its Traditional Defense. University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition (Introduction by Gary Dorrien). A careful consideration of this work suggests ways in which we can think about bridging the gap between individual ethics that require love and eschew violence against the realities of political power.
In a quote that should rival Churchill’s for its pithy and ironic defense of democracy, Niebuhr wrote: “Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Id. (Forward to the First Edition (1944)). Niebuhr identifies democracy with the rise of the bourgeois in Europe and then in America. It arose because individuals wanted to protect themselves and their property. So a new balance was struck, one in which freedom from constraint and arbitrary exercise of power became of the utmost importance. But Niebuhr also realized the larger issues of freedom and community that arise from this background. He writes:
Democracy can therefore not be equated with freedom. An ideal democratic order seeks unity within the conditions of freedom; and maintains freedom within the framework of order. Man requires freedom in his social organization because he is “essentially” free, which is to say, that he has the capacity for indeterminate transcendence over the processes and limitations of nature. This freedom enables him to make history and to elaborate communal organizations in boundless variety and in endless breadth and extent. But he also requires community because he is by nature social. He cannot fulfill his life within himself but only in responsible and mutual relations with his fellows.
Id. (pp. 3-4)
Niebuhr is not a simple cheerleader for bourgeois democracy; to the contrary, he is a sharp critic of it and of capitalism as a social and economic system. He states:
Bourgeois individualism may be excessive and it may destroy the individual's organic relation to the community; but it was not intended to destroy either the national or the international order. On the contrary the social idealism which informs our democratic civilization had a touching faith in the possibility of achieving a simple harmony between self-interest and the general welfare on every level.
Id. (p. 7)
But it is this faith that Niebuhr spurns, the belief in progress and the inevitability of social improvement endorsed by those he terms “the children of light”. Niebuhr describes the children of light:
Those who believe that self-interest should be brought under the discipline of a higher law could then be termed “the children of light.” This is no mere arbitrary device; for evil is always the assertion of some self-interest without regard to the whole, whether the whole be conceived as the immediate community, or the total community of mankind, or the total order of the world. The good is, on the other hand, always the harmony of the whole on various levels. Devotion to a subordinate and premature “whole” such as the nation, may of course become evil, viewed from the perspective of a larger whole, such as the community of mankind. The “children of light” may thus be defined as those who seek to bring self-interest under the discipline of a more universal law and in harmony with a more universal good.
Id. (pp. 9-10)
He then describes the “children of darkness”: “The children of darkness are evil because they know no law beyond the self. They are wise, though evil, because they understand the power of self-interest.” Id. (p. 10). Where the children of light are naïve, the children of darkness are knowing. Niebuhr argues that for the children of light to succeed in bringing about a better world, they must learn the ways of their cynical counterparts. And in what may shock some contemporary readers, Niebuhr includes Marxists (at least some) among the children of light: idealistic in believing self-will and conflict can be finally resolved. He writes:
The Marxists, too, are children of light. Their provisional cynicism does not even save them from the usual stupidity, nor from the fate, of other stupid children of light. That fate is to have their creed become the vehicle and instrument of the children of darkness. A new oligarchy is arising in Russia, the spiritual characteristics of which can hardly be distinguished from those of the American “go-getters” of the latter nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. And in the light of history Stalin will probably have the same relation to the early dreamers of the Marxist dreams which Napoleon has to the liberal dreamers of the eighteenth century.
Id. (pp. 32-33)
Note that Niebuhr wrote this during the war, when Stalin led one of our allies in a great titanic struggle and when Roosevelt believed he could woo Stalin into joining a liberal post-war world. While Niebuhr’s equivalence of American “go-getters” with the leaders of the Kremlin seems far-fetched, his comparison of Stalin to Napoleon and crushed dreams is prescient.
Niebuhr sums up his brief for the children of light:
The preservation of a democratic civilization requires the wisdom of the serpent and the harmlessness of the dove. The children of light must be armed with the wisdom of the children of darkness but remain free from their malice. They must know the power of self-interest in human society without giving it moral justification. They must have this wisdom in order that they may beguile, deflect, harness and restrain self-interest, individual and collective, for the sake of the community.
Id. (pp. 40-41).
Niebuhr recognized the modern nation-state as the primary actor in international politics. About it, he writes: “The morally autonomous modern national state does indeed arise; and it acknowledges no law beyond its interests. The actual behaviour of the nations is cynical. But the creed of liberal civilization is sentimental.” Id. (p. 33). Thus a conflict, especially open and obvious (and continuing) in American history between the idealists (Wilsonians we may say) and the moral realists (of whom Niebuhr is perhaps the most articulate). This dichotomy in American practice runs all through American history in the 20th century. Our most “Machiavellian” president[i], Richard Nixon, admired Wilson and saw himself carrying on the Wilson legacy while he proved himself a master of geopolitical realism in the American interest. President Obama, who cited Niebuhr as his “favorite philosopher”, walks a fine line between brutal realism, Niebuhr-like caution, and American idealism, sentimentality, and nationalism.
Lest one think Niebuhr too pessimistic, we should note that he supports efforts to limit conflict and build institutions: “The problem of overcoming this chaos and of extending the principle of community to worldwide terms has become the most urgent of all the issues which face our epoch.” Id. (p. 153). In fact, that we may think of a “world community has two important sources that allow such a concept to enjoy any reality. The first source is religion. Niebuhr writes:
While the religions of the east [earlier referring to the Confucian and Daoist traditions of China and the Hindu and Buddhist traditions of India] were generally too mystic and otherworldly to give historic potency to universal ideals, their emerging universal perspectives must be counted as added evidence of the fact that there has been a general development in human culture toward the culmination of religions and philosophies in which the meaning of life and its obligations were interpreted above and beyond the limits of any particular community.[ii]
Id. (pp. 156-157).
Niebuhr identifies the developments in the technical realm as the other impetus toward a world community. Taken together, the reality of a single world community is more than a liberal pipe dream. Yet, against this, Niebuhr identifies the centrifugal force and predicts that “international politics of the coming decades will be dominated by great powers who will be able to prevent recalcitrance among the smaller nations, but who will have difficulty in keeping peace between each other because they will not have any authority above their own powerful enough to bend or deflect their wills.” Id. (p. 171).
In making these observations, Niebuhr criticizes realism in international relations almost as harshly as liberal institutionalism:
It is indicative of the spiritual problem of mankind that these realistic approaches [to international relations] are often as close to the abyss of cynicism as the idealistic approaches are to the fog of sentimentality. The realistic school of international thought believes that world politics cannot rise higher than the balance-of-power principle. The balance-of-power theory of world politics, seeing no possibility of a genuine unity of the nations, seeks to construct the most adequate possible mechanism for equilibrating power on a world scale. Such a policy, which holds all factors in the world situation in the most perfect possible equipoise, can undoubtedly mitigate anarchy. A balance of power is in fact a kind of managed anarchy. But it is a system in which anarchy invariably overcomes the management in the end. Despite its defects the policy of the balance of power is not as iniquitous as idealists would have us believe. For even the most perfectly organized society must seek for a decent equilibrium of the vitalities and forces under its organization. If this is not done, strong disproportions of power develop; and wherever power is inordinate, injustice results. But an equilibrium of power without the organizing and equilibrating force of government, is potential anarchy which becomes actual anarchy in the long run. The balance-of-power system may, despite its defects, become the actual consequence of present policies. The peace of the world may be maintained perilously and tentatively, for some decades, by an uneasy equilibrium between the three great powers, America, Russia and Britain. [iii]
Id. (pp. 173-175)
Niebuhr goes on to consider the histories and practices of particular nations: the U.S., Britain, Russia, and China, and how they will relate the new order in the post-war world, displaying prophetic insight through his observations. He also notes (again) the tension between individual morality and political realities that create tensions: “Hypocrisy and pretension are the inevitable concomitants of the engagement between morals and politics. But they do not arise where no effort is made to bring the power impulse of politics under the control of conscience. The pretension that it has been brought completely under control is thus the hypocritical by-product of the moral endeavour.” Id. (pp. 184-185). He sums up the quandary with this pronouncement: “The field of politics is not helpfully tilled by pure moralists; and the realm of international politics is particularly filled with complexities which do not yield to the approach of a too simple idealism. Id. (p. 186). In the end, Niebuhr concludes that we must strive for the impossible: community where none is fully realized peace where it is never final.
This book seems to me less fundamental and comprehensive than Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society, but both works give us guidance as far as guidance can be found. As with Buddhism, we have to conclude that we have no definitive standards for conducting political life from the founders. The Christian tradition has built theories (often conflicting), but none can fairly claim to have arisen directly out of the Gospels or the New Testament. And we cannot turn to Niebuhr for rules of ethics: he provides none. He opposed Roosevelt’s arms build-up before Munich, and then he rallied in support of the fight against Fascism. In the early 60’s he supported the U.S. effort in Vietnam, but he later became a vocal critic of the war. Niebuhr’s thought is marked by ambiguity, irony, and equivocation. One shouldn’t turn to it if you are looking for the answer to whether a particular policy or course of political conduct meets a given test of morality or ethics. There are no easy answers. For instance, should the U.S. use drones on known Islamic terrorists plotting the death of Americans when we know that innocents will be killed? Should we arm rebels and bomb when American are murdered, even though the “collateral damage” (so Orwellian) will claim innocent lives? The litany of tough practical and moral choices could continue indefinitely. There is no existing answer book unless one takes a position of absolutism.
June 27, 2024
A “POLITICAL” BOOK ABOUT DEMOCRACY, MARXISM, ETC.
Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) was an American theologian and prominent ‘public intellectual’ during the early-to-mid-20th century. After serving as a parish minister in downtown Detroit (from which he derived his working class and labor class issues sensitivity), in 1928, Niebuhr left Detroit to become Professor of Practical Theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York, where he taught for more than 30 years---retiring in 1960. (He is also the older brother of another theologian, H. Richard Niebuhr.) He wrote many other books, such as The Nature and Destiny of Man; Pious and Secular America; Faith and History; Does Civilization Need Religion?; The Irony of American History; Justice and Mercy; An Interpretation of Christian Ethics; Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic, etc.
He wrote in the “New Foreword” to this 1944 book, “The pace of modern history is do rapid, that events have overtaken and rendered obsolete some of the occasional references in this volume of political philosophy first published fifteen years ago. I do not think that they have refuted the central thesis of the book, which is that a free society prospers best in a cultural, religious and moral atmosphere which encourages neither a too pessimistic nor too optimistic view of human nature... We now know that we must arrange a tolerable co-existence with a resolute foe, the alternative being mutual annihilation… If we escape disaster it will only be by the slow growth of mutual trust and tissues of community over the awful chasm of the present international tensions.”
In the Foreword to the first edition, he explained, “The thesis of this volume grew out of my conviction that democracy has a more compelling justification and requires a more realistic vindication than is given it by the liberal culture with which it has been associated in modern history. The excessively optimistic estimates of human nature and of human history with which the democratic credo has been historically associated are a source of peril to democratic society; for contemporary experience is refuting this optimism and there is danger that it will seem to refute the democratic ideal as well.” (Pg. xii)
In the first chapter, he states, “there is a more fundamental error in the social philosophy of democratic civilization then the individualism of bourgeois democracy and the collectivism of Marxism. It is the confidence of both bourgeois and proletarian idealists in the possibility of achieving an easy resolution of the tension and conflict between self-interest and the general interest… the social idealism which informs our democratic civilization had a touching faith in the possibility of achieving a simple harmony between self-interest and the general warfare on every level.” (Pg. 6-7)
He says, “According to the scripture ‘the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.’ This observation fits the modern situation. Our democratic civilization has been built, not by children of darkness but by foolish children of light. It has been under attack the by children of darkness… The children of light have not been as wise as the children of darkness. The children of darkness are evil because they know no law beyond the self. They are wise, though evil, because they understand the power of self-interest. The children of light are virtuous because they have some conception of a higher law than their own will… It must be understood that the children of light are foolish not merely because they underestimate the power of self-interest among the children of darkness. They underestimate this power among themselves…” (Pg. 10-11)
He asserts, “The Marxists, too, are children of light. Their provisional cynicism does not even save them from the usual stupidity, nor from the fate, of other stupid children of light. Their fate is to have their creed become the vehicle and instrument of the children of darkness. A new oligarchy is arising in Russia…” (Pg. 32-33)
He suggests, “The preservation of a democratic civilization requires the wisdom of the serpent and the harmlessness of the dove. The children of light must be armed with the wisdom of the children of darkness for remain free from their malice. They must know the power of self-interest in human society without giving it moral justification. They must have this wisdom in order that they may beguile, deflect, harness and restrain self-interest, individual and collective, for the sake of the community.” (Pg. 40-41)
He argues, “The truth in modern feminism came into history with some help from the errors of an inorganic and libertarian conception of the family and of an abstract rationalism which defied the facts of nature. The mother is biologically more intimately related to the child than the father. This fact limits the vocational freedom of women… the wisdom of the past which recognized the hazard to family life in the freedom of women, was not devoid of the taint of male ‘ideology.’ The male oligarchy used fixed privileges and powers against a new emergent in history.” (Pg. 76-77)
He asserts, “the socialization of property as proposed in Marxism is too simple a solution of the problem. An analysis of the Marxist error reveals a curious affinity between Marxism and liberalism, despite their contradictory conceptions of property. Liberalism and Marxism share a common illusion of the ‘children of the light.’ Neither understands property as a form of power which can be used in either its individual or it social form as an instrument of particular interest against the generation interest. Liberalism makes this mistake in regard to private property and Marxism makes it in regard to socialized property.” (Pg. 106)
He notes, “There is indeed progress in history in the sense that it presents us with continually larger responsibilities and tasks. But modern history is an almost perfect refutation of modern faith in a redemptive history. History is creative but no redemptive. The conquest of nature, in which the bourgeois mind trusted so much, enriches life but also imperils it. The increase in the intensity and extend of social cohesion extends community, but also aggravates social conflict. The bourgeois surrogate for religion is, in other words, a sorry affair.” (Pg. 132)
He proposes, “There is a religious solution of the problem of religious diversity. This solution makes religious and cultural diversity possible within the presuppositions of a free society, without destroying and religious depth of culture. The solution requires a very high form of religious commitment. It demands that each religion, or each version of a single faith, seek to proclaim its highest insights while yet preserving a humble and contrite recognition of the fact that all actual expressions of religious faith are subject to historical contingency and relativity. Such a recognition creates a spirit of tolerance and makes any religious or cultural movement hesitant to claim official validity for its form of religion or to demand an official monopoly for its cult. Religious humility is in perfect accord with the presuppositions of a democratic society.” (Pg. 134-135)
He concludes, “The task of building a world community is man’s final necessity and possibility, but also his final impossibility. It is a necessity and possibility because history is a process which extends the freedom of man over natural process to the point where universality is reached. It is an impossibility because man is, despite his increasing freedom, a finite creature, wedded to time and pace and incapable of building any structure of culture or civilization which does not have its foundation in a particular and dated focus… The Christian faith finds the final clue to the meaning of life and history in the Christ whose goodness is at once the virtue which man ought, but does not, achieve in history, and the revelation of a divine mercy which understands and resolves the perpetual contradictions in which history is involved… The insistence of the Christian faith that the love of Christ is the final norm of human existence must express itself socially in unwillingness to stop short of the whole human community in expressing our sense of moral responsibility for the life and welfare of others… Without [Christian faith] we are driven to alternate moods of sentimentality and despair; trusting human powers too much in one moment and losing all faith in the meaning of life when we discover the limits of human possibilities… a faith which understands the fragmentary and broken character of all historic achievements … yet has confidence … because it knows their completion to be in the hands of a Divine Power, whose resources are greater than those of men, and whose suffering love can overcome the corruptions of man’s achievements, without negating the significance or our striving.” (Pg. 187-190)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying Niebuhr or 20th century theology in general.
Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) was an American theologian and prominent ‘public intellectual’ during the early-to-mid-20th century. After serving as a parish minister in downtown Detroit (from which he derived his working class and labor class issues sensitivity), in 1928, Niebuhr left Detroit to become Professor of Practical Theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York, where he taught for more than 30 years---retiring in 1960. (He is also the older brother of another theologian, H. Richard Niebuhr.) He wrote many other books, such as The Nature and Destiny of Man; Pious and Secular America; Faith and History; Does Civilization Need Religion?; The Irony of American History; Justice and Mercy; An Interpretation of Christian Ethics; Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic, etc.
He wrote in the “New Foreword” to this 1944 book, “The pace of modern history is do rapid, that events have overtaken and rendered obsolete some of the occasional references in this volume of political philosophy first published fifteen years ago. I do not think that they have refuted the central thesis of the book, which is that a free society prospers best in a cultural, religious and moral atmosphere which encourages neither a too pessimistic nor too optimistic view of human nature... We now know that we must arrange a tolerable co-existence with a resolute foe, the alternative being mutual annihilation… If we escape disaster it will only be by the slow growth of mutual trust and tissues of community over the awful chasm of the present international tensions.”
In the Foreword to the first edition, he explained, “The thesis of this volume grew out of my conviction that democracy has a more compelling justification and requires a more realistic vindication than is given it by the liberal culture with which it has been associated in modern history. The excessively optimistic estimates of human nature and of human history with which the democratic credo has been historically associated are a source of peril to democratic society; for contemporary experience is refuting this optimism and there is danger that it will seem to refute the democratic ideal as well.” (Pg. xii)
In the first chapter, he states, “there is a more fundamental error in the social philosophy of democratic civilization then the individualism of bourgeois democracy and the collectivism of Marxism. It is the confidence of both bourgeois and proletarian idealists in the possibility of achieving an easy resolution of the tension and conflict between self-interest and the general interest… the social idealism which informs our democratic civilization had a touching faith in the possibility of achieving a simple harmony between self-interest and the general warfare on every level.” (Pg. 6-7)
He says, “According to the scripture ‘the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.’ This observation fits the modern situation. Our democratic civilization has been built, not by children of darkness but by foolish children of light. It has been under attack the by children of darkness… The children of light have not been as wise as the children of darkness. The children of darkness are evil because they know no law beyond the self. They are wise, though evil, because they understand the power of self-interest. The children of light are virtuous because they have some conception of a higher law than their own will… It must be understood that the children of light are foolish not merely because they underestimate the power of self-interest among the children of darkness. They underestimate this power among themselves…” (Pg. 10-11)
He asserts, “The Marxists, too, are children of light. Their provisional cynicism does not even save them from the usual stupidity, nor from the fate, of other stupid children of light. Their fate is to have their creed become the vehicle and instrument of the children of darkness. A new oligarchy is arising in Russia…” (Pg. 32-33)
He suggests, “The preservation of a democratic civilization requires the wisdom of the serpent and the harmlessness of the dove. The children of light must be armed with the wisdom of the children of darkness for remain free from their malice. They must know the power of self-interest in human society without giving it moral justification. They must have this wisdom in order that they may beguile, deflect, harness and restrain self-interest, individual and collective, for the sake of the community.” (Pg. 40-41)
He argues, “The truth in modern feminism came into history with some help from the errors of an inorganic and libertarian conception of the family and of an abstract rationalism which defied the facts of nature. The mother is biologically more intimately related to the child than the father. This fact limits the vocational freedom of women… the wisdom of the past which recognized the hazard to family life in the freedom of women, was not devoid of the taint of male ‘ideology.’ The male oligarchy used fixed privileges and powers against a new emergent in history.” (Pg. 76-77)
He asserts, “the socialization of property as proposed in Marxism is too simple a solution of the problem. An analysis of the Marxist error reveals a curious affinity between Marxism and liberalism, despite their contradictory conceptions of property. Liberalism and Marxism share a common illusion of the ‘children of the light.’ Neither understands property as a form of power which can be used in either its individual or it social form as an instrument of particular interest against the generation interest. Liberalism makes this mistake in regard to private property and Marxism makes it in regard to socialized property.” (Pg. 106)
He notes, “There is indeed progress in history in the sense that it presents us with continually larger responsibilities and tasks. But modern history is an almost perfect refutation of modern faith in a redemptive history. History is creative but no redemptive. The conquest of nature, in which the bourgeois mind trusted so much, enriches life but also imperils it. The increase in the intensity and extend of social cohesion extends community, but also aggravates social conflict. The bourgeois surrogate for religion is, in other words, a sorry affair.” (Pg. 132)
He proposes, “There is a religious solution of the problem of religious diversity. This solution makes religious and cultural diversity possible within the presuppositions of a free society, without destroying and religious depth of culture. The solution requires a very high form of religious commitment. It demands that each religion, or each version of a single faith, seek to proclaim its highest insights while yet preserving a humble and contrite recognition of the fact that all actual expressions of religious faith are subject to historical contingency and relativity. Such a recognition creates a spirit of tolerance and makes any religious or cultural movement hesitant to claim official validity for its form of religion or to demand an official monopoly for its cult. Religious humility is in perfect accord with the presuppositions of a democratic society.” (Pg. 134-135)
He concludes, “The task of building a world community is man’s final necessity and possibility, but also his final impossibility. It is a necessity and possibility because history is a process which extends the freedom of man over natural process to the point where universality is reached. It is an impossibility because man is, despite his increasing freedom, a finite creature, wedded to time and pace and incapable of building any structure of culture or civilization which does not have its foundation in a particular and dated focus… The Christian faith finds the final clue to the meaning of life and history in the Christ whose goodness is at once the virtue which man ought, but does not, achieve in history, and the revelation of a divine mercy which understands and resolves the perpetual contradictions in which history is involved… The insistence of the Christian faith that the love of Christ is the final norm of human existence must express itself socially in unwillingness to stop short of the whole human community in expressing our sense of moral responsibility for the life and welfare of others… Without [Christian faith] we are driven to alternate moods of sentimentality and despair; trusting human powers too much in one moment and losing all faith in the meaning of life when we discover the limits of human possibilities… a faith which understands the fragmentary and broken character of all historic achievements … yet has confidence … because it knows their completion to be in the hands of a Divine Power, whose resources are greater than those of men, and whose suffering love can overcome the corruptions of man’s achievements, without negating the significance or our striving.” (Pg. 187-190)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying Niebuhr or 20th century theology in general.
Read
August 12, 2025"Whenever modern idealists are confronted with the divisive and corrosive effects of man's self-love, they look for some immediate cause of this perennial tendency, usually in some specific form of social organization. One school holds that men would be good if only political institutions would not corrupt them. Another believes that they would be good if the prior evil of a faulty economic organization could be eliminated. Or another school thinks of this evil as no more than ignorance, and therefore waits for a more perfect educational process to redeem man from his partial and particular loyalties. But no school asks how it is that an essentially good man could have produced corrupting and tyrannical political organizations or exploiting economic organizations, or fanatical and superstitious religious organizations."
"...men may fight as desperately for 'power and glory' as for bread."
"The ideal of individual self-sufficiency, so exalted in our liberal culture, is recognized in Christian thought as one form of the primal sin."
"The most pathetic aspect of the bourgeois faith is that it regards its characteristic perspectives and convictions as universally valid and applicable, at the precise moment in history when they are being unmasked as the peculiar convictions of a special class which flourished in a special situation in western society."
"The great civilizations are sufficiently children of light to refrain from efforts at the tyrannical unification of the world. But each of the great powers has sufficient strength to be tempted by the hope that it may establish its own security without too much concern for the security of others and without binding commitments to the common interests of all nations."
"Our anthropologists rightly insisted that there were no biological roots of inequality between races, and they wrongly drew the conclusion from this fact that racial prejudice is a form of ignorance which could be progressively dispelled by enlightenment."
"Tolerance is the virtue of people who do not believe anything, said Gilbert Chesterton quite truly."
"To make a democratic society the end of human existence is a less vicious version of the Nazi creed. It is less vicious because democratic society allows criticism of its life and pretensions. It is thereby prevented from becoming completely idolatrous. The creed is nevertheless dangerous because no society, not even a democratic one, is great enough to make itself the final end of human existence."
"This is the root of his (man's) pride; of his tendency to make his own standards the final norms of existence and to judge others for failure to conform to them."
"...there is no unprejudiced mind and no judgment which is not, at least partially, corrupted by pride. The assumption must include the mind and the judgment of the pure idealists who imagine themselves emancipated of all prejudice but frequently manage to express a covert prejudice in their benevolent condescension."
"A modern nation does not dare to go to war for reasons other than those of self-interest and cannot conduct the war without claiming to be motivated by higher motives than those of self-interest."
"...men may fight as desperately for 'power and glory' as for bread."
"The ideal of individual self-sufficiency, so exalted in our liberal culture, is recognized in Christian thought as one form of the primal sin."
"The most pathetic aspect of the bourgeois faith is that it regards its characteristic perspectives and convictions as universally valid and applicable, at the precise moment in history when they are being unmasked as the peculiar convictions of a special class which flourished in a special situation in western society."
"The great civilizations are sufficiently children of light to refrain from efforts at the tyrannical unification of the world. But each of the great powers has sufficient strength to be tempted by the hope that it may establish its own security without too much concern for the security of others and without binding commitments to the common interests of all nations."
"Our anthropologists rightly insisted that there were no biological roots of inequality between races, and they wrongly drew the conclusion from this fact that racial prejudice is a form of ignorance which could be progressively dispelled by enlightenment."
"Tolerance is the virtue of people who do not believe anything, said Gilbert Chesterton quite truly."
"To make a democratic society the end of human existence is a less vicious version of the Nazi creed. It is less vicious because democratic society allows criticism of its life and pretensions. It is thereby prevented from becoming completely idolatrous. The creed is nevertheless dangerous because no society, not even a democratic one, is great enough to make itself the final end of human existence."
"This is the root of his (man's) pride; of his tendency to make his own standards the final norms of existence and to judge others for failure to conform to them."
"...there is no unprejudiced mind and no judgment which is not, at least partially, corrupted by pride. The assumption must include the mind and the judgment of the pure idealists who imagine themselves emancipated of all prejudice but frequently manage to express a covert prejudice in their benevolent condescension."
"A modern nation does not dare to go to war for reasons other than those of self-interest and cannot conduct the war without claiming to be motivated by higher motives than those of self-interest."
April 25, 2020
"Since freedom and community are partially contradictory and partially complementary values in human life, there is, however, no perfect solution for the relation of the two values to each other. This means that the debate on how much or how little the economic process should be brought under political control is a never-ending one." R. Niebuhr
Reading Paul Tillich brought me to reading Reinhold Niebuhr "The Children of the Light and the Children of the Darkness:
a Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of its Traditional Defense." Niebuhr was more difficult to read than Paul Tillich. Coincidentally, Reinhold Niebuhr is the favorite theologian of Obama according to the introduction to the book.
Reinhold Niebuhr explains the progressive and regressive forces in a democracy, their mutual dependency on each
others existence and the balance between these forces for a functioning society. Niebuhr focuses on the Children of the light and their failures and faults due to a staunch idealism. The lack of religious foundation in today's societies was brought up very sparingly for a theologian which made the read more enjoyable and the argumentation more accessible. Niebuhr explains his view of the role of religion, and Christianity in particular, in today's (1950s) technological societies.
Coincidentally, I read Niebuhr right after a book on 'the virtues of nationalism.' Niebuhr made the case of a universal human society, but outlined the difficulties that such endeavors inevitable faces, making it an ultimate, almost unattainable, but necessary goal. The overlay between the previous nationalistic book and Niebuhr was very interesting. Much of our international cooperation is driven by idealistic systems, such as the United Nations. Set up as 'universal government' by the victors of WWII, it as supported the division of the word in spheres of influence for the imperialistic superpowers, rather than as a unifying universal guide to prevent international anarchy. Niebuhr reduced the cause for this (in expectation at his time) to the neglected human strive of power, individualism, and preserving historical values and traditions. This book is an interesting short read. If you are interested in the intersect between political science, theology and a hint of psychology, this book is recommended. No prerequisite reading required.
Reading Paul Tillich brought me to reading Reinhold Niebuhr "The Children of the Light and the Children of the Darkness:
a Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of its Traditional Defense." Niebuhr was more difficult to read than Paul Tillich. Coincidentally, Reinhold Niebuhr is the favorite theologian of Obama according to the introduction to the book.
Reinhold Niebuhr explains the progressive and regressive forces in a democracy, their mutual dependency on each
others existence and the balance between these forces for a functioning society. Niebuhr focuses on the Children of the light and their failures and faults due to a staunch idealism. The lack of religious foundation in today's societies was brought up very sparingly for a theologian which made the read more enjoyable and the argumentation more accessible. Niebuhr explains his view of the role of religion, and Christianity in particular, in today's (1950s) technological societies.
Coincidentally, I read Niebuhr right after a book on 'the virtues of nationalism.' Niebuhr made the case of a universal human society, but outlined the difficulties that such endeavors inevitable faces, making it an ultimate, almost unattainable, but necessary goal. The overlay between the previous nationalistic book and Niebuhr was very interesting. Much of our international cooperation is driven by idealistic systems, such as the United Nations. Set up as 'universal government' by the victors of WWII, it as supported the division of the word in spheres of influence for the imperialistic superpowers, rather than as a unifying universal guide to prevent international anarchy. Niebuhr reduced the cause for this (in expectation at his time) to the neglected human strive of power, individualism, and preserving historical values and traditions. This book is an interesting short read. If you are interested in the intersect between political science, theology and a hint of psychology, this book is recommended. No prerequisite reading required.
November 4, 2025
This is a book about democracy in the West from a Christian perspective. It’s rather difficult to read without understanding the war time context or any number of other studies on the topic, but it’s still at least somewhat interesting today. The author’s main argument is that democracy is a naive yet admirable institution and should be protected from cynical marxists and other authoritarians who would call in to question its feasibility in a world dominated by hate. Democracy can lead to bad things like racial persecution, he admits, but that is because of mankind’s godlessness not because of democracy itself. If mankind would return to its traditional Christian values then democracy would work to protect minorities and even ensure religious freedom. Unfortunately , I have yet to see mankind return to its “Christian values”. Of course, America was never a Christian nation, but it’s not like the author made that claim, I’m just adding it to the review for a little color. I do give the author credit because he describes exactly why a Christian theocracy would not work. Christians cannot govern one single nation because we are not even a unified group. Who is going to be in charge of a potential theocracy? Protestants? Catholics? Other than a few bits of interesting material, I found this book pretty uninteresting and I won’t even try to reread it. It’s going straight to the donation bin.
September 15, 2025
Barak Obama, Martin Luther King Jr., Jimmy Carter and Hubert Humphrey all considered this American theologian one of their greatest influences. In this book, written in 1944, he considers and critiques systems of government through a Christian lens. He takes his title from a saying of Jesus that the children of darkness are wiser in the ways of this world than the children of light. The children of darkness live only for themselves; the children of light live for the common good. But the children of light suffer from naivete about the children of darkness, namely that they can be convinced or won over to unselfishness or democracy. He includes communists among the children of light because they incorrectly believe that once private property is abolished, selfishness will cease to exist. He doesn't want authoritarianism -- far from it. He wants Christians to believe fervently, but at the same time recognize that we all suffer from selfishness to some extent, so we don't know all the answers. So, the book is really a plea for humility -- a timely one for today's world. Heavy reading -- felt like I was back in political science class in college -- but well worth rereading some paragraphs.
December 8, 2021
Incredibly good book, but sometimes difficult to get through. I blame that more on my side than Niebuhrs. It was recommended to me as I was looking for some of the reading behind International RElations and what could be the Christian perspectives on that. For that the general trend of the book was useful as it reflects on human nature and man and justice, sin, and power and different regime types. However, the last chapter on world community is most naturally the most relevant for my purpose. I'd not really read about this from a Christian perspective before because main IR perspectives are generally secular, but this is a valuable and beautiful addition. It's quite honest and realist about human nature and what we are capable of, both in the sense of incompleteness with regards to whatever good aims, and our creative and destructive power. And it matches that with notions of property, community and groups, the individual and the community and the world community. I would recommend it to others.
April 22, 2021
The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness is written by Reinhold Niebuhr. It is a non-fiction. The book was recommended by my economic teacher, Ms Stevick. This book talks about democracy has a more compelling justification and requires a more realistic vindication than is given it by the liberal. The main theme of the book is democracy and justice. If you are interested in political science, feel free to read this book. In the book, you will know how democracy and justice is connected in the society. Justice makes democracy possible and necessary. The book also talks about how different systems affect democracy. I think that this book is crucial to the world as democracy and justice are the essential values that all the people in the world should embrace.
August 13, 2017
In these very troubled times, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr offers food for thought on how people treat each other. He points out how the dark side of human character and how those who work for the forces of peace and justice underestimate those who will do anything for their own self interest. If you have never read Niebuhr this is a good place to start.
May 31, 2023
I feel that I may have read this too quickly; Niebuhr presents a coherent argument, but there are many tangential ideas, which need to be pondered rather than encountered. This aspect of the prose has a scriptural quality. Good intentions (bad intentions, for that matter) are insufficient in the face of the kind of willful ignorance to which collectives are even more prone than individuals.
October 4, 2017
Though often repetitive, a very interesting investigation of democracy from Niebuhr's perspective controlled by despair in the brokenness of humanity and hope that good may come. In my view, has quite an interesting apologetic bend in the end.
December 31, 2017
Incredible how true his thoughts still ribg true today. Helped me think through the state of politics and society today. I need to think more about his assertions that one needs religion as a foundation for any true moral guidance.
February 24, 2019
What I think Niebuhr is trying to do in this book is to point to the importance and the challenge we have to find balanced thinking in our understanding of the forces which control the powers in our communities and our nations. This includes social as well as political forces. It's well done.
June 8, 2021
I feel Chomsky's critique is too reductionist but, at the same time, I feel that Niebuhr's style was outmoded and that he was lauded for inordinately and became something of a fetish for progressive liberals, even into the 1980s.
April 24, 2019
Really incredible
July 18, 2021
Fascinating and likely accurate thesis, but somewhat repetitive
January 4, 2024
Can’t believe I hadn’t heard of or read this sooner. Would recommended to everyone, just such an interesting work.
February 22, 2024
books read like this for school make me feel so stupid
main takeaway: children of light are naive and need to borrow the wisdom of the children of darkness
main takeaway: children of light are naive and need to borrow the wisdom of the children of darkness
February 22, 2017
A fascinating look at how systems are subverted by self-interest. This struggle, between ideals and self-interest play out economically, religiously, and politically.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews