What do you think?
Rate this book
Reinhold Niebuhr and Christian Realism
Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) was a major American theologian and political thinker of the mid-twentieth century. He has received much attention from biographers and historians in recent years, but, since his thought remains very relevant for contemporary ethics, a reassessment is due of what he might contribute to current thinking about politics and society. This book is intended to present Niebuhr's ideas about "Christian Realism" in a way that will be useful to people who are thinking about today's social issues.
- GenresTheology
268 pages, Paperback
First published January 26, 1995
2 people are currently reading
53 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 24, 2025
Summary: An exploration of the idea of Christian Realism through Reinhold Niebuhr as it best known proponent.
When I started seminary, the first book that we read in my systematic theology class was Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society. I have been meaning to reread that and also read The Nature and Destiny of Man and The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness for the past 30 years and I just haven’t done it. I did read The Irony of American History and a biography of Niebuhr and a short introduction to both brothers. I am not new to Niebuhr, but I am also not a scholar of his work. I think I have read more about Niebuhr through James Cone than I have read Niebuhr directly.
In my ongoing project of exploring Christian Discernment, I picked this up because of a recommendation for further reading after a video about Christian Realism. I got the book via Interlibrary Loan from my local public library and then slowly read it over the past month or so. Also once I started reading, saw that Lovin was a friend of Gary Dorrien and he came up in Dorrien's memoir that overlapped in my reading with this book. I really do prefer reading on kindle because I mark up books and save highlights in ways that I can’t with library books, so I have notes scattered all over the place.
I have to admit going in, that I am skeptical of the Christian Realism project and I picked this up because I was skeptical. I think Lovin does a good job separating the ideals of Christian Realism from some of the weaknesses of its actual use.
Chapter three starts with trying to figure out what the "good" that Christian Realists are trying to achieve. One of my main concerns about Christian Realism is that my perception is that it depends too heavily on on natural law thinking and that natural law can often be made to fit with whatever bias that you have going in. And that concern is precisely the concern that Niebuhr had about natural law. So even if I have a concern about the misuse of natural law that Niebuhr also had, I was convinced by Lovin that Christian Realism is at least raising the concern about epistemic humility because if one does not start with natural law, then what does one start with.
On a recent Advisory Opinions podcast, David French was trying to understand what the "good" was that some on the new right were trying to achieve because he was not clear that there was a good that they were trying to achieve. Similarly, the Homebrew Theology podcast has been doing a series on democracy and one of the themes of that series is that we need to work to understand people and change their minds, but there are some people it may be okay to give up on. (I remember asking essentially this question of Jean Bethke Elshtain during a class discussion 30 years ago.) Even as Kailyn Schiess, on the Holy Post podcast keeps talking about how we are still called to love those we disagree with. But Tripp Fuller on the Homebrew Theology podcast had the good one liner that sometimes it is easier to love people that we have blocked on social media. The common thread on all three of these podcast discussions is that not everything is reconcilable. If one group of people believe in ethnic pluralism and another are ethnic nationalists, you cannot pursue both approaches at the same time.
Part of the reality is that Niebuhr is responding both to the excesses of progressivism and utopian thinking of his early career and the post WWII concerns around the Cold War in his later career. His concerns in the 1920-60s are different concerns than those that many have today. So some areas just will not fit exactly as we seek to learn what we can get from him. That being said, when Lovin talks about "the search for usable moral ideas" and Christian Realism's intent to not limit that searching to only the immediate community, I again am somewhat surprised because this is again one of the concerns that I have had with people that have wanted to claim Niebuhr's legacy.
A third point where I was concerned with Christian Realism is that I am skeptical about the way that it has been claimed around me to be a means of working out "God's-eye view of the truth." So again, a particular concern that I have had with the way that Christian Realism has worked itself out in people around me was a particular note from Niebuhr and others that in the conception that we can't have. If there is a humility of what we can do, and what we can know, and that we still have to have faith and hope in the future because of we have looked clearly at reality as it is, then we are always starting with the assumption that our perspective is limited.
An area that I found really helpful, was a discussion on page 212 that shows where Niebuhr's Christian Realism differs from liberation theology
It is easy to see where the discussion goes from there. Liberation theologians (where I tend to be biased toward) suggest that Christian Realists end up upholding the status quo too often. And the Christian Realists think that the Liberation Theologians create an oppression olympics where you can't deal with real problems of people who may have not be quite as bad as someone else. This discussion is in a larger context of a discussion about what justice is and how to determine whether something is or is not just.
Abstractly, I understand the concerns and I think it was helpful to lay them out in context where the assumptions are that all of these groups are seeking after the best but have biases about the how to accomplish what it best. But I also think that part of the problem is exactly what David French and Tripp Fuller were identifying above. At some point, there is a group, which may be small, which doesn't want to solve problems within a system, but think that the system is so bad that it must be destroyed before proceeding toward a solution. People who think a system is worth saving and people who believe that a system must be destroyed will have a hard time working together to find a solution. But people unwilling to converse to see if there can be a solution will also not be able to find common ground.
My bias is toward liberation as a goal of Christianity. I will tend to be frustrated with Christian Realists even it is working closer to ideals of the movement instead of the some the ways that it does not live up to its own ideals. But I do think that Lovin points out areas where if we live in a pluralistic system, at some sense, realism it the best way forward even if there are known weaknesses, like the bias toward the status quo.
This is not a new book. It was first published 30 years ago. There are points when it is dated. But I found it helpful and I have a much clearer idea of what Niebuhr was trying to do and what his concerns were and why Christian Realism should at least be on the table for discussions of Christian political theology and ethics.
I originally posted this on my blog at https://bookwi.se/reinhold-niebuhr-an...
When I started seminary, the first book that we read in my systematic theology class was Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society. I have been meaning to reread that and also read The Nature and Destiny of Man and The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness for the past 30 years and I just haven’t done it. I did read The Irony of American History and a biography of Niebuhr and a short introduction to both brothers. I am not new to Niebuhr, but I am also not a scholar of his work. I think I have read more about Niebuhr through James Cone than I have read Niebuhr directly.
In my ongoing project of exploring Christian Discernment, I picked this up because of a recommendation for further reading after a video about Christian Realism. I got the book via Interlibrary Loan from my local public library and then slowly read it over the past month or so. Also once I started reading, saw that Lovin was a friend of Gary Dorrien and he came up in Dorrien's memoir that overlapped in my reading with this book. I really do prefer reading on kindle because I mark up books and save highlights in ways that I can’t with library books, so I have notes scattered all over the place.
I have to admit going in, that I am skeptical of the Christian Realism project and I picked this up because I was skeptical. I think Lovin does a good job separating the ideals of Christian Realism from some of the weaknesses of its actual use.
Chapter three starts with trying to figure out what the "good" that Christian Realists are trying to achieve. One of my main concerns about Christian Realism is that my perception is that it depends too heavily on on natural law thinking and that natural law can often be made to fit with whatever bias that you have going in. And that concern is precisely the concern that Niebuhr had about natural law. So even if I have a concern about the misuse of natural law that Niebuhr also had, I was convinced by Lovin that Christian Realism is at least raising the concern about epistemic humility because if one does not start with natural law, then what does one start with.
On a recent Advisory Opinions podcast, David French was trying to understand what the "good" was that some on the new right were trying to achieve because he was not clear that there was a good that they were trying to achieve. Similarly, the Homebrew Theology podcast has been doing a series on democracy and one of the themes of that series is that we need to work to understand people and change their minds, but there are some people it may be okay to give up on. (I remember asking essentially this question of Jean Bethke Elshtain during a class discussion 30 years ago.) Even as Kailyn Schiess, on the Holy Post podcast keeps talking about how we are still called to love those we disagree with. But Tripp Fuller on the Homebrew Theology podcast had the good one liner that sometimes it is easier to love people that we have blocked on social media. The common thread on all three of these podcast discussions is that not everything is reconcilable. If one group of people believe in ethnic pluralism and another are ethnic nationalists, you cannot pursue both approaches at the same time.
Part of the reality is that Niebuhr is responding both to the excesses of progressivism and utopian thinking of his early career and the post WWII concerns around the Cold War in his later career. His concerns in the 1920-60s are different concerns than those that many have today. So some areas just will not fit exactly as we seek to learn what we can get from him. That being said, when Lovin talks about "the search for usable moral ideas" and Christian Realism's intent to not limit that searching to only the immediate community, I again am somewhat surprised because this is again one of the concerns that I have had with people that have wanted to claim Niebuhr's legacy.
A third point where I was concerned with Christian Realism is that I am skeptical about the way that it has been claimed around me to be a means of working out "God's-eye view of the truth." So again, a particular concern that I have had with the way that Christian Realism has worked itself out in people around me was a particular note from Niebuhr and others that in the conception that we can't have. If there is a humility of what we can do, and what we can know, and that we still have to have faith and hope in the future because of we have looked clearly at reality as it is, then we are always starting with the assumption that our perspective is limited.
An area that I found really helpful, was a discussion on page 212 that shows where Niebuhr's Christian Realism differs from liberation theology
"Liberation analysis diverges at the point where Niebuhr appears to attempt an even handed assessment of the claims and counter claims at work in social conflict. For liberation theology, Christian ethics does not begin with objectivity, it begins with a "fundamental option for the poor."
It is easy to see where the discussion goes from there. Liberation theologians (where I tend to be biased toward) suggest that Christian Realists end up upholding the status quo too often. And the Christian Realists think that the Liberation Theologians create an oppression olympics where you can't deal with real problems of people who may have not be quite as bad as someone else. This discussion is in a larger context of a discussion about what justice is and how to determine whether something is or is not just.
Abstractly, I understand the concerns and I think it was helpful to lay them out in context where the assumptions are that all of these groups are seeking after the best but have biases about the how to accomplish what it best. But I also think that part of the problem is exactly what David French and Tripp Fuller were identifying above. At some point, there is a group, which may be small, which doesn't want to solve problems within a system, but think that the system is so bad that it must be destroyed before proceeding toward a solution. People who think a system is worth saving and people who believe that a system must be destroyed will have a hard time working together to find a solution. But people unwilling to converse to see if there can be a solution will also not be able to find common ground.
My bias is toward liberation as a goal of Christianity. I will tend to be frustrated with Christian Realists even it is working closer to ideals of the movement instead of the some the ways that it does not live up to its own ideals. But I do think that Lovin points out areas where if we live in a pluralistic system, at some sense, realism it the best way forward even if there are known weaknesses, like the bias toward the status quo.
This is not a new book. It was first published 30 years ago. There are points when it is dated. But I found it helpful and I have a much clearer idea of what Niebuhr was trying to do and what his concerns were and why Christian Realism should at least be on the table for discussions of Christian political theology and ethics.
I originally posted this on my blog at https://bookwi.se/reinhold-niebuhr-an...
Displaying 1 of 1 review