REINHOLD NIEBUHR AND HIS THEOLOGICAL ETHICS

Ezekiel A. Ajibade, PhD

The Nigerian Baptist Theological Seminary, Ogbomoso
ajibadeezekiel@yahoo.com

INTRODUCTION

Legacy is defined as something that is handed down or remains from a previous

generation or time. When one is said to have left a legacy behind, it means he or she has lived

a life that bequeaths a benefit to his or her generation and that after him or her. Such a one is

celebrated from time to time as the legacy left behind speaks volume about him or her. This is

a picture of the story of the life and contributions of the great theologian called Reinhold

Niebuhr. This paper will examine his life history, his works, theological approach and focus.

An evaluation will be done of his ethics bringing out a critical view of its pros and cons.

BACKGROUNDS OF REINHOLD NIEBUHR

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

was the son of Gustav and Lydia Niebuhr. His father, Gustav was an immigrant from Germany

who became an ordained minister of the German Evangelical Synod after graduating from Eden

Seminary at St. Louis, the training school for ministers of the Deutsche Evangelical Synod of

North America (Moon http://people.bu.edu/wwildman). This denomination which gives more

importance to inner spirituality and practical results than dogmatic theology, was the American

branch of the established Prussian Church Union in Germany. It is Calvinist, not Lutheran, and

is now part of the United Church of Christ (en.wikipedia.org).

His mother was a daughter of German Evangelical Synod missionary, Edward Hosto.

Gustav and Lydia had four children, Hulda, Walter, Reinhold, and Helmut Richard. The four

children grew up in a religious atmosphere in their parents’ parish of St. John in Lincoln,

Illinois (http://people.bu.edu/wwildman). Helmut Richard Niebuhr became a famous historian

1
of religion, as famous as Reinhold in theological circles. His sister Hulda Niebuhr became a

divinity professor in Chicago. (en.wikipedia.org).

According to Bennett, at an early age Reinhold Niebuhr decided to emulate his father

and become a minister (www.britannica.com). This definitely affected his line and choice of

study. He attended Elmhurst College and Eden Theological Seminary from 1910 to 1913. He

then attended Yale University, from which he obtained both his undergraduate and master’s

degrees in divinity in 1914 and 1915 respectively. After graduating in the spring of 1915,

Niebuhr was ordained by the Evangelical Synod of North America (http://www.tameri.com).

HIS WORKS, APPROACH AND THEOLOGICAL FOCUS

Many factors shaped the life, ministry, theology and philosophy for Reinhold Niebuhr.

According to Moon,

Gustav had both liberal and pietistic tendencies in his faith. He believed that Christians
had to work for social improvement as well as religious conversion. He was relatively
unconcerned about doctrinal precision and denominational identity, but felt strongly
about the divinity of Christ, the supernatural inspiration of the Bible, and the centrality
of prayer in the religious life (Fox 1985, 7). Strongly impressed by his father’s ministry,
Reinhold, the favorite child of his father, decided to be a minister
(http://people.bu.edu/wwildman).

So his father Gustav was the first major influence on him. Another factor that shaped his life

and views was the schools he attended. His time at Elmhurst College provided him with the

foundations for liberal arts and languages. When he moved to Eden’s Seminary at St Louis, he

was influenced by Samuel D. Press, who introduced him to the theology of Adolf von Harnack

(Moon).

Another strong influence was the experiences of his professional life. After his

ordination, the church assigned him to the Bethel Evangelical Church in Detroit, Michigan,

where he served as pastor from 1915 to 1928. It was a small, close-knit congregation of workers

numbering sixty-five on his arrival. But it grew to nearly 700 by the time he left in 1928. The

increase reflected his ability to reach people outside the German American community and

2
among the growing population attracted to jobs in the booming automobile industry

(en.wikipedia.org).

Here, as Niebuhr served the community, he came to view modern industrialism as

dehumanizing, making the individual subordinate to industrial production.

(http://www.tameri.com). He personally witnessed the working-class realities of American

automobile industry laborers. They were exposed to challenges and frustrations that made him

critical of capitalism so much that he couldn’t but preach sermons that challenge his

parishioners to wake up, to see the real world where they live, and to be responsible in it.

In Leaves from the Notebook of A Tamed Cynic (1929), Niebuhr wrote passionately:

We went through one of the big automobile factories today. So artificial is life that these
factories are like a strange world to me though I have lived close to them for many
years. The foundry interested me particularly. The heat was terrific. The men seemed
weary. Here manual labor is drudgery and toil is slavery. The men cannot possibly find
any satisfaction in their work. They simply work to make a living. Their sweat and dull
pain are part of the price paid for the fine cars we all run. And most of us run the cars
without knowing what price is being paid for them (Moon,
http://people.bu.edu/wwildman).
.
As a result of these experiences Niebuhr began to criticize the inhumane treatment of workers

in Henry Ford’s factory, became an outspoken advocate of socialist principles in social and

economic matters, and in 1932 he supported the socialist candidate for President. His early

political activities were influenced by his socialist convictions. He was a founder of the

Fellowship of Socialist Christians, and he ran for office several times on the Socialist ticket

(Bennett). He continued with his advocacy of socialism until he came to support the mixed

economics of the New Deal policy in the early 1940’s on the grounds that it was “more just

and realistic than Marxism.” He became strongly concerned with protecting automobile

industrial workers and changing the social and economic conditions that produce the problems

that industrial workers must face. In doing this however, he did not follow the methods of the

Social Gospel. He rather criticized both the moral idealism of the liberal-leaning churches and

their unconditional rejection of violence. According to Moon, he frankly acknowledged that

3
his education in liberal theology was insufficient for the challenges of real ministry, and found

the so-called “Neo-Orthodox” theological tendencies more useful. This preference is evident

in Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932) (http://people.bu.edu/wwildman).

Some other major influences on the life of Reinhold Neihbur were his lifetime

experiences of two World Wars, the nuclear age, and the Cold War. By 1928, Niebuhr left

Detroit for a teaching position at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He served as

an associate professor of the philosophy of religion from 1928 to 1930. From 1930 until 1955,

Niebur was a junior professor of applied Christianity. Through a series of promotions, Niebuhr

steadily advanced his career at Union Theological. He was made a graduate professor of Ethics

and theology in 1955. Five years later, in 1960, he was appointed vice-president of the seminary

(www.tameri.com). He was a great intellectual and personal force until his retirement in 1960

(Bennett). During this time he was increasingly involved in progressive causes and was, for a

time, an avowed pacifist. But he will not be a pacifist forever. According to Bennett

In the 1930s he broke with the Socialist Party over its pacifist or noninterventionist
attitude in foreign policy, and in the 1940s he became a left-wing, anti-Communist
Democrat. He was a founder and for a time chairman of the Americans for Democratic
Action and he was vice chairman of the Liberal Party in the state of New York. In the
1930s he was much influenced by Marxist theory, but he rejected Marxist absolutism
and both the tactics of Communists in the United States and Stalinism in the Soviet
Union (www.britannica.com).

Some of the events surrounding the world war might have greatly influenced the thought of

Niebuhr and made him to have some reconsideration of his stand. Before the World War II

started, Paul Tillich who was a theologian of note had fled Germany and emigrated to the

United States because like many intellectuals, he had been dismissed from a teaching post by

the National Socialists. Hitler was an opponent of academic and personal freedoms. Niebuhr

became instrumental in Tillich joining the faculty of Union Theological Seminary. After the

Nazi occupation of the Rhineland in 1936, Pacifism actually became untenable. Niebuhr urged

4
United States intervention on behalf of the Allies. Niebuhr viewed Hitler and his tactics as

profoundly anti-Christian and a threat to the Western democracies (www.tameri.com).

He did his best to persuade Christians influenced by pacifism to support the war against

Hitler. He opposed any form of pacifism that claimed to have universally applicable nonviolent

solutions of political problems. He identified himself with the resistance to Hitler within

Germany and opposed a vindictive peace after World War II. He had considerable influence

with the policy planners in the U.S. State Department and was a strong supporter of the United

States’ resistance to Soviet political expansion in Europe during the postwar years. His political

activity ended during the early stage of the Cold War, but his later thought,

showed his capacity to transcend the outlook of that period. His book The Irony of
American History (1952), while justifying American anti-Communist policies, gave
much attention to criticism of American messianism and the American tendency to
engage in self-righteous crusades. He always attacked American claims to special
virtue. Early he favoured the recognition by the United States of Communist China, and
he was an early opponent of American participation in the Vietnam War. He regarded
as an error attempts to impose U.S. solutions on the new countries that emerged out of
the colonial empires after World War II. (Bennett).

His Theology and Works

Reinhold Niebuhr’s experiences as described above greatly affected his theology. One

would have observed his oscillation between Pacifism and Just war opinion or philosophy.

According to Lovin, he called on Christians in the aftermath of World War 1 to give up their

appealing moral idealism for a more tough-minded Christian Realism that would pay attention

to the real dynamics of social change as well as to the ideal goals of peace and justice.

Christians are to be realistic with themselves and with each other. They need to understand

how their Christian faith is mixed up with their cultural prejudices and with their interest in the

place they occupy in their own society. They need to hear the gospel not only as it is preached

in their churches but also as it is read and heard by other people who do not share their

prejudices, who live under very different conditions or in other parts of the world (Lovin 109).

5
 Thus Niebuhr became the father of “Christian Realism.” Christian Realism emphasized,

the persistent roots of evil in human life. In his Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932)
he stressed the egoism and the pride and hypocrisy of nations and classes. Later he saw
these as ultimately the fruit of the insecurity and anxious defensiveness of humans in
their finiteness; here he located “original sin.” He emphasized the tendency for sin—in
the form of destructive pride—to appear on every level of human achievement,
especially where claims to perfection were made, either in religious or political terms
(Bennett).

In further breaking down the concept of Christian realism, Lovin explained that the Christian

realist focuses on what actually is and not just what ought to be. “…because Christian Realist

understand that their vision have limitations, they will be more likely to build coalitions, around

specific short-term goals and plans than to demand complete allegiance to the whole vision

from the onset” (109). For Grenz, Christian realism may imply that, “try as we will, we can

never bring the final resolution to any difficulty. In fact we may discover to our dismay that

our “final solutions” often generate new problems.” (267)

He further distanced himself strongly from “Christocentric forms of Protestant Neo-

orthodoxy.” This can be seen in his unusual attitude toward the Jewish community. He was

perhaps the first Christian theologian with ecumenical influence who developed a view of the

relations between Christianity and Judaism that made it inappropriate for Christians to seek to

convert Jews to their faith (Bennett). He was known to strongly attack Protestant Christianity

when it comes to its laxity in its social and spiritual responsibility.

Among the many weaknesses of the Protestant movement, surely its indifference to the
social substance of human existence is the most grievous one. In an industrial
civilization and in an age of nuclear terror, the renewal of the church must certainly
include full awareness of the fact that we are all involved in the virtues and the vices,
the guilt and the promises of our generation. In a sense it is true that we cannot be saved
unless we are all saved. (www.tameri.com)

Niebuhr’s Protestant theology combined the teachings of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

Unlike the emerging liberal movement within the faith, Niebuhr adopted the traditional

Christian view of man as flawed, condemned by the effects of original sin. He regarded

6
 liberal theologians as “utopian.” He rejected what he considered two extremes within

Protestantism: total withdrawal from the secular, and total immersion into politics and the

affairs of the world through “social gospel.” Niebuhr sought a middle course by developing a

workable political philosophy built on the foundation of Christianity (www.tameri.com).

Most of his thoughts and major contributions can be found in his written works. Some

of his books and pamphlets are.

- Does Civilization Need Religion? A Study in the Social Resources and Limitations of
Religion in Modern Life: 1927
- Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic: 1929, 1976
- The Contribution of Religion to Social Work, Lectures: 1932, 1971
- Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics: 1932, 1960
- Reflections on the End of an Era: 1934
- An Interpretation of Christian Ethics, Lectures: 1935, new preface by the author, 1956
- Beyond Tragedy: Essays on the Christian Interpretation of History: 1937, 1976
- Do the State and Nation Belong to God or the Devil? Lecture: 1937
- The Protestant Opposition Church Movement in Germany, 1934-1937, Pamphlet: 1937
- Christianity and Power Politics: 1940, 1969
- Christian Realism in Contemporary American Theology: 1940
- Europe’s Catastrophe and the Christian Faith: 1940
- Why the Christian Church Is Not Pacifist: 1940
- The Nature and Destiny of Man: A Christian Interpretation, Lectures, two volumes, 1941,
1943
- Jews after the War, Pamphlet: 1943
- The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a
Critique of Its Traditional Defence: 1944, 1972
- Discerning the Signs of the Times: Sermons for Today and Tomorrow, Sermons: 1946
- Faith and History: A Comparison of Christian and Modern Views of History: 1949
- The Irony of American History: 1952, 1962
- Christian Realism and Political Problems: 1953, 1977
- Religion and Freedom of Thought, Lectures: 1954
- The Self and the Dramas of History: 1955
- Pious and Secular America: 1958
(In England: The Godly and the Ungodly: Essays on the Religious and Secular Dimensions
of Modern Life)
- A Nation so Conceived: Reflections on the History of America from Its Early Visions to Its
Present Power, with Alan Heimert: 1963
- Man’s Nature and His Communities: Essays on the Dynamics and Enigmas of Man’s
Personal and Social Existence: 1965
- The Democratic Experience: Past and Prospects, with Paul E. Sigmund: 1969
- Reminiscences, Oral History (film): 1972

7
Marriage, Later Life and Death

In 1931 Niebuhr married Ursula Keppel-Compton, a learned and religious woman, a

scholar and theologian who later became chairman of the Religion Department at Barnard

College, the woman’s college of Columbia University. They had two children

(en.wikipedia.org). After 1952, Niebuhr’s public activities were seriously limited as the result

of a stroke, but he was able to continue much of his teaching and writing. In 1960, a

professorship was established and funded in his honor at Union Theological Seminary.

Sponsors of the chair included T. S. Eliot and Eleanor Roosevelt. Niebuhr died 1 June 1971

but not without some great awards given to him before his death. In 1933, Cornell

University's Irving Literary Society inducted Niebuhr as an honorary member. In 1964,

President Lyndon Johnson awarded Niebuhr the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In Niebuhr's

honor, New York City named West 120th Street between Broadway and Riverside

Drive Reinhold Niebuhr Place. This is the site of Union Theological (en wikipedia).

EVALUATION OF HIS ETHICS

In the word of Grenz, “perhaps no other 20th Century thinker has cast as long a shadow

as Karl Barth, not only in theology but in theological ethics as well. To the name of Barth we

could add other significant thinkers whose theological ethic advanced an agenda similar to his.”

They include Emil Bruner and Reinhold Niebuhr who were contemporaries of the great Swiss

Theologian (172). He was a name to respect in theological ethics.

Social Justice seems to take a central place in the ethics of Reinhold Niebuhr. According

to Gladwin, “The Christian social thought of Reinhold Niebuhr had a powerful and pervasive

influence both in the church and in the world politics” (628). He rejected the predominant

liberal individualism of previous eras and sought to come to terms with the realities of corporate

power. He recognized that only a full doctrine of justice “which may fall short of the ultimate

8
vision of love in the Christian tradition could help man get to grips with power and bring it

under human control. His conclusion came from his pastoral experience.

Niebuhr refused to call himself a theologian. The experience of life in industrial Detroit

and the stresses of the Depression led him to move in his words “politically to the left,

theologically to the right.” He countered Religious liberalism which he found to be naïve in its

optimistic estimate of human possibilities and which came to be known as Christian Realism

(Hamilton 459).

His account of the nature of man determines to a considerable extent his views of ethics

and the recommendations he makes for action. (Gustafson 118). He came up with the notion

that “man’s capacity for justice make democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice

makes democracy necessary.” (Stott 41).

Niebuhr concept of love as a pure, highest form of morality developed further in his

book, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics. He criticizes orthodox Christianity, modern liberal

Christianity and Marxism. In his opinion, “The former identifies the transcendent will of God

with doctrines and degrades myths by scientification, the second abandons the ethic of Jesus

and absolutizes secular, relative standards of morality, and the latter is a secularized religion

which takes the proletariat as the final judge instead of God.” (Moon

http://people.bu.edu/wwildman)

.
For him, myth is meaningful in the sense that it involves the paradox between the

Infinite and the finite, and it should be considered seriously, not literally. The ethic of Jesus

shows the pure form of God’s love so that it cannot be realized in this present human existence,

but only when God changes this world to the perfect harmony of the Kingdom of God.

Therefore, he understands love as an “impossible possibility.” Instead of the direct application

of the law of love to political and economical reality, he suggests the principle of justice as an

approximation of love (Moon).

9
Criticism of his work

Criticism of his work was that his views of human life were too pessimistic and that he

lacked joy in his approach (Gladwin 629). He is also often criticized for having largely ignored

the doctrines of the church and the Holy Spirit. More fundamental is the inadequacy of his

Christology. He views Jesus simply as “a key of meaning” to the mystery of human existence

and as a “symbol” of the enduring power of sacrificial love (Hamilton 460). Greisler also

considered him a situationist (43).

Those who had the responsibilities of power however found him in touch with the

realities of political life. Others found in him “a way of thinking which both came to terms with

reality and preserved the vision for something better. He was a dominant figure of serious

Christian social thought for the first half of the 20th century and only few who came after him

have been able to escape his influence (Gladwin 629).

Niebuhr remains one of the most paradoxical theologians that ever lived. Politically, he

was described as socialist, liberal, and pragmatist. Such a mixture of orthodox Christianity and

liberal political beliefs is just unusual, by the start of the twenty-first century

(www.tameri.com). The legacy of Niebuhr is being contested between American liberals and

conservatives, who both wanted to claim him. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave credit to

Niebuhr's influence. Foreign-policy conservatives point to Niebuhr's support of

the containment doctrine during the Cold War as an instance of moral realism; progressives

cite his later opposition to the Vietnam War (en.wikipedia.org). Bennett said finally of him,

Niebuhr’s enormous influence on political thought, both inside and outside the church,
caused Hans J. Morgenthau, an eminent political scientist, to say that Niebuhr was “the
greatest living political philosopher of America.” He was probably the most popular
preacher in university chapels from the early 1920s to the early 1950s. Many
contemporary Christians trace their conviction that Christianity makes sense to the
influence of his preaching. He was not a specialized scholar in any field, including
theology, but his broad learning and his original and incisive thought made him the
subject of many theses and other scholarly writings, and he exercised a seminal
influence on scholarship and thought in a variety of fields (http://www.britannica.com).

10
CONCLUSION

Above is the story of a great theologian. It serves a great lesson for contemporary life.

It is a lesson of what influence parents could have on children. It is a lesson of how one’s

environment affects his or her outlook to life and output in life - and of course his or her

theology.

The life of Reinhold Niebuhr challenges every ethicist to consider the pragmatic aspect

of his or her theology. The Christian life must be relevant. It must meet the need of the common

man. There is a role to play in the political arena if things will ever be better for Nigeria and

the world at large. Niebuhr was known as an influential figure in the American corridors of

power. He could not be neglected and his voice counts. This challenges every Christian to

reconsider their role in making their voice heard and their impact felt.

Finally, one should learn to take a stand. The stand should be firm but not rigid.

Realities on ground should guide every believer to determine their course of action at every

given point in time. This comes as a result of readiness to learn and a largeness of heart. But

no reality must sweep away the word of God to the corner or cause a wrong interpretation of

the divine revelations from the scriptures. The Holy Spirit must be the supreme leader of every

Christian pilgrim on their journey to eternity.

11
 WORKS CITED

Bennett, John C. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/414557/Reinhold-Niebuhr.

Accessed on 06/12/11

Greisler, Norman L. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues. Grand Rapid: Bakers Academic,
1989

Grenz, Stanley J. The Moral Quest: Foundations for Christian Ethics. Downers Grove:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1997.

Gladwin, J.W. “Niebuhr, Reinhold.” In New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral
Theology. Inter-Varsity Press: Nottingham, 1995

Gustafson, James M. Ethics from a Theocentric Perspective. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 1981.

Hamilton, Kenneth “Niebuhr, Reinhold.” In Wycliffe Dictionary of Christian Ethics.

Carl F.H. Henry ed. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1973.

Lovin, Robin. Christian Ethics: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000

Moon, Yun Jung “Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971)” http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/

WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_770_niebuhrreinhold.htm.
Accessed on 06/12/11

“Reinhold Niegbuhr: Social Gospel Meets Existentialism” http://www.tameri.com

/csw/exist/niebuhr.shtml. Accessed on 06/12/11

Stott, John. Issues Facing Christianity Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

12