Changes

Niebuhr did battle with the liberals over what he called their naïve views of sin and the optimism of the social gospel. He did battle with the conservatives over what he viewed as their naïve view of Scripture and their narrow definition of "true religion." He was a leader of liberal intellectuals and supported many liberal causes, but his ideas were often too orthodox for secular liberals, while his view that the Bible could not be taken literally was too liberal for the Fundamentalists. Thus he was too secular for many of the religious and too religious for the secular, but just right for those who appreciated the irony of history.

Niebuhr did battle with the liberals over what he called their naïve views of sin and the optimism of the social gospel. He did battle with the conservatives over what he viewed as their naïve view of Scripture and their narrow definition of "true religion." He was a leader of liberal intellectuals and supported many liberal causes, but his ideas were often too orthodox for secular liberals, while his view that the Bible could not be taken literally was too liberal for the Fundamentalists. Thus he was too secular for many of the religious and too religious for the secular, but just right for those who appreciated the irony of history.

[[File:Niebuhr1.jpg|thumb|270px]]

[[File:Niebuhr1.jpg|thumb|270px]]

Niebuhr debated Charles Clayton Morrison, editor of ''The Christian Century'' magazine about America's entry into World War II. Morrison and his pacifistic followers maintained that America's role should be strictly neutral and part of a negotiated peace only, while Niebuhr claimed himself to be a realist, who opposed the use of political power to attain moral ends. Morrison and his followers strongly supported the movement to outlaw war that began after World War I and the [[Kellogg-Briand Pact]] of 1928. The pact was severely challenged by the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, and in 1932, with his publication of ''Moral Man and Immoral Society'', Niebuhr broke ranks with The Christian Century and supported interventionism and power politics, culminating in his support of the reelection of President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] in 1940 and the publication of his own magazine, ''Christianity and Crisis''.<ref> Gary B. Bullert, "Reinhold Niebuhr and the Christian Century: World War II and the Eclipse of the Social Gospel." ''Journal of Church and State'' 2002 44(2): 271-290. 0021-969x (online)</ref>  In 1945, however, Niebuhr charged that use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was "morally indefensible."

Niebuhr debated Charles Clayton Morrison, editor of ''The Christian Century'' magazine about America's entry into World War II. Morrison and his pacifistic followers maintained that America's role should be strictly neutral and part of a negotiated peace only, while Niebuhr claimed himself to be a realist, who opposed the use of political power to attain moral ends. Morrison and his followers strongly supported the movement to outlaw war that began after World War I and the [[Kellogg-Briand Pact]] of 1928. The pact was severely challenged by the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, and in 1932, with his publication of ''Moral Man and Immoral Society'', Niebuhr broke ranks with The Christian Century and supported interventionism and power politics, culminating in his support of the reelection of President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] in 1940 and the publication of his own magazine, ''Christianity and Crisis''.<ref> Gary B. Bullert, "Reinhold Niebuhr and the Christian Century: World War II and the Eclipse of the Social Gospel." ''Journal of Church and State'' 2002 44(2): 271-290. 0021-969x (online)</ref>  In 1945, however, Niebuhr charged that use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was "morally indefensible."

Niebuhr's defense of Roosevelt made him popular among liberals, as historian  Morton White noted:

 

Niebuhr's defense of Roosevelt made him popular among liberals, as historian  Morton White noted with a touch ofirony:

:The contemporary liberal's fascination with Niebuhr, I suggest, comes less from Niebuhr's dark theory of human nature and more from his actual political pronouncements, from the fact that he is a shrewd, courageous, and right-minded man on many political questions. Those who applaud his politics are too liable to turn then to his theory of human nature and praise it as the philosophical instrument of Niebuhr's political agreement with themselves. But very few of those whom I have called "atheists for Niebuhr" follow this inverted logic to its conclusion: they don't move from praise of Niebuhr's theory of human nature to praise of its theological ground. We may admire them for drawing the line somewhere, but certainly not for their consistency.<ref> ''Religion, Politics, and the Higher Learning'', Morton White, [[Harvard University]] Press, 1959 p.117-118</ref>}}

:The contemporary liberal's fascination with Niebuhr, I suggest, comes less from Niebuhr's dark theory of human nature and more from his actual political pronouncements, from the fact that he is a shrewd, courageous, and right-minded man on many political questions. Those who applaud his politics are too liable to turn then to his theory of human nature and praise it as the philosophical instrument of Niebuhr's political agreement with themselves. But very few of those whom I have called "atheists for Niebuhr" follow this inverted logic to its conclusion: they don't move from praise of Niebuhr's theory of human nature to praise of its theological ground. We may admire them for drawing the line somewhere, but certainly not for their consistency.<ref> ''Religion, Politics, and the Higher Learning'', Morton White, [[Harvard University]] Press, 1959 p.117-118</ref>}}

===Niebuhr and Communism===

===Niebuhr and Communism===

After [[Stalin]] signed a pact with [[Hitler]] in August 1939), Niebuhr severed his past ties with any fellow-traveler  organization having any known Communist leanings.  In the 1950s his position became so anti-communist that he believed McCarthy was a force of [[evil]] not so much for disrespecting civil liberties as for being ineffective in rooting out Communists and their sympathizers.<ref> Fox, ''Reinhold Niebuhr" (1985) p 252</ref> He thought the [[Rosenbergs]] should be executed, stating "Traitors are never ordinary criminals and the Rosenbergs are quite obviously fiercely loyal Communists....Stealing atomic secrets is an unprecedented crime".<ref> Fox, ''Reinhold Niebuhr" (1985) p 252</ref>.

After [[Stalin]] signed a pact with [[Hitler]] in August 1939, Niebuhr severed his past ties with any fellow-traveler  organization having any known Communist leanings.   

 

 

In the 1950s his position became so anti-communist that he believed McCarthy was a force of [[evil]] not so much for disrespecting civil liberties as for being ineffective in rooting out Communists and their sympathizers.<ref> Fox, ''Reinhold Niebuhr" (1985) p 252</ref> He thought the [[Rosenbergs]] should be executed, stating "Traitors are never ordinary criminals and the Rosenbergs are quite obviously fiercely loyal Communists....Stealing atomic secrets is an unprecedented crime".<ref> Fox, ''Reinhold Niebuhr" (1985) p 252</ref>.

 

 

===Niebuhr and Dewey===

===Niebuhr and Dewey===

* Fox, Richard Wightman. ''Reinhold Niebuhr: A Biography.'' (1985). 325 pp.  the standard scholarly biography; a well-researched, fair, and engaging treatment of Niebuhr's theological and political work that emphasizes his skill in working with Scripture and in interpreting human nature and the human condition. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1074984,00.html online review]

* Fox, Richard Wightman. ''Reinhold Niebuhr: A Biography.'' (1985). 325 pp.  the standard scholarly biography; a well-researched, fair, and engaging treatment of Niebuhr's theological and political work that emphasizes his skill in working with Scripture and in interpreting human nature and the human condition. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1074984,00.html online review]

* Harland, Gordon. ''The Thought of Reinhold Niebuhr'' (1960) [http://www.questia.com/read/1614760?title=The%20Thought%20of%20Reinhold%20Niebuhr online edition]

* Harland, Gordon. ''The Thought of Reinhold Niebuhr'' (1960) [http://www.questia.com/read/1614760?title=The%20Thought%20of%20Reinhold%20Niebuhr online edition]

* Novak, Michael. "Father of Neoconservatives: Nowadays, the Truest Disciples of the Liberal Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr Are Conservatives," ''National Review,'' Vol. 44, May 11, 1992 [http://www.questia.com/read/5002175937?title=Father%20of%20Neoconservatives%3a%20Nowadays%2c%20the%20Truest%20Disciples%20of%20the%20Liberal%20Theologian%20Reinhold%20Niebuhr%20Are%20Conservatives online edition], sees Niebuhr as a conservative

* Novak, Michael. "Father of Neoconservatives: Nowadays, the Truest Disciples of the Liberal Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr Are Conservatives," ''National Review,'' Vol. 44, May 11, 1992 [http://www.questia.com/read/5002175937?title=Father%20of%20Neoconservatives%3a%20Nowadays%2c%20the%20Truest%20Disciples%20of%20the%20Liberal%20Theologian%20Reinhold%20Niebuhr%20Are%20Conservatives online edition], sees Niebuhr as a conservative

* Rice, Daniel F. ''Reinhold Niebuhr and John Dewey: An American Odyssey.'' (1993). 358 pp.

* Rice, Daniel F. ''Reinhold Niebuhr and John Dewey: An American Odyssey.'' (1993). 358 pp.