Historically, Christian Realism centers around the brothers Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962) and Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), who both were immersed in 20th-Century theology as influential thinkers of their time. They were both American Realists and were primarily concerned with human nature and human history. Their epistemological concerns were largely driven by individual and social conditions that they believed had explanatory power about the Christian faith. Their contributions to theological discourse were largely situated upon the doctrine of man and the human condition, especially as it concerns the life of faith from the perspective of Liberal theology.
James C. Livingston, the author of the text, refers to Niebuhr as a “post-liberal“ theologian as his exposure and acceptance to Barthian neo-orthodox theology is of coherent influence, but as one traces Niebuhrs’ life’s work, his writing, speaking, collaborative efforts, and criticisms, it is easy to dismiss the proposition as “post-liberal.” The functional name of “Christian Realism” is simply a rebranding of a social gospel (i.e., justice as the only proper outworking of agape love) that seeks to make use of the historical and eternal work of Christ for purposes of attaining distributed human power through social acquiescence or upheaval. It seeks to weaponize theology through social means as it concentrates on the human condition at the expense of sovereign, supernatural, limitless purposes of God. More specifically, in the here and now, it exchanges the pursuit of God for the pursuit of utopia by social means. Instead, biblical justice is simply an important and necessary component of deep and enduring theological interest. Instead of the default social pragmatism of Christian Realists, the practical imperatives of God through Christ are revealed in history to function as a pressing necessity for Godly living. A type of living that serves as a foundation for doctrine and confessional commitments that shape attitudes, conduct, disciplines, worship, devotion, and outreach. Charity, missional work, shelters, poverty relief, disaster recovery, hospitality, and economic justice are merely components of outreach and permanent support that extends from the proper application of the New Covenant.
As Livingston refers to the “social gospel,” it is normally attributed to Christian Realism. A person of liberal social interest would normally conclude there is a universal meaning associated with the term gospel. Aside from God’s redemptive work through Christ, the gospel takes on a useful purpose to achieve social objectives. Rather than for the purpose of saving individuals, and society, from real justice as eternal condemnation and separation from God in a permanent punishment of Hell. The meaning of “gospel” is reserved explicitly for a specific purpose as articulated in Scripture and the Greek semantic range found in BDAG and elsewhere. There is no “social gospel,” or “American gospel,” or “European gospel,” or “individual gospel,” as such. There is the “gospel” without descriptive adjectives to redefine its meaning. As clearly expressed in Scripture, the gospel is the saving work of Christ from personal sin against God (whether through idolatry, biblical injustice, social neglect, and various other covenant violations).
The meaning and background of Christian Realism set the terms of faith in God as relative to social interests. Specifically, where theology cannot describe God as such but only through human language and experience (Livingston, 169) to set the conditions by which people understand what traditions, practices, and lifestyles should be lived out. This indicates that divine revelation was purely codependent upon people without observation in Creation, direct encounter, Holy Spirit testimony, historical facts, archaeological discoveries, ancient literature, and means of communication other than immediate verbal or written interaction. Not to dismiss the purpose and intent of spoken and written communication among those who experience shared faith (such as at Pentecost), but to place proper and necessary emphasis upon revelation through absolute primary means. Where reason, language, culture, tradition, etc., are entirely subordinate to revelation with various weights of relevance.
Among the numerous explanatory positions Richard Niebuhr wrote, the Livingston text does not present Niebuhr as using scripture as a source of rationale to form substantive arguments to support his views. Philosophical consideration in support of a coherent and persuasive understanding of divine revelation toward Christian Realism would produce a lot of traction. He otherwise acknowledges the necessity of revelation to become informed of theological truth, and especially as interpreted among peers, but Niebuhr’s verbiage is a word salad of articulation that goes from revelation to knowledge, to experience, to reason, and back again to knowledge, experience, and reason as the whole endeavor is progressive for a desired or suitable outcome.
Reinhold Niebuhr viewed himself as a social critic and moralist. He also held to Liberal theology and attracted a lot of criticism from Protestants who were doctrinally grounded as his concern with justice was the embodiment of love (according to Livingston). Reinhold’s perspective concerning liberal theology revolved around love, justice, and power. Livingston’s interpretation of Reinhold’s views was that the failure to acquire and use power for the common good in one’s interests (Livingston, 189) was a persistent human sin. It was a failure to recognize one’s own will to power, as it was otherwise left to another group or class where injustice would be certain to arise from a secular or Christian source. Power, or equilibrium of it, was to be the objective, for the stated ideal of “love of neighbor.” More specifically, not through the Kingdom with its prescribed methodology by revelation or Scripture, but to achieve a systemic love-of-neighbor through the State, or socialism through the Church if need be. This is Liberal theology. Reinhold is noted for his changed thinking toward neo-orthodoxy later in life. Still, he did not develop a robust and coherent theology that was a source of reliable thought and influence among Protestants in the 20th century. Reinhold Niebuhr was a professor and Union Theological Seminary (liberal theology). He significantly influenced progressive political leaders such as Carter, Albright, Clinton, Obama, Comey, and others along the progressive-socialist spectrum.
Comments are closed.