A. Just as Niebuhr himself wasn't so naive as to believe that we could build the kingdom of God on earth, Niebuhrian realists aren't naive enough to think that terrorists can be negotiated with, co-opted or appeased. They are murderers and religious fanatics, and they have to be killed.
B. Just as Niebuhr himself wasn't so naive as to believe that we could build the kingdom of God on earth, Niebuhrian realists aren't naive enough to think that we can rid the world of evildoers, or remake the world in our image. The best we can do is work for a relatively secure world while maintaining an healthy skepticism about our own means and motivations.
C. If Niebuhr hadn't been a tenured professor at Union Seminary, he'd have been that guy at the end of the bar debunking anything and everything. Niebuhrian Realism is not a coherent public theology; it's stained glass cynicism; thus the answer is Both A and B. Because cynics are cynical about everything.
Vote early and vote often!
er ... huh?
Posted by: Scott Paeth | 17 February 2010 at 11:22 AM
This post seems like it's in response to something happening "off screen," but my 2 cents: I think "Niebuhrianism" has become something of an emotive term, at least in a lot of public discourse (e.g., the blogosphere). "Realists" use it as a term of approval, "radicals" use it as a term of derision. But few people seem much interested in actually reading and engaging with what Niebuhr wrote. (It also appears that a lot of young theology types with little first-hand acquaintance with Niebuhr have uncritically absorbed Hauerwas's interpretation/critique.)
Posted by: Lee | 18 February 2010 at 09:42 AM