<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>First Things RSS Feed - Gabriel Fackre</title>
		<link>https://www.firstthings.com/author/gabriel-fackre</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.firstthings.com/rss/author/gabriel-fackre" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description></description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2025 First Things. All Rights Reserved.</copyright>
		<managingEditor>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</webMaster>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:56:55 -0500</pubDate>
		
		<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title>Was Reinhold Niebuhr a Christian?</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/was-reinhold-niebuhr-a-christian</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/was-reinhold-niebuhr-a-christian</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p> Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), dubbed &ldquo;America&rsquo;s theologian&rdquo; by the mid-twentieth-century media, had a host of critics during his lifetime. Many attacked him for his political realism. Others found his &ldquo;neoorthodoxy&rdquo; wanting. A few went much further, doubting his belief in God. In the latter case, an odd coupling of self-identified theological liberals and theological conservatives took his talk about Christian &ldquo;myth&rdquo; to be a sign that he considered Christianity a pious fiction covering up a secular agenda. The coterie of Harvard faculty that whimsically described itself as &ldquo;atheists for Niebuhr&rdquo; seemed to give credence to the charge. 
<br>
  
<br>
 Suspicions about Niebuhr&rsquo;s ultimate commitments resurfaced in Stanley Hauerwas&rsquo; recent Gifford lectures ( 
<em> With the Grain of the Universe: The Church&rsquo;s Witness and Natural Theology </em>
 ). There Hauerwas asks, &ldquo;Do we have anything more in Niebuhr than a complex humanism disguised in the language of the Christian faith?&rdquo; For Hauerwas, &ldquo;It is hard to think that Niebuhr&rsquo;s God is anything more or less than an unavoidable aspect of our consciousness.&rdquo; Which leads Hauerwas to wonder: Is Niebuhr&rsquo;s theology, at bottom, merely a &ldquo;naturalistic view of the world,&rdquo; the worship of &ldquo;a domesticated god capable of doing no more than providing comfort to the anxious conscience of the bourgeoisie&rdquo;? 
<br>
  
<br>
 In fact, the rejection of both humanism and naturalism is a constant from Niebuhr&rsquo;s early liberal period, when he argued in the 1927  
<em> Does Civilization Need Religion? </em>
  against both the religious depersonalization of the universe and the political and economic depersonalization of society, to his post-liberal classic,  
<em> The Nature and Destiny of Man </em>
  (two vol., 1941-43), and beyond where he casts the issue in Christian-specific terms. Telling examples of the latter can be found in his 1956 comments on the religious naturalism of Henry Nelson Wieman: 
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/was-reinhold-niebuhr-a-christian">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
			</channel>
</rss>
