*— aamzaeom manna mm mwwam EDWARDS: A cowmsom mus. for {She Dogma sf M. A. MICHIGAN 57M“! COLLEGE Lois Jane Carey I950 ,~ LIBRARY Michigan State' University PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. W01 c'JCIRCIDaIOOuOWp-‘IS RE NFOLD NIEBUHR AKD JONATHAN EDWARDS! A CCKPARIGON By L013 AME COREY A TIESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of English 1950 {a C\ ac; a \ $3 2~I This essay is an attenpt to point out the similari- ties in the lives and, more especially, in the religious creeds cf Reinhold Niebuhr and Jonathan Edwards. I have not endeavored to evaluate their thought nor to trace all the influences which shaped it. Since Reinhold Niebuhr is a contemporary whose life and works have not been completed nor subjected to the scrutiny of biographers, it is difficult to make a Just comparison of his thought with that of Edwards who lived two centuries ago. On the other hand, it is not easy for a person living in the twentieth century to think with the mind of the eighteenth century, so there is also danger of misinterpreting the thought of Edwards. In an effort to be as fair as possible in these reapects I have based my proof of the similarity of the religious creeds of these two theologians chiefly upon their own words as found in their writings rather than depending much upon the Opinions of contemporary critics or biographers, however reputable these may be. It has been a privilege to do this work under the direction of Dr. C. M. Hewlin of the Richigan State College English Department. I wish to express here my gratitude and appreciation for the inspiration I have received from his graduate courses in American literature and for the encouragement and helpful suggestions he has offered as my major professor for the writing of this thesis. L. J. C. Chronological Tables Jonathan Edwards 1561 - 1571 1620 1627 - 1631 I632 - 1633 1636 1638 - 16u2 - 16h6 - 16MB 1650 16st 1557 166% 1669 - 1677 1679 l68h 1685 1685 - 1686 1688 - 1688 1689 - 1626 1691 17oh 1715 1727 1716 1753 1753 1691 1697 Francis Bacon First Congregational Church in England First Congregational Church in America Robert Boyle Only church members admitted as freeaen in Massachusetts John Locke East Windsor settled Harvard College founded Nicolas dc valebranche Isaac Newton Gottfried Liebnets Cambridge Platform; Westminster Confession adapted Descartes died Northampton settled Halquay Covenant Approval of magistrates required in order to settle a minister Rev. Timothy Edwards Spinoza died Reformatory Synod, Boston Colonial Charters withdrawn James II George Berkeley Gov. dndros sent to Boston New England witchcraft trials williem and Mary King fiilliam's War 1691 1692 1693 1701 1702 - 1703* 1703 - 1705 1706 . 1707 - 1708 1710 — 1713 1713 r 171:; .. 1715* 1716 - 1720 1720 - 1721 1722* 1723‘ l72h - 1725 171k 1791 1790 1709 1712 173a 1727 1790* 1722* 1726* New Massachusetts charter EpisCOpalians, Baptists, and Quakers exempt from tax to support Congregational hurch in Massachusetts *illiam and Mary College established Society for the PrOpagation of the Gospel Saybrook (Yale) College established Queen Anne's War Jonathan Edwards born John Wesley Plea of Cotton tether for increased efficiency of councils Benjamin Franklin Controversy over Lord's Supper as convert~ ing ordinance Saybrook Platform John Wise‘s pamphlets Anglican bishOprics established in America German and Scotchelrish immigration George I 'Of Insects” Edwards at Yale John Woolman Edwards studied theology in New Haven Cotton Esther's Christian :hilosther Edwards licensed to preach; went to a Presbyterian Church in New York Resolutions for daily living in Diary Conversion of Edwards Edwards a tutor at Yale Proposed reformatory synod forbidden by King 1726 1726 - 1728 1727' 1727 - 1760 1731* 173%“ 1735* 1736 1737* 1733. 1739’ 1739 - 17u1 17ho 17u1. 17h2* 17th - 1748 1fl%* 17u7 17kg“ Cotton Katheris ganductio gg7Ministerium Berkeley at Horthampton Edwards ordained at Northampton Farriage to Sarah Pierrepont George II Sermon on Man's Dependence First American public library at Philadelphia Sermon on Spiritual Light Arminianisn growing ”anger case First revival at Northampton Wesley sailed for Georgia BishOp Butler's Analogy Narrative g£_3urorising Conversions Whitefield in Georgia Publication of sermons on Justification, etc. John wesley's conversion Narrative of Edward's conversion Whitefield's second visit to America Great Awakening “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry GodI platinguishing Kerks,,. Thoughts an the Revival Whitefield‘s third visit King George's War Treatise on Religious Affe tion College ofrhew Jersey (Princeton) established David Brainerd died Union...for the Revival of Religion formed Trouble at Northampton Freinerd's Life wguulifications for Full Communionl denrde dismissed from Northampton ”Farewell Sermon" Decline of Half-Way Covenant 1751‘ 1752' 175k - 1763 1751~ 1755‘ 1757‘ 1758’ tdwards went to Stockbridge University of Pennsylvania established waards' Reply to Cilliams French and Indian war Freedom g§_the Will any Congress King's College established Treatises on Virtue and on the End of the Creation Edwards as president of Princeton Treatise on Original Sin Edwards d1 ed Reinhold Niebuhr 1303 1806 - 1815 - 1816 1818 ~ 1820 ~ 1020 a 1837 1839 1s42 1851 1356 .- 1559 1860 1851 1663 1363 1865 136 1563 1570 1s70 1372 187h.- 1375 - 1873 1911 1883 1903 1906 1899 1893 . 1910 isnh-~ 18h7 - 1850 ~ 1900 1931 1898 1930 1935 19u1 19k? 1935 ~ 1933 Albright yethodist Church founded John Stuart Mill Concert of Europe Evangelical Association formed Karl Marx terbert Spencer IN,“ 3 wu'nn B. Anthony ( Dwight L. goody Frances Willard William James Friedrich Nietzsche Thomas A. Edison Edward Bellamy Adolf vcn Harnock George Bernard Shaw John Dewey Darwin's Oriein g; Snecies Jane Addams Tagore Henry Ford Billy Sunday Irving Babbitt H. 0. Wells "Victorian Age" Italy unified Bismarck Bertrand Russell Winston Churchill Albert Schweitzer Charles A. Beard 1573 Harry Emerson Posdick 1880 H. L. Mencken 1ss5 will Durant 1885 - 1930 D. J. Lawrence 1886 - 1 Karl Barth Chinng Kai Shek Paul Tillich 1888 Kagawa T. 8. Eliot 1891 - 1919 Kaiser Wilhelm II 1392* Reinhold Nlebuhr martin Niemoller 1393 Joseph Wood Krutch 139$ - 1899 Spanish - American War 1901 Theodore Roosevelt 1903 wright brothers‘ airplane 1910* Niebuhr at Elmhurct College 1913* Niebuhr at Eden Theological Seminary 1911 - 1918 World var I Woodrow Wilson realms 191u* Hiebuhr received a. 0.. Yale Divinity School 1915* Niebuhr received E. A., tale Divinity School Ordained minister in Evangelical Association 1915 - 1928‘ Niebuhr minister at Bethel Evangelical Church, gggggdtSocialist party 1 1918 League of Nations 1920 ~ 1998 Chandi’s non-violent resistance 1921 - 1924 Lenin 1922 ~ 1997 Hussolini 1928 Briana - Kellogg Peace Pact ’ Essa ivilizatio gees Religion? 1923 - 1930* 1929* 1929 ~ 1929 ~ 1933 1930* 1931. 1932* 1933 * 19u5 1933 ~ 19MB 193h~ 1935. 1935 « 19h1 1936* 1936*~ 1937“ 1938 Q 1Ww* 19u1* 19hl - 19MB 19h2* 1933' Hora Kiebuhr associate professor of philosonh, Union Theological Seminary zenves free the flotebodk‘gg‘g Tane- Cynic Italin (first five— ear plan) erression Eiebuhr left Socialist Party Professor of applied Christianity, Union Theological Seminary Japan took “:nohuria Niebuhr married Ursula Keppel - Compton ihe ontribution g; Peligion £3,8091al Wag; ' wen an lancre 300 e l Hitler regime F. D. Roosevelt fieflectione 2n the End f a Era Italy took Ethiopia g; Interoretatiog 2.1: ghgietiag EELS! Nazi aggressions Niebuhr received D. D., Grinnell Fellowship of Socialist Christiane organized Fiohuhr editor of Christinnitz and Societz and Christianltx End Crieig lunich Fact Eiebuhr at University of Pennsylvania Christianitz and Power Pollticg Niebuhr at Amhuret College l2e_Notur§ and heating 9; Van, Vol. I World War II Niebuhr at Yale Eiebuhr at Oxford The Nature and Deatinz 2; Man, Vol. II Riebuhr at Harvard The Children g; Liqht and the Children 91 fiarknesg Atom bomb ~ Hiroshima United Fatione Organization giscerning the Siwne g£_the Time; Philinpine indenendence Marshall Plan Presbyterian New Life novement: eimilar movements in other churchel ”orld Conference of Churches at Amsterdam Decleretion of Human Rights India independent Faith and Histor erdinEI'EIndzenty trial Israel recognized as a nation North Ltlantic Pact Republic of West Germany United States Conference on Church Union established I. II. III. The A. B. The A. C. TABLE OF CCETEETS Eighteenth Century and Jonathan Edwards......... The eighteenth oentUTYOeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1. Science and phllOBOphy............o......o.. 2. R911810neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoo Jonathan Edwards-00000..eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoe 1. YOUth and education.............o........... 2. Conversion.................................. 3. Peetorate at Northampton and marriage....... . Great awakening......o...................... 2. Edwards at BtOCkbrldSEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Presidency of College of new Jersey......... 7. Death.........o............................o Accomplishment'eeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeooeoeeeeeee Twentieth Century and Reinhold Niebuhr.......... Ninetaenth century mfluence.eeeeeeoeeoeoeeeeee. 1. Eoonomlcflu.....o.....o.e..................o. 2. Science and philosothOeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeec Twentieth centuryeeeeoeeeeeepeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeo 1. Science and philosophy........ooo..........o 2. H811$10neeoeeeeoeeeoeeoeoeceeeeeeeeeeceeeeec 3. Efforts toward.wor1d peaooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Ralnh01d NiebUhreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeoeeeceeeeoeeee 1. YOUth and educationeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 2. PPStorate at Detr°1teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoee Z. Professorship at Union Theological Seminary. Trltlng.....o.o....................o.oo..ooo Z. Influences upon Niebuhr'e thought........... . Comparison of the PhilosOphieI of Niebuhr... and Edwards c A Comparison of the Religious Creede or Niebuhr and 3 A. C. deards............................o............ SimilaritiGS.................................... 1. 111380111133 soverelfnty Of 60d90000000000000000 2. Revelation through nature and Seripturee.... 3. Original sin..................o.....o...¢.oo . Limited freedom of Willeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeee P. SOUl and bOdYOQeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeoeeeeee a Repentance and convaraionooceeoeeeeoeeeeeeeo 7. Salvation through Christ.................... 8. Universal benevolence and humility.......... Other-worldlinesl........................... 10. Other Similarities in ideaa...............oo Ditterences...........:t:::::::::::::::::::::::. Conclusion - Reinhold Niebuhr'ie'the'twentieth" century Jonathanofidwardewt:::::::::::::::::t:{{{ .... oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeceot'OCO OIOOQQIODOOGOD’OQOOOIIOOOC".‘...' CICCOOOOO000......COOOIIIOQI. I. THE EIGHTEPITH CEHTUHY AfiD JONATHAN EDWARDS Twenty centuries ago Christ went about doing good. Since that time there have been a few peeple to whom it has been very disconcerting that they have been so easily satisfied with Just going about. One of these was Jonathan Edwards, a Puritan of the fourth generation, who lived during the confusion and controversy of eighteenth century tunerioa. Deism and latitudinarianism began before the close of the seventeenth century to pervade the colonies and to soften the temper of puritan piety, as well as the letter of puritan doctrine. Super- naturalism was attacked by science, dogma by rationalism, pessimism by opti- mism and humanitarianism, and the theo- cratio oligarohy by the rising forces of democracy. science, philosOphy, education, politics, and religion were all faced with new theories and forced to choose one of three modes of action: to strengthen the defenses of their traditional doctrines, to adapt them to the new ideas, or to allow the old to be entirely supplanted by the new. The new science of Newton and the corresponding rational- istic philosOphy would no longer allow men to receive the dogmas of religion new imperialistic political practices without question. Life on the American frontier had made 1 Hal h Barton Perry Puritanism and Democracy (New York, 19kg). P. 1910 . colonial minds receptive to the empirical doctrines of Locke and had made them skeptical of the right of one man or group of men to rule the rest. Dory’fma was face to face with ration- alism.... A critical spirit was stir- ring, an incipient rationalism was beginning to ask questions: orthodoxy for the first time was on the defensive, and illuequipped for the pending battle.2 There was a tendency toward a transition from religious mysticism to philosOphical idealism and from fatalistie supernaturalism to naturalistic self-sufficiency. Ration. alism and liberalism waged war against conservatism. ...as the world grew more complex as the simple theocracy cf the seventeenth century became the regionalized, expand. ing, contentious society of the eighteenth, as winds of new doctrines began to blow... preachers were more and more obliged to entice and caJole their people instead of handing down dogmas....3 Two conflicting forces were at issue in the religious mind from the beginning of Ameri- can history - the obligation to think and act in obedience to certain principles that had been inherited from the past and free- dom under the new colonial conditions to change the code.“ Religious dogmas such as special election and original 2Vernon Louis Parrington, Main Currents n Am§5;25g_ Thought (New York, 1927), Vol. , ooE T, pp. g: . 3Perry Killer, Introduction to Jonathan Edwards, Images 2; Shadowg‘gg Qigine Things (New Haven, 19MS), p. 13. ”Henry Kalloch Rowe The History gngeligion in the y5;3gg States (New Iorh,.l§§fi), p. O . sin had been found by observation and experiment to be inconsistent with a democratic society based upon the rights and worth of the individual. New England villagers, having experienced the kindness of their neighbors in time of need, could not think of them as the totally depraved characters which the Church represented all to be. Although they repeated the familiar creed, the sanction for that creed was gone: it was the voice of dogma that spoke, and not the voice of reason and experience.5 Fact must now receive new respect. No longer could it be a mere servant of theology. Rather theology must be tested by reason and, if found wanting, atheism or religious indifferenee were often the result. To many, Rousseau's teachings of the essential goodness of man, the Arminian doctrines of freedom of the will and individual responsibility, and the deism of Milton and Locke seemed rational substitutes for the old beliefs. Increasing materialism due to the growth of commerce and the development of manufacturing offered another impetus to the decay of the traditional religion. Perry miller speaks of Cotton nether as one of the “men of Boston, where piety had come to terms with mercantile pros- perity.‘ He adds that 'To Edwards their neurgtic moralis- ings were a confession of spiritual poverty.' Parrington, loo. cit. 6 Miller, 92s Cite. p. 17s u, is early as 1679 the leaders of the New England Con- gregational Churches met in a Reforming Synod, called because of the increasing evil practices of the inhabia tents. Among these sins were listed I"imprecaticn in ordinary discoursc,' 'intemperance,' ‘want of truth and promise breaking'.' Later Edwards mentioned “tavern- haunting, vain Company - keeping, Night - walking"8 as evidences of moral laxity. Other writers spoke of the slave trade, sexual immorality, and loss of church member- ship through migration as problems confronting the eighteenth century churches. Proof of a widespread indifference to religion is found by William warren Sweet in the fact that the majority of eighteenth century Americans were not members of any church. Edwards com- plained that “There is commonly a certain unhappy Shyness in great Ken with respect to Religion, as tho' they were ashamed of it, or at least ashamed to do very much at it,}? The half-way Covenant of 1657 which granted a kind of associate membership to nonvconverted children of church 19h5) William Warren Sweet, Hg;ivalism.ig,dmegigg (New Iork, .pe c 8 Some 0 ’hts Concernin the Present Rezixal,,,, (Edinburgh, 3 , p. §5. 9Rev ism,ig figeriga (New York, 19h5), p. 19. 1 . ome Thou ts oncern the Prggent Rezivgl,,,, (EdinburEE‘h. 3 . 13.12501. ”3 ""' 5 members was an attempt to enlarge church membership as was the Wholeway Covenant of Reverend Stoddard, Jonathan Edwards' maternal grandfather, at Northampton. This covenant granted full church.membership, including the privilege of partaking of communion, to all who professed the intention of leading a Christian life, whether or not they had emperienced a conversion. This lessening of the requirements of church membership led to superficially performed religious duties, a living according to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it. Was there ever an Age wherein Strength and Penetration of Reason, Extent of Learning, Exactness of Distinction, Correctness of Stile, and Clearness of Expression, did so abound? and yet, was there ever an Age, wherein there has been so little Love to God, Heavenly- mindedness, and Holiness of Life, among the Professors of the true Religion? Our Peeple don't so much need to have their Heads stored, as to have their Hearts touched; and they stand in the greatest Need of that sort of Preaching that has the greatest Tendency to do this.ll We have placed Religion too much in the external Duties of the first Table: we have abounded in religious Meetings and there has not been a prOportionable In- crease of Zeal for Deeds of Charity, and ther Duties of the Second Table;...la .____II__. Here was another problem of the eighteenth century churches: a shortage of ministers, especially well-trained ones. It was primarily to remedy this that Harvard and the other denominational colleges were being established and improied. 2 Edwards, Some Thou ht Concernin, the Present Revival...(Edinburgh, l7 3), pp. 88-95. Joseph Gray also speaks of this change in attitude toward religion. At this time the old, sterner Calvinism of the past was already changing. Since the harsh predestinetion of the Puritans ascribing salvation to the sheer inacces- sible will of God, with nothing for men to do but accept their fate, men had begun to ask what they could do to put them- 'eelves in such a position that God might save them. Accordingly, they had given themselves to prayer and Bible reading and church attendance, not as works of salvation but as means by which God might be influenced toward them. As time passed they had drifted into the belief.. that these duties really constituted religion itself; and some had begun to go yet further and to speak and conduct themselves as if the Christian life were but the practice of morality and as if what is needed is not the transformation of character but the education of the mind.13 The emphasis had been shifted from the doctrine of divine sovereignty to a creed of benevolence to one'e fellovmen. The clergyman were alarmed lest God light punish this indifference and turning away from Him by withdrawing His blessings from this land. Other events, however, proved favorable to the cause of orthodox religion. Immigrants from Scotland and Ger- many were introducing new creeds into some parts of the country. The preposal for the establishment of Anglican bishOprics in America and the missionary efforts of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel gave New England Pronhets g; the Soul, Chicago, Asingdon, 1936, pp. E? ;e 7 Puritans further cause for strengthening their own churches. The were between England and France increased the colonietl‘ fears that Catholicism might gain a stronghold among them. These fears that God might withdraw Himself from the colonies or that strange doctrines might replace those traditionally held, combining with the efforts of the clergy to increase church membership, prerared the land for a religious revival. The increasing use by ministers of appeals to the emotions rather than to the mind deter- mined the nature of this Great Awakening. It is for his part in that movement that Jonathan Fdwards is usually remembered. This man, who is considered by some to be the greatest American theologian, was born in Fast Tindsor, Connecticut, in 1703, the youngest of eleven children and the only son of a Congregational minister. His mother was a minister's daughter. Young Jonathan received instruction in farm and household tasks and religion, as well as grammar school subjects, from his parents. By the time he entered Isle College at the age of thirteen he had already done cousin derable reading and had written several essays which mani- fested an interest in nature and science and demonstrated his ability in literary composition. One of these essays, 'Of Spiders,” received the acclaim of the British Royal Society. During his four years at Yale Edwards began writing thoughts on religion, nature, science, and philosophy in notebooks; and this habit or making notes of ideas as they occurred to him continued throughout his life, turn nishing ready motorinl for his books and sermons. From his college days Edwards dreamed of writing a systematic 'Rationsl Ac- count of the rain Doctrines of the Christisn Religion Attempted,“ in which he pronosed 'to show how all arts and sciences, the more they are perfected, the more they issue in divinity, end coincide with it, and appear to be an certs of it.‘ The first sketches for the project are the fragments we know 59 'floteu on the Hind' end 'Hotes on science,' written while he was an undergraduate at Yale College...It is less well known that throughout his life he kept a Journal, provisionally entitled 'hiscellsnies ' into which he poured his best though and out of which he intended to construct the monumental 'sccount'.lh However technical as doctrine, this early attempt to set down a philoso- phical ideal on nine sheets of foolscsp is the kernel of everything that inter took root. It is Edwards' first attempt to harmonize emotion and reason, mercy and Justice, fate and free will. To read the world in terms of love was deerds' unique contribution to the philosophic system of Calvin.15 At this time also he began keeping a record of the books he hsd reed, among which were those of Locke and Miller, 22. cit., p. 1 f. 15 Litersry History 9§_the United States edited by Robert E. toiller et al.. New YorE: hecniIIan, 1948, I, 72. ‘ newton, and of those which he wanted to read. His diary, too was kept uputo-date along with his other writings. at the sane time that he was discovering the new science and phiIOSOphy which strongly nypeeled to his logical mind, his Calvinistic tenets were strengthened by his theological studies. Consequently, rather than discarding the traditional Puritenien, he attempted to explain and to find a logical foundation for it by means of these new ideas. He found that the new science helped to clarify the doctrines of special election and predes- tination which he had not yet been able to accept without question. Tie rationalietic philosophy also eided.him in fitting his sense of a union of God with nature into his religious creed. Considering the amount of time and concentration all this meditating and writing must have taken, it is not surprising to learn that fideerds was not a scalable type of person. it times when he resolved to visit his friend- more often he usually managed to become involved in some theological argument with.them or to alienate them by try- ing to reform them. “All his life he was to be one etanding before many; never one of a group sitting side by side in friendly equality and comradmhip.‘16 Ola Elizabeth Winslow, Jonathon Edwards (New York, l9h0’e Po 670 10 In 1720 Edwards went to Yale to study theology for two years. At the end of this time, ie wee licensed to preach and wee sent to a smell Presbyterian Church in New York which he served from ingest 1722 until Hay 1723. On January 12, 1723 at the age of twenty, Edwards experienced a religious conversion and dedicated his life to God. Thin conversion experience was not motivated by a preacher an were those which later took place among his parishioners during the Great Lwakening, but arose from his meditation. on the Scriptures and the mystical inspiration he re- ocived while walking alone in the woods and fields where he felt a complete union with God and the universe. As a young men he felt himself to be living in the very presence of God; he was conscious of the divine life flowing throth and around him, making him one with the Godhood; and he was filled with yearning for personal union with the divine love in Christ. Hie intellectual and spiritual life was molded by a God-consciousness as passion. ate as that of Spinoza; and it is this fact of a life-long devotion to the Gods idea that furnishes the clue to an under. standing of his develoonent. Not content that God had marked him for His own, he muet build a philosophical universe about the Godhead, Justifying his mysticism by a metaphysical idealism. He must examine critically the foundations of his creed and establish his theology upon philo- BODhYel? The year followiew his conversion, Edwards began a two year term as a tutor at Yale. In 1726 he 135 .L Purington. 32‘ Site. pe 152e 11 appointed assistant pastor of the Congregational Church in Northampton, his Grandfather Stoddard's parish and the most influential clerical position in Massachusetts out- side the Boston district. It was also a rather difficult congregation for s young minister to please. The village of Northampton has grown rapidly in wealth and inportanoe. Many of its inhabitants were marked by cultivation of mind, and refine. ment of manner. They were also characterized by a certain high.- spiritedness which made them a turo bulent people, not easy to control. They rejoiced in their reputation as a knowing peOple, and many of them having been promoted to places of public trust there had been much to feed their pride. There was also an unfortunate division among them: the court party, as it might be called had wealth, land, and authority; w e the country party, not so well endowed, was Jealous of them, afraid of their having too much power in town and church.18 In 1727 Jonathan Edwards became full pastor of the Northampton Church. In this year also he married Sardh Pierrepont, s brilliant and devout women who submerged her life in the purpose which.dominatsd her husband's. Edwards was, despite his preoccupation with books and theological dogmas, s devoted husband and an affectionate, though stern, father. Family letters which have been preserved show s quite different person than one would picture from reading ""'IZ"' AlexanderA. V. G. Allen, gonathan Edward; (Boston, 1891), p. #0 12 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.‘ Time was to him the most precious of commodities, yet in the line of pastor- a1 duty there were no marks or limits to his generosity. He could spend half of his morning composing a methodical fourteen - page answer to Deborah Hatha- way of Suffield, who had requested 'Mr. - Edwards to tell her Some Directions how to Conduct [Her] Self in her Christian Course.‘ He had time to prove to a boy of thirteen that a piece or matter two inches square is eight times as large as a piece one inch square. The demon. stration was made with pieces or wood cut by Jonathan Edwards, first into one - and two a inch cubes and then into smaller and smaller pieces to be handled and measured by the incredulous child.l9 ‘ It has been found also that the majority at Edwards' sermons were not terrifying ones. As e young preacher he chose more texts from Revelation, Psalms, Proverbs, Solomon's Song than in later years, and he also developed his thought more pee- tioally....These early sermons suggest many correspondences to his own personal experiences, his sweet sense of the divine presence, and his own absorption in religious contemplation. He made much of the beauty of nature as an earnest of celestial glory...Ae he grew older, there was less or the mystie's rapture, more interest in doctrine, s more realistic View of human nature, and more emphasis on the practical Virtue. of Christian living.20 These sermons appealed to his people even though.he Winslow, 23. 9.3.50: p. 128. 20 age; p. 1390 13 became increasingly insistent upon reviving doctrines which they had, in their daily living, rejected. “Here was a young man who, without calling the offensive nee doctrine by name, preached the old with such fervor as to 21 make it appear the more desirable.‘ The doctrines he preached seemed new because they were expressions of his own religious experiences and because he, with deep humility truly 'practiced what he preached.' The fact that 'he preached to them one and all as though they'vere 22 his peers,“ Bdwards' belief that laymen should encourage and aid religious work, and his realization that new beliefs should be introduced and old ones abolished grad- ually, so as not to create Opposition nor prejudice, help to eXplain his success as a pastor. We are in the secret of his being when we comprehend how on the one hand‘he humbled himself as few Christians euc- seed in doing, to a realization that only God can speak for Himself, but on the other hand enjoyed the magnificent assurance that he, solitary in pioneer America, could accurately report the vocabulary of the deity's monologue.23 Edwards' conviction of his own right- ness - stern, yet truly humble . was as an armor of invincibility,....He stood for a dogma that the peOple were rejecting; he stood incorruptible in e """EI"" Ibl D I 1 . 22___§.e D 53 bid. . 12 . 23;... s P 7 Killer, 22¢ Olte. pe 35o 1h moral world where compromise vith.lax tenets foreboded spiritual death: and he, not the laity, was qualified to Judge the tenets of faith.2# Edwards did not confine his interests and efforts to his own parish. He attended the biennial meetings of the Hampshire Association of ministers at which ministerial problems and theological tepios were discussed, and was instrumental in establishing a library for the use of members of this association. He corresponded and ex- changed bcoks with other ministers, especially those abroad where he was better known as a theologian than at home. It was, however, the lesser theologians of his day who knew him best e the Presbyterian ministers of Scotland and such men as Isaac Watts and John Wesley. In 1735 the unprecedented religious revival at North- ampton brought Edwards into the consciousness of his own countrymen and became the first in a nationwide series of revivals, known as the Great awakening, vhich.lasted until 1750. Edwards soon became the intellectual leader among the ‘Nes Lights', as those Puritans were called who in- clined toward religious individualism and participated in revivalism, he constructed a philosOphy which is impressive for its personal intensity w Thomas H. Johnson in %onathan Edwardg: Rgpresggp §g§§1§h8ele%t%cns edited by arence . Faust and ones . 0 son 03800 1935’s p. “2339 15 as well as for its masterly dealing with the intellectual currents of his day.25 It was during these yearethat most of Edwards' books were written and published. By the end of this period he had become the philosOphioal theologian and would not again be a theological philosopher. His reads ing and interest in fields other than theology did not diminish, but henceforth this other'knowledge must serve only to strengthen theological tenets. His greatisg gpgr gerning Religious affections was an attempt to form a psychology of religion, using science and the logic of rationalism to defend emoticnalism as a valid part of religious esperience and thus to eXpress his faith in the work of George Whitefield. Edwards was loath to criticise any method which appeared to awaken the religious impulse in men who had for too long subdued or ignored it and he fought with sermons, pamphlets, letters, and books against those who would belittle the Great Awakening. His prowess in this field of battle has been aptly described by Miss Winslow who says that Edwards was ...thoroughly at home in the controver- sial manner. Freight of minutiae does not retard his progress. The whole argument moves with a rush and celerity, as though carried from point to point by its own momentum. His resources ‘ 2 Herbert W. Schneider .A.Ei5t°£l f Ameriggn fihilosORQI (New York, 19M6): p. . ‘2' 16 seem exhaustless; his intellectual energy is astounding. With his readers winded and left far behind, he turns a new corner as though the race had Just begun.25 During these years while Edwards' fame was growing abroad, his pepularity began to wane in herthampton. The trouble began when he publicly censured some of the young people of the town's best families for reading Englidh novels and culminated in‘a division of the church ever the qualifications for full communion. For the moment he seemed an isolated reactionary, lost to the times be» cause he would not compromise with them. Need religion be more than regular church attendance, profession of a reasoned belief in godly living based on good breeding and humanitarian interests in the welfare of one’s neighbors? Edwards thought it should be.27 Edwards' emphasis on the validity of individual be- liefs was his undoing. Although the Congregational Church government was based on local autonomy and believed in individual freedom, its officers have no ecclesiastical authority. In attempting to return to the hierarchical practices of the earlier new England pastors and to regress from his grandfather's whole-say covenant, Edwards met the Opposition of his congregation and was finally forced to leave Northampton. W 2 s Ms. p. 302e W Historz g; the United States, I, 7h. 17 that Jonathan Edwards had done...was to take the life principle of all religion, as he had found it out by his own search, vital and Joy-giving, and shut it up in the hush of a deed idiom. He translated a personal eXperience into a theological system, and a system of which forward - looking men, even among the clergy, had begun to be disrespectfu1.28 In 1751 Edwards and his family moved to Stockbridge, a small settlement established as a center for an Indian mission. Edwards welcomed the change to a place where his duties as preacher and as host to travellers would be lessened, thereby affording more time for study and writing. However, he found much to be done among the Indians, in whom David Brainerd‘?9 had interested him, and.very little material and few assistants for the work. Here, too, he met-with hindrances from some of his wife's relatives who had also had much to do with his removal from Horthampton. He became more dependent than before upon reading and meditation for pleasure. He became greatly interested in interpreting current history as the fulfillment of scrip- tural prophesy and devoted much time to planning a book which.vould show the relationship of history and Chris- tianity. W Winslow, 22. gi§,, p. 157. 29 Brainerd was engaged to one of Edwards' daughters and was cared for in his last illness at the Edwards home in Northampton. The scholarly pastor gained much'kncv» ledge and inspiration from the young missionary and in 17%? published a Lifg‘gg David Brainegg. l3 .eocordinj to Tdverds Scripture reads like one continuous chapter of rul- filled orophecy. His interpretation of history is in harmony with his View of life, as ordered by divine deorees.30 lot in the writing which has been preserved from this period, Edwards spoke little about happenings which.aeemed very important to others of his time. when the Frauen and Indian War began in 175%, he did urge defensive warfaro as a duty to God, the country, end oneself. However there loans to be no mention of the Albany Congress, which we. held the some year that his Freedom 2; 21?; m was pub- lished, nor of the growing number of pamphlets and speeches which laid the basis for the movement toward the Revolution and colonial independence. The writing which Edwards did during these later years dealt increasingly with abetrsct theological doctrines, es the treatise! on virtue, the end of the creation, and original sin. Hie years or eelf—ebnegation end the worry of the last year: at Horthempton were now taking toll of’his health. Neveru thelus in 1757 he accepted the presidency of the mm. terian College of new Jersey. He was warmly received by the faculty and was admired end respected by the students. Edwards' youthful interest in science had been con- tinued and, ironically, he died a few months after becoming Allen, 920 9.1-3.0. P. 2921‘. 1‘3 president of the college, as the result of a smallpox vaccination. Death was not a thing which he feared. Early in his career he had resolved to live each day as if it were to be his last and he had often spoken and written of the sweetness and Joy he anticipated when he should Join his taviour in Heaven. The deeds and words of this man's life had been dedi~ sated solely to proclaiming to his felloenen the absolute sovereignty of his God. "The God consciousness was the deepest substratum of his being, - his natural heritage from.Puriten antecedents, coloring or qualifying every 31 intellectual conviction be attained.” Out of his searchp ing to understand and explain the reality of this omnipo— tent God grew Eduards' theories of the reality of human tin and the Justification of its punishment, the personal and emotional nature of religion, and the doctrine of necessity. Fundamentally, his beliefs were the beliefs of the greet religions of all ages. He believed that man‘s life is of eternal consequence. He believed that the imperfect world we see cannot be ell. He believed that reality is of the Spirit. He believed that there is a pathway to present peace in spite of the frustrations of life, and that men can find it, but not of himself. that is his greatness! In a word, it is the greatness of one who had a Allen, 93. 39,1... 1). 6. 33 ist:rtinin; part in initiating en' directing a popular movesent of fer- reeehin; consequence, and who in addition laid the foundations for a new system of religious thought, also of far-reaching consequence....fle was a compelling preacher and also a master logicis.; en evangelist and also a thinker; a metenhysician on the side of the New Lights.32 Combining the severe piety of the first generation of the fathers with.the my- stical fervor of en eighteenth century prophet, he performed for the churches the service of clarifying their theology and spiritualizing their religion.33 Win'low. Op. 01%.. PP. 325“9e Rowe, 0p. cit., p. 48. II THE TWENTIETH CENTURY AED RKIEHOLD HIQBUHR Jonathan Edwards was a man of mighty intellect and of a faith more vigorous still. It has been nearly two hun- dred years since his death and his eQual among the follow- ers of Him who went about doing good has not yet been dis- covered. There is, however, a theologian of our day, Reinhold Niebuhr, whose life and thoughts are so similar to Edwards that they invite speculation as to whether he may be the twentieth century counterpart of that eighteenth century man of God. Even the era in which he lives is comparable to #dwarde‘ time, in spite of two centuries of progress and change. Since Niebuhr was born a few years before the end of the Victorian Era, it is necessary to begin with the nine. teenth century in order to understand the elements which made the world of his time. Of the religious situation or the nineteenth century Ralph Barton Perry writes: To secular doubt was added the waning influence of protestant Christianity. Although Catholicism grew less rapidly than protestantism, the absolute num- ber of its adherents steadily increased, and Catholic Opinion exercised a more conscious political influence. At the same time an increasing number of Americans were without religious ad- herence of any kind, The religious change was to be mea- sured not so much in terms of the num- ber of church members as in a wavering and thinning of faith among professing 21 22 protestants....The theory of evolution seemed to assimilate man, soul and body, to nature. The development of Biblical criticism struck a blow at the authority which protestantism had substituted for the church. New cults, such as Ethical Culture and Christian Science, won adherents from the recog- nized protestant sects. The World's Parliament of Religions held in Chicago in 1893 disemminated the idea that non- Christien religions possessed claims equal, or even superior, to those of Christianity. In the protestant sects themselves latitudinarian and modern— iet tendencies dulled the edge of or- thodoxy and tended to obliterate the line between the religious and the moral sanctions.1 Niebuhr reminds us that our twentieth century capi- tolism grew out of the liberalism in philosOphy, the laisseg - ggigg economic theory, and the ethical utilitaro ianism cf the nineteenth century. The expansive mood of an era, which felt that its conquest of nature had provided the human race with new and unlimited possibilities of deve10p~ ment; the effect of the evolutionary theory in biology upon the interpreta- tion of human history: and the confi- dence of modern rationalism in the possibility of arresting the processes of nature by the artifices of mind, all these have contributed to the un- limited faith in itself of a commer- cial civilization.2 In nineteenth century Europe Mill's utilitarianism, 1 Puritenisn and Democragx (New York, 19h4), p. 16. O 'Reflectione on the End 9; an Era (New York, 193R), 9. 3. 23 Darwin’s theory of evolution, the socialism of marx, Spencerian biology, Nietzschian morality, and romanti- cism in literature and art were laying the foundation for the intellectual world of the nineteen-hundreds. In America the pragmatic philosophy of William James and the educational theories of John Dewey were to have wide- spread effect. All this intellectual development as well as the growth of a mechanistic, urban civilization based upon the accumulation of material wealth were in a great measure made possible by the hundred years of peace from 1615 to 191“, maintained by means of the Concert of Eurcpe. . nationalism grew and, along with a greater national- istic consciousness, the United States experienced an in- crease in sectional controversies which culminated in the Civil War. That conflict with the consequent abolition of slavery formed the basis for racial problems of the twentieth century. Another deveIOpment concurrent with a spirit of national pride was a tendency toward imperialistic policies. Imperialism became evident in the United States with the beginning of the SpanishpAmerican War in 1898, and later talk was heard of “manifest destiny,‘ words to salve the consciences of those whom imperialism would benefit. During the latter part of the nineteenth century 2% came the gold rush, the Homestead Act, the discovery of petroleum and the conseduent develooment of oil trusts, the achievement of woman suffrage, and the opening of the West by the railroads managed by more trusts. The capi- talistio society of the twentieth century was fast emergb ing. Industry developed mass production methods based upon standardization and an emphasis upon quantity rather than quality, and all our resources and too many of our peeple were being sXploited. Partly because of the latter, labor unions were formed, and these have played a promi- nent role in the United States of the twentieth century. Prison reforms, temperance, and equal rights for women were the social reforms advocated during the latter part of the nineteenth century while Dwight L. Moody preached to lost souls and Thomas Edison invented electric lights. The end of the “Gay Nineties“ found Italy united, the German states Joined under the Prussia cf Bismarck, and the age of Victoria drawing to a close. The first decade of the twentieth century found the American middle class capitalistic system well established. along with this develOpment of a mechanistic “gadget civilization“ had evolved a spirit of individualism in thought and behaviour. There was also a revolt against the romanticism of the nineteenth century and a seeking for realism which was 25 encouraged by the new scientific, philOSOphical, and psychological theories. Parrington sees in this an attempt to return to the eighteenth century realism of John Locke. In accord with this search for realism were the de- bunkers of history, those who carried on extensive re- search to prove that George Washington was capable of pre- varication and that the Puritans were not pure, and the muckrakers who unearthed the corruption of politics and trust companies. The seal for realism and the desire to base all knowledge upon science created a new liberalism in thought at the same time that a spirit of skepticism and cynicism developed which was not lessened by a de- pression, two world were, and experiments with atomic energy. Geographers and map salesmen often mention our ”air age world,“ and they are not wrong in emphasizing the changes brought about by air communication. One of the most drastic revisions of thought which must be made by twentieth century man is the exchange of the one country or one section viewpoint for an intellectual field of vision which includes the people and interests of the entire world. Niebuhr finds the root of this dual spirit of nationalism and sectionalism in the tendency to hide 93. sign Vol. III, p. xxviii. 26 all emotion or passion which was one of the character- istics of the revolt against romanticism. Sentiment is organically related to relition and when hearts grow cold anything that warms them will seem to be religious. Our age is so passionately nationalistic, partly because it has lost all other pace sions. Incaoable of loyalty to either an abstract principle or value or to a larger human fellowship, the average man saves himself from moral bankruptcy by espousing the cause of some comparatively small community his family or nation preferably with more than ordinary fervor.h Once again, than, men were faced with new ideas and must decide whether to receive or reject them. Again some scorned the new and were labeled oldefashioned or cowardly, some attempted to fuse the best of both old and new, and others rejected all traditional thought and feeling and welcomed the new ways with a maximum of eOphisticated Optimism and a minimum of common sense. Niebuhr believes that the optimism of these modsrne is grounded in the mechanical nature of our civilization which hides the very realities of life which they profess to be seekin . Bewildereent and despair are often the only rewards for these searchers. The present social problem, Niebuhr conceives, is to build a new culture to meet the requirements of a new way of living. He is w “A Religion Worth Fighting For," The Surv , Vol. LVIII (August 1, 1927), p. use. 27 concerned because '...en increasing number of sensitive spirits, whose chief interest is the social problem, regard religion as a hindranceprather than a help in re- deeming society from its ills.D Religion, as in most intellectual upheavals, is being put to a severe test. "The curse of modern reli- gion is that it is so busy adjusting itself to the modern mind that it can find no energy to challenge the modern conscience."6 Hiebuhr defines modernism as I'the spirit in the religious community which issues from the con- flict between science and religion and results from the effort of religion to adjust its affirmations to the modern world View.7 hiebuhr regards the religion of modern culture as a superficial one, substituting 'a cheap optimism for a profound religious faith,"8 and says that ”The Christian Church of America has never been upon a lower level of spiritual insight and moral sensitivity than in this tragic age of world conflict."9 Niebuhr finds religion increasingly influenced by 6Moral Man and lmmoral Sgcigtz (haw York, 1932), p. 51. Hiebuhr, I‘Wculd Jesus Be A hodernist Today)", The World gonorrow, Vol. XII (March, 1929), p. 12}. Ibid, p. 122. 8...... 'Is Social Conflict Inevitablel', Scr bner' Me a- zine, Vol. XCVIII (September, 1935), p. . Christianitz and Power Politics (New York, 19h0), p. 33- . successful clnsses of peOple who are responsible for its Optimism and sentimentality and who do not come to church to be scolded. The insights of the Christian reli- gion have become the almost exclu~ sive possession of the more comforta- ble and privileged classes. These have sentimentalized then to such a degree, that the disinherited, who ought to avail themselves of their resources, have become so conscious of the moral confusions which are associated with them, that the in- sights are not immediately available for the social struggle in the West- ern world. If they are not made available, Western civilization,... will suffer from cruelties and be harrsssed by animositiea which de- strcy the beauty of human life.10 The trend toward regarding religion and church attendance as a form of social security and the consequent preponder» ance of well-to-do peeple among the congregations of the established churches may have encouraged the formation of the hundreds of swell denominations and sects of every variety instinahle es sell as obscuring the true purpose of religion. The sentimental religionist still spedks of the essential goodness of men without realizing how evil good men can be. Anyone who really knows the modern world must be impressed by the fathomlees sentimentality which corrupts the life of the modern church. W Moral flan and Immoral Society (New York, 1932), pp. 225 7- 29 It obsesses men with their petty de- cenciss, and thereby obscures the more basic moral defects of their social attitudes. In them religion easily becomes a kind of romance by which men save their self-respect without moralizing their economic activities. The modern religious over - estimate of human virtue inevitably produces a cynical reaction. Then religion is pessimistic, irreligion produces a housseau. when religion becomes corrupted by the romanticism of its former foes, irreligion expresses it- self in the cynicism of harx - and shall we include henchenlll Besides religions indifference, scorn of traditional moral and spiritual codes, and preoccupation with mater— ial gain, the churches of the first half of the twentieth century have been faced with a shortage of ministers, lack of funds, and competition from secular entertainment such as golf, baseball, movies, fraternal orders, and other interests which draw people away from religious services. Spreading from Germany, Japan, and Russia has been an actual persecution of Christians more horrible than that of the early Christians in Rome. The modern ministry is in no easy position; for it is committed to the espousal of ideals (professionally at that) which are in direct conflict with the dominant interests and 11 hiebuhr, "A Religion Worth Fightint For," zhg Surve , Vol. LVIII (Eu ust l, 1927), p. uh 30 prejudices of contemporary civilisa- tion.12 In Hiebuhr's diary we read of another problem which faces theologians of our time. One half of the world seems to believe that every poetic symbol with which relLrion must deal is an exact defini- tion of a concrete or e.n historical fact, the oth er half, hevin3 learned that this is not the case, can come to no other conclusion but that all religion is based upon fantasy.l3 Despite the chaos and pessimism, the doubting and _the wars, there have been a number of hopeful signs in the twentieth century. The belief that a revival of religion. will furnish the resources by which :nen will extricate tr enselves from their social che.os is a perennial one, end it exnresses itself even in an age in which the forces of religion are on the defersive {:3 ainst a host of enemies and detractors. 1H Evangelists like Billy Sunday have reached peepls who were not welcome in the fashionable city churches. chdick, Buttrick, Kagasa, Hiemoller, Ghandi, Higgins bottom, Trueblood, 3. Stanley Jones, and Peter marshall are among the prominent memes of our time. fhere has been a 3rowin3 desxand for books of a relif ious nature, Niebuhr Leaves from the Noteboog‘g_.§ Tameg‘gznig (Chicigo, 19295,” p. vii. 3 h1b1d.. p. 1&1. Niebuhr, Yong; Fan and Immoral societz.(New York, 1932). P0 510 31 and movies with religious motifs have been well received. Within the churches there have been new life move- ments, organizations of men's groups, new educational materiels, and more emphasis on layman participation. World tar II brought proof of the effectiveness of mis- sionary work in many lands. There have been several movements toward the unification of Protestant Churches and more evidence of cooperation, in some cases cooper- ation'with Jewish, Catholic, and other faiths. More government officials, both national and local, seem con- oerned with religion and acknowledge its necessity. Two attempts have been made in the past thirty years to create a workable organization for the mainten- ance of world peace. Neither of these has been perfect, but at least the thing has been attempted: and the United Nations Organization is still at work. The twentieth century has its prophets who warn of punishment for sin, but give hepe for the world if roe pentanoe comes soon enough. Probably the foremost of these theologians is Reinhold Niebuhr who was born June 21, 1392 in Wright City, Kissouri, the son of a German Evangelical pastor. He had two brothers and one sister. The Gernan Evangelical Church to which the Niebuhr family belonged is an offspring of the German Lutheran Church. It was founded by a Lutheran, Jacob Albright, 32 who Joined the :ethodist Church through a conversion eXperience. He soon became dissatisfied because the Methodist bishOp would not permit the preaching of ser~ none in German and in 1803 founded a separate church known as The Newly-Formed hethodist Conference, Albright Methodists, or German Albright Methodists. The name was changed in 1816 to the Evangelical Association. It was known as an aggressively perfectionist denomination, and E. T. Clark writes that “By 1655 the group had definitely classed merely 'Justified‘ or 'partly sanctified' per- sons with sinners and the lost.‘1 The Evangelical Church has an episccpal form of government with bishops elected by the General Conference to superintend the churches and preside at the annual and general conferences. The preachers form classes of candidates for offices and direct the elections at which the presiding elder is chosen. This elder presides over Quarterly Meetings and Conferences and auperintends the district churches. The minister also has the power to receive and eXpel members. The members of this church believe in the Trinity, the resurrection, original sin, free will through grace, Justification by faith, and the Holy Scriptures as the decree of God. 8 The Small Sects ig,5merioa (Nashville, 1937), p. 90 33 From boyhood Niebuhr wanted to be a minister like his father. In 1910 he entered Elmhurst College in Illinois to study liberal arts and theology. At college he attempted to adjust his traditional religious con- cepts to the new scientific beliefs. He attended Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1913 and in 191% went to Yale Divinity School with the in- tention of earning a doctorate in theology. Religious liberalism with its talk of rationalism and progress was at its height then and it had its effect upon Niebuhr. By the time he graduated a master of arts, [19153 for which he read a con- siderable amount of theology he had become irritated by the irrelevance of much of his theological study to the actual daily life around him.l6 Niebuhr says in an article in Mimi? that World War I shifted his interest from the metaphysical validity to the moral efficacy of religion. Kepler sug- gests that Niebuhr's supernaturalist beliefs were a re- sult of that war.18 This change in interest caused him to leave Yale upon the receiving of his master's degree instead of renaining to become a Doctor of Divinity, and 16 Davies D. R. Reinhold Niebuhr grephgg frog America (New fork, léugi, p. 3. . See footnote #37. 18 Contemporary geligioug Thought (New York, 19am). 31+ also to hesitate whether he should become a pastor or a theological teacher. He decided to follow his original desire and was ordained a minister by the Evangelical Synod in 1915. He was sent to serve Bethel Evangelical Church in Detroit whose membership consisted of eighteen families, factory workers living in the slum section of the city. The first and greatest obstacle the young pastor had to overcome was his personal shyness and sensitivity which made pastoral calling a painful ordeal. The sincere welcome he received and the gratefulness of his parish! oners for his interest in their problems helped him to forget his fears. It was during these years that he rs~ solved I am going to try to be a disciple of , Christ, rather than a mere Christian in all human relations and experiment with the potency of trust and love much more than I have in the past.l9 Here his interest in theological problems became subordinated to a sympathy for individual people. His parishioners were Ford employees and he was one of the first to recognize the bad effects of assembly line methods of production. He felt that even medieval peasants were more fortunate than these factory workers since they at *5... Leaves from the Noteboq5‘_§ a Tamed,gggig (Chicago, 1929). Po E3. 35 least had some opportunities for creative selfbexpreseion. 'Hcre manual labor is drudgery, and toil is slavery. The men cannot possibly find any satisfaction in their work.20 hiebuhr became a member of the Socialist party, believing that it was working for the betterment of such peOple as these. Young and old liked and respected their new pastor who strove to make their Church a place of Joy and hope in their dreary lives. He formed young peeple's Sunday. School classes and evening discussion groups, and estaba' lished an informal Sunday evening service in which there was much congregational participation. Although he liked his work, his salary of fifty dol- lars a month was inadequate. He began writing articles for religious periodicals to supplement his earnings and to enable him to buy a few of the books he was anxious to read. These articles brought him to the attention of church leaders and led to his being offered an assistant professorship in theology at Union Theological Seminary in 1928, the same year in which his first book,‘Qggg Civilization ggeg Religion: was published. By the time he left Bethel Church that year its membership had in- creased from the forty who belonged when he became pastor 20 Quoted in James W. Hoffman, “Protestant Prephet ' Eresbzterian Life, Vol. II No. XIV (July 9, 1949), p. f. 36 to over eight hundred. .In 1930 hiebuhr was advanced to professor of applied Christianity, which position he still holds. During that year he received a letter from the Socialist party de- manding that he advocate a non-intervention policy, where- upon he immediately resigned from the party. . In 1931 he married Ursula Koppel-Compton, the only Englishmoman to be awarded a I'first" in theology at Oxford. They have two children, Elizabeth and ChristOpher, to when they both devote as much of their time as possible. hiebuhr received his doctor's degree from Grinnell College in 1936. Since that time he has continued ad. vanced study at various institutions, including Oxford, and has given lectures at many of them. He is well known by theologians at home and abroad and is very pOpular with.his young students. Also in 1936 Niebuhr was instrumental in founding the Fellowship of Socialist Christians in America, a society whose title is rather misleading. Its purpose is to correlate Christianity and social reconstruction. Among its activities have been raising funds to aid in rescuing EurOpean antiohaziis, the support of European refugees from Naziism, conferences on labor problems, investigation of the problems of low-paid workers, and a study of hexro - white relationships in america. This 37 society also publishes a quarterly Journal, Christianigl gag Society,21 and a biweekly magazine, Christianity 239 Crisis, both of which are edited by Niebuhr. In addition to this work, his teaching, preaching, and lecture tours, hiebuhr has written twelve books and regularly contri- butes to several periodical publications, both religious and secular. Thus he has become one of the Outstanding - and most discussed - theologians of our time, especially since the publication of the ponderous two - volume 223 Hagurg an; Easting 9; £212 which ear-plains his beliefs in detail and brings together the theories he has eXpounded in his other books and lectures. His latest book, {gigh' gag’xisto , is an attempt to apply his doctrine to the solution of the social problems of our day by comparing the Christian with the modern View of history. Continued reading and study by a man possessed of a brilliant mind and the wisdom to distinguish between fact and supposition have made him respected even by his Opponents. The books which Niebuhr believes to have most influenced his thinking are Harmack's Essencg‘gi‘ghgigy tianity, Carlyle's Barter Pesertus and others, Troeltsohe's gogiallehreg der gagistlichen Kircke, Schweitzer's Civilization and Ethics, and works by william James, especially Eiii 1,2 geliezg. LI This publication was originally entitled Radica; Religion. 38 It is generally conceded that Paul Tillich, a disciple of Karl Earth, has exerted the most influence of any contemporary upon Niebuhr's thoujht. Earthian I'crisis theology" was introduced to fmerica b Tillich and hiebuhr at the beginning of the depression era when there was a reaction against the extreme humanism of American liberals. This theology rejected the social gospel theory. t emphasized ”God's absolute otherness, his absolute sovereignty and the absolute crisis in hundn living."22 The followers of Be rtthelieve that man's natural life is evil only if it claims to be, or is conducted as if it were, self-sufficient. Thus they find an absolute crisis, the necessity for making a de- cision for or against God, in every situation; and evidence of the reality of God in the ability of humans to view every situation with disinterestedness and objec- tivity and with a Judgment undistorted by fear or passion. Hiebuhr, meeting twentieth century man upon his own ground, stresses Christianity in relation to history. The truth of the Gospel must be preached today to a generation which honed that historical deve10p~ ment would gradually emancipate man from the ambiguity of his position of strength and weakness and would save him from the sin into which he cf 5. Henry. llelson Tienen and Be rnrrd Futons island, inerioen ihilosowhigg 2;,fieligie g (New York, 1936), p. 85. 39 falls by trying to evade or deny the contradiction in which he lives. Ex- perience has proved that mode of eel- vation to be an illusion. But a Gospel which can penetrate through this illusion and save men from the idolatrous confidence in history as a redeemer will also shake the false islands of security which men have sought to establish in history in the name of the Gospe1.23 Davies finds hiebuhr's social and political Judg- ments to be based upon two principles: the relative character of all historical situations and Judgments and the absolute, eternal significance of the relative his~ torical situation. hiebuhr's philosOphy, then, adheres to the principle of the pertinence of the Christian goe- pcl to etery situation in life, the personal element in history, the reality of the sin within each person which causes the corruption of society, an unbiased appraisal of both sides of any conflict, and a retention of the permanent values of both traditional and modern philoso- phieso Hiebuhr's view of Christianity commits the Church, as the historic agent and vehicle of the Gospel, to a theory or permanent revolution in the literal sense.It commits the Church to s funda- mental opposition to the world till the very end of time....If the Church is to be faithful to her Lord and his Gospel, she must wage war ageinst the world for the entire duration of history until it rang m History (new York, 19%), 13. 2h}. he an is swallowed up in the eternal order. In his first hock Niebuhr foretold the effect upon the effect upon the individual of the Christian life in which he believes. Not to be conformed to this world, if it is to have any real meaning in modern life, will mean that the re. ligiously inspired soul knows how to defeat the avarice and to overcome the indifference to the worth of human personality which inheres in the whole economic and industrial structure of modern society.25 Niebuhr often warns the modern church of the inefb ficacy with which it is hampering itself by adapting itself to the ways of the world. Traditional religion is otherworldly. The modern church prides itself on its bright and happy worldlinesl. It is more interested in transforming the natural and social environment of personality than in persuading the soul to transcend all circumstances and find its happiness in inner peace. The modern church regards this mundane interest as its social passion. But it is also the mark of its slavery to society. Whenever religion feels cone pletely at home in the world, it is the salt which has lost its savor. If it sacrifices the strategy of renounc- ing the world, it has no strategy by which it may convict the world of sin.26 “Tu—.— 2522s 2&9. p. 9"". Does givilization Need Religion? (New York 1928) p. 232 I...__.. ........... ' o s 26 kl Niebuhr, because of his emphasis upon the reality of sin and the incompetence of humans to overcome their difficulties alone, has been called a pessimist, yet he believes more deeply than some who are known as optimists that there is hape for our civilization. As we look upon modern civilization with its glorification of man's trie bal instincts with its aggravation of human greed and avarice, with its spiritual confusion and moral impo- tence, it is difficult to entertain any immediate hope for the finer aspirations of man. Nevertheless I cling to hope. I believe that modern civilization can finally be brought under the control of the human spirit and that the spiritual and ethical forces of civilization now so impo- tent can finally be made socially efr°°t179027 It is said that whatever pessimism.Niebuhr may appear to express is offset by the magnetism of his personality. Professor Atkins once said, "He can skin civilization. hand the hide up to dry, and offer prayer over the car- cass.“'26 Jones called him "a recusant, an independent, a pathfinder,“ and said that he “loves to shock the com- placent.“ He further described.Niebuhr as “a.kind of spiritual mustard plaster on the body ecclesiastical" and “A Religion Worth Fi hting For " 2133 m Vol. LVIIIEQAugustl, 1927). p. “Eh ' ' Quoted in Edgar DeWitt Jones égegican Prgacherl 9; Today (Indianapolis, 1933), p. 251. #2 quoted a contemporary preacher who said that " a little more tenderness or downright compassion would help to 29 balance his brilliance,...." His humility, however, commands respect. Davies speaks of his Iacute and cone stant awareness of the corrupting element in his own pro- fession of Christian minister, and in his own ideas and interests.“ He remarks that "This capacity to see in oneself the tendency to self-deception and humbugging is 30 rare in any and every calling.....' Hiebuhr's orthodox beliefs, anachronistic in an age of religious liberalism, have caused controversy since his college days. As Niebuhr came to theological clar- ity and maturity he found himself in a hostile environment - hostile in the sense that he was in opposition to the established theological and social traditions of the American churches.3l The mind of Niebuhr has always been cpen to new ideas and to theories differing from his own but, although he makes his orthodox beliefs sound shocking and new and has often been dubbed a revolutionist, he believes that we must change our ways slowly and cautiously. It is a question whether a mechanical civilization like our own, which 3olbflu p. 253. 3192' SAL. P0 62‘ Davies, 22, gi5.. p. 70. “3 destroys the cultures of the past, will be able to form a new religious culture, relevant to the problems of our own life. If it cannot, we had better hold to traditional disciplines as long as we may, lest confusion be- come worse confounded.32 This man, who can say with his heater, '1 came not to send peace, but a sword", has been preaching and writing for thirty years. There are many who do not agree with his beliefs, but even these he has caused to think - to sort out their own beliefs and examine them with clearer insight - and that seems a great accomplish- ment in this twentieth century world. Reinhold Niebuhr is a gift of God to a tortured and troubled world. He is, by any standard of Judgment what- soever, a leading, if not the leading, theorist in the contemporary revolu- tion in Christian thou ght. He has made orthodox theology relevant to our own secular crisis. He has made it intellectually respectable...By his prephetic insight and passion, he has made the Christian faith an inescapa- ble social issue for a generation whose own secular faith has proved to be bankrupt.3h Is Reinhold Niebuhr the Jonathan Edwards of our time? The fact that they were both sons of preachers and the similarities in their careers and interests are not The Contribution whaligio _g_Social Work (New York.1:3§). p. 39. Katthew 10:3hb. 2h ' Dav1es. 22. (415., P. 101*. / as sufficient proof. Certainly there are similarities in the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. Both periods have been marked by new theories in science and philoso- phy which have upset the traditional order and have brought about changes in attitude toward religion and morals. Niebuhr, referring to the dislike of modern worshipers for scolding sermons, says that "Evidently Jonathan Edwards would have a hard time of it in a modern metropolitan pulpit.'35 Apathy and doubt have in both centuries been met by attempts toward the revival of religion. The minds of Edwards and Niebuhr were both shaped by the trends of their time, yet the orthodox doctrines which they have preached to their liberal - thinking con- temporaries have been anachronistic. A comparison of these doctrines is the final test of the assumption that Reinhold Niebuhr may prcperly be called the twentieth century Jonathan Edwards. Although Edwards' theology was based upon Calvinism and Niebuhr's upon Lutheranism, it is more difficult to find differences than likenesses in their thought. Niebuhr has described the difference in the two creeds. “A Religion Worth Fi hting For ' 22s Survey Vol. LVIII (August 1, 1927), p. Ené . 1+5 ...Lutheranism [is] more closely re- lated to asceticism than Calvinism; for Lutheranism is the Protestant way of claiming victory for the religious ideal without engaging the world in combat. Both are founded upon an ethical dualism...The one has a dual- ism which divides the monostio from ordinary men: the other draws the line within the soul of each indivi- dual and expects him to realize in his religious exoerience what he can- not reveal in ordinary human relations. If Calvinism is Weltfreundlich, Luthere ism like ascetiolsm_is Weltfeindlig .36 Elements of both creeds can be found in Niebuhr's doctrines. Sweet finds the “crisis theology“ of Barth, whose influ- ence upon Niebuhr has been mentioned above, to be com- pounded of Nee-orthodoxy, Nee-Calvinism, and Nee-Lutheran- ism. Neither Edwards nor Niebuhr found theology along suf- ficient for their needs. Wieman and heland's book states that a philosOphy cf'religion, in addition to theology, is necessary. p. 110*. 3 ...in an age when the traditional form of religion is not satisfactory, when its basic structure must be re-examined and the abstract essentials distinguishp {d from the passing forms of concrete ife.... The theologian endeavors to present the object of religious devotion in a form Does Civilization Need Religion? (New York, 1928), Yihg égerigag ghurches (New York, l9h7). 2+5 that is intellectually acceptable to the people of his time and group. That means that he must organive be. liefs about the supremely worthful in such a way that they do not contradict one another and are not contradicted by other propositions held to be true. Thus theology gives intellectual ex- pression to religious devotion. But philosOphy criticizes the assump~ tions of that devotion. It seeks to lay bare the essential characteristics which make this reality worthy of such devotion, if it has such characteris- tics. PhilosOphy of religion wants to know if the essentials are there; the~ olcgy wants to make sure that the form of presentation is acceptable to the needs of the peOple of that time and place. 38 Edwards' philosophy was based on supernaturalism which Niebuhr has discussed in one of his books. A source above the human is sought to eXplain the moral demands which tran- scend human capacities and therefore seem to have originated in superhuman sources...: and an order of reality is recognized in which a more than human perfection is achieved.39 Supernaturalism is characterized by a metaphysical dualism: the antithesis of who divine and natural orders, which is bridged by the communication of a personal God with man through scriptural revelation. Traditional supernaturalism obtained its power from ancient religious 92- .92... pp. 15-16. 9 Reflections 9}; the Egg 9_f_ an Era (New York, 193%), p. 200. “7 tradition as recorded in the Bible, from the logic and sufficiency of its thought, from the contrast to daily life offered by its other - worldly philosophy, and because of the Weakness or incompleteness of other rs. ligious creeds which sought to replace it. Supernatural- ism in religion may be likened to conservatism in polic tics; both ways of thinking resist change and hold to modes of thought and living which are often incompatible with the culture in which they exist. The differences between traditional supernaturalisn and the nee-supernaturalism to which Hiebuhr adheres has been explained by tieman and Meland. ...neo-supcrnaturalism extricates the supernatural from all entangling alliances with this natural world. Traditional supernaturalism did not. host oi the difficulties of tradi- tional supernaturalism have been due to these entanglements of its beliefs with the world of nature. Reason has its place in seeking the way of life through nature. It must show what is right and Wrong in morals, how the state should be organized, what should be done with industry and the like. But when it comes to the things that are directly concerned with cod we must cast off all connec- tion with reason. God makes himself known directly to the individual and is apprehended by faith.h0 ”he conception of revelation and its interpretation unw— - as ms, pps 77-Ss RS marks the greatest difference between the traditional and the new supernaturalism. The neo-supernotureliste believe that the direct revelation of God to the indi- vidual ...m2y come to one by way of preach- ing and the ministrations of the church, and it may come through the Bible. But it 13 not the Church and it is not the Bible. These may have all the faults, errors and limitation- whioh can be flieoovered in them as pro- ducts of history and society. God, who completely transcends society and history, 13 not thereby in any way af- fected, and his revelation to the in- dlviduel is not thereby 1mpe1red.%1 The mac-supernaturaliato say 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's”; but the traditional super- naturalleta eeid "Render nothing to any except God.‘ #1 Ibid., p. 79. For a more complete exposition of the beliefs of the neo-eupernaturaliets see pp. 77-83 of this book. III. A COKPARISON OF TE‘ A} E RELIGIOUS CREEDS OF NIEBUHR £3 E DWARDS Let us now compare the creeds of Edwards, the ortho- dox supernaturslist, and Niebuhr, the nee-orthodox neo- supernaturalist. Both are postulated upon an implicit faith in an omniscient, ommipotent God and an acknowledg- ment or the obJect sinfulnsss of humanity. Both men emphasize the complete transcendence of God over man as well as the chpconsciousness inherent in each person in contrast to the God who became as man in the person of Jesus and to the human ego which attempts to usurp the functions of God. In Edvards’ zmageg and Shadow! 91 ELLE: m we read, I"I'he material world, and all things pertaining to it, is by the creatour wholly subordinated to the spiritual and moral vorld.‘ The transcendsncy or God is also stressed by Niebuhr. A true and great religion finds the source and pinnacle of life's values above the partial values of history. It believes, in short, in a tran- scendent God, who is partly revealed and partly obscured by the forces of nature and the facts of history. His will is never fully expressed and His majesty never fully exhausted by any concrete achievement or event. """I"" p. 5#. 50 Men are reconciled to each other by discerning themselves equally dis- tant from the absolute, whatever the distance and difference between them on the historical 1evel.2 Edwards mentioned the equi-distance of all men from Christ in one of his books, saying, “Christians that are but Fellow-worms, ought at least to treat one another with as much Humility and Gentleness as Christ that is 3 infinitely above them treats them. The chasm between this all . powerful God and impo~ tent mankind is spanned by the infinite goodness of God for whose glory the world was created by a perfect union of creature with Creator, according to Edwards, who then eXplained that God's infinite goodness ...seeks the happiness of creatures, the happiness of the created system in general, and of every individual creature in particular, so far as the happiness of that individual is not inconsistent with the happiness of the system, or with the happiness of other individuals...“ Niebuhr agrees with this conception of the creation of the world. God is not merely mind who forms a T 'Is Social Conflict Inevitable?“ Soribner's, Vol. XCVIII (September, 1935), p. 168. 3 one h ncern th Present Revival.... (EdinRL'Kurg ,W} . 139.2153. .2 The Salvationsfig All Men Strictly Examined (New Haven .17 . p. 51 previously given formless stuff. God is both vitality and form and the source of all existence. He creates the world. This world is not God: but it is not evil because it is not God. Being God's crea- tion, it is good.5 Man, the creature, is thus enabled to find the Creator revealed by His creation; and, because of this, man's superiority to the other creatures of the natural world is a type of God's relationship to him. To the essential nature of man belong, on the one hand, all his natural en— dowments, and determinations, his phyb sical and social impulses, his sexual and racial differentiaticns, in short his character as a creature imbedded in the natural order. On the other hand, his essential nature also inp eludes the freedom of his spirit, his transcendence over natural process and finally his self-transcendence.6 Niebuhr's concept of the transcendency of man over nature and history while he is in another sense a part of both, and the transcendency and immanence of God are akin to Edwards' theory.of a total oneness of being. In one of his sermons he said, Man is a creature who shares all the weaknesses of the other creatures of the world. Yet he is a sublime creature who holds the ages within his memory and touches the fringes The Nature and pasting (New York, l9hl) v01. g: p.-fi——I—-——u 2; ,L ' gag. . p. 270. 52 of the eternal in his imagination.7 He wrote in The Nature and Qestiny 9; Ian: The most important characteristic ‘ of a religion of revelation is this twofold emphasis upon the transcendence of God and upon His intimate relation to the world. In this divine transcenp dance the spirit of man finds a home in which it can understand its stature of freedom. But there it also finds the limits of its freedom, the Judgment which is spdken against it, and, ulti- mately, the mercy which makes such a Judgment sufferable.8 Edwards often wrote of his delight in the beauties of nature and the consciousness of God‘s presence which they invoked. Niebuhr, too, finds a revelation of God in the elements of nature. “They are sacramental re. minders of the ultimate peace which life must achieve. Within limits, they are even the means of grace for achieving such peace.‘ Again he says, '...the realm.cf coherence which we call nature, points to a realm of power beyond itself. This realm is discovered by faith, but not fully known. It is a mystery which resolves the 10 mystery of nature....' 123Discerning‘thg Signs 9; ya; Iimeg (New York, 19h6), De 0 8 . v01. 1. p. 126s 9 1 pisoerning the Signs 2; the Zines (New York, 19h6), Do 790 10 lbid., p. 160 53 Edwards aver-red that we prove God‘s being from our own being and the being of other things which.we are sensible once were not, but have begun to be: and from the being of the world with all its constituent parts, and the manner of their existence, all which we see plainly are not necessary in their own nature, and so not self- existent, and therefor must have s sause.ll As proof of this, Edwards quoted Romans 1:20, 'lhe in- visible things of Him, from.the srestien cf the world, are clearly seen: being understood by the things that are made: even his eternal power and Godhead.' Later'he said, the doctrine of necessity which sup- poses s necessary connection of all events, on some antecedent ground and reason of their existence, is the only medium we have to prove the being of God.12 Edwards, in seeking proof that nature is not God, but only His creation through which His existence is made manifest, concluded that the universe exists only in the mind of God and that man knows the world of nature only through sense impressions. Niebuhr states the same ides in a different, perhaps more realistic, manner. w 12m 9.! £33.! ELL]. (“5' York, 1555). Do 27. Ms. P. 1694- 54 The obvious fact is that man is a child of nature, subject to its vicissitudes, compelled by its necessities, driven by its impulses, and confined within the brevity of the years which nature permits its varied organic form, allowing them some, but not too much latitude. .The other less obvious fact is that man is a spirit who stands outside of nature, life himself, his reason and the world.1 Both Edwards and Niebuhr have realized that God's revelation to man is not complete. Edwards wrote: The Revelation God has made of him- self in his Word, and the Provision made for our spiritual Welfare in the Gospel, is perfect; but yet the actual Light and Communications [Christianlexperiences we have, are not perfect, but many ways exceeding imperfect and naimed.lh Niebuhr Speaks frequently of our inability to under- stand clearly the paradox of God's goodness and His crea- tures ' evil. To the religious imagination, God is at one moment the ideal toward which all things must strive end.by compar- ison with which all contemporary social standards are convicted of in. adequacy, and in the next moment he is the omnipotent creator of all things whose power and wisdom guaran- tee the goodness of existing social figture 3n; Destigz, Vol. I, (New York, 19u1), p. 3.1% Some Thou hts goncerning the Present Rezizgl (seinbu'"'rg1v“'x, I753 J, p. 3. 55 organizations.lg Another facet of this dualistic theology is descri- bed by Niebuhr. Cne interestinf aspect of the religious yearning after the absolute is that, in the contrast between the divine and the human, all lesser contrasts between good and evil on the human and historic level are obscured. Sin finally becomes dis- obedience to God and nothing else. Only rebellion against God and.only the im- pertinence of selfbwill in the eight of God, are regarded as sinful. One may see this logic of religion very clearly in the thought of Jonathan Edwards. 'A crime is more or less heinous,‘ he den cleree, 'according as we are under greater or less obligation to the con~ trary. Our obligation to love, honor and obey any being is in preportion to its loveliness, honorablenese and author~ ity. But God is a being infinitely lovely because he has infinite excellence and beauty. 30 that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obliga- tions, must be a crime infinitely heinous end so deserving of infinite punishment.'16 The doctrine of original sin was of primary impor- tance to Edwards as it is to Niebuhr. In his defense of the doctrine of original sin Edwards wrote, “God actually deals with Adam and his posterity as one, in the affair of his apostacy, and its infinitely terrible consequences.l7 .____I§___. Th Contribution of Religion £g_Social were (New York,11932 ) . Pe fie “L 1n! Moral {an and Immoral Society (New York, 1932), p. 226. 1 .p “Doctrine of Original Sin Defended,I in Faust and Johnson, 22. git., p. 328. 56 Both believed that Adam construed as a collective noun meaning "mankind" , as he was originally created in the garden of Eden, was sinless as was his Creator, and that "in Adsu's fall we sinned all.” Thus every man com- mitted the original sin and must be punished accordingly. This belief ex lains deards' avosal that children are sinful until they are converted. Eiebuhr expounded these ideas in 111...? haturs and 2 estinz 9;. £313. Adam was sinless before he acted and sinful in his first recorded action. his sinlessness, in other words, pre- ceded his first significant action and his sinfulness came to light in that action. This is a symbol for the whole of human history.18 In the same book Hiebuhr stated the fOIIOWing three terms of original righteousness: (a) The perfect relation of the soul to God in which obedience is tran- scended by love, trust and confidence ('Thou shalt love the Lord thy God‘); (b) the perfect internal harmony of the soul with itself in all of its desires and inpulses: 'With all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy mind'; and . (c) the perfect harmony of life with life: 'Thcu shalt love thy neighbor a s tl'nrsel f. '19 fideards' and Hiebuhr's definitions of sin are very much the ease. fidwards described a threefold corruption Is Vol. I, p. 230. 19 Ibido. p. 2590 57 of nature: pride plus worldly - mindedness, the devil and the beast, and self and the world. Like Hiebuhr, he deemed pride or the ego to be the greatest cause of sin. when a PeOple Oppose Christ in the fork of his Foly Sp rit, it is be— cause it touches them in something that is dear to their carnal Kinds, and beceuse they see the Tendency of it is to cross their Pride, and deprive them of the Objects of their Lusts.20 civine ere generally agreed that Sin radically and fundamentally con- sists in What is negative, or pri- vrtive, having its Root and thunde- tion in a Privation or Went of Voliness.2 Niebuhr says that Christianity believes ”that men are egotists in contradiction to their essential nature. That is the doctrine of original sin, stripped of liter- 22 alistic illusions.” ...evil is always the ascertion of some self-interest without regard to the whole, Whether the whole be conceived es the immediate communi~ ty, or the total order of the eorld.23 '“"'§6"' Some Thoughts Concerning_the Present Bevive1,,, (Edinbfrgh, 1743), p. 82. 2 ‘é’Treetise Concernin" Religious Affectiong (Boston, 1735), p. 2 . 22 8 Christianity end Power Politics (flew York, 1940), p. 3 . ? -3 Hiebuhr, fire Children‘gg LiWh end the Children f Darkness (flew Kerk, 19H37, p. . In T333 -- "n t ”he ram :HJ-gti? 3 .2 9" .nfi Iii-r Eb‘vllag explains his conce tion of the cause of sin. The temptation to sin lies,..., in the human situe tion itself. This situs:.-ition is tl-;.-.t :Icn as spirit tron- scends the temporal end nnturel pro— cess in which he is involved eni also transcends himself. Thus his freedom is the basis of his creativity but it is involved in the contingencies and necessities of the net ur l prose es on the one heJnL and since, on the other, he stands outside of them sn:1 foresees their caprices end nerils, he is anx- ious. In 1113 anxiety he sects to trencnute his finiteness into infinity, his weakness into strength, his depen- dence into independence. The ectusl sin is the consequence of the temptation of anxiety in which all life stands...the bias toward sin from which ectusl sin flows is anxiety plus sin...31n could not be te2nptsd if he had not already sinnei.24 Both Edwards and Kiebuhr came to the conclusion that sin shouli be punished in proportion to its greatness. Therefore eternal indention was not too harsh a punishment for the original sin, msn's attempt to usurp the powers of God. oi he.tes evil as evil and forbi s and punishes it as such; yet he continues to love the creatures whom He hes cre:2 ted in "is 1.3r3e end wh 0 have committed these sins against Fim. :dwards wrote one book concerned en- tirely with the Justice of endless punishment, and dis- cussed it in several others. w-é-‘r Vol. I, p. 251. 59 It seexs to be a dictate of resson end the common sense of mankind, th at moral evil snould be followed, or desei ves to be followed, with naturel evil or with pain and shame: end tr st this natural evil be e real evil to tr a sinner, s.n evil to him on the whole. Moral evil is in itself, or in its own nature, odious and the preper object of disapprobetion and abhorrence.25 ien no will sin as sin, and so are the authors end actors of it. 5h62y love it as sin, and for evil ends and pur» poses. God does so to order thing thet, he nermitting, sin Will come to nose, for the sake of the gjrect good that by his disoos cl shell be the consequence.25 Hiebuhr, likewise believing“ thnt t~e Justice of God springs from love for His creatures, wrote: "the sense of Justice is the foundation of the po er required to challenge t? e porer of tyranny.27 God Judges the world because there are violations of the law of life on every level of human achievement. God 'saves' the world beczuse he has resources of mercy beyond his Judg- ment. But mercy cannot exoress it- self without taking Justice seriously.28 Heven,61733, pp. j9-40. Vol. 25 The wivetion of All Yen Strictly Exnmine (New Freedom 9; the Will (flew York, 1356), p. 163. 2 Frith rni Fistory (New York, 1949), p. 129. 98 w“ “A ”eitn For ?i_1cry's Gres.test Crisis," Fortune, XXVI (July, 1942), p. 131. 60 In accord with fidwerds, Hiebuhr differentiates be- tween God's Justice and His love. Justice is not love. Justice pre- supposes the conflict of life with life and seeks to mitigate it. Ever relative Justice therefor stenfls under the Judgment of the law of love, but it is also an approximation of 1t.29 The Justice and the forgiveness of God are one, Just as Esther sni Fon are equally God. For the highest Justice of God is the holiness of Fis love. It is love as law which man sffrcnts end dime. Yet forgiveness and Justice are not one, Just as Father and Son are two.30 Is God, then, the author of sin? Is each man's life predestined and.without freedom of will to choose good or evil? ...if, by the author 9; sin, is meant the permitter, or not a Eifieerer of sin, end, st the same time, a disposer or the state or events, in such a man- ner, for Wise, holy, and most excellent enis 3nd purposes, thrt sin, if it be nernittei or not hindered, will most oertuinl; and infollibly follow: I say, if this be all that is meant, by being the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of sin....31 This is Edwards' answer to the first question. Niebuhr's is similar. If God has created free snirits who have the capacity to defy Him in their freedom, He has created forms of life so independent that even the power of God, acting merely as power, cannot reach the final source of their defiance. Nature and Destin , Vol. II (new York, l9h3), p.56. Edwards, Freedom gg’tgg Will (New York, 1856), p.157. 61 The divine power, the very structure of the world, the requirements for mutual living which are made part of the very character of human existence, all those are able to set an ultimate limit to men's defiance of the order of creation. The Justice and the 'wrsth' of God can prevent any human rebellion from deveIOping its defiance to the point of ultimate triumph. The devil, according to Christian myth, is able to defy God but not absolutely. The divine order is supported by the divine power.32 Again he wrote: "To recognize that only God can per- fectly combine power and goodness is to understand that power is not evil of itself,;...'33 Niebuhr believes that the final majesty of God con- sists in His freedom, "the power of mercy beyond Judgment. By this freedom He involves Himself in the guilt and suffering of free men who have, in their freedom, come in conflict with the structural character of rcality.‘ The crux of the cross is its revela- tion of the fact that the final power of God over man is derived from tho self-imposed weakness does not derogato from the Majesty of God. His mercy is the Christian answer to the final pro» blsm of humen existence. The worship of God is reverence toward the myster» ious source end end of all of life's vitalities; end toward the mysterious source end end of all goodness.35 72 2 Discerning the Q1 ns 9: the Times (New York, Neture end De tin*, Vol. II (New York. 19u3): p. 2201‘. 3 gbid.. p. 71 35 Discerning the Signs 23 the Times, (New York, l9u6), p. I34. *— 62 Like Kiebuhr, Edwards believed that God's absolute freedom is limited only by His absolute goodness which causes Him to choose only those things, even sin, for his world which will bring the greatest ultimate benefit to mankind, His creatures. This divine necessity causes God to be free only to do right. ...it is agreeable to common sense to suppose that the glorified saints have not their freedom at all diminished in any respect; and that God himself has the highest possible freedom, according to the true and proper meaning of the term; and that he is, in the highest possible respect, an agent, [a moral agent] and active in the exercise of his infinite holiness; though he acts therein, in the highest degree, neces- sarily; and his actions of this kind are in the highest, most absolutely perfect manner, virtuous and praise- worthy; and are so, for that very rea~ son, because they are most perfectly necessary.36 ..God must necessarily perfectly know, what is most worthy and valuable in itself, which, in the nature of things, is best and fittest to be done. And as this is most eligible in itself, He,. being omniscient, must see it to be so: and being both omniscient and self-sufo ficient cannot have any temptation to reject it, and so must necessarily will that which is best.37 Edwards believed that “God has an absolute and cer- 38 tain foreknowledge of the free actions of moral agents.“ Freedom gg‘ghg Will (New York, 1856), p. 136. 71bid., p. 163. 3 Epid., p. 61. 63 Like him, Niebuhr believes in the omniscience of God. Both men agree that the individual person, created with free will in the image of God, is free to misuse that liberty even though God foreknows - indeed, ordains - all his acts and thoughts. This furnishes another Justi- fication for the punishment of sin. Man chooses to sin, therefore he deserves to be punished for it or, conversely, to receive reward for doing well. ...man is entirely, perfectly and un- speakably different from a mere machine, in that he has reason and understanding, and has a faculty of Will, and so is capable of volition or choice: and in that, his Till is guided by the dictate or views of his understanding; and in that his external actions and behavior and, in many respects, also his thoughts, and the exercises of his mind, are sub- Ject to his Will: so that he has liberty to act according to his choice, and do what he pleases; and by means of these things is capable of moral habits and moral acts, such inclinations and actions as according to the common sense of man- kind, are worthy of praise, esteem, love and reward; or, on the contrary, of dis- esteem, detestation, indignation and punishment.39 .‘ Like his Creator, the creature possesses a condi- tional freedom. Concomitant with this faith in the unity of nod's will and wisdom man is inter. preted as a unity of will in which human vitality, natural and spiritual, is set under the ordering will of God. No 9 Ibid. , p. no. 6% pattern of human reason but only the will of God can be the principle of the form and order to which human life must be conformed.h0 In the Christian faith man's insigni- ficance as a creature, involved in the process of nature and time, is lifted into significance by the mercy and power of God in which his life is sus- tained. But his significance as a free spirit is understood as subordinate to the freedom of God. His inclination to abuse his freedom, to overestimate his power and significance and to become everything is understood as the primal sin. It is because man is inevitably involved in this primal sin that he is _bound to meet God first of all as a Judge, who humbles his pride and brings his vain imagination to naught.hl It is this freedom of will Which distinguishes man from animal and shows mankind to be akin to God. Edwards discussed this in Freedom 2; the Will. It is manifest, the moral world is the end of the natural: the rest of the creation is but a house which fiod hath built, with furniture, for moral agents: and the good or bad state of the moral world depends on the improvement they make of their natural agencfi, and so depends on their volitions. 2 Niebuhr, in like manner, has written that "human life distinguishes itself from animal existence by its greater W Niebuhr, Nature gng_Destiny, Vol. I (New York, 19Ul) p. 29. I'd Ibid., p. 92. as p. 72. freedom find the consequent possibility of the misuse of freedom. The freedom of man consists not only, as it were, of the windows of mind which look out from his second story: but also of vents on every level which allow every natural impulse a freedom which animals do not know. Niebuhr believes that "man is free enough to violate both the necessities of nature and the logical systems of reason. Both Edwards and Hiebuhr differentiate between the mind, which they conceive to be the soul, and the body which instantly obeys the dictates of the mind. Obvious- ly the mind wills, or chooses, that which appears to it to be best and in that way is similar to the will of God. “A man never, in any instance, wills anything con- trary to hi2 desires, or desires any thing contrary to his Will.“ hiebuhr calla man ”the creature of necessity and the child of freedom.” "'"'H§‘“' Discerning the Sign- f he Times (Hes York, ho Frture 9nd Destiny, Vol. I (New York, 1941), D. . Ibid., p. 1?#. h6"" Eduards, Freedom f the Will (New York, 1856), p. 2. 1+7 “The Fulfilment of Life” from Beyond Tragedy New York, Scribner's, 1937, quoted in Contemporary . Religious Thou“ht, 0p. cit., p. 37h. Niebuhr agrees with Edwards that man's misuse of his freedom, caused by his ego or pride, is his sin. Ken is a sinner. His sin is defined as rebellion against God. The Chris- tian estimate of human evil is so serious precisely because it places evil at the very centre of human per- sonality: in the will...His sin is the wrong use of his freedom and its consequent destruction.#8 Sin is, in short, the consequences of man's inclination to usurp the prero- gatives of God to think more highly of himself than he ought to think, thus making destructive use of his freedom by not observing the limits to which a creaturely freedom is bound.h9 ran, havinf been endowed with the power of reason, seeks a way to escape the primal curse, a means of Justi~ fying himself in the sight of God. Niebuhr and Edwards, believing that reason is involved in the decisions made by the will, have deduced that the spirit of God may Operate upon the understanding or reason, and thus upon the will, by means of the emotions or affections. Hiebuhr believes that man will never be sholy rea- sonable, therefore the religious impulse is necessary to raise him above his natural self. Life itself is not rational. Reason may refine and qualify our central w Nature and Destiny, Vol. I (New York, 19hl), p. 16E 9 Faith and History (New York, 19u9), p. 121. 5? loyalties, but the loyalties themselves are religions because they sering from either primary or inherited oonoeetions of the meaning of life and the goal of existence, these invariably implying an ultrarational affirmation. Reason controls impulse, but religion transfigures it. Reason is never as creative and never as dangerous as re- ligion.50 That religion, which may be suprehended by the rea- son, is yet irrational is conceded by both Hiebuhr and Edward B 0 Indeed, it is a glorious argument of the divinity of the holy Scriptures, that they teach such doctrines, which in one age and another, through the blindness of men's minds, and strong prejudices of their hearts are re- Jected, as most absurd and unreason- able, by the wise and great men of the world; which yet, when they are most carefully and strictly examined, appear to be exactly agreeable to the most de- monotrable, certsin and natural dic- tates of reason.51 ...religion adds a touch of madness, p:ecisely that touch of madness which when combined with common sense, pro- duces a compound of wisdom. Without the touch of madness all ethical life governed by reason sinks deeply into common sense and therefore it degen~ erates more and more into an en- lightened self-interest, a prudent fhe Contribution‘gg Religion 33 Social ”gr; (New York 19325 p. 53. l a s . Edwards, Freedom.g£ t e Will (New Yerk, 1856), m” p. 182. 68 selfishness.52 It is this element of divine madness which makes it necessary for the emotions to be involved in the revels- ticn of God's will to men. Rewards and.Niebuhr agree that true vertue or holiness surings from the heart rather than from the head. Religion is, on the whole, an affair of the will and the emotions, rather than of the mind. At its best, it transfigures the will giving the whole of man's character a foundation in the will to do good. At its worst, it effects only transient emotions and sinks very easily into sentimen~ talltyeSB Edwards, especially in his writing concerning the Great Awakening, stressed the close relationship of the affections and the will. All Acts of the Affections of the Soul are in some Sense Acts of the Will, and all Acts of the Will are Acts of the affections. All Exercises of the Soul's Appetition or Aversion: or, which is the same Thing, of its Love or Hatred.5h The foregoing theories concerning the role of the Niebuhr, "The Ethical Resources of the Christian Relicion" from Education Adgguatg fcr‘ odern Tim , New York, issocistion lress, 3 , quoted in Contemporarz Religious lhouaht, 0p. cit., ,. 52. f) Niebuhr, The Contribution of Religion _g‘§_gig; ark (New Yor.<, TW 2 , n. . z; I some Thou~hts Concernin the Present Rgzivg;,., (Bdinbur; h, 1733,, D. 5. 69 affections EXplSlnS the predilection of Yiebuhr and Edwards for occasional terrifying and fro uent pessimis- tic sermons. In his Th.ou its Conce11ing t? e {resent Re- 11 val g_f Religion.ig’N§w and IL? srds stated that ministers appeal to the affections throng h tb e under- standing. He also maintained that any benefit accom~ plished by sermons is effected at the time of hearing, rather than bye .later nenory of them and that it si all right to frighten sinners in order to enlighten them. Niebuhr agrees with this theory. The more men and.nations fear the wrath of God, the more can they be brought under the sway of divine mercy. The more they anticipate doom, the more can they avoid it.55 As a result of this action of God's spirit upon the affections rnd thence upon the una erstanding and the will, man develops a conscience. He becomes able to discern between good and evil and develops a feeling of guilt when he chooses to sin. Edwards defined conscience as ...a natural sensation of a certain fitness or agwree bleness, which there is in uniting; such moral evil..vix., a being or doing wrong ~ith the dilli and i resentment in others, and pain inf cted on the person in whom this moral evil 13.56 giscerning the Figns 2; he Times (New York, l9h6), 7?: 56 Freedom‘gg the T11; (New York, 1856), p. 132. 70 Niebuhr says that “The kingdom which is not of this 57 world is always in this world in man's uneasy conscience. In investing the heart of the cosmos with an ethical will, the religious imagination unites its awe before the infinitude and majesty of the physical world with its reverence for the ethi- cal principle of the inner life. The inner world of conscience, which is in constant rebellion against the outer world of nature is made supreme over the world of nature by the fist of religion. The religious conscience is sensitive not only because its imperfections are Judged in the light of the absolute but because its obligations are felt to be obligations toward a person. The holy will is a personal will.58 For what the individual conscience feels when it lifts itself above the world of nature and the system of collective re- lationships in which the human spirit remains under the power of nature, is not a luxury but a necessity of the soul.59 From this action of the spirit of God upon the soul of man springs a desire for a closer union of the two. Niebuhr and Edwards have both believed in predestination, yet both also have believed that man is possessed of a limited freedom of the will. Man is free to misuse his freedom but he is also free to repent of his sins. Bevond Traded , p. 279. quoted in D. R. Davies, OD. Cite. p. 9 0 g r Noral Fan and Immoral Society (New York, 1932), pp. 52" 30 9 Mo . p. 276}. 71 Revelation of God's will to men through the world of nature and the Scriptures depends upon the sensiti- vity of his emotions. Niebuhr has listed three elements of revelation, the steps which prepare man for salvation. The first is the sense of reverence for a maJesty and of dependence upon an ultimate source of being. The second is the sense of moral obliga- tion laid upon one from beyond one» self and of moral unworthiness before a Judge. The third, most problematic of the elements in religious expern ienoe is the longing for forgivenese.60 These were the very steps which Edwards described in writing of his own conversion. neither Niebuhr nor Edwards prescribed exact re- quirenents for the conversion experience, but the letter stated the requisites for a profession of Christianity as a repentance for one's sins, an understanding of the beliefs professed, and a demonstration of practicing them. Sincere repentance and the showing of faith by works were stressed by both men. The means of salvation is Christ, the second Adam, a perfect man again on earth who prOpitiated for the sins of all mankind by his death on the cross. Men, by believ- ing on Christ and attempting to learn and do God's will may escape the primal curse through the grace of God. w 1 Nature and satin , Vol. I (New York, 19u1), p. 3. 72 Edwards differentiated between common or natural grace as evidenced by a natural conscience, moral codes, duties, and virtues and the special or supernatural grace which is granted to those whom God has elected to be saved. ...there is a two-fold image of God in Man his moral or spiritual Image, which is his Holiness, that in the Image of God‘s moral Excellency, (which Image was lost by the Fall) and God's natural Image, consisting in Men's Reason and Understanding, his natural Ability, and Dominion over the Crea- tures, which is the Image of God's natural Attributes.61 That intelligent Being whose Will is truly right and lovely, he is morally good or excellent. This moral Excellency of an intelligent Being, when it is true and real, and not only external or meerly’tgicl Seem. ing and Counterfeit, is Holiness.62 There is no virtue, on the other hand, in acts prompted by selfblove or natural conscience. ...whatever benevolence or generosity toward mankind, or other virtues or moral qualifications which go by that name, any are possessed of that are not attended with a love of God which is altogether above them and to which they are subordinate and on which they are dependent, there is nothing of the .____EI__. &. Treatis Concerning Religious Affectiogs (Edlnggrgfie Iii-Bis p. 90 gbid., p. 1&3. 73 nature of true virtue or religion in them.63 Niebuhr wrote: There is enough natural grace in the human heart to respond to the chal» lenge of the real message in the gos- pel - and enough original sin in human nature to create opposition to it.6h Niebuhr defines grace in the following paragraph: 'Graoe' would correspond to ideal possibility of perfect love, in which all inner contradictions within the self, and all conflicts and tensions between the self and the other are overcome by the complete obedience of all wills to the will of comes Edwards described this action of God's grace upon the soul of man. He said that the Spirit of God or the Holy Ghost, ”unites himself with the mind of a saint, takes him for his temple, aotuates and influenceségin as a new supernatural principle of life and action.' Niebuhr conceives of this saving grace of Christ as “the final revelation of the personality of'GodJI w Edwards ‘5 Treat 29 the ’ature of True zirtue quoteguin A.v.<'}. Alf-Aw, J2. cit., pI .' 3§§f.' Leaves from the Notebook 31,3 Tamed.gzgigb(0hioago, 85p. EIe o 2M6 Nature and esti , Vol. II (New York, l9h3), " 68 1929) “A Divine and Supernatural Light" in Faust and Johnson,‘gg. cit., p. 193}. 7h The good news of the gospel is that God tek s the sinfulness of man into himself; and overcomes in His own heart what cannot be overcome in human life, since human life remains within the vicious circle of sinful self~ glorification on every level of moral advance.67 Contrary to pOpular opinion, both Edwards and His- buhr have believed that all men are given the Opportunity to be saved, but that their freedom of will makes it possible to choose ways of living, by which they will forfeit their claim to salvation and will be punished for the original sin rather than saved through the grace of Christ. Edwards' doctrine of the elect is not incon- sistent with this belief. God, the omniscient, selects and therefore knows aforetime which of his creatures will choose the way of salvation and which will not. Since all men committed with Adam the original sin, all are sin- ners until they choose to follow Christ's teachings and thus are saved. ...all men are by Christ put into salvable circumstances yet through their obstinate impenitence and un- belief they may fall of this great salvation.66 The only certain Foundation which 1h“ Iature ggd,3est n , Vol. I (New Ibrk, 19k1), P. '7e 66 Edwards, The Sal ation 2;,éll yen Strictly Examined (New Haven, 0 , p. 26 . 75 any Person has to believe that he is invited to partake of the Blessings of the Gospel, is that the herd of God declares that Persons so qualified as he is are invited, and God who declares it is true and cannot lie. If a Sinner be once convinced of the Veracity of God, and that the Scriptures are his Word, he'll need no more to convince and satisfy him that he is invited; for the Scriptures are full of Invitations to Sinners, to the chief of Sinners, to come and partake of the Bene- fits of the Gospel. He won‘t want any new sneaking of God to him, what he hath spoken already will be enough with him.69 hiebuhr's concern for those whom the large prestige - seeking congregations refuse to admit to their company is one evidence that he too believe that salvation is of— fered to all men. Edwards and hiebuhr have both emphasized the fact that belief in and practice of Christianity is the only means of salvation and that this salvation is attained not by any worthiness of man, but solely through the mercy of a loving God. The faith through Which we understand the meaning of our existence and the fulfillment of that meaning in the divine mercy is, ultimately, a gift of grace and not the consequences of a sOphisticated analysis of the signs or the tlmc3.70 Edwards eXpressed the same cpinion two centuries Edwards A T eat so gonggrning Religious Affeg~ tions (Boston,.17h , p. 3. 7o Niebuhr Qiscerning the 52523 f the Zines (Ne"‘ York. 191‘8), p. c 2-. 76 earlier. The scripture knows of no salvation but that which is founded on the mere favour of God forgiving the sins of men, according to the riches of his grace, and Justifying them freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. And pardon or forgiveness, which is a discharge from deserved punishment, is, in its very nature an act of grace, and is, in scripture, always spOVen of as such, and as diapensed through Chr18t only. 71 The revelation of God to the world in the life and death of Christ is the culmination of the revelation man receives through the world of nature and points the way toward a love for all mankind as well as for God. Hiebuhr has frequently discussed this point. And Jesus, in the sublime naivetg' of the religious imagination at ts best, interprets the impartiality of nature toward the evil and the good ... as a revelation of the love of God. The 7 religious imagination seeking an ulti- mate good and point of reference for the moral urges of life finds support for its yearning after the absolute in the infinitude and majesty of the phy- sical world. The omnipotence of God, as seen in the world of nature, in- vests his moral character with the quality of the absolute and trans- figures it into holiness.72 The Salvation‘gg All Men Strictlx Examined (New Haven, I750), pp. lE-Ih. 72 Moral hen and zmmora; Society (new York, 1932), P0 530 77 This impartiality of God's love was also cited by Edwards who said, "the Grace of Christ don't behold Iniquity in his Peeple, imputes not what is amiss in 'em to them, but to Sin that dwells in them, and to Satan that influences them."73 This is the example set for men in their dealings with one another. Niebuhr has said that “every man sees in Christ not only what he is and ought to be but also the true realitv to which his own life stands in contradiction.“ The same Christ who is accepted by faith as the revelation of the shares. ter of God is also regarded as the re. velation of the true character of man. Christ has this two-fold significance because love has this double signifi- cance. 'God is love,’ which is to say that the ultimate reality upon which the created world depends and by which it is Judged is not an 'unmoved mover' or an indifferentiated eternity, but the vital and creative source of life and of the harmony of life with life. But the essence of human nature is also love, which is to say that for man, who is ine volved in the unities and harmonies of nature but who also transcends them in his freedom, there can be no principle of harmony short of the love in which free personality is united in freedom With other persons.75 W some T¥§oufihtg Concerning the Present REILIR ;,,, (Tidinburg . 3 . p. ”Christianity and gower Politics (New York, 19ho), 0. 37. 75 }nture rnd Dcstiny, Vol. I (New York, 1941), p.1h6f. 7s lue humility engendered in man by Christ's compassion also encourages in him a spirit of benevolence toward.hil fellow men who are, after all, no greater sinners than he. Pure Christian Humility disposes a Person to take notice of every Thing that is in any Respect good in others, and to diminish their Failings: but to have his Eye chiefly on those Things that are bad in Himself, and to take much Notice of every Thing that aggravates them.76 Niebuhr, like Edwards, emphasizes the humility of Christians and the necessity for constant self-examina- tion as well as frequent re-appraieal of cne's creed. I make no apology for being critical of what I love. No one wants a love which is based upon illusions, and there is no reason why we should not love a profession and yet be critical of 1te77 These attitudes of repentance which recognize that the evil in the fee is also in the self, and these im- pulses cf love which claim kinship with all men in spite of social con— flict, are the peculiar gifts of re- ligion to the human spirit...they require a sublime madness which also regards immediate appearances and em- phasizes profound and ultimate unit-18!. 78 Edwards, Some mou hts Concerning th e {resent Revival (Edinburgh, ”1753}. p. save cm the y ogebock 2i:_ a Tam____§_d 2131:! (Chica387‘l§§9§§".7 x 71. Moral _gg and EM Mar gggigtz (New York, 1932), p. 255. 79 than love for all mankind has been developed through a faith in Christ, men are enabled to see God's image in each other's best characteristics. Edwards wrote that Iwe see the most prOper image of the beauty of Christ 79 when.we see beauty in the human soul. hiebuhr has commented thus: The Christian faith in God's self. disclosure, culminating in the reve- lation of Christ, is thus the basis of the Christian concept of personal- ity and individuality. In terms of this faith man can understand himself as a unity of will which finds its end in the will of God.80 Both Edwards and Niebuhr have warned that the conflict of good with evil is not ended by conversion. But many in these Days have got into a strange antiscriptural Way of having all their Striving and Wrestling over before they are converted; and so having an easy Time of it afterwards, to sit down and enjoy their Sloth and Indolence: as those that now have a Supply of their Wants, and are become rich and fu11.81 The fact that the discovery of sin in~ variably leads tothe Pharisaic illusion that such a discovery guarantees sin- lessness in subsequent actions is a 'Observations on the Scriptural Economy of the Trinigg' in A.V.G. Allen, 23. git” p. 356. Hature and Destin , Vol. I (New York, 19h1), p. 150 81 Edwards A Tr atise Con in Religigug Affggp tions (Boston,'17h5), p. 2657. 80 revelation of the way in which freedom becomes an accomplice of sin. It is at this point that the final battle between humility and human self-esteem is fought.82 Niebuhr says further that “A real faith in God must arise out of conflict with the world, otherwise it is 8 3 the world and not God in whom one reposes confidence.II This othersworldly viewpoint is at the root of all the beliefs of these two men. Both believe that evil can finally be overcome by good only at the end of history when the last Judgment occurs, and that all our efforts to imitate our Saviour are means to that end. To say that the innocency cf’Adam be- fore the fall can be restored only in terms of the perfection of Christ is to assert that life can approach its original innocency,cnI _z,§gpigigg 23 its unlimited en . Edwards, too, believed that man's original inno- cence could only be regained through the ultimate triumph Of Christe It is impossible that all things should be brought back, in all rc- spects, to their original state. All mankind cannot now live in the ""'7§?"" Niebuhr, Nature and Destin , Vol. I (New York, 'Let Liberal Churches Stcp Fooling Themselves!” _ Chrigtfian Qentugz, Vol. XL, Pt. 1 (March 25. 1931). p.fi03. Niebuhr, Nature and Destiny, Vol. 11 (new York, 1914'} ) 0 Pa 770 81 garden of Eden. It cannot be again fact, that all the knowledge of God possessed by man, should be such as is derived from either the works of creation and providence. or from immediate intercourse of God and angels with men. nor can it be ever again true, that God is prcpitious to men immediately, without a mediator. ...as the original state was a state of order, regularity and due subor- dination, wherein every person and thing were in their prOper places; so in this sense all things will finally be brought back to their original state, and order will be again restored to the universc.65 Niebuhr agrees with Edwards' conception of the final triumph of God over the devil as a restoration of order to the universe, a final organized unity of Creator, crea- tion, and creature. Faith in God is faith in some ulti- mate unity of life, in some final comprehensive purpose which holds all the various, frequently contra- dictory, realms of coherence and meaning together.86 Other ideas of the two men coincide. Both preached on evangelical type of religion, both believed it possi- ble that America might be the nation destined to lead the w- The Salvatigg £1; £1; lien Strictly W (New Havana/I750) , p. 203. 0 1 h Discerning the Signs 9; the Times (New York, l9h6), D. So . 82 way toward the establishment of God's kingdom on earth, and both favored a separation of church and state. Both men warned against the temptation to sin produced by too great material wealth, emphasized the importance of family worship, and regarded the young people as the hepe of the Christian world. The differences expressed in the writings of Edwards and Niebuhr are insignificant in relation to their prin- cipal beliefs. Had the two men been contemporaries, they might conceivably have agreed upon most of these points. History as the fulfillment of scriptural prophecy, free- dom of religion, and racial relations are subjects upon which there is a discrepancy in their ideas. The principal doctrines in the creeds of Edwards and Niebuhr - the absolute sovereignty of God, the original sin inherent in all mankind, the limited freedom of human and divine will, the offer of salvation to all men through Christ‘s death on the cross, and the belief in the ulti- mate triumph of God over sin - are identical except for minor differences in emphasis. Both creeds are based upon an ethical dualism and terminate with a divine uni- fication of the paradoxical contradictions inherent in them. Both men have been more concerned with thoughts of the world to be than with the things of this world. It is fitting that Reinhold Hiebuhr, whose religious creed 83 and Christian living are so similar to that of Edwards and who, like him, is often spoken of as a prophet, should be called the twentieth century Jonathan Edwards. BIBLIOGRAPHY I. Books Allen, Alexander, I“. G., Jonathan Edwards, Boston, Houghton, uifflin, 1891. Christie, Francis A., “Jonathan Edwards“ in Dictionagy‘cg son American Bioggacgy Vol. VI edited by Al en 0 and Dumas Malone, fies York,'Scribners, 1931. Clark, Elmer T., The Small Secte ifl America, Nashville, Cokesbury, 1937. Contem crar Reli us The ht: An Anthology compiled by Thomas 8. Kepler, New York, Abingdon-Cokesbury, 19h1. Davies, D. 3., Reinhold Niebuhr, PEOEhEE from Amercca, Haw York, Eacmillan, 19u3. Edwards Jonathan, é Treatise Conogrnicg R 11 i u Affeétions, Boston, Kneelan an reen, Iffig. Edwards, Jonathan Freedom‘cg,thc Will, New York, Leavitt and Allen, 1656. Edwards, Jonathan, Ima es cg ghacowc of D1 ine T n edited by Perry LiIEer, New Haven,'YaI3zfiEIversIty PI'O'B . 19,46e Edwards, Jonathan, Some Thoughts Concerning the Presenc Revival of Religion in New Eng and, Edinburgh, T. Lumisden and J. Robertson, 17%}. Edwards Jonathan Thc Sal ation f A11 £22 Str ctl ' ’ TJT“ “me:- ~44 Examined, New Haven, . orse, Gray, Joseph M. h., ”Jonathan Edwards, His God" in grochetc c£_the Soul, Chicago, Abingdon, 1936. Johnson, Thomas H. Th Pr nted Writings of gonathan Edwards 0 - g: A BibliOgraphy, Drinceton, Frinceton University Press, 19uo. Jonathan Edwards edited by Clarence H. Faust and Thomas H. Johnson American Writers Series, Chicago, American Book 00., £935. 8% 85 Jones, Edgar Dewitt, American Prgaohers c; chaz, Indianpolis, Bobbs-herriII, L terar H stor .2! the Na t States edited by Robert SpIIfer‘c_’c_,, Vol. , Jew York, Macmillan, 1938 (Herein referred to as L H U 3). Miller Perry and Thomas H. Johnson The Pugctacc Chiaago, American Book Co., 1938: . Niebuhr, noinneid, ghrictganltz and gcwcr lclitioc, New York, Scribners, 9' . Niebuhr, Reinhold, Diccernfing £22.§l8§£.2£.§23 Timcc, New York, Scribners, Niebuhr Reinhold £22! 1 sat o Nccc Rcligiog] ' mil an, . .. Niebuflg, Reinhold, Eagth‘ccc_fiiet , New York, Scribners, 9 . Niebuhr Reinhold Leave from th Nocebook f‘c Tamcg chic, Chicago: v e t, afar an o y, 929. Niebuhr, Reinhold, Mcral Man anc gmmcrc; Sociccz, New York, Scribners, . Niobuhr Reinhold. We as 3.9.2 121% 21 as fine. New ionk, Scribners, Niebuhr, Reinhold, The Children c; chct and the childrcn of Darkness, Jew or , or er's, Niebuhr Reinhold The Contribution.c£ Religion to Scccal Work, New York, Columbia University rsss, I93 . Niebuhr Reinhold The Nature and D stin f Nan Gifford Lectures, New fork, §3rififiers, 18¢! ($0 . IS,'19u3 (Vol.11). Parrington Vernon Louis Na n Cu§gentc $5 American The ht: Vols. I and l1 , New or , Harcour , race, 1927. Perry Ralph Barton Puritancsm and Democracy New York The Vanguard Press, . . ' Rowe, Henry Kalloch, The Hcftorz of Religion ;c_the Ungtcg States, New York, hacm an, 195R. Schneider Herbert W. chtc¥z f Amer Phglcsoch; New York, Columbia.U%ivers y'%ress, igfig. . S6 Stuber, Stanley 1., How flc_Cot Our Denominations, New York, Association Tress, I927. Sweet William Tarren, Religion‘;c Colonial America, Ne; York, Soribners, 9 2. Sweet, William Warren, Revivalism cc,America, New York, Scribners, l9u5. Sweet, William warren, The American Churches, New York, Abingdon - Cdkesbury, I9 . The American Christian Record, New York, N. R. C. Clark and deeaer, ‘ . a Who's The in America, Vol. XXIV (l9h6-7), Chicago, A. H. harquis 00., 1946. _ Wieman Henry Nelson and Bernard Eugene Heland, American Ehilosochies c£,Re1;gion, New York, Harper, 1 . Winslow, Ala Elizabeth, Jonathan Edwards 110} - 1158, New York, hacmillan, 9 . II. Periodicals Hoffman, James W., ' rotestant Prephet,' Presb terian ' Lifc, II Number 1 (July 9, 1939), pp. 6-77. Morrison, Charles Clayton, “Dr. Niebuhr's Unorthodox Orthodoxy," The Christian Ccntugz, LXX (March 17, 1918). pp. 3"2'2 55. Niebuhr, Reinhold “A Faith for History's Greatest Crisis," Fortune, XXVI (July, 1942), pp. 98-100}. Niebuhr, Reinhold, "A Religion Worth Fightin For,“ The gcgzcy, Vol. LVIII (August 1, 1927), pp. Eat-6. Niebuhr, Reinhold, wIs Peace or Justice the design. The 2252-3 We XV (September 21, 1932). pp. 275-7:- Niebuhr, Reinhold, "Is Social Conflict Inevitable,“ Scribner's ingazine, XCVIII (September, 1935), Pp. 166‘90 riebuhr, Reinhold "Is Stewardship Ethical?,' The Christian Centur , LVII (April 30, 1930), pp. 555-7. """"""‘ 87 riebuhr, Reinhold, “Let Liberal Churches Stop Fooling Themselvesl,' Christian Centurz, LVIII Part I (march 25, 1931), pp. 502- . Niebuhr, Reinhold, 'hodern Ut0pians," Scribner's Ma azine, C (Seetember, 1936), pp. - . Niebuhr, Reinhold, ”Prooerty and the Ethical Life,“ The World ggmorrow, XIV (January, 1931), pp. 19-21. Niebuhr, Reinhold, 'Senator Norris and His Clerical Critic,“ The florid Tomorrow, XII (April, 1929), pp. 169-70. Niebuhr, Reinhold, “The Preaching of Repentance ' The Christian genturz LVII (June is, 1930), pp. $79331. Niebuhr, Reinhold, "Would Jesus Be A Modernist Todayl', ' The World Tomorrow, XII (March, 1929), pp. l22-h. Porter, Eliot, I"I‘o Be Hopeful We Need To Revise Our Hepes," Forward, LXXVIII Number 34 (August 20, 19N9), p. 8. 31293 02320 6752 IIHIHHIIIIllllHlllHIIIIIIUHIIIIINIHIHHHIIHII