Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr[a] (June 21, 1892–June 1, 1971) was an American Reformedtheologian, ethicist, commentator on politics and public affairs, and professor at Union Theological Seminary for more than 30 years. Niebuhr was one of America’s leading public intellectuals for several decades of the 20th century and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1964. A public theologian, he wrote and spoke frequently about the intersection of religion, politics, and public policy, with his most influential books including Moral Man and Immoral Society and The Nature and Destiny of Man. The latter is ranked number 18 of the top 100 non-fiction books of the twentieth century by Modern Library.[27]Andrew Bacevich labelled Niebuhr’s book The Irony of American History “the most important book ever written on U.S. foreign policy.”[28] The historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. described Niebuhr as “the most influential American theologian of the 20th century”[29][30] and Time posthumously called Niebuhr “the greatest Protestant theologian in America since Jonathan Edwards.”[31]
Starting as a minister with working-class sympathies in the 1920s and sharing with many other ministers a commitment to pacifism and socialism, his thinking evolved during the 1930s to neo-orthodox realist theology as he developed the philosophical perspective known as Christian realism.[32][verification needed] He attacked utopianism as ineffectual for dealing with reality, writing in The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (1944), “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Niebuhr’s realism deepened after 1945 and led him to support American efforts to confront Soviet communism around the world. A powerful speaker, he was one of the most influential thinkers of the 1940s and 1950s in public affairs.[29] Niebuhr battled with religious liberals over what he called their naïve views of the contradictions of human nature and the optimism of the Social Gospel, and battled with religious conservatives over what he viewed as their naïve view of scripture and their narrow definition of “true religion”. During this time he was viewed by many as the intellectual rival of John Dewey.[33]
The just war theory by Thomas Aquinas has had a lasting impact on later generations of thinkers and was part of an emerging consensus in Medieval Europe on just war.[24] In the 13th century Aquinas reflected in detail on peace and war. Aquinas was a Dominican friar and contemplated the teachings of the Bible on peace and war in combination with ideas from Aristotle, Plato, Saint Augustine and other philosophers whose writings are part of the Western canon. Aquinas’ views on war drew heavily on the Decretum Gratiani, a book the Italian monk Gratian had compiled with passages from the Bible. After its publication in the 12th century, the Decretum Gratiani had been republished with commentary from Pope Innocent IV and the Dominican friar Raymond of Penafort. Other significant influences on Aquinas just war theory were Alexander of Hales and Henry of Segusio.[25]
From Summa Theologica:
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion (cf. Ep. ad Marccl., cxxxviii.): If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: ‘Do violence to no man; … and be content with your pay.’* If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering.
I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rom. 13:4): He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii.): The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Q. X., super Jos.): A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom.*): True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandisement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good. For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii.): The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and suchlike things, all these are rightly condemned in war.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.).
“Admittedly Christianity has always had a wimp problem. The kind of guy who can only jaw-jaw because he can’t war-war has always been with us, and one of the few acceptable employments he could find was in the Church. But this is an entirely different order of weak. If you actually go back and read the Bible — and I question how many of these “pastors” with “ministry” degrees actually have — the Jesus you see is a rough-and-ready character. He talks a lot about peace, love, and understanding… but He also orders His followers to arm themselves. He absolutely puts beatdowns on people. You get the full spectrum of human behavior with the Biblical Jesus.”
Bruce Deitrick Price at American Spectator describes “Why Are Communists Determined to Destroy the US”? Key takeaway — if sexual morals could be compromised and undermined when Christians were still children, then Christianity itself could be destroyed.
Excerpt:
During World War 1, the deputy people’s commissar for culture and education was an extreme Marxist named György Lukács, then considered the most brilliant communist since Marx himself. He advocated promiscuity, denounced the family, and encouraged children to mock their parents and religion. The question Lukács posed was, “Who will save us from Western civilization?”
Marxist theory circa 1900 said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt and create a new communist Europe. Instead, the workers in every country lined up by the millions to fight their country’s enemies.
Why is Marxist theory incorrect? Two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Lukács in Hungary, independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a communist revolution was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism’s goal at the beginning, has never changed.
In 1918, Lukács continued refining what he called “cultural terrorism.” One component was to create sexual education courses in schools that would work to distort traditional sexual morality. “He came to the conclusion that if sexual morals could be compromised and undermined when Christians were still children, then Christianity itself could be destroyed.”
Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens, loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. NEH 4:17
The Wall is part blog, part journal, part bulletin board, and part archive I set up in order to further the discussion about the use of force in defense of church and community. Learn MORE ABOUT THE WALL.
