I will begin this post with a huge BIAS alert; I was
raised to feel the Niebuhr brothers were terrible and irresponsible scholars whose
historical incompetence could only be topped by their horrendous theology. Sittser gets right to the heart of why I was indoctrinated
to dislike Reinhold Niebuhr’s theology; he prioritizes political “realties” and
marginalizes peace traditionalists as unrealistic idealists and heretics. Niebuhr
knew how things go down on the playground and pacifists did not. Sittser, in
Chapter Four, does a good job of showing the impact, intensity and functionality
of Niebuhr’s writings while also showing his caustic and obsessive wit on
topics he despises, like perfectionism, (Niebuhr never hit a dead horse enough
for his liking). Additionally, Sittser
does in one paragraph—a truly impressive work of cogent synopsis-- a succinct
and considerate critique of Niebuhr’s propagandization of pacifist beliefs
(73-74).
Trying to extract myself from the anti-Niebuhr bias and
the historical narrative that makes World War II a just war and the example
used to batter pacifists; I find the neutralists arguments to be quite practical,
if not quite convincing, in light of the debacle of European reconstruction following
the great war.
What impact, if any, does Niebuhr make on the responsibility
of America to intervene in foreign affairs after World War II? How do Niebuhr’s arguments fit the War on
Terror? Do Christian Clergys’ positions
still affect the interpretation of war in America?
No comments:
Post a Comment