News feed for: Christians and Politics Portal

Peace is more important to 'powder keg' Europe than the Euro

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:02:20 +0100

It happened in the Swiss town of Caux, beautifully situated above Montreux, with a wonderful view over Lake Geneva. July 1946 delegates from many European countries gathered in the Mountain House, a former refuge centre for war victims, to look together for opportunities for reconciliation and peace in Europe.

By René van Loon

The most important lecturer was the American, Lutheran evangelist Dr Frank Buchman, leader of the Movement for Moral Rearmament. When Buchman entered the big hall and saw the flags and national costumes of many countries, he called out: ‘Where are the Germans?’ The public reacted with shock, upon which he continued: ‘Where are the Germans? Some of you think that Germany has got to change; and that is true. But you will never be able to rebuild Europe without Germany.’ [1]
In the years that followed Caux remained a meeting place for European leaders. Thanks to the Mountain House and the efforts of Buchman, Dr Konrad Adenauer, who would later become the Federal Chancellor of Germany, and the French premier Robert Schuman, got to know each other. Together they developed a daring plan: the peace between France and Germany would be furthered by economic cooperation and intertwining. With this vision the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was established 18 April 1951. Besides France and Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries also joined the ECSC.
The leaders at that time were emphatically aware, that Europe had been a powder keg throughout the ages. Wars without number have been fought between the diverse super powers: Germany, England, France, Italy, Spain. The establishment of the ECSC was a historic step on the way to a new future and peace for Europe was its main goal. Economic cooperation was seen as a means to attain that main goal. That the ECSC would also benefit the wealth of a continent impoverished by war was an important additional goal.

Europe as a power bloc
In the decades that followed, the goals of European policy shifted. The longer the peace in Europe lasted, the more this peace was taken for granted. Besides the ECSC, the EEC was established, the European Economic Community. What had at first been an additional goal, increasing wealth by economic cooperation, gradually became rather the main goal. The EEC was transformed into the European Community (EC) that grew to become the European Union by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993.
Apart from the goals of peace in Europe and increasing wealth, a third goal arose along the way. Europe had the ambition to become a significant power factor on the world stage. Certainly after the collapse of communism, the desire grew to formulate an answer to the hegemony of the United States of America in the world. Europe wanted to be able to counter the US politically and the US and Japan economically, as well as the rising People’s Republic of China. In this light the plan arose of introducing a single European currency, a strong currency, that would globally at least be equally in demand as the Dollar and the Yen.

The plan to introduce a single currency in a union of sovereign states was doomed to fail from the beginning. Anyone with a certain understanding of economics would know that a single currency requires a central policy, executed by a central government. The power of a currency is like the grade a government gets for its policy. When a country structurally maintains a large public debt, the value of the currency diminishes. If it manages to limit public debt, that benefits the value of the currency. But still other factors are in play. When the policy of a government stimulates export, this benefits the value of the currency. The dynamics of wages and prices has an influence on the value of the currency, as does the development of the interest rates. The introduction of the Euro therefore had to be accompanied by the formation of a single, strong, European government. But this is not what happened. Mutual agreements were made, concerning among other things the height of public debt. Those agreements were violated by large member states such as Germany and France already within a few years. The die was cast. The countries within the Euro zone had to sustain the value of the Euro together. Such as system entices individual countries to skimp the rules, hoping that others do fully live up to them. It is like a group of pupils who have to make a project together and will be graded as a group. In such as group there will always be those who do a lot of work, who make an effort, but there will also always be free riders, that trust that the others will do the work.

Did politicians at the time not foresee that a single currency without a central policy had to lead to problems? Undoubtedly they did see this coming. But the single currency would always succeed. If no crisis were to occur, everyone would be content. And if a crisis were to occur, the public opinion in Europe would be ripe for the formation of a centralised European government. The Euro would be a lever that would bring nearer the formation of the United States of Europe.

Picture: Signature in Paris of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC): Van Zeeland (B) Belgian Foreign Affairs Minister, Bech (L) Luxembourg Foreign Affairs Minister, Meurice (B), Sforza (I) Italian Foreign Affairs Minister, Schuman (F) French Foreign Affairs Minister, Adenauer (D) German Chancellor and Foreign Affairs Minister, Stikker (NL) Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister, Van Den Brink (NL).

The Euro as a goal in itself
In the mean time the crisis has become a fact. And indeed: many opinion leaders, economists and politicians rightly draw the predictable conclusion: If we want to save the Euro, we will have to move towards a centralised European government. The former Belgian premier Guy Verhofstadt is one of the most passionate defenders of this position.

The question is though, what again were the original goals of European cooperation. The thesis ‘If we want to save the Euro, we have to move towards one European government’ takes the Euro as a starting point. But the Euro is not a goal in itself. The Euro is a means. And the question is: What European goal does the Euro actually serve? Does the Euro serve peace (the first goal), economic prosperity (the second goal) or the power of Europe in the world (the third goal)? This third goal is clearly served with the single currency. The second goal, economic prosperity, according to many politicians is also served by it. But whether this is actually the fact remains to be questioned. Countries such as Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom (within the EU) and Norway and Switzerland (outside the EU) are certainly not performing less good economically than countries that have the Euro. It is mainly the free trade agreements that have furthered the prosperity of Europe, rather than the Euro.

And the first goal, peace in Europe, is this served with the Euro and thus with a single European government? This is in fact the main question, which at the same time seems to be overlooked by most politicians. Peace is taken for granted! The Second World War is only a spec in the rear view mirror of European history at the most. The current generation of politicians grew up after the war and knows little else than that there is peace.

Whoever analyses the developments in Europe, shall soon have to assert that a single European government will summon up new tensions within the powder keg that is Europe, which bring with them great risks for the future of this continent. For a single European government will have to keep member states at bay with harsh means. This means that drastic measures will have to be taken with regard to national budgets and the national policy of the individual countries. We have witnessed this summer what consequences this has: great social unrest in countries such as Greece, Spain and Italy. The people in these countries get the feeling that the enormous budget cuts have been imposed by Europe as a foreign, abstract entity. Brussels is a far-away, Northern-European city. Even if the unrest does not lead to explosions of violence or terrorism (which is not imaginary), than the unrest will still inevitably lead to anti-European sentiments. Through the democratic process the anti-European sentiments will translate into the government policy of these countries. The consequence is a move in the direction of European disintegration.

This is not all. A single European economic policy would inevitably entail the richer regions structurally contributing to the poorer regions. Introducing Eurobonds for example would lead to equal interest rates in the entire Euro zone. This means that governments and citizens in countries with a solid monetary policy would have to pay more interest, and that interest in countries with a flawed policy would drop. All in all, this means the ‘solid’ countries would end up subsidising the ‘squanderers’. Now, the reality is that within each country poorer regions are structurally supported by richer regions. In the Netherlands for example, there is a continuous flow of money from the urbanised provinces in the west to the more peripheral provinces. This does not lead to protests though, because there is a great social and cultural cohesion within the Netherlands. This bond is strong enough to defray the cost of this solidarity. We only have to look across our border though, to Belgium (Guy Verhofstadt’s country!) to see that solidarity comes to an end when there are great cultural differences. Flanders has been a net contributor to Wallonia for decades now and is fed up with it. The consequence has been a complete stalemate in Belgian politics.
Within Europe the cultural differences are much greater still than within Belgium. Richer countries such as the Netherlands and Germany will certainly not be willing to contribute structurally to countries such as Italy and Greece. This applies even more to countries such as Romania and Bulgaria, both countries that are EU member states and obligated to join the Euro as soon as they meet the EU’s monetary standards. In Europe there will never come to exist such a sense of unity as there is for example in the United States of America. The United States have one language and are culturally much more similar than the European nations. If there is ever to be something like the United States of Europe, this entity will always remain a patchwork of cultures, languages and historical backgrounds. In any case there will be insufficient cohesion, to form a basis for structural help from one region to the other.
The history of the EU has demonstrated this sufficiently. Within the EU there are numerous aid funds in a number of areas. Subsequent Dutch governments have complained in Brussels, that the Netherlands is contributing more to these funds, than it receives from them. When it comes to money, it turns out the solidarity does not run very deep.

A single European government, necessary for maintaining a strong single currency, will in the long term lead to increasing tensions within Europe. These tensions will lead to the disintegration of the European Union, with as most extreme scenario violence, terrorism or even war. The history of our continent shows that this danger is not at all imaginary. Europe always has been and remains a powder keg.

Back to peace as a goal
What policy makers in Europe are to do now, is to return to the original goal of lasting peace in Europe. Economic prosperity will again have to be seen as an additional goal, subject to this goal of peace. Because of this peace, the European Union is of the utmost importance. Exactly to assure the continued existence of the EU in the long term, it is important that no further centralisation of power takes place. A continent like Europe, with many peoples, proud of their own language and culture, asks for a form of cooperation that leaves space to national sovereignty. A good balance should be found again between the power of the member states and the power of the Union. In this balance the member states will have to retain the space to carry out their own policies, also in the socio-economic area. If it turns out that in this scenario the Euro cannot be sustained in the long term, politicians should show the courage to question the single currency. Suggestions have already been made to split the Euro into a ‘Neuro’ for the northern countries and a ‘Seuro’ for the southern countries. Even further unstrangling may be inevitable. This will no doubt mean that Europe and certain European politicians will lose face. But the question is what really matters: image or the future of this continent. Peace is more important than the Euro.

René van Loon is a political economist and theologian. An abridged version of this article was originally published in Dutch in the Nederlands Dagblad. Translation by Jonathan van Tongeren.

[1] Michael Henderson, The Spirit of Caux. Moral Re-Armament/Initiatives of Change in Switzerland. Retrieved at http://www.peoplebuildingpeace.org/thestories/print.php?id=152&typ=theme on Octobre 7, 2011.

Biblical Foundations of Evangelical Politics

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:46:40 +0200

The following text is based on an audio recording of Ronald J. Sider's address at a conference of the Evangelical Peoples' Party of Switzerland. Sider briefly summarises a book he has written on how to think biblically on politics. He first outlines his methodology and then illustrates his political philosophy.

[..] Every political judgement has four components to it. One part is a normative framework. There are some secular political thinkers who claim that they have a fully objective starting point. But they are trying to kid themselves or you; everyone’s normative values are rooted finally in their deepest philosophical or religious commitments. So I go back to the Scriptures largely to find my normative framework. But second, we need a broad study of the world, history, economics and so on. And then we need to pull these two things together and develop a political philosophy. The reason we need that is this: Every time you want to decide how to vote on legislation or a particular politician, you cannot take five years and go back and do all the biblical studies again, and five years to do all the socio-economics and history again. You need a roadmap, a handy guide, a summary and that is what I mean by a political philosophy. And then of course you have to apply that political philosophy to every political decision. One other preliminary point: I think it is crucial that one starts ones political analysis and thinking within the Christian community. If you do not do that, then you end up adopting secular political ideologies of left or right. And that is exactly what happened with many Christians in politics, at least in my country. Too many Christians have uncritically adopted left wing or right wing politics. The result has been a sub-Christian Religious Right, that I think largely correctly championed the sanctity of life and the family, but neglected economic justice for the poor and environmental concerns. Equally sub-Christian was the Religious Left that rightly defended peace and justice and the integrity of creation, but largely forgot about the importance of the family and sexual integrity and failed to defend the most vulnerable of all, the unborn. When I give a longer version of this speech I make the next section on a discussion of my normative biblical framework, but there is no time for that, so I will go on immediately to sketch my political philosophy. And I hope as I do that, you can see how I try to develop my political philosophy out of a normative biblical framework and out of a careful study of the world. Obviously there is no developed political philosophy in the Bible. Individuals and communities of Christians need to develop that as they put together a normative framework and study of the world. So, several components of my political philosophy:

First, the democratisation or decentralisation of power: I think there is a positive reason and a negative reason for decentralising power. The positive reason is that every person is created in the image of God and is given a creation mandate to be co-worker with God in shaping history. If all the decisions are made by just a few people, the majority cannot exercise their creation mandate. The negative reason for decentralisation of power has been stated pointedly by Lord Acton. He said power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Biblical people know that sinful people in a fallen world will almost always use centralised power for their selfish advantage. They will use it to benefit themselves and oppress others.

Second, and partly flowing from the first, is democracy. I do not think the Bible explicitly teaches a democratic political order, but I think some biblical principles and a study of the world point us in that direction. I think the biblical teaching about the worth of every individual and the importance of individual freedom and a concern for human rights and a concern for the decentralisation of power, all lead us toward a democratic political order. When you have freedom of speech, secret voting, universal suffrage, political power is fundamentally decentralised, at least theoretically.

Third, non-governmental institutions: A great British Christian leader said that the greatest heresy about society is to think that society is just individuals and the state. Society when it works well is composed of many non-governmental institutions: family, religious institutions, media, schools, businesses and a host of other non-governmental organisations. All of these intermediate institutions decentralise power, they provide small centres where human beings can flourish and they check centralised power, they check governmental power and they provide freedom. So a good society will pay a lot of attention and value and treasure those intermediate, non-governmental institutions.

Fourth, the very ‘non-controversial’ topic of the market-economy: I think the history of the 20th century shows clearly that when the state owns almost all of the productive property in a society, you centralise economic power and political power and you almost guarantee totalitarianism. Genuinely decentralised private ownership on the other hand nurtures free individuals and it serves as a counter-balance to political power. Furthermore determining prices and production via supply and demand has proven to be more efficient than central planning. I also think that biblical teaching about the value and the freedom of the individual also supports this approach. However, huge privately owned corporations also centralise power in a dangerous way. When a small group of very wealthy people own huge corporations and those corporations own the media and so shape the thinking of the society and provide most of the money for the election [campaign]s. Then again you have centralised economic and political power in a dangerous way. I find it interesting that political conservatives in my own country were very clear about this danger of centralised power in the 1970’s and 80’s, as they rightly criticised theSoviet Union. They seem to have somehow forgotten the principle of decentralisation of power now when we are talking about private corporations.

I will not say much about the next point, religious freedom, except to remind you that my roots are Swiss Mennonite and we care a lot about separation of church and state. Next I will talk about the family. I think that government rightly recognises and favours the family. By family I mean those related by blood, marriage or adoption. The sociological studies have been very clear that children do better when they are raised by both of their biological parents. The sociological research on that is overwhelmingly clear. The family, not the government, has the primary responsibility to raise children. I think religious institutions can do more than government to strengthen the family. But government can do some things and should. I think that means discouraging but not criminalising divorce and sexual promiscuity. I also think it means civil rights for gay citizens, but I do not think that means gay marriage is the way to go.

Next, the care for creation: I think responsible care for creation flows out of biblical norms. [..] I think that human beings have a far greater worth than the non-human world, but very seldom do we have to choose between taking a human life and destroying an endangered species. Usually it is a choice between growing affluence on the one hand and destroying the handiwork of the Creator. So we need to take a long term approach to environmental sustainability, but we must always do that in a way that helps the poor rather than hurts them. And we wealthy nations, that have created most of the environmental pollution thus far, ought to pay much of the cost of helping the whole globe take environmental issues seriously.

A couple of comments about the role of government: You have probably read about the Tea Party movement in theUnited States. Many American evangelicals are engaged in the Tea Party, inconsistently I think. The Tea Party is essentially libertarian, [in their view] government has no role in empowering the poor, the family and the church are supposed to do that. I think that if you look at the scriptures you see that the king is supposed to do justice for the poor. I also think that government must be limited, remember the point about decentralisation of power. So, there is a proper role for government in creating a good society and empowering the poor. I believe in taxing wealthier people in order to redistribute to poorer people, although it is not always politically wise to put it in just those terms. But that must be done wisely, the programmes must be effective. And too often programmes for the poor have created dependency rather than self-sufficiency. So, I want a substantial role for government, but a limited role. And I think you can make a case for that both from biblical teaching and from study of the world.

Next let me comment on the priority of the poor. The Bible is very clear, God is on the side of the poor. God measures societies by what they do to the people on the bottom. I think that both biblical analysis and study of the world also show the following: People are poor both because they sometimes make bad personal choices and because the structures are unfair. And conservatives seem to want to talk only about the personal choices and liberals seem to want to talk only about bad structures. And I think that is tragic, because both factors are important.

Next, a consistent ethic of life: I think the first and most basic human right is the right to life. And I think abortion involves the direct, intentional, violent taking of life. I am in favour of legislation that reduces the frequency of abortions. But we also need to be clear that there are two people involved, not just the baby. So we need to have a variety of programmes that help mothers with unintended pregnancies carry that baby to term. I think euthanasia, as a direct action to take a human life, is fundamentally wrong and very dangerous for a society. That does not mean that it is wrong to decide, if the doctors say that you have no hope of living beyond a few months, that you do not want all the machines and all the complicated techniques that modern medicine can do. But I think there is a fundamental distinction between allowing a person to die and killing a person. And I think that distinction, although sometimes difficult, is really crucial. But a concern for the sanctity of human life, does not end with abortion and euthanasia, some wise guy said that some conservatives act as if life begins at conception and ends at birth. Tens of millions of people die unnecessarily of starvation and diseases we know how to prevent. Tobacco kills millions of people every year, the capital punishment kills people made in the image of God. I think a consistent ethic of life will be concerned with the sanctity of life in all those areas.

Finally just a very few comments about the American religious scene right now. I think that many people both in theUSand outside think that the Religious Right represents all American evangelicals. It is a little oversimplification but largely true to say that the Religious Right was concerned primarily with abortion and sexuality and marriage. In the last approximately ten years a new Evangelical Centre has emerged and it is concerned with a much broader political agenda. I like to say that if you want to be a Christian in politics you will have to ask this question: What does the Bible say God cares about? And I think when you ask that question, then you quickly see that God cares about the sanctity of human life and the poor, about the family and peace making, about sexual integrity and about care for creation. I like to say and this has been true of me for a long time: I am pro life and pro poor, pro family and pro racial justice, pro sexual integrity and pro creation care. And in 2004 the National Association of Evangelicals adopted a statement which reflects this broader agenda. I had the privilege of co-chairing that process and the statement says that faithful evangelical political engagement must have a biblically balanced agenda. And the statement goes on to have a strong conservative statement on the sanctity of human life and marriage and family, but the longest section is on economic justice for the poor and there are fairly strong statements on peace making and creation care. Now, not nearly all evangelicals in theUSvote according to that statement, but that is the official framework for the largest evangelical organisation in the US.

Ronald J. Sider is a professor of Theology, Holistic Ministry and Public Policy at Palmer Theological Seminary in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. He is the founder of Evangelicals for Social Action, a think-tank which seeks to develop biblical solutions to social and economic problems, and a founding board member of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Transcript by Jonathan van Tongeren.

The state as juggler. Reinhold Niebuhr on politics, power and morality

Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:33:32 +0200

The name of the American Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) regularly shows up in discussions on the task of politics. In the last American presidential elections for example, both Obama and Bush referred to him. Who is this man and what explains the continued interest for his work?

By Willem Boerma

Between idealism and realism
Reinhold Niebuhr is widely acknowledged as the founder of Christian Realism, a tradition within the scientific discipline of International Relations, that does not deny the possibility of moral decisions in (international) politics, but at the same time sees little room for it. Murray summarises the position of Christian Realism well in the title of his work ’between power and cosmopolitan ethics’.[1] Niebuhr’s thought is strongly influenced by the two World Wars, the Interwar period and the start of the Cold War. Influenced by these periods in world history, he abandoned his originally pacifist mindset for the position of Christian Realism. He acknowledges that idealism is a grave danger in international politics. According to Niebuhr the two World Wars have amply demonstrated that evil cannot be banned out by human efforts. At the same time he also criticises the political realism of Thomas Hobbes and Nicollò Machiavelli. Such realism leads to a situation of continuous war and tension, for an important adage of this realism is: si vis pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war). With his Christian Realism Niebuhr tries to occupy the middle ground between idealism and realism: on account of his Christian conviction and on account of ‘hard-won political wisdom’.[2] This tension between idealism and realism can be observed first and foremost in his view of man and in his worldview.

View of man: freedom and sinfulness
Niebuhr’s description of man as ‘both creature of time and creator of history in time’ shows the range of his view of man.[3] He sees a big role for human freedom, while he acknowledges that this freedom is limited by the fact that man is a created and sinful being. This explains why Niebuhr has been characterised as a ‘pessimistic optimist’.[4] In his view of man he continuously emphasises the ambivalence of human nature: By means of reason, man can transcend himself above every historical situation. At the same time the self is to big to comprehend itself and to make its self its goal. “The twofold possibility of creativity and destruction of human freedom, accounts for the growth of both good and evil through the extension of human powers.”[5] According to Niebuhr this ambivalence can be traced back to the Fall of man: the flawed use of the human will marks the end of man as imago dei. The possibility of a good use of reason, the discoveries of natural science, the increasing knowledge of foreign languages and cultures and the increasing interdependence can be means to somewhat moderate the egoistic impulses of individuals and national states. Even though they will never suffice to undo the consequences of sin.

World view: Battle between God and man
Regarding Niebuhr’s view of world history, his basic principle is clear: God is the reason, the ultimate purpose and the perfection of our existence. History forms the scene of the battle between God and man. Niebuhr emphasises that it is about the battle between sinful people and God: on the basis of this reality there can be no discrimination between respective persons or respective peoples. He furthermore sees history as a continuous attempt of people to deny the sovereignty of God and to aspire being gods themselves. The individual and collective will-to-power continue to play an important role. This leads to (potential) conflict, tension and abuse of power in relations between individuals and also between states or other collectives.
Niebuhr sees the metaphysical meaning of history in the person of Christ. Man, being an enigma to himself, is not capable of reconciling himself with God. He is to limited due to his human and sinful nature. Christ has, through his death on the cross, established this reconciliation between God and man. Thus God is the ultimate goal of history.
Summarising: Niebuhr sees a great measure of freedom for the humane itself. He pairs this freedom with responsibility and limits it by pointing to the fact that man is created and sinful. Moral ambiguity is the reality than man has to live with after the fall. But what consequences does this have for government and politics?

Government: Might ánd Morality
Niebuhr sees the aspiration to power as one of the most important motivations of human action. He sees this as a perversion of the original situation: the will-to-live has changed in and because of the fall of man into a will-to-power. Niebuhr distinguishes several kinds of power: physical (economic and military) power, intellectual power and spiritual power. The most important task of the state is to establish and maintain a balance of power. For Niebuhr this balance exists in a “wise apprehension of concurrent interests, rather than by a ‘sacrifice’ of the ‘lower’ to the ‘highest’ interests.”[6] The political virtue of shaping this balance of power is prudence. The balance thus created is not static but dynamic, nor is this balance of power a goal in itself: it is to him a precondition to come to some form of social justice.

Power per se has need of morality for its legitimacy. The intrinsic need of man for ‘the transcendent’ and for the ‘vestiges’ of the original justice make that power has need of a legitimisation outside of itself to be effective. Niebuhr is convinced that power does not merely require a material but also an immaterial basis: this recalls the fact that man is moral being. In another place (criticising the rigorous division Luther establishes between church and state) he says it like this: “justice degenerates into mere order without justice if the pull of love is not upon it.”[7] So power can only be effective in the long term when it appeals to immaterial values. This is why Niebuhr criticises for example Realism, in which the national interest of a state is defined exclusively in terms of power and interests. This is to limited: “a narrow definition of the interest of the nation leads to the defeat of that interest.”[8] The job description of a political authority in searching for a good balance of might and morality is described strikingly by Niebuhr: “politics is an effort to establish tolerable community, the sinfulness of men presupposed.”[9] Our expectations of what can be achieved by political means should not be to high. To realise this the distinction between individual and collective morality is crucial.

Opposed to political thinking in terms of progress
From his early works on, Niebuhr emphasised the distinction between individual and collective morality. It is clear to him for example that (religious) idealists have made individual morality a norm for social and political action. This becomes visible mainly in their linear understanding of history: rational man is ever more capable of controlling his egoistic impulses and letting rational thinking, justice and universal values prevail. Thus the will-to-power becomes an artefact from the past. Niebuhr refutes this naïve position on principled as well as pragmatic grounds. In the love (agape) of Christ for man Niebuhr sees the definitive norm for the self as ‘free spirit’. Agape is source and goal of all mutual relations in the human existence. At the same time it is clear to him that love as norm of action can mainly apply on the individual level. For social justice this ‘perfectionist ethic’[10] is irrelevant. He even goes as far as saying that the individual self can suffer under the ‘collective self’ because it knows higher standards. For in a social unity a balance has to be found between different interests and standards. This leads to a balance of power on the basis of calculation and/or force: “all social cooperation on a larger scale than the most intimate social group requires a measure of coercion.”[11] The result is that social justice is always of a lower order than individual justice, and it should be.

Another reason Niebuhr provides to demonstrate the difference between individual and collective morality is also interesting: namely the possibility of self-criticism. The individual is an integral unity of body and spirit. Being an integral unity allows for self-reflection and self-criticism. This possibility decreases as the scale of a social organisation (for example a state) increases: the integral unity disappears. The moral life of a state is therefore of a lower level than that of an individual.
At the same time Niebuhr does not want to strip love (to God and fellow man) as moral standard of all of its socio-political significance; something that would in any way be an impossibility. Interesting is for example his idea of a form of iustitia originalis. He points to the fact that the three virtues of faith, hope and love are an integral part of humanity, they were not lost in the Fall, although they have been perverted. The value of these three virtues, and therewith of the double commandment of love, lies in the religious and moral interpretation. Thus Niebuhr wants to point out that what before the fall was automatically in agreement with the being of man, has in the sinful reality taken the shape of laws and rules. This change places laws and rules on a lower moral order than the ‘law of love’ in its original form: love as transcendence of the law, righteousness as rationalisation of this law of love. At the same time this presence of a form and reminder of justice offers the opportunity to come to social justice on the basis of laws and not on the basis of power alone. The remaining form of justice offers the opportunity to rise above the direct self-interest.

The state as juggler
For Niebuhr egoism and the will-to-power dominate the social process of state formation. These motives are present on the individual level; on the level of a group, a society or a state these shortcomings return enlarged. For within a group there is less self-criticism. Niebuhr is therefore realistic enough to conclude that a society is mainly held together by power: “a nation is a corporate unity, held together much more by force and emotion, than by mind.”[12] At the same time power alone is not enough: a society has to share certain values or refer to values that appeal to the remaining sense of justice of people. It is an important task of the state (government) to continuously seek this balance between order and justice. The state has as an important mission to take on the organisation of the different powers that are at work in its own society and in the relations between states. Herein a balance of power, implying order, is eventually more important than the contents of this order.
In his concept of state, Niebuhr turns against the so-called contract-theorists. In his view the state is the result of a historic and organic process, not of a contract between the people and the rulers. This is related to Niebuhr’s idea that every social entity, including the state, is eventually of temporary nature. At that moment in history (the first half of the twentieth century) a state seems to Niebuhr to be the most appropriate form of rule, but it is not a constant. He sees the battle between God and man wanting to become god as the only constant in history. Remarkable is Niebuhr’s conclusion that the most important moral characteristic of the state is its hypocrisy. In claiming loyalty (devotion of its own citizens) and viewing community as a part of a universal community of values ‘dishonesty of nations’ is ‘a necessity of political policy’.

Conclusion
Niebuhr is constantly searching for a balance between might and morality. To him a balance is not only the most realistic option, but form his Christian conviction also the only right one. Negation of fall of man forms as great a danger to society as negation of the vestiges of justice.

Willem Boerma MA works as an adviser to the Provincial Legislature of Flevoland. Besides this he has worked on a thesis on Niebuhr and Elshtain’s reception of the works of St. Augustin. This article was published in Dutch in ‘Denkwijzer’ (2/2009), magazine of the Scientific Institute of the Christian Union party of the Netherlands. Translation by Jonathan van Tongeren

[1] Alisdair H. Murray (1997), Reconstructing Realism. Between power and cosmopolitan ethics.

[2] Paul Foreman (2002), The neo-orthodox theology of Reinhold Niebuhr, http://www.leaderu.com/isot/docs/niehbr3.html, 2; A typical quote in this context is: “it is a terrible heresy to suggest that, because the world is sinful, we have the right to construct a Machiavellian politics or a Darwinian sociology as normative for Christians.”, in: Robert MacAfee Brown ed. (1986) The essential Reinhold Niebuhr: selected essays and addresses, New Haven: Yale University Press, 215

[3] Reinhold Niebuhr (1949) Faith and History, 55

[4] Brown (1986), The Essential Reinhold Niebuhr, 146/147

[5] Ibid., 139, cf.: ibid., 105

[6] Reinhold Niebuhr (1965), Man’s nature and his communities. Essays on the dynamics and enigmas of man’s personal and social existence, New York; Charles Scribner’s sons, 90

[7] Niebuhr, Faith and history, 210

[8] Niebuhr, Human destiny, 79

[9] Niebuhr, Human nature, 216

[10] Niebuhr, The self and the dramas of history, 202

[11] Niebuhr, Moral man and immoral society, 3

[12] Niebuhr, Moral man and immoral society, 88