Search Results

Reinhold Niebuhr's ‘Christian realism’ was in significant part a rejection of the pacifism and optimism of the Social Gospel movement in the United States. Even though Niebuhr had initially been sympathetic to the movement, he came to dismiss its belief that the realization of the kingdom of God, proclaimed by Jesus, could be expected in the foreseeable future. He thought the movement's great confidence in human progress was naiïve, and that its belief in education's power to foster a law of love (and thus to eradicate the sin of selfishness from individuals and institutions) lacked a proper understanding of original sin. Recognizing the force of Niebuhr's criticisms of the Social Gospel movement, this chapter sets out to ask whether Niebuhr's thought is as effective a riposte to another and much more recent strand of thought in Christian ethics: the ecclesially centered ethics of Radical Orthodoxy. Measuring Radical Orthodoxy's thought against Niebuhr's is given added interest by the fact that Radical Orthodox thinkers themselves — and especially John Milbank — have explicitly and critically engaged Niebuhr, and have described what they see as the ‘poverty’ of his idea of Christian realism for contemporary ethics.

In contrast to the previous two chapters, which theologically engage rhythm in continental philosophy, this chapter examines Augustine’s explicitly theological approach to rhythm and its various receptions. The chapter uses Przywara’s scheme of intra-creaturely and theological analogies to frame Augustine’s treatment of rhythm in chapter six of De Musica. While Agamben represents an intra-creaturely perspective, Augustine represents a theological perspective. The degree to which this synchronic, theological view, which envisions rhythm as that which binds metaphysical layers of reality together allowing for communication between them, is problematic depends on the degree to which it is uncoupled from an intra-creaturely perspective like that of Agamben. Proponents of Radical Orthodoxy who propose an Augustinian musical ontology represent such an uncoupling, leading to a total order that betrays creatureliness. Erich Przywara’s interpretation, in contrast, retains the tension in Augustine between both the theological perspective on reality as harmonious and the intra-creaturely experience of interruption.