Christian Realism: A Philosophy of Effective Action

The necessity of dealing with reality requires giving up the idea that righteousness is found in keeping one’s hands clean. Christian action incurs guilt for the sake of making a dent in the world.

Photo by Joshua Earle on Unsplash

I’ve critiqued the evangelical subculture for some of its mindsets that lead to ineffectiveness in public action.

But during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, when the Neo-Evangelical movement was just getting up and running, theologians like Emil Brunner, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Richard and Reinhold Niebuhr were articulating a compelling, non-partisan Christian political ethic known as Christian realism.

Christian realism provides key solutions to the problems of evangelical ineffectiveness and deserves to be revived and adopted by contemporary Christians, evangelical and otherwise.

What Is “Realism?”

Photo by Pascal Debrunner on Unsplash

“Realism” is related to but different than the philosophical view I argue for, (for example, in “Toward a Sophisticated Realism”) which basically defends the reality of a world external to our minds, and the possibility of direct knowledge of it, unmediated by presuppositions, worldviews, concepts, frameworks, and theories.

Here, “realism” refers to something that is best demonstrated: Not to pick on the Catholics, but consider Catholic teaching on contraception and marriage. While rigorous in its moral demands, to hold that contraception is inherently immoral in the modern day is just unrealistic. This is demonstrable from the small percentage of Catholics who abide by the teaching; it is clear from the fact that contraception can be used carefully, in order not to accidentally commit abortion, and from the fact that the needs and demands of particular couples may at times require its use. It is unrealistic to maintain a moral demand that is belied by the contemporary historical and material situation.

Realism is not relativism, however. It does not give license to reduce moral demands down to what people can, without difficulty, obey. For example, demanding that same-sex attracted Christians abide by the Christian sexual ethic is not necessarily unrealistic. But it is unrealistic to expect them to abide by it without cultivating a culture that welcomes them, encourages them, and supports them in celibacy or mixed-orientation marriage (and without quibbling about the adjective “gay”).

However, realism often does involve taking the risk of either not abiding by certain moral standards or appearing not to. For instance, Dietrich Bonhoeffer held strongly that one should obey the governing authorities, on the basis of Christian, and especially Lutheran teaching. However, when Nazism reached certain heights, he felt that to retain his purported moral purity at great cost to others’ lives would be, in the end, deeply wrong. That spurred his involvement in the plot to overthrow Hitler, which eventually led to his imprisonment and death.

Today, “realism” is most commonly spoken of in the realm of foreign policy, war, and international relations broadly. This kind of realism holds that moral evaluation breaks down at the level of international action. Even while we have created systems of international law, there is no neutral arbiter of such law. This means that nations that do not abide by international law can often only be corrected by other international action. If purportedly “good actors” restrain themselves by the code of international law, they may be hamstrung in bringing about the necessary ends for their own national interest as well as that of the international community.

Realism is really summed up in the idea that effective action in the world must risk the violation of conventional moral standards in order to accomplish real good and make a dent in the world.

Can Realism Be Christian?

Photo by John Moeses Bauan on Unsplash

Now, there are major forces in Christianity that push against realism, chiefly its high moral standards and sense of a divine law, and that no one is above that law.

While that element of anti-realism is universal in Christianity, the more strongly anti-realist elements are those found differently in Anabaptist and monastic traditions. In Anabaptist theology, there is a strong element of relinquishing the tools of earthly power, of monetary wealth, and of social status. Anabaptists, after an initial radical violent spell, were and are pacifists. They question Christian involvement in the military. To that extent, they question Christian involvement in politics, which is inherently tied to the use of violence and exercise of political authority. In a way that was later secularized by Marx, they found wealth-creation and money to be morally suspect.

The Anabaptist impulse was but the reincarnation of an impulse that had arisen within and been subsumed by Catholicism. In Protestantism, the Anabaptists and the Magisterial Reformers were separate movements, with the Magisterial Reformers taking a more affirming - realist - view of political and financial life. But within Catholicism, these two kinds of Christian approaches were brought under a single institution, in the distinction between the religious and the laity. The Catholic view of religious life, like Anabaptism, was that the life of poverty, non-violence, celibacy, and political disengagement is highest. However, because of its civilizational scale and universal claims, Catholicism also recognized the necessity of secular life, power, marriage, and violence. But in the recognition of necessity, one can see the seed of Christian realism.

Christian realism really comes into its own, however, when this necessity is recognized as endemic to human life. The necessity of dealing with human and natural reality as they are requires giving up the idea that righteousness is found in keeping one’s hands clean. This really comes in Christian history with the Magisterial Protestant (Reformed and Lutheran) reformation and its embrace of secular life. Luther famously married, had children, and drank - all recognitions that extra-biblical, ascetic constraints were not the standard of holiness. Both Lutheran and Calvinist reformations occurred in unison with political leaders, i.e., civil magistrates, hence, the “magisterial” reformation. This involved the embrace of political power, in its limit, capital punishment and waging war, as legitimate and useful to Christian ends. And finally, Calvinism famously became an economically productive engine, leading, for example, to the wealth of the Netherlands.

Note: The Reformation was the seed of a productive Christian view of secular life, not the beginning of the end, the inevitable seedbed of secularism, as the common, traditionalist anti-Protestant narrative would have it.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Realism’s Theological Foundation

Photo by Jean Carlo Emer on Unsplash

Bonhoeffer articulates the Christian foundation of realism, grounding it in the doctrine of justification by faith. Effectively, he argues that the attempt to act always in a way that can be justified to oneself, others, and God by verbatim obedience to divine law is a kind of justification by works of the law, as well as a shrinking from radical individual responsibility. Given the complexity of reality and the demands it can put on you of competing duties, it is ultimately impossible ever to act in a way that can be wholly justified by religious and moral teaching, or secular or divine law. The one who acts must risk doing evil in order to do good. His actions cannot be justified beforehand. They must be done in faith and recognition that they may require repentance and forgiveness after the fact:

“Jesus took upon Himself the guilt of all men, and for that reason every man who acts responsibly becomes guilty. If any man tries to escape guilt in responsibility, … He sets his own personal innocence above his responsibility for men, and he is blind for the more irredeemable guilt which he incurs precisely in this.” (241)

For example, Immanuel Kant had famously argued that the right thing to do was never to lie, even to a murderer at the door. This was no abstract question for Bonhoeffer. He knew that to fail to lie bald-facedly to the Nazi at the door was to be complicit in all the atrocities of Nazism. Worse, it was to participate in Jew-murder while thinking oneself innocent and pure and better than the Nazis. To murder, one added the sin of Pharisaism and self-righteousness.

Responsible human action, Bonhoeffer argued, followed Christ in taking on guilt for the sake of others, entering the sin-soaked world and risking impurity.

Consider: Last week, I argued that the Reformed-cum-Lutheran view of justification by faith common in Reformed evangelical circles is nihilist, undermining the motive to good works. Bonhoeffer finds in the doctrine an opposite implication, a freedom to act effectively and responsibly, without fear.

Emil Brunner: Realism in Peacetime

Photo by Diane Picchiottino on Unsplash

Emil Brunner offered a different description of the problem and pointed to a solution more helpful in peacetime. In his theological ethics, The Divine Imperative, Brunner described what he called “Christian inwardness”: “The obvious tendency of many earnest Christians to shrink from all external action.” This desire is based in the intent to do directly spiritual and personal work, but the technical spheres of life require involvement in bureaucracy, filling out forms, jumping through hoops, or just doing one’s job well, all in order to have a very indirect effect on other people.

However, “Since God requires from us not merely volition but action, He requires us to enter into this ‘alien sphere,’ into this realm of the impersonal, and it is His will that we, as believers, shall prove ourselves within this sphere.” For, “It is here, in this borderland between technical action and ethics–in economics, in politics, in public life–that the great decisions are made.” Now, that is a philosophy for public Christian action in the world.

Part of the difficulty of acting as a Christian in these various spheres is that the Christian approach to economics or politics is underdetermined by Christian teaching. This means it involves accruing empirical knowledge of these fields and exercising human judgment in areas of controversy and disagreement, not only between Christians and non-Christians, but also among Christians.

For instance, while I see much to admire in urging Christians not to align with either party, as a general teaching, this exhibits a lack of realism. The non-partisan approach may work for a theologian or some pastors, but for politics, it won’t cut it. To run in America as a Christian politician, one has to make a judgment which of the parties is the best vehicle for the ends that one thinks represent the good. To join with any of the parties, per Bonhoeffer’s teaching, will not be above reproach. In taking political action, one shoulders responsibility for the sins of Republicans or Democrats, Libertarians or Independent anti-vaxxers. Failing to align with a party does not make one holier than those aligned with political parties. At the same time, taking on a public role arguing for civility and non-tribal thinking in a non-partisan way is also a completely legitimate course of action to take.

Or take a financial example. The investment criteria of a Christian investment firm recently came to my attention. Its criteria involve having Christian board members and a kingdom-mission. While it offered a few more specifics, this struck me as an incredibly empty Christian philosophy of financial investment. There is no concrete and controversial vision of the common good of the nation, informed by Christian principles, and only a requirement of an outward guise of Christian profession and morality. In fact, the very idea of a Christian investment firm suggests that Christians won’t have any substantive differences or specific judgments about the economic good of the country. I have heard of investment funds that invest in accord with Catholic social teaching. That at least has some level of specificity. What about an investment firm built on the principles of Protestant social teaching? Better yet, forming a substantive philosophy of financial investment for the common good and then discovering who is aligned with that vision, whether they are Christian themselves or not.

Biblical Realism

Photo by Mateus Campos Felipe on Unsplash

I am struck by the moral impurity of many of the greatest figures of the Old Testament. While I do not think this is to be imitated purposefully, whether through polygamy or murder, it is notable that personal morality is not the only standard of righteousness recognized in the Bible. Effectiveness in great tasks is quite prominent in the Old Testament. This has a lot more in common with the great men of classical antiquity.

Following this line of thought could certainly lead to downplaying and compromising personal morality for the sake of “winning.” That is a real error to be avoided. However, it is equally possible to be prudish about personal morality, and especially the appearance of morality, relative to taking effective action in the world. For example, many have criticized Elon Musk for not giving to charitable and environmental causes with his great wealth. Musk’s response is that he puts all his capital into things like Tesla, which is doing far more to make human economic life environmentally friendly than any charity. In that secular example, we see the same conflict that is present in Christian morality, whether to embrace the use of power and finance for good or to divest oneself of power and finances for the sake of moral purity.

Bonhoeffer’s warning is haunting: The attempt to keep our hands clean is in effect an attempt to evade responsibility. All human action, including in monasteries, in Amish communities, and in activist circles, is implicated in the complexity and messiness of human life. The worst thing to do is to think that one is righteous. The best protection against evil is recognizing that all our activity is impure. To take effective action in the world, we must not seek to hide behind the appearance of pure motives. We must exercise human judgment, take action with which some will disagree, and attempt to make a dent in the world.

Those good works prepared beforehand for us to do? Don’t think that those are acts of safe, uncontroversial, publicly-recognized moral virtue or charity. They are acts of love for human beings in the brokenness and complexity of our world, with a real risk of getting it wrong. God demands of us nothing less.

---

Seminar: Vintage Christian Realism

On an upcoming evening in February, I’ll be offering a one-off seminar on the philosophical and theological foundations of Christian Realism. Click the button below if you’re interested in getting updates about the seminar.

---