On the roadtrip from Chicago to Rochester I happened upon the NPR program Speaking of Faith and heard an interview with Martin Marty, a Lutheran theologian and an instructor here at the University of Chicago. As part of the interview he quoted Reinhold Niebuhr, a famed theologian and the writer of The Serenity Prayer. It’s been stuck in my head for a while and I thought I’d share. Thoughts? Reflections?
Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by hope.
Nothing which is true, or beautiful, or good, makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore, we must be saved by faith.
Nothing we do, however virtuous, could be accomplished alone; therefore, we must be saved by love.
No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our own standpoint; therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness.
I happened to drop by after exploring a bit of our MAPSS phorum, and I saw this entry, so I’ll throw in a thought.
Re: “Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by hope.”
This is overly conservative and passive to me. If our lives are too short for anything that is worth us doing (as Niebuhr seems to say), there’s nothing we can/should/ought to do. But that contradicts his claim that we should ‘hope’ to be salvaged. and secondly, what does this mean to humanity, if we do nothing but hope? If we are to be stewards of the world, are we to leave it to rot? doubt so.
Re: “Nothing which is true, or beautiful, or good, makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore, we must be saved by faith.”
Don’t know what he means by ‘complete sense’ here, which is really the ultimate standard isn’t it? Think he’s talking about that which is eternally true, beautiful or good. I agree we need to be saved by faith, but I don’t see how it follows from the chunk before.
Re:”Nothing we do, however virtuous, could be accomplished alone; therefore, we must be saved by love.”
This I totally agree. Contra our virtue theorists from good ol’ Greece, the virtuous that makes an indelible mark in the world cannot work by being a moral egoist. It is through altruism as expressed through love, genuine love for another without the pursuit of any self-interest, that succeeds. I’m making a huge claim here of course, but disagree/agree, feel free to shout back.
Re: “No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our own standpoint; therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness.”
This so doesn’t make sense to me that I can’t even comment on it :p
If I’m not wrong, Niebuhr was the one who suggested the idea of faith as hope. That remains to me a very intriguing idea which I am sure has gained much currency since the mid 20th century, against the Jewish outcry that the Holocaust is great reason to think that a divine faith/hope is unrealistic. Obviously however, don’t take hope to the extreme… it only breeds passivity and potentially irresponsibility.
Unkown MAPPS Person,
Thanks for the reply. A couple thoughts, starting with the end and then jumping around a bit:
>Niebuhr was the one who suggested the idea of faith as
>hope. That remains to me a very intriguing idea which I
>am sure has gained much currency since the mid 20th
>century, against the Jewish outcry that the Holocaust
>is great reason to think that a divine faith/hope is
>unrealistic.
I believe that was the case.
>Re: “Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in
>our lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by hope.”
>This is overly conservative and passive to me. If our >lives are too short for anything that is worth us
>doing (as Niebuhr seems to say), there’s nothing we
>can/should/ought to do. But that contradicts his claim
>that we should ‘hope’ to be salvaged. and secondly,
>what does this mean to humanity, if we do nothing but
>hope? If we are to be stewards of the world, are we to
>leave it to rot? doubt so.
I took this statement as a macro scale statement rather than a micro scale one, interpreting “Nothing worth doing” to be large scale projects (ie. social change). As such at best what we can do is contribute what we can and hope for the best, both out of our actions and those of our fellow man. In my view it’s an extensions on the “standing on the shoulders of giants” notion.
>Re: “Nothing which is true, or beautiful, or good,
>makes complete sense in any immediate context of
>history; therefore, we must be saved by faith.”
>Don’t know what he means by ‘complete sense’ here,
>which is really the ultimate standard isn’t it? Think
>he’s talking about that which is eternally true,
>beautiful or good. I agree we need to be saved by
>faith, but I don’t see how it follows from the chunk
>before.
This is taking the broad notion that most of the acts that we commit can’t be solidy interpreted at the time we commit them. The reprocussions have yet to play out. As such, while we might have an idea about the effects of our actions, only those who come after us will be able to interpret them.
>It is through altruism as expressed through love,
>genuine love for another without the pursuit of any
>self-interest, that succeeds. I’m making a huge claim
>here of course, but disagree/agree, feel free to shout
>back.
I’m with you for the most part. However, note:
>Re: “No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the
>standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our own
>standpoint; therefore, we must be saved by the final
>form of love, which is forgiveness.”
>This so doesn’t make sense to me that I can’t even
>comment on it :p
This gets back to the “selfishness/self interest” idea. That everything we do on some level or another is motivated by selfishness (not necessarily a bad thing). I honestly don’t know if we can ever separate self interest from our actions. As such, we tend to be more impressed with our actions than others necessarily will be. Thus we can’t hope to buy the love of others. Hence the faith in forgiveness. Take the US’s present standing in parts of the Arab world. It’s going to take more than economic works to help improve our standing. And while saying “forgiveness” is what’s missing is an overly simplistic viewpoint, it’s definitely part of the equasion.
Again, from what I can tell Niebuhr was considering things on a macro/historical scale. Perhaps it doesn’t map quite as well onto an individual one. Though I’m not willing to make that concession just yet.
– Matt
Hi Matt
“what we can do is contribute what we can and hope for the best, both out of our actions and those of our fellow man.”
I like your idea of extending from Niebuhr’s ‘hope’ to ‘contributing what we can’; I might just be too cynical and so I managed to find this refreshing and encouraging :) I don’t know though, if this idea of contributing is really contributing, or simply self-serving. Seems like the system works so that the self-server often happens to serve others too, although this is either plainly false or often contentious.
And going somewhat to your last point “everything we do on some level or another is motivated by selfishness (not necessarily a bad thing). I honestly don’t know if we can ever separate self interest from our actions.”
If you’re really interested in pursuing this issue of self-interest versus altruistic intentions in our actions (and i don’t want to sound pedantic or anything. it’s just that this issue troubled me a huge deal ever since I wondered why anyone cared for anybody at all, which was like 5 years since), I suggest you look at Hume’s works on human understanding and human nature, and Bernard Williams’ “morality” chapter on egoism or altruism. They gave me – especially Williams – the most beautiful reason why I should and can believe that people can (and so maybe do) act purely out of love and/or forgiveness, and that gave me a lot of motivation to move on in life and love.
“As such, we tend to be more impressed with our actions than others necessarily will be. Thus we can’t hope to buy the love of others. Hence the faith in forgiveness.”
And I agree that forgiveness is critical. Even if not for the other party (and forgiveness doesn’t need to come only after an apology from someone one forgives), it relieves the forgiver of the pain of harboring the perceived past transgressions. Even an egoist needs to forgive at times.
I’m not sure if you’re a Christian (which might make viewpoint exchanges easier if so, since I’m one), but I’m always interested in such issues, and would be happy if you’d like to pursue these further. Can find some postings at http://www.livejournal.com/~ningz, though my current blog is http://www.livejournal.com/~apple_leaf now.
have a great weekend!
Thanks for sharing your journal. If you don’t mind, I’m going to add it to my links section. To answer your question I am a Christian. A Lutheran to be exact. When I get a moment I’ll respond to your follow up comments.
Hi Matt
I don’t mind you adding the link, and I’ll wait to hear about your followup comments. :) take care!