Christian Realism & Democracy

Here’s my chat with Joshua Mauldin of the Center for Theological Inquiry at Princeton, New Jersey about the new book he co-edited with Dallas Gingles and Rebekah Miles called The Future of Christian Realism: International Conflict, Political Decay, and the Crisis of Democracy. Audio podcast, with video below:  

Download podcast audio on IRD’s SoundCloud channel here:

Mark Tooley: Hello! This is Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. Here in Washington, DC. And also, editor of Providence, A Journal of Christianity and American Foreign Policy with the pleasure today of chatting with Joshua Mauldin, who is Associate Director of the Center of Theological Inquiry in Princeton, New Jersey. Our topic is the book that he compiled or co-edited, called The Future of Christian Realism:  International Conflict, Political Decay, and the Crisis of Democracy, which was just released last fall, wasn’t it, Josh?

Joshua Mauldin: Yep, I think it was last summer. But yeah, it’s been a few months now.

Mark Tooley: And a list of distinguished contributors, including Robin Lovin, Nigel Bigger, Rebekah Miles, among others. So, Josh Mauldin, Christian realism is a central theme of our foreign policy journal. But what is your succinct definition of what it is?

Joshua Mauldin: I thought I figured you would start with that. And it’s a good way to begin, because certainly what brought all these authors together, I think, as a certain sensibility which I would call Christian realism. And I don’t define it overly, tightly. We did begin this book, and I wanna give a lot of credit to my co-editors, because this is certainly a 25-person project. But the actual editing was certainly all three of us, Dallas Gingles, Rebekah Miles, and me.

And we brought people together around this question of Christian realism. And we, the one thing we did ask the authors, was to think about a definition that is provided by Robin Lovin in his seminal book, Reinhold Niebuhr and Christian Realism, which is a 1995 book from Cambridge, where he talks about how Christian realism is these mutually reinforcing three different realisms. And they’re not sort of logically entwined. They could be separated out. But Christian realism upholds all three, and those three are political realism, moral realism and theological realism. Political realism being kind of what we think of as realism in the political realm. Foreign policy, realism is the kind of thing you might be thinking about on the international stage. A realist of international relations, for example. The political realist is, you know, focused on human interest. I like to think about human incentives. I’m very interested in kind of economics perspectives on these things. But the realist is not only looking at moral norms and moral ideals that people espouse, but also the actual realities on the ground. That’s kind of political realism. Christian realism attaches to that. It’s not only a political realism, but it also attaches to those commitments theological realism. The idea that God is real. God is not just a projection of human needs or human desires. There’s actually, you know, a God who created us and created our nature and our nature is what gives us these aspirations for higher, higher goods and attach to that a moral realism, also a commitment to moral norms are real. They’re not just, again, our hopes or our dreams, but they’re actually moral truths against which are attempts to do things in the political realm are judged and often found wanting. So, it’s an interlocking set of these, these political forms of realism. And you can find figures in different areas who might hold one or two and maybe all three of those. So, you might have some. Some atheist political realists who, you know, does international relations doesn’t really have a commitment to moral realism, or even or to theological realism, but does have political realism. But someone like Reinhold Niebuhr, who is not, you know the only Christian realist, but is the most seminal thinker. He upholds all three of these, and I think the upholding of those is sort of where we brought these authors together on. There’re a lot of different perspectives in this book. It’s one of the things I find most exciting about it, and most rewarding having done it is to read all these different perspectives. But there’s a commitment in the end to holding those three things together. I also wanna add, I always think of Christian realism as centering on focusing on the habit of noticing our tendency for self-deception. And one of the funny things about self-deception is, we’re always better at noticing it in other people than in ourselves. That’s the sort of feature of it. So, I’m always thinking, okay, I’m good at noticing that other people are self-deceived. But I’d better start focusing on where I’m deceiving myself in various ways about both my motives, about my goals, and so on, and so forth. So, I hope that gets a bit at the sensibility that I would think of as Christian realism.

Mark Tooley: That’s very helpful. And the first question I have, it also often runs through my mind, can Christian realism taken to a certain extreme, almost become paralyzing if you always are focused on your own self-deception and of others, despair can almost set in. But obviously, as a Christian realism, there’s always a form of hope to prevail against that. But how do you strike that balance?

Joshua Mauldin: I think that’s a really good point, and it is a balance and maybe even in the way I point I mentioned it there. I was focusing too much on one side, and I think that again, is a perennial challenge of Christian realism is to uphold those two sides. We begin the book actually, with a really nice quote from Robin Lovin, a little bit later from one of his books called Christian Realism and the New Realities. He begins that book with the quote, “Christian realism is a reminder of our limits and an affirmation of our hope.” So just to your point we can’t stop with only a reminder of our limits. There’s also the affirmation of our hope. And that’s where the theological realism comes in. The you know the fact that God has created us with these certain aspirations. God is working in the world, and so on. So yeah, it shouldn’t be paralyzing. But it’s a danger, for sure. Maybe I can speak more about that in a moment, because one of the things I think is interesting is looking at Niebuhrian realism in different phases of American history. And that’s kind of what I do in my little chapter in the book. Depending on where kind of politics is in this country, I think you have to emphasize a different side of things, just to sort of set that out. And in preliminary form. In 1952 Reinhold Niebuhr wrote a book called The Irony of American History in which he talks about how in in his view, Americans have this overly idealistic view of themselves. They always see themselves as a people on the hill. They always think they can solve any problem. They see themselves as innocent of the kind of evils that are around in other parts of the world. And then he says, but that idealism that they sort of congenitally hold is in tension with the actual practice of American society, American political life, and so on, which is much more pragmatic. You know, there’s interest being balanced against interest, and so on, and so forth. And he’s trying to talk about how to kind of bring those two things into dialogue. That is our actual practice, which is much messier, and then our ideal, our ideals, which are very well idealistic. They’re very you know, believing in in the innocence of human nature, at least or at least the innocence of America. I argue in the book that I think things have changed quite a bit since 1952. Getting to your point. I think that our politics are much more despairing. Now. our view of American history is much more despairing. Our view of American history is much more. I’m using our, by the way, in a kind of generous way, not necessarily my own view. But the prevailing view of American history is much more like it’s all bad. It’s all been unjust. There’s been no progress since for three or four centuries and I think we can kind of turn Niebuhr on his head and say in this instance, our moral ideas, let’s call them, are, are very negative. But our actual practice in this society is surprisingly more positive than those kinds of moral ideas that people espouse, that is, there’s a there’s a certain level of people getting along. We’ve got to, you know, bring a lot of people into this country from around the world, and we learn ways to get along, and so on and so forth. So, at different periods of history. I think we have to approach our neighbors thought in different ways is all I mean to say there.

Mark Tooley: As you mentioned. We live in a despairing and polarizing time. Seemingly Christian realism could provide a bridge between the polarities in today’s America. But if you were speaking to a politically conservative, theologically conservative, evangelical, who may be familiar with Reinhold Niebuhr and thinks of him as a theological modernist, and might be tempted to therefore dismiss Niebuhr, and by extension dismiss the whole concept of Christian realism, what would you say to that audience?

Joshua Mauldin: That’s a good question. And I have to say I wasn’t thinking about that exactly. Those terms. I think one of the things I would begin with is H. Richard Niebuhr, Reinhold’s brother. His own view of Reinhold Niebuhr, his own critique of him, which was that Reinhold had really robust theological ideas about God, Christ, and so on, the Church. But he kept those so implicit partly for a couple of reasons. One, he just, and this is kind of Stanley Hauerwas’s critique, the church was just there for him. It was in the sense of it was just something he did. He preached all the time, he was going around to different Christian colleges, every weekend giving sermons, and so on. So it wasn’t like he had to think, oh, I need to figure out what I need to talk about what the purpose of the church is, or the value of the church, because it was so present in his kind of society at that time in the mid twentieth, early mid twentieth century.  And then another thing is, off course, he was very interested in talking to kind of this secular audience, and especially later in his career. As it went on, so he would kind of you know he would not highlight the most theological aspects of his thought in some of his books, especially as he, you know, wrote books like Irony of American History,  Children of Light and Children of Darkness, later, after his Gifford lectures. So, someone like H. Richard Niebuhr, His brother argued that those theological ideas are there. But they’re just kind of the ballast that’s underneath the thought. And the thought actually doesn’t make sense without those kinds of robust theological conceptions. But for whatever reason, whether and whether that was a good or a bad idea right home, Niebuhr you know, left some of that implicit. He was kind of a Christian apologist, you might say, which is apologetics is an area where, I suppose you know conservative Evangelicals have more of an emphasis than you might find in more progressive liberal Protestantism. So, you could say he had a kind of apologetic, and his title at Union Seminary even had the word apologetics in it, as I recall, and he was trying to give an account of why the Christian faith is a value. So, he didn’t just assume it to be the case he wanted to speak to. You know the cultured despisers of religion, we might say.

Mark Tooley: Christian politics tends to have a crusading principle behind it. Whether you come from the left to the right or the middle. Let’s abolish poverty. Let’s abolish racism. Let’s abolish abortion. Fill in the blanks. What does Christian realism say to these crusading, perfectionist tendencies in Christian politics?

Joshua Mauldin: It’s a good question. I think it’s yeah, it’s critical of those. I think I can say that pretty generally it’s a [inaudible] when we are so clear about some of these ideas. Now, one of the things I think of as to you were asking earlier about a polarized society. I think Christian realism is very helpful in a polarized society for a number of reasons, one being, you know we’re in such a state now where, whether whatever group you’re in, whatever kind of, let’s call it an echo chamber you’re in, it’s as if the idea that you would actually listen to people on the other side, even, you know, give any credit to what they’re thinking in any way, think your own views might be able to be modified, changed through that dialogue. Even the idea that dialogue has any value. It’s just become so rare. So, the very, what I find from Christian realism, the idea that I just so happen to find myself in a kind of political tribe that has all the right answers, whereas my enemies have all the wrong answers. That’s not really a view that Christian realism is going to give much credence to. It’s going to immediately question that. How can I be so certain that my own group has everything right? I have nothing to learn from others, and so on, and so forth. So, you know there are moments, of course, when there have been times in history. We look back and we say, okay you’re talking about abolition, of which abolitions were you talking about? I forgot. But I mean, let’s talk about slavery, for example, I mean, we’re going to look back on that and say, okay that that that is a case where it did make sense to be kind of an absolutist, and at the time I mean, I’ve just been reading the biography of Ulysses S. Grant. Of course, there were a lot of people developing along the way, including Lincoln himself. But looking back, we can. There are moments when we can think of a very strong stand as being important. But in our own politics today it does seem to be overdone.

Mark Tooley: I suppose Lincoln was somewhat of a Christian realist and opposing slavery, but not insisting on absolute abolition from the start, but being an incrementalist and moving as the situation allowed.

Joshua Mauldin: I think and you know Lincoln was. You know I don’t know if Reinhold Niebuhr, probably the person he admired most was Abraham Lincoln as a leader, but also as a theologian, a political theologian.

Mark Tooley: Well, here’s a question that may stump you, but that doesn’t deter me from asking this about being a Christian realist. Is it easier if you’re from the Reformed tradition, as I believe Niebuhr was himself? So, I’m interested that at least three of your contributors come from a Methodist background, Kevin Carnahan, Rebekah Miles and Robin Lovin. I don’t know about the background of others. It’s a little unusual for Methodisst to self-identify as Christian realists, although as a Methodist, I think they can and should. But do the Reformed mostly own this territory? Or is that an unfair generalization?

Joshua Mauldin: I think it’s a good question. And I almost want to get your perspective more on. I mean, I think you know a lot of these people are influenced by Robin Levin, who’s himself an ordained Methodist minister and people have posed that question to him. I know and you know, what about Christian perfection in John Wesley and so on. How does that exactly hold up? I think there’s tension there. Yeah, I’m also reminded of, you know, the late Billy Abraham who I know you knew well. I think he definitely emphasized the role of sin even in Wesley’s thought, and even had he used to claim, and I never asked to unpack it, that that Wesley had a doctrine of double predestination. But we will have to do more about that, you know, and the hereafter so I think, what’s your view on that? How do you uphold the kind of Wesleyan views alongside Christian realism?

Mark Tooley: Yes, obviously, Wesley had strong Augustinian views on human depravity and sin. He did believe the Holy Spirit could pull the individual believer into holiness, and ultimately to perfection. But I think he would have been wary of claims about perfecting society as a whole, and that those who are operating within the realm of holiness are always going to be a very small minority. And yet Wesleyan politics does often tend to be perfectionist. And if you’ve read Theodore Weber’s book on Wesleyan political theology, he almost celebrates that, and that Wesleyans in politics are optimistic about the ability to reform society and society has benefited from that. So that’s a tension there. But I’m fascinated by that tension.

Joshua Mauldin: Yeah, I think in a sense, the tension you cite is reflected in this book and, as you say, the number of Methodists in it. I think there’s even more than you mentioned. William Schweiker, for example, also a Methodist, several others.  But maybe it’s a tension that is fruitful in that sense, you know, living in that tension is actually part of what Christian realism is. Yeah.

Mark Tooley: As we move towards a conclusion. It’s a very intelligent book. It’s really more of an academic book for a very high brow audience. What would you say to the average church going Christian, who’s not inclined to read a book like this, but might sympathize with Christian realism, certainly should be reached with that message? What resources would you point him or her to? Or maybe that needs to be your next book?

Joshua Mauldin: Yeah, I think I am working on a book that builds on my own chapter in here and I do hope I am planning that to be for a broader audience, a kind of a very readable account. Now, that book is in some ways even broader than the Christian audience, though, because what I’m interested in the view of America’s role in the world and our whole society’s view of that. And I think we’re in big trouble, because as far as I can tell, there’s even, you know, you can talk about the politicians, the different presidential candidates, and their foreign policy ideas. But from what I’ve seen, even the populace as a whole has really lost a lot of commitment to America having this broader role in foreign policy. And you could argue that the presidential candidates, however different they are, are kind of following the, you know the voters. So, I want to write a book, and I am writing it based on this chapter on what what Christian realism can say to a broader audience about why, yeah, what America’s role should be in the world. And it’s a pretty, you know, it’s a robust argument for maintaining the thekind of the role we’ve played for a number of decades. And just to give a one quote from the chapter. One of the things I say is a non-U.S. led world is not a Sweden-led world. So, part of the question here is just if the US backs out of playing a vigorous role, you know, who’s going to step up. And I’ve heard a lot of, I interact with a lot of folks from Europe and places like that who’ve grumbled about America. Sort of you know. They treat it as a kind of an empire because we’re trying to police the world. But then, a few years later, if someone comes along and says America first, or whatever, then America is criticized for not playing that role. So, it’s kind of, we’re in a funny position where almost can’t win either way. But the takeaway I like, I think, a lot of people who grumble about the U.S. and its role, I hope it doesn’t come to the pass, but it could come to pass that a few years from now they’re really pining for a U.S. led world because what could be in its place could be far worse. I’m really influenced by a book by Robert Kagan, called The Jungle, Grows Back, so you may know about that book. I’m bringing Niebuhr into that discussion. And looking at both his book, Children of Light and Children of Darkness, and also his Irony of American History, because part of what I wanted to maybe mention as a closing point is, I think, are all these debates about American history have a big role to play in how we see ourselves on the global stage. Is America just kind of a side of domination, oppression, and so on and so forth? Or do we actually have moral ideals that are worth upholding and even worth? You know. I don’t want to say spreading to the rest of the world, but sharing with the rest of the world, encouraging the rest of the world to the non-democratic world to try out. So, to some extent, you know we need to not lose our nerve, I think, at this stage in history.

Mark Tooley: Josh, I look forward to interviewing you about your next book sometime in 2025 perhaps. But until then, thank you for this very instructive conversation about The Future of Christian Realism, International Conflict, Political Decay and the Crisis of Democracy, co-edited by you, Dallas Gingles and Rebekah Miles. I commend this to our listeners. Josh, thank you again. Bye-bye.

Joshua Mauldin: Thanks a lot.