During my seminary days, I wrote a paper for my theology class, arguing against the concept of "original sin." I'm not sure I would reject that vision, but as time has passed, and my idealism has been tempered by realism, I am more and more led to the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr. As I look at the current political landscape, in which power does seem to corrupt absolutely, I have decided to spend some time with Niebuhr's classic social ethics, Moral Man in Immoral Society. Originally published in 1932, four years after he left Detroit for Union Seminary, he takes on our social context and its challenges. I will be sharing other words over the next weeks and months as I meditate on the message of the book, which I may have read long ago, but feel the need to dive deeper into it. So, I would like to just share the opening paragraph of the book, and invite you to contemplate with me its message:
Though human society has roots which lie deeper in history than the beginning of human life, men have made comparatively but little progress in solving the problem of their aggregate existence. Each century originates a new complexity and each new generation faces a new vexation in it. For all the centuries of experience, men have not learned how to live together without compounding their vices and covering each other "with mud and with blood." The society in which each man lives is at once the basis for, and the nemesis of, that fullness of life which each man seeks. However much human ingenuity may increase the treasures which nature provides for the satisfaction of human needs, they can never be sufficient to satisfy all human wants; for man, unlike other creatures, is gifted and cursed with an imagination which extends his appetites beyond the requirements of subsistence. Human society will never escape the problem of the equitable distribution of the physical and cultural goods which provide for the preservation and fulfillment of human life. [Moral Man in Immoral Society, WJK, p. 1].
I should note that the language is not inclusive, but concern for inclusive language is a rather recent one. That said, what do you make of this? Is it pessimistic, or realistic? Do we really think that if we exchange the current leadership in Washington, everything will be wonderful? In this opening chapter he puts to rest the idea that democracy is the great equalizer. Democracy is by its very nature coercive. It is the will of the majority that rules, for good or ill! So, what shall we do?