[1] Why Niebuhr now? That question is the title of John Patrick Diggins\u2019s last book. Diggins was asking the question about the life and writing of Reinhold Niebuhr. His book\u2014published posthumously\u2014probed Niebuhr\u2019s work in relation to the challenges facing American society in the early 21st century. Jon Diefenthaler is asking the same question about the life and work of H. Richard Niebuhr. Diefenthaler wants H. Richard Niebuhr to offer us his own answers to the question, and has compiled a breathtaking set of Niebuhr\u2019s texts in order to show Niebuhr\u2019s lasting relevance. The answers to the question \u201cWhy H. Richard Niebuhr now?\u201d do not come only from Niebuhr\u2019s pen, though; they come from Diefenthaler\u2019s as well. As the title of this book suggests, Diefenthaler is concerned primarily with Niebuhr\u2019s descriptive and prescriptive discussions of how the church relates to non-Christian society. The collection of texts that Diefenthaler has produced is impressive and allows H. Richard Niebuhr\u2019s voice to come through clearly and effectively on the topic of the church\u2019s relationship with the world. Graduate students and scholars interested in H. Richard Niebuhr will find this collection to be a very valuable resource. In addition, Diefenthaler\u2019s case for Niebuhr\u2019s enduring relevance is commendable and justified in light of Niebuhr\u2019s corpus, even if (in my opinion) the invocation of Niebuhr does not go far enough in responding to contemporary social and political challenges.<\/p>\n
[2] First: the collection of primary texts is impressive in terms of range, content, and organization. This book provides a truly stunning collection of H. Richard Niebuhr\u2019s primary texts. The texts span from 1917 to 1959. Diefenthaler has two major goals in presenting this collection: context and variety (xxiv). In order to meet the goal of showing how Niebuhr responded to his historical context, Diefenthaler organizes the book into three parts corresponding to major periods in Niebuhr\u2019s life: \u201cformative years in the Evangelical Synod (1914-1929), the decade of the great Depression (1930-1940), and World War II and its aftermath (1941-1962)\u201d (xxiv). The texts he chooses capably demonstrate Niebuhr\u2019s attention to social, economic, and political crises. As for the other goal, these texts exhibit the remarkable variety of writing that Niebuhr produced. Readers will find a powerful reminder of the wide range of Niebuhr\u2019s interests and abilities. He was a theologian, an ethicist, an intellectual historian, a sociologist, a political commentator, a teacher, a poet, and more. These genres are well represented in this collection. Diefenthaler set for himself the goals of showing H. Richard Niebuhr\u2019s responsiveness to his historical contexts and authorial range, and in my opinion, he met those goals very well.<\/p>\n
[3] In terms of presentation, the book is divided into three parts, and each part is comprised of three or four chapters–there are ten total chapters in the book. Each chapter contains several of Niebuhr\u2019s primary texts. Diefenthaler offers a short introduction to each chapter of the book. These introductions span about five pages each and orient the reader to the general historical context that the following chapter engages. He also offers paragraph-long introductions to each primary text within every chapter. These introductions are quite helpful in terms of providing context and reminding readers of historical events, Niebuhr\u2019s intellectual maturation, and so forth. The sheer quantity of primary texts justifies the divisions of this book into parts and chapters, but this many divisions, introductions, and subheadings may confuse a casual reader.<\/p>\n
[4] In terms of the primary theme of the texts, Diefenthaler chooses these texts because they demonstrate Niebuhr\u2019s attention to the paradoxical relationship between church and world. In his introduction, Diefenthaler explains Niebuhr\u2019s analysis of this relationship, emphasizing Niebuhr\u2019s intellectual development and the publication of three major texts: The Social Sources of Denominationalism, The Kingdom of God in America,<\/em> and Christ and Culture.<\/em> The motif that emerges in this introduction\u2014and that resurfaces throughout the primary texts\u2014is paradox. The church must \u201cbe in<\/em> but not of<\/em> the world\u201d (xii). At a minimum, this means that the church must retain its distinctiveness but not withdraw from the world. It must serve the world without being shaped too decisively by it. The church must understand that it is inevitably formed by non-Christian forces, yet at the same time maintain the priority of its gospel calling. The church must believe it has something unique and important to show the world, while also recognizing its own inclination to misunderstand its calling. Paradox means all of this and more, as Diefenthaler and Niebuhr present the idea. In his introduction, Diefenthaler also summarizes several critiques of Niebuhr\u2019s discussion of the relationship of church and world. He categorizes Stanley Hauerwas, William Willimon, John Howard Yoder, and Glen Stassen as \u201ccritics.\u201d Martin Marty and James Gustafson are \u201cdefenders.\u201d George Marsden and D.A. Carson are \u201cfixers\u201d (xv-xxi). Diefenthaler is unsatisfied with the critics and the fixers, and offers this book in large part as a way to allow Niebuhr to defend his conception of the paradoxical interplay between church and world. Thus, each chapter and each text speak to the theme of \u201cchurch\/world relations\u201d to varying degrees. One of the pleasures of reading this book is thinking about each text in light of the motif of \u201cparadox of church and world.\u201d On first reading, it was not always immediately obvious how certain texts related to the theme. But Diefenthaler\u2019s introduction illuminates ways of reading such texts that would not have occurred to me if I had encountered them on my own. I wonder about other themes that might hold these texts together, as well. Students of Niebuhr will recognize familiar ideas such as responsibility and monotheism as consistent refrains throughout these texts.<\/p>\n [5] Second: Diefenthaler\u2019s argument about Niebuhr\u2019s relevance in the early 21st century is commendable. In the epilogue, he tells a familiar story about the decline of Christianity\u2019s influence in American society during the 20th and 21st centuries. This story includes the contentions that Americans are going to church less, Christianity has generally become less meaningful and influential, and religious pluralism is on the rise. I think that story tends to be overstated in many ways. For example, it may be true that fewer numbers of Americans self-identify as Christians, but as an overall percentage of the American population, Christianity is still dominant. The Pew study that revealed a recent rise of the \u201cnones\u201d also reports that as of 2014, 70.6% of Americans are still Christian.[1] Similarly, pluralism was present in the American colonies long before the United States was a nation. This pluralism was not simply a matter of the standard Judeo-Christian heritage we tend to assume: many African slaves were Muslim and\/or practiced traditional West African religions, for example. I find it problematic that Diefenthaler rehearses this common story about the decline of Christianity\u2019s influence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries without acknowledging the complexity of many claims on which the story is based. In addition, Diefenthaler does not include any footnotes as he tells the story of Christianity\u2019s decline in America (500-502). The primary purpose of the book is to offer selected works of H. Richard Niebuhr organized around the theme of paradox, so offering a detailed academic account of this narrative may not be Diefenthaler\u2019s priority. Even still, if we are to determine H. Richard Niebuhr\u2019s relevance, and that relevance depends on a commonly-told story about Christianity\u2019s decline, we should aim for as much accuracy and precision in telling the story as possible.<\/p>\n [6] Assuming the general merits of the story, though, Diefenthaler\u2019s suggestions about Niebuhr\u2019s relevance are promising. Specifically, he makes four suggestions. Niebuhr can help us: 1) break down the division that churches uncritically imagine between sacred and profane; 2) expose the false gods (such as capitalism, nationalism, etc.) that we worship today; 3) identify Christian hypocrisy and arrogance and encourage repentance in their place, and; 4) adopt a more hospitable response to pluralism. These points are all rooted firmly in Niebuhr\u2019s work, and they are all urgent needs in today\u2019s social and political climate. Our political society desperately needs more Christians who cultivate the virtue of hospitality toward their neighbors of different religion, race, gender, and so forth. Having read Diefenthaler\u2019s collection of Niebuhr\u2019s work, I am convinced that Niebuhr can help Christians grow in this regard. And yet, laudable though this project is, I fear that it is not strong enough as a response to the forms of religious, racial, and gendered oppression that mark our political society. As presidential candidates, legislators, and media representatives openly marginalize people on the basis of religion, race, and gender, we need Christians who go beyond merely being open to difference. We need Christians who work to actively restrain America\u2019s forces of sin and also empower those who are neglected and demonized in our political society. When entire groups such as \u201cMexicans\u201d are branded \u201crapists and murders\u201d and Muslim refugees are labeled as terrorists, openness cannot be sufficient. Nor can breaking down boundaries between sacred and profane, resisting false gods, or exposing Christian arrogance be sufficient. Restraint and empowerment must become active goals. Can H. Richard Niebuhr motivate us toward such movements of restraint and empowerment? I think so. Diefenthaler\u2019s collection includes these lines, which Niebuhr wrote while watching the ascent of National Socialism in Germany in 1930:<\/p>\n At this point\u2026there seems to be a dubious hiatus between the public expressions of the leaders and the actual program of the party. This promises the exclusion of all Jews from public office, their disenfranchisement and sometimes seems to threatened deportation. The converse of this measureless hate of the Jews is the old chauvinism, the old proud self-exaltation of isolated nationalism and its associate\u2014militarism. (190)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why Niebuhr now? This quotation and the 2016 US presidential primary campaigns answer that question clearly. Diefenthaler\u2019s collection and the contemporary US political climate have persuaded me that H. Richard Niebuhr\u2019s work is still relevant. But I hope that a revival of interest in Niebuhr leads to more than mere openness, toward active restraint of sin and robust empowerment of the American least of these. <\/p>\n