Michael Jinkins: Where have all the Niebuhrs gone?
“I’m amazed,” wrote David Brooks a few years ago, “that Reinhold Niebuhr hasn’t made a comeback since September 11. After all, he was one of America’s most profound writers on war and international conflict.” Recently, of course, Niebuhr’s name did re-enter public conversation because then-candidate Obama described Niebuhr as his “favorite theologian.” When future presidents drop your name, it gets noticed. But Niebuhr had been a favorite theologian of public intellectuals and political leaders for generations before that.
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. credited Niebuhr as a core influence particularly on the book that was, arguably, Schlesinger’s greatest contribution to American political thought, “The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom” (1949). There he quotes Niebuhr: “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Just a year prior to the publication of Schlesinger’s book, Niebuhr appeared on the cover of “Time” magazine.
The fact that Niebuhr is enjoying a comeback these days is no surprise to some theologians and ethicists. Robin Lovin, in his 1995 book “Reinhold Niebuhr and Christian Realism,” called the twentieth century “Niebuhr’s Century.” As Brooks anticipated, when the going gets tough, Niebuhr’s makes even more sense. But, in light of this recovery of Niebuhr another question has picked up steam: “Where are our Reinhold Niebuhrs today?”
I’d like to ask another question: When’s the last time Protestant Christianity produced a figure whose stature as a public intellectual merited that person’s appearance on the cover of a major news magazine?
Mind you, there are Christian public intellectuals out there who combine deep understanding of public policy issues and theological wisdom. But rarely are they able to communicate their ideas as memorably as did Niebuhr.
More commonly the spokespersons of Christianity in our time tend to represent factions and narrow interests, sometimes even fringe ideologies, in ways that make thoughtful Christians cringe. The week in which I write, for example, in my home state of Texas, the news media has reported the story of Christians who demand that the social studies and history textbooks adopted in our public schools reflect their own take on American history, promoting “American Exceptionalism” and the idea that American expansionism represents God’s providence. When did our understanding of “balanced reporting” come to mean that fairness in the media means that we should treat fantasies and falsehoods as though they are true?
Maybe the question, “Where are our Reinhold Niebuhrs today” is just off-kilter enough to miss a more crucial point. Maybe asking where are the intellectual giants of Christianity who could speak for us and to us is just another way to avoid our culpability in the lack of such voices.
Garry Wills once observed that we get the leaders we demand. We may even get the leaders we deserve. But we definitely do not get better leaders unless we demonstrate more responsible follower-ship. “Show me your leader,” Wills said, “and you have bared your soul” (“Certain Trumpets: The Nature of Leadership”).
Perhaps much the same holds true for Christian public intellectuals of the caliber of Reinhold Niebuhr. Niebuhrs emerge because we will listen to them. I don’t mean to take anything away from Niebuhr’s unique genius, but I suspect there are Niebuhrs among us today, if only we would listen for them. What gets put on the cover of “Time” or any other magazine has a lot to do with us and what quality of thinking we will tolerate.
I’ve been wondering recently why we call the most famous of texts Niebuhr wrote “The Serenity Prayer.” True, the opening line goes, “God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed.” But the prayer also prays for “courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.” If Christians care about the quality of public discourse, we ought to pray even more today for the courage to change and the wisdom to discern.
These virtues just might encourage us to listen harder for the Niebuhrs among us.
Michael Jinkins is dean and professor of pastoral theology at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Austin, Texas.
Who they are
Thanks for this Michael. For my money Marilynne Robinson and Rowan Williams are doing the kind of work you're asking for. NT Wright is, pitched slightly higher, as is Tim Keller, who I think will grow in public recognition. Your mention of Time reminds me of their issue on the most influential evangelicals. Rick Warren and Bill Hybels are hardly sticking to "religion" narrowly understood with their public commentary. Richard Neuhaus was arguably the successor to Niebuhr, though he supported another party, in offering nuanced but forceful public policy (and in usually leaving out much about Jesus as he made this commentary).
Why we don't listen
Michael,
This is a thoughtful post (I've blogged some thoughts -- http://pastorbobcornwall.blogspot.com/2010/01/where-are-todays-niebuhrs....). I wonder if a Niebuhr could arise today. We seem more willing to listen to the demagogues than the thoughtful ones. Jason names a couple of figures, but Rowan Williams is bogged down in controversy. Indeed, one might compare Williams to an equally bogged down Obama. The charge against the president is that he's all in the head, can't show he feels our pain -- as did President Clinton. So, the alternative is Sarah Palin?
Is it the venue?
I think this misses the bigger point, which is that in today's media ecology serious thinkers are simply hard to find. The best we get are blogs, such as Jim Fallows's etc. It's not just that there are no Niebuhrs, there are no Walter Lippmanns either.
Changing Times and Changing Ideas
This post poses a very important question about the public role of Christianity. While it is true that no single figure garners the attention that Niebuhr once did, this seems to me to be the result of the decline of Christianity as the dominant voice coupled with the increasing fragmentation of the media. There are increasingly fewer places where one can reach audiences in the way that certain media franchises provided during Niebuhr's time. And as Christianity's numbers influence, Christians become less likely to gain access to those few outlets that remain.
All of that is a sociological explanation, but I wonder if Niebuhr wouldn't see a theological explanation, as well. Particularly, in light of Niebuhr's highly critical assessment of Barth and his influence on theology in the public square (an influence Niebuhr described as "wholly negative"), Niebuhr himself might want to ask if the Barthian bent of some of the major Christian seminaries and graduate schools is at least in part responsible for Christianity's decreasing role in public life?
I'm not sure that I find such an explanation convincing, but I do think it marks another of the important changes since Niebuhr's period of influence.
The times, the places, the people
I am grateful for all of these thoughtful responses, and am especially intrigued by Bradley's. His observation regarding "the decline of Christianity as the dominant voice" coupled with the "increasing fragmentation of the media" is extremely perceptive.
Bradley also makes an intriguing point regarding a particular kind of Barthianism, especially in North America, that may have adversely affected a Christian engagement with the public realm. I would hasten to say that there are many aspects of Barth's thought that continue to profoundly (and I hope positively) shape my theological understanding, and I find his own political involvement often inspiring.
When, a few years ago, David Jensen and I launched a course on "Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Public Church" we were trying, at least in part, to address the need for students to attend theologically to the public dimensions of Church from a perspective at once related to but distinct from Barth's. It has been fascinating to observe our students as they have struggled with competing and sometimes complementary perspectives in Bonhoeffer, Barth, the Niebuhrs (Reinhold and H. Richard) and a whole range of more recent theologians and ethicists. One might argue that the core theological values among these figures are really quite similar, while the differences especially in relation to public engagement are not only striking, but become even more striking in the trajectories of their "disciples' in the next generation.
Making the Best of It
Have you read "Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World" by John Stackhouse, Jr.
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Best-Following-Christ-World/dp/0195173589/
It is Stackhouse's attempt to frame a new Christian realism. It builds on an examination of brothers Niebuhr, as well a C. S. Lewis and Bonhoeffer.
As someone who buys neither the transformationism of the left and right, nor the Anabaptist influence in emergent circles, I love Stackhouse's framing of Christian Realism.
Post new comment