Augustine, Niebuhr, and their Confrontation with Misguided Idealism and Misuse of Power

In a previous blog regarding President Obama's speech in Oslo, I reference St. Augustine’s and Reinhold Niebuhr’s realism worldview, and its influence on Obama and the content of his message. I thought it might be useful to explain in more detail, about where these theological giants are coming from.

St. Augustine wrote "City of God" in the early 5th century, following the catastrophic events that culminated in the fall of Rome to the Visigoths in 410. In the wake of the loss (one that was extremely traumatic for many Roman citizens of his day) Augustine writes arguably one of the most influential books in the history of the western world. Reinhold Niebuhr was known to carry a copy of "City of God" with him wherever he went. Among many other important books, Niebuhr penned "The Structures of Nation and Empires" in equally climactic times – post two global wars and at the height of the Cold War when two superpowers were staring down the barrel of a nuclear holocaust.

While both figures speak to a particular time and place, and natural differences arise because of these variables, there is much in common between the two. The nature of each writer’s context is different, yet the nature of humanity that shape their context is the same – a nature bent toward corruption. This nature distorts both human intent and human action, confusing humanity’s understanding of the ultimate end and the means by which to attain it. Such were the sentiments of these two thinkers.

By the time Niebuhr pens "The Structure of Nations and Empires" in 1959, he had fully moved away from his earlier idealized convictions of communism. (Earlier in his career, Niebuhr was influenced by socialist thinkers; in the 1930s he was involved with the Socialist Party of America.) By the 1950s, he had exchanged his socialist ideals for what is termed as "Christian Realism" – St. Augustine is considered the father of Christian Realism.

Niebuhr’s newfound skepticism of humanity's potential is understandable given the time in which he writes. The subtitle of Niebuhr’s book speaks of this context, “A study of the RECURRING patters and problems of the political order in relation to the unique problems of the nuclear age.” (emphasis added) The 20th Century was witnessing one terrifying conflict after another, upheavals and revolutions, a holocaust, Communist claims for world domination, the emergence of the United States as a superpower, structural racism, and an emerging and escalating Cold War with its Nuclear Cloud casting a shadow over all of humanity. With global crisis and catastrophe looming there was little reason to be hopeful.

In the face of this context, Niebuhr turns to “Christian Realism” to inform his understanding of the current state of affairs in a world divided by two superpowers with enough firepower at their disposal to destroy the world many times over. Consequently, Niebuhr’s work is primarily addressed to a western audience wrestling with a Communist enemy as well as its own newfound super-influence in global affairs and the awesome power of its nuclear arsenal. [Keep Niebuhr’s Western influence in mind when considering his work].

In the face of crisis, Niebuhr believed that it was important to understand the lessons from powers past to discern “the structure of nations and empires,” and within that framework make modest attempts to implement measures of peace – all the while understanding that utopian aspirations for a final peace were unrealistic. In essence, his book attempts to identify patterns of past and present powers, the subsequent problems of these political orders, and how these relate to the current context. While each age has its own set of characters and circumstances and faces its own unique challenges, in his view there was a pattern in history that ultimately pointed at a human nature that was bent toward continually corruptible actions.

In Niebuhr's view, history does not show evidence of an idealized philosophy being realized as real progress toward a utopian end. Recall, in Niebuhr’s day the Western world faced the philosophical and social development teachings of Karl Marx. Marx’s work heavily influenced Vladimir Lenin, who would later attempt to bring Marx’s ideals into fruition with the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent formation of the U.S.S.R. The aim was to use Soviet policies and power to push the world toward its understanding of humanity’s teleological end, which entailed among other things the idea of a uniform and classless society. This idealistic worldview is one that Niebuhr writes against.

For Niebuhr and Augustine there is the recognition that on one level, yes of course, society as revealed in history, does offer evidence of progression toward higher and more complex forms of operation; there is evidence of ever greater excellence and achievement in all areas of society. At the outset of Niebuhr’s book, he states: “The communities of mankind, like every human achievement and contrivance, are subject to endless variety and progression.” But by progression he is not meaning it in a positivist sense that human pursuits are steadily moving us toward a higher, moral end. Rather, he is referring to the progression of structures from the primitive, nomadic communities to city-state, empire, nation, and modern super-states and the developments of sub-structures within these systems of governance. As for this endless variety, he asks, “Is there any consistency, any perennial pattern or permanent force in man’s search for community?” He is seeking to identify whether, in the midst of structural progression of empires, there are ‘historical constants and variables’ in empires that can shed light on the current struggle between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.

One area where Niebuhr and Augustine differ from utopian-driven philosophies is that for them, human corruption is ever present even in the midst of one achievement to the next. Take, for example, nuclear physics with its potential to unlock previously impossible levels of new energy – but in the same vein has the power to unleash terrible horrors. Niebuhr would argue that because of pervasive human imperfections, the idea that humanity, even with its impressive faculties made available to it, is capable of pushing toward and ultimately achieving a utopian vision is not logical and is not evidenced in history. From his realistic and pragmatic framework of thinking, any evidence of progression toward higher good must be checked by evidence of equally more complex forms of evil. So, in Niebuhr's context, as global society stepped beyond the mistakes of the League of Nations into a better form of world organization in the United Nations, even still, a greater threat had arisen through nuclear weapons and the proliferation of these monsters around the world.

Niebuhr also denounced theories advocating historical recurrence which essentially argues that there is a kind of meta-history that points toward an identifiable recurring pattern, a rhythm if you will, in the rise and fall of civilizations. Niebuhr, while recognizing there are some similarities that can be identified from comparing one age of empires to the next, he ultimately concludes there is not a synthesis, a common DNA strand in the make up of empires, that is applicable for each case, save one perhaps – and that is human corruption. Relying on Augustine, Niebuhr rejects cyclical theories of history, arguing that the pattern of history was abruptly interrupted with the entry of Christ into history and the “radical newness” he introduces.

Challenging the idealism that dominated the intellectual dialogue of his day and even the idealism he once aligned with, Niebuhr responds with an adaptation of Augustinian thought. Niebuhr argues that if there is a common strand to the DNA of human history it isn’t progression toward ever higher forms of good and perfection, it is the corruptible nature of humanity that is the common denominator of both time and space in all of human history. Niebuhr’s realism recognizes the absolute corruptibility of humanity and its pervasive character upon all spheres of public life. This reality check on humanity casts a skeptical eye on any claims of human capacity to achieve idealized ends. Consequently, the ultimate end of humanity is both beyond our comprehension for understanding and our capacity for pursuit.

St. Augustine similarly portrayed humanity as ever-corruptible. He saw this nature even in himself; in “Confessions” he writes in prayer to God, “Who will grant me that you come to my heart and intoxicate it, so that I forget my evils and embrace my one and only good, yourself?” His thoughts in Confessions are evident in “City of God.” While Platonist thinkers of his day would look at human rationality as THE guide toward higher ends, Augustine was not convinced. He certainly recognizes the power of human rationality but concludes it alone cannot be relied upon as it is continually corrupted by ‘certain dark and ancient faults.’ Because humanity’s foundational essence is weakened by cracks and fault-lines, this human essence (which Aristotle relies upon in his philosophical framework) isn’t enough by itself to push us toward our utopian end of happiness and wellbeing.

Note, however, that despite Niebuhr’s far from optimistic view of human nature, he is not entirely pessimistic about the state of global affairs. He writes: “The peril of nuclear war is so great that it MAY bridge the great ideological chasm between the two blocs and make them conscious of having one thing in common: preference for life over death. It is too early to predict in what form and by what arrangements this sense of a common humanity may be institutionalized. But if it is institutionalized and the enemies achieve some kind of accord on the edge of the abyss of mutual annihilation, it will once more be proved that history is as full of unpredictable developments as of recurring patterns of community.”

This quote highlights the realism he is operating with and the recognition of the potential catastrophe enveloping the world -- but it also isn’t entirely pessimistic. In it he leaves room for hope that both sides might recognize common ground in the desire for life. And if such an accord were institutionalized, it would represent in his mind, further evidence of the variability of humanity’s development – creatively adapting, applying new solutions to new problems. This is the balance that Niebuhr is working with, what he later refers to as “moderation.” While Niebuhr has a very low view of human potential given the stranglehold of corruption and our constant drive toward self-serving means and ends, it is interesting that in the midst of the looming nuclear cloud and humanity’s darkest hour, Niebuhr holds fast to an inkling of light. Despite the pervasive nature of human corruption, he recognizes our capacity for good and strong desire for justice and peace. So, he wants to couch this capacity in the reality that while we may have potential, we alone are not fully capable of realizing a perfect end. Said another way, while we may have our good moments, we do not have a sustainable behavior of good moments to propel us toward an idealistic aspiration of a utopian ultimate good and a total eradication of evils and injustices. This is a careful balance between recognizing the total pervasiveness of human corruption, while also maintaining we have in our very essence the desire toward a better and peaceful day.

St. Augustine also reflects this careful balance. In “City of God,” he writes: “Anyone who joins me in an examination, however slight, of human affairs, and the human nature we all share, recognizes that just as there is no man who does not wish for joy, so there is no man who does not wish for peace. Indeed, even when men choose war, their only wish is for victory; which shows that their desire in fighting is for peace with glory. For what is victory but the conquest of the opposing side? And when this is achieved, there will be peace. Even wars, then, are waged with peace as their object, even when they are waged by those who are concerned to exercise their warlike prowess, either in command or in the actual fighting. Hence it is an established fact that peace is the desired end of war. For every man is in quest of peace, even in waging war, whereas no one is in quest of war when making peace. In fact, even when men wish a present state of peace to be disturbed they do so not because they hate peace, but because they desire the present peace to be exchanged for one that suits their wishes. Thus their desire is not that there should not be peace but that is should be the kind of peace they wish for.”

Despite the total depravity of humanity, there is within our fabric, strands of higher qualities that compel us toward good. However, these positive characteristics of human character are not enough to lead us toward an end of lasting peace, complete happiness, and total wellbeing. At best what can be achieved is a temporary peace in a temporal place. Augustine reflects this temporal goal that is attainable in earthly affairs when writing ‘all man’s use of temporal things is related to the enjoyment of earthly peace in the earthly city; whereas in the Heavenly City it is related to the enjoyment of eternal peace.”

Niebuhr picks up on Augustine’s theme of civitas terrena and civitas dei, the two cities concept. Augustine attempts to show that the former (the City of Earth) is not capable of achieving the full expression of the latter (City of God, or the Perfect City), as the Stoics of the day believed. The Stoics, influenced by Plato’s forms and Aristotilian conceptions of teleological ends, would argue that the Earthly City is a working toward the Perfect City achievable through the essential qualities of humanity and the institutions and technologies it creates. Niebuhr quotes the Stoic Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius to highlight this thought: “Every man’s interests consists in following the lead of his own constitution and nature. Now my nature is a rational and civic nature; my city and my country, so far as I am Antoninus, is Rome; but so far as I am a man, it is the universe. Whatever therefore is to the advantage of these two cities, and that only, is good for me.” Augustine rejects the Platonic notion that civitas terrena is progressing toward the higher other – cititas dei. Augustine argues that throughout history the earthly city is continually separated from God and goodness because of the ever-presence of corruption leading to self-destructive events.

Niebuhr points out that the Church eventually corrupted St. Augustine’s view of the two cities to support a concept of papal supremacy over the state. Later, beginning in the 14th century, scholars began drawing upon Augustine’s City of God to reject the concept of papal supremacy over the state and uphold the distinctions between the political and the ecclesiastical, nature and grace, rationality and faith. Post-papal supremacy worldview, the world entered an age of reason and idealism. Niebuhr writes: “The 18th and 19th centuries did not anticipate the tragic predicaments of nuclear warfare. Man’s conquest of nature was assumed to contribute directly and inevitably to human welfare. The idea of progress gave meaning to life, and utopia supplanted the “eternal blessedness” of Dante’s vision. This optimism prompts the final question in our consideration of the uniqueness of Western Christendom. The question concerns the fate of the realism which Augustine first introduced to western culture and which he laid in the foundation of that culture in his doctrine of the “two cities.” From the ideal vantage point of the “City of God” he was able to survey and analyze the political realities of the “earthly city” with penetrating realism, discovering all the conflicts of interest and power in any historic community. This was a new note of realism…”

Working from Augustinian realism, Reinhold Niebuhr confronts the misguided idealism of his day. He writes: “It should have been obvious long before the nuclear age that the mastery over natural forces increased man’s power; and that this greater power could be used – and in a sense was bound to be used – destructively as well as creatively.” Because of our nature, ‘“our reach is beyond our grasp.”’

Thus, for Niebuhr the only hope for political harmony between the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R., rested upon an “ability to observe the limits of human freedom even while we responsibly exploit its creative possibilities.”

This is the framework that Obama was operating from in his speech in Oslo.

Peace

Jeremy