The Doctrine of Humanity in the Theology of Reinhold Niebuhr

4. Human Nature: Sin

53 Human Nature: Sin When Niebuhr speaks about the Christian view of the human being,he often follows biblical terminology,describing the human relationally as God’s creature both in body and spirit; but often, too, he explains the Christian understanding of the human being in terms of his own choosing, attempting by means of these terms to make a substantial analysis of human nature .These two approaches, and also the tension between them, are plainly discoverable in what he has to say about human beings as sinners in his Gifford Lectures. The following statements are kerygmatic in tone and relational in interpretative stance: Man is a sinner. His sin is defined as rebellion against God.1 In Christianity it is not the eternal man who judges the finite man; but the eternal and holy God who judges sinful man.2 Only within terms of the Christian faith can man not only understand the reality of the evil in himself but escape the error of attributing that evil to any one but himself.3 While Niebuhr does not give chapter-and-verse references to the Bible in support of his opinions, he would find no difficulty in so doing. Less surely based in scripture—or extremely hard to reconcile with scriptural witness—are the comments accompanying each of the above statements: Chapter Four Reinhold Niebuhr’s Doctrine of Humanity: An Investigation 54 Sinisoccasionedpreciselybythefactthatmanrefusestoadmithis“creatureliness” and to acknowledge himself as merely a member of a total unity of life. He pretends to be more than he is.4 Man contradicts himself in terms of his true essence. His essence is free selfdetermination . His sin is the wrong use of his freedom and its consequent destruction.5 It is possible of course to point out that man is tempted by the situation in which he stands. He stands at the juncture of nature and spirit. The freedom of his spirit causes him to break the harmonies of nature and the pride of his spirit prevents him from establishing a new harmony.The freedom of his spirit enables him to use the forces and processes of nature creatively; but his failure to observe the limits of his finite existence causes him to defy the forms and restraints of both nature and reason.6 These comments beg a number of questions and raise at least an equal number of problems. To begin with, if sin is rebellion against God, it is not apparent that such rebellion can be described adequately by saying, as the first comment does, that human beings sin when they pretend to be more than they are. Although refusal to admit their creatureliness may well be reckoned rebellion against the Creator, it does not follow that the nature of human rebellion is a refusal to acknowledge the self as merely a member of the total unity of life. This latter identification appears to make human sin a denial of the order in creation, or rebellion against the unity of created life, rather than against the Creator. Next, the second comment introduces a new element into the picture: humanity’s essence of free self-determination. Sin is now defined in terms of the human being’s self-contradiction. We must presume (although Niebuhr does not spell this out) that human beings continue to be human after the destruction of their true essence because the destruction is not total. Finally, the third comment leads us to believe that sin cannot simply be wilful rebellion since there is something in the very constitution of humanity that inclines a person toward sin. The freedom of spirit initiates the movement that culminates in self-contradiction, for it prompts the creature—inevitably?—to forget her finitude. Again, the indications are that human beings sin against the harmony of the universe rather than directly against God. Sin is also no longer surprising after we learn that, in any case, the human free spirit causes the self to break the harmonies of nature. In a situation where the fault is not sheer perversity Human Nature: Sin 55 but an understandable failure to observe due limits, the self’s lapse into sin may be excused, even if it cannot be condoned. The biblical view of sinful creatures judged by a holy God has merged with a substantial view of spiritual but finite humans disturbing the harmony of the universe by failing to recognize their own essential nature. Niebuhr...