Reinhold Niebuhr's Doctrine of Sin

In the following excerpt from On Niebuhr: A Theological Study, Langdon Gilkey (pp. 102-103) introduces his discussion of Reinhold Niebuhr's doctrine of sin.

"Niebuhr denies over and over that human wrongdoing or human evil (i.e., sin) is the result either of our material bodily state or of our finitude, as many other explanations or our universal waywardness have maintained. Insofar as we are evil, we are not so because of our instincts or desires, or because we are particular individuals in history. As we have seen, the bodily creation in all its particularity and individuality, its complement of desires and instincts, its dependence, its vulnerability, and its death, is nonetheless 'good', replete with possibilities under God of a creative and serene life.

It [the Christian view of man] insists on man's weakness, dependence and finiteness, on his involvement in the necessities and contingencies of the natural world, without, however, regarding this finiteness as, of itself, a source of evil in man. (Niebuhr, pg. 150)
The fragmentary character of human life is not regarded as evil in Biblical faith because it is seen from the perspective of a center of life and of meaning in which each fragment is related to the plan of the whole, to the will of God. (pg. 168)

"Besides, bodily life and finitude are "essential" characteristics of our nature. If they were the source of evil, there would be no responsibility on our part for the wrongs that we do, nor, so long as we remain creatures, would there be any hope of redemption from evil.

"On the contrary, for Niebuhr sin is the anxious attempt to hide our finitude and to make ourselves the center of all life, to take the place of God. (See Reinhold Niebuhr's Doctrine of Original Sin). This usurpation is an act of spirit, and hence an act of freedom for which we are, and know that we are, responsible.

Man is insecure and involved in natural contingency; he seeks to overcome his insecurity by a will-to-power which overreaches the limits of human creatureliness. . . . Man is ignorant and involved in the limitations of a finite mind; but he pretends he is not limited. He assumes he can gradually transcend finite limitation until his mind becomes identical with universal mind. All of his intellectual and cultural pursuits, therefore, become infected with the sin of pride. Man's pride and will-to-power disturb the harmony of creation. The Bible defines sin in both religious and moral terms. The religious dimension of sin is man's rebellion against God. . . . The moral and social dimension of sin is injustice. The ego which falsely makes itself the center of existence in its pride and will-to-power inevitably subordinates other life to its will and thus does injustice to other life (pp. 178-79)

Sin and injustice, therefore, are not necessary; there is always the ideal possibility that in trust (faith, hope, and love) humans can bear this finitude and vulnerability and the anxiety that results from them, and so use these gifts creatively. Hence, estrangement from God, "unbelief," is presupposed as that which transmutes our finitude into a problem. Then anxiety about our life and its meaning becomes the inevitable temptation to sin.

Terry D. Cooper (2003). Sin, Pride & Self-Acceptance: The Problem of Identity in Theology & Psychology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Langdon Gilkey (2001). On Niebuhr: A Theological Study. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Reinhold Niebuhr (1996, c. 1941, 1964). The Nature and Destiny of Man: a Christian Interpretation, Vol. 1. Louisville: Westminster Charles Knox.

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. (See Copyrights for details.)