The "Ecological Motif" in the Theology of H. Richard Niebuhr

American Academy of Religion

The "Ecological Motif" in the Theology of H. Richard NiebuhrAuthor(s): Robert H. KingSource: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 339-343Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1460697 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 16:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press and American Academy of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Journal of the American Academy of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:27:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1460697?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The "Ecological Motif" in the Theology of H. Richard Niebuhr"

ROBERT H. KING

HE present ecological crisis poses a serious challenge to what has been a

significant tradition in Western Christianity for at least the last several hundred years, a tradition which separates man from nature and invests

him with a dominant position over it. Gradually we are coming to recognize that we will have to revise some of our thinking in this area. In particular, we need to come to grips with what many consider to be a deep-seated anthropocentricism in Christianity.

A harbinger of this recognition is a paper which Lynn White, Professor of History at the University of California, presented to the American Academy of Science in December, 1966.1 Entitled "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis," it poses the issue in a particularly forceful and compelling way. Our dif- ficulties with the environment, he argues, are at base theological rather than technological. They derive from a domineering attitude we have toward nature, which in turn is rooted in the Christian belief system with its "dogma of man's transcendence of, and rightful mastery over, nature." In the words of the first chapter of Genesis, man is made in the "image of God" and given "dominion" over all creatures of the earth. Add to that the Christian's rejection of primitive animism, with its sense of a divine presence in natural objects such as waterfalls, trees, and animals, and "the old inhibitions to the exploitation of nature" fall away. We are left with the feeling that man can do with nature about as he pleases.

As a corrective to this "anthropocentric" outlook, White proposes that we give renewed attention to a neglected tradition in Christian thought represented by St. Francis of Assisi. This "spiritual revolutionary," known primarily for his sermons to members of the animal kingdom, "tried to depose man from his mon- archy over creation and set up a democracy of all God's creatures." Though he did not succeed at the time, his thought could have special relevance for the

* This essay was originally presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion in November, 1973.

1Professor White's paper was subsequently printed in Science, 10 March 1967, pp. 1203-07. Quotations are taken from there.

ROBERT H. KING (Ph.D., Yale) is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion at DePauw University. He is the author of The Meaning of God (Fortress, 1973) and several articles.

339



340 ROBERT H. KING

present. It could point the way to a major revision in our theological understand-

ing of man and his relationship to nature. While sharing White's conviction that there is a need for major revision in

this area, I do not think it is necessary to go so far afield. The same universal outlook is to be found in the writings of a recent American theologian, H. Rich- ard Niebuhr. Long before there was perceived to be an ecological crisis, he

diagnosed the difficulty and prescribed the remedy. In the light of present-day thinking about the environment, his work takes on a distinctly prophetic character.

At the heart of Niebuhr's theology is a profound theocentricism. For all that his theology has changed in response to fresh currents of thought over the years, this one point has been constant. Thus in The Meaning of Revelation, written over thirty years ago, he criticizes Ritschl for making belief in God supportive of man's dominant position over nature. He recognizes that man can without much

difficulty come to regard himself as "the crown of natural development." From this vantage point he may go on to value nature only insofar as it serves his ends, only as something instrumental to him. But this is not consistent with true faith, which posits God as the center of value and source of whatever value man possesses. "The inversion of faith whereby man puts himself in the center, constructs an anthropocentric universe and makes confidence in his own value rather than faith in God his beginning has occurred over and over again in the past and will

undoubtedly occur in the future."2 It may be carried out with the aid of Scrip- ture, but it may just as well be done by appeal to philosophy or culture. The

point is not to confuse this inverted faith with true faith - what Niebuhr comes later to call "radical faith."

In keeping with his view that the anthropocentric bias is a distortion, an inversion of faith in God, Niebuhr goes on to argue that God's revelation of himself must have as its subjective correlate the conversion of the person to a God-centered point of view. This need not entail the giving of a new moral law or a new set of values; it may simply mean the extension and ultimate uni- versalization of principles already recognized. Duty to the neighbor, for instance, can no longer be limited to the blood-brother where God rather than the tribe is the center and source of value. Our sense of moral obligation cannot even be restricted to the world of rational beings, so that we are justified in treating men as ends but other forms of life as means only. "Sparrows and sheep and lilies belong within the network of moral relations when God reveals himself; now every killing is a sacrifice." Niebuhr does not even draw the line of moral responsi- bility at the boundaries of life. Cultivation of the earth as "a garden of the Lord" and reverence for the stars as "creatures of his intelligence" also belong to the demands of the universal will - such is the scope of moral obligation in the

light of revelation." Where God is the center of value, all things have value in

relationship to him.

* H. Richard Niebuhr, The Meaning of Revelation (New York: Macmillan, 1941), p. 31.

SIbid., p. 167.



"ECOLOGICAL MOTIF" IN THE THEOLOGY OF NIEBUHR 341

Niebuhr does not alter this view in his later writings; he simply explores further its philosophical and theological implications. He provides a more fully developed conceptual framework within which to place his earlier assertions. In Radical Monotheism and Western Culture, for instance, he analyzes three main types of faith: polytheistic, henotheistic, and monotheistic. The first two do not have God as their center and source of value, though they do have their "gods." There is in each of these faiths something in which a person places his trust and to which he commits himself in loyalty. The problem with polytheism is that it posits a plurality of such gods, so that the self lacks integration, while henotheism elevates a finite object to the position of ultimacy and in that way invites fanatic- ism. Only "radical monotheism," a faith which takes as its center of value the principle of being itself, is able to avoid these pitfalls. Essential Christianity with its conception of God as Creator is such a faith, though in its historical manifesta- tions it is subject to both sorts of distortion.

What White criticizes as anthropocentricism in Christianity, Niebuhr regards as a henotheistic distortion of true faith. Where God is recognized as Creator, every other center of value - including man himself - is displaced and relativ- ized. Other beings are not thereby disvalued - they are simply valued relative to God, the ultimate source of value. In fact one of the effects of radical faith, as Niebuhr conceives it, is to insure that all beings will be valued and that no particular being, such as man, will be allowed to preempt the rest. Radical monotheism, he concludes, "dethrones all absolutes short of the principle of being itself. At the same time it reverences every relative existent. Its two great mottoes are: 'I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me' and 'What- ever is, is good.' "4

In The Responsible Self, Niebuhr takes up the conceptual model, the basic philosophical principle, underlying his theology and once again proves just how ecologically-minded he is. What he does is to distinguish three primary con- ceptions of the self. The most common, he thinks, is that of "man-the-maker," the artificer who constructs things according to an idea and orders his life in con- formity with an ideal. But almost as common is that of "man-the-citizen," living under the law and attending primarily to what he conceives as his duty. A quite different conception, and one which has only recently come into prominence, is that of "man-the answerer," an interactional model which places the emphasis on a person's interpretation of what is going on around him and his formulation of an appropriate response. Without discrediting the other two, Niebuhr clearly favors the third. For more than any other it brings out the social dimension of human life, and life for him is fundamentally social.

All of us, he would contend, exist in societies of one sort or another - the family, the nation, or some other social group. We depend upon these societies to give us a sense of ourselves: who we are and what we are about. Without their support we would become disoriented; our very identity as selves would be put

'H. Richard Niebuhr, Radical Monotheism and Western Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), p. 37.



342 ROBERT H. KING

in jeopardy. Yet every community to which we belong is essentially incomplete and points beyond itself to a larger, more inclusive community in which there would be the possibility of greater self-realization. The family gives way to the nation; the nation (especially if it is a democracy) opens out into humanity as a whole; while humanity, rightly understood, is incomplete apart from nature and nature's God. The fullest realization of ourselves as social beings is to be found within that "universal community" of beings whose center and source is God.

Niebuhr is reluctant to make of this "a new form of the moral argument for God,"' yet quite clearly it represents the dynamic of his thought. There is throughout the whole of his writings a powerful universalizing tendency which, coupled with his social conception of the self, points in the direction of an inclusive social reality with God as the center. It is surely no accident that the most common term for God in this book is "the One beyond the many." For it is God in his transcendence who provides this world of multiplicity with whatever unity it possesses. It is also this conception of God which justifies a responsible attitude toward every other being, as he says: "When I respond to the One creative power, I place my companions, human and subhuman and superhuman, in the one universal society which has its center neither in me nor in any finite cause but in the Transcendent One."6

With such a vision as this, Niebuhr clearly has a contribution to make to the present theological discussion growing out of the ecological crisis. Among the many things he says that are pertinent, two ideas in particular stand out. First, there is his concept of radical faith. It serves as a critical principle against every sort of anthropocentricism - including most forms of humanism and naturalism. It is interesting to note in this connection that Niebuhr is critical of Schweitzer's philosophy of "reverence for life." For while it avoids a narrow anthropocentricism, it absolutizes the "will-to-live," making that the center of value and exclud- ing from the realm of value all that does not partake of this quality. According to the principle of radical monotheism, every being is deserving of an attitude of respect. None save God is absolute; yet none is totally without value on account of its relationship to God.

The other important contribution Niebuhr makes to the ecological discussion is the concept of community by which he relates the self to its environment. Everyone, he contends, belongs to some community or other; it is merely a ques- tion of which community commands his primary loyalty. A narrow parochialism will look simply to the family, or possibly the nation or race. But we need to ex- pand our sense of community to take in the entire realm of being. Only then will we have a proper context for decision-making. We may still prefer human good over the good of other beings, but at least it will be with a recognition that the choice is relative and that a genuine sacrifice is involved. Wanton expendi- ture of resources - human or otherwise - cannot be justified where one's ultimate loyalty is to God and the community he founds.

'H. Richard Niebuhr, The Responsible Self (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 87. " Ibid., pp. 123-24.



"ECOLOGICAL MOTIF" IN THE THEOLOGY OF NIEBUHR 343

Finally, it is important to note that Niebuhr's contribution to this discussion does not require that we abandon the central elements of Christian teaching. As we have seen, he ties his argument closely to the doctrine of creation with its emphasis on the goodness of the created order. But he also retains what White calls the "Judeo-Christian teleology," with its focus on the redemption of man. No one in recent times has presented a more forceful account of the sinfulness of man or God's intention to redeem him. Yet Niebuhr does not permit this anthro-

pological interest to degenerate into anthropocentricism. The reason is that he

qualifies his use of the "teleological motif" with what might be called an "ecological motif," emphasizing the interrelatedness of all things and their ultimate de-

pendence on God. In the tradition of St. Francis, he dethrones man from his position of supremacy over other beings and places him within an inclusive

community of beings whose center and source is God.7

'For a further application of some of these ideas, see my book, The Meaning of God

(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973).



Documents

The "Ecological Motif" in the Theology of H. Richard Niebuhr