Augustinian Sexuality: a Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 42 Augustinian Sexuality: A Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence Gyeung-Su Park, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Historical Theology Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary, Korea I. Introduction II. The Meaning of Concupiscence III. The Contexts of Augustine’s Doctrine of Concupiscence IV. Conclusion Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42, 101-118 102 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 42 Abstract St. Augustine is one of those few individuals whose mind provided a foundation on which philosophers and theologians have built from his own day to ours. Augustine has also greatly influenced the development of Christian sexual ethics. In dealing with human sexuality, Augustine frequently used the words concupiscentia in connection with sexual de- sire. Many contemporary theologians have charged that Augustine’s ap- proach is too negative and pessimistic toward human sexuality. However, my argument in this paper is that Augustine did not re- gard concupiscence itself as evil, but carnal concupiscence, which came after the fall is evil. In order to understand rightly Augustine’s teach- ing on concupiscence, one should consider three important contexts: Augustine’s experiential background, the Manichaean context, and the Pelagian context. For this purpose, I explored Augustine’s teachings on concupiscence expressed in his writings and examined many scholars’ interpretations on the subject. Keywords Augustine, Concupiscence, Sexuality, Manichaeism, Pelagianism Augustinian Sexuality: A Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence 103 I. INTRODUCTION It is a well-known fact that Augustine has greatly influenced the development of Christian sexual ethics up to the present day. The re- mark of Daniel D. Williams may be true: “Theology in western Chris- tianity has been a series of footnotes to Augustine.”1 The study of Au- gustine’s doctrine of sexuality has been acknowledged not only as an important subject in Augustinian study but also as a starting point in understanding Christian sexual ethics. Many contemporary theologians have charged that Augustine’s approach is too negative and pessimistic toward human sexuality. He has been accused of having a very nega- tive view of humankind’s state. For example, G. Guinn judged that Au- gustine’s identification of sex with original sin “threw a dim light on the subject of sex and marriage for more than a thousand years in the West.”2 Moreover Barton S. Babbage caustically criticized: “Augustine is chiefly responsible for the disastrous identification of sexuality with sin,… There is a strain of morbidity verging on the pathological in the thought of the celebrated Bishop of Hippo: He deplores the fact that God ever created sex, and he is embarrassed by the fact that he ordained it as the means of human reproduction.”3 Vernon Bourke says that the responsibility of these accusations lies chiefly with Augustine: Augustine himself was in good part responsible. Both his love of rhetori- cal exaggeration and his zeal in controversy led him to make sweeping statements that were open to mistaken emphasis and to misinterpreta- tion. In opposing what he regarded as errors of doctrine he frequently swung to the opposite extreme of the pendulum and wrote things that were well meant but excessive. Nowhere is this more evident than in his writings on sexuality, concupiscence, marriage, human freedom, and the general sinfulness of all descendants of Adam.4 1 Daniel D. Williams, “TheS ignificance ofS t. Augustine Today,” in A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine, ed. Roy W. Battenhouse (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955), 4. 2 G.J. Quinn, “A New Look at Christian Marriage,” Journal of Religion and Health vol. 10 no. 4 (1971), 387-98. Quoted from James B. Weidenaar, “Augustine’s Theory of Concupiscence in City of God, Book XIV,” Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995), 53. 3 Barton S. Babbage, “Literature Has Its Manichaeans,” Reformed Theological Review 22 (1963), 13-22. Quoted from James B. Weidenaar, 53. 4 Vernon Bourke, Joy in Augustine’s Ethics (Villanova: Villanovea University Press, 1979), 9. 104 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 42 As Bourke points out, Augustine’s doctrine on human sexuality was formed in the context of controversies with heresies such as Man- ichaeism and Pelagianism. I believe that we cannot understand and in- terpret rightly Augustine’s doctrine on sexuality without consideration of his experiential and controversial background. If we do not consider these contexts, we might risk misinterpreting Augustine. My argument in this paper is that Augustine did not regard sex and concupiscence as evil from the beginning, and his position was gradually formed in the course of controversies against Manichaeism and Pelagianism. In dealing with human sexuality, Augustine frequently used the words concupiscentia and libido in connection with sexual desire.5 In this paper, I want to focus on Augustine’s doctrine on concupiscence. The purpose of this paper is to discover what exactly Augustine said, and what were the influences of Manichaeism and Pelagianism on Au- gustine concerning human sexuality and concupiscence. For this pur- pose, I will explore the meaning of concupiscence, the effect of personal experience, and the influences of Manichaeism and Pelagianism onA u- gustine. I think this study is significant because through this study we can understand properly Augustine’s doctrine on sexuality and concu- piscence. II. THE MEANING OF CONCUpiSCENCE G.I. Bonner accomplished a leading investigation of the meaning of “concupiscence” and “libido” in Augustine in 1962.6 Bonner explains the differences of these two words in his article. While libido is a classi- cal and common word in Latin literature, concupiscence is a Christian technical term used exclusively by Christian writers. While libido has a neutral sense of desire, concupiscence has generally a sexual connota- tion. Libido has a broader meaning than concupiscence. Concupiscence 5 According to J. van Oort, Concupiscentia and libido occur in the corpus augus- tinianum 3032 and 1034 times respectively. Consultation of the computer concordance of the Augustinis-Lexikon also reveals that, when employed to describe sexual desire, the words Concupiscentia and libido are practically synonyms. J. van Oort, “Augustine on Sex- ual Concupiscence and Original Sin,” Studia Patristica 22 (Lewven: Peeters Press, 1989), 382-86. 6 G. I Bonner, “Libido and Concupiscentia in St. Augustine,” Studia Patristica 6 (Ber- lin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962), 303-14. Augustinian Sexuality: A Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence 105 and libido, nevertheless, are practically equivalent words when used to describe sexual desire. It is important to note that the term concupiscence has not always negative sexual connotation. Bonner acknowledged that Augustine used concupiscence in a positive sense in the second book of the De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia (Marriage and Concupiscence). In this book, Augus- tine says “there is a concupiscence of the spirit, which craves wisdom.”7 David F. Kelly also pointed out in his distinguished study on Augustine’s sexuality and concupiscence that Augustine spoke of a “good” concu- piscence, and for Augustine, concupiscence is a far wider reality than sexual desire.8 In order to understand rightly Augustine’s sexual ethics, it is necessary to define exactly the meaning of concupiscence in his writings. I think the meaning of concupiscence in Augustine’s writings can be summed up under two arguments. First, sex and concupiscence are not evil in themselves, but carnal concupiscence which came from af- ter the Fall is evil. He distinguished carnal concupiscence from general concupiscence. According to Augustine, carnal concupiscence is the punishment for primordial sin. Paul Ramsey’s article shows Augustine’s view of the impact of the Fall on human sexuality.9 Before the Fall, our first parents in Paradise were free from all disturbance. In City of God, Augustine describes the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall as fol- lows: Their love to God was unclouded, and their mutual affection was that of faithful and sincere marriage; and from this love flowed a wonderful delight, because they always enjoyed what was loved. Their avoidance of sin was tranquil; and, so long as it was maintained, no other ill at all could invade them and bring sorrow.10 Augustine believed that before the Fall, the sexual organs operated 7 Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence II, 52, trans. Peter Holmes in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series Vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), 304. 8 David F. Kelly, “Sexuality and Concupiscence in Augustine,” The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics (1983), 81-116. 9 Paul Ramsey, “Human Sexuality in the Hisory of Redemption,” The Journal of Religious Ethics 16 (1988), 56-86. 10 Augustine, The City of God XIV, 10, trans. Marcus Dods in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series Vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), 271. 106 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 42 under the control of the will as the other members do.11 In that state, love rather than concupiscence would have initiated sexual activity. Be- fore the Fall, “the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25, NRSV). Unfortunately, however, our first parents fell into the sin of dis- obedience to God because of their pride. The first sin