Love as "Impossible Possibility": Niebuhr, Women, & Agape

This week for Social Justice class, I studied the model of justice proclaimed by American Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. Concurrent with the development of much of Catholic social teaching, Neibuhr’s thought evolved significantly from the 1920’s to his death in 1971. Throughout his years as a pastor, professor, writer, and speaker, Niebuhr developed his theo-philosophy of “Christian realism.” Niebuhr’s unique perspective lifts up the importance of struggle and human limitation with regard to issues of love and justice.

In Six Theories of Justice, feminist theologian Karen Lebacqz explains that for Niebuhr, perfect justice is “a state of ‘brotherhood’ in which there is no conflict of interests” (Lebacqz, 85-86). In essence, perfect justice is synonymous with perfect love, neither of which Niebuhr believes is attainable in this sinful world. Emphasizing that human beings are fallen sinners, Niebuhr claims that only “imperfect” or “relative” justice is possible. In the striving for perfect justice and, ultimately, for perfect love, people inevitably become caught up in the self-interest and imbalance of power found throughout human history. Only in God’s “kingdom” will the vision of perfect harmony be fulfilled.

For Niebuhr, as unrealistic a goal as perfect love is for earth, it remains as “impossible possibility” (Ibid, 85). That is, though only Jesus could embody it in the social world, love is still the ultimate standard by which the morality of all actions are to be measured (Ibid). What does this perfect love look like? An important distinction for Niebuhr is the difference between “mutual” love and “self-sacrificing” love (or agape). Like many Christians, Niebuhr deems self-sacrificing love as the purest form of love -- the kind of love modeled by Jesus whose cross signifies the ultimate self-gift. For Niebuhr and others, perfect love is to be “disinterested,” free of self-interest and only concerned with the well-being of the other. On the other hand, “mutual” love, according to Niebuhr, “is never free of prudential concern for oneself as well” (Ibid, 84).

In addition to other critiques of Niebuhr’s work, Lebacqz briefly explains that feminists have criticized Niebuhr for disregarding injustices faced by women. She writes, “When ‘sin’ for men may be represented by the will to power over others, some argue that sin for women has more often been a too-ready self-effacement” (Ibid, 95). While I certainly am an advocate for taking up our crosses with selfless love, a feminist lens raises important issues regarding self-sacrifice as the defining characteristic of perfect love. In “Love Understood as Self-Sacrifice and Self-Denial: What Does it Do to Women?” feminist theologian Brita L. Gill-Austern explores this conundrum and offers liberating possibilities for women from within the Christian tradition.

Gill-Austern asserts that “The equation of love with self-sacrifice, self-denial, and self-abnegation in Christian theology is dangerous to women’s psychological, spiritual, and physical health, and it is contrary to the real aim of Christian love” (Moessner, 304). She explores this suggestion by addressing three critical questions: What motivates women toward self-sacrifice? What are the negative effects of self-sacrifice on women? And what is the distinguishing characteristic of Christian love? Gill-Austern believes that exploring these issues through theological, cultural, and psychological lenses will have long-lasting effects on women’s lives, including the development of a pastoral theology that is life-giving for them, as well as for men.

The author begins by explaining six key psychological, cultural and theological issues that motivate self-sacrifice and self-denial in women:

       1) the inherently relational identity of women as created and perpetuated by society
     and gender roles

     2) the powerful, popular message that women must give up their needs to stay
     connected to other people

     3) women’s social and economic dependence

     4) women’s commonly felt self-doubt, false guilt, and self-abnegation in a society that
     continues to deem them inferior

     5) a structurally unequal society, masked by skewed perceptions of what it means to
     care for and love others

     6) a theological tradition that upholds such actions as the ultimate expression of
     Christian love (Ibid, 305-308).

Gill-Austern also delves into the negative effects of self-sacrifice and self-denial on women. This pattern can lead women to lose touch with their own desires and needs, and to lose themselves and their voices in the process. Gill-Austern believes that the resultant void often can be filled with the resentment of feeling like victims. Instead of functioning for themselves, women can become so fixated on functioning for others that they lose belief in their own agency. This lack of self-esteem eventually can cause women to forego their public responsibility to use their gifts for the good of God and the world. Overcome by the stress and strain of living only for others, constantly self-sacrificing women can become unable to engage in authentically mutual intimate relationships, the author suggests. Without even being aware of it, women whose love is full of self-denial participate in the perpetuation of structures that exploit women and celebrate male domination (Ibid, 310-315).

Despite the dangers of self-denial, Gill-Austern emphasizes the beauty and potential for good found in self-sacrifice as well. She cautions readers, explaining,”...women need to resist the increasingly widespread tendency to condemn all forms of self-giving. Self-sacrifice is not pernicious by definition; it is not always a manifestation of codependency. Self-sacrifice can be an essential element of authentic, faithful love—the self-fulfilling self-transcendence to which Jesus calls us” (Ibid, 315). The author finds examples from within Scripture to support her claim – the parable of the Good Samaritan and Jesus’ interactions with Mary and Martha, for example – which offer a hopeful perspective on loving, life-giving relationship. Gill-Austern, citing the Gospel of John, witnesses to the alternative paradigm Jesus offers people – relationships of mutuality and friendship as opposed to structures of superiority and inferiority (Ibid, 316-317).

Most poignantly for me, Gill-Austern breaks open the self-giving love modeled by the Trinity. She explains:

First, self-giving is not about denial of self (there is no withholding of the self), but rather an offering up of one’s very fullness...Full becoming requires the presence of an other…Second, in the Trinity there is no pattern of domination or subordination, no quelling of individuality or uniqueness...The Trinity as a model of self-giving love safeguards difference while maintaining connection…Third, the Trinity affirms persons’ needs for one another by showing us that wholeness is a relational concept, not something that one achieves on one’s own...At the heart of divine love is reciprocal giving (Ibid, 319).

These nuanced understandings of Trinitarian relationality and Jesus’ self-sacrifice offer new possibilities for women, whether we are studying the theology of Reinhold Niebuhr, Margaret Farley, Joseph Ratzinger, or Karl Rahner. Niebuhr claims that “If...selflessness were a simple possibility in history, there would be no need for justice, since all would coexist in a perfect harmony of love” (Lebacqz, 84). And maybe that is true. But in my view, we can offer authentic selflessness only when we know and love the fullness of who we are: men and women created in God’s image.

We are each continually created of Love, by Love, and for Love. When we begin to see ourselves the way that God sees us -- as the beloved -- then we can offer self-sacrifice in a way that is both radical and healthy. We truly can understand what it means to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:39). And in the impossibility of perfect love and justice, we can hold onto the possible. Loving always in relationship to God, others, and ourselves, we can work toward becoming the brotherhood and sisterhood of the Reign of God.

Works Cited

Lebacqz, Karen. Six Theories of Justice: Perspectives from Philosophical and Theological Ethics. Minneapolis: 

          Augsburg Pub. House, 1986. PDF.

Moessner, Jeanne Stevenson. Through the Eyes of Women: Insights for Pastoral Care. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Print.

© 2012 Katie Davis