Confessions, True & False

Augustine & Rousseau: Opposite Orientations Toward God, Man & Society

Saint Augustine (354–430), recognized in 1298 by the Roman Catholic Church as a Doctor of the Church, served as bishop of Hippo in North Africa from 396–430. His theological and philosophical writings have influenced Christian thought from the medieval period to this day, and he is considered a stalwart of theological orthodoxy within many Christian traditions. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) was a Genevan-born philosophe. The philosophes were 18th-century French social critics who challenged Church authority and promoted secularism. Rousseau is probably best known for his 1762 book The Social Contract, and his ideas were influential in bringing about the French ­Revolution.

Both men wrote books titled Confessions, but despite the identical titles, and despite Augustine’s clear influence on Rousseau, Rousseau took a radically different perspective from Augustine. Temporally speaking, these authors are far removed from each other, but their distance is more salient in terms of their philosophical and theological perspectives; in these, they are worlds apart. The natures of their confessions—what they confess and to whom—reveal fundamentally different perspectives on man, God, and society. Their philosophies aren’t simply things of the past, because they continue to influence the ways in which we think and act today. The question I will consider is this: Is our society more reflective of Augustine’s Confessions or of Rousseau’s?

Confession to Whom?

Both men begin with the recipients of their confessions. Augustine opens with praise to God and then states the famous line, “You stir man to take pleasure in praising you, because you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.” Augustine addresses his confessions to God, the one by whom and for whom man is made. This is the whole theme of his Confessions, establishing the principle that one does not truly know oneself until he knows God. Augustine also remarks that God has “given mankind the capacity to understand oneself by analogy with others,” thereby recognizing a shared humanity. Knowledge of self is understood in relation to God and fellow man. Augustine sees himself as a man among men, alike in nature and necessarily dependent upon God, thus laying a foundation for the deeply theological and anthropological nature of his Confessions. The intimacy with which Augustine speaks to God is at once casual, as if he were still walking in the cool of the garden with his Creator and Friend; yet the very act of confession betrays his awareness that, despite being tempered by grace, the Fall into sin is a sore reality.

By contrast, Rousseau begins his Confessions by saying, “I want to show my fellow-men a man in all the truth of nature; and this man is to be myself.” In “the truth of nature,” Rousseau wants his readers to see him apart from the artificiality of social convention; he wants to be assessed in his experiences and feelings, apart from preconceived notions derived from society’s strictures. He continues, “Myself alone. I feel my heart and I know men. I am not made like any that I have seen; I venture to believe that I was not made like any that exist.” Rousseau views himself as unique among men, and he brings his confessions before his fellow men, placing an emphasis on the sentiments of his own heart and thereby anticipating the deeply psychological and sociological nature of his Confessions. Lacking the intimacy with God so prevalent in Augustine, Rousseau addresses a mass of people who likely know of him not by acquaintance but “by description,” to borrow a phrase from Bertrand Russell. For Rousseau, then, one’s certitude of knowledge is subjective, rooted in experience, especially inward experience.

Confession of What?

Augustine’s confessions are deeply religious. The two central threads are confession of sin (wrong actions and wrong belief) and confession of faith (praise of God and theological articulation of who God is and what he has done). Throughout, he confesses his dependency on God: “Accordingly, my God, I would have no being, I would not have any existence, unless you were in me.” He confesses his sins against God, even from youth: “Lord my God, I sinned by not doing as I was told by my parents and teachers.” All is laid bare before the God who sees all.

While Rousseau’s confessions include a sense of wrongdoing or vice, he largely excuses his misdeeds. For instance, he speaks of his “childish faults” of foolish talk, greed, and lying, even of urinating in a kettle that belonged to an old lady, the memory of which “still makes me laugh.” He excuses this latter event by mentioning the grumpiness of the lady, as if she deserved it. According to Rousseau, these are all “childhood misdemeanors.”

Whereas Augustine takes full blame for the sins he has committed, Rousseau emphasizes wrongs done to him, along with the environment in which he was placed, as the reasons for his wrongdoing. This is evident in Rousseau’s confession of stealing asparagus. He did it at the behest of a superior coworker, M. Verrat, who pressured him by flattery. Rousseau concludes, “So it is among every condition of men: the guilty and powerful save themselves at the expense of the innocent and weak,” with Rousseau being the innocent and weak in this case. As he sees it, his motivation was good—a desire to help M. Verrat—and therefore he is innocent of the theft. He employs the same rationalization in his accounts of stealing apples and his master’s tools. Regarding the latter, he notes, “These thefts were, when it came down to it, quite innocent, since everything I acquired through them was used in his service.” Perhaps you’re picking up on this theme that the end justifies the means.

Man, God & Society

In The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, Carl Trueman writes that Rousseau’s assessment of his thefts is important for understanding his view of man’s inherent nature. For Rousseau, corruption is “something that is created and fostered by social conditions and not something to be considered innate.” This is because Rousseau believes man to be basically good, with corruptions arising from the outside pressures of society; man must therefore free himself from society’s strictures, lest he remain a slave to them. Trueman, in noting similarities between Rousseau’s theft of asparagus and Augustine’s famous account of his theft of pears, draws out the contrasting perspectives of the two men’s self-assessments: “For Augustine, the moral flaw is ultimately intrinsic to him…. For Rousseau, by way of contrast, his natural humanity is fundamentally sound, and the sinful act comes from social pressures and conditioning.” If only Rousseau didn’t have these strictures placed upon him, then he would have no desire to steal, for he would never be in need and he would only engage in good acts. According to Rousseau, then, man does not steal because of a sin nature; he steals because of a need created by laws, customs, and peer pressure (or in Augustine’s case, pear pressure).

This view has further implications for man’s relationship to God. Rousseau’s recollections amount to a self-justification before both man and God on account of his “sincerity.” Rousseau can know himself as God knows him, so he thinks, and he can therefore serve as judge of his own goodness. It is sincerity that matters—a view not uncommon in our own day. Indeed, Rousseau concludes his Confessions with the statement that a person who thinks of him as dishonorable, without having read his writings, “ought to be choked.” Again, this has to do with his notion that certitude of knowledge is subjective and inwardly experiential, and no one knows his own experiences better than he does. He expects his readers to locate the blame for his wrongdoing squarely in the laps of others, an inclination which traces all the way back to Adam and Eve pointing fingers in the Garden.

Augustine likewise brings to memory his past corruptions, but with a significant difference: not as a means of arguing for his basic goodness, but in order that he may love God all the more, for God has shown grace to him by loving him despite his sins. Augustine writes: “I intend to remind myself of my past foulnesses and carnal corruptions, not because I love them but so that I may love you, my God. It is from love of your love that I make the act of recollection.” For Augustine, the more he recalls his sinfulness, the more he is driven to praise. Where Rousseau seeks the love or approval of his fellow man, Augustine wants simply to rest in the love of God, the reality of which comes alive to him through genuine confession of sin and of faith.

Generally speaking, Augustine views himself as a man among men (anthropology) and one who is dependent upon God (theology). Rousseau views himself as a man who is unique among men because he knows himself (psychology), and one who is critical of the strictures of society (sociology), desiring to be free from them and to live in the so-called truth of nature. Further, for Augustine, knowledge rests upon the objective reality of the one true God and a shared humanity, whereas for Rousseau, it arises from the inward experience of the self. These are striking contrasts that are immediately apparent in the two men’s writings, and they are emblematic of the staggering shift from classical and medieval thought to modern thought, of which these men are largely representatives.

A Saintlier Guide

Which of these “worlds” best describes current prevailing social thought and practices? Do prominent voices desire to rest in and give glory to God, or to justify themselves before a watching world? Do people tend to think of themselves as sinners in need of forgiveness, or as basically good souls who are simply misunderstood or deprived of the right chances? Do we recall past faults to give thanks to God for his mercy and grace, or to pass judgment on others? To reflect on these questions is to probe our own hearts and lay bare our spiritual condition, both individually and collectively.

Clearly, we live in a society largely influenced by Rousseau, or at least one that is Rousseauean in spirit—a secular society critical of our institutions, and especially the institution of the Church, which is increasingly seen as a prudish stricture on a “free” society. Understanding these different perspectives helps us to better assess the underlying issues of our time—namely, a loss of the biblical sense of humanity and dependence upon God. Augustine is a saintly guide who can help lead us out of this miry pit. Take up and read!