Fill Out the Online Form
Begin your Journey of Knowledge and Faith
seal logo
Personal Information
1/2
Select Your Program of Interest
2/2
In 300 words or less, describe your Christian faith, including your conversion and current Christian walk, and ministry experience (if applicable)
300/words
In 300 words or less, describe reasons for your desire to study with the Alexandrian Institute and how this deepen your faith or equip you for Christian ministry
300/words
Upload your Letter of Intent
Uploading...
fileuploaded.jpg
Upload failed. Max size for files is 10 MB.
Upload your CV or Resume
Uploading...
fileuploaded.jpg
Upload failed. Max size for files is 10 MB.
Upload your list of references
Uploading...
fileuploaded.jpg
Upload failed. Max size for files is 10 MB.
Upload your list of references
Uploading...
fileuploaded.jpg
Upload failed. Max size for files is 10 MB.
Upload your list of references
Uploading...
fileuploaded.jpg
Upload failed. Max size for files is 10 MB.
Upload your list of references
Uploading...
fileuploaded.jpg
Upload failed. Max size for files is 10 MB.
Upload your list of references
Uploading...
fileuploaded.jpg
Upload failed. Max size for files is 10 MB.
Thank You for Taking
the First Step
Your interest has been received. We’re excited to walk with you on this journey of learning and spiritual growth. Our team will be in touch soon with the next steps.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Essays

On the Politics of Pride (superbia) and Humility (humilitas)

On the Politics of Pride and Humility

‍

About the Author

Dr. Alexander H. Pierce is a Research Fellow of The Alexandrian Institute and Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at the North American Lutheran Seminary.

On the Politics of Pride (superbia) and Humility (humilitas)

Porphyry was a leading Platonist of his time, and he was certain that God must have provided a universal way of salvation. But he never found it. Augustine's explanation, in Book 10 of the City of God, is quite direct: "Christ came in humility, and you are too proud to recognize that he is the way." In this short essay, TAI Research Fellow Dr. Alex Pierce shows that Augustine's answer is political as well as theological. Worship forms communities. Pride produces a society of self-interested individuals competing for honor and station, in which the few keep their privileges at the expense of the many. The humility learned at the cross and received in the folly of proclamation of the gospel forms a people capable of true fellowship, and of good citizenship. This essay represents a distillation of Dr. Pierce's recently published chapter in Augustine's De ciuitate Dei: Text, Context and Reception (Brill Schöningh, 2026).

On the Politics of Pride (superbia) and Humility (humilitas)
On the Politics of Pride (superbia) and Humility (humilitas)

In times such as ours it can be easy to lose our Christian faith amidst the polarization of civil society. It is not at all obvious how the tenets of the catholic and apostolic faith bear upon the place of the Christian in contemporary society. Rather than commending a particular political theology for our present cultural moment in early 21st-century North America, I would like to draw attention to the important role played by pride and humility in the political theology at work in part of one of the most influential works of Christian late antiquity, namely, Augustine of Hippo’s City of God.

In the first half of City of God (Books 1-10) Augustine undertakes to expose the false theology underlying the politics of the Roman empire. The second half (11-22) promotes the kind of society that arises from a true embrace of the apostolic faith. There is a powerful convergence of these critical and constructive tasks within the tenth book, which functions as a joint between the two halves. In making his apologetic case that Christ’s Church and its sacrifices of worship offer the universal way of salvation, Augustine at once exposes the unsavory politics implicit in Platonic philosophy and promotes his vision of the politics enjoined by the true faith and worship of the catholic Church2. In short, Augustine lifts up the cruciform Christian community over against the political upshot of Platonism, which still attracted many of his contemporaries. Ingredient to Augustine’s argument is the contrast between the pride (superbia) of the Platonists and Christian humility (humilitas).3

Augustine presents the Church as the locus of true worship that forms and commends the humility necessary for aspiring to genuine human community, a community that prepares pilgrims (peregrini) in this life for the formation of the true res publica in eternal union with God.4 In contrast, alongside his strong affirmation of the shared commitments of Platonism and Christianity, he subtly traces the pervasive presence of pride and its effects on even the most superior form of Roman philosophy. It promotes at best a collection of individuals pursuing their own honor, station, and glory in competition with one another as well as the gods to whom they commend worship.

In book ten of his City of God, Augustine provides a compelling political-theological, apologetic argument for Christ’s provision of the universal way of salvation Porphyry believes must exist as a gift of divine providence despite never finding it in the philosophies and religions with which he was familiar. Augustine’s apology for Christianity as the true religion that offers proper worship is itself an exercise in political theology inasmuch as it “is the explicit attempt to relate discourse about God to the organization of bodies in space and time.”5 Augustine suggests that the Church forms its members to become exemplary participants in civil society. The sacrificial mediation of Christ (which lies at the heart of what Porphyry would consider divine providence and what Augustine would often spell out in terms of the “economy of salvation”) commends an alternative form of human community to the “community that is no community” in the Roman Empire insofar as it is a manifestation of the “earthly city” (ciuitas terrena).6 In the course of his argument, Augustine exposes the false worship, theology, and politics of the prevailing Platonism of his day and promotes the true worship, theology, and political vision intrinsic to Christianity.7

Augustine grants that as a Platonist, Porphyry is in a position to discover Christ and his grace, but rejects both. Porphyry understands that the initiatory rites of the gods do not purify the mind of ignorance or the faults to which it leads. This can “only be done through the ‘fatherly mind’ (πατρικός νοῦς), that is, the Mind or Intellect” whom Augustine identifies with the Wisdom or Word of God, the second Person of the Trinity.8 Unfortunately, Porphyry does not recognize “Christ, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24), but “[shies] away from his saving humility, inflated with the swollen pride of useless learning.”9 He despises Christ “on account of the body which he received from a woman, and because of the shame of the cross.”10 Porphyry could not assent to the Wisdom of God‘s undergoing physical embodiment and tangible suffering being anything more than “folly and weakness.”11 What he fails to recognize is that the crucified Christ he considers to be shameful and foolish is the “grace, which heals the weakness of those who do not proudly boast of their delusive happiness, but instead make a humble admission of their genuine misery.”12 On the subject of grace, Augustine implores his reader in the wake of the now deceased Porphyry to see the Word’s incarnation as “the supreme instance of grace” that should elicit deep gratitude and bestows on Christ’s members “the spirit of [the Son of God’s] love by the mediation of a man.”13 While “humility was the necessary condition for submission to this truth,” Augustine suggests, the philosophers are simply too proud to be persuaded that “God has assumed a human soul and body.”14 Augustine expresses astonishment at their incredulity, however, for although Platonists uphold a consubstantial relationship between corporeal and incorporeal realities in the body-soul composition of human persons (and the world, for that matter), they reject such a relationship between two incorporeal realities: the Word and the soul assumed in the incarnation.

Augustine asks, why, if human souls can be consubstantial with the “fatherly Mind” or Son of God, is it “incredible that one ‘intellectual’ soul should have been assumed, for the salvation of many, in some unique and ineffable manner”?15 Of course, it is the body joined to this soul that disturbs Porphyry, who, in his treatise “On the Return of the Soul” (De regressu animae), describes the liberation of the soul as “escape from any kind of body in order that the soul may dwell with God in blessedness.”16 For Porphyry, the body stands in the way of self-sufficiency; it represents all the contingency and suffering of this life from which we must escape.17 But Porphyry’s denigration of the body runs contrary to the Platonists’ own logic, for they hold that the World Soul is eternally “the Soul of the visible world” and yet “a being of utter blessedness.”18 Given this and other doctrines that join bodies to blessed souls, Augustine surmises that the only reason for Porphyry’s rejection of Christianity is that “Christ came in humility, and you are proud.”19 Bodily escape cannot be “an essential condition for our happiness” according to Platonism itself, but further still, the Church maintains that “this body will be incorruptible and immortal and will present no obstacle to that contemplation by which the soul is fixed on God.”20 Porphyry’s Neoplatonic theology trades in deceit and manipulation between humans and demons or gods. It not only sows seeds of distrust between the few and the many, but also cultivates an esoteric elitism among the philosophers that enables them to preserve the status quo of their dominance over the multitude. This community can be little more than a distortion, an aberrant simulacrum of the fellowship of love and mercy constituted by Christ.21

In the tenth book of his City of God, Augustine lays bare the implicit politics of Platonism and commends Christianity as the fulfillment of Platonism’s political and spiritual aspirations. Bearing readers with Platonist sympathies in mind, Augustine deconstructs the social and theological ramifications of Platonism, particularly that of Porphyry. He finds common ground with Porphyry (and Plotinus) regarding their participatory ontology as well as God’s transcendence and triadic nature (by analogy). But he also observes several deceits and divisions intrinsic to Platonism and evident in the divergences between its putative understanding of the divine and its endorsement of the imperial cult. In what are, for Augustine, at best inconsistencies and at worst duplicitous discrepancies, Porphyry affirms and rejects theurgy, supports and condemns the worship of demons and gods, and promises (the spiritual soul) and denies (the intellectual soul) salvation, effectively abandoning the multitudes who could not properly contemplate God. Porphyry not only divides the few from the many, but also undermines the divine character of the gods and demons, ascribing passions to them and pitting them against humans’ pursuit of salvation. Porphyry also prescribes divergent and contradictory courses of ascent and disintegrates the human person into a soul worthy of redemption and a body worthy of destruction. Although Porphyry confesses belief in the goodness of divine providence to offer a universal way of salvation, he actively promotes a Platonism that impedes such liberation and secures in its place the religious and political status quo in which the true community and solidarity of all are sacrificed in favor of the powers and privileges of a select few. For as much confidence as he could place in the idea, Porphyry could not bear the concrete reality of the “way” he sought precisely because of the prideful sensibilities he cultivated in becoming the leading Platonist of his day.

Augustine also lifts up the salutary alternative one finds in the Church, narrating how the God of Christianity—Father, Son, and Spirit—is carrying out his eternal plan of salvation. The fractured solidarity that united humanity in a pseudo-community of self-pleasing individuals under the devil’s thumb since Adam’s fall has given rise to many iterations of the earthly city. The Word becoming flesh created a new solidarity in which true fellowship could be formed. Christ’s gift of the Spirit to his disciples gave birth to the Church and continues to maintain the unity of his members. To receive the mercy of Christ crucified and risen, to enter his Body through the waters of baptism, and to offer oneself individually in acts of compassion and corporately in the eucharist is to walk on the path to universal salvation sought by Porphyry. In this community, unity is forged between human persons as well as holy angels and the God to whom alone all its members give their worship. But God’s gift of grace and the Christian’s exercise of humility intrinsic to this way of life also enable the cultivation of virtues required of good citizens. Augustine rejects the forfeiture of the political to the “earthly city” but also refuses to reduce the Body of Christ to a political domain. Participation in the Church as the sacrament of the true City of God forms in Christ’s members the humility necessary to engage the broader human community without an unabated “love of self” (amor sui) that prioritizes the “lust for domination” (libido dominandi) in one way or another.22 The Church, while not itself the realm of politics, is the cruciform fellowship of love and mercy given as the fullest anticipation, in this present economy of salvation, of perfect union with God in the next.23 Augustine’s “political theology” in the tenth book of his City of God, then, is his attempt to provoke his readers to look past the illusion of community that is imperial Platonism and to consider the icon of true solidarity that is Christ’s Body so that they might find peace in the universal way of salvation offered by the God of mercy and compassion.

‍

This essay is adapted from Alexander H. Pierce, "On the 'Political Theology' of Augustine's De ciuitate dei 10," in Augustine's De ciuitate Dei: Text, Context and Reception, ed. Anthony Dupont, Marina Giani, and Gert Partoens, Augustinus – Werk und Wirkung 20 (Brill Schöningh, 2026), 137–162.

‍



  1. 1. This essay is adapted from Alexander H. Pierce, “On the ‘Political Theology’ of Augustine’s De ciuitate dei 10,” in Augustine’s De ciuitate Dei: Text, Context and Reception, ed. Anthony Dupont, Marina Giani, and Gert Partoens, Augustinus – Werk und Wirkung 20 (Brill Schöningh, 2026), 137–162, https://doi.org/10.30965/9783657705436-007.
  2. 2. On what the Platonists get right, in accordance with Christian teaching, see Augustine, ciu. 8.1 (CChr.SL 47, 217, 31–36, Dombart/Kalb; trans. Henry Bettenson, Concerning the City of God against the Pagans [London: Penguin, 2003], 371); 10.2 (274, 1–31 D./K.). Hereafter, citations of the City of God give the page and line of the Dombart/Kalb edition (D./K.) and the page of the Bettenson translation (B.). On the structure of Augustine’s City of God and the place of book ten therein, see John C. Cavadini, “Epilogue: The Architectonic Plan of The City of God,” in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine’s City of God, ed. David Vincent Meconi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 297–320. Cf. Gerard O’Daly, Augustine’s City of God: A Reader’s Guide, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 72–95.
  3. 3. On superbia and humilitas in Augustine’s City of God, see Mary Keys, Pride, Politics, and Humility in Augustine’s City of God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), esp. 87–105.
  4. 4. See Sarah Stewart-Kroeker, Pilgrimage as Moral and Aesthetic Formation in Augustine’s Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).
  5. 5. William T. Cavanaugh and Peter Manley Scott, “Introduction to the Second Edition,” in Blackwell Companion to Political Theology, ed. William T. Cavanaugh and Peter Manley Scott, 2nd ed. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2019), 2.
  6. 6. John C. Cavadini, “Ideology and Solidarity in Augustine’s City of God,” in Augustine’s City of God: A Critical Guide, ed. James Wetzel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 93–110, at 106.
  7. 7. From the outset, it is important to bear in mind that “Augustine’s political thought does not fit comfortably into the contemporary categories of political enquiry… what seems to interest Augustine about politics is what it shows about the divine and psychological forces which govern human life but which human reason cannot fully penetrate or control.” Paul Weithman, “Augustine’s Political Philosophy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, ed. Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 234–252, at 248–249.
  8. 8. Augustine, ciu. 10.28 (303, 19–20 D./K.; 413 B.).
  9. 9. Augustine, ciu. 10.28 (303, 3–5 D./K.; 412 B.).
  10. 10. Augustine, ciu. 10.28 (303, 22–23 D./K.; 413 B.).
  11. 11. Augustine, ciu. 10.28 (304, 40 D./K.; 413 B.).
  12. 12. Augustine, ciu. 10.28 (304, 41–43 D./K.; 413 B.).
  13. 13. Augustine, ciu. 10.29 (304, 22–23; 305, 30–31 D./K.; 414–415 B.).
  14. 14. Augustine, ciu. 10.29 (305, 38–39, 42–43 D./K.; 415 B.).
  15. 15. Augustine, ciu. 10.29 (305, 46–48 D./K.; 415 B.).
  16. 16. Augustine, ciu. 10.29 (305, 62–64 D./K.; 415 B.).
  17. 17. Cavadini, “Ideology and Solidarity,” 106.
  18. 18. Augustine, ciu. 10.29 (306, 65, 67 D./K.; 416 B.).
  19. 19. Augustine, ciu. 10.29 (306, 79–80 D./K.; 416 B.).
  20. 20. Augustine, ciu. 10.29 (306, 88, 84–86 D./K.; 416 B.).
  21. 21. See Cavadini, “Epilogue,” 315.
  22. 22. Veronica Roberts Ogle, Politics and the Earthly City in Augustine’s City of God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 143.
  23. 23. Cavadini, “Epilogue,” 318.

Public domain artwork used in this article:
  1. Hero banner: Thomas Cole, The Course of Empire: The Consummation of Empire, 1836, oil on canvas, New-York Historical Society, New York.
  2. Body image 1: Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Tower of Babel, 1563, oil on panel, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.
  3. Body image 2: Raphael, The School of Athens, 1509–1511, fresco, Stanza della Segnatura, Apostolic Palace, Vatican City.
  4. Body image 3: Giovanni Paolo Panini, Interior of the Pantheon, Rome, c. 1734, oil on canvas, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC.
  5. Body image 4: Philippe de Champaigne, Saint Augustine, c. 1645–1650, oil on canvas, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles.
  6. Body image 5: Jean-François Millet, The Gleaners, 1857, oil on canvas, Musée d’Orsay, Paris.
  7. Body image 6: József Molnár, The Departure of Abraham, 1850, oil on canvas, Hungarian National Gallery, Budapest.
Resources
Article
On the Politics of Pride (superbia) and Humility (humilitas)
Close-up of a hand typing on a laptop keyboard in dim lighting.