On Nature and Grace: Part 4, The Natural Desire for the Supernatural

To recap, in his book Henri de Lubac and the Drama of Human Existence Jordan Hillebert describes two problematic views concerning the relationship between nature and grace. On the one side is extrinsicism, the view of a graceless nature, a nature devoid of grace. Extrinsicism is generally found in conservative Christian spaces and sits behind pessimistic views of “totally depraved” human nature. On the other side is intrinsicism, the view that nature is “always already” graced. Intrinsicism tends to be found in liberal and progressive Christian spaces, which promote a more optimistic view of human nature, a view so affirmational that we no longer need saving.

One way I have described the contrast between extrinsicism and intrinsicism is how creation theology and soteriology can be weighted against each other. According to extrinsicism, the fall caused creation to lose all contact with grace. Grace, therefore, has to come wholly from soteriology, a gift completely exterior to, outside of, beyond, and extrinsic from the fallen created order. Intrinsicism, by contrast, shifts grace toward creation. Existence simply is grace, wholly and completely. Creation does not need saving. Thus, soteriology becomes unnecessary. The work of Jesus, in this view, is simply to communicate to nature its graced and saved existence. Salvation becomes a form of enlightenment, a realization of one’s intrinsically graced existence.

When Henri de Lubac wrote Surnaturel, he was pushing back against the extrinsicism found within the reigning “two-tiered” Thomism in Catholic theological circles. At the time, this was a debate about how best to read Thomas Aquinas regarding the possibility of pure nature. It is a debate that continues to this day, largely because Thomas was not wholly consistent across his voluminous writings. For our purposes, however, we can set this debate aside. Our concern is how to think about the relationship between nature and grace, rather than how best to read the Angelic Doctor.

As I have described, in Surnaturel de Lubac rejected extrinsicism by arguing for an intrinsic and organic connection between nature and grace. The connection was our “natural desire for the supernatural.” 

The tricky part in this formulation is the notion of "natural desire." An extrinsicist view of our desire for God would hold that such a desire must be supernaturally implanted into nature from the outside. An example would be the Calvinist doctrine of election, in which God implants a desire for Himself into our hearts, wills, and minds. Thus, the desire for God is treated as a supernatural, super-added gift, something inserted into nature.

De Lubac, by contrast, says that the desire for God is natural. The desire for God is not implanted or inserted into nature at some later point, downstream of our coming into existence. Our desire for God is a constitutive part of our nature, an intrinsic endowment of our natural existence. Simply put, our desire for God does not have to be super-added to our nature, because it is already there.

As Jordan Hillebert points out, according to de Lubac, human nature, being spirit, simply is the desire for God. Because humans are spiritual beings, our desires are teleologically ordered toward a supernatural finality. This is simply what it means to exist as a spiritual being. The desire for God is, therefore, our nature. As Augustine put it, our hearts are restless until they rest in God. Or, as Thomas put it, “Final and perfect happiness can consist in nothing else than the vision of the Divine Essence.”

As you can see, de Lubac’s “natural desire for the supernatural” pushes back against the view that nature is wholly severed from relation to God. A longing for God is, rather, simply what it means to be human. Our desires are directed and ordered toward God. Our ultimate happiness and fulfillment can only be found in a supernatural end and finality.

But there are controversies here. As I noted above, a Calvinist would reject de Lubac’s view, arguing that the supernatural desire for God must be extrinsically implanted in fallen human nature. For my part, I reject the Calvinist view. I side with de Lubac, Augustine, and Thomas: humans have a natural longing for God, and as spiritual beings, human happiness can only be found in God. Human flourishing is ordered toward a supernatural end.

But the more pressing controversies concern the temptations we have observed in intrinsicist perspectives, the view that nature is “always already” graced. As Jordan Hillebert describes, de Lubac has often been regarded as a pioneer of modern intrinsicist theological developments. And because of this, de Lubac has been sharply criticized for allegedly undermining the view of grace as a gratuitous gift rather than as a “natural endowment.” For my purposes, these questions are the more pressing criticisms of de Lubac, so we will turn to them next.