medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture Please read R. W. Southern rather than Matthewes-Green. I read her commentary on passion devotion in the West (which sounds very close to being the source of your excerpts, though perhaps she has repeated these points in varoius venues) in _Books and Culture_ about two months ago and made a note to write a letter to the editor protesting the mischaracterization of Western passion devotion but never wrote it. The comments you excerpt below are directed at contemporary Protestant Evangelicals, from which Matthewes-Greene is a convert. They caricature the Western tradition; like Gustav Aulen, she reads Anselm through early modern and modern Protestant eyes. I'm sorry, but Anselm lived in the 11thc, not the 16th or 19th. Matthewes-Green is a journalist writing for a popular audience, which excuses the caricature, perhaps. But medievalists really can do better than that. There is indeed a genuine and distinct Western devotion to Christ's passion, of which Anselm is part. Read his prayers and meditations alongside Cur Deus and the Proslogion and Monologion. See Gerhart Ladner, _The Idea of Reform_ in and around p. 153 to see how the Western tradition both has much in common with the Eastern (return to paradisiacal innocence, reformatio of the imago Dei) but focuses particularly on the Cross as making possible a reformatio in melius (which in effect is the equivalent of the Eastern theoosis). Cur Deus was written for a specific context apologetic context (read Southern)--to deal particularly with Jewish interlocutors' legitimate question: why did God have to become man in order to save man? The question is an ancient one and was answered by the Greek Fathers along the same lines as Anselm. Anselm's true innovation is to reject the theory of a ransom rightly owed to the devil while recognizing that the devil de facto holds sinners captive, de facto but not rightly or justly, rather, by usurpation. None of this is incompatible with the Eastern Fathers and from an Eastern perspective it's a great improvement over the "Devil's Rights" theories Anselm was rejecting. Cur Deus does not paint a picture of a wrathful Father needing appeasement. For Anselm not the Father's "sense of justice" (you psychologize God here) but the _fact_ of God's justice, order, peace, harmony, righteousnesss will not permit the Father simply to excuse sin--and that is essentially what Athanasius says. The "wrathful Father needing propitiation" may well be present in later Western medieval popular devotion and in theological writers; it certainly can be found in some Protestant theologizing. But one has to read it into Anselm to find it there. Surely the Eastern Fathers (including Athanasius) recognize that sin is an offense against justitia?? If Christ by his death took away, propitiated sin (NT commonplace), if he offered himself as a sacrifice for human sins, and if human sins offended against justice, then the only thing missing is the psychologizing reading you are giving to "the Father's justice." I see several sources for the misreading of Anselm as a strictly legalistic, forensic theologian of atonement. (1) The Reformation and modern truncating of "justice" into courtroom, forensic thinking. Medieval Latin writers hadn't made that "juristic turn" which, in theology, owes a lot to the humanist discovery, taken up by Protestant Reformers, that the Septuagint used a term to translate justitia that in secular Greek has only forensic, courtroom acquittal connotations. They failed to realize that what was a merely forensic term in secular Greek could, by being pressed into service for a much richer Hebrew concept, take on non-forensic, richer meanings. See Alastair McGrath, _Iustitia Dei_ for the details, though he sides with the humanists/Protestant. Precisely these sorts of blinders have to be set aside when one reads patristic and medieval texts. Anselm and monks of his day lived and breathed the Psalms. Their world was the Hebrew and New Testament world of a holy God who called His people to live rightly, justly, righteously in a full-orbed vision. For reasons too complicated to explain here, early modern and Enlightenment Europe narrowed this. (2) The charge of "legalistic" has been aimed at Latins by Greeks from ancient times. The Romans did take pride in their juridical system and sensibilities. But they also had a wide sense of virtue, personal justice etc. as one sees when one looks at Cicero's De Officiis, for example. Like most polemics, this ancient canard thrown at Latins has some truth to it but in the heat of the polemics, became a caricature. Moreover, medieval Christian writers were not simply Romans but a people who lived out of a Jewish book that is narrowly forensic only to those who read their own legalism into it. (3) The hop, skip, and jump method of historical theology employed by theologians: Cur Deus appears in every anthology and manual with which theologians are trained; usually in snippets, without any contextualization, without the recognition that it was written for a specific purpose, without much explanation of its reception in later theology and without any insight into the broader stream of Latin passion devotion and theology as a component of Latin soteriology. Dennis Martin >>> [log in to unmask] 05/11/04 6:03 PM >>> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Martin" <[log in to unmask]> > I might add that before blaming Anselm for a false juridicism etc. one > ought at least to read Richard Southern's _Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a > Landscape_ on Cur Deus--"justice" (righteousnesss) as order, harmony, > beauty, not merely as a courtroom concept. Eastern polemics against > Anselm and the West also fail to take adequate account of, say, > Athanasius's language in _De incarnatione_. Reading "De Incarnatione" I have never thought that Athanasius is building a case for the Atonement theory. He seems to focus on the usual Eastern themes of deliverance from death and the devil and not from the divine justice which required the sacrifice of a divine being to effect deliverance from God the Father 'quis voluist immolatione placari.' "The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of, otherwise than through death..." "...yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father's Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. "It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent." --St. Athanasios, "On the Incarnation." From Frederice Matthewes-Green: Many of my correspondents don't know this history [of the notions of soteriology in the Early Middle Ages and earlier] and insist instead that the Blood Atonement theory is the earliest. It just isn't so. They believe this because they find evidence for it in the Scriptures, but as I've said, this is a matter of your favorite Scriptures lighting up for you, in accord with how you've been taught. The appearance in history of the Blood Atonement, or Substitutionary, theory can actually be located pretty precisely, in the work "Cur Deus Homo?" ("Why Did God Become Man?") by Anselm, Bishop of Canterbury, in the 11th century. Anselm's idea is foreshadowed in some earlier writers, like Tertullian, but it was not the general view. The general view of the early church was not as crisp, as thorough, as Anselm's. And this is why Catholic and Protestant theologians have seen Anselm's theory as a great advance. Henry Bettenson, in his anthology "Documents of the Christian Church," calls "Cur Deus Homo," "one of the few books that can truly be called epoch-making." Catholic and Protestants have never claimed that Anselm's Blood-Atonement theory is the earliest; they've said it is the best. It was a breakthrough. That implies something else came before. Anselm's theory, as we know, is that our sins create an overwhelming offense against God's honor, a debt. God cannot merely excuse this offense and wipe the debt away, because it constitutes an objective wrong in the universe; justice would be knocked out of balance. There must be punishment. Anselm: "Let us consider whether God could properly remit sin by mercy alone without satisfaction. So to remit sin would be simply to abstain from punishing it. And since the only possible way of correcting sin, for which no satisfaction has been made, is to punish it, not to punish it is to remit it uncorrected. But God cannot properly leave anything uncorrected in his kingdom. Moreover, to remit sin unpunished would be treating the sinful and sinless alike, which would be incongruous to God's nature. And incongruity is injustice. It is necessary, therefore, that either the honor taken away should be repaid, or punishment should be inflicted." He goes on to say that "no sinner can make" complete satisfaction for sin. "None can make this satisfaction except God. And none ought to make it except man...One must make it who is both God and man." Because Christ did not deserve to suffer for us, but paid the debt voluntarily, he "ought not to be without reward...If the Son chose to make over the claim he had on God to man, could the Father justly forbid him doing so, or refuse to man what the Son willed to give him?" I think most of you will recognize this. It is the standard view of traditional Catholics and Protestants. During the Enlightenment theologians began to criticize this theory as legalistic, as too rooted in the Old Testament and not enough in the New, as portraying a God who hardly seems to be one of love. They began to develop an alternative theory which was little concerned with punishment of sin; instead, Christ's sacrifice was meant to move and inspire, so that we voluntarily return to God, and God is moved to reconcile with us. This theory is called "exemplary" because Jesus is the example rather than the sacrifice. It's proponents claimed to root their view in Abelard, a younger critic of Anselm. The big debate in the 19th century cast these two views as "objective" and "subjective." Because of this, conservative Christians in the West are disposed to see any attack on the Substitutionary theory as a move toward liberalism. That is not so. There is a whole third viewpoint, which prevailed throughout the first millennium, and continues outside Western Christianity today. *** ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html