Early Response Paper 2

Here is a response paper from Formation of Christian Tradition (basically early Christian history/development of early Christian thought).

~~~~

In this reading, Anslem of Canterbury’s judgment of the inadequacy of human satisfaction, it was easy to agree. The analysis was intricate and the dialogue format was entertaining. His argument was good. Human “satisfaction” cannot cover a sinful nature because those good acts were already owed to God. More is needed to rise above the debt humanity owes God, which only the divine nature can do. Jesus the Christ is the one who is both human and divine in order to pay the debt. The Christ is the one whom salvation is given because God owes Jesus (who personally needs nothing) for willingly experiencing death.

Despite general agreement with his argument, there were some points of concern throughout his argument for Christ as the exclusive and necessary was to receive salvation. The biggest concerns were Anslem’s treatment of attributes of God (such as justice and honor), the language about God, and finally how Anslem describes the purpose of humanity.

Anslem ascribes to God in a surprisingly impersonal way. God is the Just. God is a judge figure who must carry out part of God’s very being: justice. Justice itself almost seems to dictate God, for Anslem’s system. At the very least, Anslem’s argument for prevailing justice forces God to hold a specific course of action because acting in any other fashion would defy justice. Chapters thirteen and fourteen discuss God’s honor and God being in a seemingly selfish way. How can a God, who (as manifested in Christ) would be willing to act so selflessly to experience death and fulfill God’s justice against humanity, be ruled by such selfish traits as personal honor, dignity, and a self-created justice? It may have strengthened Anslem’s argument to redefine these “human tainted” words to better fit the other attributes of God and negate the selfish connotations.

It would have been equally beneficial for Anslem to discuss the love of God. It is noticeably absent, despite fleeting statements about God’s mercy, in a discussion about why God became human. The closest it seems Anslem comes to talking about love is happiness. In book two, chapter one Anslem declares that humans “were created in order just to be happy.” A similar issue of better defining the term “happiness” as honor and justice should be noted. The notion of a fulfilled state is a happy state could lead people to search for God, or the Supreme Good in order to be happy. This would fulfill Anslem’s warning that happiness only comes from loving the Supreme Good for itself.

Knowing that loving God will bring happiness is reducing God to a charm against a state of unhappiness. This seems incongruent with Christ’s words to carry one’s own cross. Anslem’s argument leaves no room for a Christian to be unhappy. Anslem’s whole discussion of God as Just or the Supreme Good rather than Abba as used in the New Testament feels alien. It also glosses over the many verses (most notably John 3:16) that speak of love toward humanity than justice.

While Anslem’s argument was thorough and resulting in an agreed outcome, it is difficult to offer such agreement. Anslem’s impersonal description of God and short focus on grace left the analysis lacking the triumph of the New Testament. His choice of character defining words like dignity, honor, and happiness contributed negatively through possible misunderstandings of how those words apply to God and/or humans. Because this text, as stated in the beginning, was not for the learned it should have been a higher priority to speak very intentionally about the full implication of his analysis.