The Resisting God-Human

So is there a Christological surplus in the work of Anselm of Canterbury which might allow for resistance against the empire? Rieger claims that there is, but that this does not mean that we will be free from difficulty in our pursuit. Whatever surplus we ultimately find, we must recognize that it lies beneath the surface of Anselm’s actual writings, meaning that it was never explicitly considered or intended by the man himself to have been a resource for resistance against the Norman empire. In addition to this, we must be aware that there will be an equal opportunity for imperial abuse present at each of the precise points wherein we locate our subversive surplus. While we will certainly be able to find ambivalence and unresolved tensions in Cur Deus Homo that will provide us an occasion to mine for precious nuggets of resistance, we will most definitely have to push beyond Anselm by developing more complex and developed understandings of his fundamental Christological concepts if we are to avoid having his Christology pressured back underneath imperial control.

The first of the three most significant areas where we might locate our surplus is in Anselm’s wholesale rejection of the ransom theory of the atonement (which in Anselm’s day was considered to have been a thoroughly orthodox position). The ransom theory stated that the devil had gained some sort of control over humanity and that (through Christ) God had either struck a deal with or deceived him in order to accomplish the redemption of the human race. In Anselm’s mind, this view illegitimately granted a significant amount of power to the devil, and he wanted to keep all power in the hands of God. If God possesses unilateral power (and his kingship is defined by the cruciform life of Christ rather than by the empire) perhaps salvation is much more broadly inclusive than any of us had previously been envisioned. In other words, because it is the God of the cross who enjoys all authority independently, conceivably it will not be the elites alone who will derive benefits from His kingship. This of course all depends on the way in which we understand the concept of lordship. The cruciform life of Jesus was of little (if any) importance to Anselm and in fact (hypothetically) Jesus Himself could have been completely abstracted from Anselm’s Christological equation without doing any significant harm to the essential thrust of his theory. For those of us searching for a resistance factor in Anselm, it is essential that the life of Christ provide us with our definition of lordship.

The next two areas where we could possibly unearth traces of surplus are interrelated in Anselm’s thought; sin and satisfaction. Sin was that which had torn apart the relationship between God and humanity as well as that which had destroyed the created order. It was the primary theological problem which Anselm sought to contend with in his Christology. Rieger notes here the similarity between Anselm’s theology and contemporary liberation theologies which both stress sin as a dreadfully serious and structural dilemma. His emphasis on sin could function as an important critique against the empire in that it refuses to ignore the severe offenses that are typically committed against humanity (with special reference to the poor and the marginalized) by the imperial power brokers. Satisfaction (Anselm’s means of dealing with sin) might contribute towards resistance in a few additional ways. It could be valuable for those of whom satisfaction has been demanded in that it can serve to place limits upon punishment, so that calls for justice remain reasonable (similar to lex talionis). Also, since Anselm was in no sense weak on injustice, it might also be viewed as a source of encouragement for society’s oppressed due to the fact that it promises that imperial injustice will ultimately be dealt with. Finally, God’s provision of satisfaction as an alternative to punishment reveals that the demands of justice are ultimately to be restorative, rather than retributive.

The God-Man of the Empire

At this point we are interested in discovering the ways in which Anselm’s theory of satisfaction found in Cur Deus Homo is supportive of the structures of empire. First off, he wrote the book intending to defend the immutability, the impassibility, and the omnipotence of God against objections from Muslims and Jews who claimed that the incarnation served to expose the weakness and simplicity of the Christian God. From Anselm’s perspective, nothing could have been further from the truth. A second objective was to show forth the fact that the incarnation was a logical necessity; he was not content to argue that it was merely a rational possibility. In making his case, he was taking for granted categories of thought provided by the hierarchical logic of Norman imperial feudalism, and presuming the inherent superiority of this brand of reasoning to that of his opponents. All in all, he sought to accomplish through intellectual argumentation what the crusaders had desired to achieve through the use of brute military force; the disclosing of the supremacy of the Christian God and empire over that of the Muslims.

A deeper inspection of Anselm’s theory of satisfaction is necessary if we hope to see its fundamental links to the logic of the Norman empire. When speaking of the relationship between God and humanity, Anselm regularly invoked the imagery of Feudalism. This was a hierarchical framework in which vassals paid homage to lords. Peace and justice, along with the welfare, stability, and unity of the empire were considered to have been entirely dependent upon the maintaining of this crucial order. Honor was that which enabled the relationship between lord and vassal and furthermore it was that which ordered society. If the lord’s honor was violated then order would begin to collapse into chaos. The restoration of this fundamental order would be coincident with the restitution of the lord’s honor. There were only two ways in which the this honor (and thus order) could be restored; punishment or satisfaction. Obviously satisfaction was the preferable option being that this approach attempted to overcome relational violations by peaceful means rather than by alternative forms of punishment such as vengeance and war. For Anselm, sin was that which had dishonored God and disrupted the created order. The satisfaction procured by the God-man brought about the restoration of both. Thus the incarnation, rather than being a threat to the omnipotence, the immutability, and the impassibility of God (or for that matter, of the empire) actually establishes and strengthens them.

Anselm took for granted the universality of the logic of the Norman empire and the feudal order. As far as he was concerned, this was just the way in which the world generally functioned; it was the eternal and unchanging order of creation designed to facilitate peace and justice, and moreover to express the unalterable nature of God. These underlying assumptions were foundational for his Christology, and as a result of its widespread acceptance, the minds of many theologians over the centuries have been unconsciously shaped by and molded after the form of Anselm’s Norman imperial hierarchical logic. In fact, if his model is to be in any sense effective in our day and age, his presuppositions with regard to the hierarchical structuring of the universe and the classical attributes of God need to remain firmly in-tact. However, if these assumptions continue to be met with approval, the door will inevitably be left wide open for the hierarchies of subsequent generations to fill in the gaps left by the disintegration of Anselm’s feudalistic framework. This, along with his complete lack of interest in the life of Christ, can certainly contribute to the shoring up of imperial-like hierarchies. In reality, those who have appealed to the theology of Anselm since the late eleventh century have typically been very anxious to uphold its hierarchical underpinnings (which of course also provides justification for their own authority). Perhaps this is a major reason for its extraordinary popularity?

Another Empire Theology

In this chapter, Joerg Rieger has set his eyes upon the Christology of Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm’s most famous discourse, Cur Deus Homo (Why God [Became] Human) is without question one of the most influential theological works to have ever been penned by human hands. In this day and age, his views are so popular and widespread that they are very often confused with Christology itself, and have therefore essentially displaced all additional Christological models. His ideas have (in many circles) even developed into a litmus test by which the authenticity of a person’s profession of Christian faith might be assessed. The writings of Anselm have been dissected and analyzed by a wide variety of historians and theologians since the middle ages. Interpretations of the man and his thought have centered on a wide assortment of features including (for example) the beauty, clarity, and coherence of his proposals, his profound philosophical accomplishments, and his weighty intellect; but Rieger desires to take a different approach in his exploration of the Christology of Anselm of Canterbury.

He would like to know how Anselm’s Christology related to and whether or not it was affected by the Anglo-Norman imperial world in which he lived. He begins by examining Anselm’s institution into his role as the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is clear that Anselm had presumed that God was most visibly manifest amongst the premier imperial powers of his day; those who resided at the uppermost echelons of society. When faced with a choice of either ascending to the archbishopric or returning to his role as the abbot of Bec (his hometown monastery) he opted for the former. He perceived the physical coercion of king William Rufus and the Norman authorities, along with the bishops, in conjunction with the unanimous approval of the clergy present at his ordination, as substantial proof that God had called him to the position. This despite his illegitimate investiture which came at the request of the king rather than the pope (a practice officially condemned at the Lateran Council of 1078), and the fact that the majority of the monks at the Bec monastery were against this move. Why then when seeking to discern the voice of God was Anselm persuaded that it was the king through whom God was speaking, as opposed to his fellow monks? It was because in Anselm’s theology God was envisioned as being at the apex of a top-down hierarchy (a reflection of Norman imperial structuring). He was simply assuming his position in the imperial pecking order.

An additional aspect of Anselm’s world which we need to examine as we ponder the formation of his Christology is the political and economic system of feudalism which was developing during his lifetime. King William the conqueror (the father of William Rufus) met resistance following his initial conquest of the Anglo-Saxon population in England, and as such, distributed five thousand fiefs (territories and/or offices granted by a lord to a vassal) in an attempt to establish unity through centralization. An intricate hierarchical organization was thus constructed wherein fiefs were to swear allegiance to their directly superior lords, and furthermore, to the Norman king to whom the lords themselves loyally paid homage. The unification and solidification of the Anglo-Norman empire was regularly supported by the politics of fear and acts of violence. A failure in performance or an offense committed against the king by a fief would result in the most severe of punishments; including the stripping of personal property (so that it might be handed over to someone with a more subservient disposition) and possibly even bodily dismemberment or death! The similarities between Anselm’s Christology (specifically with reference to his theory of satisfaction) and the Norman imperial culture of centralization through violence are indeed striking. It would be difficult to ignore this resemblance when considering the effects of this culture upon his understanding of Christ.