A semi-Anselmian reply to Forde

In his article on the Atonement Gerhard Forde makes some of the more common charges against Anselm’s theory of the Atonement (or at least certain “Anselmian”type theories). Whether Forde intends his criticisms to apply to Anselm himself or just some of the cruder later versions of his theory isn’t entirely clear. I’ve defended Anselm on this before, but I think one of the persistent confusions surrounding his views have to do with the notion that God’s “honor” has been offended by sin and must be “satisfied” in order for him to forgive our sins. This can lead us to think of God as some petty tyrant who demands his pound of flesh before he can be gracious.

However, in Anselm’s scheme “honor” should not be thought of as a mere subjective “feeling” of being offended on God’s part. Anselm certainly didn’t have such a crude anthropomorphic view of God. Nor, I would suggest, does it refer to a set of rules that are somehow “external” to God which require satisfaction before sins can be forgiven. I think it’s more helpful to think of God’s honor and his justice in relation to his purposes for his creation (as Anselm does).

Anselm says:

Nothing can be added to or taken from the honor of God. For this honor which belongs to him is in no way subject to injury or change. But as the individual creature preserves, naturally or by reason, the condition belonging, and, as it were, allotted to him, he is said to obey and honor God; and to this, rational nature, which possesses intelligence, is especially bound. And when the being chooses what he ought, he honors God; not by bestowing anything upon him, but because he brings himself freely under God’s will and disposal, and maintains his own condition in the universe, and the beauty of the universe itself, as far as in him lies. But when he does not choose what he ought, he dishonors God, as far as the being himself is concerned, because he does not submit himself freely to God’s disposal. And he disturbs the order and beauty of the universe, as relates to himself, although he cannot injure nor tarnish the power and majesty of God. (Cur Deus Homo, Bk. I, Ch. XV)

God’s problem with sin is that it threatens to derail his intentions for his creation, which is loving communion between God and his creatures. God’s “honor” – which is also his grace – will not allow his purposes to be defeated by sin and refuses to leave us mired in our sin:

Do you not perceive, from what we have said above, that it is necessary for some men to attain to felicity? For, if it is unfitting for God to elevate man with any stain upon him, to that for which he made him free from all stain, lest it should seem that God had repented of his good intent, or was unable to accomplish his designs; far more is it impossible, on account of the same unfitness, that no man should be exalted to that state for which he was made. Therefore, a satisfaction such as we have above proved necessary for sin, must be found apart from the Christian faith, which no reason can show; or else we must accept the Christian doctrine. For what is clearly made out by absolute reasoning ought by no means to be questioned, even though the method of it be not understood. (Bk. I, Ch. XXV)

How does he do this? By sending the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity into the world to assume human flesh. Through the course of his life of faithful obedience to the Father, the Son does what we might call a “repair job” on human nature. It’s important to note that Anselm doesn’t think that it is merely Christ’s death on the cross which satisfies God, as though God needed some kind of human sacrifice. Rather it’s Christ’s entire life that “satisfies” God by getting the human project back on track. His death is the inevitable result of his life of obedience, because a perfect life lived in a world of sin cannot be tolerated (Forde’s “the order by which we run things here.”). Christ’s living a life of perfect faithful obedience, even unto death on a cross, is what atones for the sins of humanity and is vindicated by God in the Resurrection. The beauty of this perfect life offered up blots out the stain of sin which threatened to disrupt God’s creation.

As George Lindbeck puts it:

The two main ways of understanding this vicarious sacrifice of Christ as victim are, to retrace familiar paths, Anselm’s satisfaction theory, and, on the other hand, a punitive or penal substitution view. This substitutionary understanding was in part an offshoot of Anselm’s work, despite his strong opposition to it. Anselm emphatically insisted that it would be contrary to God’s justice for the innocent Jesus to bear the punishment that sinners deserve. Rather, the Son’s loving obedience in becoming man (and inevitably being murdered in a world as wicked as ours) infinitely outweighs or compensates for the damage, grave though this be, that our sinfulness has inflicted on God’s good creation. God cannot punish those who flee to Christ for mercy, because that would spoil the Christ-wrought beauty now irradiating the universe and making it a far, far better place than it would ever have been without Christ’s coming and inevitable death. (Lindbeck, “Atonement & the Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment” in The Nature of Confession: Evangelicals & Postliberals in Conversation, Lindbeck, Okholm, and Phillips, eds., p. 233)

And, we should add, by the power of the Holy Spirit we come to participate in that life, through worship, prayer, the sacraments, and the new obedience. This is Luther’s “happy exchange” whereby we participate in Christ’s righteousness, and he assumes our sin. God is “satisfied” because his purpose for creation has been restored once and for all (though only to be fully revealed at the end of the age).

I think this account is true to the spirit of Anselm’s account (though perhaps departing from the letter in some places), and also offers a reply to Forde’s important question why it was necessary for the Son to come and die. If God’s purpose is to get the human project back on track, it may be that the only way to do that is for there to be an actual human life that we can participate in which has been restored to the intentions God has for humanity.

Also, it may offer a more satisfying approach to sanctification. Forde has often been criticized for being weak on sanctification, since he so strongly emphasizes God’s free and unconditional pardon of sins. But perhaps the notion of participation offers a way of understanding how we come to live a new life without qualifying God’s grace as the source of that new life.