Last updated on August 15, 2013
We jump yet another two hundred years into the future. Anselm is yet another in a long line of important figures. He was a prior, an abbot, and was Archbishop of Canterbury. As well,
he argued for the necessity of Christ’s death on the Cross for our salvation, that it couldn’t be done in any other way; this places him as a firm believer in theological concepts. However, for our purposes, we are concerned about Anselm for the introduction of scholasticism – this was a movement that attempted to use philosophy, which had encroached upon theology in some major ways, for the purpose of “fully understanding” what one believes.
Anselm truly brought about a scholastic understanding of Christianity. However, unlike the early heresies which objected to the use of outside sources, the Church itself began to endorse
the method of showing the rationality and inner coherence of Christian doctrine. These two facets simply were not that important to the early Church – rather, as historical developments, they place Christian doctrine of “faith seeking understanding” under the rubric of a different master: philosophy. The ontological argument for God’s existence is part and parcel of such a movement.
If anything, Anselm’s most known for his ontological argument. God is defined as “that, than which nothing greater can be conceived”. In layman’s terms, God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. This being has to exist (almost in an analogue of Plato’s World of Ideas), for if it did not exist, it would be inferior to an identical being that did exist. Thus, it would not be the “greatest conceivable being”. Logically, this all fits. Anselm’s faith works itself out in theological/logical exposition, and this argument wouldn’t be famous (and have its own Wikipedia page, wow) if not for its influence. In Anselm’s own words:
Therefore, if ‘the greatest conceivable being’ exists only in the imagination, it is possible to conceive of a being greater than ‘the greatest conceivable being’. But this is clearly an impossibility. There is no doubt then about the existence of a ‘greatest conceivable being’ and that it exists not merely in the imagination but also in reality. Furthermore, it exists so certainly that it cannot even be conceived not to exist – and such a being is greater than a being which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if ‘the greatest conceivable being’ could be conceived not to exist, it would not be ‘the greatest conceivable being’. But that is a contradiction in terms. So surely then is there a ‘greatest conceivable being’ that it cannot even be conceived not to exist. And you are this, O Lord our God.
In a way, Anselm defines God into existence. Which is strange, unless language directly affects the universe. As far as I know, language does not determine a being’s ontological status at all. That hasn’t stopped people from using this argument, among many others, to demonstrate/prove the existence of God. I understand the heart of apologetics, surely. There is a need for this kind of talk, as 1 Peter 3 tells us:
13 Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, 15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.
If we see Anselm’s work as a personal theological explication from a monk, that would work just fine. But we know that hasn’t been the case for a while; philosophers and theologians alike debate the validity of this idea until the present day. Of course, this helps us ignore the message of the Gospel, right? We can think of this argument, then, in a few ways. First, why does God’s existence have to be proved? Second, what do we get if we do prove it?
A few positives: everybody should believe. That’s interesting and so nice! The point of rhetorical argument is, in most cases, to convince the other side. This wasn’t Anselm’s original intention, in any event, but that is the way such material gets used in the future. Christian theologians weren’t cautious for a future time because they could not see the consequences of their “working out” of the Gospel. In this case here, the ontological argument pops up in nearly every philosophy discussion ever, and the debate on its validity/lack of validity hasn’t abated at all. People just keep adding to it, and opponents keep tearing it down. So what’s the point of this, other than mental exertion for the purpose of thinking well? Not much to our modern context, I’m afraid.
A de facto argument for God’s existence seeks to prove it, once and for all, into existence. And that can be the problem with Anselm – for all his attempts of “faith seeking understanding” in this one area, the use of philosophy, to be honest, adds little to the Bible and to Christianity which was not already there. I say this as a theology/philosophy double major, for goodness sake. You can intellectually assent to Christianity, and yet never understand it at all. To become a child of God does not involve a choice between X or Y – it is an encounter with the risen Christ that you cannot resist, an overwhelming need to believe and have faith in that belief. It’s strange and completely against all human logic and rationality…then again, human logic and rationality are rather recent historical developments!
Is there a Biblical imperative to “understand” how the saving grace of Jesus Christ works? Honestly, we’ve got enough theories about salvation to crush my tiny mind. This has always struck me as odd – there just isn’t one. And it would appears that the intent was that there isn’t an explanation, because the gift itself from the person of God is the focus, not some inane technical issue. I am not looking down on Anselm and the start of scholasticism – they certainly contributed a lot to theology – but there were times when they went overboard and weren’t thinking of how their work would affect future generations in theological discourse. When you are a friend with somebody else, you certainly do not try to quantify that relationship; in that sense, why explain the relationship you have with God? Doctrine and beliefs are a different thing, but faith? Faith is a trusting and a relationship.
Of course, I am blaming Anselm for developments he could not possibly predict, and that is wrong of me. Still, we must be careful with how we explain Christianity to the outside world. It’s the same issue with the “wrath” of God; the language becomes a giant hang-up in the process of evangelizing. We see it as a component of God’s love (i.e., it’s not squishy love), but others see a capricious, mercurial God of the Old Testament. I imagine this remains a problem with every generation; we need to learn from the unintentional mistakes of the past, in other words.
