Monotheletism is the heresy that says there
is just one will in Christ, the divine will. Why did people come to this view
and what’s the problem with it? If there is in Christ just one Person then
it seems reasonable to say that there is in Him just one will. This is how you
know you are up against a person: you meet a will. What sense would it make to
think of a person with two wills?
Wills clash, almost inevitably it seems.
Again this is how you know there are two wills around, there is conflict, and
this we do not find in Christ.
You will think immediately of Gethsemane:
this, especially as recounted by Mark, supports the orthodox doctrine of two
wills while excluding the doctrine of one will. There seems to be a clear
conflict between what Jesus wants and what God wants. It is a dramatic episode,
always repaying reflection, particularly in regard to what love means as a
‘union of wills’. The conflict is between natures rather than persons and the
wills of Christ are attached to the natures.
My reason for speaking of these
Christological heresies is to look at our way of living religious life, to see
if the heresy manifests itself in how we are relating the divine and human
aspects of our life. Religious obedience might seem to be about will, ‘the
greatest sacrifice is that of one’s own will’: this is how some theologies and
spiritualities speak. St Thomas Aquinas sees no need for any vow other than
obedience because this is the most radical one of all, including all others. It
is, after all, the obedience of Christ, an obedience learnt through suffering,
that saves the world. The vowed religious follows Christ above all in
obedience.
None of us will have any difficulty, I
imagine, in the thought of being obedient to God or to Christ, even where such
obedience involves suffering. Being obedient to other human beings: there’s the
rub! It might seem then that obedience becomes, as Herbert McCabe puts it, ‘a
necessary evil’, a mechanism for unlocking conflict: let yet another will intervene
that we will all agree to go along with …
In a fairly well known lecture he gave on
religious obedience, however, Herbert say it is about intellect rather than
will, about understanding rather than power. The vow of obedience is about
living in community (and so it is ultimately about understanding God).
Superiors always stand for the community, he says, since none of them would be
there except the community has asked them. Superiors are first under obedience,
we can say, to the community that asks them to take on the task. An Irish
Dominican, John Heuston, writing about religious obedience says it allows us to
say to superiors ‘you would have no power over me if it had not been given you
from below’.
Obedience is more about understanding than
about will and is perfect when all have come to share one mind. The good of the
community – which in the case of Dominicans is the mission of preaching the
gospel – is sought together through an educational process in which the
superior plays a central role. That’s still Herbert. And so is this: it is not
so much communities that are made up of individuals as it is individuals that
are made up of communities. Communities are ‘forms of love’, networks in which
we find rather than lose ourselves.
This is not just liberal neo-Marxism.
Thomas Aquinas says, on the virtue of obedience, that friendship makes us want
and not want the same things (amicitia
facit idem velle et nolle) and Augustine speaks of the gravity that
accompanies love and draws it towards the good (amor meus pondus meum): I go after my love and am obedient to it,
and I do not experience it as offensive to my will that it be overcome by the
good.
We are people of our time and have become
accustomed to speaking (and therefore thinking) as the world speaks (and
thinks). So the language of ‘informed choice’, ‘autonomy’, and ‘rights over
against one another’ finds its way also to us and inevitably colours our
thinking about obedience and authority, freedom and power. Such things conspire
with what Vincent McNabb calls ‘psychological reasons’ to make obedience
difficult, pushing us back towards thinking that wills must clash and that only one will must prevail.
This is then a monotheletistic view of
religious life and of Christian life instead of the alternative: a shared
vision, a common task, a fraternal life, ultimately a union of wills in love.
No comments:
Post a Comment