Greater love has no one than this,
than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
Gospel of John 15:13
Peter Abelard,117 philosopher, orator, composer and theologian, was one of the most admired thinkers in 12th century Europe. In the field of salvation theories, he became the bearer of a new subjective vision118 that wanted to get rid of the legacies of the Ransom theory, which had dominated Christian thought for hundreds of years, and to reject the main assumptions of Anselm's Satisfaction theory, which Abelard considered a merely juridical/legalistic interpretation based on the fear of punishment.
Abelard did not draw up an actual paradigm of salvation, but its foundations can be deduced from his writings, in particular from the “Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans”. However, there is room for multiple interpretations in his conception, probably because he was still searching for a synthesis between the various currents of thought, or perhaps more simply because he had not had a chance to structure all his deductions in an organic manner. In spite of this, he is credited with a salvation theory that is identified with the name of Moral Influence, also known as Exemplary theory.119 Abelard took up themes dear to the Eastern Orthodox tradition and sought a synthesis with Western thought, placing it all in the context of the revelation of the cross; in his view, it is the cross that is at the centre of the supreme manifestation of God's love for the salvation of humanity.
7.1. Moral Influence theory
In order to reconstruct Abelard's theory, which as we have said was not fully articulated, we will have to follow the thread of his discourse in the original style of questions and answers, specifically in his commentary on verse 3:26 of the letter to the Romans.120 First of all, Abelard questions the necessity of the violent and shameful death of Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins, when in fact his killing on our part, made us even more guilty in the eyes of God than we already were for having transgressed a single command. In fact, Abelard comments: “How does the Apostle [Paul] say that we are justified or reconciled to God through the death of his Son, who should have been all the angrier with man, because men forsook him so much more in crucifying his Son, than in transgressing his first commandment in paradise with the taste of one apple?”121 What is the point of all this, asks Abelard. Certainly, the murder of Jesus was a far greater sin than the transgression of Adam and Eve:
What is that redemption of ours through the death of Christ? Or, how does the Apostle say that we are justified in his blood, we who seem worthy of a greater punishment, because we, unjust servants, committed that deed on account of which the innocent Lord was murdered? […] What necessity, therefore, or what reason or what need was there, since his divine compassion could free man from the devil by a command alone? What need was there, I say, for the Son of God, for the sake of our redemption, when he received flesh, to endure so many great fasts, reproaches, lashes, spitting, and finally the most violent and shameful death of the cross that he might even endure the cross with sinners?122
More than legitimate questions; after long deliberations, Abelard comes to his conclusions:
Nevertheless, it seems to us that in this we are justified in the blood of Christ and reconciled to God, that it was through this matchless grace shown to us that his Son received our nature, and in that nature, teaching us both by word and by example, persevered to the death and bound us to himself even more through love, so that when we have been kindled by so great a benefit of divine grace, true charity might fear to endure nothing for his sake. […] Therefore, our redemption is that supreme love in us through the Passion of Christ, which not only frees us from slavery to sin, but gains for us the true liberty of the sons of God, so that we may complete all things by his love rather than by fear. He showed us such great grace, than which a greater cannot be found, by his own word: “No one,” he says, “has greater love than this: that he lays down his life for his friends.” […] Carefully considering this, the Apostle says later on that the charity of God is poured out in our hearts, through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.123
It is difficult to say whether Abelard's statement in the passage we have just read is part of the subjective exemplarist theories, or whether he was referring to an objective aspect of salvation, in particular the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; both interpretations are present in the text and the debate remains open to this day.
The first interpretation (subjective exemplarist) refers to the phrase “teaching us both by word and by example”; it is emphasised that for Abelard it was the example of Jesus, particularly in the love he showed for us on the cross, that saved us. This example would kindle in us a deep love in response to his supreme sacrifice, that would lead us to a radical change of life. In this case, it is his exemplary death that was the spark that ignited our love; touched by such a great example, we cannot fail to be transformed by it.
In the second (objective) interpretation, our salvation would be by divine grace, and this grace would consist in the fact that Jesus Christ, who became man and died on the cross, united us to him and infused his love in us; it is love that redeems, it is love that saves, it is the Holy Spirit, who is love poured into our hearts that inflames us, frees us from fear and makes us capable of anything in the freedom of God's children.
In the light of the above passage and other passages from the same Abelard's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, we would be more inclined to accept the second interpretation, namely that Abelard's theory is not merely a “moral influence”, let alone a theory based on exemplary imitation, i.e., “exemplarist”. Rather, it is a profound regeneration of the human spirit through the action of the Holy Spirit, which is poured into the human heart as a result of union with the love of Christ, as an effect of his passion. Christ's voluntary death on the cross would instil in us the love of God, transforming our attitude towards him and prompting us to manifest his love in our lives. Abelard, inspired by John 15:13 “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends”, sees in Christ's passion the supreme manifestation of God's love that touches man in the depths of his soul. Compared to Pelagianism, which considered the life and death of Jesus merely as an example to be imitated, Abelard places the accent on the spiritual union with Christ in his death, a union that kindles love in us, which is the Holy Spirit, and frees us from death, law and sin, bringing about a profound transformation in us. Through this transformation man also changes his perception of God, who is no longer an offended and judgmental being but a loving and merciful Father.
In fact, this idea of union with Christ was not new; we have already seen how, many centuries earlier, it had been the common factor in the patristic conception. The original element introduced by Abelard is the fusion of the aspect of moral transformation, already present in the first centuries, with the idea of the cross as the place of the supreme revelation of God, giving rise to an original theory that envisages a transformation of man through communion with the love of Christ.
Abelard's theory of Moral Influence thus rejects the hypothesis of the restoration of God's offended honour by means of legalistic compensation; reconciliation can only take place if it solves the root of the real problem, which is the disposition of man's heart. For Abelard, redemption is the infinite love of God which enlightens the hearts of those who receive him.
Abelard's detractors instead, in particular Bernard of Clairvaux, accused him of Pelagianism and exemplarism. This comparison was because Abelard, like Pelagius, considered original sin only in terms of its effects and not as an innate guilt in every man, for which reparation is necessary. In this way, the death of Christ would lose its expiatory character124 and salvation would be realised in an act of man's will. The proceedings against Abelard ended with his excommunication and marginalisation within Christian thought. This denigration left such a mark that his theory is still referred to today as exemplarist. However, on closer inspection, the very appellation Moral Influence would seem to reduce the depth of his insights, as it would evoke a purely psychological aspect of the impact of the Lord's crucifixion. This coordinated attack, also by other theologians, paved the way for Anselm's theory of Satisfaction, which became the point of reference for salvation theories, and relegated Abelard's ideals to second place in the cultural landscape of the time, thus determining the fate of western Christian theology.
7.2. Criticism of the Moral Influence theory
The criticisms levelled at the theory of Moral Influence today are the same as those that haunted Abelard. There is talk of exemplarism, lack of consideration of sin and absence of the objective component of expiation:
Exemplary theory has too optimistically assumed that the will is not radically bound by sin and that no punishment for sin is required. The theory is based upon a weakened, diluted conception of the nature of sin. The exemplary view of atonement is likely to go hand in glove with optimistic Pelagian anthropology.125
In addition, there has been criticism of the theory of Moral Influence from some modern movements, particularly feminist and minority movements. According to these critics, the use of someone's suffering, in this case the suffering of the Son endorsed by the Father, for the edification of someone else, could be considered a manipulative way of acting and lead to consider as legitimate, individual and social abuses and prevarications with the result of glorifying human suffering:
The Moral Influence theory is founded on the belief that an innocent, suffering victim and only an innocent, suffering victim for whose suffering we are in some way responsible has the power to confront us with our guilt and move us to a new decision. This belief has subtle and terrifying connections as to how victims of violence can be viewed. […] Sometimes this amounts to using the victims for someone else's edification.126
7.3. Conclusion
It is difficult to determine whether the theory proposed by Abelard was simply exemplarist or whether it contained the profound revelation of union with Christ, because the border of interpretation is very thin indeed. Is it in fact our love that is awakened by the exemplary sacrifice of Christ's cross or is it Christ's love that is infused into us through that sacrifice? Or is it a combination of the two? Placing the theory within this spectrum of possibilities would in fact make it more or less exemplarist and thus subject to the criticism mentioned above. Also, to be considered is the criticism of manipulative suffering brought to the theory, namely that God used the suffering of his Son to stimulate a response and induce a change in our attitude towards him.
Despite these criticisms, I consider Abelard's contribution to the discussion of overcoming the limitations of Anselm's legalistic theory very important, so much so that his arguments are relevant even today in the debate on salvation. The need for a profound transformation of the human heart, promoted by Abelard, is quite evident today, as it was for the faithful of the early Church, but it has long been ignored by western Christian theology. In this sense, his attempt to unify the visions of the western and eastern churches, that were (and still are) separated since the time of the fracture of the Roman Empire, is appreciable.
In conclusion, Abelard was a pioneer and an innovator because, outside the mainstream of theology, he sought an answer to the dilemma of salvation, bringing together new and old elements through an unconventional interpretation.