y first session of Theology Through the Centuries students today had a discussion of the middle part of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo?
/Why Did God Become Human?
where we made particular note of Anselm's description of how it is human beings are seen to be "in the image of God." He pointed to two standard items, the first of which was the rational nature of human beings: that rational mind that so distinguishes us from other animals. (Even the basic hints of reasoning capability we've come to observe in higher species of late are of such a different order that it's difficult to grasp the magnitude of difference, in a serious, non-sentimental comparison.) The second aspect in which we display the imago dei
, he says, is the human capacity for holiness, by which he means the capacity for real love, rightly ordered to love's proper ends or goals. Now, we were talking about this in terms of his anthropology: in discussing what this "humanity" is, which God has taken on in the Incarnation. We were trying to see clearly with his vision, for the purposes he was pursuing in this text, at that point in the discussion.
It has only now struck me that these two components to the imago dei
that grant a new dimension to the human mammal, and raise it to a new order of being – capacities for reason and love – just so happen to be those very aspects with which the "hands of God" are identified. That is to say, "the hands of God," a phrase or image which I believe goes back to Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 200), are the two Persons of the Triune God who achieve the Father's will in Creation: the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son, or the Second Person, is identified in earliest Christian theology as the Logos
, the Word: the rational principle underlying all of reality, or the Reason that makes the physical universe rational. It's a descriptive or ancient "scientific" notion taken from Stoic thought and adapted into Jewish and Christian theology as a descriptor what what this aspect or Person of God in particular achieves. Similarly, the Holy Spirit, or the Third Person, is identified strongly in Western Christian theology, from Augustine of Hippo, as the very living Love generated by the First and Second Persons.
So, you might say, other names for the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity are "Reason" and "Love." And it just so happens that these are the two characteristics given to our species that make it "in the image of God" in a way that is distinct from the ways that the rest of the Creation reflects its Creator.
Anselm, I think, would call this symmetry of concepts "fitting" in how they neatly fold into one another, even though this is not the way in which they were introduced or presented. And I too, had a moment of intellectual or spiritual pleasure in suddenly seeing this fittingness. It is this very "fittingness," this aesthetic harmony within Christian thought, that Anselm is largely using as his theological argument: an argument of Beauty, ultimately, as I noted last semester
, when I did a more basic glance at him in my Introduction to Theology course. So yay for reading Anselm!, I guess. That's all.