Julian's Theological Style
Julian's Theology
The Forms of Medieval Theology During the Western European Middle Ages, there were broadly three major styles of theology. First there was scholastic theology, or the theology
"of the schools" (that is, the new universities) of which arguably the best‐known exponent is Thomas Aquinas.4 This drew a great deal upon classical philosophy and on philosophical categories more broadly and was tightly structured in a similar way to contemporary styles of systematic theology. The scholastic style of theology, as a method of learning, placed a strong emphasis on philosophical reasoning. Its conceptual analysis was rigorous and dialectical with a careful use of distinctions. The pedagogical process classically involved what was known as "disputation" through a logical sequence of questions and speculative debate leading to a final conclusion. In contemporary terms, systematic theology is also an orderly, rational, and highly structured exposition of Christian doctrines often drawing upon philosophical method as well as on scripture and history. No contemporary scholars interpret Julian in these terms.
The second Western medieval theological style was what is known as monastic theology. "Monastic" refers both to the setting within which this theological reflection took place and to its particular approach or method. Monastic theology arose from an inner contemplative life within a monastic setting and the spiritual practices or ascetic disciplines that nurtured the contemplation of God. Monastic theologians existed within the lifestyle of monasteries where their theology was rooted in an experience of the rhythm of worship and daily meditative reading of scripture and reflection upon scripture, known as lectio divina. Monastic theology was therefore based primarily on a meditative approach to scripture so that its method was not one of detached, objective speculation but of committed participation.5 One or two scholars have suggested that Julian partly fits into this theological category. However, as I shall explain briefly in a moment, I seriously question this understanding of Julian.
The third approach to theology, inherited originally from the Patristic period and developed further in the Middle Ages, is known as mystical theology.
As I will suggest, I believe that this is one of the most important categories for understanding the basis of Julian's theology and her theological style.
Julian's Theological Style If we describe Julian's writing as theological, a central question concerns the genre of theology that we are dealing with and the degree to which Julian explicitly draws upon earlier theological sources. Judgments about these questions vary.
Julian's Theological Style
In their ground‐breaking 1978 two‐volume critical edition of Julian's texts, the scholars Edmund Colledge and James Walsh were convinced that, first, Julian not only extensively cited or alluded to large numbers of scriptural passages but also showed evidence of having made her own translations from the Latin Vulgate (thus indicating a good grounding in Latin). In their second volume, they offer an extensive list of scriptural citations. They also suggested that Julian knew the theology of Augustine and Gregory the Great well and was explicitly influenced by William of St Thierry's The Golden Epistle and more generally by Cistercian writings.6
Other contemporary scholars are more cautious about Julian's direct scriptural or theological sources. However, to be fair, in the description of her visit to Julian for spiritual counsel, Margery Kempe does suggest that Julian referred to biblical texts and alluded to St Jerome and St Bernard on the gift of tears.7
In more recent studies of Julian's theology since the days of Colledge and Walsh, opinions about her theology and her possible sources vary.
Here I will summarize five important contributions. First, in the Preface and Introduction to their relatively recent scholarly edition of Julian's writings, Nicholas Watson and Jacqueline Jenkins describe Julian as one of the greatest "speculative" theologians of the Middle Ages. In their judgment, Julian (not least in her exemplum of a Lord and a Servant) radically rethinks the nature of sin and goodness in "speculative leaps." In their words, Julian offers "an unprecedented speculative vernacular theology." I will discuss the important category of vernacular theology later in this chapter. However, I believe that we need to be careful about how we use the word "speculative" in relation to Julian's theology. The notion of speculative theology has frequently been employed to describe a theological style founded upon metaphysical philosophy. It seems pretty clear that Julian's somewhat meandering approach does not correspond to the philosophically influenced, analytically precise, and dialectical approach of medieval scholastic theology. However, my sense is that by using the word "speculative," Watson and Jenkins are not reflecting this technical definition. Rather, they are actually implying that Julian's theological style is an imaginative and highly original rereading of the nature of God, the created order, human identity, and how God interacts with humanity.8
In her illuminating study of Julian's theology, Joan Nuth describes it as womanly, synthetic, sensitive to pastoral needs, and based on life rather than on abstract thought. In other words, Julian's theology is not in the style of medieval scholastic theology based on formal questions and disputations. Rather, the foundation of Julian's theology is essentially intense and careful reflection over many years on her spiritual experiences. Nuth describes this as a theology of integration in which Julian's experience of God in the midst of her sickness and suffering, sophisticated reflection,
Julian's Theology
and a trajectory of pastoral concern are brought together. Nuth also judges that Julian wrote a style of monastic theology in which scriptural reflection and resulting spiritual insight are the core. I have questions about this judgment because she does not base her theological reflections explicitly on the monastic style of meditative scriptural exegesis. Nor, as we have already noted, does Julian make any other references to monastic values or to a monastic lifestyle. Nuth suggests that Julian's theology may be tentatively described as "systematic" in the broad sense that Julian focuses on the chief Christian doctrines and has an original theological system, involving rigorous speculation. However, it is certainly not systematic in contemporary terms because it does not have a predominantly philosophical basis. Nuth believes that Julian had a thorough grasp of key aspects of Augustine's theology although this does not necessarily mean that she had direct access to Augustine's writings or had read them. I agree with both aspects of this judgment.9
In another important study of Julian and her writings, the late Grace Jantzen notes that no aspect of Julian's theology is divorced from her original vision of the crucified Christ (the First Revelation) that she experienced while on her sickbed. Jantzen is clear that everything else about Julian's teachings is based on this central theme of Christ's Passion. I will return to this insight later. Like Nuth, Jantzen judges that Julian does not employ the medieval scholastic theological method. Rather, hers is an "integrated theology" that brings her religious experiences, the concerns of daily life, and theological reflection together into an integrated whole. The organizing thread, developed from her vision of the Passion, is that love is God's meaning. The essential link to the cross means that Julian's understanding of love is not sentimental but robust and gritty. Julian's Long Text understands theological doctrines in the context of three criteria. The first of these is natural reasoning ("in my sight").
Then there is what is commonly taught by the Church ("Holy Church teaches"). Finally, there is the inward – and challenging – operation of God's Spirit within Julian's process of understanding. For Julian, the intellect is never separated from love. Reason is natural in the sense of being part of our nature but this is not contrasted with "the spiritual," which is also a dimension of our nature, grounded in God. Finally, Jantzen describes Julian's theology as practical theology in the sense of placing a clear emphasis on practicality.10
In his more recent book of theological and philosophical reflections provoked by reading Julian, Denys Turner agrees with Nuth and Jantzen that Julian's approach is very different from the medieval scholastic method of quaestio and disputatio. However, he also suggests that Julian's method is unlike monastic theology, whose starting point and method are explicitly scriptural, based on lectio divina which embraces meditative
Julian's Theological Style
"rumination" upon scripture. In contrast, Julian's theological reflections are "a process of progressive intensification and complex elaboration of particular and personal experience."11 Turner also underlines that Julian's theology is intentionally incomplete because, theologically speaking, only the eschatological vision can "complete" our understanding of God.12 This incompleteness is a subject to which I shall return at the end of this book. Finally, Turner interestingly describes Julian as an "anchoritic theologian." That is, her theology is inextricably linked to a place of unlikeness or exile. In that sense it is liminal theology conceived on a boundary or a "between place." Of course, this notion depends on believing that Julian's Long Text was not completed before she became an anchoress. Unfortunately Turner does not substantially discuss Julian in relation to her historical context and so this issue is not addressed. As with everything else about Julian we have no certainty about the date when she entered the anchorhold. The earliest evidence of her status as an anchoress is in a will dating to 1393–4. However, the contemporary scholarly consensus is that, whether or not she began the first draft of the Long Text before entering the anchorhold, Julian's text probably went through several revisions and developments and may not have been completed until the second decade of the fifteenth century. On this basis,
Turner's description of Julian as "anchoritic theologian" seems reasonable and illuminating.13
Bernard McGinn, in the fifth volume of his major project on the history of Western Christian mysticism, is clear that Julian of Norwich is deeply theological.14 He highlights her remarkable theology of the Trinity, her distinctive theodicy, a soteriology that undercuts "satisfaction" models of redemption, and a nuanced understanding of our union with God ("oneing" in Julian's language). This union originates in humanity's eternal existence in God and human destiny is the completion of this "oneing" by enjoying endless bliss. Denys Turner also gives a great deal of attention to Julian's theodicy. Personally, I have some questions about using the term
"theodicy" in its classic sense in relation to Julian. I believe it can be misleading. I will explain this further in Chapter 5, Love is God's Meaning, where I will discuss Julian's creative theology of the Trinity and her
Christology. McGinn is cautious about the designation "systematic" in relation to Julian's theology, although this depends on how we define
"systematic." He is certainly clear that she does not write medieval scholastic theology and he also does not believe that Julian writes monastic theology because she does not present her teaching as meditative exegesis of scripture. Rather, McGinn sees Julian's theology as "relational" in the sense of holistic. He also makes reference to Jantzen's description of Julian's "integrated theology." Each aspect of her thought interlocks with and implies the others. Clearly, McGinn understands Julian's theology as