Now we move briefly to the "Medieval" period of Christian philosophy and history. I detest calling this the Middle Ages (did they know they were in them?), and especially detest calling them the Dark Ages. What Protestants call "Dark," Catholic historians call "Golden." History is truly perspective.

It is fair to say that not much original thinking occurred during the thousand years between Augustine and the Reformation, but that's for a reason. The Western world rediscovers Aristotle, and enters into a massive project of assimilating his thought into Christian theology and practice. For the most part, the intellectuals of the day confined themselves to relating the work of the ancients to their own faith. And they accomplished what they intended to. Be careful what you aim at, lest you hit it.

Three unusually creative people deserve our applause, however: Anselm, Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas. Let's start with Anselm of Canterbury, since he was born before the others.

Anselm (1033-1109) was Archbishop of Canterbury in England (though they forced the office on him). He was the first truly significant Medieval philosopher. for three reasons.

First, he argued for the right relationship of reason and faith: "I believe that I might understand" (Credo ut intelligam). I agree, so he must be right.

Second, he articulated a very influential theory of the atonement: the satisfaction view. In Cur Deus Homo (Why the God Man?) he suggested that Christ satisfied God at the cross, enabling a reconciliation between God and man. This theology came from the feudal society in which it was born, but that doesn't make it right.

Third, he constructed the most complicated defense of God's existence ever devised: the ontological argument. Take two aspirin and proceed:

I can conceive of a perfect being ("that than which nothing greater can be conceived").

to be perfect, something must exist.

God exists.

Philosophers are still debating. And in heaven, Anselm laughs at them all.

Anselm's philosophical sparring partner was Abelard (1079-1142). But the latter had far greater problems than the former.

Abelard wanted to follow the art of disputation, so he became the student of William of Champeaux in Paris (around 1100). But he argued against William and was invited to leave. Later he met Heloise, a niece of a high official at Notre Dame, and fell in love with her. They had a child, and wanted to be married. Heloise's father found out, and had Abelard beaten and emasculated. Abelard went to a monastery, and Heloise to a nunnery. Abelard was accused of heresy, and expelled from the monastery. He entered another monastery, but was expelled again for heresy. He died soon after. And you thought you had a tough week.

Abelard disagreed with Anselm's view of the atonement, putting forth his own "moral influence" theory. In his view, Christ's death was an expression of God's love designed to invoke a response of devotion, love, and obedience. In other words, the Father loves us because he loves us, not because his Son made him. I agree (though I think the atonement was more than an example or influence for us, being a substitutionary atonement man myself).

And Abelard disagreed with Anselm's view of reason and faith. In fact, his credo was precisely the opposite: "I understand, that I might believe." Rationalists every since have agreed. A tough life, but a good thinker.

Now we come to the highest expression of Medieval philosophy and theology: Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274). Remarkably, the greatest thinker of the Medieval era was known as the "dumb ox" as a child, and graduated last in his class (must have been some class!). He wanted to establish the Christian faith in a world where Aristotle was influential. And so, in essence, he applied Aristotle's ideas about purpose and materialism to Christian thought. With monumental results.

Thomas used Aristotle's theories about cause and effect to promote the cosmological argument for God: if there is a creation, there must be a Creator. This is still the most popular defense of God's existence.

He made enormous advances in our understanding of language as well. He showed us that "univocal" language occurs when the words mean the same thing in every context; "equivocal" language results from words which have nothing in common in different contexts; and "analogical" language happens when words have some relationship with each other in different contexts. The theological significance here is that our language about God has some truth, by analogy, even though it describes the One who is above all description. Thomas' approach to analogical language is still the foundational understanding of theological speech today.

Thomas, following Aristotle, was also a big proponent of natural theology. He believed that God can be seen in his creation, and that faith and biblical revelation are only needed to complete what God has already revealed in nature. "Natural" revelation and "special" revelation are theological categories we get from Thomas and still use.

His view of reason and faith: "I will observe, that I might know, and when my observation reaches its limits, then I will believe." From Thomas to today, most Roman Catholic thinkers agree. And many Protestants as well.