A Mirror for Simple Souls. - book reviews
Christian Century, Feb 3, 1993 by Margaret R. Miles
Porete accused the church of following the "law" of reason rather than that of love. She contrasted the "lesser Church," ruled by reason and populated by reason's "insect-brained followers," with the "greater Church," populated by perfect souls ruled by love. The interrelatedness of Porete's two critiques is evident in her description of the shortsightedness of the lesser church, reliant on book learning and the hard work of practicing the virtues.
- Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »
Porete's claims are dramatic. They are stated, moreover, in language that seems designed to shock and provoke. They must, however, be "carefully" understood. For example, although the perfect soul bids "good-bye to the virtues," because of her attunement with God's will, she nevertheless "has more virtues than anybody else." Porete's language must also be understood as a reaction to and compensation for her lack of social and institutional power. The same words, as she pointed out, can have different meanings; triumphal language means different things depending on whether it is uttered by the spokesmen of powerful institutions or by the politically and socially powerless. Moreover, Porete's language of mystical experience was particularly threatening to church leaders, who recognized the Free Spirit movement's subversive potential.
WHY SHOULD we consider Porete's book a Christian classic? What can a book with such countercultural concepts as the annihilation of the self offer to Christians in the final decade of the 20th century? Consider first several of the book's more obvious contributions.
As the product of a particular historical situation, the book has conspicuous value: Dronke has called it a text of fundamental importance in relation to the movement . . . known as the "Free Spirit.' " It is also valuable as a literary document; its lyrical poetry, occurring at climactic moments of prose narration, make it, according to Kurt Ruh, "a religious testimony of incomparable originality." Moreover, its theological insights elevate it to classic status: Porete's systematic critique of reason as the primary access to knowledge of God challenges academic theology of her time and of ours. Her understanding of a via negativa in which "all knowing leads to loss of understanding" is consonant with Eastern Orthodox theology. She also anticipates by two centuries Martin Luther's emphasis on salvation by faith alone. And her insistence on personal appropriation of Christ's death on the cross ("You have undergone all your sufferings just for me alone! All this, just for me!") anticipates the devotional passion of 18th-century Pietism.
There are, however, other reasons to consider the book a classic. Porete should be heard in the 20th century because, while she represented in her own time a marginalized and alternative form of Christianity, she may also have been, despite the judgment of her contemporaries, a profound orthodox thinker. Porete's orthodoxy could be argued either by demonstrating the similarity of her spirituality to that of orthodox contemporaries, or--anachronistically--by comparing her theology to that of later Protestant theologians. On the other hand, her teachings do contain the claims to divinization of which she was accused, and her insistence on the freedom of the "perfect soul" certainly could suggest to a careless reader that virtues and pious practices were expendable. However, Porete's orthodoxy--or heresy, for that matter--are not the most significant aspect of her work for us.