When we read the anti-semitic passages in class today, I was bothered when Kempe says to the Jews, "You cursed Jews, why slay you my Lord Jesus Christ? Slay me rather, and let me go" (140). Doubtless this plea is a strong emotional response to Christ's passion, but it perhaps betrays a serious misunderstanding of Christian theology for Kempe. According to Catholic doctrine and the Bible, Christ had to die for the salvation of the world, and only Christ's death could achieve this. God would only accept Christ's death because Christ lived a sinless life. Kempe, by her own frequent admission, is a sinner, and whatever special grace God has bestowed on her, she is not Christ. Yet, in this passage, she is offering herself as a substitute for Christ. She should know that Christ's death, as horrible as it was in her imagining, was absolutely necessary for salvation. If she really wants the Jews to crucify her instead, is she suggesting that her death will atone for the sins of the world or is she forgetting that if Christ doesn't die, there is no hope for her?
This is not the only place where Kempe tries to be a stand-in for Christ. Throughout the text, she mentions how people malign her, accuse her of being demon-possessed, and being a radical. Christ’s contemporaries spoke similarly of him. Kempe also challenges the religious authorities of her day, just as Christ did. She endured increasing hardships later in life, being abandoned by loved ones and her followers, just as Jesus was. Jesus called his disciples to be like him, and Kempe, like many aspiring saints, is striving to imitate her Lord. But at what point do they stop trying to be like Christ and think they have become equal with him or even surpass him? In Kempe’s case it is difficult to tell, but the fact that she went to such lengths to get her biography written done shows she wanted someone to know of her efforts.
Compare Kempe with Christ is at least excessive. Christ supposed a total revolution in history and, for me, kempe was a total unknown person for me until this class. It is not difficult finding why: she was eccentric, self centered, but, over all, a woman. A woman who was not part of any monastic order and who was not the proper model for women.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Jesus was not ascetic: there is only one fast described in the gospels, and for the rest his life, Jesus was preacher and healer with a much more social dimension than kempe.
Comparing Kempe with Christ can only go so far. There are huge differences, the most prominent being that she did not start a "revolution in history" as you said. She was and is obscure, and I doubt she will ever have any notoriety outside academia. I will point out, though, that Christ himself was obscure in his lifetime. It was largely due to St. Paul’s aggressive missionary efforts that this small sects of Judaism spread through the Mediterranean world. Kempe did not have a St. Paul, which is why her life did not inspire the world's largest religion as did Christ's.
ReplyDeleteKurt--I think your reading of this scene is very convincing, and I hadn't originally read it this way. My first reaction was to view Kempe's love of Christ as borderline romantic love, not wanting her lover to be harmed (of course keeping in mind that romantic love may or may not have existed). It almost seemed that her love of Christ was perhaps a glorified version of a husband-wife relationship she would be familiar with. But it seems your interpretation reaches deeper into Kempe and I am compelled to now think of it in the way you present.
ReplyDeleteMegan-
ReplyDeleteI think your initial reading of this passage is valid, and may be what Kempe had intended. Like I said, I don't think she was trying to be a substitute for Christ on the cross. I think her fervor for Christ (as with other female mystics of this period) is underscored by a longing for an idealized marital relationship. Kempe's husband allowed her much freedom, but I wondered if her avoidance of him had to do with this. Christ is very demanding of her - requiring much, but giving little in return. She seems more interested in this slave-master dynamic (which some might say is expressive of the ideal marriage at that time) than in the lenient attitude of her husband.