As I noted in the last post, some interpreters translate "behovely" as "necessary." But that is too strong, and tips us toward a deterministic and Calvinistic imagination. As the scholar Denys Turner has argued, Julian's "behovely" sits in-between the medieval notions of necessity and contingency, and is akin to the scholastic understanding of the Latin word conveniens, which means "fitting," "suitable," or "meet."
It might help here to understand what Julian was struggling with prior to Jesus' revelation that "all shall be well." For example, in Chapter 11 Julian declares that God "is in all things." But this quickly raises the obvious question. As Julian asks, "What is sin?" It's the same question that perplexed Augustine in his Confessions. If God is in all things and the cause of all things then how did sin get here? This question is also, for Julian, wrapped up in her extended showings focused upon the blood, pain, and sufferings of Christ. Why did Christ have to suffer all this? Christ's passion is excruciating for Julian to contemplate. And yet, at the very same time, it is through Christ's passion that God's love is made manifest to Julian. And that's the paradox. The sheer magnitude of God's love would not have been made visible without human sin. In the sufferings of Jesus sin brings God love into view, and there we behold the depth of God's love.
This paradoxical effect of sin is captured by a phrase from an ancient Easter vigil: "O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere Redemptorem!" "O happy fault that merited to have such and so great a Redeemer!" Julian's "sin is behovely" fits within the "felix culpa" ("O happy fault!") tradition. That is to say, sin was not necessary or predestined by God. But sin plays its "fitting," "appropriate," "happy," and "behovely" role in bringing the love of God into view and into our lives. Simply put, our sin is the place where we meet God. And for that, we are happy. It's like the Parable of the Prodigal Son. In shame the son returns to the father, and it is in that moment where the son encounters a love he could not have previously imagined. Just like the older brother, in his "sinlessness," cannot imagine it. Of course, the younger son would never say he was "glad" he failed his father. But in another sense, he would readily agree that he was "happy" things turned out exactly as they played out. The story could have unfolded in no more "fitting" way. Felix culpa. O happy fault. The son's sin was behovely.
That is where Turner ends up in his treatment of Julian, that the best way to understand "behovely" is in a narrative context. Sin plays a dramatic part in the story of our lives, a story where God comes to our rescue. As Turner observes, "The position concerning sin seems to be, for Julian, the following: there is what we have to say about it, namely first that it is 'behovely', that it is part of the plot, necessary if the true story of the divine love of creation is to be told..."
If sin is "behovely" because of how sin "fits" within the narrative of God's love for us, a good translation of Julian might be "sin is a part of the story." Because this is true. We don't know how or why sin got here, but sin is a part of our story. And yet, even with that dark chapter in our lives, all shall be well. That's what Julian beholds. Sin is a part of our story. Sin is behovely. Even so, all shall be well.
O happy fault.
