Atonement and Violence: A Theological Conversation

by John Sanders (Editor)

Recent years have witnessed a series of books, articles, and lectures raising serious questions about the Christian doctrine of the Atonement. While coming from a variety of sources, the questions usually center around the central issue of atonement and violence. Doesn’t the Atonement promote the idea of violence on the part of God? If so, isn’t such violence incompatible with a God of love? Doesn’t this doctrine send the wrong signal, excusing and perhaps even promoting such things as child abuse? Is it time to abandon what has become an outmoded and harmful doctrine? The authors of this book claim that to abandon the Christian doctrine of the Atonement is to abandon the central witness of the gospel, for atonement speaks of nothing less than God’s reconciliation of the world in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, to believe in the atoning death of Jesus Christ does not mean that one believes that God has engaged in cosmic child abuse. Drawing on the classical theories of the Atonement, engaging in creative theological construction, they present set of cogent, cohesive alternatives to either rejecting the doctrine out of hand, or uncritically accepting it. Contributors J. Denny Weaver, Bluffton “Narrative Christus Victor : The Answer to Anselmian Atonement Violence”; Thomas Finger, Associated Mennonite “ Christus Victor as Nonviolent Atonement”; Hans Boersma, Regent College, Vancouver, British “Violence, the Cross, and Divine A Modified Reformed View”; and T. Scott Daniels, Pasadena First Church of the "Passing the Worship That Shapes Nonsubstitutionary Convictions."

Genres: Theology

170 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

Reviews

[Steve Irby · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just finished "Atonement and Violence; A Theological Conversation," edited by John Sanders.

This was really a fantastic "four views" form of book. Represented therein were the Reformed Hans Boersma who tried to carve violence off of penal substitution, Nazarene T. Scott Daniels argued for a moral influence/scapegoat contemporary atonement, and finally our Anabaptist representatives, J. Denny Weaver and Thomas Finger both argued for versions of Christus Vicror. I found Weavers approach interesting: approaching Christus Victor out of the text of Revelation. But my favorite was the Genesis approach that Finger utilized. In total I believe Finger (while I am scratching my head as to his Christology) had the clearest and most understandable approach to a nonviolent atonement via Christus Victor. I'm still wondering where the editor lands on atonement models.

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four contributors combine to form a worthy addition to the "atonement conversation." The format is similar to the viewpoints books published by Zondervan, in which one author presents his view and the others follow with a critique.

On the table for discussion is the question God's intention regarding the violence suffered by Jesus. The editor, John Sanders (author of The God Who Risks and No Other Name), sets the stage with a few questions:
If God the Father used the cross of Christ to redeem us, did the Father intend for the Son to experience the violence he did? Is violence necessary for redemption? If the Father did not intend the cross, then does it have any significance for our salvation? Does any connection between Jesus' suffering and redemption valorize suffering? Should we understand suffering as a means to reconciliation with God or as a consequence of our reconciliation?

J. Denny Weaver presents what he calls, "Narrative Christus Victor." He explains, "Each atonement image attempts to explain what the death of Jesus accomplished, or in popular language, to explain 'why Jesus died for us.' ... Their distinct approaches appear clearly when we visualize the object or the 'target' of the death of Jesus for each family of images" (p. 2). Christus Victor targets the Devil, Satisfaction targets the offended honor of God, Penal Substitution targets the broken Law of God, and Moral Influence targets alienated humanity. Helpfully, he notes that "Anselm deleted the devil from the salvation equation" (p. 4). Weaver probes deeper by asking: "Who or what needs the death of Jesus?" (p. 4) and "Who arranges for or is responsible for the death of Jesus? ... Who ultimately killed Jesus?" (p. 5). He offers some challenges to the exalted status received by substitutionary models in contemporary evangelicalism. Then he offers his view of atonement: "Jesus did suffer and die a violent death, but the violence was neither God's nor God directed. Suffering and dying were not the purpose or goal of Jesus' mission. Death resulted when Jesus faithfully carried out his life-bringing and life-affirming mission to make the rule of God present and visible. Since saving his life would have meant abandoning his mission, his death was necessary in the sense that faithfulness required that he go through death" (p. 25). He concludes, "I am arguing that his death was not willed or needed by God. His death did not pay off or satisfy anything. On the contrary, it was a product of the forces of evil that opposed Jesus and opposed the reign of God. The real saving act of and in and with Jesus is his resurrection" (p. 26).

[Todd Miles · Rating 2 out of 5]

As with all multiple views books, this was uneven. With the exception of Boersma, each of the authors presupposed that violence is immoral. For them, apparently, this is a self-evident and obvious. This foundational element to their writing was not proven or argued, just presupposed. They (Weaver, Daniels, and Finger) then made no effort to explain what the numerous biblical passages that speak to God judging in violent ways meant in light of the immorality of violence. I suppose this was self-evident to them, but it is not to me. That being said, Weaver's and Finger's essays were interesting and thier proposals, though I ultimately disagree with them, were easy to understand and thought provoking. Daniels lost me at multiple levels (his appeal for the church to get past worship that focuses on praising God for what he alone has done, his dependence on Rene Girard, and his call for the church to participate redemptively in the atonement), and was the least helpful.

[Jeff Strickland · Rating 2 out of 5]

An easy to read overview of some of the recent understandings of the atonement, especially from pacifist leaning scholarship. There will, though, be few areas of agreement for most evangelicals. Interesting and frustrating at the same time.

[Paul Gesting · Rating 3 out of 5]

From the perspective of non-violent atonement, good articles giving an overview of the various positions. But no real defense of PSA (Boersma does not count, and he states in Hospitality and Violence that he does not hold to PSA).