A Nonviolent Atonement?

I recently finished reading J Denny Weaver's book, The Nonviolent Atonement. It's a fascinating read and for anyone who wants to articulate the peaceableness of Jesus and the peaceableness of the Kingdom of God then I would suggest this is a book  that you need to engage with.

Weaver a Mennonite Pacifist states, "the book in hand is a theological parallel to Politics of Jesus where Yoder articulated ethics that assumed the nonviolence of the narrative of Jesus, this book [i.e. The NonViolent Atonement] constructs theology from that perspective" (p13). For Weaver part of the issue is if we claim that Jesus calls us to nonviolence then if God either requires or is an active participant in the death of Jesus then any claims of nonviolence are destroyed.

Building on the work of Gustaf Aulen, Weaver proposes a model of understanding atonement which he calls narrative Christus Victor yet states while this "displays continuity with classic Christus Victor, it differs from the classic view in many important ways" (p7).

In developing his theory he dialogs with Black theology, in particular James Cone, Feminist theology and womanist theology. I particularly enjoyed his interaction with Cone and Delores Williams.

In his chapter on the defenders of Anselm he singles out Volf as Volf articulates his understanding of atonement "within an attempt to argue for nonviolence" (p205). Most of Weaver's interaction with Volf is with his last chapter in Exclusion and Embrace, which is perhaps the weakest and least satisfactory chapter in an otherwise excellent book. Weaver highlights that Volf's understanding of atonement as expressed in Exclusion and Embrace is "a statement of satisfaction atonement with emphasis on penal suffering" (p205). Weaver's issue with Volf is this, in attempting "to articulate a basis for nonviolence, the effort falters on the assumptions of divinely sanctioned, retributive violence, and leaves the door open wide to rationally justified violence, as well as posing an image of atonement that is problematic for all those who are sensitive to past uses of the image of Jesus' suffering to justify suffering and oppression" (p209).

Whither you buy Weaver's argument or not what this book clearly does is answer the question 'what's at stake in conversations about how we understand the atonement'? At stake is how we connect the life of Jesus to his death and resurrection, at stake is how we understand Christian ethics, at stake Weaver would claim is our ecclesiology as "atonement has ecclesiological implications" (p13), and at stake is how we relate to those who are oppressed, marginalized or in bondage within our world, i.e. mission.

I would therefore suggest that all the current controversy about the atonement matters, that it is not an internal debate about some finer point of theology but that this discussion will have a huge impact on both we understand and do church and how we understand and do witness / mission.

Comments

[jason77]

you should check out Grahams Leaving Munster blog, he is an anabaptist from England. I have not come across a blog with more written on Nonviolence and nonviolent atonement yet.

[Glenn]

I realise that Weaver's book is primarily about the atonement, but does he deal at all with the eschatalogical possibility of Divinve violence. The idea that if some are cut off then this necessitates some form of Divine violence?

I think this book will be next on my "to read list".

[Brodie]

Jason - I from time to time have a look at leaving Munster

[Brodie]

Glenn - he takes a look at the imagery in Revelation and the violent images in this book. What he does not specifically deal with the issue of some being cut off and this being a form of divine violence.

[andy goodliff]

It sounds a good book, I'll key an eye out for it. Thanks for review.

[Paul Ede]

Hiya Brodie...Just a small comment on this assumption of Weaver's: "For Weaver part of the issue is if we claim that Jesus calls us to nonviolence then if God either requires or is an active participant in the death of Jesus then any claims of nonviolence are destroyed." I'd be really interested if you could help me trace the logic of this, because I haven't yet figured out whether its necessarily the case that it follows that if there is violence in the atonement, then we can't be pacifists. Is it not possible that we can be pacifists precisely because of the violence of the atonement? i.e. Christ takes the punishment so that we don't have to punish ourselves or others? If I think that penal sub is a meaningful portrayal of the atonement, does that actually mean that ethically I am compelled to be committed to redemptive violence?

[Paul]

I'm intrigued - how does God avoid nonviolence - to me it's either via commission or omission...

But in saying that one day i have a hope for a non-violent world :)

[brodie]

Paul & Paul - I plan to write a post picking up these thoughts in a few days rather than hide something away here in the comments section.

[Rodney Olsen]

I interviewed non-violence activist, Jarrod McKenna, on my radio programme recently.

http://www.rodneyolsen.net/2007/06/give-peace-chance.html

[brodie]

Rodney - thanks for this link I will listen with interest.

[graham]

Hi Paul (Ede),

I wonder if I can take the liberty of answering for Brodie.

Miroslav Volf seems to take the line that we can be pacifists because of the violence of the atonement. (On a different issue, Yoder implies the same in Politics of Jesus.) The problem I have with this view is what it says about the kind of God we serve, how he works, and how we image him. It would be the ultimate vindication of the myth of redemptive violence.

However, I simply think that Weaver handles the exegetical data better than most proponents of a violent atonement. (Having said that, there are some holes in his argument and he doesn't deal with every text or pre-empt every objection.

[graham]

I see that Denny Weaver's just responded to this point, understandably better than I!

[brodie]

Graham - thanks for your contribution.