Non-Violence and God

Good discussion on the previous post. This is one of the reasons that I blog; (even though not as frequent as I would like) the interaction provokes deeper thinking.

As stated before, I don't know where to come down for sure. I am convinced that there is a consistent peace message in Scripture. The question that Hardin and Weaver specifically addresses is "does God use violence"? Of course Hardin and Weaver says, NO, the heart of God is non-violence.

Here are other answers that I see among writers and theologians.
1. God uses violent means to combat evil and we can as well.
2. God uses violence to combat evil, but it is a divine perogative. We are asked to be non-violent and leave God's wrath to him.
3. The heart of God is non-violent and we follow His example of non-violence.

Which option do you lean toward? Are there more options?

Non-Violent Atonement?

I attended a one day seminar this past week in Iowa City, entitled, "The Non-Violent Atonement". The authors of the two books displayed here were two of the main speakers. It was enlightening, although difficult to put together how if feel about it at this point. I, on the one hand, feel compelled to discover and promote readings of Scripture that support a peace theology. Yet, on the other, I am wrestling with whether I agree with the presenters in all their details.

Let me share the premise of Weaver and Hardin. Jesus, is the center of revelation of who God is and what He is like. Jesus talks about loving enemies, turning the other cheek, and how blessed are the peacemakers. He confronted the powers of the earth, yet refused to use violence to overcome them. The powers did the worst they could - the killed him - but God raised him from the dead, victorious over the death, hell, and all powers of the world.

So, if Jesus is the fullest picture that we have of what God is like - why do we use Anselm's model of satisfaction as our leading theory for why Jesus died? Most satisfaction theories state the proposition this way - "God was angry at sin -he was dishonored by sin and disobedience - so someone had to die to appease the anger of God. God arranged for his Son to die on the cross so that his honor would be restored and our sins could be forgiven. But it required bloodshed to do this - God needed the death of Jesus in order that humankind could go free."

For Weaver and Hardin, this sets up a theological problem. Jesus, who is the image of God, promoted peace and non-violence. But we promote (through our atonement images) an angry God who required that someone be killed in order for salvation to be valid. Weaver and Hardin both fear that this sacrifical atonement thinking makes God into a pagan image - and not the image of the loving, redeeming God.

I'll stop there for now. I would love to hear comments....As I said, I have a lot of thinking to do on this one.