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.
8 comments:
so does justice preclude love then? can God not require sacrifice/atonement/justice b/c of love? you discipline a child out of love? we set up laws for the betterment of the larger society out of concern for the larger whole and not neccessarily from anger?
i like the idea of viewing God in all ways as loving too and do think at times we paint an image of God that is unkind and scary and violent, but i would worry that such a view then holds that love can not be angry and anger means that love is not present and i believe Jesus showed that was possible.
yeah, i'm interested to hear what more you have to say and will have to add these books to my ever growing list of books to read.
these thoughts i've been hashing out have been dangerous. why can't the gospel be simple? i wonder if the angst i feel and overwhelming feeling is what some of the Pharisees felt - it cuts to the core of who we have know ourselves to be.
Angst is a perfect word for what I have been feeling. I'm good with the new ways of looking at things in my head, but my heart holds on to cherished beliefs. For some reason, I am more inclined to think that The Holy Spirit leads more through my heart than my head.
That God disciplines those he loves so that they will grow in character, is just, but that he COULD NOT forgive me unless Jesus, who was innocent, was punished and killed in my place seems very unjust and unloving at once. He can forgive whomever he pleases when and how he pleases. The idea that God sent His only Son to live and die showing us the way to enter the Kingdom makes sense with his teachings, but not so much with the way I have read Paul. It also seems so much more corporate rather than personal. I feel a personal loss if I have to give up the "washed in the blood", "power in the blood",
"nothin but the blood" imagery. I live in the gratitude and awe that Jesus saved me by changing places with me. The idea that Jesus meant the Kingdom is at hand, that walking in it, following Him even to death leads to everlasting life with Him... that sounds like Jesus is asking the impossible...ok, He said that too.
I think there is a balance between what we term "love" and true justice - and we are always in danger, as in politics, of going too far to the left or too far to the right.
A God without love would be a frightening thought. We would all be squashed immediately.
But a God without justice? What kind of world would it be if there were no consequences for sin. We see that now in our society. Parents no longer discipline their children because that would be unloving and look at the mess we have.
I think anger has gotten a bad rap also. There are times when we should be angry. I'm angry every time I hear of a child abused or a baby aborted. I'm angry when I read of all the slaughter of innocent children that takes place around the world with wars/riots. I get angry at my friends who have started to serve God and then want to back off because the way gets a little too hard or they have to give up some pet sin. Not angry in that I no longer love them, or I mistreat them. But angry at the lack of understanding, lack of willingness to do what is right for them. Angry because I know the way they are heading will only lead them back to the pit they were in.
I don't see God as an "angy" God in the sense of hating us, but I clearly believe He hates sin because He knows better than any of us what it brings to our lives and societies when it goes unchecked.
I guess an example of what I'm trying to say would be when my little girl was 4 years old. She insisted in playing in the street in front of our house. I tried removing her and lovingly saying "no." I tried explaining that streets are dangerous places and pointing to the cars going by. I tried bribing her with an ice cream cone if she played all morning without going in the street. But in the end, when it was clear none of those "loving" things were working, I did a very violent thing - something that would get me in trouble now.
I picked her up, pulled her bottoms down and spanked her little butt until she cried. But, after that she never went in the road. To her eyes, I was being "violent." In my greater wisdom, I was being loving.
I think the statement that God can save "however He wants" is just not true. When He set up the rules, He also set them up for Himself. If He is to remain true to justice and honesty, He may have to be "violent."
Yes, the death of Jesus was violent. But to me it will always demonstrate God's great love for mankind. I'll stick with "What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus."
It's good to use our head - we erred in the past from nothing doing that. But I think we need to be careful and remember that God also said, "His ways are not our ways."
I think we are talking about different issues. Most people would agree that discipline is often a function of both love and justice. Using your example, which would be a good one because she is putting herself in life threatening danger as we rebels often do, the satisfaction theory would have you righteously angry at your daughter and running to the neighbors yard where their four year old was singing twinkle twinkle in her sandbox and beating the tar out of her. Your anger then would be satisfied and you could resume your relationship with your little rebel.
That God can forgive without violence or blood may be seen when Jesus says to a man who did not repent or confess his belief that Jesus' blood saves, "Your sins are forgiven."
Setting aside my rash assertion that God is not bound by anything but his own character ( I really don't know what He is bound by), This is the center of the problem: If there are rules set up by God to say that we are saved by nothing but the blood of Jesus, why did Jesus not say so? He said so many things about Kingdom living and seemed to use the phrases, love God, obey God, believe God as if they are the same thing. He said if you know me you know the Father. That all lines up to say to me that to be saved, be a Kingdon liver.
You may think, well, of course, but I don't think that is what many churches teach. I think that is sometimes labeled as legalism.
When Jesus says to the poor apostles who say how can anyone enter the Kingdom, Jesus says it is impossible for men alone, but all things are possible with God. I have a hunch that is where the disciplining and grace giving come in.
I quake at the thought of heresy. I pray that I will recognize it in myself.
This is why all theologians should be exiled to Arkansas without a brown towel.
Actually using the example of my daughter the satisfaction theory would have my neighbor's daughter playing in the street - and I spank my daughter for it.
But I don't think anyone should be exiled to Arkansas for any reason. That is really not showing any of God's grace and mercy.
all i have to say to the two of you...is that my brain hurts now.
okay - this has been marinating, but why then did Jesus said he would lay down his life. why would he do that if the blood wasn't need for the remission of sins and everything is something if it wasn't about the shedding of blood then why passover did he die, he could have died then at any time?
Post a Comment