Customer Reviews

The Nonviolent Atonement

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I ordered "The Non-Violent Atonement" before it was available and anxiously awaited it arrival. Having followed much of what Weaver has published over the past few years and being sympathetic to his concerns about Anslem atonement motifs, I was ready to be convinced, but finished the book disappointed.
While spending time articulating the Christus Victor motif as seen in scripture, Weaver's argumentation against the defenders of Anslem depends more upon the sensabilities of those of us raised in liberal democracies then the biblical texts. In this way he repeats the strategic mistake he accuses of Anselm who could not see beyond his fuedal culture. He also seems overly dependent upon Walter Wink's conception of the powers as only impersonal structures which then renders Jesus' ministry to the demonics unintelligible.
In closing his critique of abuses of Anselm are wonderful and he gives a adequate, if brief, overview of the Christus Victor motif in scripture. He hits upon a need in theological reflection but his attempt to meet it leaves much to be desired. In the end he seems more concerned with showing that black, feminists, and womanist theologians are on his side than the testimony of the New Testament.

According to Weaver, Jesus saves by living under the evil systems and structures of power, exposing their true nature in his death, and overcoming them in resurrection. In this way, God is not demanding or perpetrating violence and is on the side of the oppressed. This atonement theory stands in distinction from Anselm's articulation of the atonement in which Jesus dies as a punishment for all sin or a payment to God. It is also in opposition to Abelard's understanding that Jesus shows us God's love and the best way to live. To make his case, Weaver relies heavily on theology from groups who speak from the margins of society. It is clear that the goal is to articulate an understanding of God's action in the life of Christ that stands opposed to violence. Read this book if you have ever had the feeling that in Christ God did more than give you an example of how to live or if you have suspected that God didn't have to see blood to feel better about you.

Prof. Weaver provides a helpful and exhaustive inquiry into the ways Christian theology has sought to reconcile soteriology with Christian ethics, ultimately offering his own, "narrative" twist on Christus Victor. The work continues by examining his salvation schema in light of critiques lodged against violent atonement theories, including critiques found in Black, feminist, and Womanist theologic writing. Drawing on work done by Gusfaf Aulen and Yoder, Weaver's "The Nonviolent Atonement" is an important bridge for anyone looking to link the character of God revealed in Jesus with salvation and ethics. Highly recommend!

J. Denny Weaver has done an excellent job of laying out a new vision of Christian atonement - one which does not incorporate the violence inherent in familiar substitutionary or satisfaction atonement models.
Weaver's aim is to construct a theory of atonement that will mesh with the pacifist understandings of the historic peace churches, and that also will satisfy the critiques of historic atonement theory made by black, feminist and womanist theologians.

Weaver calls this "narrative Christus Victor", and his description is well grounded academically and theologically. His writing style is accessible and precise at the same time. I recommend this book to anyone who has been troubled by Christian atonement as preached in many (especially Protestant) churches today.

--llw

Weaver's work is certainly effective at focusing somewhat unique perspectives towards challenging the currently in vogue anselmian satisfaction theories of atonement. He certainly hits his mark of highlighting the degree to which satisfaction theories are tied to a particular cultural perspective and the particular time and position of the church in which they were formulated.

Unfortunately, a lot of his argumentation is not well established and seems speculative at times. In many respects his arguments agree with common sense thinking, but it would be nice to see more effort at correlating his assertions with the historical record to demonstrate the connections between the cultural shift and the theological shift which is so central to his thesis.

The other unfortunate aspect of this work is the limited interaction with scripture and real interaction with the texts which are mustered in support of satisfaction atonement. Appropriation of these texts to support traditional anselmian imagery may very well be more eisegetical than exegetical, but Weaver's analysis of these texts is somewhat shallow and not incredibly convincing. The base of scripture appropriated to support satisfaction atonement is undoubtedly one of the strengths of the view; any serious critique of the view must do a better job of addressing these texts head on. Weaver seems content to pick just a few passages, demonstrating that other interpetations are at least plausible, and rest there.

Certainly this book may be more engaging to a select audience. His attempt to bring pacifist, black, and feminist theologies to bear on the atonement question may be more interesting if one is already inclined towards or particularly interested in one of these perspectives. Obviously his concern is also to emphasize the degree to which satisfaction atonement formulations allow for the minimization of oppressed groups, but he doesn't seem to focus this perspective very well. Perhaps the thrust of his work here is as much to present his version of narrative christus victor for consideration by these groups as it is specifically focusing on these perspectives for the purpose of highlighting the limited cultural perspective of traditional atonement formulations and the degree to which they may minimize marginalized groups.

One critique deserves some additional emphasis. While I appreciate the value of representing the perspective of marginalized and oppressed groups, I have a hard time taking seriously the idea that modern western "feminist theologians" could claim a rightful position of representing the voice of an oppressed group. In todays culture, feminism represents the position of the oppressor every bit as much as the position of the oppressed. Perhaps weaver could expand this work to include a paragraph or two examining whether satisfaction atonement theories "allow for the accomodation of" (weaver's phraseology) the systemic violence promoted by feminists against men and fathers in the family court system. One of the feminist "theologians" he examines extensively as a critic of substitutionary atonement (Reuther) has elsewhere published the following "prayer" written specifically with a view towards legitimizing God's approbation of abortion:

"God of our mothers and fathers, source of all life and new life, we are saddened by the conflicts we often experience; conflicts between life and life, between the affirmation of potential new life and the ongoing life that we have committed to nurture and strengthen, our own life and the lives of those we uphold and sustain... We are more than sad, we are also angry that we are faced with such choices, for these are choices in which there is no wholly good way; these are choices against a potential life or against existing life."

Weaver specifically cites feminist objections to the substitionary atonement to highlight that the demonstration of submission to unwarranted violence could be seen as encouraging the abused to endure abuse, or as sanctioning the abuser in his assumed right to inflict suffering on those who "should be submissive" towards such acts. When the feminists very argument is summarized by weaver as "unjust or innocent suffering can never be redemptive or salvific" it is perhaps the height of hypocrisy for the feminist theologians to raise these objections on one hand while affirming the need to sacrifice "life for life" on the other hand- offering up prayers to God for comfort in their "difficult decision" to conflicts between "life and life" to which they staunchly affirm the resolution of offering up the life of an innocent to "save" their own as a legitmate moral option. (Never mind even that the "conflict between life and life" is dealing with weighing the total life of the unborn on one side against the "life" defined as "my convience" or "my career goals" or "my economic comfort" on the other side more often than it deals with actual physical life or death situations). And yet there is no objection from the feminists to the "redemptive" oppression of the innocent here; in this case they are the firmest advocates of offering up the life the innocent to "save" their own. Oh, it may be a "difficult decision" that makes them "sad" and "angry"- but there is absolutely no budging that their "right" to make this decision dare not be questioned.

For this irony to go unaddressed in a work specifically dedicated to the purpose of highlighting the voice of the oppressed and marginalized is a tremendous blind spot. How marginalized is the voice of the unborn? It seems to me weaver is more concerned about hunting up support for his view of the atonement wherever he finds a sympathetic group than he is about discerning who is in a legitimate position to offer a critique from the perspective of the oppressed or marginalized. If we had published works of unborn theologians (as opposed to feminist or black theologians) critiqueing substitutionary atonement for its contribution to their plight than I'm sure Denny would be quick to summon their critiques as a marginalized and oppressed group towards support of his thesis that the idea that sacrificing one innocent party to save, redeem, (or preserve the 'quality of life'?) of another party is incompatible with the narrative of Jesus. Yet this group is so marginalized that they have no theologians amongst themselves to critique the degree to which substitutionary atonement has accomodated the violence against them. Weaver, apparently oblivious or willfully ignorant of this, goes on to devote page after page to offering up the belly-aching of the hypocritical feminists who are in this case the firmest advocates of marginalizing and dehumanizing the victims of their reproductive decisions.

In summary: Weavers work undoubtedly throws out some fine food for thought from a unique perspective, and I would recommend it on that basis alone. But it has some serious flaws and is also pretty hit or miss; the parts that were good left me wanting more and feeling like weaver just hadn't gone deep enough.

The Nonviolent Atonement was loaned to me by my pastor (who had just finished it) in response to some pretty intense "don't make sense to me" questions I had after a complete reading of the Old and New Testaments. It is a very heavy and challenging read, but provided a new perspective on so many questions I had which would no doubt have been considered heretical a century ago and by some perhaps even today.

The case the author makes for reconsidering some of the theology overlaying or added later to the facts of Christ's death and how that theology has distorted His pure gift is compelling. While larger than that, in the Love of God vs. Fear of God continuum it stands comfortably on the side of Love. For me, it made all the pieces surrounding the crucifixion fit with no inconsistencies left outside.

For those who've wondered about the type of god whose wrath can only be satisfied through the punishment of his own son, J. Denny Weaver takes us both back (to the Bible and the church fathers) and forward (beyond the dominant theory of the atonement). And he gives us a biblically solid look at the Cross as the revelation of God's love and the manifestation of God's victory. In short, he says, "The Cross was not about God punishing his own son, but about the victory of God in Christ through forgiveness."

Worth having.

Brad Jersak

Weaver's book does a great job of addressing the question of, who does our theology hurt? The introduction to this book was enlightening and especially pertinent to setting up this question. The focus on an atonement theology that contributes to the "machine" of the world (violence, racism, patriarchy, etc.)is one that he correctly takes dead aim at. While we realize this oppression in religion, culture, and education, our theology is often lacking in this same awareness. Comparing where mennonite theology should be in relation to women's and black theology is a project that is vital. A good book that really challenges the theological conventions that we take for granted

Very well written book. The ideas and arguments are well constructed. Anyone that is willing to write from a white male perspective and is willing to have conversation with Feminist, Black, Asian, and Womanist Theologies has my respect. I would only challenge Weaver on why he had Womanist theology in the Feminist section as opposed to the Black Theology section.