What will wash away our sins?

In honor of Good Friday, I thought I would share a paper I wrote last semester. The paper focuses on an article by J. Denny Weaver ("Violence in Christian Theology" Click to read the article.). In the paper I compare and contrast Weaver's theory of non-violent atonement with Anselm's satisfaction theory. Read. Enjoy. Feel free to comment.
_________________________________________________________

J. Scott Coats 

TH10000 – Christian Beliefs

Dr. Matt Matthews

November 16, 2011

 In the opening paragraphs of his essay “Violence in Christian Theology,” J. Denny Weaver prepares his reader to consider the relationship between violence and Christian theology. Weaver goes on to state that his “analysis finds classic theology in large part guilty of accommodating and supporting violence” (1). His analysis focuses on the doctrines of atonement and Christology. In his analysis of the traditional beliefs on these doctrines, Weaver determines that Christian theology, specifically post-Constantinian theology, not only accommodates violence but also perpetuates both overt and systemic violence. The bulk of Weavers essay focuses on the doctrine of atonement, and it is in this area that he proposes an alternative view; a nonviolent model for atonement. Weaver does not deny the violence surrounding Jesus death, but suggests a model for atonement that does not champion, or enable, the perpetuation of violence by associating that violence with the actions or intentions of God. Weaver’s concept of atonement, instead, condemns violence, and, in fact, proclaims the resurrection as the ultimate defeat of violence and death. Weaver’s model of atonement counters what he sees as a commendation of violence in traditional atonement theories, especially the satisfaction theory first offered by Anselm. In this essay, I will compare and contrast Weaver’s narrative Christus Victor with Anselm’s satisfaction theory. I will show that despite Weaver’s theory the story of Jesus does not lose its violence, but it does live up to the nonviolent descriptor in that this model of atonement removes the tacit endorsement of violence and removes violence from the act of atonement. This model is, therefore, more representative of the Gospel of Jesus Christ than the satisfaction theory.

Weaver calls his theory of atonement narrative Christus Victor. His model places the doctrine of atonement in the context of Jesus life as told in the Gospels and the narrative of Revelation. Narrative Christus Victor begins with the concept of a cosmic battle between good and evil forces. More specifically, it is a battle between the Reign of God and the Evil Powers of this earth. Weaver begins his explanation of this model by looking at the book of Revelation. He points out that the writers of Revelation did not write a description of a literal cosmic battle. He contends that Revelation is not meant to be predictive of future events or to describe cosmic happenings. Instead, “Revelation’s symbols refer not to the distant future nor to cosmic events outside of history but to events of the first century in the world that we live in” (Weaver 10). Weaver argues that the events depicted in Revelation describe the very real struggle between the first century church and the Roman Empire. In the end, “the resurrection of Jesus gives victory to the earthly representatives of the reign of God over the forces of evil symbolized by Rome” (Weaver 12). Revelation gives the reader a view of this earthly battle from a heavenly point of view.

The Gospels, according to Weaver, communicate the story from a different perspective. The Gospels recount the same struggle between the reign of God and the Evil powers of Earth, this time represented by Rome along with the leadership of Jerusalem, Judas, the crowds calling for Jesus to be crucified, and so on. The Gospels, though, tell their story from the perspective of those who lived the struggle. Though told from different perspectives, both stories show the ultimate victory of the reign of God. “Both accounts locate the victory of the reign of God on earth and in history -- narrative Christus Victor -- and make quite clear that the triumph occurred not through the sword and military might but nonviolently, through death and resurrection” (Weaver 12).

Narrative Christus Victor uses the entire story of Jesus life, death, and resurrection to explain the doctrine of atonement. Weaver says, “Jesus was an activist whose mission was to make the reign of God visible” (12). Jesus lived and taught in a way that made the reign of God visible to all around him. In doing so, he and his followers stood opposed to the powers of the era. Standing up for the poor, women, the infirmed, and other marginalized groups the powers of first century Judea (Rome, the Temple leadership, etc.) saw Jesus as a radical who openly defied societal norms, and thus defied their power. Because of his radical life and teachings, those powers, the powers of Evil, put Jesus to death.

According to Weaver, we, as sinners, are included among those powers of Evil. The powers of Jesus’ time stood in defiance of the reign of God. Through our sin, we do the same. It is only through the resurrection that we are invited away from the forces of evil and into the reign of God. Thus, the resurrection of Jesus brings true atonement. “Resurrection is the reign of God made victorious over all of the evil that killed Jesus” (Weaver 12). Our own sins, which put us in opposition to the reign of God, are included in the defeated evil. For Weaver, the resurrection not only serves as the defeat of violence and death, it also reveals the folly of the violence perpetrated against Jesus and, in the case of Revelation, the early church. It exposes violence as nothing more than the efforts of the forces of evil to resist God’s reign.

The model of narrative Christus Victor arose from Weaver’s belief that traditional atonement theories led to Christianity becoming a violent religion. Weaver developed his model as an answer to the violence portrayed, and in fact glorified, in those traditional theories. This answer grew out of criticisms Weaver held toward the theories. He specifically addresses much of his criticism toward the satisfaction theory of atonement. Weaver then answers each of these areas within his narrative Christus Victor model.

Weaver’s first criticism of the satisfaction theory is that it removes the devil from the equation, and in doing so makes God the perpetrator of Jesus’ death.  In the early development of the satisfaction theory, Anselm rejected the idea the human beings were captive to the devil as was taught in the ransom theory. He, instead, said they were answerable to God. Since we are answerable to God for our sin, we owe a debt to God’s honor. According to the satisfaction theory, Jesus’ death satisfies that debt. However, as it is God who arranges the death of Jesus as payment for that debt, God then becomes, in the words of Weaver, “a child abuser, one who arranges the death of one child for the benefit of the others” (4).

 Weaver’s theory avoids this problem by re-inserting the devil in the atonement equation. In Weaver’s narrative Christus Victor theory, “’the devil’ is the Roman Empire, which symbolizes all the institutes and structures and powers of the world that do not recognize the rule of God” (13). Thus, Weaver places responsibility for Jesus’ suffering and death, not on God, but on the forces of Evil that oppose the reign of God.  In Weaver’s theory, God does not need Jesus death because God’s goal is to make visible and present the reign of God, not to exact payment for a debt of honor.

God’s need, or lack thereof, for Jesus’ death leads to another of Weaver’s criticisms against satisfaction theory. Satisfaction theory asserts that God needs the death of Jesus to pay a debt, a debt for which someone must be punished. In other words, justice demands punishment: retributive justice. Satisfaction theory assumes “that doing justice or righting wrong depends on the violence of punishment” (Weaver 6). Again, God becomes the perpetrator of the violent act of Jesus death. Weaver concludes that “any and all versions of satisfaction atonement, regardless of their packaging, assume the violence of retribution or justice based on punishment, and depend on God-induced and God-directed violence” (6). Again, violence is placed in the lap of God and is justified as necessary for meting out justice in order to restore harmony to a universe knocked out of balance by human sin.

Weaver does not allow for retributive justice in his narrative Christus Victor theory of atonement. Weaver begins his explanation of narrative Christus Victor with a list of the theory’s attributes. The first of those says that the theory “does not presume that justice depends on punishment” (Weaver 10). In fact, Weaver’s theory claims the opposite, if only by implication. In Weaver’s theory, the major injustice is the killing of Jesus because of his challenge to the status quo. That injustice is never answered with retribution. Instead, God answers with love; with the invitation, even to those who participated in Jesus’ death, to break the bonds of sin and join in the reign of God. Narrative Christus Victor replaces retribution with love, grace, and liberation.

Weaver’s third criticism of satisfaction theory is that it takes an a-historical and a-ethical view of the relationship between God and humanity. He argues that satisfaction theory portrays salvation as separated from ethics. “That is, salvation in satisfaction atonement does not envision a change of status in history or in life on earth; rather it envisions a change in one’s status outside of or beyond this life” (Weaver 7). Satisfaction atonement further accommodates violence through this a-ethical view. There is nothing in satisfaction atonement that challenges injustice in the here and now, nor is there anything that demands or expects what Paul would call a “life lived by the Spirit.” It does not demand change. Satisfaction atonement does nothing to prevent what Dietrich Bonheoffer called “cheap grace.” This leads to an accommodation of systemic violence in the form of war, racism, sexism, heterosexism, and many other institutions and beliefs that are contrary to the rule of God as presented in Jesus life.

This brings to light another issue with this a-historical view. Satisfaction atonement focuses solely on the death of Jesus as the salvific act. The theory completely ignores the life and ministry of Jesus, and, more importantly, it ignores the resurrection. Ultimate importance is placed on the violent act of Jesus’ death orchestrated by a violent God seeking retribution for a debt of honor owed by sinful humanity. Weaver’s model, by contrast, focuses on the entirety of Jesus life, death and resurrection as a part of the struggle between the reign of God and the evil forces of Earth. Jesus’ life and ministry offer the contrast to both the a-historical and a-ethical aspects of the satisfaction theory. Jesus’ life was spent making visible the reign of God and calling others into that way of life. That is the ultimate goal of our atonement, to participate in the reign of God by living according to the teachings of Jesus.

Instead of Jesus’ death, Weaver places ultimate importance on the resurrection. Therein lays the nonviolent nature of narrative Christus Victor. Weaver does not discount the violence of Jesus’ death. He acknowledges the brutality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, as well as Jesus’ suffering during that torture. That violence comes only as a response to the threat posed by Jesus and his mission of helping humanity realize the reign of God and demonstrates “the ultimate contrast between the nonviolent reign of God and the rule of evil” (Weaver 14). The truth of narrative Christus Victor as a model of nonviolent atonement comes in its focus on the resurrection as the ultimate salvific action. The resurrection is the ultimate defeat of violence, death, and sin. Narrative Christus Victor is nonviolent in that it invites us to examine the life of Jesus as a nonviolent activist focused on revealing God’s reign of love and grace and liberation to a world wrought with evil forces bent on maintaining their own power. Upon examining the life and ministry of Jesus, we see it as a life lived in opposition to the violence of oppression and devoid of overt violence. When viewed from this perspective, we see that Weaver’s narrative Christus Victor atonement model truly reflects the message of the Gospels.