(These are thoughts in progress, stuff I haven’t considered before but a friend pointed out yesterday.)
As you might know I think the idea of redemptive violence is a myth, that you can not bring redemption and good through violent acts (good guy kills bad guy, all live happily ever after). I began to come to this understanding as I was reading my bible, particularly Jesus’ words and life, and couldn’t reconcile that with the ideas of war and violence in general accomplishing peace.
What I hadn’t thought about until it was pointed out yesterday to me, is how much of our theology espouses the idea of Redemptive Violence through the role of God (The Father, rather than Jesus). The idea that God is violent and vengeful and had to kill somebody for their sins, but fortunately Jesus took our place. It’s a theology of redemption coming through a violent act, at least on the part of God killing Jesus.
Anyways, I’m not sure what to do with these thoughts since so much of my own understanding of theology, Jewish culture prior to Christ coming and then what I see Jesus saying and living; all of it begins to conflict and create tensions.
I guess I just share that to put it out there and point out what I’ve been thinking about recently on a theological level. I haven’t developed any complete thoughts on the idea. There is a book, The Nonviolent Atonement, that was recommended that I’ll probably read sometime in the coming months before I try and make any major revelations…
i wrote a term paper last semester over all of that. it’s a really interesting subject, especially now, post-9/11 in the united states. the nonviolent atonement is excellent as is anything by walter wink if you haven’t picked him up yet. i’d also recommend rene girard. his stuff is much more dense, but he does a lot of work with sacred violence and the scapegoat mechanism.
anyway, i’m glad to see someone else is dealing with this as well!
Thanks for speaking about this. It’s been in my thoughts too.
Blake, thanks for the recommendation. I’ll have to check that out. What thoughts did you have in writing your paper?
jamie. i basically agree with denny weaver (the author of the nonviolent atonement) and others that our atonement theology seriously flawed and further perpetuates the idea of redemptive violence and even seems to suggest that god endorses the use of such action, which is very, very dangerous, especially in these volatile times.
i like the idea of narrative christus victor. weaver talks about it in the book quite a bit. it avoids hyper-emphasis solely on the death of jesus, rejects god as a bloodthirsty avenger, and is in line with early church history.
jamie. i basically agree with denny weaver (the author of the nonviolent atonement) and others that our atonement theology seriously flawed and further perpetuates the idea of redemptive violence and even seems to suggest that god endorses the use of such action, which is very, very dangerous, especially in these volatile times.
i like the idea of narrative christus victor. weaver talks about it in the book quite a bit. it avoids hyper-emphasis solely on the death of jesus, rejects god as a bloodthirsty avenger, and is in line with early church history.
you can read the paper here if you like.
I really have not come to any conclusions of my own on this but have a good friend who blogs a bit on the topic as well as other issues regarding nonviolence
Leaving Munster is the blog, and Graham Old is the blogger…
I am fully on board with Jesus’ message being one of non-violent redemption, but it is a bit of a contrast with some of the laws in Leviticus and exodus where “blood for blood” is called for. I think this is where we get this Good God/Bad God mentality from. Thankfully the cross freed us from the law so we don’t have to live that way anymore.
Jason J,
Supposedly that book I mentioned points out a more clear understanding of the OT that doesn’t draw the Violent God mentality we see.
I’ll have to wait till I read it to attempt an explanation
Ariah,
I just found your blog so good stuff.
I am very excited to see others questioning our understanding of the atonement.
the whole issues with the OT sacrifical system is a hard one to start to understand, but for me i am starting to see the Bible being in conversation with itself. Where the law says one thing we have the prophets (Micah, Amos, Isaiah) saying something different. Those 3 prophets all says that God does not desire sacrifice but God desires justice. Jeremiah 7 even says that when God brought the people out of Egypt that God did not speak to them about sacrifices.
We need to come to understand that the Bible and this issues of sacrifices is much more complicated then we have been lead to believe. And the current thinking about substitutionary atonement is a recent theologcial understanding. It is not what most christians have believed.
Tanden,
I’m really curious to pick up that book and talk to you more. I’m interested in what your take of what ‘substitutionary atonement’ meant back in the day, like what the Jews considered it before Jesus’ time
B”H
Hi Ariah,
I have noticed some of your comments here and there on other sites i.e. The Burts and The Jaszemski’s, but this is the first time I have actually come here. I think you are addressing some really interesting things and I’d love to join in. Right now I don’t have much time as we are packing to go to Florida tomorrow (Thurs 3/20) for a week.
I come from a Messianic Jewish perspective and I think this might shed some light on a lot of these theological ideas.
Check out my site, if you are interested. I look forward to some interesting exchanges in the near future.
Blessings,
Shlomo
http://www.xanga.com/ps29v11
Shlomo,
I look forward to further conversation