Violence in Christian Theology

The analysis of this essay has demonstrated the extent to which presuppositions of violence and overt violence are inherently a part of classic Christian theology. We have also observed that the abstract and ahistorical character of the classic formulas of atonement and Christology mean that they do not challenge injustice in the social order. This combination of intrinsically violent elements and lack of challenge to injustice in the social order mean that it has been possible throughout much of Christian history for Christians to profess allegiance to Jesus and to claim salvation as depicted in classic Christology and atonement, while simultaneously pursuing the violence prohibited by Jesus' teaching and life.

If Christians are uncomfortable with Christianity as a violent religion, the first step is to recognize the extent to which formulas of classic theology have contributed to violence both overt and systemic. This essay provided data for that acknowledgement. The second step away from Christianity as a violent religion would be to construct theology that specifically reflects the nonviolence of its namesake, Jesus Christ. As a suggestion in that direction, I offer narrative Christus Victor as both nonviolent atonement and narrative Christology. Finally, step three would be to live out the theology of its nonviolent namesake. That commitment is a call to every Christian.

J. Denny Weaver is Professor of Religion at Bluffton (Ohio) College, where he is Chair of the History-Religion Department and editor of The C. Henry Smith Series. his recent publications include Anabaptist Theology in Face of Postmodernity: A Proposal for the Third Millennium (Pandora Press U.S., 2000) and The Nonviolent Atonement (Eerdmans, forthcoming August 2001).

Notes

(1.) This essay draws on elements of my book The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001).

(2.) Anselm, "Why God Became Man," in A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, ed. and trans. Eugene R. Fairweather, The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956), 107-10.

(3.) Anselm himself did not deal with the specific question of whether God wa responsible for the death of Jesus, although he does discuss whether the Father willed the death of the son. Anselm wanted to portray the necessity of the incarnation and of Jesus' death as a payment to God's honor, but without appearing to place limits or obligation on God. To deal with this dilemma and to absolve God of responsibility for seeming unjust acts, Anselm developed the category of "fitting" or fittingness" to describe what was necessary for God but without placing necessity or obligation on God. R. W Southern, Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 201-2, 206 For Anselm's use of "fitting" and "unfitting," see Anselm, "Why?" 115-21.

(4.) Joanne Carlson Brown and Rebecca Parker, "For God So Loved the World?" in Christianity, Patriarchy and Abuse: A Feminist Critique, ed. Joanne Carlson Brown and Carole R. Bohn (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1989), 1-30; Julie M. Hopkins, Towards a Feminist Christology: Jesus of Nazareth, European Women, and the Christological Crisis (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdrmans, 1995), 50-52; Rita Nakashima Brock, Journeys by Heart: A Christology of Erotic Power (New York: Crossroad, 1988), 55-57; Carter Heyward, Saving Jesus: From Those Who Are Right: Rethinking What It Means to Be Christian (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 151; Delores S. Williams, Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist Cod-Talk (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1993), 161-67.