Nonviolent Atonement: A Proposition Worthy of a Response

For the third week of my independent study I read:

• "The Nonviolent Atonement: Human Violence, Discipleship and God," by J. Denny Weaver.
• "The Cross: God's Peace Work - Towards A Restorative Peacemaking Understanding of the Atonement," by Wayne Northey.
• "Good News For Postmodern Man: Christus Victor in the Lucan Kerygma," by Nathan Rieger

As I am a student at Eastern Mennonite University, J. Denny Weaver's chapter from Stricken by God (which is really a condensed version of the argument proposed in his The Nonviolent Atonement) seems most pertinent to address. In the brief time I have spent in a Mennonite community, Weaver's work has been somewhat ubiquitous. That said, mentions of the retired Bluffton College professor have run the gamut of opinions, from respect to rejection. It seems likely that I will read his entire book in the not-too-distant future, but for now an analysis of this essay's argument will have to suffice.

Weaver begins by making the uncontroversial claim, "nonviolence is intrinsic to the story of Jesus," going so far as to assert that, though the gospel such note be equated or reduced to a rejection of violence it, "any defining statement about Jesus or the gospel that does not have a rejection pf violence as a constitutive element is an incomplete statement about Jesus or the gospel" (Stricken 316). I agree with this claim, but one should not miss its signifiance in the discussion of atonement theology. Weaver's assertion carries with it the implication that Christians who do not preach the gospel of peace are preaching either a truncated or false gospel. I would want to graciously extend an olive branch to Christians outside of the peace church tradition in the form of the reminder that they have been part of the majority opinion throughout the history of the church. I would want to especially emphasize the fact that to the extent they have believe in a gospel of "constant love for one another," love is able to cover, "a multitude of sins" (1 Peter 4:8 NRSV).


Weaver wants to argue for an atonement theology that "undergirds discipleship to Jesus," and provides a theology that, "shapes Christian living" (Stricken 317). Starting from John Howard Yoder's case for using Jesus' life as the norm for Christian ethics, Weaver aruges that "ethics and theology comprise two version or two forms of the same commitment" (Stricken 319). So far, so good.

Weaver then sets out to construct his proposal for atonement theology which he has titled "narrative Christus Victor" (Stricken 321). Jesus launches his mission based upon Isaiah 61:

The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; (Isaiah 61:1-2)

Jesus' ministry is about making "present the reign of God in human history" (Stricken 321) and to be Christian "means to join and follow Jesus in his mission of witnessing to the peaceable reign of God" (Stricken 322).  Weaver does want to admits that part of the narrative of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is an atonement motif, but he claims "there is no indication of any kind that the death of Jesus in this story satisfies anything" (Stricken 323).  Weaver sees Jesus' death at the hands of the powers as highlighting the how different the methods of the powers are from the way of God.  Not identifying any sort of satisfaction atonement in the narratives of Jesus, Weaver then proposes what the atonement image he calls "narrative Christus Victor" will look like.  Differing greatly from Gustav Aulen's conception of Christus Victor, Weaver notes that in his envisaging, "the first level of struggle between the reign of God and rule of evil occurs not in the cosmos but on earth, where the life and teaching of Jesus as a whole engage the struggle" (Stricken 324).

Weaver then moves to an examination of narrative Christus Victor found in Revelation.  Weaver's reading of Revelation emphasizes the fact that the resurrection is the victory of Christ over the powers.  Such a victory should be understood as "a nonviolent victory, that is, a victory without divine violence" (Stricken 330).  Weaver maintains that God's nonviolence is not just a fact extracted from reading the narrative, but is intrinsic to understand the reign of God.  Jesus' crucifixion highlights the fact that the worst the powers of evil can do is to kill, but through the resurrection God reverses this denial of existence.  Unlike in satisfaction and penal substitutionary theories of atonement, in narrative Christus Victor, God's triumphant reign does not depend "on God's capacity to exercise either retributive violence or the greatest violence, but on the power of the reign of God to overcome in spite of and in the face of the violence of evil" (Stricken 331).  Weaver then asserts that Revelation ends with the vision of the New Jerusalem, not as a future reality, but as representative of "the church as it continues the mission of Jesus to witness to the presence of the reign of God in the world" (Stricken 332).  It would seem that Weaver would want to admit that the life of the church often does not feel like the New Jerusalem, but he insists that such an image "affirms symbolically that regardless of the apparent power of evil abroad in the world, those who live in the resurrection of Jesus know that evil has been overcome and that its power is already limited" (Stricken 334).

As I was reading through this chapter, at about this point I was wondering how Weaver understands personal deficiency or complicity with sin. Luckily, he turns to a conception of what it means to be a Christian.  Weaver reconfigures a more common understanding of confession, insisting that it is the realization and acknowledgement of "our participation in the forces of evil that killed Jesus, including their present manifestations in such powers as militarism, nationalism, racism, sexism, heterosexism and poverty that still bind and oppress" (Stricken 336).  For Weaver, grace is, "the invitation to participate in spite of our guilt for opposing the reign of God and collusion with the powers that killed Jesus" (Stricken 336).  I have moved quickly through Weaver's essay, but this represents the gist of the argument I wish to deal with.

When reading through Weaver's chapter my initial inclination was assent.  After all, how can one draw upon both John Howard Yoder and Walter Wink and veer too far away from brilliance?  However, Weaver's overarching presentation of narrative Christus Victor left me wanting.  First, Weaver's reading of the gospels seems quotidian for anyone attempting to overcome penal substitutionary understandings of the atonement.  The point that, "there is no indication of any kind that the death of Jesus in this story satisfies anything," (Stricken 323) could--and probably would--be made by any historical Jesus scholar. Such a reading makes one wonder why Weaver would call this assertion "atonement" in the first place?    I agree with the fact that Jesus witnesses to God's peaceable reign on earth and that his death is "produced by the forces that opposed" him.  I even enjoy his reading nonviolent reading of Revelation, which makes clear that the "victory through the resurrection is a non-violent victory, that is, a victory without divine violence" (Stricken 330).  The problem with Weaver's argument really occurs when he turns from exegesis to praxis.

Consider his soteriology:

To acknowledge our human sinfulness means to confess our participation in the forces of evil that killed Jesus, including their present manifestations in such powers as militarism, nationalism, racism, sexism, heterosexism and poverty that still bind and oppress...That invitation to participate [in God's reign] in spite of our guilt for opposing the reign of God and collusion with the powers that killed Jesus is grace. (Stricken 336)

This is dangerously close to guilt-tripping people into the kingdom and undermines his assertion that Jesus death does not satisfy any sort of divine necessity.  Weaver clearly does not believe Jesus' death satisfies divine wrath, but it still seems possible that is satisfies the divine narrative.  Even though he specifically denounces Abelard's moral influence theory, Weaver's description of Abelard is not too distinct from his own conception.  He describes the moral influence theory saying,

In order to show these sinners--us--that God is really loving and accepting, God the Father performs an act of great, infinite love, giving us his most precious possession, his Son, to die for us.  When sinners perceive that love, according to this image, they will want to cease rebelling and return to the loving embrace of the Father. (Stricken 339)

If one substitutes the idea that God gives his son over to death with a Jesus who nonviolently opposes evil even unto his own death, then Weaver and Abelard are kindred theological spirits.

Another problem with Weaver's narrative Christus Victor is its narrowness (and I will admit this may be due to my reading a more condensed version of his argument).  In this chapter, Weaver never (at least by my reading) addresses the Old Testament or attempts to place Jesus into the greater story of God's people.  Further, except for a brief mention of 1 Corinthians 15 and a paragraph on Romans 3:24-26, Weaver completely avoids the letters of Paul.  One is certainly permitted to do this, but not if one wants to discuss atonement.  It simply will not do to cite two scholars who do not see satisfaction atonement in Paul's letters when many Christians think Paul's writings explicitly undermine what you are arguing!

In summary, I would have to assert that Weaver is not a bad resource, but rather he brings up more questions than he offers answers.  That's okay though, because in my study of theologies of the cross and atonement, I am only on week 3.