Instead of Atonement (Part 1)

Last week I began reading Ted Grimsrud's forthcoming book Instead of Atonement (Cascade Books 2013).  Ted is my adviser and my professor for this independent study and I am elated to be able to spend some time with his new work.

Grimsrud explains the counterintuitive title of the book when he writes, "I do not mean to suggest that salvation has nothing to do with 'atonement' in any possible meaning that might be given to the term.  Rather, I use 'atonement' in the title in the sense of the popular meaning of the term as referring to sacrificial payment that makes salvation possible" (Atonement 10).  The main theme of the introductory chapter centers on the idea that if Christian atonement theology is found to be in accord with the logic of retributive violence which dominates the world, then the gospel is, in fact, bad news.  The opening chapter offers an excellent overview into the theological and social implications of retributive violence.  Retributive theology has caused us to have a picture of, "God's holiness and justice that bases salvation on sacrificial violence" (Atonement 27).  Grimsrud argues that this need not be the case.

What I appreciate most about Instead of Atonement is the way Grimsrud does not find it necessary to start with Jesus and then read the Old Testament through the lens of the New (although there is some merit to this type of reading, when done responsibly).  Instead, Grimsrud's counterproposal to retributive atonement theology begins with the assertion that, "From start to finish the Old Testament does not present salvation as linked with a will of God for violence.  Rather, at its most basic level salvation in the Old Testament emerges from God's mercy, period" (Atonement 28).  Grimsrud insists that in the Bible salvation centers on "liberation from the Powers of brokenness," "restoration of harmony with God," and "restoration of harmonious human relationships" (Atonement 36).  Unlike many retributive readings of the Old Testament, salvation is not necessarily tied to the law and sacrifice, but these concepts are related.  Instead of being the means through which salvation is established, Torah and sacrifice follow from "the gift of salvation.  Human beings are not required to follow Torah or offer sacrifices in order to gain God's favor.  Rather, human beings keep Torah and offer sacrifices because they have already received God's favor" (Atonement 47).

The discussion then moves to the prophetic role in the Old Testament.  As the people of God move from sojourning to becoming an established nation with fixed political (kings) and cultic (the Temple) structures, the temptation to become like the nations of the earth grew enticing.  Grimsrud writes that, "In challenging the distortions of the law and sacrifice, the prophets reiterate the meaning of salvation" (Atonement 61).  The main thrust of the prophetic critique centers on injustice, violence, idolatry, and vain religiosity (Atonement 64-69).  What is wonderful about this view of the prophetic critique of Israel is that it does not center on what God's people do, but rather on who they are.  Common conceptions of Christian atonement theology would understand Israel's exile as their inability to keep the Law and sacrificial system, putting them in conflict with God's holiness.  While there is no doubt that they floundered in these considerations, the prophets critique is not concerned with "a detached inner life of God, of cosmic scales of justice, or of impersonal, abstract laws that transcend mundane life" (Atonement 77).

When I say that the prophetic critique does not center on "doing," but rather on "being," that is to say that the critique is that Israel's relationship with God and with each other is broken.  In their injustice, violence, idolatry and vain religiosity God's people are failing to be God's people.  Inasmuch as they emulate the surrounding nations and lose sight of the distinctive nature of God's calling, the nation through whom God promised to bless all the families of the earth (Genesis 12:3) ends up acting more like a curse than a blessing.  Consequently the call to repentance in the prophets will have to reject injustice, violence, idolatry, and vain religiosity (Atonement 64-69) and them with justice, kindness, and trust (Atonement 72-73).

I cannot emphasize enough how important such an understanding of the Old Testament is for anyone desiring to make sense of alternative atonement theologies, Jesus commitment to peace and nonviolence, and the relationship between the Old And New Testaments.  Oftentimes Christian theology has portrayed the Old Testament not simply as unfulfilled, but instead as defective.  Those who read the prophets as primarily prophesying about Jesus often miss out on the major message of critique going on in the text.  For this reason, when such readers hear Jesus say, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44), or, "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52b), such sayings seem utterly distinct from the God of the Old Testament.  I think Grimsrud might offer this dissonance is only because of their ignorance certain passages that say,

You have plowed wickedness,

you have reaped injustice,

you have eaten the fruit of lies.

Because you have trusted in your power

and in the multitude of your warriors, (Hosea 10:13 NRSV)

Next week I will write about Grimsrud's account of the New Testament (specifically Jesus' teachings and death), but it is important to note (again) that this work is extremely important.  I would go so far as to say that only in this context can we discern the meaning of Jesus' words such as, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). The tendency in some theology towards Marcionism is both inappropriate and unnecessary.  Further, it ignores the fact that the major resource Jesus had in ushering in the Kingdom of God was the Hebrew Bible.