This is a quick review of Denny Weaver's article 'Violence in Christian Theology' that I did for my Christology paper. He offers a Narrative Christus Victor model of the atonement which I think is extremely helpful in attempting to grasp the atonement (not that we ever fully could). Narrative Christus Victor is a reframing of the classic Christus Victor understanding of the atonement and I recommend you have a look at it.
J. Denny Weaver is a contemporary Mennonite theologian who has recently added to the long and evolving conversation surrounding the atonement, and more specifically to the criticism of satisfaction atonement theology. This essay will be a brief analysis of Weaver’s theology, sources of authority and use of scripture displayed in his article, ‘Violence in Christian Theology’.[1] Here Weaver rejects the violence inherent in satisfaction atonement theories and proposes an alternative Narrative Christus Victor model of the atonement.[2] Weaver in his paper seeks to expose the relationship between violence and Christianity that he sees inherent in some classic understandings of the atonement and Christology. As a Mennonite, Weaver brings basic assumptions of non-violence to his theology. In taking the non-violence of Jesus as his starting point he believes that the rejection of violence should be in all expressions of Christology and atonement. This though, is not an exclusive personal preoccupation. Many today are disturbed and troubled by the vengeful, violent images of God that follow from some classic formulations of the atonement. As all good theology should, Weaver’s article helpfully opens up constructive dialogue between scripture and the burning questions of this age. Framing his argument around the central questions of, who or what needs the death of Jesus? Who is responsible for Jesus’ death? And who killed Jesus? , Weaver constructs a theology thoroughly for our time and our current questions.
With these questions in mind, Weaver sifts through Christian tradition, examining classical atonement theories and exposing the worldviews and violent presuppositions embedded in them. Tradition is one of the tenants of the Wesleyan quadrilateral and Weaver interacts thoroughly with it. Good theology is always in dialogue with the rich tradition of Christian thought, anchoring ‘new’ ideas and thought in a long and solid story. Weaver though, is unsympathetic to many of the more traditional atonement theories developed during Christendom, (Anselm’s satisfaction theories, penal substitution, moral example). He shows that their answers to his central questions leave us with an angry, violent and retaliating God who requires retribution. By proposing a narrative Chritus Victor model, Weaver attempts to correct some aspects of Tradition. One aspect of this is the restoring of the ‘devil’ or the ‘institutes and powers out of God’s reign’ to the atonement equation. By interacting with Tradition and with his current context and questions, Weaver is doing theology from within the church that then moves out into the world, as all good theology must, to answer more general, human questions about God, evil, sin, and ethics. He specifically focuses on western retributive justice systems and use of societal violence.
Scripture is widely regarded to be the cornerstone of the Wesleyan quadrilateral, the norming ‘norm’, or the foundation of all theological inquiry. In offering alternative answers to his key questions, Weaver appeals to older Christian Tradition and to scripture that both developed in the early church before the rise of Christendom. He reconstructs the classical Christus Victor atonement theory by looking to a narrative understanding of scripture. He points especially to the book of Revelation, interpreting it as a cosmic and eschatological perspective on historical events of the first century. He sees Revelation as a story of God’s victory over structures and institutions not shaped by the reign of God, and the gospels a narration of the same story with Jesus as an activist whose mission it was to make the reign of God known. Bridging between his questions, Tradition, and scripture, he again emphasizes the non-violence of this victory and reign. He sees the scriptures not so much as super spiritual, mystical text but as historical documents that reveal truth and knowledge in a narrative story. In focusing on the narratives of the Gospels and Revelation, Weaver doesn’t look to the ‘classic’ atonement texts as propositional statements, but uses ‘thick’ description, seeing the complexities of balancing a narrative revelation and contextual human life. This results in Weaver presenting a less systematic and more narrative theology and understanding of the atonement – a narrative Christus Victor.
This understanding, around a narrative, displays a more holistic reading of scripture by balancing our human qualities (reason, imagination, memory, intuition etc) and breaking down sacred/secular divisions. As Weaver shows narrative Christus Victor attempts to locate the atonement in history and have implications for all of life – ethics etc.
Weaver’s article displays a balanced interplay of the four sources and norms of the Wesleyan quadrilateral (Scripture, Reason, Tradition, and Experience), though it is ultimately shaped by his desire to outline a non-violent atonement theory. This is a product of his time and place and amounts to a more ‘relational hermeneutic’ where community becomes an authoritative source. Community and scripture are held in a dynamic tension. This moves Weaver’s work in the direction of Brian Mclaren, Doug Pagitt and others who embrace this kind of relational hermeneutic. Ultimately Weaver’s article is sound theological work which makes a fresh, helpful and relevant contribution to atonement theology and Christology.
