Abstract
The Nonviolent God
Denny J. Weaver
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. 304 pp. $25.00
Denny J. Weaver, professor emeritus of religion at Bluffton University, draws on his Anabaptist tradition and provides an interesting work focused on his main argument that God is nonviolent, as revealed through the Scriptures and narrative of Jesus. He engages the reader on this journey toward his ultimate goal, that is, the Christian church must employ an ethic of peace, nonviolence, and a countercultural model of living. Part I explores the narrative of Jesus in the Gospels, the books of Acts and Revelation, and then delves into a historical analysis of the atonement theories. He argues that these formulations are unsatisfying in their portrayal of a “violent God.” He suggests an alternative to the “narrative Christus Victor” theory; the cross is merely a symbol of the entire mission of Christ, that is, it represents the manner in which Jesus rejected a violent response to evil, and opened the way for hope and resurrection.
Weaver’s aim is to unpack the Scriptures and atonement motifs to support his conclusion that God’s revelation known through the Scriptures and narrative of Jesus is, without question, nonviolent. The problem with this analysis is that Weaver employs exegetical and theological “gymnastics” to shape the material to fit his thesis. Howard Yoder, who Weaver references liberally, “warns that by writing a systematic theology one is in danger of defending a system rather than Jesus” (7). Weaver does not appear to adopt Yoder’s warning. Presented as systematic theology it proves problematic. There are many inconsistencies, and theological somersaults in the author’s thesis. By holding tight to his argument that one must view God as nonviolent in order to support a nonviolent ethic, one must be willing to abandon the paradoxes and mystery found in the Scripture. No amount of creative interpretive “stretching” in the biblical narrative will fully explain the sometimes violent acts of God, particularly in the Old Testament. Even Weaver’s interpretation of Jesus in the temple involves a bit of interpretive gymnastics. It is not clear how he maintains that Jesus cracking a whip and overturning tables is not violent because he did not strike anyone. A more coherent argument for rooting a nonviolent ethic in the revelation of God may be to argue for the trajectory toward nonviolence in the Scriptures. Weaver hints at this, but abandons the possibility of paradox with his strong argument for a more knowable, and reasonable, nonviolent God.
Weaver’s theology as ethics does offer a warning that classic atonement theories can lead to an implicit support for victimization. If Jesus is viewed as a victim of political violence, one would have to agree that this model offers a message that is harmful. However, the cross as “divine child abuse” (66) loses credibility with an adoption of theologies of the cross that emphasize the willingness of Jesus to lay down his life, not as Exemplar, but as Savior. Theologies of the cross describe the manner in which God is at work in the world through suffering. Indeed, theologies of the cross that embrace the hidden revelation of God through suffering and the hope of resurrection can provide deep comfort to the victims of violence who are embraced by One who knows their pain and offers hope and freedom.
Weaver is more successful in providing a cohesive argument for a Christian ethic of nonviolence in Part II. Here he explores the role of forgiveness in “lived theology” and offers a compelling argument, rooted in the Jesus narrative, for an egalitarian, nonviolent, and equitable economic system supported by the Christian community. He provides detailed definitions of violence and the implications for this violence (193) and a hopeful description of the prophetic “peace church” (177–86). This section will appeal to those working in areas of justice building and is helpful for all church leaders, and those concerned with offering a countercultural way of living in our violent world.
This is a refreshing read for anyone concerned about the proliferation of gun violence, global capitalism, and its exploitation of the poor, gendercide, and rampant violence. It argues for a communal ethic of nonviolence and authentic countercultural peacemaking that is grounded in the love and grace of God. This is its strength. However, the journey for the reader through the historical studies of atonement motifs and descriptions of the God in the Scriptures (that only reinforce the fact that God cannot be defined, only imagined, through wrestling with the many descriptive biblical paradoxes) is not as clearly conceived as the author’s destination.
Elizabeth Gerhardt
Northeastern Seminary