A God of Peace or a god of violence?

In the late 11th century, Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote a book which specified the doctrine of satisfaction atonement. Most of us are familiar with this story. God looked down on sinful humanity and wished at the bottom of his heart to allow us to be with him . However, because god is just, he just could not allow it. Due to some ancient contract, which required the shedding of blood in order to free God to overlook and forgive sin, God could do nothing except banish all of humanity. In order to end the requirement that animals be sacrificed to appease this god’s need for blood, god sent his only son down as a perfect sacrifice that would provide “superabundant satisfaction” of the feudal contract once and for all. All a person had to do was to legitimize this act of cosmic child abuse and believe this story, and god would be permitted to allow that person into heaven.

So, wait a minute. WHAT???!!!! As a former minister, this story always bothered me on so many levels. First of all, this story of redemptive violence seemed to fly in the face of everything Jesus said and did. If Jesus wanted to identify and punish those who were his enemies, why didn’t he resurrect and then slaughter everyone who was responsible for killing him? Why wait so long to exact his vengeance? Secondly, how does this theology encourage me to approach God and seek the ways that God would want me to live? I remember as a boy, growing up in a fundamentalist church, hearing these stories of hellfire, and of this god who would sacrifice his own son, and thinking that this was the furthest thing from love I could imagine. We were all being motivated to do good, not in order to proclaim that God’s presence was here on earth already, not to be courageous in the face of fear, but because we were scared shitless. This god had an angry face, and would show no mercy unless certain preconditions were met. Thirdly, if God was omnipotent, the Creator of all things, then from whence came this restriction on God’s power? Why couldn’t God just say, “You know what? I’m the Creator. I want everyone to go to heaven. Let it be so.”

Coincidentally, Anselm was in need of volunteers for the second Crusade. This story rectified that problem very quickly, as volunteers were offered immediate entry to heaven if they were “martyred” in battle, and were promised god’s gratitude if they killed one of god’s enemies (in particular, Jews and Muslims). Blessings were offered if you murdered in the name of god, and if you were murdered in the effort to do so. At a time when theology was making people more and more scared of this deity, such an ironclad guarantee was hard to pass up.

In a world where theology is politics, the question of whether Anselm made a calculated decision to make up some bullshit story to gain recruits, or whether he truly believed in the justice of his wars and his theology is moot. God was angry, roaring with a need for vengeance, and people lined up to fill the streets with blood. The few religious authorities who protested against this use of theology to encourage murder in the name of peace were killed. This all has to sound very familiar. Again, theology is politics. If God desires us to kill our enemies, if peace can be obtained through violence, and connection through disconnection, then our politics can justify anything. Religious bigotry is no longer just an intellectual debate – it is a call to arms!

I myself am angry that I was exposed to this bloody story, and wish to proclaim myself free of its power to make me afraid of burning in hell forever if I do not believe. I also wish to help free our world from the destructive mimesis that this story teaches. Christians have committed much violence against “the enemies of Christ” , as a means for creating peace, supported in large part by this image of god walking in front of us, sword in hand, blessing our wars.

I love Jesus, and I seek to walk in his ways. In my opinion, one of the most important of those ways is to confront the powers that wish us to be paralyzed with fear, so that their dominion of violence and evil can continue unabated. Unfortunately, this story of satisfaction atonement is one method for achieving those ends. If we are to be peacemakers, and courageous enacters of God’s love and justice, then we MUST refuse this silly story, which has produced such a cult of redemptive violence in our world, that it is no longer silly. Unfortunately, the church has itself become infected by the powers and principalities against which true Christians must resist. Jesus’ death was not necessary, or required by God. It was the tragic response to an opportunity to embrace Jesus’ message of love and peace. The life of Jesus, not his death, should be our focus, and Jesus would rail against this theological aberration with all the anger and energy that he did the Pharisees and Sadducees of his day.

Satisfaction atonement theory justifies violence against our enemies and religious bigotry. As an alternative way to still be Christian, without accepting this unbiblical fairy tale, the death of Jesus can be viewed as a tragedy, rather than a necessary requirement of a wrathful God. Our mission as Christians is to carry out Jesus’ radical message of rejection of empire and inclusion of the poor, without regard to the fear and punishments with which empire may threaten us.

Poor people are often kept silent as a result of the message of atonement, which valorizes suffering, and suggests that people will be rewarded in heaven. A direct confrontation with the evils of atonement theory, which has perverted the message of Jesus for the furtherance of the status quo, is a necessary element in the continuing struggle for social justice.