Violence and the cross

Eloi, Eloi, lama Sabachthani?
(Ann Kim, 1998)

A version of this post was previously published on the ABPnews Blog.

Challenging the notion that some violent responses to violence are justified often seems to cause people to respond with greater vehemence than if their most deeply-cherished convictions about the nature of God had been questioned.

I suspect there are two reasons for that. First, if such people were to be convinced that the taking of human life by the state or its citizens is inherently unjust, they would lose the meaning of the national narrative that forms their identity as Americans. That may be too much for many American Christians to bear, but if so, it’s symptomatic of nothing short of idolatry.

A second reason became evident to me after I shared to my Facebook profile a link to Fisher Humphreys’ ABPnews Blog post “Should We Abolish the Death Penalty?” One comment in response objected, “It seems like the cross shows that God believes in the death penalty.”

While I disagree, I think the author of that comment was on to something.

Some common ways of understanding how the cross of Christ reconciles us to God portray God as one who engages in redemptive violence. Human virtue reflects the divine character, so if the cross reveals the justice of a violently redemptive God, it stands to reason that people are justified when they fight violence with violence.

The cross is undeniably violent. But who is responsible for the violence of the cross event?

People, of course, crucified Jesus. But there is a trajectory of Christian atonement theory—theological reflection on how it is that the cross of Christ makes God and humanity “at one”—that identifies God as the one that ultimately visits violence upon Jesus in the crucifixion through the instrumentality of those who crucified Jesus.

According to this perspective, God subjects Jesus to the penalty of death due humans as the punishment for their sin, a penalty we cannot sufficiently pay because of our sinfulness. The result is that the relationship between God and humanity is objectively changed from alienation to reconciliation.

That trajectory runs from certain medieval perspectives on why the cross was necessary for our salvation through John Calvin’s influential synthesis of the theological insights of the Reformation to widespread forms of contemporary evangelicalism.

In my judgment—and that of a great many other recent and contemporary theologians—that theology of the cross must be re-thought because of what it communicates about who God is in relation to us and who we ought to be in relation to others.

The root of my disagreement with that popular approach to atonement theory is a differing location of the ultimate source of the violence of the cross. If it is God, then the cross reveals God as violent and the endorser of violence. If it is humanity—as I think is the case—then the cross exposes humanity’s violence as sinful. It also reveals God’s solidarity with those who suffer violence and Jesus’ nonviolent way as that which triumphs over violence.

In the latter view there is still objectivity to what the cross of Christ changes about the relationship of God and humanity, but it is not the satisfaction of God’s wrath or the payment of a penalty required by God’s justice. Rather, it is the divinely-provided end of the universal human impulse to do something sacrificial to please the divine. While disclosed definitively by the cross, Abraham had glimpsed this truth about the relationship of God and humanity. His journey with Isaac to Mount Moriah reflects this universal human impulse to do something sacrificial to please the divine (perhaps with the practice of child sacrifice in the background?), but he learns there that God provides what is necessary for right relations with God.

The cross no more shows that God believes in the death penalty or other forms of “redemptive violence” than Jesus’ scourging suggests that God believes in torture. That’s my conviction, but others’ mileage may vary.

A version of this post was previously published on the ABPnews Blog.

Christians, guns, and the myth of redemptive violence

Let Us Beat Swords into
Plowshares, sculpture by
Evgeniy Vuchetich
(U.N. Art Collection)

This post was previously published on the ABPnews Blog and adapted as an Associated Baptist Press commentary.

“How many more daughters, sons, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles, cousins, husbands, wives, friends—people created by and in the very image of God—have to die a horrific death before Americans will learn to lay down their guns?”

That was the Facebook status update my wife Kheresa posted following the Aug. 5 shooting at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis. Her question succeeded in setting off a spirited week-long comment thread debate among Facebook friends from various dimensions of her life over the merits of gun control legislation.

The comments—some quite deeply reflected—spanned the spectrum of perspectives in the contemporary American debate over gun control and matched its heat (no pun intended). As a theologian who thinks that a lively debate within a contested tradition can be a sign of its health—and who thinks this is ultimately a theological issue—I jumped in. The following paragraphs are adapted from some of my comments.

Even if gun control legislation were ill-conceived or ineffective, as some argue, that shouldn’t mean we ought to reject gun control legislation; we ought to keep working to make it better-conceived and more effective. True, the assault weapons ban left legal a good number of similar-functioning weapons, but it did ban some, and some is better than none.

The bigger issue is the myth of redemptive violence that undergirds America’s love affair with guns.

Whether anyone else does or not, Christians should forsake that myth for the biblical story of the way of the suffering lamb. For me, one aspect of seeking to live that story rather than the myth of redemptive violence is choosing not to exercise my constitutional right to own a gun, while recognizing that many other Christians—among them some of my closest friends—have well-considered reasons for making other choices.

It could be argued that by choosing not to arm myself, I am leaving my family vulnerable to harm. I’m actually more worried about how our young son might be harmed by a weapon in our home, no matter how carefully stored, and about how he might be harmed in the homes of friends whose parents have decided to have guns, even when they have taken every precaution.

Even if our son were not physically harmed by a weapon kept in our home, my own conviction is that simply owning a weapon and keeping it in our home would do spiritual harm to him by reinforcing the myth of redemptive violence. The world is going to try its hardest to teach him the latter story; I’m going to try my best to teach him another one.

Again, I recognize that others have good reasons for making other decisions about this, and I do not intend this post as a criticism of them. I also recognize that mine is a privileged perspective: if I had no choice but to live in a neighborhood in which violent crime is routine, I might think differently.

I don’t have fully satisfying answers to all the questions and thoughtful counter-arguments posed to me by other Christians who differ with me on this issue. I’m more and more convinced, though, that all justifications or allowances for violence are ultimately capitulations to the myth of redemptive violence as the reigning narrative of the world. We keep trying different variations on fighting violence with violence, which in the grand scheme of things only perpetuates violence.

Over the past few years I’ve come to the conviction that as a theologian I’m not contributing anything of value to the church or the world by offering theological rationales for the use of violence. I do think I’m offering the distinctively Christian thing I have to offer the church and world if I provide theological rationales for nonviolent responses to violence.

Some Christians—and some non-Christian critics of the faith—object that the Bible doesn’t consistently advocate a non-violent ethic. One can always point to this or that biblical text as a divinely-sanctioned allowance for violence. But the larger trajectory of the biblical story trends toward pacifism, which was in fact the mainstream perspective of the church after the New Testament era in the second, third, and early fourth centuries.

That is why the early Christian apologists kept having to explain why Christians seemed to be freeloaders in relation to the Roman Empire, enjoying the benefits of the Pax Romana but refusing to fight for it themselves. As the apologists explained, this refusal was not only because of the military’s demand of an idolatrous allegiance to the emperor but especially because killing in war is a violation of the law of Christ. It was because the preceding tradition was so overwhelmingly pacifist that Augustine had to advance a justification for violence—a “just war theory”—in the early fifth century.

“Realistic” rationales for the “just” use of violence make good sense in a violent world. The contrasting way of the suffering lamb doesn’t make much sense according to the wisdom of the present age. Indeed, it’s foolish by those standards.

Thus I’m not optimistic about winning this debate in the public square. But I am optimistic about the ultimate triumph of the suffering lamb and those who follow in his way. In fact, I’m convinced that we can count on it.

This post was previously published on the ABPnews Blog and adapted as an Associated Baptist Press commentary.

Sacramental Living

At the beginning of this week I had the opportunity to preach the homily as pulpit guest at The Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in Shelby, North Carolina. The text of my homily "Sacramental Living" for Pentecost 12B 2012 (Proverbs 9:1-6, Ephesians 5:15-20, John 6:51-58) is posted on the Rector's sermon blog (click on hyperlinked title). (My wife Kheresa Harmon preached the homily there as pulpit guest as well earlier this summer; her homily "A Tree Grows in Lower Manhattan" for Pentecost 3B 2012 [Ezekiel 17:22-24; 2 Corinthians 5:6-17; Mark 4:26-34) is also posted on the Rector's blog.)

Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae reviews Ecumenism Means You, Too

A recent issue of Studia Historicae Ecclesiasticae, the journal of the Church History Society of Southern Africa, includes a review of my book Ecumenism Means You, Too: Ordinary Christians and the Quest for Christian Unity (Eugene, Ore.: Cascade Books, 2010) by Professor Christina Landman, Director of the Research Institute for Theology and Religion at the University of South Africa in Pretoria, South Africa. The review, which appears in vol. 37, no. 1 (2011), p. 289, is a challenging reminder that a number of ecumenical issues look very different when viewed through the lenses of a social location in which ecclesial divisions are not merely matters of differing intellectual accounts of Christian faith or ecclesiological preferences. The recovery of the distinctiveness of denominational traditions as a means toward deeper convergences toward visible unity can suggest one thing in a North American or European context; it can mean something altogether different for a context in which the conservation of denominational distinctiveness was historically linked with the conservation of distinct racial identities that are purported to be "equal but different." Here's an excerpt from the midst of the review:

....Sometimes the word [ecumenism] simply refers to a modern tendency among Americans to casually exchange churches. In South Africa, this may be a habit among a few white people, but the majority of black people are committed to their churches through the wearing of uniforms. The author of the book is not himself at ease with this expression of "ecumenism" as "church hopping," and suggests that this be counteracted by believers being loyal to their denominations....[he] makes use of the concept of ecumenism to appeal to Christians to "unite," although this "oneness" does not imply sameness. Again, for South Africans this will smack of apartheid and its slogan: "Equal but different"....

I'm grateful for Professor Landman's review and its insistence that a thick ecumenical encounter deeply rooted in particular traditions must not become an excuse for a renewed denominationalism, especially in light of the modern ecumenical movement's insufficient attention to divisions of race and class as the more problematic and enduring divisions of the church.

Interested in Ecumenism Means You, Too? Order the book directly from the publisher or via Amazon.

"Violence and the cross" (ABPnews Blog post)

My post "Violence and the cross" appears today on the ABPnews Blog. I'll post the full text here in a few days; in the meantime, here's a snippet from the midst of the post:


....Some common ways of understanding how the cross of Christ reconciles us to God portray God as one who engages in redemptive violence. Human virtue reflects the divine character, so if the cross reveals the justice of a violently redemptive God, it stands to reason that people are justified when they fight violence with violence.

The cross is undeniably violent. But who is responsible for the violence of the cross event?...

(Read the full post on the ABPnews Blog)

ABPnews Blog post on "Christians, guns, and the myth of redemptive violence"

The ABPnews Blog has published my post "Christians, guns, and the myth of redemptive violence" from which my ABP News commentary "The myth of redemptive violence" that appeared earlier was adapted. Click on the hyperlinked titles for the post and adapted commentary; the full text of the ABPnews Blog post will appear here on Ecclesial Theology in a few days. In the meantime, here's an excerpt from the beginning of the post:


“How many more daughters, sons, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles, cousins, husbands, wives, friends—people created by and in the very image of God—have to die a horrific death before Americans will learn to lay down their guns?”

That was the Facebook status update my wife Kheresa posted following the Aug. 5 shooting at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis. Her question succeeded in setting off a spirited week-long comment thread debate among Facebook friends from various dimensions of her life over the merits of gun control legislation.

The comments—some quite deeply reflected—spanned the spectrum of perspectives in the contemporary American debate over gun control and matched its heat (no pun intended). As a theologian who thinks that a lively debate within a contested tradition can be a sign of its health—and who thinks this is ultimately a theological issue—I jumped in. The following paragraphs are adapted from some of my comments....

(Read the rest of the post on the ABPnews Blog)

"The myth of redemptive violence"

The Associated Baptist Press has published my guest commentary "The myth of redemptive violence," adapted from a forthcoming post for the ABPnews Blog. The tag line and lead paragraph appear below; click on hyperlink for the full commentary at ABP News.

The myth of redemptive violence

America’s love affair with guns stems from a deeper assumption that it is possible to fight violence with violence.

By Steve Harmon

The Aug. 5 shooting at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., has set off spirited debate over the merits of gun-control legislation. As a theologian who thinks that a lively debate within a contested tradition can be a sign of its health -- and who thinks this is ultimately a theological issue -- I will jump in.... (Read the full commentary at ABP News)

Update on Baptist-Pentecostal dialogue

The Baptist World Alliance has issued the following press release regarding the postponement of the first meeting of the upcoming dialogue between representatives of the BWA and the Pentecostal World Fellowship:


Baptist-Pentecostal Dialogue

Washington, DC (BWA)-- The following is a release on the Baptist-Pentecostal dialogue from BWA General Secretary Neville Callam and Cecil Robeck, Jr., of the Pentecostals:

Following discussions between Dr. Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., and Rev. Neville Callam at the meeting of the Committee of Secretaries of Christian World Communions in Geneva in 2010, a proposal was developed for an international theological dialogue between scholars from the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions. This proposal received the blessings of the Pentecostal World Fellowship and the Baptist World Alliance.

At a preparatory meeting that took place at Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, in Birmingham, Alabama, USA, in 2011, the parameters for the dialogue were agreed and the first meeting of the International Commission was scheduled to take place in Quito, Ecuador, August 4-11, 2012.

Recently, representatives of the Baptist World Alliance and the Pentecostals announced their joint decision to postpone the commencement of their international dialogue owing to an unexpected change in personnel at the venue for the meetings and also the unavailability of some participants who were scheduled to be in attendance.

The partners to the dialogue are negotiating the re-scheduling of the commencement date for this important dialogue that is planned to extend over a three-year period.

Rev. Neville Callam
Dr. Cecil M. Robeck, Jr.

10 Things You Can Do for the Unity of the Church--Flagler Beach, FL edition

With my permission, the web sites of the Christian Unity Ministry of Santa Maria Del Mar Catholic Church in Flagler Beach, Florida and Flagler Churches Together in Prayer and Song have posted a synopsis of "Leaves You if You Don't Care for It: Ten Things You Can Do for the Unity of the Church," chapter 4 in my book Ecumenism Means You, Too: Ordinary Christians and the Quest for Christian Unity (click on hyperllinks for the synopses as they appear on the respective web sites). Many thanks to Dr. Chau T. Phan, a retired professor of political science, member of Santa Maria Del Mar Catholic Church, and lay advocate for the unity of the church, for calling attention to the book in this way. Readers of Ecclesial Theology will find Dr. Phan's account of his calling to this lay ecumenical vocation interesting and inspiring. I also encourage having a look around the web site of the Christian Unity Ministry coordinated by Dr. Phan at Santa Maria Del Mar Catholic Church--the most active local church effort at grassroots ecumenical engagement I've come across to date.

Interested in reading Ecumenism Means You, Too? Order the book directly from the publisher or from Amazon.com.