Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
doi:10.1017/S0036930608002032
Article Review
Hans Boersma’s Violence, Hospitality,
and the Cross
Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating
the Atonement Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004),
pp. 288. $29.99.
J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2001), pp. xiv + 246. $22.00.
494
Hans Boersma’s Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross
495
scottish journal of theology
1
In fairness, I should note that Weaver concedes that given a fourth-century worldview,
‘the answers of Nicea and Chalcedon are valid answer, and perhaps the best answers
within the assumed categories’ (p. 96). He claims his protest concerns elevating the
creeds to the status of a universally recognisable and uncontestable foundation that
presumes to transcend all issues of time and historical context’ (ibid.). It is not clear
who would be so crazy as to make such a claim.
496
Hans Boersma’s Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross
For Weaver, Jesus is simply a victim of human violence, his fate determined
by contingent human actions that ought not to have been. While it is true that
human agency contributes in a decisive way to Jesus’s death – i.e. we killed
him – the New Testament also makes it quite clear that nothing in this story is
accidental. Thus Jesus asks the bewildered disciples on the road to Emmaus,
‘Was it not necessary (dei) that the Messiah should suffer these things and
enter into his glory?’ (Luke 24:25). The same Greek verb is used in Jesus’s
predictions of his passion: ‘And he began to teach them that the Son of man
must (dei) suffer many things’ (Mark 8:31). The necessity Jesus speaks of
here reflects neither an implacable fate nor God’s unwillingness to forgive
apart from a blood ransom. Rather, it is a necessity grounded in who God is.
God owes us nothing; in that sense the atonement did not ‘have to happen’. It
is an act of God’s ‘wondrous love’. But it is this love – the Father’s love for the
Son in the communion of the Spirit – that freely undergoes what medieval
writers called the ‘wonderful exchange’, experiencing death and judgement
so that we might have life. One can acknowledge this without committing
oneself to any particular theory of exchange, substitution or satisfaction.
That the cross is a sacrifice in some sense is simply written into the story
of a Saviour whose blood was ‘poured out for many for the forgiveness of
sins’ (Matt 26:28). Weaver’s missing of this point is ironic, given his rightful
insistence on grounding a theology of atonement in the actual text of the
New Testament.2
The theme of Christ’s triumph over the powers is an essential part of the
biblical witness. Recognising it helps us get our understanding of salvation
out of the private sphere into a historical, political, even cosmic setting. This
is an undoubted gain. By itself, though, a theology that focuses on the evil
we experience as victims rather than the evil of which we are the perpetrators
falls woefully short.3 We need not just to be liberated from sin but to be
reconciled to God.4 Failure to acknowledge this results in a sanitised and
rationalised understanding of atonement – akin to what Goethe somewhere
calls ‘putting roses on the cross’. The resulting picture may be edifying, even
morally uplifting; but it will not be true.
2
On the relation between atonement theories and narrative see Michael Root, ‘Dying He
Lives: Biblical Image, Biblical Narrative and the Redemptive Jesus’, Semeia 30 (1985),
pp. 155–169. This brief essay should be required reading for anyone hoping to do
constructive work in the theology of the atonement.
3
In contemporary preaching, no one makes this point more forcefully than the Rev.
Fleming Rutledge. See e.g. her sermon collection The Undoing of Death: Sermons for Holy
Week and Easter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
4
Root, ‘Dying He Lives’, p. 157.
497
scottish journal of theology
No one would ever accuse Hans Boersma of putting roses on the cross.
As the subtitle of his book – Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition – indicates,
Boersma proposes to move forward by looking back, integrating older
models of the work of Christ into a theology of divine ‘hospitality’.
Hospitality, indeed, is his Ur-metaphor for understanding atonement:
Hospitality, like love, refers to the very character of God to which believers
look forward through Christ’s work of redemption. . . The metaphor
of hospitality is, therefore, more foundational than any of the three
metaphors of traditional atonement theology. God’s hospitality is like
the soil in which the process of reconciliation is able to take root and
flourish. (p. 112)
While both scripture and the church fathers have a great deal to say
about hospitality, I am less sure the term is suited to playing the kind
of central role in the doctrine of reconciliation envisioned by Boersma.
Why not grace, love or koinonia? For that matter, why not the Pauline
term ‘reconciliation’ itself? That would at least have strong precedent in
the dogmatic tradition. The choice of ‘hospitality’ seems less motivated
by a strong theological rationale than by Boersma’s desire to enter into
dialogue with Derrida and Levinas, both of whom insist on an ethics of
radical hospitality – a moral ideal that, tragically, can never be realised.
Canvassing the views of the postmoderns has become practically an
obligatory exercise in contemporary theology. Boersma’s discussion of the
avatars of différence and ‘otherness’ in chapter 1 is engaging enough, though
I’m not sure how much it actually contributes to the argument. When
he turns his attention to theology the results are more interesting. In
chapter 2 he offers a wide-ranging critique of traditional Calvinism on
the subject of predestination and limited atonement (the ‘L’ in ‘TULIP’).
By treating election and rejection as a function of God’s secret will apart
from Christ, Reformed orthodoxy made God seem arbitrary and wilful –
‘violent’ in Boersma’s language. In chapter 3 he draws on Old Testament
sources for an alternative account of election, focusing on the idea of God’s
‘preferential hospitality’ towards the poor.
The heart of the book (chapters 4–8) consists in a review of the three
standard models of atonement. There is a good deal to praise here, including a
fine discussion of Renž Girard (correctly located in the exemplarist camp) and
a pointed critique of Denny Weaver, whose attempt to tie satisfaction theories
to the Constantinian ‘fall’ of the church Boersma effectively demolishes. As
Boersma points out, notions of sacrifice and exchange can be found in
the Church fathers long before Constantine. Thus the early second-century
498
Hans Boersma’s Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross
Epistle to Diognetus, which states that Christ died ‘a ransom for us, the
holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous
One for the unrighteousness, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the
immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of
covering our sins than His righteousness?’5 The idea of the cross as sacrifice
can even be found in Irenaeus, usually cited as the prototypical advocate of
the Christus victor view. Indeed, the bishop of Lyons is in many ways the real
hero of this book. Boersma shows how Irenaeus’s understanding of Christ as
a recapitulation of the human story incorporates elements of exemplarism,
sacrifice and victory over the powers. With Irenaeus’s help, Boersma pushes
the penal dimension of the cross away from the juridical and individualist
emphasis characteristic of Protestant orthodoxy, and in a direction Paul might
have recognised: Christ’s death as a representative act in which all humanity
dies and (eschatologically) is given new life.
All this is stimulating and useful. I only wonder why Boersma found
it necessary to retain Aulén’s rather creaky typology as the basis for his
discussion. If Aulén’s historical account fails – and Boersma deftly shows
why this is the case – isn’t it time to relegate his categories to the dustbin of
theological history? In this one respect I found Weaver’s book superior: he at
least tries to draw the New Testament evidence together in a consistent vision
of what ‘atonement’ means. The narrative remains primary. By contrast,
Boersma’s account suffers from a certain eclecticism. The reader is left
wondering whether a theology of reconciliation doesn’t finally come down
to a choice among duelling metaphors.
So far I have focused on the ‘hospitality’ of Boersma’s title, his account of
atonement. But this is not just a book about hospitality; it is a book about
violence. Indeed, Boersma argues that the two go hand in hand. God is radical
hospitality, and wills to show hospitality to the world in Jesus Christ. But
in order to do this God cannot help but forge certain compromises with a
fallen and violent world. The cross is a violent act – not just on the human
side, but apparently on God’s side as well:
5
Epistle of Diognetus, IX, Ante-Nicene Fathers, I, 28; cited in Boersma, p. 159.
499
scottish journal of theology
500
Hans Boersma’s Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross
501
scottish journal of theology
Joseph Mangina
University of Toronto
502