As I am progressing through Heim’s Saved From Sacrifice, I realise that sometimes initial impressions are mistaken. Heim, apparently, does not intend the association of Jesus’ sacrifice with human scapegoating practices to reveal the meaning of atonement, but, as he puts it, “We are focusing on how the cross (which is a part of Christ’s work) bears on our practice of sacrificial scapegoating (which is part of our broken human condition).” (9) So what we do in scapegoating is not the whole story of the human predicament. In fact, Heim isolates three components of this predicament: sin (estrangement from God), evil (estrangement from fellow human beings) and death (from nature). So I have to revise my initial impression and and commend Heim on taking a more modest option.
He must also be commended on other counts: although it is quite obvious that he has a problem with penal substitution, he does admit that “Raw material for this interpretation is already present in the New Testament and doctrinal formulation of it begins in early Christianity.” (5). That’s a welcome change of note from the usual rubbish about the doctrine starting with Calvin or Anselm, not to mention it’s total absence from the Scriptural witness. Sacrificial (if not necessarily penal) language is there in the NT. Thus, “What is needed is an interpretive path through the problematic texts and not around them, a theological vision that does not depend on excluding all atonement themes but provides the most convincing account of their true significance.” What this means is that Heim’s project will have to stand under th judgment of exegetical adequacy.
Of course, if it were only exegetical adequacy that Heim would be concerned with, perhaps this book would not have been written. Having already noticed that the doctrine of atonement is regarded by some as “a dark brew of self-abnegation, violence and abuse”, a “masochistic idealization of suffering”, he goes on to list the various indictments brought against the doctrine. I will simply list them (he doesn’t accept all of them):
1. It’s language of sacrifice is empty, literally unintelligible.
2. It links Christian salvation with the demonization of Jews
3. It is ignorant parochialism (in not paying attention to comparative religion) and betrays spiritual immaturity
4. It is impugning the moral character of God
5. It has toxic psychological and social effects
Having listed these, much to his credit, Heim does go on to stress that “countless lives have been liberated and transformed by that [same] message.” 29. The cross seems to lead, on the one hand, to one set of experiences which contribute to the so-called crisis of atonement theory. On the other hand, it seems to have a liberating power that cannot be denied. Hence the dilemma, and I should quote Heim at length:
If nothing else, the atonement is a puzzle. The existing views seem to require a very large ad hoc component. That is, atonement theology is a profoundly destructive ideology that becomes for many the vehicle of life-changing grace and healt. Or it is a precious revealed truth that frequently and inexplicably sows violence and dysfunction in its wake. (33)
What is Heim’s solution? I don’t know yet, but they key move is to retain sacrificial imagery and argue that Jesus’ death exposes the scapegoating mentality which is at the root of so much human evil. More later…
For a PEACE-making conference project, a request for a definition of prompted:
“Nonviolent Atonement” is exegesis on a theory of humankind’s reconciliation with God based, not on Jesus’ death alone, but on His life as one’s interpretive lens, revealing the nature of God.
________
Thoughts?
I don’t think exegetical adequacy is the best criteria to judge Heim’s work, since it seems reasonable from Heim’s view that things could be there that the original authors didn’t intend or realize. He finds the divinity of the text somewhere other than the complete coherence and consistency of the authors. For example he finds development in Paul’s theology from a belief that we should seek to suffer martyrdom as Christ did if we want to join his resurrection in Philippians to a theology of “living sacrifice” in Romans. Also at points in the Old Testament he finds a theological debate going on between conceptions of God, so I think he *might* reject some of the claims for divine authorization for genocide and things like that as sinful human appropriation of God for evil purposes. Although there seems to be a sense that God allows himself to be appropriated in such a way, getting his hands dirty, so to speak.
So my point is, since Heim takes the humanity of the text so seriously, I think at points he is doing “meta-exegesis” of the overarching narrative over and against exegesis of the individual biblical authors. As such, I think what we have to do is consider whether what he’s arguing is *there* in the text, whether or not it is what the authors meant.
The point about exegetical adequacy is not one about authorial discourse interpretation. It can be, but it need not. Here is the quote from Heim again: “What is needed is an interpretive path through the problematic texts and not around them, a theological vision that does not depend on excluding all atonement themes but provides the most convincing account of their true significance.” I intend ‘exegetical’ to be the equivalent of his ‘through the problematic texts’. I agree with you that Heim does not narrow his ‘exegetical’ options to authorial discourse, but the point is that his theory must still make textual sense - one way or another. That, at least, seems to be the implication in that quote.
Ok, I’ll buy that. The word “exegesis” is what through me off. But I agree that Heim’s work depends on whether his readings of the texts are sound, this being broader of course than whether his point coincides with the biblical authors’.
Hello,
Just letting you know I found this helpful. I will be reading the book soon so thank you for the heads up.
The passage you quoted is why I am interested in this book. An exegesis which can be the string which weaves through the texts to help us see the tapestry a bit more clearly is at least worth considering seriously. His view, and that of those who have influenced him, seems to be what may bring the dichotomy within Christianity into unity…maybe.