The God of the bible is a god of violence. Scripture seems full of an implicit recognition and acceptance of God’s violence. Old Testament readings are saturated in violence: both God’s (e.g… Genesis 7:23 Flood, Genesis 12:29 death of Egyptian first born, 2 Kings 19:35 death of 185,000 Assyrians), and that of men, but condoned by God (e.g. 1 Samuel 15:33 murder of Agag before the Lord, Joshua 7:25 stoning of Achan). Sin’s demise, according to common readings of Revelation, comes when God casts sinners (surely an act of violence) into the Lake of Fire. (Rev 20:10) (1)
In the center of this story of God’s history with His creatures stands the greatest story of violence in the Christian saga; the cross. Christ, the very Son of God, dying a violent, but salvific, death. Violence seems an integral part of God’s universe. (2)
So pervasive and ingrained is the assumption of the rightness and necessity of divine violence that it is explicitly demanded of God. But is violence really in the natural order of God’s universe? Does God really have no better answer to violence than a greater violence of His own?
The assumption that violence is part of the natural order of things is ancient indeed. Walter Wink (Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination) calls these assumptions the myth of redemptive violence. He traces this myth back in time and sees it on prominent display in the Babylonian creation story (the Enuma Elish) from around 1250 B.C.E. Here, the violence between the gods results in creation of cosmos and humans. (3)
We moderns imagine ourselves beyond such primitive storytelling; much too sophisticated to accept such fantastic images of reality. And yet it is startling to discover ways in which we have accepted and lived by the realities of our ancient brothers; how deeply ingrained are it’s premises. That life emerged from violence is assumed in our times dominant creation myth; evolution. Evil (chaos, disorder, death) precedes and creates life. Respected theology comfortably operates from within the premises of redemptive violence. (4)
With violence in our very genes – an extension of the gods themselves – cosmic order is achieved through the justified violence of our systems of domination and oppression. These domination systems are ubiquitous; men over women; master over slaves; rich over poor; strong over weak; racism. Hierarchy and status confer our value. So thoroughly is the assumption of redemptive violence interwoven into our perceptions of reality, that few find the need, or ability, to question it. Most, in fact, don’t even recognize it. Just War theory relies on some form of redemptive violence. Implicit in our willingness to live under such a system of violence is acceptance of a “might-makes-right” dynamic; the one capable of the greatest power, and hence, the greatest violence, is the one who deserves our respect; our allegiance; our worship.
Two ideas usually form the first line of defense in justifying God’s apparent violence; first, God can do anything He wants – He’s God. Second, we deserve death, so anything less than that constitutes grace on God’s part. But these are inadequate responses and largely unsatisfactory it seems to me. Rather, it should be asked what kind of God would use violence at all, and why; it should be asked if violence actually accomplishes what God seeks: does it, in fact, run counter to His principles of government? Is God the kind of being who establishes order with the use of violence in the first place? To simply say God can be violent if He choses, merely means the question becomes; does God chose violence, and why? As for we humans deserving death, this assumes a certain valuelessness in humans which causes one to wonder why God bothers with us at all. Further, the assumption that sin deserves punishment itself rests on the premise of redemptive/retributive violence – the very thing under scrutiny. This all presents an awkward clash with the Father image God has chosen for Himself, as well as profound dissonance with the notion of God portrayed by Christ in Mt 7:9. (5)
Intuition might suggest, as might observations of history, that violence may bring apparent peace, but it does not bring love. Rather, the lesson of history is that men who live under threat of violence rebel. To be sure, history also provides abundant evidence that order can indeed be produced with violence – or it’s implied threat. Thus the temptations to associate our personal security with violence and force are nearly overwhelming. Tacit acceptance of violence, as a means of keeping peace and order, appears the only viable option. Practically speaking, the prudent man will align himself with the most powerful; thus ensuring his own security. Power – specifically the power to extend greater violence – thus becomes seen as necessary in the pursuit of good; in this case the good being security. Violence becomes strangely comforting. Infliction of pain is seen to serve good. Fear can then be seen to play an important – even positive – role as fear of violence serves security. The logic of such a system appears impeccable; it seems almost unthinkable that reality might not actually work like this.
A nagging quandary persists however: is the apparent indispensability of violence, in the service of good, really the way of God’s rule? or does mans inability to imagine any other system forever doom God to approach us in terms of our own reality and perceptions? One is also left to wonder at the role and meaning of love. Violence in the service of love is intuitively and experientially problematic. Surely God has not allowed the drama of history to unfold merely to select out those willing to live under implicit threat of violence – and call it love. (6)
An ethic which is unable to imagine a God who has neither need nor use for violence will instead conceive all manner of excuses for God’s violence. But could it be that we are so suffused in the myth of redemptive violence – have grown to feel so safe in her arms --that we assume even God must operate this way? Is it possible that the record of scripture should, in fact, be seen as a record of God’s attempts to convince a skeptical world of the ultimate folly and futility of this myth? Was the mission of Christ to come and shatter the myth of redemptive violence? To reveal that life and true security emerge from non violence?
More sobering – and challenging – is the possibility that the doctrine of Universal Restoration is uniquely positioned to formulate a coherent and compelling rebuttal to this dominant myth which is embedded so deeply in our society and traditional Christianity.
TotalVictory
Bobx3
PS – Jason: I have no idea which part of this huge topic you want to tackle, but I’m all ears!!!
(1) Raymond Schwager in “Must There Be Scapegoats? p. 67, 75 notes that there are six hundred passages of explicit violence in the Hebrew Bible, one thousand verses where God’s own violent actions of punishment are described, a hundred passages where God kills or tries to kill for no apparent reason (eg Ex 4: 24-26). Violence, he concludes, is easily the most often mentioned activity and central theme of the Hebrew Bible.
(2) That suffering – divine suffering – is required to bring reconciliation with God, is the premise of much Christian thought; recently dramatized in the movie “The Passion of the Christ.” Violence and suffering, being salvific, is therefore glorified. The greater the violence and suffering, the more sure the salvation.)
(3) Wink continues: “As Marduk’s representative on earth, the king’s task is to subdue all those enemies who threaten the tranquillity that he has established on behalf of the god. The whole cosmos is a state, and the god rules through the king. Politics arises within the divine sphere itself. Salvation is politics: the masses identify with the god of order against the god of chaos, and offer themselves up for the Holy War that imposes order and rule on the peoples round about. And because chaos threatens repeatedly, in the form of barbarian attacks and domestic unrest, an ever-expanding imperial policy is the automatic consequence of Marduk’s ascendancy over the gods.
In short, the Myth of Redemptive Violence is the story of the victory of order over chaos by means of violence. It is the ideology of conquest, the original religion of the status quo. The gods favor those who conquer. Conversely, whoever conquers must have the favor of the gods. The common people exist to perpetuate the advantage that the gods have conferred upon the king, the aristocracy, and the priesthood. Religion exists to legitimate power and privilege. Life is combat. Any form of order is preferable to chaos, according to this myth. Ours is neither a perfect nor a perfectible world; it is a theater of perpetual conflict in which the prize goes to the strong. Peace through war; security through strength: these are the core convictions that arise from this ancient historical religion, and they form the solid bedrock on which the Domination System is founded in every society.”)
(4) Just two recent examples: Christianity Today’s 2005 book award for theology/ethics (June; 2005) went to “Violence, Hospitality, And the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition” Hans Boersma (Baker Academic) Of the book, Christianity Today enthuses: “One of those rare evangelical tomes that engages critically and creatively with a major doctrine under attack - the Atonement. Boersma has written a spirited defense of divine violence as a means toward an eschatological state of pure hospitality.” Of the widely praised 1996 book by Miroslav Volf, “Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation” J Denny Weaver notes (The Non Violent Atonement p 206) “Volf embraces divine violence as the basis of justice.”)
(5) “What man among you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?” The idea that man is capable of better moral behavior than God is challenged here. If, however, one is unable to recognize that “moral violence” is an oxymoron, then of course a more moral God would indeed be more capable of greater violence.
(6) From my own tradition, A Graham Maxwell has perhaps stated the problem in it’s bluntest form when he asks “does God really say love me or I’ll have to kill you?” (he is an annihilationist) Servants or Friends: Another look at God. p. 19
It’s a super-complex topic which can be (and deserves to be) approached from numerous angles.
(Edited to add: there are various ways to synch this with Bob’s most recent post, but I haven’t tried to do so yet.)
)
)
; much of it went right over my head. 
If that was your intent, or if that disqualifies me from further discussing this topic here, best let me know now. 
To clarify, me – Anesthesiologist; you - Theologian. And you’ll have to trust me on this but I do anesthesia much better than I “do” theology!! 
(Which begs the question: was the bible written for theologians? or for regular folks? – just curious)
to find that conviction here on such a prominent UR site. The fault is all mine of course; I have not let you be who you are and have assumed incorrect things about your theology. My bad; I’ll cope. 
From what I’m hearing, it sounds to me that the question itself is incoherent for you since for you violence by God is not only His but it is necessary! So of course the MRV cannot trump UR because UR NEEDS God’s violence to become a reality! For you UR and the MRV are not in tension at all – with Violence being Necessary for UR.
But I think I could expect a tomb, and a rising from the tomb; for much the same reason that I would expect a Virgin Birth. (The thematic meaning is much the same.