A Non-Violent Reading of Anselm’s Atonement Theology

“Anselm understood Jesus’ death as the debt payment that satisfied the honor of God, and thus restored balance and order in the universe….  Maintaining order in the universe depends on maintaining the honor of God, which necessitates a debt payment – the death of Jesus – to cover the offense to God’s honor that was enacted by human sin…  Although Anselm’s understanding of satisfaction atonement differs significantly from penal substitutionary atonement, I have treated them together as two versions of atonement that depict a divine need for Jesus’ death and that thus direct the death of Jesus Godward.  Although in different ways, each depends on retribution.  The conclusion is inescapable that any and all versions of satisfaction atonement, regardless of their packaging, assume the violence of retribution or justice based on punishment, and depend on God-induced and God-directed violence.”¹J. Denny Weaver, “Narrative Christus Victor: The Answer to Anselmian Atonement Violence”, Atonement and Violence: A Theological Conversation, ed. John Sanders, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006), 8-9.  Author’s emphasis.

The above passage indicates how Anselm is predominantly interpreted in atonement debates.  It is also widely acknowledged that the language of Anselm’s so-called “satisfaction theory of atonement” influenced later theologians to eventually articulate penal substitutionary atonement, which explains why some argue that Anselm’s atonement theology is directly related to penal substitution.²Note the language of Weaver in the above passage: “…I have treated them [Anselm’s satisfaction atonement and penal substitutionary atonement] together as two versions of atonement that depict a divine need for Jesus’ death…”.  Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press, 1985), 24-26. Many assert that Anselm incorporated the language of the feudal system of his day, which led to a distorted idea of atonement: God is a feudal lord whose honor is offended and demands satisfaction through the form of violent punishment. Furthermore, the only one who can fully satisfy the infinitely offended God is the infinite God in human form, Jesus Christ.³J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, 2nd Ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2011), 236-237.