Loving the Abusive God?

Abstract

Loving the Abusive God? Martyn John Smith If it is true that all theology is autobiography, then my academic endeavors are something of a cliché. In May 2015, my doctorate, Divine Violence and the Christus Victor Atonement Model, was conferred upon me; thirty years previously, I inhabited a prison cell, serving eighteen months for an unprovoked, violent, bloody crime. I find it ironic that the following article, one of my favorite elements of the thesis, was rejected by examiners as “too controversial” and “inappropriate.” I contend, however, that its observations are essential and should be at the heart of theological enquiry into God's nature. All you need is love? A central thrust to my research was the possibility of divine violence and especially in regard to its soteriological manifestation. My studies led me to realize how controversial this was and how uncomfortable many feel when an undesirable attribute is even associated with God. Human violence is, of course, almost invariably considered in negative terms, and this has long inhibited constructive and objective consideration when linking it with God. Conversely, however, I spent little time considering love as a divine attribute because its acceptance is an almost universal given in terms of understanding God's nature. An issue not usually addressed but of equal universality, on the other hand, is the assertion that the human trait of love has, like violence, been consistently abrogated and tainted throughout history, and yet, its ascription as a divine predicate rarely evokes similar concern. This conceptual parallel between the seemingly negative ascriptions of violence and love as potential divine attributes counsels against seeking to merely project human traits upon God. With such a view comes the simplistic corollary that good human stuff is perceived as good for God while dangerous human stuff is automatically denied divine ascription. Acknowledgment of this elementary error opens the way to at least a possible predication of violence to God; a violence which might prove to be intrinsic to His ontology or at least a primary function used to achieve His purposes, especially soteriologically. Further, while acknowledging that divine violence is undoubtedly both a divisive and controversial theological issue, it is nonetheless incumbent upon theologians to follow the evidence where it leads and to openly consider, in this instance, whether God might not be merely violent but, in fact, abusive. Passive violence God's love and His potential abusiveness should not therefore be presented as core and counter testimony, but instead understood as two aspects of the same relational dynamic. This model expresses God's nature as a living, organic whole rather than as a set of static propositions, subject to angular demarcation. The so‐called abusive aspect presents one part of God's being when He chooses to reveal and express Himself as the dominant, controlling partner, using threats to impose His will when required and sometimes in an arbitrarily violent manner. Further to this, Young sets up an interpretative model of the Old Testament in which God is presented as “husband” to Israel's “wife.” He proposes that God responds to Israel in varying degrees of unremitting love and justified violence, the frequently cuckolded husband exerting violent retribution against His wayward wife while continuing to express unqualified love and devotion to her. The resulting punishment is seen as a means of bringing her back into line and making her return to previous honorable, loyal ways. Conversely, even when the God of the Jews is acting in a seemingly loving way toward Israel, Young contends that this is only because they are doing what He wants them to do. The backdrop to this supposed scene of love and harmony, therefore, is God's ineradicable and absolute control and ownership of His “wife” Israel. Thereby, Young concludes that, …God is a being who is violent above all other characteristics, and his violence often extends beyond Israel to include other nations as well. He treats Israel as an extension of himself from whom he expects and demands absolute faithfulness, worship and obedience, and he appears only to care for her to the extent that she meets his needs, attempting to coerce her into compliance with threats, and quickly turning nasty...