Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross
Hans Boersma's theological investigation emerges from contemporary Christianity's struggle with the apparent violence embedded in traditional atonement theology. Writing amid postmodern critiques that view penal substitution and satisfaction theories as legitimizing divine violence and human oppression, Boersma seeks to rehabilitate classical atonement doctrine while taking seriously the concerns of feminist, liberation, and other contextual theologians who have challenged these frameworks.
Boersma argues that the tension between divine violence and divine love dissolves when properly understood through the lens of divine hospitality. He contends that God's justice and mercy are not competing attributes but unified expressions of divine hospitality that seeks to welcome humanity back into fellowship. The cross represents not arbitrary divine violence but the costly hospitality of God, who absorbs the consequences of human rejection rather than abandoning the divine invitation to relationship. Boersma traces this theme through patristic sources, medieval scholasticism, and Reformed theology, demonstrating that the tradition's best insights point toward this hospitable understanding of atonement. He particularly engages with René Girard's mimetic theory and John Milbank's radical orthodoxy to show how violence can be overcome through divine self-sacrifice that breaks cycles of retaliation and exclusion.
This work has provided a constructive path forward for theologians seeking to maintain orthodox atonement doctrine while addressing legitimate concerns about divine violence. Boersma's hospitality framework has influenced subsequent discussions in systematic theology and ethics, offering resources for churches navigating questions about violence, justice, and reconciliation in contemporary contexts.
Who should read this: Systematic theologians, seminary students, and pastors wrestling with critiques of traditional atonement theology will find Boersma's constructive approach invaluable. Those seeking simple affirmations of penal substitution without engaging postmodern challenges should look elsewhere.