Reconciling feminist critiques and classic theories of atonement

Abstract Work on atonement is fractured around how to respond to feminist critiques of classic atonement theories (such as satisfaction, moral exemplar, and penal substitution theories). Feminist and womanist scholars have levelled various critiques of these theories: the theories glorify sadomasochistic suffering, they encourage passivity in the face of suffering, and they are complicit in the oppression, victimization, and disempowerment of women in part because they legitimize patterns of oppression. Defenders of the classic theories have given various replies to these critiques, but these replies leave many feeling the heart of the critiques hasn’t really been addressed. In this paper, I aim to mend this fracture. I believe there is wisdom and insight on both sides of this dispute and that reflecting more carefully on a certain strand of feminist critique will present tools for mending. I develop a version of a feminist critique inspired by comments in several feminist critics of atonement theories – most notably Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza. According to the critique I develop, the classic theories, together with Christian moral norms to imitate Christ, imply some version of the problematic attitudes mentioned above. This critique avoids the main objections to other feminist critiques. I then examine the notion of imitation and argue that, properly understood, the norm of imitating Christ (together with the classic atonement theories) does not have the problematic implications. Indeed, the norm and classic theories imply that imitating Christ by aiming at reconciliation among people requires rejecting the problematic attitudes.