Response to Peter Martens, "the Quest for an Anabaptist Atonement‪"‬

At the meetings of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature (AAR/SBL) in San Diego in November 2007, I was on a panel to address the meaning of atonement theology for today. Following the session, a well-known feminist critic of standard atonement theologies told me, "Denny, a number of men acknowledge that feminists have critiqued atonement theology. But you are one of the very few who has taken the critique to heart and actually makes use of it." When I have occasion to speak about violence in atonement theology, invariably I hear a version of this speech from a female listener: "Thank you! I was a victim of the abusive atonement theology you described. I left the church because of it. You have given me renewed hope to try again. It is so good to hear a man giving this critique. Don't ever let anyone tell you to stop saying these things!" Such testimonials do not prove the truth of my argument, but they clearly reveal the real people behind the critiques by feminist, womanist and black theologians that Peter Martens dismisses. Martens's critique focuses on issues of violence and nonviolence, which he correctly divined are among my primary concerns. I recognize that he expended a great deal of heartfelt effort on this essay. However, his discussion ignores whole sections of my argument, while looking for inconsistencies in pieces of it, which are frequently misunderstood, and also failing to grasp the substance of it as a whole. I am sorry to have to point out so many misunderstandings, half-true statements and just plain wrong statements. Space limitations allow mentioning only the most problematic comments from the three issues identified in his introduction. I am grateful to the editor of Mennonite Quarterly Review for granting me the opportunity to offer these corrections.