Moral Injury, Bad Theology, & Atonement: A Reflection on Christ's Passion Narrative

Reframing theological understandings of shame, guilt, and betrayal

This week is important for Christians worldwide as they observe Holy Week, the narrative of the events leading up to and including Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. This narrative is known as “Christ’s Passion”. It has been depicted in popular media such as Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ,” the musical “Jesus Christ Superstar,” and the “Oberammergauer Passionspiele”. Christ’s Passion is also a narrative that points to moral injury.

Brock, Keizer, and Lettini describe moral injury as,

Moral injury is a negative self-judgment based on having transgressed core moral beliefs and values or on feeling betrayed by authorities. It is reflected in the destruction of a moral identity and loss of meaning. Its symptoms include shame, survivor guilt, depression, despair, addiction, distrust, anger, a need to make amends, and the loss of a desire to live.¹

Drawing from this description of moral injury, one can see its devastating effects on two of its characters: Judas Iscariot and Simon Peter. Both part of Jesus’ “inner circle” of disciples, their betrayals—Judas handing Jesus over to the authorities and Peter denying Jesus three times—result in tremendous shame and guilt in both men, and in Judas’ case, lead to his suicide. Warren Carter’s excellent chapter in “Exploring Moral Injury in Sacred Texts” covers the features of their moral injuries in depth.²

I want to focus on another dynamic of moral injury in Christ’s Passion: centuries-old theological interpretations that have perpetuated shame and guilt-type moral injury. Classic atonement theories have interpreted Jesus’ death and resurrection in transactional terms. Jesus is a necessary sacrifice to free humanity from the bondage of sin (Origen’s Ransom Theory & Christus Victor) or a satisfactory replacement to receive punishment for humanity’s sin (Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory and Protestant Substitution Theory). These theories have perpetuated shame and guilt as the primary motivation for coming to faith. In this theological system, resurrection is reduced to feelings of happiness and optimism, rooted in personal prosperity, or conveyed as proof of God’s authority that requires human obedience (discipleship). Neither system alleviates one’s guilt and shame over the necessity of Jesus’ suffering and crucifixion, nor is it their intention to do so. “Jesus died because of YOU - your sinfulness. You should feel grateful, but you should also feel ashamed; faith and accepting Jesus is the only option.” In this system, people can become morally injured, caught in cycles of unresolvable shame and guilt where their goodness is never affirmed.

In response, other atonement theories focus on Jesus as a moral example (Abelard) or moral par excellence (Irenaeus). These theories focus on the life of Jesus, namely his ability to live a morally perfect life. While these theories deemphasize the notion of God requiring Jesus’ death, they can also create shame/guilt-type moral injury as people come to the awareness that they will never attain such perfection. This type of theology can also lead to a sense of betrayal and outrage in the awareness of what others are not doing to “live like Jesus.” Jesus’ moral teachings are subject to interpretation; some are emphasized while others are conveniently ignored, leading to a sense of hypocrisy—a morally injurious system results when interpretations are asserted as infallible, absolute, and unattainable. People’s shame, guilt, betrayal, and outrage are exploited to uphold systems that oversimplify moral complexities and advance agendas that preserve a culture of dominance.

Current atonement theories trap people in cycles of spiritual harm and violate the fundamental beliefs that lead them to seek religious faith in the first place. The result: moral injury. So, what is a better way forward? David Luban, Georgetown University Professor of Law and Philosophy, writes that Judaism’s concept of collective atonement offers a unique possibility to address moral injury. William Nash, a former combat psychiatrist who served with the Marines in Iraq during the 2000s, highlights that moral repair is listening to and acknowledging the horrific details of one’s narrative of moral injury without judgment and responding with acceptance and love.

There is another narrative of Christ’s Passion worth acknowledging: Jesus’. Jesus suffers betrayal on both individual (his disciples) and institutional (Unjust Jewish and Roman authorities) levels. In the face of these betrayals, Jesus names them along with his emotions as his own narrative of moral injury. Yet, in this morally injurious situation, immersed in relationships and unjust systems of harm, the narrative finds Jesus praying for his disciples (John 17), establishing a new relationship of care for his mother and the “beloved disciple” (John 19:26-27), and offering assurances to those crucified with him (Luke 23:43). Even in his moment of death, he asks for forgiveness for humanity (Luke 23:34). Later in the gospel narrative, Jesus even restores Peter to his original purpose and mission (John 21:15-17). These acts point to the ability to exercise moral agency through love, leading to atonement in individual relationships and with all of humanity.

That makes for a better atonement theory and theology. Love is funny: it changes us and how we see others, but more than that, it causes us to feel. Even in our most painful moments, acknowledging both the pain we’ve caused and the pain others have caused us, love has this uncanny ability to cut through what separates us and connect us. It’s the most precious thing we have in life, in death, and even entertaining the notion of resurrection. Speaking of which, Jesus’ resurrection is no longer about optimism and proof of authority. Collective atonement is a journey we are on together, the divine and all of humanity. The culmination of Jesus’ story is our story: collective moral injury, and its devastating effects on individuals and communities, can be atoned for through love.

1. Brock, R.N., Keizer, H., and Lettini, G. (2012) “Moral Injury: The Crucial Missing Piece in Understanding Soldier Suicides.” Huffington Post. Accessed on April 18, 2017 at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-nakashima-brock-ph-d/moral-injury-the-crucialmissing- piece-in-understanding-soldier-suicides_b_1686674.html.

2. McDonald J, ed. Exploring Moral Injury in Sacred Texts / Edited by Joseph McDonald ; Foreword by Rita Nakashima Brock. Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2017.