God's Just Vengeance: Crime, Violence and the Rhetoric of Salvation

Anglican Theological Review, Summer 1998 by Wollaston, Isabel

God's Just Vengeance: Crime, Violence and the Rhetoric of Salvation. By Timothy Gorringe. Cambridge Studies in Ideology and Religion 9, Cambridge University Press, 1996. xiv 280 pp. $59.95 (cloth), $17.95 (paper).

This Series aims to `give all objective, balanced, programmatic coverage to issues which-while of wide potential interest--have been largely neglected by analytical investigation, apart frorn the appearance of sporadic individual studies.' Given this remit, it seems surprising that the Series should include a volume on atonement and the place of violence in the `rhetoric of salvation . This, after all, is relatively well-trodden ground. However, Timothy Gorringe's approach to the subject is slightly different from the norm. His thesis is that `attitudes to crime and punishment in the West are, beyond argument, rooted deep in the Christian Scriptures' (p. 223). His aim is to demonstrate that developments in atonement theory-particularly notions of expiation, propitiation, satisfaction and retributivist justice-both reflect and influence wider social attitudes to criminal law and the justice system.

God's Just Vengeance is divided into three clearly defined parts. In the first, the foundations of the argument are laid via a discussion of the biblical sources for atonement theory In the second, there is a critique of past thinking on atonement, t)oth that which might be defined as 'objective' (e.g. Anselm. Calvin) and that which might be dubbed 'subjective' (e.g. Abelard, R. C. Moberly). In the third, we are introduced to the contemporary debate, albeit somewhat impressionistically. Having offered a critique of how atonement theory has interacted with penal thinking in the past, Gorringe concludes more positively by offering suggestions as to the contribution Christian thinking on the atonement could and should make to this ongoing impassioned debate.

Underlying the whole argument is the belief that `part of the power of Christianity as a missionary religion is that its central symbol, the cross, targets both guilt and violence, and offers a remedy to both through the "bearing" of guilt and the refusal to meet violence with counter-violence` (p. 11). Yet, as Gorringe readily acknowledges, much atonement theory has interpreted the cross precisely as the meeting of violence (sin) with counter-violence (the necessary death of the Son of God as propitiation or satisfaction). l ence, there is a need to acknowledge the existence of a 'shadowside' to Christianity, a rhetoric of violence that expresses itself in Christian interpretations of the events of the cross, in Christian attitudes to the Other, and in various forms of 'Christian masochism'. Ironically, 'a story which was a unique protest against judicial cruelty came to be a validation of it. The community which was supposed not to be conformed to the world now underwrote its repressive practice' (p. 81). For Gorringe, it is therefore necessary to return to the biblical and theological texts on which so much has been built and reread them. He argues that while the New Testament can be read to support theories of satisfaction and retributivist justice, it does not have to be read in that way. He therefore makes a case for alternative readings of Scripture, particularly of St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and calls for a theology of the atonement rooted in the Synoptic Gospels.

Gods Just Vengeance offers a provocative and impassioned 'take' on atonement theory There is much in it with which to agree and disagreealways the sign of a successful argument! Personally, my main disagreement with it concerns its inherent optimism. While Gorringe insists that 'a theology, of atonement has to respond to the world as it is-fundamentally marked by injustice' (p. 234), he remains convinced that Christianity is equipped with the resources to do precisely this. 'Christi.an theology is the attempt to spell out how Christ is supposed to have helped us. It envisions the possibility of recreating a broken world, of redeeming what would otherwise be lost' (p. 248). To prove his point he cites a number of examples from contemporary life. Two of these are the Holocaust and the Moors Murders. Gorringe suggests that the Holocaust led to a dramatic shift in thinking about the atonement, away from expiation and retributivist justice toward an emphasis on God as victim (as in the theology of Jurgen Moltmann). This may, or may not, have been the case. However, while such ideas may well provide consolation for Christians (particularly in the light of recurrent accusations of Christian passivity or pointed references to the role played bv Christian anti-Judaism), what do they mean to the victims?

To a British audience, the example of the Moors Murders is a highly topical one, given the recent media debate over the merits of releasing Myra Hindley from prison. If, as her supporters insist, Hindley has 'repented' and served her time', should she now be released? Is her continued imprisonment a classic example of retributivist justice? It is perhaps significant that most of l-,er supporters come from outside the community most directly affected hy her actions. The families of the victims remain adamant that, in the absence' of the death penalty;, Hindley should never be released; some even claim that they w-ill attempt to kill her should she ever be released. Who is in the `right here? What possibility is there for atonement? Whose interests shl:nrl(l be primary in deciding what is the just' thing to do? As Gorringe acknowledges, `the problem is to know who could declare forgiveness in such a case, for just as there are forms of' suffering which cannot be preached without blasphemy, so forgiveness cannot be blandly urged by those not directly affected' (p. 267). These two -ery different examples point to the possibility of irredeemable evil, of a `loken world' that cannot be recreated, of somet ling lost or destroyed that can never be recovered. In such contexts, does the kind of theological rhetoric favoured by Gorringe have anything to contribute? lt is all very well pointing to other more positive examples where forgiveness and some land of reconciliation have proved possible, but what of those where it has not? Retributivist justice has considerable appeal in some circumstances, even though the incommensurability of punishment and crime is clearly recognised.