Just one small problem...

While I haven't been posting on Heim's book, I have been reading it thoroughly. Quite creative. One thing he mentions is the ability of scapegoating violence to quell retaliatory violence and thereby to build society (this is Rene Girard). The suggestion by Heim is that the scapegoat mechanism is the product of humanity (p. 196, explicitly). As a result, God is not the one demanding sacrifice, but necessarily suffers it to show it for what it is. The critique against Girard is that he has an "ontology of violence": the fabric with which the world is made is violent. This might be a valid criticism against Girard, but I don't think it is a defeat of his thought. Instead, I think it is possible for a Girardian social theory to be correct and for there to be an ontology of peace. The implication, though, is that Girard's theory (sacrificial scapegoating violence) has behind it...God. Here's how it works out: Violence is not part of God's created order. Conspicuously absent from creation narrative of Genesis is violence. Violence is not necessary, it does not propel, it is not used by God for his good creation. This means that we would not expect a Girardian social theory to be correct, unless it is the gracious act of God to "change the rules" of his creation. What if violence becomes unavoidable in a fallen world, and rather than simply letting it deteriorate into violence, God provides a sacrificial scapegoat to quell violence? As a result of sin, humans now blame and kill; but God changes the ontology that instead of pure deterioration of society, as one would expect, that the very sinful actions of humanity would cut themselves down. In other words, it is the gracious act of God that violence should stop violence--if imperfectly. And really, isn't this the narratival paradox we have come to expect from God?

Interestingly, the first violence recorded in Scripture is by God against the animals, where he creates skin clothing for Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21); their choice, oddly enough, was fig leaves (3:7). Is it not possible that God's redemptive plan could involve actions he would later act against, using the whole drama as disclosure for the problem of sin--that it leads to violence, that he changes things so that violence stops violence, and that he would propose a better way in the end? I think this follows the line of thinking that grace follows the law, but that the law remains no less a gift. Violence is no longer necessary to stop violence after the death of Christ, but this does not negate the fact that God may have caused violence to stop violence, against all odds....