Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
168possibilities of supererogatory deeds; that God’s probable procedures can be
predicted by means of a human analogy; and that this leads to the belief that God’s
saving work is c onfined in its fullness to the Christian strand of history – this strikes
me as anthropomorphic , paroc hial and unimaginative to a degree that renders it
massively implausible. But I shall say more under point 5 about Swinburne’s
transfer of the c onditions for rec onc iliation with a fellow human being to
rec onc iliat ion wit h God.
- That our relationship to fellow human beings involves our relationships to
God, so that in all t hat we do we are also ult imat ely having t o do wit h God, is from
a more liberal point of view another ‘element of truth’ within Swinburne’s theory. - When we do wrong the kind of reparation required is that we do what we
c an t o nullify or reverse the c onsequenc es of our ac tion. Thus when we c ontribute –
as we do almost all t he t ime – to the common evils of the world, we can do
something to c ounter this by c ontributing to the c ommon good of the world. When
we wrong an individual we c an usually do something to recompense the person
wronged. And, as Swinburne points out, in suc h a c ase it is also appropriate to do
somet hing ext ra, whic h he c alls penanc e, by offering some addit ional servic e or gift
t o express t he realit y of our regret and sorrow at having wronged that other
person. But the question that has to be asked is whether this four-f o ld s c h e ma –
repentanc e, apology, reparation and penanc e – c an be c arried over unc hanged into
our relat ionship wit h God. Swinburne’s fundamental error, in my view, is in
assuming that it c an. Repentance, and apology as an expression of repentance, still
apply; the sinner should truly and deeply repent and ask God’s forgiveness. But is
t here also sc ope, spec ific ally in relat ion t o God, for reparat ion and t he ext ra t hat
Swinburne c alls penanc e? I suggest that when we have offered reparation-plus-
penanc e to the human beings whom we have injured, there is no further
reparat ion-plus-penance to be made solely for God’s benefit. In doing all we can to
repair mat t ers wit h our wronged neighbour we are doing what genuine repentanc e
requires. For God cannot be benefitted, and thus recompensed and atoned to, by
any human ac ts in addition to those that benefit God’s creation. In relation to God
the truly penitent person, genuinely resolving to do better in the future, c an only
accept forgiveness as a free gift of grace, undeserved and unearned. It may well be
Jesus’ life and teac hing that prompt someone t o do t his. But it is not , in my view,
appropriate to express that fact by depicting his death as an atoning sac rific e that
benefits God and so enables God to forgive humanity.
Swinburne emphasizes that ‘One man c an help another to make the nec essary
atonement – c an persuade him to repent, help him to formulate the words of
apology, and give him the means by whic h to make reparation and penanc e’ (149).
True; and likewise the divine Spirit may prompt us to a true repentanc e whic h
wants to make reparation to the human individual or c ommunity that we have
wronged, and to offer any additional service or gift that may be appropriate. But
what the Spirit will thus prompt us to do is some ac t in relation to those human
neighbours. It is t his t hat sat isfies t he princ iple, whic h Swinburne right ly st resses,
that to take a wrongdoer and his or her wrongdoing seriously entails the need for
whatever restitution, and whatever additional gift or service, may be appropriate.
But the idea that something further, c orresponding to this reparation-plus-penanc e
towards our human neighbour, is required by God for Godself, seems to me
groundless. It rests upon a c ategory mistake in whic h God is treated as another
individual wit hin t he same moral c ommunit y as ourselves. For a moral relat ionship