This will be my final post in my review of the work of Rene Girard and S. Mark Heim's recent book Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross.
From the last post, we quoted Heim's conclusion that "the world has changed in the wake of the gospel: victims have become visible." And that Jesus, via his cross, unmasked sacrificial violence "to found human community on a nonsacrificial principle: solidarity with the victim."
It might be argued that this reading of the cross, although interesting, is not correct. Did the early Christians really understand the death of Jesus in this manner? That is, do you have to become a student of Girard, a modern French/American thinker, to read the text in this way?
Let's look at these questions by examining the book of Acts, the closest account we have of the formation of the Christian community.
The pivotal story in the Acts of the Apostles is the conversion of Saul. When we first encounter Saul he is there at another scapegoating death: The martyrdom of Stephen. We see Saul holding the coats of those who stoned Stephen. In the words of scripture: "And Saul was there, giving approval to Stephen's death."
Soon after, we find Saul pursuing and persecuting Christians: "Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison."
There it is again. The scapegoating mechanism. Violence justified by religion. Nothing much seems changed after the death of Jesus.
That is until Saul travels to Damascus...
We know the story well. Saul is knocked off his mount by a bright light and is addressed by a heavenly figure. The mysterious figure calls out:
"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"It is an amazing sequence. Who is Jesus? I repeat, who is Jesus?
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting."
He is the one you are persecuting.This realization leads to the transformation of the world. Through the cross of Christ God stands with the victims against the persecutors. And here, at the beginnings of the Christian church, we see the great conversion of Saul. Jesus saves Saul by identifying with the victim. Following Jesus, Saul repents and stands with the victim. He joins the group he had been scapegoating.
Heim summarizes:
Paul meets Jesus, and the means by which Jesus is revealed to him are through Jesus' identity with the persecuted victim. This is the answer as to who Jesus is. The divine voice raises only one issue with Paul: violence. Paul will go on to confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and his own letters will develop many dimensions of theology. But the simple, original substance of Saul's conversion is his change from orchestrating violent animosity against a minority to joining in community with those who were his victims. This is hardly a minor point. For Paul, to accept Jesus is to be converted from scapegoating persecution to identify with those against whom he had practiced it...This pivot point is so important to the writer of Acts that it appears three times, once as a narrative and twice as part of Paul's testimony offered when he himself is on trial for his life...On all three occasions the divine words to Paul, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' are centerpiece. (p. 139)Thus Heim concludes:
It is hard to see how this whole presentation makes sense unless the writer of Acts sees the scapegoating dynamic we have been discussing as a crucial object of Christ's work. (p. 140)Recall Job. He was afflicted by God and called it unjust. He called out to God, asking for an advocate in Heaven. A Voice to plead his case. God, in the end, says many things to Job. Confusing things. But one of the things God says is that Job had spoken truly. Victims do need a voice. And in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, Job's prayer is answered. In Jesus, the scapegoat was given a voice. And it was God's. "I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting." The advocate in Heaven is also victim. The Advocate is also scapegoat, the last scapegoat, the Victim that cannot be silenced so that there will be no more victims.
This is an amazing journey. "From the foundation of the world" scapegoats were afflicted by the gods. They were the objects of marginalization and sacrificial violence. This is how the Bible begins. But by the end an amazing transformation has occurred. In the final book of the Bible the scapegoat makes a final appearance:
Revelation 5:1-6The scapegoat has been deified. The voice of the scapegoat is now the voice of God. And the voice speaks against all violence. The final words of Heim's book are these:
Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, "Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?" But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals."
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain...
The God who paid the cost of the cross was not the one who charged it. We are saved from sacrifice because God suffered it. To be reconciled with God is to recognize victims when we see them, to convert the crowd that gathers around them, and to be reconciled with each other without them.
I hope you have enjoyed this series. I have loved writing it. I feel passionately that the church needs this reading of the cross. Please get Heim's book and share it with your churches. Heim has much more to say in the book about the nonsacrificial life of the Church, about the apocalypse in Girardian terms, about the sacraments of baptism and eucharist, and about the failure of Christians to "get" the message of the cross. What I have written only begins the journey.
Beyond Heim's Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross, if you would like to take up Girard directly I would recommend the The Girard Reader. My copy is all marked up. For a quick exposure to Girard, a summary of his work and a brief interview with the journal Touchstone can be read here
Finally, on a pastoral note, I wanted to find a way to incorporate the Girardian lessons into my daily spiritual journey. So I drafted a prayer, a mantra to remind me of what Jesus is saving me from. My prayer is simply this:
Lamb of God,
Save me.
Let me see my victims. Let me see you.
The one I am persecuting.
Amen
Richard,
You have done a good thing with your review.
Two good summaries of Girard are: Gil Bailie, VIOLENCE UNVEILED and Chris Fleming's RENE GIRARD: VIOLENCE AND MIMESIS. The former is descriptive, evocative, and narrative; the latter is analytical. Glad you have marked up THE GIRARD READER.
Heim's book is one of the clearest that deals with atonement theory from a Girardian perspective. You might also want to look at Denny Weaver's NONVIOLENT ATONEMENT and Anthony Bartlett's CROSS PURPOSES: THE VIOLENT GRAMMAR OF CHRISTIAN ATONEMENT.
I personally came to know Girard through my work with combat veterans and my studies on trauma--combat, sexual, and childhood emotional, physical, and sexual trauma. Alice Miller's work, Phillip Greven's SPARE THE CHILD, and Carole Delaney's ABRAHAM ON TRIAL began to help me to see a glimmer of a different view of the Gospel story--one that forsook violence.
I re-read Oedipus the King through the eyes of Alice Miller and came to believe that Freud (a la Masson--though not for the same reasons as he) altered his view of the wide-spread reality of sexual child abuse in 1896 in response to his own father's death. For instances of how blind each of us can be toward victimization, you might want to glance at Larry Wolff's CHILD ABUSE IN FREUD'S VIENNA: POSTCARDS FROM THE END OF THE WORLD.
Matthew 18:1-10 makes a great deal more concrete sense when we remember that Gehenna relates to us and to children as a place of infant (and human) sacrifice to Moloch. The parallel passages in Mark 9, 10, and in Luke take on new meaning as well.
Sad to say, most Americans breath the atmosphere of Calvinism with its punitive and substitutionary notions of atonement and choose to make sin an idol.
Your review and your efforts are needed. All of us have only touched the hem of the garment.
Blessings,
George
One other thing. You might want to check out this url:
http://girardianlectionary.net/
Blessings,
George
@Richard -
"It might be argued that this reading of the cross, although interesting, is not correct. Did the early Christians really understand the death of Jesus in this manner?"
This seems to be a bit of a restorationist non sequitur. Should we expect that the early Christians had a perfect - or even a passable - understanding of Jesus' death?
Thanks George and Matthew for your encouragement during this series. Let's all work to get this reading into the churches. I hope with Heim's book that we will start hearing more of this reading from our pulpits. I long for the day when I hear this phrase (or something along these lines) regularly from the pulpit: "We are saved by the cross when we renounce our violence and stand with Jesus in solidarity with the victims."
George,
I too came to believe that Freud turned against the victim with his rejection of his seduction theory. I always mention this when I lecture on Freud at ACU. Also, of the books you recommend to explore Girard further, which is the best, the first one I should get?
Matthew,
I agree. I think Heim is at pains to point out that the early church did recognize that solidarity with the victim was a part of their understanding of Christ's salvific work. The criticism of Giarad has been that if he is claiming to have the "correct" view of the cross it seems strange that this "correct" reading was hidden from the Christian community for 2000 years. Heim wants to show that, yes, Girard's configuration is a modern project but the themes that he builds on are ancient and foundational.
@Richard - "Heim wants to show that, yes, Girard's configuration is a modern project but the themes that he builds on are ancient and foundational."
Nod. I suspect the restorationist observation was mostly for my own benefit: while it might be possible for me to argue that early Christians were advancing this approach to the cross, I can see how it quickly turns into an argument vaguely reminiscent of the Church of Christ stories about baptism. As in, "this is how they USED to do it, until the right way was lost and we fell apostate for thousands of years."
Reformulating the assertion the way you have rescues me from having to defend that strained argument, and instead allows me to assert that the church continues to grow in its understanding of both Jesus and the cross.
Re: getting the church at large to adopt this as the dominant metaphor for explaining the cross ... I'd love to see that happen. As long as we don't ask people to change their worship format, maybe we can get away with it. =)
Richard, Matthew--several thoughts:
@Richard: "And here, at the beginnings of the Christian church, we see the great conversion of Saul. Jesus saves Saul by identifying with the victim. Following Jesus, Saul repents and stands with the victim. He joins the group he had been scapegoating."
What is truly significant is that the group he was headed to in Damascus to terrorize, received him.
@Matthew: "Should we expect that the early Christians had a perfect - or even a passable - understanding of Jesus' death?"
Nietzsche's take was that Jesus' death was a heroic vendication of his teachings of peace but via Paul's cynical teachings were transfigured to attract all those elements in ancient society filled with a slavish passive-aggressive "ressentiment" against the heroic and noble. Girard appreciates Nietzsche's insight but says he misreads Paul because he wants to hang onto myth. Or another way: Nietzsche is also a "restorationist."
Richard--as to my reading recommendations, try Greven's SPARE THE CHILD first even though it doesn't deal directly with Girard. I have a few quibbles with him but his discussion of child victimization and scapegoating in American Christianity is vital. Then I would move to Bailie's VIOLENCE UNVEILED.
Blessings,
George
Richard,
I am new to these ideas, new to reconciliation teaching, and overwhelmed by these fresh perspectives. I feel like we are turning some corner in this millenium. As a pastor teaching I too long to see these ideas reach the pulpit and the body.
Don
Thanks for the review and summary. You've introduced me to a lot of new concepts. In the end, however, I have to disagree with a lot of the premises:
This is an amazing journey. "From the foundation of the world" scapegoats were afflicted by the gods. They were the objects of marginalization and sacrificial violence. This is how the Bible begins.
It is? In the beginning, Abel is killed. Where in the Bible is Abel considered afflicted by God? At what point did God take Cain's side? This summary used Abel as an example, but Abel wasn't killed like this.
Your series was very interesting. You introduced me to a new way of thinking about the gospel of Christ and its role in world culture.
I have thousands of questions and comments that I hope to work through concerning Girard, Heim, and yourself; however, I thought it best that I take them one at a time.
Throughout your series, you mention that pagan mythology never gives the scapegoat (victim) a voice, nor does this mythology highlight the victim's innocence. You assume that your reader is acquainted with this mythology and clearly recognizes its tendency to silence the scapegoat. Could you post some examples of mythologies that "obfuscate" the relationship between the victim and the persecutor?
BTW, Tyler Priest (a student at ACU) pointed me in your direction.
Thanks!