Specifically, the mechanisms and dynamics of sacred violence and scapegoating are satanic. Satan is, after all, the diablos, the Accuser. And accusation is what kicks off the scapegoating violence. We point the finger at the innocent victim. In coming to stand in solidarity with the victim we turn away from accusation. This entire dynamic is powerfully illustrated in the story of Jesus and the woman caught in the act of adultery. The men come as accusers, as diabolos, with stones in their hands. But by end of the story the stones are dropped. Jesus says to the woman, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, Lord,” she replies. This is the salvation Jesus brings us. We drop the stones in our hands. We turn away from accusation. We refuse to play diabolos.
When we witness how Girard's reading of the gospels calls us to step away from a satanic social matrix, we are tempted to view his theory of atonement as a type of Christus Victor. For that is what Christus Victor atonement involves, liberation from malevolent spiritual powers. The social dynamics of mimetic desire, rivalry, sacred violence, and scapegoating can be viewed as a "principality and power" that we need to be rescued from. An exorcism is at work.
And we do need to be rescued. We need this exorcism. But over time I've come to view René Girard's theory as less Christus Victor and more an moral influence view of salvation. Why? Because while God acts within history to unmask and expose the satanic foundations of human civilization, at the end of the day our response to that exposure is one of human moral choice and effort. I have to read the gospel accounts and respond with metanoia. I must turn and repent. I must drop the stones in my hand. That is the moral demand.
And to be clear--I feel I must keep repeating this--our turning does save us. So I'm not, for a moment, trying to discount how our repenting of scapegoating violence isn't a critical aspect of our salvation. What I'm trying to highlight is how, in Girard's theory, salvation is wholly reduced to human moral action. We are saved when we drop the stones.
In short, while God does act to expose the satanic matrix of society, the moment of liberation is effected by human effort. And this is why, I believe, Girard's theory is best understood as a example of the moral influence view of atonement.
Let me make the point sharper, though this will risk giving offense. What if, after hearing a long lecture about René Girard's theories, from the nuances of mimetic desire to the social dynamics of scapegoating to the unmasking of sacred violence we behold in the gospels, the person sums it all up and says, "So what you're telling me is to love everyone?" I think the honest answer would be, "Yeah, what I'm telling you is to love everyone." Now, of course, the Girardian is going to jump in here to offer some clarifications: "By loving everyone we mean stop scapegoating, stand in solidarity with your victims and the victims of your society and nation, drop the stones in your stand, stop playing the accuser, stop using God to justify your violence, imitate Jesus as the forgiving victim." To which the person would nod along and say again, "So what you're telling me is that I should love everyone?"
My point is that, if we love everyone--and I do mean everyone--you end up precisely where Girard's theory wants you to land. If you want, you can sidestep Girard's theory and just obey the Sermon on the Mount. Job done.
If this is so, if love is the answer, then why are we messing around with René Girard? Recall, again, the point I've made in this series. What René Girard's theory was saving people from was penal substitutionary atonement. That's what the excitement was all about, being liberated from a bad theory of atonement. The victory wasn't moral, it was hermeneutical. For love is and will always be the answer. Girard's theory did nothing to change that story. What Girard's theory gave us was a new way of reading the Bible and thinking about the death of Jesus. To be sure, Girard's theory is prophetically helpful in exposing how violent readings of the atonement create violent Christians and violent Christian nations. Girard exposed how bad hermeneutics can undermine love. Christian failures of love become a lot more clear after Girard. But Girard didn't finally or uniquely bring Jesus' commandment to love everyone into human consciousness. Girard simply exposed why we fail, and continue to fail, at love.
And so this is why Girard's theory is a moral influence view. Girard's theory is profound, prophetic, and revelatory, but its moral imperative is the same one we get from all moral influence views of the atonement:
Love everyone.
