Pages

Monday, October 21, 2019

The Sign of the Cross


Continuing with Part 4 of René Girard’s CBC interviews from 2011, Girard connects the scapegoating mechanism to the story of Jesus:

When everyone believes the lie that the scapegoat is guilty, the violence of the group is transferred outside and the group can continue in peace.  The Bible undoes these illusions: the whole surrogate-victim mechanism is from Satan.  Jesus dies like any guilty hero, but the Cross does not ratify His guilt; it proclaims His innocence.

Of course, not everyone saw Jesus as innocent at the time.  Some saw Him as guilty.  But for scapegoating to work in preserving the peace, all must see the scapegoat as guilty.

Scapegoating preserves the peace as long as the scapegoaters believe the scapegoat to be guilty.  Jesus doesn’t work as a scapegoat, as He divided people – some saw Him as scapegoat, others as an innocent victim. 

We are living through continued attempts at scapegoating today.  Consider the scapegoating done by the social justice warriors.  Yet, this will not bring any peace as a good portion of society does not see the intended victims of this scapegoating as guilty.  This reality will play right into Girard’s points made later in this interview: focused violence via scapegoating no longer works to bring peace.

The discussion next turns to some interesting and thought-provoking views.  The first might offer an insight into why Christian societies have led the evolution from cultural acceptance of violence into a drive toward peace (and also therefore damns those current Christians who cheer on war):

Why do you notice the mote in his eye and ignore the beam in your own?  This self-critical spirit will transform the world. 

It is often pointed out by critics that Christians have not always lived up to the best of this self-critical spirit.  Girard confronts this challenge directly:

Christians will also be accusers, but will never break free from this constantly repeated call to examine themselves and reform.  We are the one society in the world that has this capacity for self-criticism.

It is also pointed out – as Girard hints at in the above – that slavery existed in Christian societies, war and the Crusades existed in Christian societies, the Inquisition gained fame in Christian societies, etc., etc., etc. 

Yet Christians continuously self-criticize – as long as Jesus is kept in view as the target for our ends and purpose, such practices diminish or are eliminated.  This didn’t happen despite Christianity; it happened because of it:

We constantly criticize ourselves, and rightly so.  But from what point of view do you criticize?  The permanence of Christianity is found in this self-critical power. 

Girard expands this point:

It is the Cross that gave us the key to decode mythology.  …We even use the Gospel to criticize such practices [as witch hunting]: how could such things have happened during Christian times? 

Yes, how could those terrible Christians advocate for such things?  Girard points out that those with such views are looking at history in the wrong direction:

The interesting thing about witch-hunting isn’t that it happened in Christian times – all societies had such practices.  The interesting thing is that it ended in Christian societies.  We recognize that witch-hunting is scapegoating. 

He makes a second thought-provoking point (including some commentary from the interviewer):

We didn’t stop burning witches because we invented science; we invented science because we stopped burning witches.  This sounds backwards to us, but Girard explains: we used to blame droughts on witches; once we stopped blaming witches, we looked for scientific explanations for drought.


And it was in Christianity that such practices stopped, giving impetus to find better – scientific – explanations for such calamities as draught.

[Christianity] gives us a new freedom – to question old orders, old practices, old hierarchies.  But this new freedom operates for ill as well as good.  Sacrifice was the anchor for all social order; without sacrifice, social order becomes more fluid, more open to question.  This sets free not just good things, but everything that has been contained by the old social order.  Everything is set free.

It would seem to make the point: without keeping Jesus in sight as the telos, freedom can (and most certainly will) be used for ill.  Liberty soon means libertine.

This comes to play in our current society.  Girard cites Tocqueville: when human beings have destroyed the principle of hierarchy, they think that an easy way is open to success and all that they could not reach before.  We think that without hierarchy, all obstacles are removed from our path.  Instead:

What they don’t realize is that the obstacle has changed places and multiplied – each obstacle is smaller, so many…meaning everybody. 

Everyone now stands in our way.  Consider all of the social-justice categories and classes of which you are not a part.  Each one of these stands between you and some semblance of freedom.  And for those who advocate for the freedom of extreme individualism, they don’t see that it stands in the way of their freedom as well.

When revolution destroys the privileges of the few, people confront the desires of everyone.  Mimetic desire cannot be satisfied.  Eventually what others have is insufficient – we want the other’s being.  What I don’t have and what I dream of must be somewhere – I want to become him.

“Mimetic desire cannot be satisfied.”  Remember, this interview is from 2011; yet he is describing today’s situation to perfection.

What modern persons seek from each other is the sense of really existing.  Everything which was not myself (Proust writes) seems to me more precious, endowed with more meaningful existence. 

We make idols out of celebrities and athletes.  We all want to Be Like Mike; it just isn’t as innocent today as it once seemed.

Cut off from vital contact with God, men become gods for one another – although always only fleetingly.  Mimetic desire pursues an illusion, becoming both urgent and insatiable.  The race is intense, but with no finish line.  There is no objective element.

Too much is never enough.  This is what Girard labels apocalypse: meaning the development, the working out, the unfolding of implications.  Its end is self-destruction…and rebirth.  In part 5, he will describe why the modern situation is apocalyptic.  In the meantime, he offers a hint:

When Jesus proclaims that he came to separate mother from daughter, etc., it was an announcement that the world will no longer be protected by the ritual of sacrifice of a scapegoat.  We are left with only Christian love, or hatred. 

Conclusion

The apocalypse is what comes if Christian love is rejected and hatred is chosen. 

Where is liberty in all of this?  Long ago I came to see a glimpse: The Silver Rule (basically the non-aggression principle) would not be sufficient to sustain a society in liberty; The Golden Rule (something more than the non-aggression principle) was necessary.

I am understanding why this is so in ever-more depth.  Girard exposes this necessity – I won’t say fully, as I suspect that there will always be more – to a significant degree.  Girard was not speaking or writing from a standpoint of liberty as a libertarian might superficially see it, but consider: if the alternatives are unending and increasing violence or love, in which environment does your liberty have a better chance to survive and thrive?

26 comments:

  1. Girard is discussing some really important ideas. It makes sense but not sure of all his conclusions.

    First, I don't know much about scapegoating broadly. All I know comes from Leviticus. Was scapegoating that wide spread? Did scapegoating use human victims widely? In the Bible, there is only one human scapegoat, Jesus. Before that were goats. I haven't encountered this idea about human scapegoating being used in ancient times.

    Second, his sense of apocalypse sounds a bit off. Apocalypse means "to reveal" or "that which is revealed". That is why we call the last book of the NT, Revelation. It is from the Greek work Apocalypsis. The thing revealed is very specific too, Jesus in His Supernatural Glory. The calamity comes from the fact that Jesus is judging the world of its sin. The destruction comes directly from God on account of sin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RMB, the history of human sacrifice is well-known, but I have no independent way to verify the connection to Girard's theory of scapegoating as behind at least some of this. I believe we do understand that sacrifice is meant to cleanse by offering something to the gods. It seems reasonable to conclude that there were times when humans were the sacrifice -hence cleansing the population that put their hate into the victim.

      The practice continues today, albeit without the death.

      To your second point, I understand Girard rebutting the apocalypse as understood by those who believe in the 200 million man battle in the Middle East - a very popular notion among many Protestant Christians in the US.

      There are many interpretations of Revelation - laced with Daniel and some of Jesus' own words. Girard seems specifically to be combating this idea of some great calamitous war - with large locusts that are Apache helicopters and the like (because John didn't know how else to describe these).

      I am with him. God doesn't need our help to destroy the world (man is doing a fine enough job of this on his own), and I sure wouldn't want to be moving this along if it wasn't God's intent anyway (and it isn't).

      Delete
    2. I don't know what to make of Revelations, so I choose not to focus on it or give it much stock in my faith. I more or less just leave all this 'end of the world mumbo jumbo' in God's capable hands. I like hearing people's interpretations though, and Girard has a particularly interesting take especially as it relates to our search for the path to liberty.

      Delete
    3. I am with you there BM. Human sacrifice was used to appease a god's wrath or bring his blessing. Not sure how it was used as a scapegoat in order to prevent violence between people. Never seen it used that way other than in the story of the Hatfields and McCoys. But even then the 2 sides didn't blame the poor boy for all the violence. The killing just appeased both sides.

      I don't agree with the Apache helicopter interpretations of Revelation. But I am absolutely sure God will judge this world for its wickedness at the end whether humans are involved in war or not.

      Delete
    4. ATL, Revelation, no "s", as in the revelation of Jesus Christ, does contain things that are difficult to understand. I would say in some cases impossible to know exactly. But there are some things that all schools of thought agree on. I get that the belief in the Armageddon battle may not be shared. There is still a huge battle in Revelation 20 involving the same groups essentially.

      But Armageddon as a physical battle is mentioned throughout the OT. It shows up in at least 4-5 spots. In each case there is no human vs human conflict. It is the battle of Messiah vs the wicked.

      So you can believe in the Protestant Dispensational interpretation and still not believe that pushing the world to nuclear over middle eastern politics.

      I think Girard's perspective on mimetic theory and how that relates to the Bible are interesting and do think it is beneficial.

      I actually heard some commentary on his philosophy on a podcast, Tom Woods episode 1487. It focused on the how violence is tied to the creation of the State and how the State itself is religion without God. I thought it was a very helpful discuss on Girard's philosophy.

      Delete
    5. ATL, Revelation, no "s", as in the revelation of Jesus Christ, does contain things that are difficult to understand. I would say in some cases impossible to know exactly. But there are some things that all schools of thought agree on. I get that the belief in the Armageddon battle may not be shared. There is still a huge battle in Revelation 20 involving the same groups essentially.

      But Armageddon as a physical battle is mentioned throughout the OT. It shows up in at least 4-5 spots. In each case there is no human vs human conflict. It is the battle of Messiah vs the wicked.

      So you can believe in the Protestant Dispensational interpretation and still not believe that pushing the world to nuclear over middle eastern politics.

      I think Girard's perspective on mimetic theory and how that relates to the Bible are interesting and do think it is beneficial.

      I actually heard some commentary on his philosophy on a podcast, Tom Woods episode 1487. It focused on the how violence is tied to the creation of the State and how the State itself is religion without God. I thought it was a very helpful discuss on Girard's philosophy.

      Delete
  2. Please understand I'm not trying to 'stump' you in pointing out that virtually all of the millions of immigrants seeking to immigrate to the US from South America, Central America, and Mexico ARE CHRISTIANS. Yet my understanding is that on this site and on this point we absolutely oppose such immigration. One could go further and argue that we are in effect resorting to 'scapegoating' this group of Christians in order to exclude them. The left support their immigration DESPITE their Christianity. The right seek their exclusion in spite of it as well. Now one of this websites fundamental concerns is I believe to reform the Non Aggression Principle by tempering it with the higher ideals of Christianity. Yet paradoxically it would seem to support the initiation of aggression to exclude Christian immigrants. And so I would like to ask the author if he would care to clarify his thoughts on the subject ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who are you? I won't engage on this topic with "anonymous."

      Delete
    2. I often say that I'd rather keep out liberal white men from places like California, Illinois, and New York, than your average Mexican or other Latin American, but there's little chance of getting that policy enacted. It would be a glorious rebuke of these epicenters of the awful ideas of the modern left. Maybe someday...

      Democrats want open borders because the people likely to come in are reliable Democrat voters. Power is their game, not liberty or compassion, and these people will put them in power. It's that simple. They're not interested in any supposed natural right of movement like the misguided left libertarians.

      Delete
    3. Anon, I'm in no way assuming to speak for those who necessarily must engage in ad hominem rather than addressing what you actually posted, but if I were to venture a guess, I would suspect that those who are against immigration are against unlawful immigration as well as unlawful immigration regardless of the professed identities of the lawless.

      Delete
    4. Pope Francis' brand of "Christianity" is liberation theology, leftist, and the illegals coming across seem to be leftist as well.

      Delete
  3. Uninvited migrants are trespassers. Repelling trespassers is self-defense, not aggression.

    Your "Christian" immigrants are not settling in howling wilderness, as did their European precursors. They have no interest in doing so. Aside from that, the feds have long since claimed those pristine lands as their own.

    The feds won't stand for interlopers in their precious national parks. Neither, *nota bene*, will their bleeding-heart environmentalist allies.

    Today's migrants invade the commons. They aggravate the tragedy of the commons. Yes, the commons should be privatized. In the interim, though, ought not the taxpayers have final say in who pitches tents in "public" parks, who has access to "public" schools, and who avails himself of the "public" safety net?

    The solution is neither open borders nor closed borders but separation of borders and state. This means radical decentralization and, ultimately, a fully privatized social order. Until that blessed day, I see no reason why the default libertarian position on the issue is to grant all comers a place in the feeding trough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The solution is neither open borders nor closed borders but separation of borders and state." - Tony

      Yes! This is the point the left libertarians cannot grasp. As Hoppe has stated, the state is still 'doing something' when it chooses to do nothing about border security.

      Delete
    2. I've posted this to Mosquito's blog before, T.L., so forgive me if you've seen it. But it drives home your point the state does something even when it does nothing about border security:

      Tax the serfs to bomb the wogs.
      Tax the serfs to resettle the wogs.
      Tax the serfs to feed and house the wogs.
      Tax the serfs to compel association with the wogs.
      Tax the serfs to quell the inevitable serf-wog clashes that ensue.
      Tax the serfs to fund the police state necessitated by all that quelling.

      "OMG! You're against mass immigration? What kind of libertarian objects to voluntary interactions?!"

      Delete
  4. "The gospel of the the good news that mortal man may, by faith, become spirit-conscious, that he is a son of God, is not dependent on the death of Jesus. True, indeed, all this gospel of the kingdom has been tremendously illuminated by the Master's death, but even more so by his life."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Individually, liberty can only be found via the blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ, per John 8:32, 36, 2 Corinthians 3:17, etc.

    Collectively, liberty can only be had via the Bible's immutable, triune moral law of liberty.

    Liberty was officially lost in America when the 18th-century Enlightenment founders made liberty a goal (almost a god) instead of a corollary of implementing Yahweh's perfect law of liberty (Psalm 19:7-11, 119:44-45, James 2:12) as the supreme law of the land.

    "[B]ecause they have ... trespassed against my law ... they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind...." (Hosea 8:1,7)

    Today's America is reaping the inevitable ever-intensifying whirlwind resulting from the wind sown by the constitutional framers and fanned by hoodwinked Christians and patriots who have been bamboozled into believing today's whirlwind can be dissipated by appealing to the wind responsible for spawning the whirlwind.

    For more, see online Chapter 3 "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" of "Bible Law vs, the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html

    Then, find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Re: "The Golden Rule (something more than the non-aggression principle) was necessary."

    I suspect the golden rule isn't enough as well. The sadomasochist has no problem treating others the way he wants to be treated which is why even the golden rule is abrogated in the gospel when Jesus suggests loving others as he loves you. To do this, one must first see Jesus (rather than themselves) in those around them.

    Liberty, in the biblical texts is always freedom from self and sin. It is never freedom to choose between good and evil. Even pagans saw that is the lowest, basest form of liberty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. shnarkle

      "I suspect the golden rule isn't enough as well."

      I said necessary; I didn't say sufficient. In any case, sustainable liberty requires something beyond the NAP.

      Delete
  7. “...if the alternatives are unending and increasing violence or love, in which environment does your liberty have a better chance to survive and thrive?”

    Excellent question, but so low-key that it runs the risk of being completely overlooked.

    If everyone in this world was directly asked this question and an honest answer demanded from him or her, the vast majority would choose love, that is, if they thought about it and understood the implications of their choice. To be sure, there are those who would choose unending, increasing violence over love, but this would be consistent with their sociopathic philosophy and all-consuming greed. I choose to believe that most people are not like that, but simply don’t know and understand what they are dealing with and submit to the status quo out of familiarity and the fear of personal, positive change.

    It seems to me that the continuum we live on is between the polar opposites of forceful violence and peaceful love. Everything else is a modification of these two extremes. Are there any other alternatives? I can’t think of any, but if someone can describe a variation, I would be open to listening.

    As far as concerns which position will eventually come out on top, I can only point to Isaiah 9:7, which says,

    “Of the increase of his government and of peace
    there will be no end,...”

    and Isaiah 2:4, which complements it,

    “He will judge between the nations
    and will settle disputes for many peoples.
    They will beat their swords into plowshares
    and their spears into pruning hooks.
    Nation will not take up sword against nation,
    nor will they train for war anymore.”

    For believers, unending and increasing LOVE will eventually overcome violence, not simply coexist with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good, Roger. I, too, suspect some will try to identify a third way - yet I am also hard-pressed to find one.

      I guess the non-aggression principle is presented as a third way by some libertarians, but it cannot survive in a vacuum.

      Delete
  8. It is interesting to me that those who proclaim the importance of religion seem to justify that importance by hinting or proclaiming that their religion is the path to justice and peace.

    But I see the value of justice and peace all by themselves and I can tell what is just without reference to any religion or interpretation of an old book layered with the rust and corrosion of centuries of interpretations of ancient languages? Why do I need what to me is the 'Wholly Babble' when justice and peace are so easily understood - by children, in fact.

    I think that to care about the bible is to obfuscate and to becloud a subject that needs the greatest and clearest simplicity - the subject of good and evil.

    To "solve" that riddle by peering into a dark and ancient cave filled with debatable symbols is to waste time and energy that might be spent promoting the obvious truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In order to promote the obvious truth, a person needs to know what it is. So, let's hear it from you. What is the obvious truth?

      Delete
    2. The 19th and 20th Century completely explode that notion.

      Bionic Mosquito, has written probably 20+ articles on this blog in refutation of your claims.

      Now you could be right. I am not trying to shout you down. But you should spend some time digging into the corpus of Bionic Mosquito thought before you make blanket statements about what it takes to have a society fully of liberty.

      Delete
    3. John Howard: "But I see the value of justice and peace all by themselves and I can tell what is just without reference to any religion or interpretation of an old book layered with the rust and corrosion of centuries of interpretations of ancient languages?"

      You are ignorant of the foundations on which you must stand to make this statement. And RMB is right; I have written too much about why I believe your claim cannot stand. I could be wrong, but it will take much more than a few words from you - and words that I have heard very often - to change my mind.

      If you truly want to convince me, try harder. Start by poking around this site. For simplicity, go to the top of the page and click the link "The Book." Start there.

      Delete
    4. John Howard, if we are to understand the subject of good and evil, then we must ask the questions. What is good? What is evil? In asking these questions, we must then produce definitions in order to answer them. These can only be produced in one of two ways--either from an objective standard (one size fits all) or a subjective standard (there are many definitions and everyone can decide for himself which is correct). Is this not true?

      If the questions of good and evil can be explained in a subjective manner, then why is anyone's version better than others? Why is your description and understanding better than mine or Bionic Mosquito's? Why is it better than Hitler's, for that matter? Perhaps Hitler's was actually better, but fell foul of the "Might makes right" mantra. Or can we say that Nazism was simply an evolutionary experiment which was tried and found wanting, so we are all better off not going down that road again?

      The fact is, though, that no one can define what is good and evil without resorting to one over-riding, preeminent benchmark against which to measure all of human action. It is simply not possible to know what is good, what is evil, what is just, what is right without having an objective definition of what they are.

      How do you know what justice is? How do you know what peace is? Good? Evil? The only way is through the fixed, immutable standard for all time, for which the Bible acts as a guide. Otherwise, we have to take your word for it. Or maybe Mein Kampf.

      This is the obvious truth. You can embrace it or you can deny it, but you will not alter it.

      Delete
  9. "But I see the value of justice and peace all by themselves and I can tell what is just without reference to any religion or interpretation of an old book layered with the rust and corrosion of centuries of interpretations of ancient languages."

    ~John Howard

    Consider the Administrative State. Do Voting Rights, Medicare-For-All Rights, Reproductive Rights, Collective Bargaining Rights, Equal Employment Rights, Public Education Rights, Fair Housing Rights, Equal-Access-To-Private-Lunch-Counter Rights, Animal Rights, Tenant Rights, Gay Rights, and Migrant Rights promote justice and peace? Are the irreligious more apt than Christians to grasp the fact they don't?

    ReplyDelete