"If your views are always fighting skirmishes to beat back the charge of heresy, your view isn't going to become mainstream. Too much theological headwind."
Well, who is responsible for the theological headwind? The advocates for open and relational understandings of atonement, or those that flood the zone with condemnation? If you tell your congregation over and over that they are risking hellfire and damnation for not holding fast to your particular "orthodoxy," then what do you expect to happen? I remember the late John Gerstner questioning the salvation of those teachers that didn't hold to the TULIP approach to Reformation theology. Calvin had Michael Servetus executed for not towing the line. Scare enough people with hellfire, and you can stop any expansion of theological understanding. Who can stand up to the charge of "heresy" and its eternal consequence? If congregations weren't so frightened, maybe they be more inclined to engage in the due diligence necessary to understand alternate ways of looking at atonement.
Richard, thanks for this important critique. I'd invite you to add this: the purpose of theological exploration (in traditional terms) is to make the Gospel clearer and thus continue to reveal the truth about God. Process theology completely bungles this. It is so theoretically abstract that I'm not sure many of its proponents really understand it. In other words, it doesn't better reveal God, but clouds our understanding. I'd like to push back regarding Girard, however. No doubt, there is always a danger of a cult, but I do think Girardian theory (in spite of its complexity) leads us closer to the reality of the Triune God. Here is a God (aka Girard) who is so committed to restoring relationship with us, that He accommodates himself to the sinful way that we seek to save ourselves. So God in Christ becomes the scapegoat in order to render powerless the primordial tool was use for self-salvation. Anyway, thanks again for a great essay.
Hi Philip, as I shared in the post I think Girard is very much worth the trip, the hermeneutical lens he provides is transformative. And yet, I do think Girard's fans struggle with popularization. James Alison, in my estimation, is the best at this. But I feel pretty convinced that if you have to explain "memetic desire" to people before they can understand the gospels, and tell them so, most people are going to walk. To even say the name "Girard" in a sermon is diagnostic that you're going niche and turning your back on reaching a wider public.
All this us just my perspective from teaching Bible classes at a church for normal folk for over twenty years, and speaking about the gospel in prisons for fifteen years.
Hi Richard, I’m interested to know what your approach to communicating the message of salvation & atonement is to the regular folk. I understand where you are coming from with Girad, but as far as I can see a non-violent accounting of the atonement (from God’s side) is the “conservative” Christian one; it is very explicit in Irenaeus through to the Cappadocians (and strangely enough it reflects what is presented in the biblical accounts). Your reference to recently cracking the code would seem relevant to both the Giradian and modern PSA conception wouldn’t it?
I hear you. I have tried to explain Girard myself, not an easy lift! I see his gift as an anthropological correlation with the Gospel which helps one better understand the length which God has gone to save us. Again, thank you for this important critique of how "emerging church" missed it. Seems to me that it's just one more attempt at "speeches to cultural despisers."
Richard, as I've said before, I'm really thankful for your writing and insight. I've learned things from you over the years, and yes, I benefited when you used Heim's book to write a series of posts on Mimetic Theory. I have no need to get into an argument with you. I appreciate your insight; however, just in case folks are reading here, I think lumping Girard and process-influenced open and relational theology in with the "theobros" is a big, sweeping, misleading overgeneralization.
Girard's stuff is brilliant, challenging to work through at times, but brilliant. I don't really think any of us are called specifically to reach a "wider public" or "general audience," per se. I think we're called to unpack the veracity of the biblical story, and there's no doubt that Girard's insights do just that. (Whoever has an ear to hear, let him hear.) Of course, the pastor, teacher, theologian, or whomever needs to dole this info out carefully and with wisdom, but goodness, isn't that true of many helpful, robus, interesting, and healthy ideas?
People wrestling with mimetic theory are having their lives influenced in profound ways, and regarding atonement ... I would just say that none of us are saying that Girard's truth is the ONLY truth. Atonement is a huge, vast idea that, that, like many of the great truths, can be unpacked a variety of different ways. Mimesis is one way to unpack it and in doing so helps people recognize the importance of approaching the cross in a spirit of non-violence. Our world desparately needs such reflection around non-violent sacrifice!
I think the most unfortunate "vibes" I get from this post (and some of the other stuff I've read from you here on substack) is around the idea of how new ideas might push against the older, orthodox, 2,000 year old truth. Really? Forgive me if I read you incorrectly here, but it's kind of odd for me to read a thinker like yourself potentially putting obstacles in the way of others attempting to think. I don't understand that strategy.
I mean, it took us 1850 years to figure out slavery was wrong. It took us 1900 years to figure out that women should vote. It's just not a healthy move to suggest to people that thinking—particularly such helpful thinking as mimetic theory and process-influenced ORT—should take a back seat to the standard, tried and true way it's always been.
Re: process being too abstract. Yes, of course, that does happen at times. But, there is amazing work being done with open and relational thinkers (Thomas Jay Oord is one fantastic example) that help break some of this stuff down in super helpful, bite-sized chunks. Theodicy is a very big deal and ORT is an amazing and gracious way to enter into that whole concept that's bringing life to many, many people.
For what it's worth, not only would I not be a Chrisitan without Mimetic Theory and ORT, but I literally may not be alive right now. I would absolutely encourage anyone and everyone to wade into their waters and walk (swim) in all the light they can find. Yes, even if it means stepping (swimming) on the toes of those cashing paychecks based on the "2,000-year-old truth." We're an abundance-people not a scarcity-people. I think anyone would have God's blessing to think upon these things.
Ah, there are so many things I would want to say here, but this is probably enough for now and I fear I'm coming across too strong. My apologies if I am.
I'm curious how you would talk about Jesus' death and resurrection now Richard? I ask because sometimes, elaborate and fancy ideas compost down over time into something more comprehensible, or something somewhat fused with the old.
I do see that your point isn't whether or not these things had lasting influence, but why they were not sustainable in their original form..
Hey, what happened to, let’s keep Christianity weird? I’m sure I’m feeling a little defensive as a Girardian theobro. But perhaps I need to hear your critique as strategic: Better to preach about envy, resentment and rivalry than “mimesis”, and perhaps better to not mention Girard as often as I do, given my huge intellectual debt to him.
By "weird" I've meant enchanted. Not "requiring a graduate degree."
And from one theobro to another, I think it's good for us to exercise some self-criticism in how we come off to others when the theological fireworks starts to fly. I love talking theology over beers, but my wife starts to roll her eyes at this stuff if it goes on too long. Theobros need to understand how niche this stuff is.
It is worth noting that Girard himself had very little interest in deconstructing Christian theology. He was taking on anthropology and literary studies, and making the very non-post-modern case that real violence can be found hiding in mythic texts. His only challenge to theology was to insist that the violence of the cross (and the apocalypse) comes from humanity and not from God. Nor was this an original stance. Julian of Norwich said much the same thing over 600 years ago when she received a vision that “wrath” was all on our side, and absent from the heart of God. In my experience, you don’t need to be a theobro to receive this as good news.
"it strikes people as wildly implausible that, for almost 2,000 years, the church fundamentally misunderstood the death of Jesus until some French dude cracked the code in the 1970s." This. As much as I appreciate speculative theology (on the left and the right), much of it is so modern and suffers from the the whole "chronological snobbery" trope that it either ignores, forgets, or minimizes historical theologies. This is one of the key reasons I rejected the doctrines I was catechised under -- when I found out how recent they were I was forced to ask questions about historic christianity I had never considered.
A related critique is how White & middle-class this movement was ("a certain demographic"), but maybe that's a whole different post. 👀
Just came across this 100% Girardian Easter message in my podcast feed: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-martyr-made-podcast/id978322714. It doesn’t use the word “mimetic” once. Just a compelling series of stories that are broken open by the power of the cross. The curation and analysis is entirely Girardian, but the storyteller leaves that mostly in the background. If your eyes glaze over, or you experience this message as theological snobbery, I don’t know what to say.
Richard - have you done much reading of Chris EW Green - I find his theology very formative for us in the post progressive crowd. Here he lays out a version of non- violent atonement that to me rang deeper and truer than Guardian. https://youtu.be/0n3T7P9CCZY?si=E0IoEBZlmMa8DS2P
"Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try. No hell below us. Above us only sky."
I think that deconstructing faith leads to John Lennon and not to Jesus Christ, who is bigger than Lennon and Lenin by the way, a whole helluva lot BIGGER!
Murray, what I meant to say was that if you'd ever read my blogs, you would know better than to think that I "must have everything correct." I was trying to be humous in my humility admitting that I do most certainly NOT have everything correct. However, I don't think that my comment that started this constructive conversation between us was shortsighted at all. Smartassed, maybe, but sincerely made and believed, I can assure you. The comment wasn't "shortsighted" because it made an apt assertion that "deconstructing" the historic Christian faith that we believers in Jesus Christ are admonished in Scripture to contend for ultimately leads to mere cultural morass or communist gulags, and I think that the history of the 20th century bears this out.
May I ask if you are a deconstructionist? And if so, what do you have left to show for your deconstruction of your faith? I'm not arguing. I'm sincerely curious. Maybe I'm wrong about what I think. There's always a good chance that I am.
Thanks for the reply. The problem with comments is they very seldom reveal the entire position of someone. In this case, re. you, that is what happened. Your comment seemed to be saying if you are deconstructing you are deconstructing your way out of faith and towards Lennon/Lenin. I my case that is not so. I remain, in my mind, firmly in the faith and deconstructing/reconstructing got me here. I am in my late 70's and have been deconstructing long before the word became common. My deconstructing has been a positive experience but like you I certainly do not have everything figured out. In fact that is one of the beauties of the Christian faith - you can continue to learn and grow for your entire life. No excuse for sitting around on your couch drinking beer:) This part of the Christian journey is so appealing to me. Deconstructing is not a one time thing but a many time thing that, in my case, was a significant part of my journey. In fact there would have been no journey without deconstructing and reconstructing.
"If your views are always fighting skirmishes to beat back the charge of heresy, your view isn't going to become mainstream. Too much theological headwind."
Well, who is responsible for the theological headwind? The advocates for open and relational understandings of atonement, or those that flood the zone with condemnation? If you tell your congregation over and over that they are risking hellfire and damnation for not holding fast to your particular "orthodoxy," then what do you expect to happen? I remember the late John Gerstner questioning the salvation of those teachers that didn't hold to the TULIP approach to Reformation theology. Calvin had Michael Servetus executed for not towing the line. Scare enough people with hellfire, and you can stop any expansion of theological understanding. Who can stand up to the charge of "heresy" and its eternal consequence? If congregations weren't so frightened, maybe they be more inclined to engage in the due diligence necessary to understand alternate ways of looking at atonement.
yep. thanks.
Richard, thanks for this important critique. I'd invite you to add this: the purpose of theological exploration (in traditional terms) is to make the Gospel clearer and thus continue to reveal the truth about God. Process theology completely bungles this. It is so theoretically abstract that I'm not sure many of its proponents really understand it. In other words, it doesn't better reveal God, but clouds our understanding. I'd like to push back regarding Girard, however. No doubt, there is always a danger of a cult, but I do think Girardian theory (in spite of its complexity) leads us closer to the reality of the Triune God. Here is a God (aka Girard) who is so committed to restoring relationship with us, that He accommodates himself to the sinful way that we seek to save ourselves. So God in Christ becomes the scapegoat in order to render powerless the primordial tool was use for self-salvation. Anyway, thanks again for a great essay.
Hi Philip, as I shared in the post I think Girard is very much worth the trip, the hermeneutical lens he provides is transformative. And yet, I do think Girard's fans struggle with popularization. James Alison, in my estimation, is the best at this. But I feel pretty convinced that if you have to explain "memetic desire" to people before they can understand the gospels, and tell them so, most people are going to walk. To even say the name "Girard" in a sermon is diagnostic that you're going niche and turning your back on reaching a wider public.
All this us just my perspective from teaching Bible classes at a church for normal folk for over twenty years, and speaking about the gospel in prisons for fifteen years.
Hi Richard, I’m interested to know what your approach to communicating the message of salvation & atonement is to the regular folk. I understand where you are coming from with Girad, but as far as I can see a non-violent accounting of the atonement (from God’s side) is the “conservative” Christian one; it is very explicit in Irenaeus through to the Cappadocians (and strangely enough it reflects what is presented in the biblical accounts). Your reference to recently cracking the code would seem relevant to both the Giradian and modern PSA conception wouldn’t it?
I hear you. I have tried to explain Girard myself, not an easy lift! I see his gift as an anthropological correlation with the Gospel which helps one better understand the length which God has gone to save us. Again, thank you for this important critique of how "emerging church" missed it. Seems to me that it's just one more attempt at "speeches to cultural despisers."
Richard, as I've said before, I'm really thankful for your writing and insight. I've learned things from you over the years, and yes, I benefited when you used Heim's book to write a series of posts on Mimetic Theory. I have no need to get into an argument with you. I appreciate your insight; however, just in case folks are reading here, I think lumping Girard and process-influenced open and relational theology in with the "theobros" is a big, sweeping, misleading overgeneralization.
Girard's stuff is brilliant, challenging to work through at times, but brilliant. I don't really think any of us are called specifically to reach a "wider public" or "general audience," per se. I think we're called to unpack the veracity of the biblical story, and there's no doubt that Girard's insights do just that. (Whoever has an ear to hear, let him hear.) Of course, the pastor, teacher, theologian, or whomever needs to dole this info out carefully and with wisdom, but goodness, isn't that true of many helpful, robus, interesting, and healthy ideas?
People wrestling with mimetic theory are having their lives influenced in profound ways, and regarding atonement ... I would just say that none of us are saying that Girard's truth is the ONLY truth. Atonement is a huge, vast idea that, that, like many of the great truths, can be unpacked a variety of different ways. Mimesis is one way to unpack it and in doing so helps people recognize the importance of approaching the cross in a spirit of non-violence. Our world desparately needs such reflection around non-violent sacrifice!
I think the most unfortunate "vibes" I get from this post (and some of the other stuff I've read from you here on substack) is around the idea of how new ideas might push against the older, orthodox, 2,000 year old truth. Really? Forgive me if I read you incorrectly here, but it's kind of odd for me to read a thinker like yourself potentially putting obstacles in the way of others attempting to think. I don't understand that strategy.
I mean, it took us 1850 years to figure out slavery was wrong. It took us 1900 years to figure out that women should vote. It's just not a healthy move to suggest to people that thinking—particularly such helpful thinking as mimetic theory and process-influenced ORT—should take a back seat to the standard, tried and true way it's always been.
Re: process being too abstract. Yes, of course, that does happen at times. But, there is amazing work being done with open and relational thinkers (Thomas Jay Oord is one fantastic example) that help break some of this stuff down in super helpful, bite-sized chunks. Theodicy is a very big deal and ORT is an amazing and gracious way to enter into that whole concept that's bringing life to many, many people.
For what it's worth, not only would I not be a Chrisitan without Mimetic Theory and ORT, but I literally may not be alive right now. I would absolutely encourage anyone and everyone to wade into their waters and walk (swim) in all the light they can find. Yes, even if it means stepping (swimming) on the toes of those cashing paychecks based on the "2,000-year-old truth." We're an abundance-people not a scarcity-people. I think anyone would have God's blessing to think upon these things.
Ah, there are so many things I would want to say here, but this is probably enough for now and I fear I'm coming across too strong. My apologies if I am.
All my best.
I'm curious how you would talk about Jesus' death and resurrection now Richard? I ask because sometimes, elaborate and fancy ideas compost down over time into something more comprehensible, or something somewhat fused with the old.
I do see that your point isn't whether or not these things had lasting influence, but why they were not sustainable in their original form..
You have a gift for taking complex ideas and making them accessible to 'average' people. Thank you.
Hey, what happened to, let’s keep Christianity weird? I’m sure I’m feeling a little defensive as a Girardian theobro. But perhaps I need to hear your critique as strategic: Better to preach about envy, resentment and rivalry than “mimesis”, and perhaps better to not mention Girard as often as I do, given my huge intellectual debt to him.
:-)
By "weird" I've meant enchanted. Not "requiring a graduate degree."
And from one theobro to another, I think it's good for us to exercise some self-criticism in how we come off to others when the theological fireworks starts to fly. I love talking theology over beers, but my wife starts to roll her eyes at this stuff if it goes on too long. Theobros need to understand how niche this stuff is.
It is worth noting that Girard himself had very little interest in deconstructing Christian theology. He was taking on anthropology and literary studies, and making the very non-post-modern case that real violence can be found hiding in mythic texts. His only challenge to theology was to insist that the violence of the cross (and the apocalypse) comes from humanity and not from God. Nor was this an original stance. Julian of Norwich said much the same thing over 600 years ago when she received a vision that “wrath” was all on our side, and absent from the heart of God. In my experience, you don’t need to be a theobro to receive this as good news.
My wife and your wife should go for beers. They’d have a great time.
"it strikes people as wildly implausible that, for almost 2,000 years, the church fundamentally misunderstood the death of Jesus until some French dude cracked the code in the 1970s." This. As much as I appreciate speculative theology (on the left and the right), much of it is so modern and suffers from the the whole "chronological snobbery" trope that it either ignores, forgets, or minimizes historical theologies. This is one of the key reasons I rejected the doctrines I was catechised under -- when I found out how recent they were I was forced to ask questions about historic christianity I had never considered.
A related critique is how White & middle-class this movement was ("a certain demographic"), but maybe that's a whole different post. 👀
Just came across this 100% Girardian Easter message in my podcast feed: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-martyr-made-podcast/id978322714. It doesn’t use the word “mimetic” once. Just a compelling series of stories that are broken open by the power of the cross. The curation and analysis is entirely Girardian, but the storyteller leaves that mostly in the background. If your eyes glaze over, or you experience this message as theological snobbery, I don’t know what to say.
Richard - have you done much reading of Chris EW Green - I find his theology very formative for us in the post progressive crowd. Here he lays out a version of non- violent atonement that to me rang deeper and truer than Guardian. https://youtu.be/0n3T7P9CCZY?si=E0IoEBZlmMa8DS2P
"Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try. No hell below us. Above us only sky."
I think that deconstructing faith leads to John Lennon and not to Jesus Christ, who is bigger than Lennon and Lenin by the way, a whole helluva lot BIGGER!
If you have nothing to "deconstruct" than you must have everything correct.
You’ve obviously never read my blogs, Murray, or you’d know better! 🥴
Of course I haven't. I only have your comment here to comment on and it seemed short-sighted.
Murray, what I meant to say was that if you'd ever read my blogs, you would know better than to think that I "must have everything correct." I was trying to be humous in my humility admitting that I do most certainly NOT have everything correct. However, I don't think that my comment that started this constructive conversation between us was shortsighted at all. Smartassed, maybe, but sincerely made and believed, I can assure you. The comment wasn't "shortsighted" because it made an apt assertion that "deconstructing" the historic Christian faith that we believers in Jesus Christ are admonished in Scripture to contend for ultimately leads to mere cultural morass or communist gulags, and I think that the history of the 20th century bears this out.
May I ask if you are a deconstructionist? And if so, what do you have left to show for your deconstruction of your faith? I'm not arguing. I'm sincerely curious. Maybe I'm wrong about what I think. There's always a good chance that I am.
Thanks for the reply. The problem with comments is they very seldom reveal the entire position of someone. In this case, re. you, that is what happened. Your comment seemed to be saying if you are deconstructing you are deconstructing your way out of faith and towards Lennon/Lenin. I my case that is not so. I remain, in my mind, firmly in the faith and deconstructing/reconstructing got me here. I am in my late 70's and have been deconstructing long before the word became common. My deconstructing has been a positive experience but like you I certainly do not have everything figured out. In fact that is one of the beauties of the Christian faith - you can continue to learn and grow for your entire life. No excuse for sitting around on your couch drinking beer:) This part of the Christian journey is so appealing to me. Deconstructing is not a one time thing but a many time thing that, in my case, was a significant part of my journey. In fact there would have been no journey without deconstructing and reconstructing.
Well when you put it that way, Murray, Abraham, Moses, John the Baptizer, Peter, Paul, and even Jesus Christ Himself would agree with you, I think!
Please check out my blogs. I’d LOVE to have more readers like you! 😇