Interesting Critique of Girard

[Caleb_Fogg]

Here is an interesting paper critiquing Rene Girard, by Darrin Snyder Belousek. He seems to appreciate some of Girard’s thinking, while finding limitations as well: academia.edu/5250383/Mimesis_Conflict_and_Cross_Engaging_Girard

If you haven’t heard of Belousek, he’s the author of a recent and mammoth volume critiquing penal substituionary atonement:amazon.com/Atonement-Justice-Peace-Message-Mission/dp/0802866425. I just ordered the book as a Christmas present for my dad and am looking forward to reading it with him. It’s exciting how he builds upon his atonement theology as a basis for ethics, justice and peace-making.

Here is an interview about the book on Scott McKnight’s Jesus Creed Blog: patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/05/17/justice-and-peace-and-atonement/

I know that some of the posters here are fans of Girard, including Dick, I believe. Kevin Miller, director of Hellbound?, and Michael Hardin, and I believe Brad Jersak, who were both interviewed for the film, are advocates as well. I am interested in Girard’s perspective, but I have some concerns about the Girardian view as well with quotes like this found in Belousek’s paper:

34
E.g., Michael Hardin: “The atonement has been misplaced…In classic Christian doctrine, what does‘atonement’ usually come under? It comes under soteriology, or salvation. Atonement: this is how Jesus saves us. It is misplaced. It ought to come under anthropology. Atonement, in other words, is not a theological category but an anthropological one…Atonement is not about God but about us. It is anthropological through and through…Atonement is about our epistemological shift.
” (Facebook post, 5
October 2013).

I am more and more coming to agree that what Hardin says has merit, but am hesistant at this point to say the atonement is entirely epistemological, ONLY a changing of how we view God.

[Sobornost]

Hi Caleb -

I’ve read the article with a speed read - but would like to give it full attention later when I am able. What I’d say is that one very good thing about Girard and a lot of the Girardians is that they do not presume to think Girard’s anthropological insights on the atonement are the complete picture - but rather a part of the picture that has been neglected, and also think that the Giraridan ‘project’ is a work in progress through discussion (Rene is actually a humble man and not a guru by any means and he formed the colloquium on violence and religion for the purposes of this discussion - and he modifies his views through the criticism of others). The stuff you’ve posted here is well within the bounds of agreement and disagreement you find across the board with scholars who are influenced by Girard (it’s a very Broad Church actually). I think the objective view of atonement that Girard’s theories most align with is Christus Victor with the Moral View of Atonement as its subjective complement - but unlike Mike Hardin (or at least what he seems to be saying in the quotations) other Girardians would also affirm the objective defeat of evil of a cosmic dimension in Christ’s death and resurrection.

So GIrard is very much a thinker who you can feel ‘permission’ to be inspired by but also not completely agree with - he’d only want as much. Also there is no need to completely agree with other Girardians either - they share central concerns and insights but there is latitude for proper debate always (also, for example, on the nature of myth - can myth sometimes have a positive function?; the nature of desire - is there such a thing as a natural positive mimesis? etc)

Blessings -

Dick

IF you ever want my list of my top three Giradian books - say - to give you an overview, do ask. I’ll have a serious think about what to recommend but one of these would be - given the focus of this site - ‘Compassionate Eschatology - The Future as Friend’ (eds. Grimsrud and Hardin)

[Caleb_Fogg]

Thanks so much for your thoughts Dick. Good to hear about Girard’s openness and flexibility, and also interesting about connections with atonement theories that many Girardian’s have. And thanks for the book recommendation. I may have to check that out at some point.

Cheers,

Caleb

[Sobornost]

The two essays I remember that gave me some insights into this subject were Willard Swartley on ‘Narrative Christus Victor’ and Robin Collins ‘An Incarnational theory of Mimetic Participation’. I’m busy at the moment but if you ever should want me to send you that latter essay (which is about fifteen pages long) I’d get it to you somehow. I think it’s good and looks at the questions you raise in some detail.