Geoff; I started reading through your series last night, and I’m really enjoying it. I’m maybe about halfway through (or less), and I’ll be very interested to see the conclusions you draw. Great series; thanks for sharing.
Thank you! The series is finished, I am just publishing one section a day now until I’ve got all 25 sections published. So if you catch up, bear with me!
By the way, I’ve been meaning to check out Jesus Driven Life sometime, as well. Hardin worked with Walter Wink - who was a huge influence on my thinking in the area of Satan/Demons - on a section of the “Understanding Spiritual Warfare: Four Views” book, which I put a couple quotes from in my series in the second post.
Yeah; Hardin’s approach is very influenced by Rene Girard’s mimetic theory/ mimetic realism and Walter Wink’s work. I think it’s one of the most insightful books I’ve ever read, and it touches on a number of important and interrelated topics, including the atonement. I plan to re-read it once I finish it; it’s just that good.
I found this section to be particularly interesting, brilliant and insightful.
Thank you! You know, I didn’t originally plan to have that section. But I had notes all over saying “should I talk about Atonement here?” And so I inserted that section after having moved on.
I’ve published Part 13, which examines a story immediately following the desert temptation, and its connections to the trials.
The next section of my series examines the question: how did the Accuser become “the Evil One”? And how did “he” become associated with chaos, when all our examples so far have been of an overzealous lawyer?
All these in Part 14
Hi Geoff 
this reminds me that Girard associates this chaos with the sacrificial crisis in which all distinctions break down as sacrificing rage overtakes the sacrificing mob. Indeed Girard draws attention to an African tribal mask in which there are not only human and animal elements but also organic elements – bits of plants and fields of crops get mixed up with everything else.
I watched a sanitised version of one of these rituals on television a few years ago. It was an ancient Shinto rite enacted by the men of an industrial town in Japan where everything is clean and orderly and no litter is ever dropped. Once a year the men dress up in nothing but loincloths – all social distinctions between bosses and workers are broken down -and get horribly drunk and often hurt each other badly in fights. But with the rising sun order is reborn from chaos in renewed creation and they return to normal life purged. (In former times a real sacrificial victim would have been murdered as part of the rite as part of ‘Satan casting out Satan’).
As you say Geoff -
It is amazing to me how right on Girard’s theory is - at first you think “there’s no way to prove this”, but then you see how it plays out everywhere! And Girard has quite an extensive knowledge of history and myth, and draws on many examples of his theories in play in his writing.
By the way - which book was the example you gave above from? I’ve only read “The Scapegoat” by him so far. I probably should have read “I See Satan Fall Like Lightning” before I released my series, but I didn’t want to put it off any longer. Plus, I found “The Scapegoat” to be a little difficult to get through, until I got to the portions based on Biblical passages (which were easier for me because I was more familiar with the subject matter).
That is very interesting - I’ve wondered, as I became more of a pacifist, if indeed there is some level of violence that is necessary. I mean, obviously we want as little violence as possible. But as an example of what I’m getting at - numerous people have observed that men who are friends and women who are friends fight very differently. Men get the problem right out in the open and take care of it right then and there - maybe even involving fists - and then they have a beer afterwards, and it’s over. Whereas it seems that women often avoid the problem, and can be very passive aggressive - which might actually do more damage to the friendship in the end. You almost wonder if it’s better to put on padding and have a kickboxing match and get it over with, with hugs following afterwards? Or is this as Thich Nhat Hanh says - practicing our violence and growing the seeds of violence within? I don’t know - it’s a tough question.
Hi Geoff, 
I don’t want to derail the thread but I was wondering about the same thing in a slightly different fashion while reading The Jesus Driven Life. I certainly think retributive violence needs to be absolutely eliminated, but I’m wondering about something I’d call “restraining force” (as opposed to “violence” I guess…)
It seems like a parent is sometimes obligated to use force to stop one child from beating on another. A friend may be obligated to restrain an angry friend going after someone he’s angry with, and we usually have no problem with authorities restraining a violent person whose psychiatric disorder is out of control and is a danger to himself and others—similarly with violent dangerous criminals. Expanding this to governments/nations using force to restrain aggressors is more problematic, certainly, but it seems perhaps a logical extension of this idea–though I don’t trust politicians as far as I can throw them.
The use of force in these scenarios would be motivated by concern and love for the oppressed and a desire to prevent further violence but obviously has the risk of escalation, misinterpretation, disguised motives etc. Might be worth a thread sometime to see if this type of “force” can still be harmonized in some fashion with Girard.
I certainly don’t consider this to be “derailing” the thread at all. I think our attachment to retributive violence is very much interwoven with the Accuser in the Bible. I believe the Accusing voices - when they are engaged relentlessly and without mercy - give birth to this violence.
**Geoff ** I cannot for the life of me remember which of Girard’s’ books the anthropological detail of the African mask comes from - but it’s probably from ‘Things Hidden from the foundation of the world’.
I think your series is excellent Geoff and there was no need for you to hold it back. I haven’t seen the later articles yet – I think regarding Girard, he’s very interesting about how the Satan is the cause of ‘scandals’ and in defining the mechanism of scandals. You could take a look at ‘Satan fall like Lightning ‘regarding this sometime is you haven’t already seen it discussed elsewhere (Satan Fall like Lightning’ is easily Girard’s most accessible book and along with James G, Williams 'A Girard Reader’ provides the best overview).
Steve and Geoff (both) regarding Girard and solutions to human violence – well he’d class himself as a pacifist but also a pragmatist (which probably means that he isn’t actually a pacifist when push comes to shove).
I think Girard is realistic that we cannot get rid of mimetic rivalry then – and that we shouldn’t fool ourselves about this. So he’s not going to argue against the need for ‘restraining force’ and for abolishing the police, the judiciary and the army I think (he’s not a utopian).
Also he understands the benefits of social customs in which rivalrous desire can be expressed in harmless and cathartic ways. For instance games of Football with cheering ecstatic crowds are in many ways equivalent to gladiatorial combats – and there is intense mimetic rivalry between teams and their supporters. However slaughter on the pitch is figurative not actual and with proper crowd management violence between supporters can be minimised, even when the ’gods’ of patriotism or inter-state rivalries have been invoked by the playing of anthems. (I know that in rugby the New Zealand All Blacks actually do a Maori war dance as preliminaries for soft combat).
Likewise Girard is – surprisingly (perhaps) – broadly in favour of capitalism as an economic system because it minimises rivalry by distributing the objects of desire widely – although he is a strong promoter of Catholic moral theology regarding the need to have a social market and guard against the excesses of economic individualism.
Girard actually doesn’t set out a political/social project. He’s not that kind of thinker and he’s certainly not a guru offering a universal tin opener. Although his range is breathtaking he’s a humble man. He provides certain key anthropological insights into human culture on the nature of desire, the scapegoating mechanism, and the unmasking of the scapegoating myth and opens up discussion with theologians (and others) from these first principles – and there is much latitude for friendly disagreement among Girardians. Indeed he has set up the Colloquium on Violence and Religion for this ongoing discussion to take place.
All the best
Dick
That’s very helpful, Dick.
Thanks!
I ordered A Girard Reader the other day and it should be here soon. Looking forward to learning more of his thought.
Geoff, my acquaintance with Girard is pretty recent but as you said, “you can see how it plays out everywhere!” Once I was able to see the “humanness” (ala Peter Enns) in scripture, Hardin, by way of Girard, is showing me how God used that humanness.
I totally agree with what you say about “The Accuser” and I’m loving this series.
Dick, that’s some very interesting background on Girard. I will definitely pick up “I See Satan Fall Like Lightning” at some point. Like I said - I had difficulty slogging through the beginning of “The Scapegoat”, but once I got to the point where he was dealing with Scripture it became much easier for me, and more interesting. I think it was just because he was dealing with so much material I was unfamiliar with in the beginning that it was difficult for me. Also - thanks for sending me the link to that article. I have not read it yet, but will do so during lunch today.
And by the way, Part 15 is now up, and deals with the concept of the angels of the nations, as well as Paul’s attitude regarding “gods”.
Good one Geoff
Thanks! I find the story of the Gerasene demoniac very interesting these days!
Part 17 is up, and examines a few other passages with demonic exorcisms.
Maybe you are confusing “panentheism” (God in everything) with “pantheism” (Everything is God).
I see no reason why a panentheist couldn’t believe in eternal conscious torment. God could be IN the tortured people and not Himself suffer since the eternally tortured people would not be part of Him (as in pantheism).
I always thought panentheism was God in everything, but at the same time being fully transcendent. Thus, everything is God, but God cannot be summed up in everything.
The way the Edwardsian scholar described it, he talked about how Edwards would talk about how we and the known universe are like the yolk of an egg which is God.
As I understand it, the traditional view is that God is transcendent—that He and the universe are totally separate.
The pantheistic view is the exact opposite—that God IS the universe, and the universe is God.
The panentheistic view is that God is immanent, actually present IN the universe. “Pan” (all) en(in) “theos” (God). The question is whether the word means “God is in all” or “All is in God”. I think it is the former. Many think it is both.
Personally, I believe that God is in every part of the universe, that is He is omnipresent, but I am not sure what it means to say that every part of the universe is in God. Does that make me a one-way panentheist?
You may want to check out the definition of “Panentheism” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The way I think of it is “God is in all” and “All is in God” and God is fully transcendent. Which really bends your mind to think about.
But yeah, “we are the yolk of an egg which is God” was an analogy the Edwardsian scholar gave, and I thought it was kind of funny to believe such a thing and try to reconcile eternal conscious torment with it.