A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Enlightenment
We can talk while the coffee's brewing. Not quite a century later Peter Abelard objected to Anselm’s 12th century interpretation of how it is that Jesus’ death saves the world. Abelard thought he had a better idea and believed what Jesus did was show that we could live at a higher level of human kindness than previously accepted. The love of Jesus portrays not only the supreme love God has for us but becomes the inspiration for the love we can have for God and for our neighbor.
Abelard’s “moral influence” theory has been judged by history as being a bit too optimistic as the following centuries did not produce the inspirational change in lives it proposed. So even though Anselm’s theory of Jesus being our substitute was slightly wounded it lived on as the most prevalent view of how Jesus saves.
Not until the 19th and 20th century when cultural influences from the enlightenment spurred renewed debate have other weighty theories begun to emerge. Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulen challenged Anselm’s thinking in his book Christus Victor in 1931. Aulen focused on the earliest years of the Church when the dominant view was that humans, due to sin, had fallen under the control of Satan. In Aulen’s theory, God defeats Satan by deceiving him with the fully divine, fully human character of Jesus--someone Satan could not redirect towards selfish evil. Though popular for several decades the enlightened, scientific world was increasingly weary of the personification of evil as having power over humans or that evil could hold humans hostage and God helpless.
Philosopher Rene Girard, born in France in 1923, was American educated and spent most of his career at Stanford, offers a classic modern view of how Jesus saves that does not include the need for a cosmic figure of evil. In three books Girard proposes our human need for a “scapegoat”, i.e., someone or a group of people to be identified as the source of our problem and the focus of our rejection.
The emerging science of psychology framed the human problem as based in our competitive nature that desires what belongs to others mostly because they wanted it first. Our desire to have what belongs to others leads to violence. To deflect our desires and the resulting violence in order that we might securely live in community we direct our violence toward a scapegoat. Modern scapegoats have been Jews and Communists while today gays and illegal immigrants are good examples.
Girard’s scapegoat theory has recently inspired a number of books, several a year in fact, by some very highly respected theologians. Appealing to the enlightened, modern mind is the symbol of Jesus as the definitive example of a scapegoat being innocent. Girard sites other Biblical and historical characters whose lives conveyed the same truth. The point being that violence does not expel violence. The saving act of Jesus has been to reveal this truth and how acknowledging it breaks the cycle of violence. Girard’s hope, and that of many others, is by opening our eyes to the fallacy of deceit and violence the reign of God becomes a reality as we then learn to live in peace.
Coffee’s ready. You’re going to need it for what comes next.
Abelard’s “moral influence” theory has been judged by history as being a bit too optimistic as the following centuries did not produce the inspirational change in lives it proposed. So even though Anselm’s theory of Jesus being our substitute was slightly wounded it lived on as the most prevalent view of how Jesus saves.
Not until the 19th and 20th century when cultural influences from the enlightenment spurred renewed debate have other weighty theories begun to emerge. Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulen challenged Anselm’s thinking in his book Christus Victor in 1931. Aulen focused on the earliest years of the Church when the dominant view was that humans, due to sin, had fallen under the control of Satan. In Aulen’s theory, God defeats Satan by deceiving him with the fully divine, fully human character of Jesus--someone Satan could not redirect towards selfish evil. Though popular for several decades the enlightened, scientific world was increasingly weary of the personification of evil as having power over humans or that evil could hold humans hostage and God helpless.
Philosopher Rene Girard, born in France in 1923, was American educated and spent most of his career at Stanford, offers a classic modern view of how Jesus saves that does not include the need for a cosmic figure of evil. In three books Girard proposes our human need for a “scapegoat”, i.e., someone or a group of people to be identified as the source of our problem and the focus of our rejection.
The emerging science of psychology framed the human problem as based in our competitive nature that desires what belongs to others mostly because they wanted it first. Our desire to have what belongs to others leads to violence. To deflect our desires and the resulting violence in order that we might securely live in community we direct our violence toward a scapegoat. Modern scapegoats have been Jews and Communists while today gays and illegal immigrants are good examples.
Girard’s scapegoat theory has recently inspired a number of books, several a year in fact, by some very highly respected theologians. Appealing to the enlightened, modern mind is the symbol of Jesus as the definitive example of a scapegoat being innocent. Girard sites other Biblical and historical characters whose lives conveyed the same truth. The point being that violence does not expel violence. The saving act of Jesus has been to reveal this truth and how acknowledging it breaks the cycle of violence. Girard’s hope, and that of many others, is by opening our eyes to the fallacy of deceit and violence the reign of God becomes a reality as we then learn to live in peace.
Coffee’s ready. You’re going to need it for what comes next.
If Abelard's theory was judged too optimistic, by that standard isn't Girard's overly optimistic, as well? Doesn't seem like we've progressed very far in breaking the cycle of violence.
ReplyDeleteIronically, Girard's theory is anything but overly-optimistic. Claiming that the scapegoating of Jesus has once-and-for-all revealed the dark secret of our reliance on 'good violence' to quell 'bad violence', Girard points out that we have now been deprived of our principal method of keeping the peace. It proves less and less effective in a world that is awakening to the phenomenon of scapegoating. The result is that we are now desperately in need of an alternative method, and the only other available one is the method Jesus proposed, which is to set our hearts on God and desire only what God desires, so that our rivalries may cease.
ReplyDeleteGood observations to you both. John, I think you are correct in you're assumptions of what Jesus proposed and it is what Girard intends by his theory. The issue may be that it is too optimistic to think that we can agree on what it means to set our heart on what God desires, or, what is it that God desires?
ReplyDelete