Discussion:
Violence and the Sacred
(too old to reply)
* irenic *
2006-10-17 02:54:28 UTC
Permalink
ABOLISHING THE VIOLENCE AT THE HEART OF THE SACRED




Pope Benedict has stirred Muslims around the world by quoting an old text
stating that Islam is inherently violent implying, it seems, that somehow
Christianity is not. Catholic and Protestant Christianity both have a
history of religiously inspired violence the Crusades, the murderous
Inquisition, Luther s support for the violent repression of the Peasants
Revolt, Calvin and the execution of Servetus, and (in the eyes of Muslims)
today an openly avowed Christian President of the most Christian and
militarily powerful nation on earth occupying and/or invading Muslim
countries.



It is impossible to read the Koran without seeing God portrayed as violent,
but the same is true of the Bible. The Penal Substitutionary Theory of the
atonement, which some Christians falsely insist equals orthodox
Christianity - i.e. that God required Christ s violent death on the cross to
appease/propitiate his violent feelings (wrath) against sinful humanity
sets in concrete an image of God as violent.



If God is violent at the core for Islam or Christianity then it is so much
hot air to claim that the violence of fundamentalist fanatics misrepresents
what are really peaceful religions. And the history of both religions seems
to confirm a hot air theory.



Orthodox Christianity certainly insists that Christ died for our sins and
that through his death he opened the way to at-one-ment between God and
humanity. But never ever - unlike the doctrine of the Trinity or of the
Incarnation - has there been an orthodox doctrine of the Atonement.



To make belief in the Penal Substitutionary Theory (PST) obligatory for
recognising authentic Christian faith as do huge numbers of conservative
Protestants and Catholics today is itself unorthodox (i.e. heretical).
Authentic Christians are free either to reject or accept the PST.



But the PST has become the default theory for many Christians because they
have never been taught anything else. So they tend to read the Bible through
PST doctrinal glasses and thus maintain a violent image of God. In a world
where religiously motivated violence and counter violence threatens to
consume us all, it is high time we Christians explored at depth the question
Is God violent? and, by implication, Jesus and the Atonement.



To begin a debate it would be hard to do better than to consider the views
of a cultural genius who was converted to Christ by exploring this question.



In his demanding book s, Violence and the Sacred and Things Hidden Since the
Foundation of the World, Rene Girard cites extensive anthropological
evidence to show that violence, first in the form of human and later of
animal sacrifice, is as fundamental to the evolution of the human mind and
spirit as are mutations in the DNA code to bodily evolution. Sacrifice,
human then animal, acted out in ritual and told of in myth, occurs in every
primitive society all over the globe and is the religious glue that for most
of human history has prevented the war of all against all. Anthropologists
and Ethnologists have been so puzzled by this universality that, unable to
explain it, they have dismissed it as superstition.



Girard, a polymath, became a Christian as an adult via his immense readings
in myth, literature, history, anthropology and psychology (among other
achievements, he is a Shakespeare expert) when he realised that the Bible
was gradually revealing that images of god/s requiring sacrifice were false
human creations. Creations founded in the fundamental violence involved with
all human relationships and that come to particular focus on issues of
access to food, sex, resources and territory.



Key to Girard s theory is the notion of the scapegoat, a figure evident in
all ancient myths and religions.



The mystifying worldwide, phenomena of rituals and myths of actual human and
animal sacrifice goes back, says Girard, to early human ancestors,
hominoids, who had not yet acquired language.



He asks us to imagine a scene, repeated many times in many parts of the
world, where total communal violence breaks out among these anthropoids. It
is like a destructive plague, escalating with every new act of retaliation
(the sacrificial crisis ). But suddenly the clan focus shifts to a single
individual who is seen as the cause of the plague, the evil one. The whole
clan in utter frenzy and screaming cacophony fall upon this one and tear him
to pieces.



When he is dead, the frenzy and the screaming cease. There is silence and
peace. The corpse of the evil one is now the focus of the whole clan. Alive,
that body was reviled by all as the cause of the plague of violence, dead
that same one is now revered as the cause of the peace.



Thus, at one and the same time, the scapegoat becomes the epitome of evil
(i.e. before the collective murder, the cause of anarchic violence) and also
the epitome of good (i.e. after the collective murder, the cause of peaceful
harmony). Unconsciously, the scapegoat is thus transformed into both a
violent and a peaceful god whose beneficent effects are repeated by the
practise of sacrificial rituals.



No one in the clan can describe, or even has words for, the actual working
of the sacrificial mechanism, but its effects are so beneficial that it
becomes ritualised as the way of avoiding the evil plague of violence. From
now on, the mysterious and destructive power of violence can be overcome
by invoking the mysterious power of peace through repeating the murder of
the scapegoat in sacrificial rituals.



We might see the same profound ambiguity in the PST of the atonement where
God is also imaged as violent (his justice demanding judgement, death and
hell) and as peaceful (his love, peace and gift of eternal life).



Girard says the Bible recognises that all human societies are based upon and
maintained by violence when it tells us that Cain, the first murderer, is
the founder of human civilisation, the first builder of a city. And we can
see echoes, he says, of the transition from human to animal sacrifice in the
story of Abraham and the sacrifice of his son Isaac, when at the last minute
God substitutes an animal for Isaac on the altar.



In the later prophets with God s repeated refrain, I desire mercy not
sacrifice , Girard contends, we are at an advanced stage of recognising that
the real God is not violent at all. This recognition comes about by seeing
reality not from the point of view of the murderers of the scapegoat (the
winners?), who have heaped blame for their own violence onto the scapegoat
(the loser?), but by seeing reality from the point of view of the scapegoat,
the innocent victim of communal violence.



Before Christ, says Girard, the high point of the revelation that the real
God is non-violent is the Servant Songs of Isaiah, especially chapters 52-3.
Here the victim is clearly seen as innocent, though there is still a slight
overtone that it is a God of violence that requires the victim s death
(hence it is not a surprise to discover that these chapters are also used by
the PST to interpret Jesus death as a sacrifice to propitiate violent
divine wrath).



Girard is not denying Biblical Revelation, on the contrary he is arguing
that the Bible alone reveals the truth both about the human condition and
God. But he is not a na ve literalist, insisting that all parts of the Bible
reveal God equally. There is a progressive revelation; not because of any
limitation of God but because of human limitation.



With Jesus, says Girard, God is finally revealed as totally non-violent.
Jesus is the completely innocent scapegoat with everyone, the political
authorities, the religious authorities, and especially the mob itself,
crying for his blood; even his own close disciples flee from him or
explicitly deny him. Jesus brings to completion a revelation the true God
has been disclosing to Israel over centuries.



In the gospel stories of Jesus resurrection appearances, Jesus does not
come back breathing violent revenge but peace. His own non-violence is the
imitation of the true God and the unmasking of the evil-good,
violent-peaceful god/s of sacrifice.



With the invention of nuclear weapons, and their continuing proliferation
(Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea! Iran?) Girard thinks it completely
naive for secular Westerners to ignore Jesus forecast about all humanity
being consumed by ultimate violence (Armageddon).



Western culture, he says, is profoundly influenced by Jesus: sacrifice of
scapegoats has been replaced by the rule of law (i.e. legitimate violence
used to control illegitimate violence); myths and legends have been replaced
by history and science; scapegoating is quickly recognised as victimisation.
But it is Christianity itself that is now being scapegoated by Westerners,
he says, either by direct ridicule or by relativising it as just one
religion among many.



For Girard, Jesus death achieves at-one-ment by revealing to us the
imitation of the true God as totally non-violent and the gods of the
religions as human inventions founded in violence.



We certainly need our sins forgiven, especially the sins of violent
scapegoating we continue to perpetrate in our families, workplaces and
international relations, but most of all we need to renounce our images of
God as violent and imitate Jesus who imitated God. For now we know, as Jesus
did (says Girard), that Armageddon will come not from God but from our own
violence.



To imitate him, Jesus said, we must take up the cross i.e. when faced with
violence we must accept victimage, not resort to retaliation: even if like
him that means accepting death by trusting that the real God is love and
resurrection life.



(The author - a scholar-friend - wishes to remain anonymous)


-- --

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

'It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so' (Mark Twain)

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 18,000 articles/ 4000 humour
Matthew Johnson
2006-10-18 01:16:43 UTC
Permalink
ABOLISHING THE VIOLENCE AT THE HEART OF THE SACRED
Pope Benedict has stirred Muslims around the world by quoting an old
text stating that Islam is inherently violent implying, it seems,
that somehow Christianity is not.
And why is this controversial? Of course Islam is violent; and in a
way in which Christianity has never been.
Catholic and Protestant Christianity both have a history of
religiously inspired violence the Crusades, the murderous
Inquisition, Luther s support for the violent repression of the
Peasants Revolt, Calvin and the execution of Servetus,
But NONE of this compares with the Koran's _direct_ call for unceasing
warfare with all that is not under Islam. Why isn't this obvious?
There is a _world_ of a difference between the "religiously inspired
violence" you mention, which was NEVER commanded by Scripture, and
Islam's call for unceasing warfare.
and (in the eyes of Muslims) today an openly avowed Christian
President of the most Christian and militarily powerful nation on
earth occupying and/or invading Muslim countries.
It is impossible to read the Koran without seeing God portrayed as violent,
but the same is true of the Bible.
No, the same is most certainly NOT true of the Bible.
The Penal Substitutionary Theory of the atonement, which some
Christians falsely insist equals orthodox Christianity - i.e. that
God required Christ s violent death on the cross to
appease/propitiate his violent feelings (wrath) against sinful
humanity sets in concrete an image of God as violent.
Ah, but the "Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement" is NOT in
the Bible. On the contrary: it was largely the invention of Anselm,
though it had significant precedent in much earlier Roman Catholic
writers.
If God is violent at the core for Islam or Christianity then it is so
much hot air to claim that the violence of fundamentalist fanatics
misrepresents what are really peaceful religions. And the history of
both religions seems to confirm a hot air theory.
Orthodox Christianity certainly insists that Christ died for our sins
and that through his death he opened the way to at-one-ment between
God and humanity.
Orthodox Christianity cannot embrace the revisionism of your spelling
of "atonement"!
But never ever - unlike the doctrine of the Trinity >or of the
Incarnation - has there been an orthodox doctrine of the Atonement.
How can you claim this? The word Atonement _does_ occur in Scripture,
you know.
To make belief in the Penal Substitutionary Theory (PST) obligatory
for recognising authentic Christian faith as do huge numbers of
conservative Protestants and Catholics today is itself unorthodox
(i.e. heretical). Authentic Christians are free either to reject or
accept the PST.
But 'PST' and 'Atonement' are NOT the same!
But the PST has become the default theory for many Christians because
they have never been taught anything else. So they tend to read the
Bible through PST doctrinal glasses and thus maintain a violent image
of God. In a world where religiously motivated violence and counter
violence threatens to consume us all, it is high time we Christians
explored at depth the question Is God violent? and, by implication,
Jesus and the Atonement.
To begin a debate it would be hard to do better than to consider the
views of a cultural genius who was converted to Christ by exploring
this question.
Actually, it would be easy to do better. And no "cultural genius" is
required. For as many simple people have shown through the history of
their own holy lives, one can do MUCH better just by listening
attentively and prayerfully to the services of the Orthodox Church
during Holy Week. These spell out the _Orthodox_ doctrine of
Redemption very well. It includes 'Atonement', but not 'PST'. Nor does
Atonement _exhaustively_ explain Redemption. Instead, it is only one
of many divinely inspired metaphors for explaining the great Mystery.
In his demanding book s, Violence and the Sacred and Things Hidden
Since the Foundation of the World, Rene Girard cites extensive
anthropological evidence to show that violence, first in the form of
human and later of animal sacrifice, is as fundamental to the
evolution of the human mind and spirit as are mutations in the DNA
code to bodily evolution. Sacrifice, human then animal, acted out in
ritual and told of in myth, occurs in every primitive society all
over the globe and is the religious glue that for most of human
history has prevented the war of all against all.
People living in some parts of the world have good reason to believe
that that war has NOT been prevented.
Anthropologists and Ethnologists have been so puzzled by this
universality that, unable to explain it, they have dismissed it as
superstition.
I don't believe that.
Girard, a polymath, became a Christian as an adult via his immense readings
in myth, literature, history, anthropology and psychology (among other
achievements, he is a Shakespeare expert) when he realised that the Bible
was gradually revealing that images of god/s requiring sacrifice were false
human creations.
I don't believe this, either. Neither should anyone else. God _does_
require sacrifice. But now we have been given the duty of bloodless
sacrifice.
Creations founded in the fundamental violence involved with all human
relationships and that come to particular focus on issues of access
to food, sex, resources and territory.
Key to Girard s theory is the notion of the scapegoat, a figure evident in
all ancient myths and religions.
The mystifying worldwide, phenomena of rituals and myths of actual human and
animal sacrifice goes back, says Girard, to early human ancestors,
hominoids, who had not yet acquired language.
He asks us to imagine a scene, repeated many times in many parts of
the world, where total communal violence breaks out among these
anthropoids. It is like a destructive plague, escalating with every
new act of retaliation (the sacrificial crisis ). But suddenly the
clan focus shifts to a single individual who is seen as the cause of
the plague, the evil one. The whole clan in utter frenzy and
screaming cacophony fall upon this one and tear him to pieces.
This is all SO speculative!

[snip]
To imitate him, Jesus said, we must take up the cross i.e. when faced
This is far too narrow an interpretation of what it means to "take up
the cross". Indeed: often, taking up the cross _involves_ violent
struggle, such as when St. Sergius of Radonezh (whose feast we
celebrated recently) blessed his monks to join laymen in battle
against the Mongols to liberate Moscow.

Indeed: my sigfile has a better interpretation. Which is why it is
such a pity it is so hard to get the translation into English right;)

[snip]
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
gilgames
2006-10-18 01:16:45 UTC
Permalink
<<
The Penal Substitutionary Theory of the
atonement, which some Christians falsely insist equals orthodox
Christianity - i.e. that God required Christ s violent death on the
cross to appease/propitiate his violent feelings (wrath) against sinful
humanity sets in concrete an image of God as violent.
Why don't you interpret it on that way, that the human life is not the
highest value?

If you think it over, the reconciliation of God with men was completed
by the Incarnation. The death was necessary only due to the human
freedom, what Jesus accepted, because the freedom is higher value than
the life.

We don t worth enough to make God angry.
Steve Hayes
2006-10-19 02:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by * irenic *
Orthodox Christianity certainly insists that Christ died for our sins and
that through his death he opened the way to at-one-ment between God and
humanity. But never ever - unlike the doctrine of the Trinity or of the
Incarnation - has there been an orthodox doctrine of the Atonement.
That is not strictly true, except int he sense that Orthodox Christianity has
never had a "systematic theology", as is commonly found in Western
Christianity. Orthodoxy has never had an Aquinas, a Calvin or a Barth. But
there is Orthodox teaching on soteriology, so saying that there has never been
an Orthodox doctrine of the atonement is a bit misleading.

Nevertheless, the east-west split of 1054 might have been healed long ago, had
it not been for the publication of Anselm's "Cur Deus homo" in 1096, which
changed Western theology forever.

I realise that this is a relatively minor point, and says nothing on the main
point of the article.

But perhaps it could be said that Orthodox theology scapegoats the devil.
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Bob
2006-10-20 02:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by * irenic *
It is impossible to read the Koran without seeing God portrayed as violent,
but the same is true of the Bible.
No, the same is most certainly NOT true of the Bible.
No? I would think the Egyptian army following Moses would argue that
point. God caused their death, not Moses or his followers.

Bob
Matthew Johnson
2006-10-23 03:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by * irenic *
It is impossible to read the Koran without seeing God portrayed as violent,
but the same is true of the Bible.
No, the same is most certainly NOT true of the Bible.
No?
That is right. No.
Post by Bob
I would think the Egyptian army following Moses would argue that
point.
It does not.
Post by Bob
God caused their death, not Moses or his followers.
Read the account more closely. Pharaoh caused his _own_ death, by foolishly
leading his army below the surface of the waves, in his madness thinking that
the path made safe for Isreal by God's miracle, would also be safe for himself,
even though he was _fighting_ God.

That counts as causing his own death.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Bob
2006-10-25 00:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Bob
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by * irenic *
It is impossible to read the Koran without seeing God portrayed as violent,
but the same is true of the Bible.
No, the same is most certainly NOT true of the Bible.
No?
That is right. No.
Post by Bob
I would think the Egyptian army following Moses would argue that
point.
It does not.
Post by Bob
God caused their death, not Moses or his followers.
Read the account more closely. Pharaoh caused his _own_ death, by foolishly
leading his army below the surface of the waves, in his madness thinking that
the path made safe for Isreal by God's miracle, would also be safe for himself,
even though he was _fighting_ God.
That counts as causing his own death.
Matthew, you're a prime example of why other religions think so badly
of Christians! You have always twisted the bible to suit your own
thoughts and this is just another example.

Exodus 14:
"THE LORD will fight for you...."
"The Egyptians tried to escape from the water but THE LORD threw them
back into the sea."
"On that day, THE LORD saved the people of Israel from the Egyptians."
"When the Israelites saw the great power with which THE LORD defeated
the Egyptians....."

Exodus 15:
"THE LORD is a warrior: the Lord is his name."
""In majestic triumph you overthrow your foes; your anger blazes out
and burns them up like straw."

The Pharaoh led his army, but GOD defeated that army and you cannot
rewrite the bible to prove different.

The comment we're adddressing here is whether nonchristians can view
the biblical God as violent on occasion, and the Exodus story supports
that view. You and I may not see him as violent because we have never
incurred his wrath. But those who did certainly paid the price for it.
And a violent price it was.

Bob
Matthew Johnson
2006-10-26 04:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Bob
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by * irenic *
It is impossible to read the Koran without seeing God portrayed
as violent, but the same is true of the Bible.
No, the same is most certainly NOT true of the Bible.
No?
That is right. No.
Post by Bob
I would think the Egyptian army following Moses would argue that
point.
It does not.
Post by Bob
God caused their death, not Moses or his followers.
Read the account more closely. Pharaoh caused his _own_ death, by
foolishly leading his army below the surface of the waves, in his
madness thinking that the path made safe for Isreal by God's
miracle, would also be safe for himself, even though he was
_fighting_ God.
That counts as causing his own death.
Matthew, you're a prime example of why other religions think so badly
of Christians!
Hardly. Rather, by making this reckless and false accusation, you have
proved yourself to be a prime example of what Solomon warns of: that
the scoffer and scorner can NEVER approach true understanding and
wisdom. Instead, you are doomed to remain a stranger to Him, and
wander in darkness. Such is the import of the Proverbs:

For every scoffer is an abomination to the Lord;
And His intimate conversation is with the simple (Pro 3:32 Vg)

If you are wise, you will be wise to your own benefit;
But if you are a scoffer, you will bear the punishment yourself
(Pro 9:12 Vg)

Consider yourself warned.
Post by Bob
You have always twisted the bible to suit your own thoughts and this
is just another example.
No, I have never done this. So no, this cannot be an example.
Post by Bob
"THE LORD will fight for you...."
"The Egyptians tried to escape from the water but THE LORD threw them
back into the sea."
"On that day, THE LORD saved the people of Israel from the Egyptians."
"When the Israelites saw the great power with which THE LORD defeated
the Egyptians....."
"THE LORD is a warrior: the Lord is his name."
""In majestic triumph you overthrow your foes; your anger blazes out
and burns them up like straw."
The Pharaoh led his army, but GOD defeated that army and you cannot
rewrite the bible to prove different.
You miss the point. HOW did He defeat that army? By doing what no
human general could ever really do, using Pharaoh's own folly to lead
Pharoah to destory himself and his army. So of _course_ Scripture
describes this in once place as Pharaoh placing himself under the
waves, and in another place as God's own doing.

This is NORMAL for Scripture whenever Scripture describes the synergy
between human and divine will in the action of Providence. This is
described in very great detail in the writings of St. Augustine,
St. Basil the Great, and St. John Tobolsky. It is NOT "rewriting the
bible".
Post by Bob
The comment we're adddressing here is whether nonchristians can view
the biblical God as violent on occasion,
No, that is not what you argued. You argued for a far mor radical
conclusion than "violent on occasion".

Have you forgotten your own words already? You did not say "violent on
Post by Bob
It is impossible to read the Koran without seeing God portrayed as
violent but the same is true of the Bible.
So make up your mind. Which is it? It is you, not I, who is twisting words
here.
Post by Bob
and the Exodus story supports that view.
Only when misinterpreted. The cause of the violence is not God, but
the sinful folly of men. This distinction is important to
understand. Isaiah understood it; why can't you?
Post by Bob
You and I may not see him as violent because we have never incurred
his wrath.
Why are you so sure of this?
Post by Bob
But those who did certainly paid the price for it. And a violent
price it was.
If you believe this, then why are you setting yourself up as a target
for His wrath?
Post by Bob
Bob
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Loading...