Beautifully told and an area that I have been in internal conflict with, stifling my relationship with a church that sits in a toxic predestination mindset. I pray for an Ahimsa of Christian spirituality that supersedes all other less meaningful atonements that do not account for a loving and truly biblical God. Thank you and Amen
SO very well explained, Stephen!! I have highest regard for Rene Girard's work .. however he tends to be so cerebral/academic that it's not always easy/accessible for a lot of people. You do a great job of opening the door here!! My own tendency has been toward Christus Victor, however I see no problem between that and the Scapegoating theory of Rene Girard. Again thank you!!
Great summary and helpful thoughts Stephen! I’ve been exposed to this at some level through pastor Brian Zahnd, but this is my first exposure to a full summary and found it very valuable. As someone who was training to be a special operations officer before leaving the military out of a conviction of nonviolence and call to ministry, I personally also find a lot of ethical power to it.
Thanks for watching, John! I appreciate your story about leaving the military out of a conviction of nonviolence. That takes courage, and I commend you for it!
I'm a conservative, biblically and politically, but I am also a universalist because I believe that scripture alone is sufficient to prove the universal reconciliation of all men. Penal substitution undermines God's character and ruins the truth of scripture.
Thank you for this interesting video Stephen. It was a great summary! I really like this atonement theory and I think it has a lot of potential. One question though: I think you briefly talked about it, but maybe I didn't fully understand it. How would "forgiveness of sins" work in this model? In the way of a reconciliation with God. If you look at passages like Matthew 26:28 for example. Maybe I just couldn't connect the dots. 😅
Hi Timo, thanks for watching! In this model, sin is defined as violence. And so the forgiveness of violence requires breaking the cycles of violence in society by unmasking their guilt. The declaration of violence as sin is at once the step toward forgiving it (by unmasking it). So the model holds more of a social and political concept of sin vs. individual sin. Personal forgiveness of sin is not a focus of this theory, though perhaps it would be argued that individuals are forgiven in their renunciation of violence and rejection of violent cycles by embracing the Kingdom of Peace. The model is definitely helpful in expanding the meaning of the cross to include the collective sins of human society, but it may need to be combined with other atonement models to answer how personal sins are forgiven, such as Christus Victor or moral influence. Hope that's helpful!
@@StephenDMorrison Thank you! This was indeed really helpful. To be honest I'm also not really sure how the moral influence theory works on a personal level of forgiveness. So a quick follow up question: Would it be correct to say that the MI theory implies that by/in repenting and changing our ways (to be more like Christ) we are forgiven? Which of course would sound more works-based than faith-based.
@@euminzer Abelard rejected the idea that God needs to be appeased to forgive humanity, in direct conflict with Anselm. So the need to be forgiven is not a central motif of the theory. I could be wrong, but I think Abelard would say that God has forgiven humanity and that this is proclaimed in Christ. Then Christ is our example for how to live as forgiven and loved persons, and thus, He makes possible a real change in human nature. Abelard thought human beings need to know that God is loving and kind before they are asked the change. In that sense, I think forgiveness is proclaimed as a given that then spurs us to act morally. So, I wouldn't call it works based necessarily.
Hi Stephen, love your videos as always and I love this model of the atonement! Question, Girard is adamant that God is nonviolent, but is that absolute? If so, how would this perspective of God’s justice be reconciled with stories of divine violence or divine retribution in scripture like the Flood, the campaigns against the Canaanites, the plagues of Egypt, or even the Holy Spirit killing Ananias and Sapphira? I feel like I’m able to make sense of many of these stories but I was wondering what you’re input would be. I think a good place to start is in the Garden when God warns Adam that if he eats from the Tree he will surely die yet he does not instantly die when he eats of it. God instead clothes him and Eve and escorts them out, demonstrating his divine patience. Immediately afterward, when Cain kills Able, God stays his hand from taking Cain’s life even though he tells him, “Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.” He even places a mark on Cain to prevent anyone from taking justice into their own hands and killing him. I think God early on demonstrates his divine nature to be nonviolent and non-retributive.
Hi Roque, thanks for the comment! Glad to hear my work has been helpful. As far as your question, my impression is that Girard is more interested in textual questions rather than metaphysical ones. But otherwise, I've not read enough of his work to comment on what he says here. He does have a book on Job that may deal with this. Michael Hardin also has a helpful book on reading the Bible with Girard. But for myself, I approach those stories with a historical-critical lens. The flood, for example, is likely a retelling of an older pagan story called the Atrahasis Epic. The pagan story claims that the gods sent a flood because they were annoyed with how noisy humanity had become. So they act purely out of selfishness. That is clearly not how the Genesis account understands God. It is rather because God is concerned with human sin and its destructive potential to destroy the goodness of creation. That is how the flood is explained. Thus, even this quite violent story is a story of God's grace and kindness towards humans rather than God's violence, when it is seen in contrast with the pagan stories common for that time. A similar textual approach can be used for other violent stories in the OT. It is probable that the Canaanite genocide never happened, and so the account is more about the holiness of Israel (not mixing with foreign nations) than it is about a historical record. The archaeological evidence indicates the Israelites and Canaanites coexisted. So it is always important to remember that the Old Testament does not think of "history" in the same way we do. Peter Enns has a lot of good insight into these questions. Hope that's helpful!
Wonderful. So helpful. Sometime in the past I watched a video that nearly explained the Girardian theory of the progress/evolution of scripture from Torah, to the Prophets and then to Christ as a gradual growing awareness if the falseness of scapegoating and violently sacrificing anything, particularly people. I can't find it anymore. It was really useful for helping people to see the arc of scripture rather than reading it all literally and equally. Do you know where I can find this video, or a similar resource that explains things for the average punter?
Hi David, thanks for watching! I don't know exactly what video you are referring to, but I suspect it might have been by Michael Hardin. He is a Girard scholar that has a series on the bible. www.youtube.com/@MichaelHardinPreachingPeace
I have one question that I actually am curious about. How do individuals who hold this theory (specifically the premise that God is completely nonviolent) interpret passages of the Old Testament that seem to indicate that God either commands war and slaughter or does it directly?
I am not an expert on Girard, but I believe he interprets many of these texts allegorically or at least non-literally. So he would likely suggest that the text says more about the Jewish people at that time and their violence than it does about God. His mimetic theory is a sociologically nuanced interpretive tool for examining text production, e.g., the background of what led to the authors believing they were commanded to commit violence. There is a good book specifically on this question, though, which I would recommend. It is a collection of interviews with a chapter specifically on the OT: "Reading the Bible with Rene Girard" amzn.to/41HRQTx.
I like Walter Wink's reading of this text. He sees in it a "third way" of resistance that is non-violent without also being passive. Wikipedia has a surprisingly good explanation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek
Brilliantly outlined. My personal view is that the Spurit of Trurh is continuing to lead us into all truth. Giraud's model is an example of that. Great insight, so needed for us now in the 21st century. I am thinking of the Gaza war problem, which is clearly no easy fix, but violence is not working well. Is it?
Important to point out that Girard’s view point led him back to his Catholicism. He saw that only the person of Jesus Christ, the God Man breaks the cycle. Also Girard’s insights into the influence of imitation in culture.
Hi thanks for your video's, it is great to listen to them. I really like how this model is about human violence being condemned not about a wrathful God. I see that the violence is robbed from power and it is a way out of the violent cycles but my question about this model is if it promotes martyrdom and being a victim in the face of violence as a way out- or is it about resurrection being the alternative - not sure what you think - what are your thoughts?
Thanks for watching and for this comment! I would say that this model emphasizes the resurrection more as the means of ending non-violence in society because it unveils the scapegoating mechanism and disempowers it by condemning the crowd. I wouldn't say it promotes victimization but rather condemns those cycles of violence that have led to victimization, if that makes sense.
A little late to the party, I apologize for the months late comment. I really like this atonement model, certainly has less issues with it than PSA, but I do have a quibble: Unlike other liberation friendly theories, doesn't scapegoat theory re-center the violent act not in the political establishment, but in the so-called unstable, oppressed mob? This theology can tend conservative if it is used to denigrate the actions of oppressed peoples instead of pointing toward the structures that lead to violence.
Hi Philip, yes, you are correct that this has some differences with other liberationist views. It identifies sin with violence rather than oppression, as liberation theology typically does-though I think they are not unrelated terms. It could be pushed in a more liberationist direction. Dolores Williams does something like that-though within a womanist context-but I am not sure if she consciously uses Girard for her work or not. In my experience, this model tends to be used as a rebuttal to or replacement for penal substitution or models like it that make God into the violent actor rather than the one who acts to overcome violence through non-violence. So it is explicitly pacifist in that sense. And so perhaps it could be misused for conservative ends. TBH, it is an interesting model and raises important questions, but I am not completely sold on it myself.
How can this theory be harmonized with the vast majority of the biblical canon? It seems like God condones violence in the Tanak under certain situations and in the epistles, it is clear they see Christ’s death as synonymous with a blood sacrifice for the remission of sin in the very way the temple sacrifices would have functioned. In the absence of the temple, it makes sense this would have emerged either by divine province or merely human speculation. I can’t see how the scapegoat model could have been the point if no one for the first 2,000 years of Christianity seemed to have realized it and the church itself developed into such a violent institution. It seems that if this model is valid, Christ failed to some great degree to both inspire and enact it. The idea of a cosmic blood sacrifice has always seemed off to me, but I can’t see how the scapegoat model is the best fit with what we see in the scriptures without calling the validity of the entire canon into question. Thoughts would be appreciated
Biblical literalists are literalists until they come across Acts 5:30 “The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead-whom YOU killed by hanging him on a cross.”
The concept of Scapegoat theory violates one of the basic rules for interpreting Scripture: The NT interprets the OT. What the Scapegoat theory does is takes an OT concept NOT commented on the NT and 2,000 years later applies to the NT era. The Biblical concept of the Scapegoat ended along with the sacrificial system in 70 A.D. The term Scapegoat is only found 3 times in the OT, and becomes a DEAD ceremonial practice within the NT era. Modernists resurrect a dead practice, colorize it with new fancy words and pass it off as Scripture. What are the modernists going to do next? Resurrect a bronze serpent and have it kill the scapegoat? The only redeeming feature of Scapegoat theory is it is an excellent example of biblical fiction.
I don't think Girard is suggesting that the Bible itself teaches scapegoating, but that it can be read constructively in the light of the scapegoating mechanism.
This is by far my favorite atonement theory.
Beautifully told and an area that I have been in internal conflict with, stifling my relationship with a church that sits in a toxic predestination mindset. I pray for an Ahimsa of Christian spirituality that supersedes all other less meaningful atonements that do not account for a loving and truly biblical God. Thank you and Amen
Thanks for the kind words, Toby! I pray for that as well. God bless you
I really enjoyed this... good substance with good clarity! Thank you!
SO very well explained, Stephen!! I have highest regard for Rene Girard's work .. however he tends to be so cerebral/academic that it's not always easy/accessible for a lot of people. You do a great job of opening the door here!! My own tendency has been toward Christus Victor, however I see no problem between that and the Scapegoating theory of Rene Girard. Again thank you!!
Thanks for the kind words, Will! Girard can be pretty challenging, so I can relate, but I'm glad you found the video helpful!
Just discovered Michael Hardin today and searched for his teaching on this subject. Thank you for this overview
Great summary and helpful thoughts Stephen! I’ve been exposed to this at some level through pastor Brian Zahnd, but this is my first exposure to a full summary and found it very valuable.
As someone who was training to be a special operations officer before leaving the military out of a conviction of nonviolence and call to ministry, I personally also find a lot of ethical power to it.
Thanks for watching, John! I appreciate your story about leaving the military out of a conviction of nonviolence. That takes courage, and I commend you for it!
Another excellent paper. Most thought provoking - as usual. I hope you’re enjoying your studies.
Thank you for watching! And yes, I am!
I'm a conservative, biblically and politically, but I am also a universalist because I believe that scripture alone is sufficient to prove the universal reconciliation of all men. Penal substitution undermines God's character and ruins the truth of scripture.
So all those endless verses about eternal hell for the unrepentant, those are what? Poetry?
@@anthonyq2354 What do the original Greek texts say? Nothing about eternity in hell that's for sure.
@@anthonyq2354
Read David Bentley Hart "That All Shall Be Saved" and you might see things differently.
Thank you for this interesting video Stephen. It was a great summary! I really like this atonement theory and I think it has a lot of potential.
One question though:
I think you briefly talked about it, but maybe I didn't fully understand it. How would "forgiveness of sins" work in this model? In the way of a reconciliation with God. If you look at passages like Matthew 26:28 for example.
Maybe I just couldn't connect the dots. 😅
Hi Timo, thanks for watching! In this model, sin is defined as violence. And so the forgiveness of violence requires breaking the cycles of violence in society by unmasking their guilt. The declaration of violence as sin is at once the step toward forgiving it (by unmasking it). So the model holds more of a social and political concept of sin vs. individual sin. Personal forgiveness of sin is not a focus of this theory, though perhaps it would be argued that individuals are forgiven in their renunciation of violence and rejection of violent cycles by embracing the Kingdom of Peace. The model is definitely helpful in expanding the meaning of the cross to include the collective sins of human society, but it may need to be combined with other atonement models to answer how personal sins are forgiven, such as Christus Victor or moral influence. Hope that's helpful!
@@StephenDMorrison Thank you! This was indeed really helpful. To be honest I'm also not really sure how the moral influence theory works on a personal level of forgiveness.
So a quick follow up question:
Would it be correct to say that the MI theory implies that by/in repenting and changing our ways (to be more like Christ) we are forgiven? Which of course would sound more works-based than faith-based.
@@euminzer Abelard rejected the idea that God needs to be appeased to forgive humanity, in direct conflict with Anselm. So the need to be forgiven is not a central motif of the theory. I could be wrong, but I think Abelard would say that God has forgiven humanity and that this is proclaimed in Christ. Then Christ is our example for how to live as forgiven and loved persons, and thus, He makes possible a real change in human nature. Abelard thought human beings need to know that God is loving and kind before they are asked the change. In that sense, I think forgiveness is proclaimed as a given that then spurs us to act morally. So, I wouldn't call it works based necessarily.
@@StephenDMorrison Thank you very much again! 😊
Hi Stephen, love your videos as always and I love this model of the atonement! Question, Girard is adamant that God is nonviolent, but is that absolute? If so, how would this perspective of God’s justice be reconciled with stories of divine violence or divine retribution in scripture like the Flood, the campaigns against the Canaanites, the plagues of Egypt, or even the Holy Spirit killing Ananias and Sapphira? I feel like I’m able to make sense of many of these stories but I was wondering what you’re input would be.
I think a good place to start is in the Garden when God warns Adam that if he eats from the Tree he will surely die yet he does not instantly die when he eats of it. God instead clothes him and Eve and escorts them out, demonstrating his divine patience. Immediately afterward, when Cain kills Able, God stays his hand from taking Cain’s life even though he tells him, “Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.” He even places a mark on Cain to prevent anyone from taking justice into their own hands and killing him. I think God early on demonstrates his divine nature to be nonviolent and non-retributive.
Hi Roque, thanks for the comment! Glad to hear my work has been helpful. As far as your question, my impression is that Girard is more interested in textual questions rather than metaphysical ones. But otherwise, I've not read enough of his work to comment on what he says here. He does have a book on Job that may deal with this. Michael Hardin also has a helpful book on reading the Bible with Girard.
But for myself, I approach those stories with a historical-critical lens. The flood, for example, is likely a retelling of an older pagan story called the Atrahasis Epic. The pagan story claims that the gods sent a flood because they were annoyed with how noisy humanity had become. So they act purely out of selfishness. That is clearly not how the Genesis account understands God. It is rather because God is concerned with human sin and its destructive potential to destroy the goodness of creation. That is how the flood is explained. Thus, even this quite violent story is a story of God's grace and kindness towards humans rather than God's violence, when it is seen in contrast with the pagan stories common for that time.
A similar textual approach can be used for other violent stories in the OT. It is probable that the Canaanite genocide never happened, and so the account is more about the holiness of Israel (not mixing with foreign nations) than it is about a historical record. The archaeological evidence indicates the Israelites and Canaanites coexisted. So it is always important to remember that the Old Testament does not think of "history" in the same way we do. Peter Enns has a lot of good insight into these questions.
Hope that's helpful!
Peter Thiel knew Girard at Stanford and was influence by him. There is an interview with Thiel and Erik Weinstein
Wonderful. So helpful.
Sometime in the past I watched a video that nearly explained the Girardian theory of the progress/evolution of scripture from Torah, to the Prophets and then to Christ as a gradual growing awareness if the falseness of scapegoating and violently sacrificing anything, particularly people. I can't find it anymore. It was really useful for helping people to see the arc of scripture rather than reading it all literally and equally. Do you know where I can find this video, or a similar resource that explains things for the average punter?
Hi David, thanks for watching! I don't know exactly what video you are referring to, but I suspect it might have been by Michael Hardin. He is a Girard scholar that has a series on the bible. www.youtube.com/@MichaelHardinPreachingPeace
I have one question that I actually am curious about. How do individuals who hold this theory (specifically the premise that God is completely nonviolent) interpret passages of the Old Testament that seem to indicate that God either commands war and slaughter or does it directly?
I am not an expert on Girard, but I believe he interprets many of these texts allegorically or at least non-literally. So he would likely suggest that the text says more about the Jewish people at that time and their violence than it does about God. His mimetic theory is a sociologically nuanced interpretive tool for examining text production, e.g., the background of what led to the authors believing they were commanded to commit violence. There is a good book specifically on this question, though, which I would recommend. It is a collection of interviews with a chapter specifically on the OT: "Reading the Bible with Rene Girard" amzn.to/41HRQTx.
@ thanks for the response!
How do you read Matthew 5:39 ?
I like Walter Wink's reading of this text. He sees in it a "third way" of resistance that is non-violent without also being passive. Wikipedia has a surprisingly good explanation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek
Brilliantly outlined. My personal view is that the Spurit of Trurh is continuing to lead us into all truth. Giraud's model is an example of that. Great insight, so needed for us now in the 21st century. I am thinking of the Gaza war problem, which is clearly no easy fix, but violence is not working well. Is it?
This is somewhat unrelated, but what do you think of Pelagius and celtic Christianity? It’s a topic that’s been interesting me in a while.
Hi Reed, I don't know enough about either to comment. Sorry! God bless you.
@@StephenDMorrison It's all good. Thanks, and you too.
Important to point out that Girard’s view point led him back to his Catholicism. He saw that only the person of Jesus Christ, the God Man breaks the cycle. Also Girard’s insights into the influence of imitation in culture.
Hi thanks for your video's, it is great to listen to them. I really like how this model is about human violence being condemned not about a wrathful God. I see that the violence is robbed from power and it is a way out of the violent cycles but my question about this model is if it promotes martyrdom and being a victim in the face of violence as a way out- or is it about resurrection being the alternative - not sure what you think - what are your thoughts?
Thanks for watching and for this comment! I would say that this model emphasizes the resurrection more as the means of ending non-violence in society because it unveils the scapegoating mechanism and disempowers it by condemning the crowd. I wouldn't say it promotes victimization but rather condemns those cycles of violence that have led to victimization, if that makes sense.
A little late to the party, I apologize for the months late comment. I really like this atonement model, certainly has less issues with it than PSA, but I do have a quibble: Unlike other liberation friendly theories, doesn't scapegoat theory re-center the violent act not in the political establishment, but in the so-called unstable, oppressed mob? This theology can tend conservative if it is used to denigrate the actions of oppressed peoples instead of pointing toward the structures that lead to violence.
Hi Philip, yes, you are correct that this has some differences with other liberationist views. It identifies sin with violence rather than oppression, as liberation theology typically does-though I think they are not unrelated terms. It could be pushed in a more liberationist direction. Dolores Williams does something like that-though within a womanist context-but I am not sure if she consciously uses Girard for her work or not.
In my experience, this model tends to be used as a rebuttal to or replacement for penal substitution or models like it that make God into the violent actor rather than the one who acts to overcome violence through non-violence. So it is explicitly pacifist in that sense. And so perhaps it could be misused for conservative ends. TBH, it is an interesting model and raises important questions, but I am not completely sold on it myself.
Where is the Biblical or Patristic support for this theory?
How can this theory be harmonized with the vast majority of the biblical canon? It seems like God condones violence in the Tanak under certain situations and in the epistles, it is clear they see Christ’s death as synonymous with a blood sacrifice for the remission of sin in the very way the temple sacrifices would have functioned. In the absence of the temple, it makes sense this would have emerged either by divine province or merely human speculation. I can’t see how the scapegoat model could have been the point if no one for the first 2,000 years of Christianity seemed to have realized it and the church itself developed into such a violent institution. It seems that if this model is valid, Christ failed to some great degree to both inspire and enact it. The idea of a cosmic blood sacrifice has always seemed off to me, but I can’t see how the scapegoat model is the best fit with what we see in the scriptures without calling the validity of the entire canon into question. Thoughts would be appreciated
Biblical literalists are literalists until they come across Acts 5:30 “The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead-whom YOU killed by hanging him on a cross.”
Bulls of Bashan is a marker of the evil spiritual entities. Gen 6/ First Enoch connection
Kinda sounds like activism in search of an Atonement theory.
The concept of Scapegoat theory violates one of the basic rules for interpreting Scripture: The NT interprets the OT. What the Scapegoat theory does is takes an OT concept NOT commented on the NT and 2,000 years later applies to the NT era. The Biblical concept of the Scapegoat ended along with the sacrificial system in 70 A.D. The term Scapegoat is only found 3 times in the OT, and becomes a DEAD ceremonial practice within the NT era.
Modernists resurrect a dead practice, colorize it with new fancy words and pass it off as Scripture. What are the modernists going to do next? Resurrect a bronze serpent and have it kill the scapegoat? The only redeeming feature of Scapegoat theory is it is an excellent example of biblical fiction.
I don't think Girard is suggesting that the Bible itself teaches scapegoating, but that it can be read constructively in the light of the scapegoating mechanism.
But that would also mean that PSA theories of atonement also commit the same error, which kinda undermines your point.