Saved from Sacrifice // Chapter 5

This post is part of a review series for S. Mark Heim’s Saved from Sacrifice. To start at the beginning, click here.

S. Mark Heim - Saved from Sacrifice

S. Mark Heim – Saved from Sacrifice

While Chapter 4 dealt with the passion narratives in light of Girard’s scapegoating theory, chapter 5 (“Sacrifice to End Sacrifice”) moves on to discuss how the early Christians understood Jesus’ death and the sacrificial system post-Resurrection.

Let’s jump right in, shall we?

Acts

One of the major portions from Acts that Heim deals with is Stephen’s sermon in front of the mob that is about to stone him (Acts 7:1-53). Interestingly, though we typically view Stephen’s sermon as a ‘salvation’ message before his death, Jesus is only mentioned once, and just barely. His sermon is split into four sections:

  1. First he speaks about Abraham, which seems like it would be a common starting place for any Jew giving something like a sermon. He talks about Abraham’s faith and willingness to leave his home for a place God would show him
  2. Next, Stephen talks about Joseph, whose brothers gang up on him and, as a result, he ends up in Egypt, helps stop a famine, and shows mercy to his brothers.
  3. The third section of Stephen’s sermon centers on Moses and is the longest portion. While the Mt. Sinai episode receives little attention, a large part of the Moses section focuses on the account of Moses’ murder of an Egyptian to protect his fellow Israelites. Unfortunately, he is even further ostracized from his community rather than drawn near to them. Heim says, “One way ending conflict has been tried and found wanting” (136). Following this, Stephen talks about how God required no sacrifice while the Israelites were in the wilderness, and Stephen uses some of the words of Amos to bolster his claim:”I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them… But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream (5:21-24).
  4. Following his quoting from Amos, Stephen talks about the tabernacle as God’s dwelling place in the wilderness and then Solomon’s temple. But then he turns this around and states, “the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands,” and proceeds to rebuke his hearers, saying they oppose the Holy Spirit by persecuting the ones who foretold the “Righteous One” and then Jesus himself.

Interestingly, as I stated above, Stephen says little about Jesus, but draws a (slightly irregular) line between the figures in his story and Jesus. Further, the line Stephen draws from Abraham, Joseph, and Moses to Christ is one of the sacrificial victim. Israel itself has been enslaved and oppressed, as Abraham (as a “resident alien”) and Joseph (as one sold into slavery). Then Moses’ story speaks to this theme even further, first by him unsuccessfully using violence to help reconcile a situation, and then by himself being pushed aside by the Israelite community in favor of using a sacrificial victim (via the temple). Finally, these previous violent acts have been continued in the killing of the “Righteous One.”

Paul

Stephen’s story in Acts segues into Saul/Paul’s conversion story, which also contains some of the elements of scapegoating. Prior to conversion, Saul’s primary focus is persecuting and killing the Jewish Christian communities that are cropping up after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Heim explains,

“Christians represent a threat of dissolution in the community, a crisis, and Paul’s reaction is to isolate and destroy them in order to purify the people and to maintain unity. Once he becomes a Christian, Paul’s hallmark project is to build a community with non-Jews, across all the differing practices that the same Paul would have regarded before as impurities that destroy unity and identity” (140).

Both this encounter with Christ and Paul’s tenacity in the inclusion of the Gentiles greatly affect his later writings that are included in the NT. One of the major passages often used in reference to discuss Christ’s atoning death is Romans 3:10-26 (before you go on, I suggest reading it). In the first half of this section, Paul lays down the claim that all people, both Jewish and Gentile are under the power of sin. In doing so, he uses several quotations from Psalms and Isaiah. Three of the Psalms are particularly scapegoating Psalms, as we discussed here, three of them discuss universal sin in general, and the Isaiah passage quoted references the very nature of the universal perversity in mankind. While Paul addresses the general, universal sin that is part of humanity (i.e., everyone has done something ‘wrong’), he also specifically references a particular sin that everyone has committed – namely, scapegoating persecution.

Continuing in this line of thought, Heim addresses the Law in Paul’s writings. For Heim, through the lens of sacrificial violence, the Law is not the problem, but the way it is used to affirm victimization is. While the Law may have originally been meant to help the community avoid violence (e.g., do not steal, do not commit murder, do not covet, etc.), the Law can be, and was, used improperly; that is, it was wrongly used to justify the murder of innocent victims in order to maintain the community’s peace. Heim also notes: “The fact that the law appealed to in the process is an authentic divine commandment does not mean that the process [i.e., victimization/scapegoating] itself is valid” (143).

That God enters into the human sacrificial sphere does not mean that God endorses or approves of this particular method. Rather, he enters into the system because this is precisely where humanity’s sin universally manifests itself. Heim points out that even the text says as much, as “the effectiveness of the act lies not in the blood or the violence; it relates to faith” (ibid.). In other words, it is not the blood itself that saves us from God’s wrath, but our faith that God has entered into our brokenness in order to repair it.

The Resurrection of Jesus is the final act of redemption in God’s saving work. For by Resurrection, Jesus is not only acquitted and proved not guilty of the charges against him – those who carried out the violence against him are made innocent as well. Heim says, “They can be declared not guilty of Jesus’ death by the fact that Jesus is not dead. The prosecution cannot proceed in this capital case without a dead body, and the tomb is empty” (144). The catch, however, is that those accused (e.g., all of us) must affirm the resurrection, which also means affirming our guilt. We must affirm that our sin killed him before we can also affirm that he rose from the dead. Our denial that Christ rose from the dead is akin to refusing to have a witness testify in our favor (which is why Paul says Jesus was “handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]).

Hebrews

Finally, Heim addresses the book of Hebrews, which, to most of us, looks to be the most affirming text regarding penal substitution. Just take a look at Hebrews 9:11-14, for example. Killing animals seems to be pretty beneficial, but Christ’s death is infinitely more beneficial. A closer look, however, shows that the writer of Hebrews is not necessarily affirming the system of sacrifice so much as turning it on its head.

Later in chapter 9 of Hebrews, the author indicates that Christ’s sacrifice is not the same as the kind of sacrifice done before. If it were, then Christ would have had to suffer “again and again since the foundation of the world” (Heb. 9:26). Instead, Christ’s sacrifice was meant to stop the cycle of sacrifice. No longer do sacrifices offer peace to a community, and Hebrews makes this clear. In a similar vein, in chapter 12, the writer says, “[Jesus’] sprinkled blood… speaks a better blood than the blood of Abel.” To which Heim says, “Abel’s blood called for vengeance, and sparked the cycles of retaliation that we have contained only with more blood, the blood of sacrifice” (159).

Christ’s sacrifice was not meant to be an affirmation of sacrificial practice, but the sacrifice to end sacrifice.

Advertisements

Why Monkeys Need “Salvation” – Part 7

This post is part of a series on Evolution, Original Sin, and the Atonement. To start at the beginning, click here.

Moving along regarding Original Sin!

Last time, we talked about the individual nature of Original Sin as the feeling of meaninglessness and loss of the (non-)thing that makes us whole and complete. Even further, this feeling of meaninglessness – if we don’t deal with it directly – drives us to pursue things that will fill the hole we feel. We are driven to pursue anything that will make us feel satisfied, like we have the answer. This includes ‘God’ – particularly the God-product so many churches sell.

This individual notion of sin manifests itself in a communal way.

Rene Girard

Rene Girard

Often, when we feel the sense of lack that I have described, we project unwarranted value onto an object that another person already has. In other words, we covet what the ‘other’ has because we believe the lie that the object they possess actually brings about real satisfaction in their lives (and will do the same in ours). René Girard calls this kind of desire ‘mimetic.’  Mimetic desire is inherently dangerous because, over and over again, it leads to rivalry and violence.

The problem, however, is that violence doesn’t just end with the individuals who are at conflict with each other. The violence that occurs from individual covetousness always leads to increasing levels of (often vengeful) violence. It doesn’t simply stop tit-for-tat (or “eye for an eye,” if you will). Let’s look at a common example (taken from Brian McDonald at Touchstone Magazine):

Picture two young children playing happily on their porch, a pile of toys beside them. The older child pulls a G.I. Joe from the pile and immediately, his younger brother cries out, “No, my toy!”, pushes him out of the way, and grabs it. The older child, who was not very interested in the toy when he picked it up, now conceives a passionate need for it and attempts to wrest it back. Soon a full fight ensues, with the toy forgotten and the two boys busy pummeling each other.

Read more: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-040-i#ixzz2PFYIZJBa

The story above is familiar to us because it is natural to us. It is something we all do or have done. As we can see in the notion of individualistic sin, the desired object isn’t important. That object has no special power, no intrinsic worth. It is only our mimetic desire that causes us to want the object.

Further, as vengeful violence builds due to our desire for completeness and satisfaction, that violence does not stop with the individuals. Those individuals are part of families, tribes, and communities. Let’s say I try to take the object of desire that you possess, and you harm me physically for my actions. I’m not going to try and simply hurt you as badly as you hurt me – I’m going to try and hurt you more. Then, you not only want to cause damage to me, but to my family as well.My family, in turn, desires to inflict damage on the larger community your family might be a part of. This isn’t rocket science. This is something we understand because it is inherent to our very humanity.

So…

So our very existence is bound to the feeling of lack, of meaningless, incompleteness, a sense that we are missing the thing that gives us satisfaction. To compensate for this, we project value onto objects we believe will make us whole, not lacking anything. When that object is possessed by someone else (and it always is), our desire becomes violent. We do whatever we need to do to obtain the object of desire. This violence never stops by itself. Violence always breeds more violence, until the communities in which we are part of destroy themselves from the inside, from the infectious disease we all carry.

However, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, we see a move away from vengeance and violence and destructive desire. This is where our need for atonement comes from, and where we will turn next.

Friday Funday // 03.29.2013

Today is Good Friday. Before continuing, I would just like to point out that I wish my evangelical counterparts would do more in reverence for today. So often, those in my tradition prefer to skim over the passion narratives to get to the Resurrection that we forget to spend a significant time in focus on the death of Jesus. In doing so, we do a great disservice to Christianity and miss out on the importance of Jesus’ death as a cosmic critique of scapegoating. Below is a video from sparkhouse depicting a kid-friendly version of Good Friday (H/T Tony Jones):

This week has been great, both for content and for dialogue in general. I think the biggest (and most important) story this week was the hearing at the Supreme Court on California’s Proposition 8 and DOMA. Either way the rulings go, this will be a significant time for the nation, and perhaps the world.

Personally, I’ve been enthralled by S. Mark Heim’s Saved from Sacrifice. I’m taking it slow so as to be able to digest and understand it well, and will continue to review it on the blog for quite some time. All that being said, the atonement theory given in this book as it relates to Girardian thought is giving me some real hope in Christianity as a whole again – particularly in my post-deconstructed-faith stage.

Anyway, here is some of my favorite content this week!

By the time today’s K-12 students grow up, the challenges posed by climate change are expected to be severe and sweeping. Now, for the first time, new nationwide science standards due out soon will recommend that U.S. public school students learn about the climatic shift taking place.

But you won’t know how to explain that there is nothing nominal or lukewarm or indifferent about standing in this hurricane of questions every day and staring each one down until you’ve mustered all the bravery and fortitude and trust it takes to whisper just one of them out loud on the car ride home:

“What if we made this up because we’re afraid of death?”

In my opinion, what I sense here is Piper’s public expression of cognitive dissonance. He is smart enough to know that evolution cannot simply be brushed aside, but he is struggling with how to align that with a literalistic reading of the Bible, which is a non-negotiable requirement of his theology.

  • Kester Brewin‘s new book, After Magic, was released recently. He has some thoughts on how his writing relates to the human tendency to label outcasts as condemned when the focal point of our religion is the ‘super-nature.’ What I find particularly interesting is the relationship of Brewin’s thought to Girard’s notion of scapegoating and victimization.

After Magic… [argues] that the demonisation of ‘the other’ is an inevitable result of a theology that insists on super-nature. It has been the same through history: fundamentalist religions have required some group to be the focus of their hatred, be it Jews, blacks, gays, women, liberals, communists…

  • I’d be stupid to not post anything about the Supreme Court hearings this week. Here is Justice Sotomayor refuting (in less than a minute!) one of the common arguments against gay marriage (H/T Krista Dalton):

  • Finally, a funny (yet awesome) one. The real-life (Petaluma) Batman:

Saved from Sacrifice // Chapter 4

This post is part of a review series for S. Mark Heim’s Saved from Sacrifice. To start at the beginning, click here.

Chapter four is the first chapter in part II of the book. Part II focuses specifically on Jesus, his death, and how the Gospels not only continue in the trajectory of the Old Testament regarding sacrifice, but how they end up being the ultimate critique of the system. Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection can be seen as the climax in the story about sacrifice and God’s willingness to enter into our (violent) system in order to save us from it.

S. Mark Heim - Saved from Sacrifice

S. Mark Heim – Saved from Sacrifice

In chapter four, Heim specifically targets the passion narratives, which include the events leading up to Jesus’ death and the crucifixion itself. Jesus’ death and the way it is particularly unique because the Gospels seem to contradict themselves in the treatment of the whole affair. Heim says, “Jesus’ death saves the world, and it ought not happen… it is a good bad thing” (108).

The Gospels are actually pretty clear about this, and anyone who has read them can attest to this fact. For example, Jesus says, The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have  been better for that man if he had not been born” (Mark 14:21). How can Jesus rebuke the chain of events leading up to his death if he is completely aware that it is something that must be done “according to the will of God”? Heim contends that this contradiction found in the Gospels doesn’t make sense in the penal substitutionary understanding of atonement. However, it does make sense in light of Girard’s scapegoating theory of sacrifice. If scapegoating is an evil that still brings about reconciliation in the community, it is quite plausible for God to enter into this system, both using it and revealing it for what it really is – thus turning the system on its head.

From Old to New

As Heim moves from the Old Testament to the New, he shows how the Old Testament was simply the first step in revealing the victimization found in scapegoating and its inability to ultimately reconcile a community – even if it may do so for a period of time. The passion narratives in the Gospels, however, take on scapegoating in full force. While other ancient ways of scapegoating utilized myth in order to shield its participants from the violent nature of their actions (e.g., glossing over super-violent elements, making the victim a divine being, using intense euphemism, etc.) the Gospels are notably anti-myth. That is, they display all of the common characteristics found within scapegoating rituals, but do so from the victim’s perspective, so that sacrifice of an innocent victim is shown as truly evil. In this long quote, Heim explains:

[Girard] found [in the Gospels] all the classic elements that characterize sacrificial myths: the crowd coalescing against an individual, the charges of the greatest crimes and impurities, the scapegoating violence, the desire for social peace. But he was startled to recognize that the reality of what was happening was fully explicit, not hidden… This time it was told from the point of view of the victim, who was unmistakably visible as unjustly accused and wrongly killed (110-111, emphasis mine).

This is the point, the climax to the story of scapegoating. It is the ultimate revelation, the splitting of the veil, the light piercing the darkness.

Some of the critics of the Gospels and the Christian faith will focus on the particular brutality of the Gospels and the death of Jesus, noting how violent they are – particularly because the most violent part of the story is the central focal point for many of those in the Christian faith. It seems as if Christians venerate a particularly brutal, tribal, violent God. The fact is, however, if it didn’t show its violence outright, it would do no more than the other myths did for scapegoating. The Gospels, in their unwavering gaze upon the violence done to the God-man, do what none of the other myths could have done. They are the ultimate deconstruction of the violent systems that we uphold.

Furthermore, Heim argues that the fact that our culture can look at the Gospels and point out the violence within is actually a testament to their effectiveness! Our culture, our world, has been forever changed by the demythologization of scapegoating found in the story of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. “We would not accuse the Gospels of victimization if we had not already been converted by them… We would not look for scapegoated victims in every corner if the magnifying glass of the cross had not become second nature for us” (113).

Resurrection

Coincidentally, Jesus’ resurrection, in Heim’s view is basically the final nail in the coffin of scapegoating sacrifice. In the mythological accounts of sacrifice, the victim is intentionally silenced, made invisible, and fades into oblivion for the sake of the community’s reconciliation. The resurrection of Jesus does not allow this to happen. Heim states:

As the story of the crucifixion maintains clarity about the forces that lead to Jesus’ death, so the resurrection of Jesus decisively explodes an possibility of mythologizing it. This victim does not stay sacrificed. The story of his death will not be given over to mythical memory, for the persecuted one will return to give his own witness (127).

The end of Mark’s Gospel is telling in this regard. After the three women find that the tomb is empty, Mark 16:8 says, “So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” Why the fear? Why wouldn’t they be elated that their teacher was no longer dead, but alive? Their terror at the thought of Jesus’ coming back only makes sense if we understand sacrifice in the way it actually works.

Jesus’ death was meant to bring about reconciliation for a community under pressure and conflict, a community looking for an innocent scapegoat. Jesus should have been (and was!) that victim. His return, however, presents a monumental problem. The peace that the community hoped to achieve by Jesus’ death could not hold if the victim returned. “If Jesus really was coming back, with divine support, no one could comfortably look forward to that meeting, knowing what their own roles had been in relation to the crucifixion” (ibid.).

In fact, Jesus’ resurrection brings about the opposite of what his death was intended to do. Instead of the unity normally created by the community’s sacrifice, the resurrection of the Christ brings about division. This is not a vengeful kind of division, as if the those close to the victim seek retribution; instead, the new kind of community created is one that “rejects both the sacrificial violence that killed Christ and the contagion of revenge that the sacrificial system existed to contain” (128).

Christ’s death and resurrection, in this view, are not meant to be taken as an affirmation of the system of sacrifice, as if all of the sacrifice before was just in place until God came along and gave the right kind of blood once and for all. Instead, Christ’s death and resurrection are the ultimate critiques of a failed system. Christ, the God-man, is revealed as the ultimate victim; he enters into the system – not to affirm it, but to destroy it.

Saved from Sacrifice // Chapter 3

The last post about S. Mark Heim’s Saved from Sacrifice focused on chapters 1 & 2 of the book, which discuss some of the difficulties in talking about the atonement in our current, modern society, and specifically how the language of ‘sacrifice’ is virtually unintelligible to us because of the cultural and religious differences that exist.

S. Mark Heim - Saved from Sacrifice

S. Mark Heim – Saved from Sacrifice

Another important piece of the ‘sacrifice’ puzzle comes from being located within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Those of us who grew up in a tradition that focused on penal substitution as the defining mechanism of Jesus’ death and resurrection will have enormous difficulty seeing the Hebrew sacrificial system as anything other than substitutionary in nature. Heim’s suggestion, however, is that looking at the Hebrew sacrificial system this way is to read our own cultural and religious biases into the text. In chapter 3, he takes the wide swath of the entire Hebrew Scripture and (I think successfully) attempts to use Girard’s model of violence and scapegoating to explain the what was happening in the sacrificial system. In doing so, he takes biblical inspiration seriously while creating a path towards a non-violent atonement in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Violence in the Text

In chapter 2, Heim also pointed out that for the sacrificial scapegoating system to really work, the victim (or ‘scapegoat’) must remain ‘invisible.’ The use of myth in most (all?) religions generally helps to do this. They tell a story about why sacrifice is useful or necessary, usually from a cosmic standpoint, thus giving the community an excuse to use myth without fear of consequence. Further, each time the scapegoat is sacrificed for the sake of the community, he/she/it cannot be seen as actually innocent or victimized. Otherwise, the true nature of scapegoating becomes unveiled, causing the mechanism to unhinge. “Texts that hide scapegoating foster it. Texts that show it for what it is undermine it” (64).

The interesting thing about the Judeo-Christian narrative (not that it’s that simple or cohesive) is that its texts actually begin to bring the scapegoating theme to the forefront. Put another way, the Old Testament – in some instances – reveals scapegoating for what it is: the victimization of the innocent for the sake of communal reconciliation.

This is part of the reason why many see the biblical narrative as ultra-violent and wonder why. How could Christians, whose primary leader was radically non-violent, worship such a seemingly barbaric, tribal, violent deity (the one seen often in the Old Testament, particularly the conquest narratives)? Heim’s answer is that the violence shown in the text isn’t coincidental, but necessary, especially if humans are to be shown how scapegoating is ultimately harmful and evil. In answer to the question, what is violence doing in the Bible, Heim responds: “It is showing us the nature of the mimetic conflict that threatens to destroy human community,” and “…certain characterizations of sacrificial violence and God’s relation are a crucial part of the whole narrative… They are a necessary part of our understanding, even while they are not themselves a sufficient model for our behavior” (103). Unlike myth, which can ‘sweep over’ the evils of scapegoating, the Bible offers vivid pictures of violence so that victimization cannot be even implicitly affirmed.

All that said, let’s take a look at some of the places where mimetic rivalry and sacrificial scapegoating (and its critique) are featured in the OT.

Creation / Post-Creation

Interestingly, unlike other creation myths, the Genesis creation account is noticeably non-violent. While other myths might include gods cutting other gods in half to create the world or something similar, “the Bible insists that the true origin is a nonviolent one” (70).

Nonetheless, three chapters later, Adam and Eve’s ‘fall’ handily demonstrates why humans need sacrifice, as their casting out of the garden can be seen as a type of sacrifice in order to restore peace. In the next scene, Cain and Abel also shows mimetic rivalry in explicitly “antimythical terms” (71). While Abel’s blood sacrifice is accepted, God “has no regard” for Cain’s non-animal sacrifice. While some of the implications of this are unclear, what IS clear is the existence of jealousy that leads to murder, showing the beginning of the downward spiral of violence post-fall. From here, we see God promise Cain he will be avenged sevenfold if he is harmed, to Lamech who says he himself will be avenged seventy-sevenfold. Further along, God regrets the creation of the world because of the violence and immorality found in it. Even God participates in the cycle by destroying the world to start over, explicitly affirming using violence to fend off violence. Here, in clear terms, mimetic rivalry and violence show their ability for destruction.

After this, God promises Noah, in Genesis 9, that this would not happen again. “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, / by a human shall that person’s blood be shed.” This is roughly equivalent to the “eye for an eye” phrase most of us are familiar with. God’s command about vengeance in this scenario, however, leads to “a dramatic de-escalation” (73) of the violence in previous stories. This leads us to the territory of sacrifice: “From a world of wholesale violence we have entered the realm of proportioned violence, the realm of sacrifice” (ibid.).

The Practice of Sacrifice

Most people understand, at the very least, that sacrifice plays a prominent role in the Old Testament. This is true, not only in Leviticus (where nearly the entire sacrificial system is laid out), but is then continually referenced in the remainder of the OT canon. What IS interesting is the way in which it is presented, even when it is endorsed.

Heim mentions Leviticus 24:10-14, where a man, the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man “blaphemes” the name of God with a curse during a fight that breaks out. The man is singled out as a blasphemer in front of the people of Israel and is stoned for his offense, and his stoning brings about peace and reconciliation within the community. The text completely endorses this version of scapegoating, but does so in a seemingly unprecedented way:

  1. Heim mentions that the behavior (scapegoating) is the same as in other cultures, but the description of the scapegoating event is not. Normally, this kind of event would be presented in a type of mythical account that overlooks the violence within. Instead, “It is presented in a flat and quite nonmythical setting” (75).
  2. This particular type of scapegoating is only found twice in the Leviticus text. The remainder of the text focuses on animal sacrifices and particular commandments for the Israelites.
  3. This particular instance of sacrificial scapegoating is linked to the commandments given in the text (“blaspheming the Name”). These commandments are meant to stop the escalation of retributive violence, but when this fails (as in Lev. 24), “the community will have to resort to communal unity against a scapegoat to restore peace.

The other major detailed focus on sacrificial scapegoating in Leviticus is found in the discussion about the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This is actually where we get the term “scapegoat” in the first place. In this ritual, among other things, two goats are chosen to be sacrificed for the sins of the people of Israel. One’s blood is offered in the sanctuary while the other is used for the transference of the people’s guilt. After having the sins of the people symbolically placed upon this scapegoat, it was expelled to the desert (or a rugged cliff), sent away from the people, ridding them of their sins.

Just like in the previous story, the community collectively centers its violence onto a single victim, which is charged with all of the sins of the community itself, thus ridding the community of its guilt. Heim notes, “What is striking about the ritual is not that it differs from [the scapegoating] model, but that it is so extraordinarily explicit in expressing the underlying dynamic” (77). Here we can see a subtle move in the text; although the text explicitly endorses scapegoating as useful and/or necessary, it also begins to make the victim ‘visible,’ thus working towards a move away from the effectiveness of scapegoating.

The Critique of Sacrifice (The Victim Revealed)

Further, in other canonical books, we can see explicit references to the downfalls of sacrifice and scapegoating.

For example, several of the Psalms reveal the psalmist himself as a victim or scapegoat being treated unjustly (though if the situation were presented from the community’s point of view, he/she would not have been revealed as such). Take Psalm 69:4, for example:

More in number than the hairs of my head / are those who hate me without cause; / many are those who would destroy me, / my enemies who accuse me falsely.

Is this not the scapegoating dynamic we see in the earlier texts, but reversed?

So too, in Job, we see the same thing in longer form. Furthermore, we see Job revealed as a scapegoat and refuse to consent to the guilt his friends are telling him to take on. While we cannot do justice to the entire book of Job here, it is important to note that Job can be seen not just as a book on suffering and faith, but as a critique of the sacrificial system as truly effective. Heim also says this:

The book of Job can be read as a kind of struggle for the soul of the biblical God, a trial as to whether this is a divinity of the classic, mythical, sacrificial sort, or something different (87).

The prophets take this further, as many of them criticize the nation of Israel for giving itself to the sacrificial system but ignoring the God who set up those systems in the first place. Amos, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah all deal with this subject in detail, as God (through the prophet/writer) laments the festivals and sacrifices done in God’s name. Instead, God “desire[s] steadfast love and not sacrifice / the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:6).

Finally, Heim spends a significant amount of time on the suffering servant passage in Isaiah 52:13-53-12. It may be helpful to read this passage, specifically with the scapegoating themes in mind that we have discussed. Heim quotes Gil Bailie in reference to the suffering servant passage: “The Suffering Servant Songs combine two insights: first, that the victim was innocent and his persecutors wrong, and second, that his victimization was socially beneficial and that his punishment brought the community peace” (98, emphasis mine). Setting aside the preconceived ideas we have about this particular passage as Christians, it is important to note that neither the author of the text nor God seem to endorse the use of scapegoating in this passage. They call it out for what it is – wrong. However, this does not mean it doesn’t have good results (namely, communal and divine reconciliation). Though God does not endorse the use of sacrifice, God is still able to use sacrifice to benefit the community.

From here, Heim will move towards the crucifixion of Christ and how this is not only a continuation of the scapegoating theme, but virtually a cosmic critique of it.

Friday Funday // 03.22.2013

I like Friday Funday because there’s no pressure, really. I find awesome stuff on the internet and bring it to you, dear reader.

  • (This isn’t something from the internet, but a personal thing from my week) I have spent much of the week in the midst of an eco-existential crisis, mostly because of reading Eaarth (no, that’s not a typo) by Bill McKibben. The first half of the book is meant to be a kick-in-the-teeth. McKibben basically makes the case that global warming and climate change are not simply inevitable for the future, but are already happening. There is nothing we can do to stop it. Our only choice now is to learn to adapt to a new environment and prevent more harm than we’ve already caused. For more info on Bill McKibben’s activism, check out http://www.350.org.

 

  • Maureen O’Connor from NY Mag wrote a hilarious (and spot-on) article about Netflix Adultery:

Streaming a show is intimate: You watch at your own pace, often on a personal computer calibrated for privacy. Sharing that experience, then, is a small act of interpersonal intimacy. But with every new form of intimacy comes a corollary set of betrayals. Netflix adultery may be among the pettiest of modern deceptions, but it is real. It causes rifts and guilt trips. It causes fights.

We are at the most important moment in this movement’s history – in the midst of two simultaneous tipping points that create the opportunity, if we respond correctly, to win – eliminating net CO2 emissions from the economy and securing a stable climate, though still a changed one.

Why Monkeys Need “Salvation” – Part 6

Last time in the evolution series, we talked a little about ‘original sin’ and why it’s still important for us to maintain the concept of ‘sin,’ despite the outmoded doctrinal baggage attached to the language.

Before we set out to talk about individual sin, I’d like to say one thing. Although I’m focusing on the two major ways I understand sin to operate in this post and the next, I am by no means saying these are the only ways we can or should understand original sin. This is the best way I’ve learned to describe it for myself, at the moment. I may understand it differently later in life, and others may not agree with my conclusion. The fact is, I find these two understandings of sin most viable right now because they cohere with my own experiences. And despite those who would say it’s improper to allow my experiences to govern my understanding of God and reality, I’m going to argue that we have no choice but to do so. Say all you want that we need to ‘go back to the Bible.’ Regardless of whether we do that or not, our experiences always govern our understanding of reality, and there is no way around that.

the-idolatry-of-god-breaking-our-addiction-to-certainty-and-satisfactionCurrently, a lot of my understanding of ‘original sin’ stems from the writing of Peter Rollins, particularly in The Idolatry of God.

In The Idolatry of God, Pete uses the work of Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan to talk about the feeling of ‘separation’ and ‘lack’ that is inherent to the human experience. For Rollins, if we “consider Original Sin in its most literal definition, we can begin to appreciate how it refers to a primal separation… [It is] the feeling of gap that marks us all from the very beginning” (IoG, 19-20). In other words, every single one of us, at some point, feels a sense of lack, meaninglessness, and dissatisfaction. This is a normal part of the human experience.

Rollins explains that this is a commonly observed phenomenon that originates during what Lacan calls the ‘mirror phase’ in early childhood development – particularly between 6 and 18 months after birth. The ‘mirror phase’ is the stage of infancy where the child’s self-consciousness is birthed. Before this stage in development, there is no real sense of ‘I’ or ‘me’ in the child’s consciousness. S/he is totally unaware of a separation between him/herself and the surrounding environment. However, as soon as the child develops a sense of ‘I,’ there is also an immediate understanding of the existence of ‘not I.’ Rollins states, “The sense of selfhood is marked indelibly with the sense of separation” (13).

This sense of separation from something also leads us to the experience of the sense of a ‘loss’ of something. From the very birth of our self-consciousness, we constantly experience dissatisfaction because we feel as if we are ‘missing’ something – something that actually can bring us satisfaction and rid us of our feeling of meaninglessness.

It is this feeling of dissatisfaction, this feeling of loss, that leads all of us, throughout our lives, to look for ways to get rid of that feeling. We use things like money, power, sex, family, and so on to try and fill the gap we feel, yet we find that none of those things ever make us feel fully satisfied. Further, the Church often makes ‘God’ into another one of these products that can fill the gap, placing the divine on the same level as every other object that promises us some kind of certainty or satisfaction.

In short, Rollins says it this way: “We mistakenly feel that we have lost something central to our humanity (Original Sin) and then postulate some object we believe will restore what we have lost, something we believe will bring wholeness and fulfillment to our lives” (27-28). When we ascribe this value to anything (including ‘God’), we have created an Idol out of the object.

Thus, ‘original sin’ is not something that we need to be punished for because of some inherent level of disobedience to God’s will that we have the second we are born. Rather, on an individual level, it is the feeling of separation, anxiety, and lack that is universal to the human experience.

Next, I’ll focus on how this individual sin progresses to systemic/communal sin and – in the following posts – how the atonement addresses these problems.