Seven Stories: How to Study and Teach the Nonviolent Bible

One of the characteristics of this book is to take Rene Girard's scapegoat theory of human culture and violence as disclosive and helpful for hermeneutics.

If the mainspring of the Bible is not the legal weight of each word but a progressive engine of disclosure, overturning a root human condition, then we are discovering a radically new hermeneutics. One which provokes human transformation. (p.26)

As I am a little more skeptical about Girard* nowadays, I was interested to see whether one really had to commit to that package in order to find this useful or not. Or whether it could be that the insights can be accepted without the whole package.

The book is set out as a resource for groups or class-work and is designed attractively from a typographic point of view -though not so easily read on screen in the pdf format I had access to, I trust that this will be addressed by suitable formatting for e-book versions in due course. Part of the course-book nature of the volume shows up at the end of each chapter where there are discussion questions and personal questions. I did wonder whether those ought to be the other way round: to encourage readers to be honest and in touch with their own history and responses before entering a group situation. Also, each chapter begins with aims and key points as well as a heads-up for key terms. Good educational practice.

The parts dealing with hermeneutics are set out clearly and succinctly which is no mean feat, I think. I was at first surprised by the basic laying out of the canon of scripture but as I saw it was done comparatively including the RC and Orthodox canons I began to see the point -it gently de-absolutises some approaches to reading scripture by raising implicit questions about why some of us can be so fierce about things which have a little bit of contingency about them -and what does that do to our considering scripture to be God-breathed? -Obviously I'm not going into that here and neither does this book, but it is important to dwell on it before coming over all crusader.

We also have a useful and equally succinct  primer in atonement theories (possibly one of the best I've seen in this respect), and again this can have the effect of encouraging more considered discourse on what Jesus's Ministry, Cross and Raising achieve. This section helps us to see the way that culture relates to plausibility and tends to assist in the foregrounding of particular theological motifs. Again we need to develop a healthy sense of contingency about such things, not to dispose of them but to be able to make use of them (or not) wisely in the service of God's mission. One of the things it notes in presenting these theories is the role that violence plays in the motif, hinting at how that can, in turn, give subliminal permission to populations, rulers or church polities to endorse the use of violence.

There is a brief outline  of the development of the the doctrine of penal substitionary atonement (PSA) which is again helfpful not least in reminding us that the term 'hilasterion' used in Paul is 'mercy seat', that is a place where mercy is found. It also notes that there is not a developed doctrine in Paul, merely metaphor and allusion.

The introduction to Girard's take on violence in human society is very clearly done and again briefly; a great service to the reader. The re-presentation of the Hapiru (=Hebrews) as a class rather than a race is a fair idea and worth putting out there in this regard. This enables us to appreciate reading the text of scripture as a sedimentation of revelation of divine love struggling against the violent defaults of human thinking and its projection onto the divine. This calls us to attend to the whole fabric of scripture and the deep -structures or divine drumbeat of love, resisted as it is by the vested interests of violently upheld power and wealth.

For those who have already been thinking a lot about non-violence, the gospel and Christian peacemaking, there is probably little in this that will surprise. Though the Girardian reading of the fall may be intriguing and thought-provoking. Where this book really scores is in offering a well-presented, clearly argued and succinct tour of the 'deep structure' of non-violence in scripture in a way that is thoughtful. The strength of the Girardian reading of the Hebrew Bible is to give a way to reframe what appears at first to be divine violence. It is a strength that this book is not so much an argument for a particular reading (or set of readings) but an invitation, in effect, to 'reason together' by inviting study and asking questions, including personally reflective questions. It is a kind of invite to try the approach on for size.

The book is also offering itself as a helpfully laid-out teaching/learning resource. In the USA I guess it would work as adult Sunday school material. In Britain it would more naturally lend itself to cell-group or home-group contexts or even to a Lent-course particularly for people who are keen to get to grips with something a bit 'meatier' and are okay with a degree of challenge.

if the

mainspring of the Bible is not the

legal weight of each word, but a

progressive engine of disclosure,

overturning a root human condition,

then we are discovering a radically

new hermeneutics. One which

provokes human transformation.

if the

mainspring of the Bible is not the

legal weight of each word, but a

progressive engine of disclosure,

overturning a root human condition,

then we are discovering a radically

new hermeneutics. One which

provokes human transformation.

if the

mainspring of the Bible is not the

legal weight of each word, but a

progressive engine of disclosure,

overturning a root human condition,

then we are discovering a radically

new hermeneutics. One which

provokes human transformation.

Links for this Review

Seven Stories on Amazon
Anthony Bartlett’s Website
Wood Hath Hope Website
Anthony Bartlett on Facebook

#SevenStories

Seven Stories: How to Study and Teach the Nonviolent Bible: Amazon.co.uk: Anthony W Bartlett: 9780692931943: Books:

*I don't find the linkage between the three pillars of the theory very convincing. I definitely think that the mimetic theme is right -and this was the reason I first looked into Girard. I also am convinced that there is something important in recognising that the sacrifice of Christ is among other things an unmasking of violence and power. I'm less convinced by the rivalrous sacrificial crisis-resolution aspect in that it purports to offer a universal cultural mechanism, and I'm simply not sure that it is so. I do think that there is a reality to the scapegoating mechanism but I just don't think it is necessarily a total explanation or a universal. And then I guess too that my own take on atonement -basing it in forgiveness rather than things like 'satisfaction' or 'penalty' tends me towards considering that seeing sacrifice purely as a human construct misplaced onto the divine may be in danger of removing an important insight about love.

Desire Found Me ... or did it?

I've been reading* Andre Rabe's book Desire Found Me. It aims first to introduce us to mimetic theory (hence one strand of my interest in it) as propounded by Rene Girard. 'Desire' in the title is mimetic desire, but desire more generally has to be considered and I think it is right to see desire as a central characteristic of what forms us as human beings.
Having helped us to understand mimesis, Andre Rabe takes us into how this plays out into our spirituality. What I like about this book is that there are relatively simple explanations of mimesis -both the bare psychology (mirror neurons and all that) and the more developed 'psychoprehistory' which he calls anthropology.
Now, I have to confess, that I am well up for the first dimension of mimesis: I am all but convinced that the scientific evidence points that way. I think I've mentioned so before on this blog. And I agree that this basic human psychological trait is what enables 'principalities and powers' to grow out of human interactions. Rabe, rightly in my view, uses this to help us think about evil and the nature of original sin. I think that his exposition of this dimension of mimesis is well done and reasonably clear. Rabe's explanations are, I judge, helpful -though I wouldn't want to put them before someone without university level ability to understand stuff.
Where I'm a bit more skeptical is the second dimension of mimesis. It seems to me that the hypothesis of an ever-tightening spiral of mimetic desire leading to a primal scapegoat murder which becomes reframed as 'sacrifice', is hard to prove or falsify. And to me, it just doesn't quite gel: I find myself unconvinced and unable to quite make the connections stick to contemporary cultural phenomena. But that's not Rabe's fault, he's re-telling Girard's theory. As it happens, I don't think that my skepticism regarding this second dimension of mimetic theory actually impinge on many of the most telling or interesting ideas made in the book.
I enjoyed the reflections on atonement which, again, I think are helpfully expressed I was reminded during some of the discussion of atonement of my own posts trying to place forgiveness at the centre of accounting for atonement. I also felt that the insistence on resurrection being accounted for in whatever theory of the atonement is well made. How that fits with mimesis, I think is also helpfully explored.
I would definitely consider giving this to someone exploring christian formation and spirituality with attention to psychology -particularly in relation to desire- and anthropological insights, especially if there is interest in how it might relate to theories of atonement.

Link-Love: 

alwaysloved.net - Andre's site
Desire Found Me - book site
Andre on Twitter
Andre on Facebook
Andre on Youtube
Andre on Google+
Desire Found Me on Amazon 

* And in all honesty and transparency, I should mention that I was given the e-book free by the publishers via the Speakeasy scheme in exchange for reviewing it to some degree within 30 days. I didn't have to give it a favourable review.

Retelling Atonement Forgiveness-centred (6)

The cost of forgiving

In the previous post I noted that we could consider retributive anger as a reverse-polarity dynamic of mimesis and concluded that forgiveness, then, is somehow to end that counter-mimetic dynamic. The important thing to notice now, then, is that forgiving costs the forgiver.

It seems to me that part of what the successful completion of the counter-mimetic move achieves for the affronted is satisfaction, a sense of completion, of peace even. There is a very real and potent psychological satisfaction in seeing revenge, justice or proper and adequate acknowledgement of the wrong. One might regard this as a form of relief: the sense that the wrong no longer has to be borne as a personal detriment (even if the effects of it do). The ongoing personal hurt of the wrong can be laid to rest.

So, in order to forgive, we have to be willing to forego that satisfaction and to retain within ourselves the ongoing personal hurt. In short, we have to choose not to try to 'export' the hurt back onto the wrongdoer but to bear and process the hurt ourselves.

Bearing the cost.

It is this bearing the hurt ourselves which I think is the key to re-imagining the Atonement. The hurt of the original detriment is compounded in the refusal to pass it on to another: the pain is held, experienced and processed by the one hurt rather than relieved by counter-mimesis.

Really this kind of forestalling of counter-mimesis can only be achieved by having a strong motivation to do so. Of course, I am thinking of love and at the moment I can't think of other motivations, except related ones, that would be sufficient to enable the forbearance necessary. it could be a variety of pathways of love that lead to such forbearance. 
It could be love of the perpetrator themself which stays the retributive move, as when a parent might bite back their telling off of their child recognising that redemptive purposes might be better served by different reactions; for love of the child and hope for their growth and potential, a constructive approach is called for. So their forbear to punish in the hope of repentance which might be made more difficult by punishment.

It could be love of someone who would be hurt collaterally by the retribution, for example withholding a consequence for someone for the sake of their children who would be unjustly hurt in some way by the retributive action.

It could be proper self-love -where the offender is not in a position to be confronted by a consequence of their offence (maybe they've died, or they are too far away physically or socially) or simply too inured by their own justifications (rightly or wrongly) for the wrong done). In such circumstances, to give up the counter-mimetic impetus is a way to mitigate the wrong and prevent it from continuing to make one a victim by poisoning ones inner life and relationships with bitterness, brooding or distracting thoughts and desires.

As I write those things , I note that I've not said anything about regret, remorse or repentance on the part of the offender. I do think that such things are significant in the processing of forgiveness and that in many cases forgiveness cannot take place in the sense of reconciliation without them. It is also the case that there are times when, in a fuller sense of the term, forgiveness should be withheld until there is some indication of repentance else collusion or enabling of continued wrongdoing is the likely result (co-dependancy?).

However, we should note that even where a fulsome apology, amends and repentance are in view, forgiveness still requires the 'gift' of remittance of the counter-mimetic dynamic. It may be easier but in many cases it is not significantly easier to let go and to forgive a penitent than an impenitent. It still costs us as witnessed by many people who have baulked at it. Repentance or not, forgiveness still requires of us to forgo the retributive impetus; it still costs, and that cost is what I'm trying to focus on.

Previous post. Next Post (probably the most key post in this series).

Posts in the series:

Posting 9 Analogy: human to divine and back again 
Posting 8 Eikonic forgiveness explored further

posting 7 The Eikon of forgiveness

posting 6 The cost of forgiving

posting 5 Counter mimesis

posting 4 Reacting to being wronged

posting 3 To know all is to forgive all?

posting 2 Forgiveness in human life

posting 1 Love and Anger

Retelling Atonement Forgiveness centred (5)

Reverse polarity mimesis.

More on being hurt and reacting to it.

From the prior post we have understood that when we are hurt, we react with anger. That anger is, at its best, a driver towards in some way righting a wrong. (At its worst it's simply vengeance and prejudice). Part of the reaction is about transferring our anger to the other by hurting back. The reaction to a wrong is a kind of reverse mimesis kicked off by a detriment. In 'regular' mimesis we take into ourselves and reproduce within ourselves something from outside of our inner world. Usually it is something that we encounter in people in our acquaintance circles. Usually desire drives and fastens the imitation.

Now this is my take, I've not found this particular theory or way of looking at either mimesis or reacting to wrong. So consider the the next bit 'experimental' and your reaction to its plausibility is part of testing it out. Also let me know if you've come across the like before. However, recall that it is an attempt to theorise something that happens, so if I've got it wrong, then then there still remains something to be explained -it would simply be that my way of explaining it would be misconceived.

I'm proposing that our mimetic drive is thrown into reverse in the case of our being personally harmed (that is taking a detriment which is transmitted through personal agency and with person-generated intentionality and meaning). Rather than desiring to add the mimetic target to ourselves, the fact that it hurts means we defend against it and we do so by trying to reproduce something of the hurt in the perpetrator/s. This probably relates to our sense of fairness (which seems to be deeply embedded in humans) which trades hurt for hurt.

So whatever forgiveness is, it involves dealing with this reverse-mimetic reaction to personal detriments which are felt to be unmerited or under-merited. Somehow or other, forgiveness undertakes to remove it, nullify it or take it out of play between us.

Previous post.  Next post.

Posts in the series:

Posting 9 Analogy: human to divine and back again 
Posting 8 Eikonic forgiveness explored further

posting 7 The Eikon of forgiveness

posting 6 The cost of forgiving

posting 5 Counter mimesis

posting 4 Reacting to being wronged

posting 3 To know all is to forgive all?

posting 2 Forgiveness in human life

posting 1 Love and Anger

How your friends' friends can affect your mood

One of the aspects of our being inherently social is that, well, look at this: How your friends' friends can affect your mood - life - 30 December 2008 - New Scientist: "Recent research shows that our moods are far more strongly influenced by those around us than we tend to think. Not only that, we are also beholden to the moods of friends of friends, and of friends of friends of friends - people three degrees of separation away from us who we have never met, but whose disposition can pass through our social network like a virus."

Now, cutting a long story short, but something I keep banging on about, the reason is probably empathic mimicry.
"Some researchers think one of the most likely mechanisms is empathetic mimicry. Psychologists have shown that people unconsciously copy the facial expressions, manner of speech, posture, body language and other behaviours of those around them, often with remarkable speed and accuracy. This then causes them, through a kind of neural feedback, to actually experience the emotions associated with the particular behaviour they are mimicking."
My interest spiritually is recognising the corporateness of faith living both in terms of 'not giving up meeting together' but also in terms of the effects of living in faith-hostile environments. Also we should note the likelihood of certain kinds of behaviour, notably and most extremely those associated with certain kinds of revivalism, are more about empathic mimicry than about the spirit of God. That's not to say God may not be involved, but we should be wary of making it all-or-nothing. God can indeed be touching people's lives and this may show through psycho-somatic means. These may then be picked up by others. In some cases doing so may enable them to 'tune in' to some degree to the presence of God. In some cases, however, it may only transmit 'odd' mannerisms. Our bodies are sacramental, in a sense, but not ex opere operato: the behaviour does not 'produce' or necessarily connote the presence or move of God; though it may.

Of course, it is possible to go to the extreme of saying that such scientific research disproves the God stuff: it's all just a somatic-psycho-spiritual 'infection'. This is, of course, as much nonsense as saying that such things 'prove' God. We need to recall that as embodied beings, if we are to have spiritual experiences they will have to be mediated through our bodily (=neural) experience. Conversely we should note that in evolutionary terms our vocal apparatus is not 'designed' for speech, however, that does not mean that language does not really exist. Similarly, just because certain of our somatic systems can be co-opted for spiritual experience does not mean that something genuinely spiritual does not underlie that co-option.

Reading, empathy and virtual community

I've given that title because it seems to me that it describes what the research seems to show. I'm pleased to find some confirmation of something I'd suspected for a long-time. In my case that although I'm a MBTI 'E', in fact my love of reading has been a form of meeting the need to engage my thinking 'out there' -at least in the sense it gives me even if not always in reality.
Becoming a vampire without being bitten: Reading expands our self-concepts, study shows: "When we read, we psychologically become part of the community described in the narrative -- be they wizards or vampires. That mechanism satisfies the deeply human, evolutionarily crucial, need for belonging."
Of course this report brings together the stuff we are discovering about the importance of narrative and also the inbuilt empathy/mimetic thing we have. My suspicion is that a similar, or perhaps the same, psychological mechanisms are at work with online and more fully virtual relationships.

The report of the same research in Psychology Today seems to equate the love of reading with introversion, but I'm not convinced by that: I think there is an extrovert way of reading which is about enjoyment of the engagement with other minds and, in the case of fiction, an ersatz engagement with others imaginitevily. Let's remember that no encounter with a live other is free of 'fantasy' and imagination, so there is is a link.

What it makes me revisit though, is the question of the use of fiction in some academic pursuits where the development and reflection on the human condition are at a premium. Things like pastoral care or spirituality to take two that I tend to deal with. I suspect those who deal with literature studies will probably be thinking "told you so", but so be it. The challenge would be how to properly use fiction in such case -both for stimulating thought, reflection and insight and also in assessment.

Imitation and social bonding

Perhaps not a surprising finding but if it applies to humans (and I think it does) then further evidence of the mimetic basis for social humanity. Imitation Promotes Social Bonding In Primates: "capuchin monkeys preferred the company of researchers who imitated them to that of researchers who did not imitate them. The monkeys not only spent more time with their imitators, but also preferred to engage in a simple task with them even when provided with the option of performing the same task with a non-imitator."
This would seem to provide a basis for NLP's technique called mirroring as a way to build rapport ...

Children live what they learn? Bullies are the bullied too.

If there is a mimetic 'instinct' built into humans (and I think the evidence is strong to say there is), then, perhaps, this is no surprise. "bullies are more likely than their classmates to suffer from low self-esteem, depression, and behavioural problems from early childhood and through primary school. They are more likely to suffer from mental health problems later in life too." More details here: Study finds bullies are the bullied too | Education | guardian.co.uk. It could lend support to my thinking that 'original sin' is transmitted via a cascade of detriments internalised by the mimetic drive; that is to say it is both socially-generated and yet innate.

When It Comes To Abstinence Teens, Adults Aren't Speaking The Same Language

You'd have thought that, since Genesis 2 shows a pretty clear story of how prohibition invokes the prohibited and presents it to desire/mimetic drive thus making it likely that 'fall' will take place, Christians would have a 'naturally' more nuanced view of things like education regarding things that are not good to do. But not so, and it is likely that many of the abstinence programmes alluded to in this research are church-based 'just say no' sorts of thing.When It Comes To Abstinence Teens, Adults Aren't Speaking The Same Language: "'Abstinence-only programs often only look at the negatives of sex, not the positive. This is especially important for young women who need to have control over having sex and having safe sex,' Masters said. 'With these programs you often hear 'sex just happens' and adolescents are having less safe sex. This detracts from adolescents having a choice, and this leads to more dangerous sex with more sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies.'" It just seems that the more research there is on this, the more it seems that broader, holistic, consent and choice based approaches make sense overall. It's obliquity again. Sometimes to achieve something you have to approach it indirectly and recognise that what you are looking for is a side-consequence.

What's In A Name? Initials Linked To Success, Study Shows

I think that this may be further supportive evidence of the mimetic drive in humans affecting behaviours and achievements subconsciously. ". The result of the test confirmed that when people’s initials match negative performance outcomes, performance suffers. These results, appearing in the December issue of Psychological Science, provide striking evidence that unconscious wants can insidiously undermine conscious pursuits."
The other thing I'm wondering is whether this also may indicate a degree of corporate identity and feedback. After all these are totally humanly constructed environments in which these effects are taking place and depend, therefore, on our consensuses about alphabets and how they are used additionally in our signalling of social and related status. We already know that self-esteem relates to health outcomes ... (just plumb 'self esteem' into this blog's search bar).
What's In A Name? Initials Linked To Success, Study Shows:

Obesity Is 'Socially Contagious'

My interest here is the mimetic one. I heard this on Radio 4 this morning. "If a person you consider a friend becomes obese, the researchers found, your own chances of becoming obese go up 57 percent. Among mutual friends, the effect is even stronger, with chances increasing 171 percent." One of the presenters asked a pertinent and disarmingly simple question: 'why don't you get thinner among skinny friends?' This is partly answered by this explanation: "Consciously or unconsciously, people look to others when they are deciding how much to eat, how much to exercise and how much weight is too much." I say 'partly' because we need to say also that because eating is generally pleasurable and sometimes social, and because exercise is hard work and so there is a tendency to avoid it, the mimetic drives are stronger in directions that lead to overweight. However; "It's important to remember," Fowler said, "that we've not only shown that obesity is contagious but that thinness is contagious." But, if I'm right, thinness can be contagious but more factors need to be in place for it to be so.
ScienceDaily: Obesity Is 'Socially Contagious':

People Often Think An Opinion Heard Repeatedly From The Same Person Is Actually A Popular Opinion

Another finding that seems to cohere with intuitions.

"This finding shows that hearing an opinion multiple times increases the recipient's sense of familiarity and in some cases gives a listener a false sense that an opinion is more widespread then it actually is."

Presumably this is reflecting a mechanism that produces plausibility structures and, I suspect, is strongly related to mimesis and the action of mirror neurons. That's my working hypothesis.
ScienceDaily: People Often Think An Opinion Heard Repeatedly From The Same Person Is Actually A Popular Opinion:

Evidence of peer and status effects

The tobacco advertisers have known this for years, but now the rest of us have the evidence...
"- The more an adolescent perceived that successful and elite people smoke cigarettes, the more likely that adolescent was to smoke.
- The more strongly an adolescent perceived that his or her parents or peers disapproved of smoking, the less likely that adolescent was to smoke.
- The more an adolescent overestimated the percentage of smokers in the general population, the more likely that adolescent was to smoke. "
It supports more generally the intuitions that we are indeed strongly influenced by our peers, our perceptions of 'norms' and the behaviour of those we deem to have status. It's mimesis. It's human nature. It's a mechanism of the propagation of sin.
ScienceDaily: How Normal Is Smoking? Teens Don't Know, But Their Guesses Affect Their Habits:

Temptation, mimesis and imagination

This is an interesting piece of research to look at with Genesis 2-3 in mind.

the researchers asked a group of actual college students how often they intended to skip class in the following week. Another control group of students was asked how often they intended to floss. Over the course of a semester, the group that was asked how often they intended to miss class ended up with one more absence, on average, than the group that was not asked. As the authors explain: "Despite very real negative repercussions, respondents to a question about their future class attendance engaged in the negative behavior (missing class) at a significantly greater rate than those not asked to predict their behavior."

Just by mentioning the posssibility of something, we then have it in mind, and it just sits there inviting us. This seems to corroborate the NLP assertion about negatives first requiring a mental positive. I commented on this as part of my 'Homo Loquens' series of posts, so I won't repeat the ideas here, merely refer you on. The point is that our mimetic drive pushes us towards embodying or responding to our mental images.
ScienceDaily: License To Sin: Asking People To Think About Vice Increases Their Likelihood Of Giving In

Technorati Tags: research, temptation, mimesis, psychology, NLP, language

Intro to Mimesis

Metanexus Institute Ever wondered what all this mimetic stuff I keep alluding to is about? Well, this article has a nice introduction to Girard and to the theory. Personally I think that it is a pretty important thing to get your head round -whether or not you agree with it or want to disagree with some of it, it is an important upcoming theory and alreaedy making an impact on some areas of theology [notably, at the moment, atonement and theological anthropology].

So this is your 'being well-read' call.