One of the best books I've read on this subject, with ideas not unlike yours, Jonathan, is "God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships" by Matthew Vines.
Thanks for the tag and for including me in this conversation. Speaking of Girard and Mimetics, I reference him and his theory on scapegoating (my specialty as a clinician and researcher) in a recent post here, The Scapegoat's Shadow: Socio-Political Aspects of 'Splitting' and 'Othering', for anyone interested (we might want to discuss doing a collaborative video on this sometime down the road as well): https://familyscapegoathealing.substack.com/p/scapegoating-in-human-systems
BTW, I remember clearly how my mother (the daughter of an Episcopal minister) reacted when her cousin (who was also an Episcopal minister, so she revered him as she did her deceased father) came out as being gay and having a long-term life partner. It was quite a process she went through - Her conviction homosexuality was 'wrong' and against biblical teaching; yet also, she loved her cousin and wanted to maintain their relationship. He was very patient with her (not easy, she was quite neurotic and judgmental) and tried to walk beside her as she wrestled with conflicting feelings. This was decades ago, so it took my cousin great courage to openly come out as gay, including to his congregation. You may remember the Episcopal church split into two factions during this time (liberal versus non-liberal). My mother ended up leaving the Episcopal church all together in her seventies and joined a Greek Orthodox church. Quite a journey she went on.
It's amazing how many stories like that exist out there. And goodness, the kinds of things marginalized people had to deal with decades ago was so intense.
(Not that people today have it easy with the resurgence of strict binary thinking.)
I worked on, and lived near, Castro St in SF in the early eighties and was close to many in the community. Back then, coming out meant you likely would be rejected / disowned / scapegoated by family. Like being thrust into forced immigration. Very shocking, very sad for so many of my friends. Still happens today, of course. Especially true for my trans friends - being cast out by family for transitioning and living authentically.
What I’ve learned about identity from the contributions of the LGBTQ+ community has made me more confident in myself. Even though I identify as what would still be considered “normal”, there are still many stereotypes about “normalcy” that I don’t identify with. Diversity and inclusion benefits us all.
Don't know if this helps, but here goes. We take the normal curve as destiny, indicative of identity, because of the dominance of quantitative reason in our age. But it is not destiny. It is description. The Sophists of our time use this mistake for the purposes of social control, creating or transplanting false desire with norm as lure, to try to herd every one into the middle two standard deviations where bang for the buck is achieved in marketing, advertising, propaganda, the malpractice of politics, and most other techniques of control. It becomes all about the y-axis. That's where the money is, where the volume is loudest. The x-axis is where we are individuals. We've grown comfortable using the term spectrum these days. The x-axis is the spectrum. It is what we share to some degree or another. To manufacture a desire for the norm is the height of idolatry, the masterwork of PT Barnum, of Edward Bernays. It is crafting the serpent's lie in the Garden. And yet we are taught that THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE and reject it at your peril. It becomes a threat to our need for belonging and becomes our main goal to assuage the threat. This is the triumph of quantitative reason willfully misapplied. That's my idiosyncratic prolegomena to Francis' culture of encounter. My wad of spaghetti thrown against the backsplash. I have a few tangents to throw in but I need to get to work for now.
yeah, that's a good point. there are always parts of ourselves that don't quite fit in with the dominant group and seeing the other person in the other groups helps us gain clarity.
joel, what kinds of contributions from the lgtbq+ community got your attention and helped you?
I was a teen through the 90’s, where it was pretty common place to call things “gay”. Like most derogatory statements, it lacked any contextual substance and was used to shame non-conformity to easily identifiable identities. I was never called “gay”, but I never felt a strong need to prove my manhood. I’ve always had a pretty strong desire to be my authentic self, but I also grew up with a lot of insecurity. I didn’t want to “stand out” just to get attention, I didn’t want to join groups just to be a part of something. I just wanted to be me and not have to prove myself to be accepted.
As I read about people’s struggles with finding acceptance for parts of themselves that they could no longer deny to themselves, and the courage it takes to first be true to yourself, I was inspired to look at my own life. I didn’t find a shared identity in these stories, but I found a shared struggle.
Here's a thought: Doug Campbell (Duke) contends that most of Romans 1-4, is the Romans' author is engaging in a common rhetorical practice where they present the position they wish to reject. They anticipate their critics' position and knock it down. My point is, perhaps, in this light, the Roman text isn't really Paul's (?) condemnation of same-sex attraction, but the voice of the foil.
Thanks for the post Jonathan. I can see you were taught well by Mr. Oord. ;-)
Lots about scapegoating in the discussion here. Synchronistically, Rupert Sheldrake just posted this past conversation with two friends discussing an interesting biological basis for the practice of scapegoating and religion's response.
that's a nice resource .. and so much overlap with this discussion that, unfortuantely, far too many moderns miss. (not that I'm above missing things.)
when Ehrenreich posits that the connection of humans being preyed upon - one person is eaten the rest can relax - the natural response of deifying the victim after the fact ... yeah, that is all resonant with Girardian stuff, for sure.
Loved this. So important. Glad you reposted. One thing I’m sure of is that Jesus wd have been drawn to know gay, trans and queer folk if they’d been as out back then as they are now. I wish we could have had his take on this, as a more modern message to update the scripture, but since we don’t I’m comfortable with the mystery, and with sharing your stance to those in my life who rely (too heavily) on scripture to guide them!
Thank you Kathleen … i think you’re right )and also, the stuff JC says about the eunuch very much puts him in this gracious conversation here too … something that too many people overlook.)
Thank you Kathleen … i think you’re right )and also, the stuff JC says about the eunuch very much puts him in this gracious conversation here too … something that too many people overlook.)
So much to like in this discourse. I’m not sure it’s directly along the same lines, but you might find my post Make Art in the Face of Fuck relevant. It speaks to the same deeper current—the interplay between life and anti-life forces. https://open.substack.com/pub/thompsonk/p/make-art-in-the-face-of-fuck?
Yes to power born of love, which is true power! While I recognize the brilliance of Girard’s mimetic theory—especially in illuminating the mechanics of scapegoating—I fundamentally disagree with his sweeping claim that all desire is mimetic.
Desire is not merely a byproduct of social imitation. There is a deeper source: Eros. Eros is not lack or rivalry—it is longing, essence, the soul’s movement toward wholeness and beauty. It arises from within, not from watching others. It is what remains when we strip away the conditioned layers of imitation, conformity, and fear.
To reduce all desire to mimetic desire is to ignore the possibility of originality, authenticity, and inner knowing. Not all humans are driven by rivalry and comparison. Those who are most likely to scapegoat others are often those most alienated from their own essence. They imitate because they’ve lost access to their own center.
Further, Girard’s theory suggests that humanity failed an evolutionary test by sacrificing Jesus—and that we are forever caught in this cycle of imitation, scapegoating, and violence. But that leaves no room for the soul’s evolution. If we are only mimetic, there is no path out. I reject that.
I believe we are capable of evolving beyond mimetic traps—not through reason alone, but through re-embodying Eros, truth, and the sacred within. The story doesn’t end with the cross. It continues through every human who chooses to break the cycle, to refuse the scapegoat mechanism, and to live in alignment with something deeper than social consensus.
Yes to so much of this ... and you'd probably like Rebecca Adams work on Girard and what she calls "loving mimesis." (I call it generative mimesis, but it's the same thing.) Rebecca was the first to get Girard to go on record as saying that not all mimesis is negative. Unfortunately, the overwhelming work around mimetic theory, as it sounds like you know, has been on it's negative side.
RE: your comments on eros... yes, hmm, very interesting ... this is not mean to disagree, only to say, I bet if we had a conversation we might be able to nuance that a bit. Because I think what I think is that there might be a lack within longing itself! And I don't know that that means it reduces ALL possibility of originality, but having said that I certaintly am in alignement with your thoughts about those who are most likely to scapegoat are those who are experiencing alienation.
And I definitely am harmonizing with your willingness to challenge some of Girard's assumptions. Yes, I think we can learn a lot from him, but that ultimately, we have to figure out how transcend the mimetic trap as well.
Further, While Girard frames the possibility of transcending the scapegoat mechanism within Christianity, I see something deeper at work—something not confined to any religion. What Jesus revealed wasn’t a doctrine to be codified, but a living truth: the way of essence, integrity, and love that stands outside the mimetic game entirely. Thanks for the spark!
That’s such an intriguing reflection—thank you. I’d say the “lack” you perceive in Eros, if anything, is exactly what draws us toward the fulfillment of our inner blueprint. Not a lack rooted in deficiency, but a generative longing—a gravitational pull toward wholeness. It’s not about acquiring something external, but about becoming who we already are in essence. Like the acorn contains the oak, Eros draws us toward our original, intended self. It’s the force of becoming realized—fully human.
I also appreciate the reference to Rebecca Adams. Loving mimesis makes me think of mirror neurons—and also of Buber’s I-Thou, which I feel transcends mimesis entirely. Maybe the fundamental difference between our views lies in whether we begin from original sin or original wholeness. That changes everything. Great convo. TBC!
Also, I’m thinking of my new favorite word… Agonism. The combination of the good and the bad without othering the bad. A way to subsume its agitation in order for something good to emerge. That’s resonating with what you’re saying here.
Ah yes! I love that! Thanks for the new word - agonism. Yes, I’d say that’s kind of what I was trying to write about in that post I referred to regarding creation and destruction. And the process of where we focus our attention is important not to negate anything but almost like the mechanism that determines the direction. I love that concept of not othering the bad.
Further, While Girard frames the possibility of transcending the scapegoat mechanism within Christianity, I see something deeper at work—something not confined to any religion. What Jesus revealed wasn’t a doctrine to be codified, but a living truth: the way of essence, integrity, and love that stands outside the mimetic game entirely. Thanks for the spark!
One of the best books I've read on this subject, with ideas not unlike yours, Jonathan, is "God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships" by Matthew Vines.
ah, yes, i should've included that in the resources. you're right and that book has helped a lot of people. thanks tim!
Thanks for the tag and for including me in this conversation. Speaking of Girard and Mimetics, I reference him and his theory on scapegoating (my specialty as a clinician and researcher) in a recent post here, The Scapegoat's Shadow: Socio-Political Aspects of 'Splitting' and 'Othering', for anyone interested (we might want to discuss doing a collaborative video on this sometime down the road as well): https://familyscapegoathealing.substack.com/p/scapegoating-in-human-systems
It sounds great and I will check it out. Hope others do as well. Thanks for your work.
BTW, I remember clearly how my mother (the daughter of an Episcopal minister) reacted when her cousin (who was also an Episcopal minister, so she revered him as she did her deceased father) came out as being gay and having a long-term life partner. It was quite a process she went through - Her conviction homosexuality was 'wrong' and against biblical teaching; yet also, she loved her cousin and wanted to maintain their relationship. He was very patient with her (not easy, she was quite neurotic and judgmental) and tried to walk beside her as she wrestled with conflicting feelings. This was decades ago, so it took my cousin great courage to openly come out as gay, including to his congregation. You may remember the Episcopal church split into two factions during this time (liberal versus non-liberal). My mother ended up leaving the Episcopal church all together in her seventies and joined a Greek Orthodox church. Quite a journey she went on.
It's amazing how many stories like that exist out there. And goodness, the kinds of things marginalized people had to deal with decades ago was so intense.
(Not that people today have it easy with the resurgence of strict binary thinking.)
I worked on, and lived near, Castro St in SF in the early eighties and was close to many in the community. Back then, coming out meant you likely would be rejected / disowned / scapegoated by family. Like being thrust into forced immigration. Very shocking, very sad for so many of my friends. Still happens today, of course. Especially true for my trans friends - being cast out by family for transitioning and living authentically.
It's amazing how distanced I was from any of that in the 80s.
Shocking, what people have had to endure "in the name of God."
Lovely post!
What I’ve learned about identity from the contributions of the LGBTQ+ community has made me more confident in myself. Even though I identify as what would still be considered “normal”, there are still many stereotypes about “normalcy” that I don’t identify with. Diversity and inclusion benefits us all.
Don't know if this helps, but here goes. We take the normal curve as destiny, indicative of identity, because of the dominance of quantitative reason in our age. But it is not destiny. It is description. The Sophists of our time use this mistake for the purposes of social control, creating or transplanting false desire with norm as lure, to try to herd every one into the middle two standard deviations where bang for the buck is achieved in marketing, advertising, propaganda, the malpractice of politics, and most other techniques of control. It becomes all about the y-axis. That's where the money is, where the volume is loudest. The x-axis is where we are individuals. We've grown comfortable using the term spectrum these days. The x-axis is the spectrum. It is what we share to some degree or another. To manufacture a desire for the norm is the height of idolatry, the masterwork of PT Barnum, of Edward Bernays. It is crafting the serpent's lie in the Garden. And yet we are taught that THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE and reject it at your peril. It becomes a threat to our need for belonging and becomes our main goal to assuage the threat. This is the triumph of quantitative reason willfully misapplied. That's my idiosyncratic prolegomena to Francis' culture of encounter. My wad of spaghetti thrown against the backsplash. I have a few tangents to throw in but I need to get to work for now.
description vs. destiny is important to keep in mind.
"to manufacture a desire for the norm is the height of idolatry." yes. and this is my working definition of ideology.
thanks for your spaghetti. ha.
yeah, that's a good point. there are always parts of ourselves that don't quite fit in with the dominant group and seeing the other person in the other groups helps us gain clarity.
joel, what kinds of contributions from the lgtbq+ community got your attention and helped you?
I was a teen through the 90’s, where it was pretty common place to call things “gay”. Like most derogatory statements, it lacked any contextual substance and was used to shame non-conformity to easily identifiable identities. I was never called “gay”, but I never felt a strong need to prove my manhood. I’ve always had a pretty strong desire to be my authentic self, but I also grew up with a lot of insecurity. I didn’t want to “stand out” just to get attention, I didn’t want to join groups just to be a part of something. I just wanted to be me and not have to prove myself to be accepted.
As I read about people’s struggles with finding acceptance for parts of themselves that they could no longer deny to themselves, and the courage it takes to first be true to yourself, I was inspired to look at my own life. I didn’t find a shared identity in these stories, but I found a shared struggle.
Great comment … “I didn’t find a shared identity in these stories, but I found a shared struggle.” Thanks
Here's a thought: Doug Campbell (Duke) contends that most of Romans 1-4, is the Romans' author is engaging in a common rhetorical practice where they present the position they wish to reject. They anticipate their critics' position and knock it down. My point is, perhaps, in this light, the Roman text isn't really Paul's (?) condemnation of same-sex attraction, but the voice of the foil.
the voice of the foil ... i like that and I'm pretty sure that that is what is going on. thanks michael.
Thanks for the post Jonathan. I can see you were taught well by Mr. Oord. ;-)
Lots about scapegoating in the discussion here. Synchronistically, Rupert Sheldrake just posted this past conversation with two friends discussing an interesting biological basis for the practice of scapegoating and religion's response.
https://open.substack.com/pub/rupertsheldrake/p/from-prey-to-prophet-a-trialogue?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=p7st2
that's a nice resource .. and so much overlap with this discussion that, unfortuantely, far too many moderns miss. (not that I'm above missing things.)
when Ehrenreich posits that the connection of humans being preyed upon - one person is eaten the rest can relax - the natural response of deifying the victim after the fact ... yeah, that is all resonant with Girardian stuff, for sure.
thanks guy!
Loved this. So important. Glad you reposted. One thing I’m sure of is that Jesus wd have been drawn to know gay, trans and queer folk if they’d been as out back then as they are now. I wish we could have had his take on this, as a more modern message to update the scripture, but since we don’t I’m comfortable with the mystery, and with sharing your stance to those in my life who rely (too heavily) on scripture to guide them!
Thank you Kathleen … i think you’re right )and also, the stuff JC says about the eunuch very much puts him in this gracious conversation here too … something that too many people overlook.)
Thank you Kathleen … i think you’re right )and also, the stuff JC says about the eunuch very much puts him in this gracious conversation here too … something that too many people overlook.)
So much to like in this discourse. I’m not sure it’s directly along the same lines, but you might find my post Make Art in the Face of Fuck relevant. It speaks to the same deeper current—the interplay between life and anti-life forces. https://open.substack.com/pub/thompsonk/p/make-art-in-the-face-of-fuck?
r=1fhxt&utm_medium=ios
Just subscribed and look forward to reading the post.
Thanks! I’m a follower, but I just subscribed to you as well. 🌻
Yes to power born of love, which is true power! While I recognize the brilliance of Girard’s mimetic theory—especially in illuminating the mechanics of scapegoating—I fundamentally disagree with his sweeping claim that all desire is mimetic.
Desire is not merely a byproduct of social imitation. There is a deeper source: Eros. Eros is not lack or rivalry—it is longing, essence, the soul’s movement toward wholeness and beauty. It arises from within, not from watching others. It is what remains when we strip away the conditioned layers of imitation, conformity, and fear.
To reduce all desire to mimetic desire is to ignore the possibility of originality, authenticity, and inner knowing. Not all humans are driven by rivalry and comparison. Those who are most likely to scapegoat others are often those most alienated from their own essence. They imitate because they’ve lost access to their own center.
Further, Girard’s theory suggests that humanity failed an evolutionary test by sacrificing Jesus—and that we are forever caught in this cycle of imitation, scapegoating, and violence. But that leaves no room for the soul’s evolution. If we are only mimetic, there is no path out. I reject that.
I believe we are capable of evolving beyond mimetic traps—not through reason alone, but through re-embodying Eros, truth, and the sacred within. The story doesn’t end with the cross. It continues through every human who chooses to break the cycle, to refuse the scapegoat mechanism, and to live in alignment with something deeper than social consensus.
Yes to so much of this ... and you'd probably like Rebecca Adams work on Girard and what she calls "loving mimesis." (I call it generative mimesis, but it's the same thing.) Rebecca was the first to get Girard to go on record as saying that not all mimesis is negative. Unfortunately, the overwhelming work around mimetic theory, as it sounds like you know, has been on it's negative side.
RE: your comments on eros... yes, hmm, very interesting ... this is not mean to disagree, only to say, I bet if we had a conversation we might be able to nuance that a bit. Because I think what I think is that there might be a lack within longing itself! And I don't know that that means it reduces ALL possibility of originality, but having said that I certaintly am in alignement with your thoughts about those who are most likely to scapegoat are those who are experiencing alienation.
And I definitely am harmonizing with your willingness to challenge some of Girard's assumptions. Yes, I think we can learn a lot from him, but that ultimately, we have to figure out how transcend the mimetic trap as well.
Thank you for your feedback.
Addendum:
Further, While Girard frames the possibility of transcending the scapegoat mechanism within Christianity, I see something deeper at work—something not confined to any religion. What Jesus revealed wasn’t a doctrine to be codified, but a living truth: the way of essence, integrity, and love that stands outside the mimetic game entirely. Thanks for the spark!
All this. ❤️
That’s such an intriguing reflection—thank you. I’d say the “lack” you perceive in Eros, if anything, is exactly what draws us toward the fulfillment of our inner blueprint. Not a lack rooted in deficiency, but a generative longing—a gravitational pull toward wholeness. It’s not about acquiring something external, but about becoming who we already are in essence. Like the acorn contains the oak, Eros draws us toward our original, intended self. It’s the force of becoming realized—fully human.
I also appreciate the reference to Rebecca Adams. Loving mimesis makes me think of mirror neurons—and also of Buber’s I-Thou, which I feel transcends mimesis entirely. Maybe the fundamental difference between our views lies in whether we begin from original sin or original wholeness. That changes everything. Great convo. TBC!
Oh yeah .. i like “generative longing.”
Also, I’m thinking of my new favorite word… Agonism. The combination of the good and the bad without othering the bad. A way to subsume its agitation in order for something good to emerge. That’s resonating with what you’re saying here.
Ah yes! I love that! Thanks for the new word - agonism. Yes, I’d say that’s kind of what I was trying to write about in that post I referred to regarding creation and destruction. And the process of where we focus our attention is important not to negate anything but almost like the mechanism that determines the direction. I love that concept of not othering the bad.
Further, While Girard frames the possibility of transcending the scapegoat mechanism within Christianity, I see something deeper at work—something not confined to any religion. What Jesus revealed wasn’t a doctrine to be codified, but a living truth: the way of essence, integrity, and love that stands outside the mimetic game entirely. Thanks for the spark!