the kind of truth that could set US free

the power contained within girardian-nietzchean-truth

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. —MLK Jr

Girardian-Truth

Let’s get right to it. While there is some alignment with René Girard's work and the cultural moment of deconstruction currently happening within americanized christianity, it’s important to note that Girard’s not interested in relativizing truth. No, for Girard, truth is very much alive as long as we understand truth in light of the victim.

This is a position he establishes by distinguishing between myth—innocent crowds and guilty victims and antimyth—guilty crowds and innocent victims. Consider the writings surrounding the Jesus story …

• They emphasize a guilty crowd (e.g., "Crucify him!") in cooperation with the powers (e.g., Pilate, Herod, and Caiaphas).

• They emphasize the innocence of Jesus, something the NT writers took care to mention seven different times … Judas in Matt 27:4, Pilate in Luke 23:4, Pilate's wife in Matt 27:19, both Pilate and Herod in Luke 23:14-15, the thief on the cross in Luke 23:41, and the Roman centurion in Luke 23:47.

"The passion story," remarks Girard, "becomes the key to understanding myth. Now the question is… is all of this true or false? If it is true, we are dealing with an obvious self-evident truth. It is principally in these terms that I speak of truth." (From Christianity, Truth, and Weakening Faith: A Dialogue)

Postmodern-Irreligious-Truth

The postmodern irreligious idea is that truth leads to violence. On one level, it's an honest assessment: Yes, a white-knuckled fundamentalist holding onto truth can lead to violence.

But on another level, the statement might be disingenuous, for if the postmodern irreligious really believed this, they wouldn’t be in the practice of pursuing truth themselves. And yet, they are in the practice. I don't mean in the sense that they have a codified way of explaining truth; rather, I mean in the way that they (along with all of us) have demonstrated their commitment to the victim. Again, for Girard, truth is always related to the victim. 

To illustrate Girard’s point, simply turn on the news, check out social media, and listen to the preacher or politician. We're constantly in a race to see who can highlight the "best victim" first. We're obsessed with pointing out "the most victimized victim" better than our opponent. On any given day, "the most victimized victim" could be the immigrant, the woman, the unborn, the queer, or the white "forgotten man” (my personal favorite, btw).

My point is not to disparage efforts to highlight victims. (Except for the last example mentioned above! Btw, I like what Gabrie’l J Atchison writes about white supremacy in her substack page.) My point is to ask: In the supposed absence of truth, how did awareness of marginalizing come to be? How is this possible? Why is it considered virtuous to side with the marginalized?

Without guiding truth, conscience, or something we might label as "right," power would simply flow to the winners. No questions would be asked. No protest would be offered. It would be obvious. But for Girard (who takes his cue from Nietzsche here), power always flows through the marginalized. So the question is, how is it that we have come to value the weak, the castaways, the poor, and the vulnerable in our postmodern irreligious society?

For Girard (and again, Nietzche), this only comes about because of the habituation of 2,000 years of Christianity. Before Christianity, power flowed to the powerful without regard for the victim. Outside of Christianity, truth has had little or nothing to do with ethics.

Nietzsche takes all of this to the next level by saying that if atheists were sincere, they wouldn't care about the marginalized at all. In his mind, an honest atheist obliterates weakness and goes straight for authoritative power. (Btw, if you want to learn more about Nietzsche, see my friend, Jim Palmer’s Substack.)

But is this what the postmodern irreligious group does? I don't think so; no, they aren't advocating for eliminating weak people. Most of them are nice people, which makes me wonder where their friendliness comes from … hmmm … some of them will say that hospitality is nothing more than an evolutionary move; that evolution is responsible* for us being in a position where everyone values the vulnerable. I don’t necessarily disagree but what’s odd about this is that valuing the vulnerable is a supremely Christian move.

I think it’s reasonable to suggest that the brown-skinned man who willingly stepped into the scapegoating mechanism was an intrusive marker event (a phrase I learned reading Michael Rose’s post) within the evolution of humanity. Before Jesus, the outsider wasn't looked after, cared for, or esteemed. Yes, there are Scriptures outside of his story that highlight the importance of the outsider. Still, it's not until Jesus that it takes hold and ignites a worldwide movement, the likes of which had never been seen before. Intrusive marker event, indeed.

What Girard is saying is that it doesn't make sense to claim truth is dead while advocating for the outsider, given that the main reason we are so aware of the outsider is due to the truth of Jesus.

To be clear, the truth of Jesus has little or nothing to do with church buildings, denominational structures, robes, the bible, legal codes, saying a particular prayer, heaven, hell, etc. No, the truth of Christianity has to do with an innocent brown-skinned homeless man being executed by a religion-endorsed, state-sponsored murder in the backstreets of Jerusalem.

The most esteemed person who has ever lived is called a "friend of sinners" and then murdered. Crazy! It was such an intrusive marker within humanity’s development that, like a mountain hurled into the ocean, we are still, two millennia later, dealing with the waves. This is Girardian-truth and though he probably wouldn't have said it the following way, I name all of this as consensual, relational-power truth. (No one has taught me more about relational-power than Thomas Jay Oord.)

Consensual, relational-power truth is not responsible for violence itself. More likely, consensual, relational-power truth is responsible for our survival amid the violence, for without this kind of truth, we would have destroyed ourselves a long time ago.

Postmodern irreligious group cannot (or will not) believe this. Their only recourse is to gesticulate pointing fingers and blame truth for violence. Ironically, in doing so, they scapegoat to point out a type of scapegoating. I can't really blame them. What they are railing against is the religious system. It's a system that is thick-headed, immature, and responsible for much violence. Though I quickly add that this seems to be true of their group as well! Consider the words of André Sponville, an atheist no less, who says,

"Believing in God can be dangerous … not believing in God can be equally dangerous. Who will add up the deaths on either side and decide what they mean? Horror is numberless, with or without God. Alas, this tells us more about humanity than it does about religion."

Look, I’m not trying to denigrate atheist types here. Frankly, many forms of irreligiosity are more appealing to me than certain forms of Christianity. However, that’s not what I'm trying to get after here… what I'm trying to get after is Girardian truth (i.e., consensual, relational-truth). We have all, like sheep, wandered away. We have all wound up pointing our fingers and victimizing those we perceive as the victimizers, not because truth is a lie but because truth is always attached to the victim. (I find the work James Gomez is doing on his tik-tok to be someone willing to go “against the grain” and point out the truth of the victim, in his case, the unpopular Palestinean victim. Btw, isn’t it a curious thing to put unpopular and victim in the same sentence???)

For Girard, we must correctly understand the truth of scapegoating violence if culture is to stabilize. But this is dangerous business, primarily because the person who refuses to play the scapegoating game often winds up being the next scapegoat. Usually, this paves the way for the victim's followers to resort to violence, although, sometimes … it cracks a door open to a different way … a way of love. 

Love: The Way Forward

Love is the way forward, though we have to be careful. How did Jesus put it? Oh yeah, “be as gentle as doves and wise as serpents." My encouragement is to try and find people who are into consensual, relational-power truth—whether they are religious or not—and gather with them in small groups, in humility, in prayer and remind yourselves of a way that eschews violence, scapegoating, and victimizing; a way that actually esteems consensual love.

Inspired by Girard's insight, I name love as truth. It's not dead. It's very much alive. It's the thing we could build our future upon. It's for everyone, regardless of which side of the political aisle we occupy, which side of the reformation we land on, or which side of anything we live in. It'll be challenging and costly; it'll take everything we have … but everything we have is all we got. 

*It goes way beyond this post to get into citing all my atheist sources, but generally, I make this claim based on what I’ve heard people like Sam Harris say here and here.