I knew as I released these that there would be some who would take it at their own pace, some for whom I wasn’t releasing them fast enough, and some who would read the first section and not any more.
How are you liking Jesus Driven Life? I’m about 60% or so through it, and I think it’s phenomenal and very insightful. I think everyone should read it.
I’m loving it, Tim! About 3/4 done. I agree totally with everyone reading it. Though Hardin’s not the greatest stylist, the book is very accessible to non-theologians and his arguments are thorough and well-supported. His presentation of Girard’s “mimetic theory” was concise and excellent and I loved the historical discussion of the early church etc. Just phenomenal, as you said!
Geoff; I started reading through your series last night, and I’m really enjoying it. I’m maybe about halfway through (or less), and I’ll be very interested to see the conclusions you draw. Great series; thanks for sharing.
Thank you! The series is finished, I am just publishing one section a day now until I’ve got all 25 sections published. So if you catch up, bear with me!
By the way, I’ve been meaning to check out Jesus Driven Life sometime, as well. Hardin worked with Walter Wink - who was a huge influence on my thinking in the area of Satan/Demons - on a section of the “Understanding Spiritual Warfare: Four Views” book, which I put a couple quotes from in my series in the second post.
Yeah; Hardin’s approach is very influenced by Rene Girard’s mimetic theory/ mimetic realism and Walter Wink’s work. I think it’s one of the most insightful books I’ve ever read, and it touches on a number of important and interrelated topics, including the atonement. I plan to re-read it once I finish it; it’s just that good.
Thank you! You know, I didn’t originally plan to have that section. But I had notes all over saying “should I talk about Atonement here?” And so I inserted that section after having moved on.
I’ve published Part 13, which examines a story immediately following the desert temptation, and its connections to the trials.
The next section of my series examines the question: how did the Accuser become “the Evil One”? And how did “he” become associated with chaos, when all our examples so far have been of an overzealous lawyer?
Hi Geoff this reminds me that Girard associates this chaos with the sacrificial crisis in which all distinctions break down as sacrificing rage overtakes the sacrificing mob. Indeed Girard draws attention to an African tribal mask in which there are not only human and animal elements but also organic elements – bits of plants and fields of crops get mixed up with everything else.
I watched a sanitised version of one of these rituals on television a few years ago. It was an ancient Shinto rite enacted by the men of an industrial town in Japan where everything is clean and orderly and no litter is ever dropped. Once a year the men dress up in nothing but loincloths – all social distinctions between bosses and workers are broken down -and get horribly drunk and often hurt each other badly in fights. But with the rising sun order is reborn from chaos in renewed creation and they return to normal life purged. (In former times a real sacrificial victim would have been murdered as part of the rite as part of ‘Satan casting out Satan’).
It is amazing to me how right on Girard’s theory is - at first you think “there’s no way to prove this”, but then you see how it plays out everywhere! And Girard has quite an extensive knowledge of history and myth, and draws on many examples of his theories in play in his writing.
By the way - which book was the example you gave above from? I’ve only read “The Scapegoat” by him so far. I probably should have read “I See Satan Fall Like Lightning” before I released my series, but I didn’t want to put it off any longer. Plus, I found “The Scapegoat” to be a little difficult to get through, until I got to the portions based on Biblical passages (which were easier for me because I was more familiar with the subject matter).
That is very interesting - I’ve wondered, as I became more of a pacifist, if indeed there is some level of violence that is necessary. I mean, obviously we want as little violence as possible. But as an example of what I’m getting at - numerous people have observed that men who are friends and women who are friends fight very differently. Men get the problem right out in the open and take care of it right then and there - maybe even involving fists - and then they have a beer afterwards, and it’s over. Whereas it seems that women often avoid the problem, and can be very passive aggressive - which might actually do more damage to the friendship in the end. You almost wonder if it’s better to put on padding and have a kickboxing match and get it over with, with hugs following afterwards? Or is this as Thich Nhat Hanh says - practicing our violence and growing the seeds of violence within? I don’t know - it’s a tough question.