X Close

Who is your Good Friday scapegoat? Our civilisation is built on cruelty

(GALI TIBBON/AFP via Getty Images)

(GALI TIBBON/AFP via Getty Images)


March 29, 2024   5 mins

Last year, I attended a Good Friday service for the first time in more than 20 years. I was a little nervous to find myself back in the pews: as a young man, I had rejected the Midwestern Catholicism of my childhood, and instead embraced the agnosticism that seemed to be the spirit of the age.

In recent years, though, I’d grown disillusioned with the modern secular worldview and had started attending Mass again. Still, my scepticism of Christianity lingered, and I sure didn’t feel like I belonged in this place on this day. In the Catholic church and many others, the holy day is “celebrated” with the Stations of the Cross and the Passion Play, both re-enactments of the horrific events leading up to Christ’s death on the cross.

It was the Passion Play that got me. I had forgotten how the congregation is expected to participate in the drama. At key moments, we were asked to play the role of the murderous mob, shouting “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
How utterly bizarre this is, I thought. And heart-breaking. The Christian tradition asks us to imagine that the son of God was tortured and murdered by a bloodthirsty horde, while the apostle Peter cowered out of sight. And then it asks us to identify not with the suffering Christ, but with the vicious mob that cheers his death.

If you were a mad scientist designing a world religion in a lab, hoping that it might appeal to the masses and spread across the world, I think it’s unlikely you would have constructed it this way. What is this strange story doing?

In my search for an answer, I looked to René Girard, the French polymath who spent the last 15 years of his life at Stanford in the French Department, presumably because they couldn’t figure out where else to put him. Girard is known primarily for his theory of “mimetic desire”, the idea that human beings come to want certain things because we see other people wanting them. This is a powerful idea, and Girard uses it to develop a provocative theory of culture and violence. But it is another aspect of his thinking that got my attention.

Girard defied the reigning spirit of agnostic Jungianism in the humanities. It was fashionable, in his day, to look for the similarities between different world cultures. Joseph Campbell, for example, sought to prove that myths from around the world all tapped into the same archetypes, participating in the one great “monomyth” that shapes all of us. George Lucas used these ideas to create Star Wars, a mythology that has overtaken the world in the past 40 years. It was the perfect theology for a non-judgmental, multicultural age.

But Girard says, no, all these myths are not the same. In paganism and other archaic religions, mythology is used to uphold the existing social order, justifying whatever violent acts brought it into being. Indeed, for Girard, every social order — not just every government, but every human culture throughout all of space and time — is founded on violence. It is only Judaism and Christianity that expose this violence as unjustified or sinful. For this reason, he believed that there is something fundamentally different — even subversive — about the Judeo-Christian worldview. It represented a revolutionary break from the past.

You can see this in Genesis. The story of Cain and Abel, in Girard’s view, depicts the murder of an innocent victim as the founding act of human civilisation. After killing his brother in cold blood, Cain goes on to found a city. It is the first example of “scapegoating”, the process by which we identify and then expel or kill an individual victim, cementing the bonds that tie us together as a community.

The story also illustrates Girard’s theory of “mimetic desire”. It is, after all, Cain’s desire for the approval of God — a desire which he shares with Abel — that is thwarted, sparking his jealous, murderous rage. Girard traces these patterns throughout the Hebrew Bible in the stories of Adam and Eve, Jacob and Esau, the Hebrew prophets, and the Suffering Servant. Indeed, the crucifixion of Christ echoes the murder of Abel — though in this case, the church says that all of us are complicit in the death of Jesus.

“I’ve come to believe that an individual’s capacity for evil should never be underestimated.”

As a younger man, I was always sceptical of the doctrine of Original Sin. Why are these people trying to convince me that I harbour evil in my heart? All things considered, I’m a pretty good person, aren’t I? Yet as the years have passed, I’ve come to believe that an individual’s capacity for evil should never be underestimated, and that includes my own.

But Girard’s interpretation of Original Sin is more complex. Simply by participating in our culture, by being a member of a human society, we are all partaking in the violence upon which that society or culture was built. Judaism and Christianity work to expose the scapegoating mechanism by revealing the victim to be innocent. But that doesn’t mean the danger is gone.

Girard would be the first to admit that Jews and Christians are not immune from scapegoating, despite the subversive nature of their stories. What’s more, by showing the victim to be blameless and the crowd to be guilty, the Judeo-Christian tradition weakens the very mechanism which had previously been used to safeguard public order. In recent years, it seems that Judeo-Christian ideals have been used to undermine all forms of social bonds, including Judaism and Christianity themselves. Myths and customs that have been passed on for thousands of years have been discarded as superstitious, judgmental, and chauvinistic. But, if Girard is right, these ancient stories and rituals served to help us process our most murderous instincts. In their absence, can we keep those instincts at bay?

Though he died in 2015, I doubt Girard would be surprised by the cruelty of today’s political climate. On both the Right and the Left, there are efforts to demonise the opposition and to expel or eliminate those who pose a threat to a particular worldview. Girard even predicted the emergence of a “super-Christianity” , which reduces everything to oppression and victimisation. “This, I think, is the totalitarianism of the future,” he told Canadian journalist David Cayley. “Marxism was its most primitive form probably.”

For a civilisation rooted in Christianity like ours, the current rise in antisemitism is a special cause for concern, for it can be an early warning sign that we are entering a potentially dangerous phase of scapegoating. It is always tempting for the Christian (or perhaps even the post-Christian) to believe that it was the Jews who killed Christ, and we had nothing to do with it.

Girard is fascinating to me, but I confess that I don’t find much comfort or cover in his ideas. There are forces at work in the world that we can only perceive dimly, if at all. And Girard gives me all the more reason to quail at the thought of Christ’s Passion. Saying “Crucify him!” out loud in a church full of believers only serves to remind me that I, too, am complicit in the sins of mankind.


Tim DeRoche is the author of The Ballad of Huck & Miguel.

timderoche

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

46 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Pappalardo
Tom Pappalardo
7 months ago

Amen……God have mercy on us….on humankind.

Madas A. Hatter
Madas A. Hatter
7 months ago

It is a little glib to refer to the ‘current rise in antisemitism’. There is no doubt an increase in reports of antisemitism, but I think it is pretty much a constant in English society, the only one I know well enough to judge. And the forced conflation of the condemnation of Israel’s state actions with antisemitism has created an artificial increase in such reports.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
7 months ago

I think there has always been an underlying abyss of anti-semitism that has become culturally tolerable, even fashionable, since Oct. 7. The increase in reported incidents serves to illuminate this primitive, lizard-brained hatred; not exaggerate it. But I suspect there are unknown depths still hidden.
It’s frightening to realize that my friends and neighbors are veiwed this way.

Russell Sharpe
Russell Sharpe
7 months ago

“there has always been an underlying abyss of anti-semitism that has become culturally tolerable, even fashionable, since Oct. 7.”
This is right. But I would suggest a more significant phenomenon is that its having become fashionable, especially among those who still deludedly believe themselves to be principled ‘opponents’ of antisemitism, has made the real existing abyss of global anti-semitism visible to the rest of us as it was not before; that is, to anyone who genuinely does not harbour (even unconsciously) a genocidal hatred of Jews. And we have been reminded forcefully of two salient facts: first, that a Jewish state which can effectively resist those who do still foster such hatred is an absolute necessity, and secondly that the fabled ‘international community’ is as poisoned by Jew-hatred as it ever was.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago
Reply to  Russell Sharpe

Utter garbage.. presumably to perpetrate the myth.. What people despise is the wholesale murder of innocent women and children in a clearly genocidal extermination …espoused loud and clear by Israel’s GOVERNMENT fgs! Playing the AS card is just a degenerate ploy to muddy the waters and hide the greatest crime of this century!

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
7 months ago

I agree with you. Antisemitism goes way back, (2000 years?)
The only person who apppears semitic in the painting of The Last Supper is Judas, and The Merchant of Venice was written around the same time.

Tony Buck
Tony Buck
7 months ago
Reply to  Judy Johnson

Anti-semitism predates Christianity.

And is at its worst among non-Christians.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago
Reply to  Tony Buck

Anti Semitism (silly term, all Arabs are Semites too; Israelis, by and large are not) was often stirred up by non religious sentiment, namely the propensity to help (only) one another and exploit the rest; and to hoard wealth rather than invest in state enterprise. Thus, when a country was short on investment and wealth was very unfairly distributed, scapegoats were looked for.. but, just like in NI and Palestinian resistance it often has nothing whatever to do with any religion. It is merely a convenient label, easy to identify..
In the UK today there is serious anti (various groups) sentiment due to..
Failure to assimilate and / or it’s counterpart
Isolation (rejection, demonisation etc.)
Hoarding of wealth / failure to invest and
Gross distortion of wealth distribution.
Scapegoating of minorities is, by no means, confined to opposition to Jews / Jewish traits or characteristics.
Haters will always find someone to hate so as to cover up their own weakness, failures or even wickedness; or indeed some of the criticism may well be justified, perhaps?

Russell Sharpe
Russell Sharpe
7 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Thanks for making your genocidal Jew-hatred so explicit.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago
Reply to  Judy Johnson

Indeed, and Jesus usually asa tall, thin, long-haired, blue-eyed, pale skinned EU or US guy.. Every one of those descriptions is apparently false. It is interesting thar in some ancient depictions Jesus’s family and Apostles are depicted as black skinned!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago

There will always be thugs who hate.. what they hate is almost irrelevant.. such scumbags will find an excuse, any excuse to perpetrate their wrongdoing.. To assume this is of general application is, in my opinion, a false narrative and those who suggest it are either misinformed or troublemakers.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago

Absolutely correct! To take anti Zionism or anti Israel criticism as anti Semitic is both inaccurate and toxic..
Inaccurate because Palestinians are 80% Semitic and descended from ancient Israelites whereas Israelis are less than 5% Semitic (same as the rest of us) due to the fact that Ashkenazi Jews are Turkic, Slavic and Mongolian in origin having converted to Judiaism in 8th C. Khazar.
And it is toxic because it introduces religion as a false pretext for hatred, always powerful just as it was in NI..
When one criticises Russia is that anti Orthodox (Christian)? ..hardly! Nor is criticising the US or UK for their genocidal aid in Iraq anti Christian is it? Nor criticism of China anti Buddhist! This anti Semitic card is produced like an ace up the sleeve of a card cheat and only a complete idiot falls for the nasty trick.
A small additional point is that some Judeans, 2,000 years ago did accept Jesus as the long awaited Messiah and remained Jews under the leadership of Jesus’s brother James.
The simple fact is that today’s Palestinians, be they Orthodox Jew, Messianic Jew, Christian.or Muslim are ALL the decendants of (the Bible’s) God’s Chosen People!
Zionists / Evangelicals are supporting the wrong side, namely the Antichrist! A brief analysis of the actions and the people concerned will confirm that to all but the willfully blind.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
7 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

If there was a way for the IDF to target Hamas without harming civilians I’m sure they would do just that. Unfortunately these terrorist cowards hide behind women and children so that well-meaning people like yourself end up defending them. I understand that you have no sympathy for Hamas and I don’t believe you hate Jewish people, just the actions of their government, but I believe that were it not for the presence of Israel in the Levant, Europe would now be facing the brunt of these heinous attacks.
I personally commend the Israelis for showing enormous restraint. I’m not at all sure I would have acted with such iron control if murderous thugs paraglided into my area and dismembered and beheaded women and children while cackling about it into a go-pro camera and uploading their deeds on social media. Hopefully, the Palestinian people will engage in some much-needed soul-searching and have the courage to rid themselves of these death-cultists.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

The Prefect of Judea, one Pontius Pilate was extraordinarily humane in having Christ crucified on a Friday, thus ensuring he only had a few hours of writhing in agony on the Cross, rather than the normal few days.

Yet another splendid example of “What did the Romans ever do for us.”

Andrew D
Andrew D
7 months ago

May be a stupid question, how does the day of the week make any difference to the time it takes to die?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

The Romans exercising their usual generosity of spirit were prepared to make some concessions to (absurd) Jewish religious practices, one of which was that it wasn’t ‘kosher’ to have bodies either twitching or even rotting on crosses on the Sabbath.

The Sabbath ran from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday, hence if you were “nailed up” on Friday you HAD to be dead by sunset!

Thus the ‘broken legs and the spear in the side’, as reported by the Gospels!

POSTED AT 11.44 GMT. and immediately SIN BINNED.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
7 months ago

The legs were no broken as he was dead..the spear in the side was to ensure the fact

Micael Gustavsson
Micael Gustavsson
7 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

They were surprised that he already were dead when they came to crush the legs, so they would have.

Tony Nunn
Tony Nunn
7 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

The bodies had to be removed from the crosses before the Sabbath began at 6pm, hence the two malefactors had their legs broken to speed up the process. (In Jesus’ case it was unnecessary since he had died already.)

Andrew D
Andrew D
7 months ago
Reply to  Tony Nunn

Thankyou, see my reply to Ann C

Ann Coleman
Ann Coleman
7 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Because the Jewish Sabbath starts at sunset on Fridays. The ‘work’ of the executioners had to be completed by that time.

Andrew D
Andrew D
7 months ago
Reply to  Ann Coleman

Thank you. But weren’t the executioners Roman rather than Jewish?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Almost certainly.

As matter of interest I happen have three of the almost identical Roman, iron, flat sided nails*, dated a generation after the crucifixion.

(*Unused.)

Andrew D
Andrew D
7 months ago

Relics of the true cross?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

No sadly not, but I gather there are enough bits of to fill Epping Forest……twice over!

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
7 months ago

I think it might be helpful to distinguish between (i) Pilate as portrayed in the Gospels and (ii) the Pilate of history.

According to historical accounts, ‘humane’ is not a term that the Pilate of history deserves.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

The Ethiopian and Coptic churches would disagree with you.
As for Josephus, a reliable account?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

Duplication.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
7 months ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

Pilate was a nasty character..driven by ambition and fear ..not from the ruling elite he had to prove himself ..he ruled in Judea for some time but when his sponsor Tiberius died so did his prospects for advancement

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Pilate as an Equestrian Prefect was one of the 70 or so most important men in the Empire.
Not quite in the top drawer of the Senatorial elite but the next best thing, and this from an Empire of perhaps 50-75 million.
Tiberius seems to have preferred to have ‘Governors’ serve for up to 10 tens years rather than the earlier 1-3 years in order to reduce the temptation for corruption.

jerry lawler
jerry lawler
7 months ago

Interesting article. But Girard died in 2015, not 1995.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
7 months ago

I find the conflation of our innate propensity to violence – a necessary survival mechanism of our animalistic evolutionary past – with the concept of Original Sin, reductive, deficient and ultimately, nihilistic.
It could be argued that civilisation is the means by which we seek to control such propensities, as the primaeval fight for food, reproduction and resources gives way to a more ordered means of existence. The biochemical reactions when threatened still kick in. We must seek to continue the furtherance of our understanding of these mechanisms and how best to order our societies so as to not only contain but utilise them to the good of all.
It’s my opinion that the religious sense of “sin” obfuscates this process, with its concomitant exculpations (such as “confession”) controlled via the former elite clerics. It’s the same mechanism that now drives the progressives in their search for human ‘perfection’ by the elimination of our basis in biology.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

The concept if Sin is (sometimes?) seen more as error or deviation from the (right) Way rather than something heinous.. hence, even the Good falter (sin) 7 times a day.. The concept of Mortal Sin regraded the action to a heinous or evil level ie less human error, more wickedly contrived..
Original Sin was seen more as a propensity to go wrong than some guilt ridden yoke to be dragged about like sackcloth and ashes. As such it had its merits in my view not least as it prevented all this wokism and snowflakery!

Benedict Waterson
Benedict Waterson
7 months ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

Original Sin is a metaphor for all human flaws and weaknesses, and hence the intrinsic limits of human nature.
Metaphors such as this are the opposite of ‘reductive.’
It’s glib to conflate a civilization which instills an intrinsic sense of human fallibility and humility, with a trans-humanist geared civilization which amplies destructive human tendencies such as hubris and the faith in human ‘perfectibility.

Obadiah B Long
Obadiah B Long
7 months ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

After Jesus, the Christian world spent around 1500 years in bloody conflicts about the interpretations of the Scriptures and the meaning of sin. Violence in the name of virtue seems to be the norm.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
7 months ago

In the Protestant church there is generally no Passion Play. However, it is often recognised that the crowd shouted for Jesus to be crucified because they had been taught throughout ther Hebrew Scriptures to expect a messiah and Jesus fitted all the scriptural criteria. They did not want to be under such an external authority and therefore rejected him (according to Tom Holland the reason for our secular age now!)

Buena Vista
Buena Vista
7 months ago
Reply to  Judy Johnson

I think the author errs throughout the essay when he equates Catholicism with Christianity. As you point out, Protestants are Christians too.
And I am not saying one is right and the other wrong, but their differences are manifest.

Micael Gustavsson
Micael Gustavsson
7 months ago
Reply to  Buena Vista

Protestants (normal ones like Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists etc) believe the same ad Catholics regarding original sin and the crusifiction, so I don’t get what you’re getting at.
P.S. I mean orthodox Protestants who believe their doctrinal confessions. You can always find modernists who believe anything fashionableD.S.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
7 months ago
Reply to  Judy Johnson

My read is that they were extremely disappointed that Christ was not a warrior Messiah, sent to lead them to overthrow Roman rule. Instead, he preached peace and love. “Take this one away and bring me another.”

James Sullivan
James Sullivan
7 months ago

Girard only died in 2015, not 1995. And in some of his last interviews he was absolutely warning about the dangers of late Obama era cancel culture. Do correct that point in your article, that 20 year difference is significant.

Hanne Herrman
Hanne Herrman
7 months ago

Another view on the beginning of culture is the word «No», which introduces the prohibition, the limit, the control of our impulses …
Hanne Herrman

Ex Nihilo
Ex Nihilo
7 months ago

Thoughtful essay. I too followed an arc beginning in Christianity and bending to agnosticism. The silliness of a six-day creation story, Noah’s Ark, virgin birth, water-into-wine propels skeptics like me away from such apparent superstition. But within Judeo-Christianity are also the bedrock notions of thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet. We are taught as well to be merciful, that only the innocent should throw the first stone. We are taught that “the greatest of these (faith, hope, and love) is love”. We are warned against materialism, pride, and virtue signaling in the New Testament. In a science-based career, I’ve learned that our modern secular religion also has fake miracles: the Nobel Prize was awarded to the surgeon who brought medicine the frontal lobotomy for schizophrenia treatment; pesticides and herbicides were once embraced without restraint as saviors of mankind; and advances in transportation and industry once universally-accepted as miracles, now threaten our existence through climate change. Which is more foolish: to reject the morality of Christianity because of dubious miracles 2000 years ago or to cling to a secular Science-based modern religion stripped of traditional morality but reliably serving up its own fake miracles?

James S.
James S.
7 months ago

The point of the Passion Play’s part of the crowd calling for Jesus’ death is to remind Christians that we are ALL sinners, from birth (yeah, that uncomfortable notion of original sin), and that Christ’s death was necessary to atone for our sin. Personally, the longer I live and witness how desperately depraved humans can be, the more I believe in Original Sin. And the need for a Saviour.

One cannot see the need for the Good News unless one has fully grasped the Bad News.

Don Lightband
Don Lightband
7 months ago

It may well surprise both the author and Unherd’s commentariat that Girard’s theory of the founding scapegoat “mechanism” necessitates setting aside the crucial question of language origin altogether. His student Eric Gans has for some four decades – to all intents and purposes unbeknownst to the world – insisted that without the pre-existence of language, or iow pre-existence of shared signs/significance, no designation of “scapegoat” could ever become possible. Herewith as succinct an account as one could ever wish for, of just what it’s like to argue with the Girardians 

https:/onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/rvanoort/wp-content/uploads/sites/2708/2013/12/Mimetic_Theory_and_Its_Rivals.pd

Don Lightband
Don Lightband
7 months ago

Think about it – the most profound, sustained, indeed collectively-unconscious fulfillment of the concept “scapegoat” in Britain today is the fellow known as ‘Gary Glitter’ 

If we were to hear that man’s own clear voice suddenly speak out in his defence, people would be spiritually shattered. The status quo in which we all function first and foremost as heterosocial hypocrites would he no more. 

For the scapegoat would *speak* from the very center of that which is utterly banished, culturally buried and effectively removed from all conversation. 

Verily just as you-know-who did so unexpectedly at the outset of our…two thousand year passage to “secular” modernity

John Riordan
John Riordan
7 months ago

I am slightly unsure about the idea that the Judeo-Christian tradition is unique in seeking to expose the phenomenon of scapegoating in society, but either way it’s an interesting thought.

I do however accept that we’re all culpable to an extent in permitting the scapegoating effect to carry on. In this particular time and place it takes the form of some poor brave soul who has spoken out against the soft-tyranny of modern political culture and whose life is made a misery as a consequence. Almost everyone agrees, privately, with what they’ve done or said, yet nobody dares join them in open support. Yes, this is cowardly, but it is also the case that people with jobs to do, money to earn, families to support and friends who would be damaged by association, cannot afford to take such risks and so do not.

We all privately sympathise yet conclude “there but for the grace of God go I” and in so doing become complicit in the authoritarianism gradually infusing ever more areas of our lives. Don’t ask me what the solution is, I have no idea.