The Raven Foundation

 

 

 

Have you ever wondered how mimetic theory changes lives? ME TOO! So, I decided to put together a top ten list. Here you go:

 

1. You will resent monkeys for the phrase “Monkey see, monkey do” because you know that we humans are by far the superior imitators.
2. You will see the destructive nature of religions.
3. You will see the constructive nature of religions.
4. You will understand the paradox of 2 & 3.
5. You will see how scapegoating works and that the goat you scape may be your own. (I don’t know what that means, but I think you get the picture.)
6. You will impress others as you boldly use words like “mimetic,” “interdividual,” and “internal/external mediation.”
7. You know you have to be bold with #6 to give the impression that you know what you are talking about.
8. You will find out that there is a wrathful divinity and it is us.
9. You will realize how bad it is to be good.
10. You will discover that the best way to scandalize someone is to forgive them.

 

That's my list.  Would you add anything?

 

 

 

“Those who say that the media and our political leaders are out of touch with the ‘real’ America have a point.”  Thus begins Stuart Muszynski in his fascinating article on the Huffington Post called “Taking America Down the Rabbit Hole”. Muszynski (who runs "Purpe America", a really cool educational organization that explores America's values) claims that the news media has become a form of violent entertainment by “framing everything [in politics] as a fight.” This pattern of violence infects more than the news media, of course.  Muszynski says it permeates much of our television airwaves and he specifically holds “reality” TV responsible for its use of violence.  He tells a story of someone who works for a non-profit that raises money for an “important and worthwhile cause.”  According to this person, the co-chairs of the non-profit “have been increasingly disagreeable, catty and outright, publicly mean.”  Muszynskin explains the behavior by stating that it turns out “they’ve been watching The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.”

 

This violence has real effects on our culture, according to Muszynski.  He warns that “Our children and even adults replicate the language and actions they see on TV, on the Internet and in the newspaper.”  From a mimetic theory perspective, this is fascinating because of its truth about human nature.  As I read the first five paragraphs, I kept thinking:

 

“C’MON!  SAY MIMETIC THEORY!!!”

 

Then came the sixth paragraph.  “It’s human nature to mimic what we frequently see.”  Exactly.  But there is something missing from Muszynski’s analysis.  He’s right that we humans are mimetic, or imitative, creatures.  And it’s easy to see how the news media often frames political debates as a violent battle between gladiators, and how politicians frequently fall into the trap of demonizing one another.  The problem, though, is that this pattern of violence is much bigger than the news media or politicians. In fact, when we blame the news media, television, and politicians for their violent rhetoric, we usually do so using violent rhetoric in return.  Muszynski says that current American political conversations are not sustainable.  “By vilifying one side over the other and turning everything into a fight, public policies become intense wars that will be reversed once the other side comes to power.”  I appreciate the truth in that statement, however, I can’t help but think Muszynski is mimicking that fight.  His solution to the vilifying in media and politics is to vilify the media and politics.  The final paragraph of his article is evidence to my point.  The way to fight the corrupt power in American culture is through … yup, you guessed it, power.  “So let’s demand art, politics and citizenship that reflect the values and goodness of America and spur us to be our best.”

 

Now, I want America to be a more peaceful place and I agree that the escalating, combative rhetoric in politics and on television is a problem for American culture.  But I disagree with Muszynski’s solution.  Demanding that “art, politics and citizenship reflect the values and goodness of American” and vilifying the news media and politicians is simply another form of violent rhetoric, which is exactly what he is critiquing.  Violence, even violent language that seeks peace, breeds more violence.

 

What’s the way out of this cycle?  One of the first steps in transforming our pattern of violence is to acknowledge that we all (even good, peaceful people) fall into the “rabbit hole of violence.”  We all have our scapegoats that we enjoy vilifying.  Acknowledging this truth about human nature leads us to the next step, which is transforming the pattern of violence into a pattern of forgiveness.  Only through forgiving ourselves and others can we begin climbing out of the rabbit hole.

 

 

BW4RCXVM3BW8

 

My wife and I sat on the couch as we watched the first episode of TLC’s reality show All-American Muslim.  We were both excited to see how the show would portray life for Muslims living in Dearborn, Michigan.  But my wife was really excited.  Earlier in the day she saw a commercial for the first episode.  She laughed as she explained the commercial to me: Suehaila Amen, a woman on the show, was flying to Washington DC.  While in her seat, a woman sitting behind her said:

 

See that veiled woman? I’m very uncomfortable.

To which Suehalia responded,

 

Then you get your ass off the plane because I have a meeting to get to to educate people like you.

It was a very human response.  And that’s the purpose of the show.  The website for All-American Muslim claims, “Each episode offers an intimate look at the customs and celebrations, misconceptions and conflicts these families face outside and within their own community.”  The show follows 5 families composed of members who are remarkably diverse in their religious devotion and life’s passions.  There are conflicts on the show between husbands and wives, parents and children, coaches and athletes.  But despite those conflicts, the people on the show are devoted to their families and to their community.  In this sense, these Muslims represent the best that America has to offer.

 

They even like football.

 

But not everyone is enamored with All-American Muslim.  The Florida Family Association, a Christian group in Tampa Bay whose goal is to improve “America’s moral environment,” has led a campaign to urge companies to pull advertisements from the show.  The FFA makes the old and tired scapegoating claim that you just can’t trust Muslims.  On the top of their website they claim that “TLC’s ‘All-American Muslim’ is propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda.”

 

Here’s the thing:  In order to “improve” our moral environment, humans have frequently gone to the old standby solution: Find a common enemy.  The FFA sees a problem with morality in America and needs to find someone to blame for it.  Muslims, especially since 9/11, are an easy target. So, the FFA points a finger of accusations against All-American Muslims and advertisers are following their lead.  On their website, the FFA claims to have influenced 65 companies to pull their advertisement from the show.  Only one company, Lowe’s, has actually admitted to pulling their commercials.

 

What I find interesting, and also sad, is that finding a common enemy is a contagious, escalating cycle.  When one group invites other groups to join them against a common enemy, that “enemy” will usually respond by inviting other groups to join them in uniting against the group that accused them.  And that’s what is happening.  Articles like “Say No to Bigotry and Lowes and Support ‘All-American Muslim,” “Corporations Pulling Ads From All-American Muslims Are Engaged in Jim Crow-Style Discrimination,” and “All-American Muslim Meets an Un-American Advertising Pullout” are directing us to view the FFA, Lowe’s, and any other advertisers who pull ads from the show as our common enemy.  This is interesting to me because all humans find a sense of unity through scapegoating.  As much as I hate what the FFA and Lowe’s are doing, I’m not taking the bait to make them into the enemy.  The enemy is the spirit of scapegoating.  The enemy is finding a common enemy to unite against.  That’s the problem.  The FFA and Lowe’s decision to follow their scapegoating lead against All-American Muslim are only symptoms of the disease.  But let’s not fool ourselves.  The reverse is also a problem.  As much as I detest the FFA and Lowe’s’ decision to boycott American Muslim, any boycott of the FFA and Lowe’s is mirroring the same scapegoating mechanism.

 

This is a deadly trap.  What I find so important in our religious traditions is that they are honest about the human tendency to scapegoat (which is why there are violent passages in our sacred texts), but they also critique that mechanism.  It is vitally important that we acknowledge and affirm Islam for doing just that.  When someone verbally or physically attacks you, the Qur’an says to, “repel evil with what is better and your enemy will become as close as an old and valued friend, but only those who are steadfast in patience, only those who are blessed with great righteousness, will attain such goodness” (41:34-35).

 

It takes courage to repel evil with what is better.  To repel an act of scapegoating with forgiveness makes us vulnerable.  But that’s exactly the type of courage we need from our religious, political, and economic leaders.  Maybe then we and our enemies “will become as close as an old and valued friend.”

 

 

For more on Islam, see Adam’s Islam 101 series by clicking here.

 

 

“I happen to know there were sealed settlements reached in the plural.  I think that anybody who thinks this was a one time, one person transgression would be mistaken.” – A source for Politico

 

“When you’re in a leadership position, sometimes people just try to take a shot at you.” – J.D. Gordon, Herman Cain Spokesperson

 

Herman Cain.  Welcome to politics.

 

Cain’s rapid ascendancy as the GOP frontrunner has been remarkable and speaks to the growing frustrations with politicians in America. Cain is an unconventional presidential candidate, as his quest for the presidency is his first time running for public office.  He gained his leadership experience in the business world: Cain seems to have been successful in all his business endeavors.  He was the regional vice president of Pillsbury’s Burger King division, President and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, and then President of the National Restaurant Association.

 

All of that is impressive, but given that he hasn’t held political office, it’s fairly surprising that he finds himself as the lead candidate.  As such, it was only a matter of time before skeletons started walking out of his closet. Michelle Goldberd at the Daily Beast commented, “Herman Cain is currently leading the Republican polls. If he wants to be treated as a serious candidate … he’s going to be subjected to serious scrutiny.”

 

Indeed, Cain’s personal life is now under serious scrutiny.  Politico recently reported that Cain is being accused of sexually harassing at least two women who worked for him at the National Restaurant Association.  Cain responded to those accusations, claiming to be the “victim of a ‘smear campaign.’”

 

We have at least three people claiming to be victims in this story.  Who do we believe?  Whose story is true?  Who is the real victim?  Is Cain the victim, or are the women the victims?

 

Yes.

 

You may not like that answer.  It’s a paradox.  But the answer is yes.

 

How is Cain the victim?  He’s in the lead and because he is in the lead many people want to see him fall, especially his Republican opponents.  Whether or not these accusations are true, his Republican and Democratic opponents can unite against this creepy man who made unwanted sexual advances toward women who worked for him.  Of course, those who unite against Cain benefit in their accusations against him, as they feel a sense of moral superiority.  Knowing that he’s creepy allows us to feel good about ourselves.

 

How are the women victims?  If their accusations are true, they were sexually harassed by their boss.  They were victims of an abuse of power and made to feel like sexual objects as opposed to human beings.  That would be an abuse of power and Cain should be held responsible for his actions.

 

So, where is the truth in this story?  It’s hard to know because the truth is being obscured by whether or not you support Herman Cain.  For example, the “truth” for one side could be that, whether or not the accusations are true, this issue was solved in the late 1990s and has no relevance for his candidacy.  The “truth” for the other side could be that this issue reveals Cain’s abusive character that would only continue into his possible presidency.

 

I don’t know the truth of Cain's is guilt or innocence.  But I do know this truth – I don’t envy anyone who gets involved in politics.

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

 

Adam discusses the theological and anthropological implications of Halloween. It is the day when it is socially acceptable to dress up and identify with what is socially unacceptable. One example is monsters. On Halloween we identify with our monsters. This is interesting because it is easy to identify others as monsters, but difficult to identify our own monstrous behavior and tendencies. The anthropologist René Girard states in his exploration of mimetic theory that humans have always formed community by uniting against a scapegoat. Archaic sacrificial religions functioned in a way to channel our internal conflicts onto another - our scapegoat. Jesus offers healing to the monsters of the world, including the monster within.

 

 

I love this story from Peter Rollins’ wonderful little book of parables The Orthodox Heretic:

 

Two brothers embraced faith together at an early age.  One of the brothers took his commitment very seriously and wrestled diligently with the Scriptures.  When he became a man he gave up all of his worldly possessions and went to live in the poorest and most dangerous area of the city.  Many friends deserted him, and, because of his uncompromising dedication to the oppressed, he lost the one woman he truly loved, forsaking the possibility of marriage for the sake of his work.

The pain of this separation haunted him all his days.  And because of the conditions in which he lived, he was frequently ill.  When he died, no one was present, and only a handful of people showed up for his funeral.

In contrast, the other brother never took his faith seriously at all.  As a man he became very settled, satisfied, and influential.  He married the woman he loved, had many children, and lived in a beautiful home.  As his satisfaction grew, his thoughts of God dissolved to nothing.  He gave little to charity, unless it was prudent to do so for the sake of his reputation, and paid little heed to those who suffered around him.  After a long, happy, and successful life, he died in the arms of his loving wife with his children surrounding him.

In heaven God called the two brothers before him, embraced them both warmly, and to each gave an equal share of the kingdom.

As one might expect, the brother who had been faithful all his years was surprised—he had given up everything to live what turned out to be a torturous life of hardship.

However, his surprise was a joyous one.  He turned to his brother, smiled deeply, and said, “Today my joy is finally complete, for we are together again.  Come, let us break bread together.”  In response, his brother said nothing, but began to weep over the wasted life that he led.

 

 

If you want to read Peter’s great interpretation of his parable, you should buy the book.  Really, you should buy the book.  It’s fascinating.  I’m going to give you some of my reflections, and then I’d love to read any reflections you have.

 

 

The biggest controversy in Christianity today is the debate of universalism.  Does everyone get into heaven, or are some (or, even worse, are the majority of people who have ever lived) banished to hell?  What surprises many is that this controversy is not new; as I wrote in this article, this debate has lasted for nearly 2,000 years.

 

We seem to really want to know who is in and who is out.

 

For many, it’s a justice issue.  We think we have lived a good and faithful life, so we deserve heaven.  Others haven’t been good and faithful, so they deserve hell.  That’s Cosmic Justice.

 

After studying mimetic theory for a few years now, I can’t help but wonder if the question, “Who is in and who is out of heaven and hell?” is the ultimate in scapegoating.  If God is the “Cosmic Judge” who sends people to hell for an infinite amount of time for committing finite sins, does that make God out to be the “Cosmic Scapegoater.”

 

I think it would.

 

But I know what you are thinking.  Contra Matthew 25, where the king invites the sheep who have cared for the "least of these" to inherit the kingdom and then he sends the goats who haven't cared for the "least of these" to eternal punishment, you are thinking something like, “God doesn’t send people to hell.  People send themselves to hell.  Because God is love, God gives us the freedom to choose separation from God, which is hell.”

 

That makes a lot of sense to me, but it leads me to some question.  As mimetic theory teaches us, we are products of our environment – of our culture.  In other words, we are what others have given to us.  This is true biologically and it is true culturally.  We don’t have the freedom to pick and choose our genes – we don’t even have the freedom to choose to be born!  I didn’t have the freedom to choose the white, middle class, American Christian culture in which I was raised.  It is because of that culture that I accepted Christ at age 14.  So, is our eternal destination based on luck?  Is it based on chance?  Or predestination?  (Which is Cosmic Scapegoating, unless everyone is predestined for salvation.)

 

And then there’s this question: When it finally comes down to it, would I choose God?  Do I really take my faith seriously?  One of the biggest messages in our culture is individualism.  We are told that we are deficient if we need help.  This message infects me – and it infects my relationship with God.

 

That’s why I resonate with “The Reward of a Good Life.”  I’m a pastor, but I’m more like the second brother than the first.  I live a very comfortable life.  I often push God away.  Yeah, I’m concerned about the poor and the sick, the homeless and the hungry, but I don’t do much to change their situation.  Liberals tend to like Matthew 25 because it doesn't emphasize faith in Jesus as the only way to heaven; it claims salvation is based on how we treat those who are scapegoated.  I appreciate the social justice behind groups like the "Matthew 25 Ministries."  And yet when I read that passage it seems to portray God as the Cosmic Scapegoater who scapegoats the scapegoaters. 

 

Divine.  Revenge.

 

It often feels like I'm about to cripple under the burden of that passage.  Still, I do hold out hope that, like the other brother, I will weep over receiving the grace from God that I didn’t deserve.  It’s possible.  I’d say even probable, because that’s what grace is.  Grace is not about justice, reward, or punishment; it's not about what we deserve.  Grace is necessarily about receiving what we don’t deserve in the first place.  I think anyone can receive God's grace and salvation - so, when the time comes, we shouldn't be surprised or resentful to see those we call our enemies in heaven.  Indeed, hopefully we can be like the first brother and celebrate that our enemies are with us in heaven.  Why do I think all of this is possible?  Because in another passage from Matthew, Jesus is asked by his disciples, “Then who can be saved?”  He responds, saying, “For mortals it is impossible.  But for God all things are possible” (19:25-26).

 

So I hope that when we see each other in heaven, our joy will be complete, and we will break bread together.

 

 

In her book How to Become a Scandal: Adventures in Bad Behavior, Laura Kipnis describes why we all like a good scandal.  The influence of Rene’ Girard and mimetic theory are apparent when she writes:

 

As scandal reveals, the social world is in an eternal search for scapegoats.  This makes it a brutal place, to be sure, but the scapegoat process is intrinsic to every social group.  Societies have always purified themselves through shows of moral indignation, dumping their burdens off onto designated candidates – all the abnormality and moral disability that threatens to poison the community.  Those cast in this unlucky role don’t have to be innocent victims either; a scapegoat’s crimes can be entirely real.  If it’s the scandalizer’s fate to enact the self-sabotaging tendencies that vex the human personality, then what better sacrificial figure? (196).

 

What makes Kipnis’s statement, and thus mimetic theory, so compelling is its universal nature.  Human cultures are in “an eternal search for scapegoats” so that we can purify ourselves through “moral indignation, dumping [our] burdens off onto designated candidates.”  Currently, the designated candidate in the sports world is LeBron James.

 

A few years ago, LeBron was one of the most liked NBA players.  Sports Illustrated bestowed upon him the moniker “The Chosen One” when he was a junior in high school.  The media and NBA fans loved him while he played for the Cleveland Cavaliers, quickly dubbing him “King James.”

 

But there’s an unfortunate reality to being king – kings make really good scapegoats.  We can all unite in mimetic admiration of the king.  But the same mimetic impulse allows us to quickly unite in condemnation against the king.  LeBron is now the now the scapegoat of the NBA.  One website claims, “But I’m sure that we can all say that LeBron James is hated by 90 percent of NBA fans.  (The other 10 percent being Heat fans.)”

 

And, as Kipnis claims, a scapegoat doesn’t have to be innocent.  Lebron is a scandal because he didn’t leave Cleveland on good terms.  He signed with the Miami Heat, where he would play with two other superstars: Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh.  Most people expected (maybe “feared” is a better word) that the three would be unstoppable.  James, Wade, and Bosh expected that, too.  The Miami Heat organization held a party for the three, where Heat fans packed the American Airlines Arena in Miami and the three promised 7-8 championships before they were done.

 

 

Well, the first championship will have to wait.  The Miami Heat lost in 6 games to the Dallas Mavericks.  (Interestingly, Cavalier and Maverick fans found unity in their shared hatred for LeBron and the Heat as they facetiously called the Dallas Mavericks the “Mavaliers” during the championship series.  How’s that for unity against a common enemy?)  Then LeBron said this after game 6 when he was asked if he was upset “that so many people are happy to see [him] fail”:

 

Absolutely not.  Because at the end of the day, all the people that was rooting on me to fail … have to wake up tomorrow and have the same life that they had before they woke up today. They have the same personal problems they had today. I'm going to continue to live the way I want to live and continue to do the things that I want to do with me and my family and be happy with that.  They can get a few days or a few months or whatever the case may be on being happy about not only myself, but the Miami Heat not accomplishing their goal, but they have to get back to the real world at some point.

 

Well, that didn’t gain LeBron any friends.  It offended many people, and LeBron was forced to backtrack.  But here’s why the statement was so painful for many: Because there is a hint of truth in it.  As Kipnis points out, the reason we love a scandal is because it allows us to dump our burdens off onto another person.  In other words, our shared hatred of another allows us to project all our personal problems upon them.  In that sense, LeBron was absolutely right.

 

But LeBron was wrong in another sense.  Our culture is addicted to scandals.  Unfortunately, our scandals aren’t isolated to politicians, athletes, or celebrities.  Some of our worst scandals are against family members, co-workers, neighbors, and friends.  The sad thing is that scandals and scapegoating is our real world.  It’ll take us “a few days or a few months or whatever the case may be” and we will move on from LeBron.  But, unless we break the cycle by finding more creative and compassionate ways to form unity, we are destined to find for more scandals and scapegoats.

Raven Founder Suzanne Ross was a keynote presenter at the Theology and Peace conference held in Baltimore, MD, in June 2011. Her paper, Beyond Power Struggles: Teaching Without Rivalry, illustrates how the teaching of Maria Montessori supports child development while avoiding teacher/child rivalries.

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

 

Adam discusses Job of the Bible. Job challenges much of the wisdom in the Bible that claims good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. For example, see Deuteronomy 6:18, Psalm 1, and Proverbs 3. For a book similar to Job, see Ecclesiastes. Job claims his innocence, while his friends unite in accusation against him. In the end, God sides with Job, the victim. Here we see the evolution in the human understanding of God. God is not with the crowd that unites in accusation against a common enemy; rather, God is on the side of the victim. This is seen ultimately in life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

For more, see Rene Girard's book, "Job: The Victim of His People."

Sandor Goodhart, author of Reading Stephen Sondheim: A Collection of Critical Essays, is a Professor of English and Jewish Studies at Purdue University and Director of the Interdisciplinary Program in Classical Studies. Professor Goodhart is a Raven Foundation Board Member and one of the founders of the Colloquium on Violence and Religion (COV&R). In this interview, Professor Goodhart examines the talent of Sondheim, his message and his audience.