Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Gradual Fall

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 2/21/2008 2:16 AM (GMT -6)

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." 8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3504.html?site=16&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=3

The idea that one woman and one man sinned and as a result sin/brokenness spread to the whole world beginning "creation's groaning." I still believe it in a certain sense, but my general trajectory has been to examine the mythical/metaphorical/spiritual elements to learn more exactly what they are - what they describe. I now see Satan as the personification of a sort of selfishness that gives rise to the mimetic rivalry and victimization described by Girard. This doesn't mean I've ruled out a personal Satan. In the same way, I've tried to examine Jesus' most frequent command: "Take up your cross and follow me." I want to know what this means in understandable terms rather than just feeling an emotion of loyalty or determination.

If you watch that whole Nova episode, you see apes acting selfishly, needlessly hurtfully, and kind, but also you see them demonstrate what looks to be a sense of justice and duty. I don't know that it would be possible to know with any significant degree of certainty, but it seems that these ape have inherited a sinful nature. I don't mean guilty; they look broken. And in modern, more precise, cause-and-effect terms, I seriously doubt the fall of man instigated this.

It makes me wonder about our fall story. If we assume it's the Yahwist source from the time of Solomon, it makes sense that guilt and personal accountability are already central. But if we accept the idea that 'fault' progressed from defilement to brokenness and from brokenness to guilt (which I believe is basically true), then we might posit the fall to be more gradual and more ancient. Perhaps taboos and defilement (which we can already see the outlines of in animals) gave way to the conscious regonition of brokenness and then finally to the capacity for guilt and the immoral act itself.

I'm writing this because I'm not sure where to go from here. For the most part I am in agreement with the anthropological assessments of Ricoeur and Girard (you all have got to read these guys!), but they don't move into the theological and practical payoffs. Does anyone here who has read them know of any reason that I should distance myself from these authors? And if not, what implications does a more gradual, awakening sort of fall have for theology?

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Post Edited (Sahid) : 2/21/2008 1:21:13 AM (GMT-6)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 2/21/2008 8:27 PM (GMT -6)

Does Girard have an explanation as to why people have to repent to be forgiven? Would he say that we are only to forgive those who apologize? I can't remember all you've said of him. I remember trying to read some of his stuff on the web, and I found hem even more difficult to follow than some of N.T. Wright's verbose writing. I do better when the logical links are expressed clearly and conspicuously.

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 2/22/2008 8:22 AM (GMT -6)

Gradual fall... from what? In this account, was there some point when man was not in sin? If anything, it rather sounds like 'gradual ascension'.

Before God, in grace, we will with all our power to be that which He shows us we are.

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 2/22/2008 1:34 PM (GMT -6)

I guess a gradual fall from innocence - to knowledge of good and evil and the guilt that comes with that.

Jeff, that's my biggest complaint with Girard; he doesn't bring it back home. His critics complain of his Christian bias, but I complain that he doesn't draw conclusions for what his understanding of sin, revelation, and the work of Christ have for Christian living or theology. But in his defense, he never claims to be a theologian. I can only speculate as to what he thinks of repentance and forgiveness.

In his view sin basically boils down to imitation of the wrong models. This is just my feel of this writing, but we imitate people who are also imitating. All animals do this (after their most basic needs are met). We desire desire itself. We want an object of desire. We tend to look around us to see what others are desiring, and we imitate them. You end up seeing people chase after what appear to be valueless goals with great passion, but when those goals are reached there is little or no satisfaction. This is because it is not ultimately the particular goal that is desired but desire itself. We want something to want. If we reach our goals too easily, we set ever more impossible goals that wont "let us down".

The wages of this sin are often literally death. In a society where everyone is engaged in mimetic desire, the "best" goals are eventually sought by many or all: the best hill to build a house on, the best woman or man to marry, the best produce to eat. (This is why you see taboos against consuming "sacred" resources or living on "holy" mountains; in this way society partially protects itself from snowballing desire.) When all society has lost its distinctions and is united as a undifferentiated mass of desire and conflict, a breaking point is reached and violence takes over. Either the society will destroy itself or it will turn its united violence against a vicarious substitute: the scapegoat.

This scapegoat takes all the hate and violence on itself. It is blamed for anything and everything including the chaos that threatens to destroy society. But after the scapegoat is killed or exiled, order is restored. Now the scapegoat is associated with not only the power to destroy but also with the power to restore and establish. The victim who was originally seen as a demon is now confused with a god.

Girard sees the redemptive work of God in terms of revelation. God reveals the scapegoat mechanism for the demonic system that it is, and he also takes the side of this victim. He shows that the victim was never the demon he was made to be, and he also shows that the god who is associated with order-through-violence is the real demon. The unjust violence of the society is encapsulated in this 'god,' but the true God shows that this 'god' is false. In Christ, the revelation goes to the end; not only does God stand up for his Son, he vindicates him and raises him back to life after he is lynched (in the name of restoring/preserving society). Christ, who imitates the Father, is ultimately the only trustworthy model.

I imagine, for Girard, repentance is from this 'god' of justified violence in the name of self-preservation to the true God of truth. From the society that lynches to the society that sees Jesus in the poor victimized people of the world. I don't get the impression that Girard would have any patience for a forgiveness that operates independently of of repentance. But neither do I get the impression that forgiveness should be unavailable to any who should happen to repent.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Post Edited (Sahid) : 2/22/2008 12:43:07 PM (GMT-6)

Harambee
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2008
Total Posts : 1

Posted 2/27/2008 9:14 PM (GMT -6)

I don't know what it means to have a 'gradual fall,' but it seems to me that in light of the facts of deep time and evolution, a historical fall event becomes incoherent. Violence and evil have characterized the universe long before mankind first emerged.

But there is great hope in that evolution tells us that the act of Creation has not yet finished. I think Corey's comment is rather insightful. We can easily recharacterize the Fall as the existential reality of being born into an incomplete (and therefore imperfect) universe. I don't think we lose much by doing this, if anything. Relatedly, redemption at the cosmic level can be thought of as the continual act of new creation as the universe undergoes 'gradual ascension' towards God's ultimate goals for it. John Haught is the one to read on these ideas.

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:55 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual