Autor: Ormerod, Neil

Buch: Creation, Grace, and Redemption

Titel: Creation, Grace, and Redemption

Stichwort: Erlösung von - Erbsünde (Heilung) - aktueller Sünde ; Opfer - 2 Aspekte (Lob - Opfer); Fehler der Vermischung d. zwei Bedeutungen von O.: Lösegeld für Gott - Satan; Barth (Dualismus)

Kurzinhalt: For both genuine obedience and disobedience have the structure of sacrifice. Genuine obedience sacrifices the lower good for the sake of the higher, while disobedience sacrifices the higher for the sake of the lower.

Textausschnitt: THE TWO DISCOURSES OF SACRIFICE

104a While this may be overstating the case for rhetorical effect, it is clear that Girard has identified a very important insight. The language of sacrifice has a dual aspect. One more positive aspect is to view sacrifice as a "sacrifice of praise," the handing of one's life over to God's will in obediential love and service. Christian language of sacrifice reflects this aspect (e.g., Rom 12:1; Phil 4:18; Heb 13:15; 1 Pet 2:5). In doing so, however, it tends to mask a more negative aspect of the same symbol. This more negative aspect is the dark underbelly of sacrifice, the disobedience of killing the innocent, a sacrifice for an evil purpose, often masked by a "religious" or ideological justification: "it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed" (John 11:50). For both genuine obedience and disobedience have the structure of sacrifice. Genuine obedience sacrifices the lower good for the sake of the higher, while disobedience sacrifices the higher for the sake of the lower. Genuine obedience willingly sacrifices its own good for the sake of a higher good. Disobedience sacrifices the other, the unwilling victim, to fulfill its own desires. The work of Girard focuses our attention on the darker aspects of sacrifice, which should have no place in Christian self-understanding. On the other hand, if we lose touch with this darker aspect we are in danger of removing our understanding of Jesus' death from the historical narrative in which is occurs, making it a purely religious drama with no real historical content. We need to bring these two aspects into a real relationship with each other, if we are to understand the death of Jesus as a response to human sinfulness. (Fs)

Kommentar (25/06/10): Der Absatz oben ist sehr unklar.

104b It is instructive in attempting to analyze the reality of salvation to return to the question, From what are we being saved? The ways in which we conceive of this "being saved from" will shape our understanding of the mechanism of salvation itself. As we have seen, the biblical language of salvation presents us with a variety of metaphors to express this "being saved from": death, sin, the wrath of God, Satan, and so on. Another candidate that emerges from the tradition is original sin. In ST III q. 1, a. 4, Aquinas asks whether the point of the incarnation is to free us from actual sin, or from original sin; he answers that it was "principally to take away original sin." I would take this observation as a starting point to suggest that the problem of salvation has two distinct foci. The first regards the problem of actual sin and how that is to be dealt with by God. The second regards the problem of original sin and how that is dealt with. Further, the two discourses of sacrifice correlate with these two foci of salvation. (Fs)

105a Much of the traditional language of salvation focuses on the need for redemption from our actual sins. It presents us with the need for judgment, conversion, and forgiveness. Much of the traditional positive language of sacrifice draws on Old Testament expiatory rites as a type of the more perfect sacrifice of Jesus, which deals with sin through the conversion that it symbolizes, the sacrifice of praise which evokes within us the conversion we need in order to turn again to God and to turn away from our sins. In the death of Jesus we see our sin for what it is; we are judged, convicted of sin yet at the same time offered forgiveness from the cross, as Jesus' final act of obedience to the Father's mission of love. (Fs)

105b This cannot be the whole story of salvation, however. When we consider the issue of original sin, we need to ask, How can we be judged for what we have not done, forgiven for a sin that is not ours? In this regard much of the traditional language of salvation and sacrifice begins to break down. Indeed, in dealing with the problem of original sin the tradition has tried to force it into the pattern of the problem of actual sin by equating it with some type of primal guilt we all share in, something that we mysteriously have responsibility for "in Adam." We have then understood the mechanism for its resolution in terms of the same patterns adopted for personal sin. Yet, as I have argued in the chapter on original sin, a coherent account of original sin can be formulated as a statement of our universal victimhood, "in Adam." We are all the victim of others' sins, all the way back to that first primal fault. This state of victimhood does not need judgment and forgiveness; it needs healing and compassion.1 In this perspective, the death of Jesus, his ritual murder, is transformed by Jesus into an act of solidarity, a voluntary identification on the part of Jesus with the most victimized, and most despised, part of ourselves.2 Jesus shares our fate, not as sinners but as sinned against. Of course, this death is a consequence of Jesus' fidelity to his mission and the sinful reaction of those who murdered him. However, Jesus transforms this mindless fate into life-giving sacrament through the meaning he gives to his death in his words and actions at the Last Supper.3 (Fs) (notabene)

106a I would now like to explore some of the things that can go wrong when we fail to recognize that there are two distinct sacrificial discourses. The first and perhaps most common problem is to conflate the two into a single discourse. This leads to multiple confusions between God and Satan, between goodness and sin, between divine providence and evil. Such confusion is evident in the discussion of the early fathers on the ransom model-is the ransom paid to God or to Satan? In a more systematic mode it is, according to Raymund Schwager, to be found in the writings of Karl Barth. According to Schwager, Barth speaks of "Jesus' opponents as the 'instruments' and 'agents' of divine judgment," leading to the conclusion "that Jesus had suddenly stopped being the revealer of God and instead his opponents had been entrusted with his mission."4 In fact such an approach lays the blame for sin and the dark side of sacrifice at the feet of God. (Fs)

106b The second problem is to emphasize the positive aspect of sacrifice, while denying that the darker side sheds any light on the Christian experience. I think this is evident in a modern trend to suppress the language of sacrifice altogether as inappropriate. Consequently the image of sacrifice loses all its dark connotations, to become simply a "sacrifice of praise." The consequence is a romanticized version of Christian faith and life, which never really touches the hard reality of human sin and the suffering of sin's victims. It correlates with a downplaying of the notion of original sin and of the notion of redemption. Such a trend can be found in the writings of Matthew Fox, with his appeal to the notion of "original blessing."5

106c The third problem is to fail to recognize the positive discourse of sacrifice. Then Christianity becomes a parody of itself, becoming yet another form of paganism rather than its subversion and replacement. This is the danger that Girard attacks in his anti-sacrificial reading of Christianity. He fears that the use of sacrificial language can only be a perversion of the truth of Christian faith, and so it would be. What is less clear is whether the Christian tradition has ever really fallen into such a stance. (Fs)