DEL SEGURO CONTRA INCENDIOS

For Girard, the safe and perfect model for imitation is Christ. This is a model of non- competitive mimesis. It further supports the idea that positive mimesis may not be well developed in Girard’s thought but it is clearly present.

What Jesus invites us to imitate is his own desire, the spirit that directs him towards the goal on which his intention is fixed: to resemble God the Father as much as possible…. he commits all his powers to imitating his father. Inviting us to imitate him, he invites us to imitate his own imitation. (p.13)

Moving from the imitation of Christ to the imitation of other readers or believers, Girard also entertains the potential for a positive role for mimesis. Mimesis does not have to lead to conflict. In particular Girard describes: “Quiet and untroubled possession weakens desire.” (p.10) Conflict occurs when “a person or group of persons feel

themselves blocked or obstructed as they desire some specific object of power, prestige or property that their model possesses or is imagined to possess” (xi). This means that in situations where resources are abundant or people are isolated from each other conflict is less likely. This is significant in that it accounts how human beings are able to learn from role models without the relationship spiralling into chaos. There may be an abundance of resources or sufficient separation between subject and role model to avoid direct conflict. By reversing the terminology, it is also possible to arrive at a new category of troubled possession which will be illustrated in the transcript excerpts. It is a useful term as it brings in ideas of ownership and disruption of that ownership but is

87 challenging in the sense that being possessive of a ministry, responsibility or

geographical area has an element of critique.

Fodor offers a critique to the theological implications of Girard’s work in that he does not take sufficient account of the differences between mimesis and kenosis.

His construal of the scapegoat mechanism remains too immanent, to

anthropologically centred, he fails to attend to the ways in which imitation, for the Christian at least, presupposes participation in a more determinative, saving economy. (p.258)

The greater part of Girard’s work has indeed been about establishing and defending the scapegoat mechanism so this criticism of imminence has validity. However, from Girard’s words above, the way is clearly open to participation in the saving economy and writers such as Adam’s take this forward.

Intersubjective participation through self-reflexive mimetic desire…transforms our understanding….I end up desiring not only myself but others and indeed potentially everything around me as a subject- as something alive within its own irreducible being, yet in dynamic, loving, intersubjective relation to

me….Entering into and participating in this dynamic relation could be

understood theologically as adopting the same unconditional relation of love that Christ exemplifies in relation to the father, or imitating him (pp.294-295).

Swartley (2000) offers a review of the key aspects of positive mimesis in the New Testament (p.218ff). A criticism he recognizes but dismisses is that there is no genuine imitatio Christi within the New Testament and that “Paul’s call/command to imitation functions to imprint the hierarchical structure of power on Christian thought and

conduct” (p.220). Given this thesis’ relationship with power and obedience, this critique attached to imitation is interesting because whether it is right or wrong, it brings

obedience and hierarchy close to imitation.

In his support of the case for positive imitation as a teaching of the New Testament, Swartley (2000) traces the direct and indirect uses of imitation. These are summarized in the table below. This list is extensive but not comprehensive. It functions to show the prevalence of imitation in the New Testament as a whole. I read this differently to Swartley in that he finds this wholly positive. For me it resonates with a church whose complacency regarding imitation has its roots in the scripture formed by the earliest

88 churches. The table demonstrates the priority of imitating Jesus and God in both direct and indirect language. However, from the perspective of this study, it is clear that Paul considered himself to be a useful model for imitation and also the church. For me these are both problematic; if God, in Jesus, has given us a perfect example of positive mimesis then by copying Paul or the Church we open up the possibility of imitating the mistakes of those who imitate Jesus. Paul was a leader operating in an area of bounded resources, imitating Paul imitating Jesus immediately risks negative mimesis. This has resonance with Paul’s experience as he urges unity for a church dividing according to the teachers followed. (Romans 16; 1 Cor 1; Galatians 1; Philippians1). There are further personal conflicts alluded to between Paul and Peter (Gal 2:11) and between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15). These conflicts are only sketched out and lack the detail to argue that they clearly demonstrate mimesis but I see the potential for the presence of mimesis, conflict and imitation in a way that could account for the lack of suspicion the Church of England has towards imitation in the modern church.

A contrasting view to this is offered by Hamerton-Kelly’s consideration of St. Paul’s understanding of imitation. He suggests that there are different types of model and that Paul is a “model/mediator of Christ” not a “model/obstacle.” (1992, p.174). He further draws attention to what is to be imitated,

The apostles and their followers do not imitate moral examples from the life of Jesus, but the summary act of the crucifixion, the crucified Christ in his act of self-sacrifice rather than any specific pattern of ethics drawn from the memories of his life (p.176).

He summarises this position in the term “agapaic mimesis” (p.176) which in turn connects to the previous discussion of positive mimesis. While I do not disagree with the substance of this argument I see his conclusion as contributing to the naivety of the church regarding mimesis. His conclusion that “if we are all scapegoats, then nobody is a scapegoat” (p.179) is not sufficiently critical of the victim position and the potential of a victim to victimize others.

Looking to the modern church, I suggest that mimesis is reflected in the willingness to ascribe parental terms to priests and think of them as examples to copy. A contemporary and poignant example of this is given in the autobiography of the Revd. Richard Coles as he describes the morning before his ordination. “when it was all in place I looked at myself in a mirror and saw, for the first time, what everyone else would now see. I saw

89 Dazzle looking back at me…” (2014, p.277) (Dazzle is a priest who had a significant role in his journey of faith.) In these word’s the Girardian potential for imitation and mirroring is powerfully evoked. This is not to say that I advocate the position of abandoning human role models. I do not think that is psychologically achievable. However, I do suggest imitation should be approached with suspicion rather than affection, naivety or complacency.

Table (vi) Direct Imitation Language in the New Testament

Direct Imitation language NT reference Reference (Swartley, 2000)

Imitators of us and the Lord

1 Thess 1:6 p.221

Imitators of the churches of God

1 Thess 2:14 p.222

Imitate us 2 Thess 3:6-9 p.222

Be imitators of me 1 Cor 4:16, 1 Cor 11:1 p.223

Join in imitating me Phil. 3:17 p.225

Be imitators of God Eph. 4:32 Imitators of those

who…inherit the promise

Heb. 6:12 p.227

90 Table (vii) Indirect Imitation Language in the New Testament

Indirect imitation language NT reference Reference (Swartley, 2000)

Let the same mind be in you

Phil. 2:5 p.225

Follow in his steps 1 Pet. 2:21 p.227

Looking to Jesus Heb. 12:1-3 I [Jesus] have set you an

example

John 13:14-16 p.229

Forgive as God in Christ forgave

Eph 4:32 p.235

Being in Christ 1 John 2:6 p.235

Loving as Christ loved John 13:34… p.235 Serving as Christ served John 13: 1-17… p.235

A further significant writer who re-appropriates the imitation of Christ is Joanna Collicut writing in the area of Christian character formation. Collicut describes

formation as drawing on the metaphors of the fit body and the flourishing plant (2015, p.14) for her these are to be held together. In this framework, the imitation of Christ is an appropriate psychological goal of the fit body metaphor. She expresses this as “growing up into the likeness of Christ.” A risk she identifies is “overemphasis on one virtue, habit or member at the expense of others…our tendency to treat our idiosyncratic approach to life as absolute non-negotiable truth” (p.27). This contributes to a picture of Christian people and especially Christian leaders as at risk of finding it acceptable for others to imitate them and for a community to permit this to happen. Collicutt’s imitation of Christ acknowledges this risk and seeks to address it. Her answer to this risk is that “the connections between who we want to be, the rules we aim to live by, and the stuff we try to do should be well oiled and transparent.” (p.27) The awareness of our susceptibility to both positive and negative mimesis can make a substantial

contribution to achieving the transparency Collicut advocates.

My argument is that because the imitation of Christ, and indeed other Christian believers, is present in scripture the church as a whole does not treat imitation with an appropriate level of suspicion.

91