Scott Cowdell > Quotes

“And with this, there is something that I have not formulated clearly enough up to now: Christ is our scapegoat, but—and here I am in complete agreement with you—the positive effect doesn’t come any more from the fact that once more we have found a scapegoat; the positive effect only comes from the fact that Christ transforms violence and hatred and falsehood into love, and that he sends us the Spirit of Truth and Love. The sacrificial mechanism, as such, no longer has any positive effect! But the overcoming of sacrifice does not begin outside of the sacred. For a start, Christ completely accepts [Le Christ accepte d’abord totalement] “the old game,” in an acceptance that is not merely a game, but very real. The death of Christ has a salvific effect only in the sense that it transforms and reverses the sacrificial mechanism, but by entering totally into this mechanism, or by allowing himself to be captured by the mechanism!”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“You say that men are utterly incapable of renouncing violence, and, in this fact, that Christ is not involved in this violence, you see the proof of his divinity. I find that to be very true. But the question remains: how are men able to renounce violence? The answer is: the Spirit slowly transforms the hearts of men and renders them capable of this renunciation. By the Spirit we are able to understand that we have transferred our violence onto Christ when we were still blind (and we continue to do this to the extent that we remain blind). Therefore the cross is the source of life in a double sense. (1) Christ remained faithful to the message of the Father, even when the whole of humanity projected its violence onto him. He bore this violence and did not react against it with counterviolence. (2) The Father reacted against the violence by sending the Spirit. Here I add another theme that I don’t find in your text: prayer. This is a very important theme in all the NT writings. In the final analysis, prayer is always a prayer about the coming of the Spirit. And the Spirit is the Spirit of liberty, love and peace, as Paul very often tells us. Peace between men finally becomes possible through the gift of the Spirit.”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“I realize that, from an orthodox point of view, this attitude poses a problem from the orthodox point of view vis-à-vis the word sacrifice. But the word is common to all the churches. The texts seem to indicate that at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, there was in certain traditions an interpretation both anti-sacrificial and religious at the same time. But immediately, Luther in particular fell into ultra-sacrificial [supersacrificielles] definitions. The basic point, I believe, is that the non-sacrificial reading not only illuminates, but reinforces, all the great orthodox and patristic dogmas, and far from eliminating the idea that Jesus “sacrifices” himself for the salvation of man [Jésus se “sacrifie” pour le salut des hommes], it strengthens that also. The only thing to look at is the misunderstanding, from here on, in the vocabulary, and so I repeat my question. Can one use the same word for what the bad prostitute did in the Judgment of Solomon and for what the good one did?95 Is it not essential today to achieve reconciliation, not only between Christians, but more essentially between Jews and Christians, to demonstrate to Jews as to Christians how the thing that is most essential [que ce qu’il y a de + essential] in Judaic inspiration demands the recognition of Christ as fulfillment, just as it was presented throughout the Middle Ages? [la reconnaissance du Christ comme accomplissement ainsi que l’a pressenti tout le Moyen Age?]. Is it not essential to dispel what seems to me to be the inevitable sacrificial misunderstanding? I think that all this, in spite of the still [encore] abrupt and hazardous character of certain formulations, is moving in the direction of the current evolution of the church and its own self-examination [sa propre mise en question], of which the blandness of the progressives is only a caricature.”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“Attached are pages from Balthasar’s book that discuss your book.195 I’ve started a little dialogue with him on his criticisms of you (natural theology, God’s wrath, etc.).196 I know teachers who are starting to take you seriously because Balthasar finds your ideas at least very interesting. So this criticism is beneficial when people engage with your books.”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“As every barrier to the constraint of individualism is removed - as 'I' and 'my' appear in the names of more and more software applications and IT products - nevertheless today's rampant mimeticism ensures that 'I' and 'my' become less and less differentiated from 'you' and 'yours'...We crave differentiation, and deprived of it we blame the failing institutions that once might have delivered it.”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Secular Modernity: Christ, Culture, and Crisis

“Among the reactions to your work, there is quite a discussion concerning your concept of “union in love” [“amour fusion”]. In this context, I often think of a text of Richard of St. Victor concerning trinitarian love.153 (Trinitarian love—is it not the final response to triangular desire?) I thank you once again for all that you have given me through your work. I realize more and more that this has had a decisive influence on my life. Sincerely, R. Schwager”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“About E. de Rosny, who has described his experience in Africa with the help of your theory, I’ve just heard that his new book226 is a huge success (15,000 copies sold in two weeks—eight pages in Paris Match). I don’t yet know if he speaks much about you in the book—I hope so; that would be quite a help! My article on St. Augustine is finished (with publication probably in a year’s time).227 I’m now working on Maximus the Confessor.228 I realize more and more that the question of freedom is central to patristic thinking about redemption. But nobody managed to adequately formulate this problem. Freedom is also the positive counterbalance to the sacrificial mechanism. Have you elaborated upon this issue at all [développé un peu ce problème]: freedom–mechanism / freedom–mimesis? I am looking for extra enlightenment on this.”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“There is no doubt that we need to rethink and ameliorate all that, to get beyond it in every way [le dépasser dans tous les sens], and that’s your task, but broadly I hope it’s already moving past the completely sterile oppositions of the moment, to actually attain something that, in one sense, no one wants to concede, while in another, obscure sense, everyone wants to concede it [pour atteindre vraiment quelque chose à quoi personne en un sens ne veut accéder, et en un autre sens tout le monde obscurément veut aussi accéder]. I don’t know if I am making myself understood.”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“And the biblical texts? I am absolutely in agreement with your anti-sacrificial interpretation of the death of Jesus. I can only underline what you say of the nonviolence of the Father, and of human responsibility. I sensed all this before discovering your theory, and your thinking helped me to understand. What remains, though, is the possibility of a misunderstanding. I think that there will be people who will object to your reduction of the cross of Christ to an epistemological revelation, whereas the New Testament and the tradition speak of the cross as a source of life. I think that a large number of theologians are ready today to accept a non-sacrificial interpretation of the death of Jesus, but would refuse a reduction of the cross to a source of knowledge. What you say about love is central, but I have the impression that that would not be enough to take away the possibility of a misunderstanding.”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“Lately, I have been occupied with the Jewish position, which reproaches the New Testament writers with vigor for having falsely interpreted the Old Testament. I find that your theory is essential in finding a valid response to this criticism. If one considers the Old Testament as a mixture of sacrality [sacralité] and revelation, an argument with the letter of the OT becomes impossible. I think that the Jewish point of view does not take seriously enough the “contradictions” within the OT”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“From this emerged: Schwager, “Das Mysterium der übernatürlichen Natur-Lehre.”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“A text structured by the scapegoat effect cannot make a theme of this; [and in turn] a text that makes a theme of the scapegoat cannot be structured by this effect. In the gospels, Christ is so obviously the scapegoat of everyone [in the text] that he can no longer be the scapegoat of the text, just as the sixteenth-century witch isn’t the scapegoat of the twentieth-century historian.”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“Léon-Dufour et al., Mort pour nos péchés. 256Schwager, Brauchen wir einen Sündenbock?”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“At the substantive level, there is a complete break between the intention of the people and the intention of Christ, but at the level of the concrete event there is continuity. Because these two levels must remain, an isolated word must remain ambiguous. In my course on salvation I have almost finished the presentation of your theory and my book. I am now beginning to engage with [la confrontation avec] the tradition. The central idea of the Church Fathers was: redemption = paideia (education) through the Logos. There is the whole problem of the Logos, as you show in your book. But there is also the whole problem of paideia. The excellent book by Werner Jaeger, Paideia,100 shows that all Greek thinking was dominated by the issue of paideia. Plato especially sought nothing other than the man of virtue, the mastery of desire and of violence through the education of man; and education is made possible, according to him, by the knowledge of the good. Jaeger shows that “the State” of Plato was nothing but a corporation engaged in the business of education (albeit a company that closely resembles a concentration camp). Jaeger also shows that the Greek idea of the “paideia” was totally centered on the “paradeigma” (model) and “mimesis.” But that idea of mimesis was very different from your idea of mimesis. The Greek idea: the one who imitates a virtuous man becomes virtuous and the man who imitates bad people becomes bad. The problem of rivalry is not in evidence.—But it is easily shown anyway. There are texts in Seneca where the idea of imitating the gods leads to the idea of surpassing the gods. I see now in the idea of education the great tendency of humanity to try to overcome rivalry and violence without getting to the truth of the scapegoat. The great ideal of the Age of Enlightenment: the education of humanity (Rousseau, Lessing, Herder, Goethe). The great ideal of Mao: the education of the new man (in a state that looks a bit like the state of Plato).”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“For next semester I am preparing a course on the Holy Spirit and baptism. I’m trying to continue thinking along the path you have opened. I will highlight Paul’s statements on the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of peace, the Spirit as the force that makes peace possible among people who are prone to violence. I am finding it difficult to develop this course. I have the impression that it is easier to describe negative behavior (rivalry, jealousy, violence, etc.) than to describe positive behavior (love, freedom, peace). Negative behavior can be described using sharp juxtapositions (e.g., all against one), whereas describing positive behavior [pour décrire le comportement positif] requires one to “see together” different aspects.”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“Stiker and the mode of thought:122 this article signals several points that demand—in my opinion—further explanation (e.g., the problem of language and the problem of otherness). I see a double otherness, one that is governed by mimesis and that hides its identity, and the other, nonviolent love that accepts the other as other: trinitarian love. I see in trinitarian love the final answer to the mimetic triangle. But the central problem for Stiker: “global theorization is a dream.” This is the objection that I find everywhere. And I answer: if one wants to actually think, one must dare to argue for universalization. If one limits oneself to some “important aspects” of a phenomenon, one can’t judge if these aspects are independent of each other; if they intersect or if they contradict one another. If the question of the contradiction can no longer be asked, it’s all over for science [c’est fini avec la science]. Who decides what constitutes “the important”? Current impressions?!—Pure subjectivity?!! Science then transforms itself into bad poetry! But people don’t want to accept this truth.”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“Even if Christ is our scapegoat, he is not that of the Father, and [so] the sacrificial understanding is always relative, while the absolute is that which is beyond all sacrifice. Tell me what you think. Is it that the definition of perfect love between the Father and the Son, or the identity of loving one’s neighbor and the love of God, realized only by Christ himself, mightn’t be what’s beyond sacrifice [ne serait pas cet au-delà du sacrifice]? This does not exclude, of course, the imperative to “give his life for his friends.”172 I ask myself if, in orthodox Christian circles, one does not run the risk of losing something essential to save the sacrificial formulation, which scandalizes non-Christians—and not without reason [qui ne scandalise pas les non-chrétiens sans raison]. And after all, this formulation has no dogmatic sanction; we can’t rule out that the church won’t decide to renounce sacrifice—one day, after long examination [on ne peut pas exclure qu’un jour, après de longs examens, l’église ne décide pas]—faced with the evidence that the elimination of sacrifice bears fruit on so many levels (if this is understood, not in the insipid and saccharine sense that “progressives” envisage it, but from the conception of sacrifice that we present, for the renunciation of sacrifice)”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“I understand that it takes patience, but there are also positive signs. H. U. von Balthasar, the theologian who probably has the greatest influence in the Catholic world for the moment, has handed down a very positive verdict on my book. Likewise, K. Lehmann, who is the theologian of the German Bishops’ Conference. So I think that your thinking will gradually prevail, even if there is resistance and difficulties for the moment.”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“And what of ourselves? Are we really completely outside this mechanism? The people who come after us, won’t they find aspects of sacrificial thinking even in the way we use anti-sacrificial theory?”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“I am not saying all of this in the spirit of “provocation,” I hope, but merely to try out these reflections on you, because I am not yet sure of what I am saying, and I want to look again at the problem of sacrifice, in the light of criticism, of course. I remember very well what you wrote to me about the fact that Christ always serves [se faisait] as a scapegoat in Christian history, and I agree with you. But having said that, is it not correct to say, in the final analysis—in a way that anybody today can understand [que personne ne l’est plus dans le niveau de compréhension aujourd’hui possible]—that he is not that? In fact, I think that the word we use has not much importance, or rather it is inevitably poor [mauvais], because the whole language is permeated with “sacrificialism” in the worst sense of the term—language emerges entirely from this”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“I am completely in agreement with you that Christ is no longer—in the Gospels—an unrevealed scapegoat. It’s the opposite: now he is spoken of openly as the scapegoat! Therefore I am completely in agreement with your phrase: “Even if Christ is our scapegoat, he is not that of the Father, and the sacrificial understanding is always relative, while the absolute is that which is beyond all sacrifice.”174”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991

“Another word on the subject of “the idealism of theology.” In fact, traditional theology has not only spoken of the scapegoat, but the texts remain in a certain manner structured by the scapegoat, as you have shown! Will a future theology escape this fate entirely?”
― Scott Cowdell, René Girard and Raymund Schwager: Correspondence 1974-1991