The reception of the thought of René Girard in theological discourse has been anything but uniform. Some have praised his theory for its simplicity and the scope of its explanatory power, while others have critiqued its apparent negative anthropology and claim to universality. Girard is known for articulating what he has termed “mimetic theory” and, more controversially, for arguing that the mimetic desire particular to human beings leads to violence, which can only be attenuated by a sacrificial system that has arisen alongside human culture. Girard has faced numerous critiques against his theory in general, and has received backlash for his suspicion of and subsequent distancing from, the language of sacrifice. In some Christian circles, this distancing is unacceptable on theological grounds. For both traditionally and scripturally, Christ’s saving work on the cross has been referred to as a sacrifice. In this paper, I examine one such Christian theologian, Sarah Coakley, who seeks to both critique Girard’s theory and offer her own positive construal of Christian sacrifice. In Sacrifice Regained, Coakley critiques Girard’s theory for its apparent reduction of the notion of sacrifice to violence. While admitting that Girard has developed his theory to make room for a more positive understanding of mimesis and sacrifice, Coakley maintains that Girard ultimately offers us a negative theory of sacrifice.1 After deconstructing Girard’s theory of sacrifice, Coakley puts forward her own, constructive theory. Her claim is bold. She argues that “the latest deliverances from evolutionary biology . . . provide us with an intriguing impetus to re- consider the rationality of Christian faith precisely as sacrificial.”