In your answer of May 10, 2006, you wrote, "I see Christianity at
its heart as deeply humanistic. The core doctrines of the
Christian faith suggest that God is revealed through a human
life...so I see secular humanism as the residual remains of
Christianity once the supernatural elements have been removed."
In the next paragraph, you say you do not think "the
supernatural understanding of God is essential to Christianity."
In your answer of May 3, 2006, you reject "the interpretation of
Jesus' death as a sacrifice required by God to overcome the sins
of the world" as making God "barbaric" and "Jesus the victim of a
sadistic deity." This "deeply violates the essential note of the
Gospel, which is that God is love calling us to love" and is not
"found in the pious but destructive phrase, 'Jesus died for my
sins.'"
My question is: If Jesus did not die on the cross to atone for
humanity's sins, why did he have to die to bring us the message
that "God is love, calling us to love"?
First, let me say that you have rightly summarized my
thinking, for which I am grateful.
Second, this understanding does challenge the
traditional understanding of the cross as the place where the
price of our redemption was paid and leaves many people with a
gaping vacuum at the center of their understanding of
Christianity. You have articulated that well.
I believe what you need to do is to free yourself of
the theistic God who lives above the sky and who guides human
history to accomplish the divine will. That mentality forces us
to find purpose in everything. Locked into this view of God, the
early Christians sought to find purpose in the cross. That is
how we got substitutionary theories of the atonement and began to
view the cross through the lens of the sacrificial Day of
Atonement that the Jews called Yom Kippur. In the liturgy of Yom
Kippur a perfect Lamb of God was slain. Its blood spread on the
mercy seat of the Holy of Holies that was thought of as God's
place of occupation. Therefore, to come to God, people had to
come through the blood of the lamb. Then a second animal was
brought out and the priest began to confess the sins of the
people. As the priest confessed, the sins of the people were
thought to leave the people and land on the back and head of this
animal. Then burdened with the sins of the people, this animal
was driven into the wilderness. The sin bearer (called 'the
scape goat') thus carried the sins of the people away. Both the
sacrificial lamb and the sin-bearing goat became symbols by which
Jesus was understood. In our liturgies today, we still say "O
Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."
If that understanding is removed from the cross, as I
believe it must be, then questions like 'What is the meaning of
the cross?' and 'Why did Jesus die?' become perennial
questions. Take purpose out of them and what is left is a
picture of a free man - whole, complete, with his life being
taken cruelly from him. In the portrait painted in the gospels
of the cross, the dying Jesus speaks a word of forgiveness to the
soldiers who drive the nails. He speaks a word of encouragement
to the thief who is portrayed as penitent. He speaks a word of
comfort to his mother in her bereavement. Whether these are
historical memories or not is not important to me and I do not
think any of them literally happened. They are, however,
expressions of the corporate memory of Jesus. Here was a life
being put to death unjustly but instead of clinging to his
fleeting existence, he is still giving life away. That is a
picture of a new level of human consciousness. The cross reveals
for me the infinite love of God calling the world and me to a new
humanity, calling us beyond survival toward the deepest secrets
of transcendence. That is what the cross means to me and it
moves me deeply.
I hope this helps you.
John Shelby Spong
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments