Skip to main content

Rethinking the "Atonement": Whose Guilt?

By Marlene Winell ~

On “Good Friday," I thought about how little was good about it. The atonement is a Christian doctrine that is both absurd and horrible. The cross is a symbol of execution and represents Christianity.

Iconic images of our country’s major religion are violent and unjust: A powerful male outsider forcibly impregnates a young woman who is engaged to another, and she is compelled to have the baby despite any social consequences.

The ruler of the universe has his only son killed in a brutal and unjust manner, and this torture and death of an innocent is considered an act of love. The guilty ones, all the people for whom the son was a scapegoat, go free and never have to be responsible for any of their own wrong-doing. No attention is paid to anyone’s real behavior so that punishments would fit crimes, as they do in modern law. Instead everyone is considered deserving of death and eternal damnation; this includes all since no one is perfect. No one has any opportunity to stand trial, account for their own life, or make their own amends.

The ruler-god demands a blood payment. This is nonnegotiable despite being ruthless; forgiveness is not an option, despite the preaching by his son about forgiveness. State violence is used as an acceptable mechanism to administer torture and death, even though the legal process is flawed and unjust; it is the will of the ruler-god and there are no other measures of morality. Might is right. A demand for blood payment must be met. When it is done, the people must accept and be grateful. If not, they must be eternally punished. Justice is far more important than mercy, righteousness more important than love. The ruler-god decides what is just and what can be called love.

The son is nothing in comparison with the father-ruler-god. His teachings of love and compassion and forgiveness drop away in the face of the crushing, obliterating horror that is the Doctrine of the Atonement. The image of a bloody, tortured son appealing to his powerful father who will not intervene to protect him is considered a beautiful sight in our culture. It is seen as a symbol of the ruler-god’s love for us instead of a supreme act of cruelty easily prevented. No other religion worships such torture, calling it love, and people in other lands wonder why our god would allow it to happen to his own son.

This is the mental imagery in the bedrock of our nation’s Christian culture. It may explain why so many Bible-believing American Christians seem so, uh, unchristian. If one’s moral compass is based on the Atonement, then it has been compromised. It is a morality devoid of rationality, modern legal precepts, and Jesus’ own teachings. It says “judge” rather than “judge not,” teaches punishment rather than forgiving “seven times seven,” and retribution, not loving one’s enemies. It’s really no wonder that the U.S. leads the world in incarceration rates, and perpetuates wars that claim a kind of justice that is recognizable to no one else. The country is addicted to power. Many are more attached to their guns than the safety of their children. It seems no amount of global or domestic suffering makes much difference. Could it possibly be related to the fact that the most primary icon in our cultural consciousness is a man obscenely tortured with God’s full approval, who then absurdly absolves us of our sins?

God was crucified for all sin, including his own because it holds God responsible for creating evil in the first place.Just consider what difference it might make to reject the primitive demands of an imagined tribal god. What if we took responsibility for ourselves and made our own decisions about justice and mercy? We would have to grow up, have some self-respect, and learn to listen to our own wise instincts. It would be a paradigm shift that just might save the world.

Here’s another thing to think about. The popular protestant understanding of Christ’s atonement as penal substitution is only one interpretation of the meaning of his death. There are many,, and they have changed through history and across Christian sects. The question raised by theologians is How does Jesus’ death bring salvation?

I came across one modern explanation I actually liked (if I had to choose). It says God was crucified for all sin, including his own because it holds God responsible for creating evil in the first place. It’s called shared atonement theory by David Jeremiah, and described by Jamey Massengale in his book, Renegade Gospel The Jesus Manifold. The basic idea is that if “Jesus is homeomorphic to God, the logical consequence is that God died on the cross. The implications in atonement are two fold, 1. That our primary separation from God is that we make the argument of evil, (that there was no just cause for God to create evil which humans suffer from in this life, and may suffer for in the afterlife), therefore God is responsible for it, and is unjust; 2. That God had given a revealed law to the nation of Israel called the by Moses at the Exodus, that defines the sin and Evil, God was responsible for creating and then punishing men for, and is thereby unjust: God bearing the twofold guilt of both satisfies the cry for justice in Gods being crucified and dying for the guilt of all sin.” (More here, including a mathematical formula for showing Jesus is God).

Of course all this would be meaningful and not just morally more acceptable if it worked. That is, if it made any difference in the world, or to any individuals. But looking at the state of the world, I don’t think the claims of the New Testament about conquering sin and death have been met yet. More accurate is Jesus’ statement about bringing a sword instead of peace.

But in the mythology that is Christianity, I still like the idea of God owning up to making a Very Big Mistake with allowing evil and therefore coming to die for it.


Popular posts from this blog

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro

I can fix ignorance; I can't fix stupid!

By Bob O ~ I 'm an atheist and a 52-year veteran of public education. I need not tell anyone the problems associated with having to "duck" the "Which church do you belong to?" with my students and their parents. Once told by a parent that they would rather have a queer for their sons' teacher than an atheist! Spent HOURS going to the restroom right when prayers were performed: before assemblies, sports banquets, "Christmas Programs", awards assemblies, etc... Told everyone that I had a bladder problem. And "yes" it was a copout to many of you, but the old adage (yes, it's religious) accept what you can't change, change that which you can and accept the strength to know the difference! No need arguing that which you will never change. Enough of that. What I'd like to impart is my simple family chemistry. My wife is a Baptist - raised in a Baptist Orphanage (whole stories there) and is a believer. She did not know my religi