Theology and Spirituality: BOOK: DEVELOPING AN AUTHENTIC SPIRITUALITY
© Paschal Baute, revised 11/20/97 DRAFT COPY--NOT FOR CIRCULATION
chapter 8
JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS? I DON'T THINK SO.
Have we too easily accepted that "Jesus died for our sins" so that
to see his death as sacrificial is to miss the true meaning of what happened?
The fear of heresy is more dangerous than heresy--.for it
deprives a people of the free and daring speculation which would
strengthen and enlarge minds. Every generation has held opinions
that subsequent generations found false and absurd.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
A famous physicist is reputed to have said:
"Every complex problem
has an answer that is simple,
easy to understand
and wrong..."
When my daughter was about eleven we let her go to a Baptist weekend mission with her friends. The day after she returned I noticed her crying and asked her what was the matter. She said the minister there had explained the death of Jesus this way. "God the Father was the engineer of the locomotive. Ahead was a Y branch of tracks, with the sinful people on one branch and God's Son Jesus on the other, and God chose to run over His Son in order to save the people who are us." She looked at me and I am sorry to say that I do not remember what I said, but I fear to this day that it was inadequate for her shock. My wife and I both think her faith has never recovered from that story. Maybe ours has not been the same either.
Recently I asked another minister friend about this story. His reply was that he would not have put it so graphically, but if we believed the bible was God's word, it was true that Jesus died for our sins. (The implicit "command" part of his message was:
Take it or leave it but that is and was God's Word! )
I don't think so and let me say why.
Recognizing the limits of human conversation about this great mystery we call God, the Tremendum Mysterium, and that human words and concepts will always fall short and can never do more than suggest images, symbols, metaphors and stories that can invite us to awe, wonder and hopefully faith, we still must do our best to use our intelligence to understand what we can and what has been proposed for our understanding and for our faith. It is a holy thing to wonder about divine matters, and, in fact, "faith seeking understanding" is one of the oldest and best known of definitions of theology.
Scenario: A foreigner comes to visit from another wisdom tradition that has not ever heard of Christianity. She is curious about Christianity and its teachings. She is told: that a God who is all powerful, all wise and all loving created the world and humans. Humans disobeyed God and were cast out of Eden. They kept on sinning even after they were given the Ten Commandments, So eventually, God sent His Only Son to die on a cross so that sinful people could be redeemed..." The Alien asks: "Let's see if I understand this. You believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving God who could foresee every move of the weak-willed, ignorant and covetous human creatures to be created, still created them. But then became incensed that they did not obey--which he foresaw, then this God deemed it necessary to sacrifice His own Son on a cross to atone for their sin? This is what you believe?" "Well, yes," says any good Christian.
"Let me try it again,"says the Alien: "The Son of God was required to die for your sins in order to redeem fallen humanity?" She asks in astonishment: "The All-Wise and All Caring God you believe in requires human sacrifice of a son for sin?" and still receiving an affirmative answer, she is shocked and goes away shaking her head in amazement. "This is what humans who call themselves Christian believe? Incredible!" Can we Christians accept that this might be the typical response of many outside the Christian faith? Have we Christians so easily and long accepted this belief as gospel truth that we cannot see its absurdity? We need to come at it again from the viewpoint of a foreigner.
Christians have wondered for centuries why Jesus died, and whether Jesus had to die.
Atonement theology has proposed a number of explanations: Sacrifice (Origen), Justice either Satisfaction (Anselm) or Penal Substitution (Calvin), Ransom (Ireneaus), Lovelessness (Abelard), Dishonor (Julian). The essence of most of these is that the Justice (Honor, etc) of God required some compensation, some price, whether this was to be regarded as expiation, substitution, etc. That is, Jesus death was in some way both inevitable and required. In this chapter, I propose that the history of Christian readiness to use violence should not be attributed only to their sinful hearts, but that the recourse to violence has been so frequent, so pervasive, so inevitable that we must examine whether the belief that the death of Jesus was required must be examined for the sake of our understanding today.
When something tragic and unexplainable happens, such as the suicide of a spouse or the sudden death of a child, our typical response if we are believers is that we typically try to find a way to believe that this was God's will that it somehow happen. We often end up convincing ourselves that the tragic loss was somehow inevitable, unavoidable, destined by this mystery we call God for God's own purposes. Such a craving for meaning do we have living in a chaotic world where the unexpected often happens and it is often cruel, that we try to find a way to believe that a benevolent Providence was bound to have reasons for the whatever tragedy occurred. It is hard for the devout believer to accept that sometimes bad things simply happen to good people. No reason.
When it became clear 30-50 years after the murder of Jesus that the Jews were not converting and were in fact increasingly forbidding Christians from activity in the local synagogues, a hostility and vindictiveness developed toward the non-converting Jews that was not evident in the synoptic gospels or Acts but which is clear in the gospel of John written later. Although the abandonment of the disciples was certainly a factor in Jesus' arrest and they hid in shame and fear for three days, the easiest thing to do was to blame the Jews for Jesus' death and to search for any possible scripture that foreshadowed it. It had to be their unbelieving hostile brethren who did not understand--even though they his intimate associates had not understood.
Since His death was still incomprehensible, it became necessary for the early Christians to believe that God willed Jesus death. Because there was a tradition of sacrifice of animals and blood sprinkling for sin in the Old Testament, Christians began to believe that Jesus' death was necessary for our sins. This required sacrificial view of Jesus death is not found in the gospels or letters of Paul, but mainly in the Letter to the Hebrews. Nor can we find Jesus animosity toward the Jews in the three synoptic gospels but it is clearly found in the gospel of John written much later.
The natural reaction of humans to catastrophe from the beginning of civilization is to imagine that they have displeased the "gods" and that the misfortune is the result of their sins. The most incomprehensible fact of the disciples' lives, the death of Jesus, could only be understood finally as a requirement for sinful humanity. The psychological process was natural and inevitable but, I believe, at least from our vantage point now, a misreading of the reason for Jesus' death.
Consider: once we accept the idea that the Father of Jesus could REQUIRE the death of His Son as necessary to redeem a sinful people, we have accepted the unconscious affirmation that something must die before something can live, and that God wills it. When we believe that God wills violence for a greater good, we have inexorably accepted the need for violence in Christian life and Christian nations, in particular violence against those who are different than us, whether Islamic, Jew, native Americans (north and south), Catholics, Protestants, territorial wars, and any Stranger whose existence threatens the privileges or assumptions of our way of life. We have accepted that human life can be sacrificed for a greater good.
I believe this to be a grave misunderstanding of the death of Jesus with demonic possibilities. Killing is justified in the name of peace or healing, not just for Inquisition Catholics, or Crusading Catholics or Protestants against Catholics during the religious wars of Europe or the purges in England from Henry VIII on, but also in tribal wars in the Middle East and Bosnia, in democratic revolutions against military governments in Latin America, in terrorism and radical patriotism. Nazi Germany was not an historical accident but a lesson of convergences of many trends that we ignore to our peril. I also believe that by accepting this misreading of the death of Christ, we have been repeating the founding murder of Christ in one primary accumulative but actual genocide by Christians, that of the Jews, as well as others, including the followers of Mohammed. I believe further that until we can fully face the consequences of this misreading of sacrifice being required that we will continue to justify violence for the sake of peace and are headed toward other apocalypses, very likely nuclear since we now have widespread technical ability to do so.
So we have much wondering still to do. Certainly the gospels present Jesus death and resurrection as bringing salvation to humanity, but the Passion is in not in any way there presented as a required sacrifice. Yet it has often been presented as a sacrifice. In fact the Catholic Eucharist or Mass was for centuries referred to as the "Unbloody sacrifice of the Mass," and beloved as such in the old Latin rite today by conservative Catholics. So central and revered is the idea of Jesus death as a bloody sacrifice for us sinners that I will not attempt a rational discussion of the matter. My experience is that Christians are not capable of being challenged by a different view of Jesus death. If Jesus death was a required sacrifice, some questions....then some wondering.....
How can a Father require the murder of His Son in order to satisfy some justice/wrath requirements? How can God's honor be so offended by human creatures He created that He needs to slay Jesus. If we cannot conceive of a human father doing that, how can we begin to conceive that this Father in Heaven required the death of his precious son, a preference for sacrifice rather than mercy, which is totally contrary to the rest of the Gospel? The story of Abraham and Isaac is often brought up at this point by fundamental Christians. But the point is that God did not require the death of Isaac but was a test of total obedience to God.
Since the triune communication within the Trinity preceded the Incarnation, did the Father have a secret pact with the Son that the Son needed to die a horrible death in order to redeem us? Would not this make Jesus' death a disguised suicide?
If Love conquers everything and the essence of God is Love, how could the Justice of God demand more than Infinite Love and Infinite Mercy demanded?
Is a God who required expiation, substitution or atonement through the Bloody Sacrifice of His Only Son still an Old Testament God who requires blood sacrifice?
What about texts in which Jesus says He desired "Mercy not sacrifice?" & O.T. text saying same, and God's promise that there would be no more blood sacrifices?
What about not a single Gospel text (written at least 30-60 years after Jesus death) considering Jesus death a required sacrifice?
Does this teaching of atonement so emphasize the justice of God that for any thinking person it can become hard to believe in an all-loving God?
Has implications of this theological teaching that Satan was supposedly defeated through Jesus death any real implications for a world in which evil is still prevalent and we have seen in this century the loss of an estimated 100 million persons in war? Is there any evidence that evil or the devil is less powerful or less pervasive today than earlier--with war and genocides still occurring around the world?
What if this theological teaching has made it too easy for Christians to be converted and feel redeemed, because "saved by His Blood?" We can worship Him, pray to Him and hear the Gospel preached, but it is still a "cheap grace," because we do not need to listen to Jesus the prophet summoning us to radically change the way we live?
What if Jesus died to be faithful to his vision of brotherly Love, Compassion and Mercy and being willing to renounce his life for this vision? Would this be a greater spur to study his life and message and possibly experience an interior conversion where we are challenged to live differently not merely as followers but as disciples?
If Jesus died being true to his Gospel, then would this not mean that anyone who lives the Gospel of Love, forgiveness and compassion and stands tall against victimization of whatever group or person, that this witness would also expect to receive the judgment of the world and possible scape-goating? ...as do current witnesses for justice and peace? That anyone who challenged the status quo, the ruling elites (whether secular or religious) will be scapegoated and "sacrificed?" Anyone who challenges the wisdom of the world will be stereotyped and labelled. Consider the Ralph Naders, and other modern prophets.
What if the suffering and death of the Son, the Word, was inevitable because of the inability of the world to receive God or his Son, not because God's justice demands violence or the Son was willing to participate in his own horrible death?
If God's justice can demand the death of His Son as the founding event of the New Testament, cannot violence of almost any kind be approved as allowable by his official representatives, e.g., Crusades, Inquisition, religious wars, military and reactionary governments, and today's more private but real discounting of other wisdom traditions, including arrogance and not listening upon the part of "sincere" religious leaders?
What if scape-goating and sacrifice is a common cultural phenomenon continued even until today, and the Gospels bring this scape-goating mechanism to light in their account of Jesus ministry, death and resurrection. But the story and the text itself is typically misunderstood which greatly lessens our understanding of that founding scandal of Jesus death, and offers our "conversion" too easy a task, a "cheap grace"?
Would not Jesus loving willingness to give himself, even his life, for the sake of preserving the inviolability of his message of nonviolence make the message of his life and his teachings more highly significant and inspirational for us so that we would be more confronted with the truly prophetical nature of this Person and His dangerous memory?
What if the sacrificial nature of the Passion needs to be exposed as a most enormous and paradoxical misunderstanding--which has helped warp the practice of Christianity--while at the same time as something inevitable--and as the most revealing indication of our human race's radical incapacity to understand our own violence, even when that violence is conveyed in the most explicit fashion, against the most innocent of all? (1) Believing in the required Sacrifice of the Cross relieves us of understanding our natural violent tendencies--the actual fact that despite the sanity we presume and pretend, we all totter on the edge of violence, which an understanding of the unconscious surely reveals.
Have we yet understood that Jesus' word from God describes a God who refrains from all forms of reprisal and makes his sun to shine upon the"just" and the "unjust" without distinction, always inviting an interior conversion. This word remains for Jesus absolutely valid even to death, which clearly makes him the Incarnation of that Word.....further that Christ cannot continue to sojourn in a world in which the Word is either not mentioned or still worse, derided and devalued by those who claim to be faithful to it, even claim to be faithful representatives of it?
If Jesus' death was sacrificial, then we eventually need a special order of "priests" like those in the OT, in order to preside and mediate between the mysterious Sacred and the human, and we eventually need a hierarchy to protect and guard and interpret these sacred mysteries? Such a hierarchy will eventually fall prey to all the abuses of the religious hierarchies that existed in the time of Jesus. But if the Eucharist is not more than a sacred memorial meal, then we may not need an ordained clergy to do it.
What if Jesus was crucified because he appeared as a destructive and subversive
force in his community who threatened the assumptions and expectations of the
Powers That Be in his community? The way in which he preached made him appear
totally lacking in respect for Hebrew institutions, guilty of pride and blasphemy. Those
who refused the invitation to the Reign of God were bound, by the logic of societal
scape-goating and sacrifice, to turn against Jesus. They could not help but see him as
the corruptor of the Royal order they were attempting to restore. The people of
Jerusalem, the disciples, even Peter joined in the scape-goating. What if those who
cannot accept the invitation to the Reign of God today are bound to turn against it and
unconsciously participate in violence against(2)
their brothers and sisters? What if Jesus died not as a sacrifice but that there be no more sacrifices or violence
of any kind and in order to provide us a supreme example of nonviolent brotherly love? What if, as Rene Girard suggests, that the very fact that humankind has never really
managed to understand what was involved in the Passion--that this misunderstanding
reveals clearly that the founding murder is still being perpetuated, even by believers, as
is our inability even now to hear the Word of God, to be constantly renewed, and
radically transformed? Finally some comments for Catholic readers as regard priesthood and celibacy.... What does it mean in human consequences in the practice of ministry that Jesus
atoned for our sins in the sacrifice of the Cross, that we are saved by His Blood? This
means that our remembrance of the Last Supper is seen as an unbloody renewal of His
Life-blood offering of himself for us, which used to be called the Sacrifice of the Mass.
This means for Catholics that this holy sacred ritual is so above our ordinary secular
concerns and life that it can be only offered in special places and by special people,
specially set apart from the Laity, with sacred duties, and sacred orders just as Jewish
priests were guardians of the temple worship. Since Christianity arose as a cult out of the Jewish Covenant in which blood sacrifices
and a special priesthood were expected and necessary, then Christians too, it was
assumed by Jewish converts, must have priests set apart for the function of offering
divine gifts and being a mediator between the Holiness of God and the common folk.
One mark of his being set aside for these purposes would be that the priest would be
different from laity, and one way that could be is that ideally he would be celibate,
above earthy, sexual and sensual matters--which were greatly devalued by the early
church. Thus to view Jesus death as a sacrifice requires a special group, a holy
brotherhood, to honor and protect the renewal of this sacrifice in ritual and unbloody
fashion, and thus the necessity for hierarchy, religious power and control, is born. A
meditation written in 1989 follows. When church provides a haven for those who want the comfort of loving Jesus without the discomfort of finding the Holy One among the lost, last, least and lame, then church is mystifying religion as something we can do apart from and unconnected with human pain. We want the assurance of being Christian without the cost: God in our pocket while we are not inconvenienced by what we proclaim on Sundays, ...Could the primary enemy of God still be church itself: its love of elitism, its refusal to be self-critical, preferring the warm, fuzzy, "feeling-good" Jesus? Could the people of Eastern Europe by voting with their feet challenging arrest, risking lives by facing the lies of their own history be closer to the Kingdom than Americans who with small passion for justice still staunchly believe they have it all and can be Christian too? (The Mystifying Church: Advent Corrupted, 1989 Paschal Bernard Baute) After thinking and writing about these issues, in stories, parable and meditations for
many years, it seems that Rene Girard best expresses both the doubts and the
questions that I have regarding the sacrificial death of Jesus (3)
I believe that the cultural
consequences, past and future, of viewing Jesus' Passion and Death as a required
sacrifice are so dehumanizing and severe, that we must truly question the accuracy of
this reading. It is possible and even likely that Jesus came to do away with all sacrifices
by his surrender to the circumstances that gathered around him. What happened was
predictable, at least in hindsight, but not inevitable. To the Pharisees' expression of
scandal at Jesus behavior in eating with tax collectors and sinners, Jesus replied: "Go
and Learn what is meant by the words: Compassion is what I desire, and not sacrifice."
Girard suggests that Jesus actually sets the cult practice of sacrifice apart and as
finished when he says: "So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember
that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and
go: first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Mat 5:23-24) The Passion and Death of Jesus is presented in the gospels as an act that brings
salvation to humanity, but it is not presented as a sacrifice by any definition such as
expiation, substitution, atonement, etc. If Jesus Passion and Death is not a sacrifice,
then what is the meaning to be discovered for us? As long as we are saved by His
Blood, we have an easy way to understand what happened. But if it were not a required
or intended sacrifice, then we must examine 1) how secular society itself tends to be
godless and how its ruling elites will always reject any challenge to their power, any
challenge to the status quo; 2) how we humans still have a "radical incapacity" to
understand our own violence (see the chapter later on the human shadow); 3) how a
radical following of Jesus' message will always set us apart from society as a "scandal",
such as been the case for witnesses for peace and justice in our nuclear age, such as
Dorothy Day, the Berrigan brothers, McAllister and a few others, 4) how to listen and
learn what Jesus message is, rather than simply believe we are saved "by His Blood."
5) why Jesus was seen as a rebel and a serious threat to the ruling elites, both Roman
and Hebrew: The way in which he preaches can only make him appear to be totally lacking
in respect for the holiest of institutions, guilty of hubris and blasphemy, since
he dares to rival God himself in the perfection of the Love that he never ceases
to make manifest. ....Faithful to the logic of sacrifice, those who have refused the invitation to the
Kingdom are obliged to turn against Jesus . They can hardly fail to see in him
the sworn enemy and corrupter of the very cultural order that they are vainly
attempting to restore. This means that violence will find in Jesus the most perfect victim that can be
imagined, the victim that, for every conceivable reason, violence has the most
reasons to pick on. Yet at the same time, this victim is also the most innocent. (4) We are suggesting that Jesus death was not a sacrifice but in order that there be no
more sacrifices. This is to recognize in him the Word of God: "I desire compassion
(mercy) not sacrifice." Where that Word is not obeyed, the Passion of Jesus' Mystical
Body remains alive and suffering, and wherever violence remains, Jesus must continue
to die. Jesus is the only person who achieved what God has set for all mankind, the
only man who has nothing to do with violence and its works. When we prefer the absurd notion that God required sacrifice, then this absolves us
from responsibility of examining the human propensity for violence, our collective
tendency as a community/society to reject what challenges and scandalizes our
assumptions, to oppose any confrontation, and our unconscious need to scapegoat and
"sacrifice" those responsible for the "scandal." When we refuse the summons to this
examination when requires constant renewal, then we are more easily part of a
community that rejects Jesus again. And we can be part of a community that rejects
compassion and brotherly love as a guiding principle, even though we Christians can
"pile up" good deeds and pious actions. This belief in blood sacrifice contributes to
generalizing and stereotyping, either-or kind of thinking: We Christians (of our
denomination) are the chosen ones, "the good guys," and Jews, Islamics and others
are the "bad guys" We do not have to examine our own propensity toward violence,
toward not loving, toward blaming and anger, toward stereotyping and scapegoating,
toward the many ways we distance ourselves from the pain of others. We do not have
to examine ourselves nor society nor the propensities of the status quo or the Powers
That Be which will always reject challenge and change. Not to accept the message of
nonviolence is to continue it unconsciously in many hidden ways, even in and
especially in our own families. We have refused to see that the human community is dominated, seduced and
entranced by violence. Yes, we agree that the world is evil and violent, but we do not
accept this as part of our own human condition. This enables us to project our violence
on others. Even religious leaders do this in their readiness to find fault with those who
disagree publicly with them. A recent example of this appeared as this was being
written. (5) The Catholic Theological Society of American (CTSA) stated that further
examination of tradition and scripture was necessary before women could be excluded
from ordination. In response, under the heading "A theological wasteland" Cardinal
Bernard Law of Boston wrote: "What a pity that those who have a stranglehold on the
CTSA are so turned in on themselves. The academic theological community has
become victim to the various politically correct currents of academe. A significant
number of those claiming the credential of Catholic theologian has not received a
graduate education from Catholic institutions. Often lacking an adequate grasp of
Catholic thought, they more easily fall into the prevailing intellectual culture of the
secular university. It becomes difficult if not impossible for them to evangelize the
culture which has formed and which sustains them. " Notice the blemishing and
stereotyping of one of the ruling elite of the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S. toward those
professional theologians who differ with the prevailing view of the hierarchy. This is a useful example of the use of violent words against others, even against those
of our own faith who happen to disagree with us. We humans can justify this by
refusing to conceive that those who differ from us can have valid and important reasons
for doing so. It is a refusal to hear the Other, which is, in fact, symbolically "killing" him,
that is, refusing his or her right to exist in opposition to our view. We refuse to listen to
views that are not the same as ours. This act, I am proposing, is refusing the most
basic concept of religion, that is, to love the Stranger, to accept and embrace those
who are different from us. Actually to refuse to love our brother is to kill him. What turns Christianity in upon itself is the prevalent tendency to present a hostile face
toward all that is not Christian. Christians believing that they are special by way of their
beliefs and righteously separated from other more worldly persons, allows Christians to
be blind to their own unredeemed instincts and impulses. Because we Christians are
"saved" (and saved by His blood) and must believe this, we are oblivious to our own
blind Shadow selves. In a later chapter I will explain how neglecting to accept the
power of the personal unconscious dooms Christianity to failure. When we place the natural "home" of violence out there, on the Jews, on the Stranger,
on others of any stripes, including on the government by radical patriots, or by imputing
motives or incompetence to those we disagree with, then we do not have to look
honestly at ourselves, we do not have to accept that we can be governed by the power
of our unconscious, or what Carl Jung called the Human Shadow. We do not have to
accept that ours is a violent nation founded on the genocide of a native people, whom
we called savages, and that our nation is still involved in CIA conspiracies of violent
and murder for the sake of "peace, and training in murder and terrorism," training that is
exporting terrorism to third world countries. I have summarized the differences between these two views in a table on the next
page. End of part 2. Consequences of the meaning of Jesus' Death Jesus died for our sins Jesus died to be true to Himself for a greater purpose. Violence is approved. We are part of an irrational godless society. Sense of entitlement leads to "power-over" and
supports the Dominator model of society. God wills suffering for a "higher good." God could never will suffering for higher
"good" = Bonhoffers "cheap grace." Idolatries. Measuring & paying the "cost of discipleship" Forced conversions & violence can be
justified. this act was required and non-negotiable. The Law and the Prophets constituted, as Girard points out, a genuine announcement of
the Gospel, a praefiguratio Christi--though well hidden, as the Middle Ages testified, but
there was no foreshadowing of a Messiah who would die as a vicarious offering for sin.
This was totally contrary to all Hebrew tradition.(6) Jesus intended to turn the long page of
the human history of violence once and for all, but his preaching failed because of the
indifference and disdain of his hearers. Where Jesus' word is not followed, where violence
remains the master as it does in today's world, then Jesus must die again in his Mystical
Body repeatedly. Here in the USA, we live in a society that glorifies violence and in a
nation that exports violence as the most prolific seller of arms in the history of the world.
Moreover, we are still willing to employ nuclear destruction for our national purposes.
Girard makes clear that a non-sacrificial reading of the Gospel texts and the letters of
Paul, excluding the Letter to the Hebrews, is not only possible, but far more plausible. Until we face this traditional misreading of the Gospel, we cannot accept or understand
the human propensity for violence and our own unconscious continuing participation in it,
and therefore our symbolic continuance of the founding murder of Christ upon many
others. When we do not love our brothers and sisters, we kill them, in a thousand ways,
but as often by indifference and neglect as by selling arms to the world. We cannot see
nor understand the prevalence of the Human Shadow, how sweet reason sits like an
earthly crust on hot seething lava that is ready to explode at any time. We do not
understand how we are still under the influence of the demonic in our pretensions and
denials, hidden addictions to comfort, etc., and are, in truth, naively whistling in the dark. ...both Buddhists and Christians need to rethink the meaning of their own
narrative traditions of death and rebirth in the light of the historical
implications of the myths of life through death and their links to the ethics
of obedience, the narratives of killing in order to heal and the public
policies of nuclear MAD-ness. For those narrative traditions...seem to
have, historically speaking been closely tied to the eruption of the
demonic.(7) Many years ago while teaching in a college in Florida I used to take students regularly to a Passion Play in central Florida. At one of the performances, the manager who knew me came to me and asked if I would be willing to be one of the High Priests as they were short that night. I said sure, and he took me to the dressing room and gave me a few directions. Now at that time I was a Benedictine monk and Catholic priest with vows and spent about 3 hours per day in community prayer. My devotional life was centered entirely on Jesus. Nevertheless something strange happened when I put on that robe, played that part and joined the crowd. I found myself being caught up in the crowd, and having no trouble at all saying: "No, we do not want Barrabas. Take Jesus, crucify him." And as I said it I was at the same time in some shock. I would not have believed it possible for that to happen had it not happened. I had no idea of the power of the crowd or the passion of being caught up in the drama. I have thought since, if I could do that in a play despite my deep basic love of Jesus and daily living for Him in vows... how free could I be to stand apart in a group or a society or a culture? Since that significant shocking event forme I have been open to the idea of the unconscious mind, and the power of what Carl Jung called the Human Shadow. Jesus chose to wage a nonviolent resistance to the purity codes that excluded many. He
was transformed by a vision and intimacy of a gracious and embracing God. His surrender
to the authorities was an act of congruence with his life and message: Radical discipleship
means a dying, a death. Death to self is at the center of his new Kingdom. He was more than a prophet and a teacher of Wisdom. We can say that he was the
embodiment of Wisdom. It was his prophetic call to change the system that caused his
death. What killed Jesus was conventional wisdom and a politics of holiness which are
still very much with us today. Ultimately it was a conflict between a life grounded in a
certain holy culture and a life grounded in Spirit. He called his people to an alternative
consciousness and a new community. His radical call to transform his culture is what
caused his death. I believe with Girard and Abelard(8), that there is no other cause for Jesus' death than the
love of one's neighbor lived to the end, with an infinitely intelligent grasp of the constraints
it imposes "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends
(John 15:13). (9) Jesus died that we may love one another the way He loved us, that is,
ultimately, finally, completely, with our whole minds, hearts and souls. Some questions: 1. Did the view that God required the sacrificial death of the Son, the
willingness to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus, and unwillingness to accept them as
equals after the Resurrection contribute to the fratricide that was practiced by Christians
for nearly 2000 years? 2. Is the view that comes from this proposed misreading of the meaning of the death of
Jesus, namely that :killing is necessary for healing" been responsible for much violence
on the part of Christians, not only against others but against each other? 3. If God can demand the sacrifice of the Son, is "war for the sake of peace" more easily
justified, and conditions for a just war can be rationalized? 4. Assuming that both Catholics and Protestants are sincere Christians, and noting that
Catholic services are oriented around the Eucharist as the remembrance of Jesus last
meal, giving his body and blood for us, while Protestant services are oriented around the
preaching of the Word with Adult Sunday school discussions of the meaning of the bible,
does the fact that Protestants contribute on the average twice as much as the average
Catholic, with the contrast between the two types of services suggest the possible
operational availability of "cheap grace"? 5. If what I have suggested is the true meaning of the death of Jesus what are our
implications for prayer and worship, and what can be the spiritual meaning of the
Eucharist? 6. Is the our continuing religious observances of Sunday services, without extending
ourselves to the poor and needy, a way of reassuring ourselves that we have God "in our
pocket" but we are not Christian in our behavior? 7. If we refuse to see that Jesus was murdered because he was seen as a threat to the
status quo, does this permit us to continue to support and sustain the status quo with all
its seductions, while not recognizing how godless it really is? 8. Does believing that the Jews did it or that it was God's will release us from the
obligation of facing how close to the irrational we all live, that any of us can become a
member of a mob or sports rally calling "kill 'em." , that is, we can sustain a personal myth
of surface righteousness and a belief that we are different from people who are capable of
violent actions? 9. Would you believe me if I told you that most churches of any denominations have no
budgeted line item for service to the poor, homeless, hungry, etc. and that most suburban
churches have only incidental connection with shelters for the homeless, community
kitchens, clothing banks, etc.? 10. Does Christianity use its doctrine of Christ's death to deny the ongoing enduring
sinfulness of the human race (and our participation in it consumerism, unrestrained
capitalism, narcissistic individualism, etc., of American culture, etc.--"just believe in Jesus
and go to church..." ) with no effective social challenge? 11. If we (I) cannot welcome and sustain challenge to our religious symbols, concepts
and narratives, is this a sign of idolatry instead of spirituality? +++ Notes to chapter Did Jesus Die for Our Sins: 1. Girard 186
2. Girard,-The Girard Reader, Crossroad Herder, NY, 1996. 3. Girard. The Girard Reader. Ed. James G. Williams. New York: Crossroad/Herder
1996, p. 178.
Jesus died for our sins: God required the
sacrificial death of the Son. His Blood was
necessary to redeem a sinful people.
Jesus died because he was seen as an
enemy of the status quo. He renounced his life
to be true to his message of brotherly love
refusing violence, as an end to all violence. The death of Jesus was inevitable because
God's justice demanded sacrifice & the Son
was willing to participate in his own murder.
The death of Jesus was inevitable because of
the inability of the world to receive the Word of
God which will always be a scandal to world Core belief: Something must die before
something can live. Violence is willed by God
Core belief: society will always scapegoat &
violently reject anyone who challenges its
assumptions. People are naturally irrational. Jesus has died for us, we are a special people
and some are more equal than others.
Human dignity is unconditional. All peoples are
special, all equal, all wounded but graced. God justifies death for a higher good. War and
violence can still be blessed and justified.
Jesus' murder teaches us no violence or war
can be justified. Jesus died to end all violence Jesus died because he was rejected by the
Jews. Jews are at fault & their covenant is
rejected.
Jesus died because he was rejected by a
godless society, and such will always happen.
When Jesus' death is mystified by Divine
Purpose, then clergy and hierarchy are
necessary. "Power over" is divinely founded.
When Jesus died because society cannot
accept the challenge of Otherness, we are
summoned to welcome & love the Stranger. All authority is from God through all our
leaders, & is be obeyed without question, even
tyrants and kings. Any disobedience threatens
order & must be suppressed. Right order must
prevail.
Authority is through people who can be easily
corrupted & seduced by violence. Democracy
is necessary for freedom. Civil disobedience
can be appropriate and necessary, but is
costly. We can know that we are "saved"-- conversion
can be "cheap grace" without personal cost.
We are called to radical personal renewal from
inside out, to "scandal" of radical discipleship. We need only to focus on being "good." If we
are both good and sincere we cannot be bad.
We must understand how wounded & blind we
remain bec. OUR blindness crucified Jesus. Some are more favored by God than "others."
Every wisdom path is equal and valuable. We
are all equal, invited to cooperation and
partnership; Each is blind, wounded but
graced. We have the answers about God. Answers &
right teaching about God are most important
and are the criteria by which we rightly judge.
Questions are more important. They keep us
open, humble & connected with the Infinite
Other. Truth without love is not gospel truth. If Jesus death is sacrificial, then further
sacrifices can be summoned in God's name.
If Jesus death is not sacrificial, God desires
mercy and refrains from all form of reprisal.
Jesus died for our sins: we are a redeemed
people needing to avoid sin and sinful people:
focus is on sin and the blood price of sin.
Jesus died for us to show us the ultimate in
brotherly love and to end all sacrifice. Focus is
on mercy, divine friendship & loving th'
stranger "Talk the talk"--Sunday services & prayer
reassure us that we have "God in our pocket:"
"Walk the walk"--We must find & welcome the
Holy One in the least, lost, last, and the lame:
Jesus death was the ultimate sacrifice. This
founding murder is our redemption and forever
justifies suffering or death for a "greater good."
Jesus died not as a sacrifice but as the
ultimate gift of himself & lesson that there be
no more sacrifices or violence of any kind. No
cause can override respect for human dignity. Jesus died to satisfy a wrathful vengeful God
Jesus died for Love of us sinners to show us
another way & to save us from ourselves. CONSEQUENCES: Church on Sunday, life as
usual. Five percent of the local congregation
does 90% of the work: Sunday attendance
averages from 5% Europe to 25-35% U.S.A.
Church in Europe is only for "hatch, match and
dispatch." Christianity has no real influence in
the world. Most Christians are nominal. Church
does not develop soul or an authentic
spirituality. The absurdity of this belief to non-christians is off-putting and the source of
widespread disdain
CONSEQUENCES: Invitation to radical
discipleship, discovering an authentic faith,
listening to the Spirit, small group dynamic.
Willing to face our own violence (Shadow)
Emphasis on peacemaking, nonviolent
witness, joy and celebration. Worship of a God
who opposes all forms of violence. Openness
to other wisdom traditions, and community
building, a diaspora spirituality, a faith that
dares to question Ikons, a radical humility and
welcoming the Stranger. © Paschal Baute, 1997
4. G. p. 182
5. NCR editorial page, 24, July 18, 1997
6. Andre Girard. Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Stanford, CA: Stanford Press, 1987. Pp 180-223.
7. Fasching, Donald, The Ethical Challenge of Auschwitz and Hiroshima. New York: State University Press, 1993, p 173.
8. Fiddes, Paul. Past Event and Present Salvation (the Christian Idea of Atonement) Westminister/John Know Press, Louisville, 1989.
9. Girard, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Press, 1987. P. 211