It's been awhile since I posted something evilly bashing Christianity, or at least the whole God-had-to-kill-himself-instead-of-you-to-forgive-you variety. But then recently I got these two e-mails that seem to dovetail together nicely, in terms of being totally opposing opinions.
First, here is an e-mail story forwarded to me by my sister. I did not realize she went in for this sort of thing, but it did come from elsewhere. I think just reading the story gives a pretty good refutation of the very message it's trying to convey. Nevertheless, I have sumptin' else posted below it that discusses why my sister (whom I don't mean to seem like I'm bashing; she's a great young lady) and whoever originated this story seem to be off the mark regarding a little theological smoke-plume called atonement theory.
Will You Eat The Donut ?>>>>There was a certain professor of religion named Dr. Christianson, a >>studious>>man who taught at a small college in the western United States. Dr.>>Christianson taught a required course in Christianity at this >>Particular>>institution. Every student was required to take this course >>regardless of>>his or her major.>>>>Although Dr. Christianson tried hard to communicate the essence of >>the>>Gospel in his class, he found that most of his students looked upon >>the>>course as nothing more than required drudgery. Despite his best >>efforts,>>most students refused to take Christianity seriously.>>>>This year Dr. Christianson had a special student named Steve. Steve >>was only>>a freshman, but was studying with the intent of going on to >>Seminary. Steve>>was popular, well liked and an imposing physical specimen. He was >>the>>starting center on the school football team and the best student in >>the>>class.>>>>One day, Dr. Christianson asked Steve to stay after class so he >>could talk>>with him. "How many push-ups can you do?">>>>Steve said, "I do about 200 every night.">>>>"200? That's pretty good, Steve," Dr. Christianson said. "Do you >>think you>>could do 300?">>>>"I don't know," Steve replied, "I've never done 300 at a time.">>>>"Do you think you could?" again asked the professor.>>>>"Well, I could try," said Steve.>>>>"Can you do 300 in sets of 10? I have a class project and I need >>you to do>>about 300 push-ups in sets of ten for this to work. Can you do it? >>I need>>you to tell me you can do it," said Dr. Christianson.>>>>Steve said, "Well... I think I can... yeah, I can do it.">>>>Dr. Christianson said, "Good! I need you to do this on Friday. Let >>me>>explain what I have in mind.">>>>Friday came and Steve got to class early and sat in the front of >>the room.>>When class started, the professor pulled out a big box of donuts. >>Now these>>weren't the normal kind of donuts, these were the big fancy kind, >>with cream>>centers and frosting swirls. Everyone was pretty excited that it >>was Friday,>>the last class of the day, and they were going to get an early >>start on the>>weekend with a party in Dr. Christianson's class.>>>>Dr. Christianson went to the first girl in the first row and asked, >>"Cynthia>>would you like one of these donuts?">>>>Cynthia said, "Yes please.">>>>Dr. Christianson then turned to Steve and asked, "Steve, would you >>please do>>ten push-ups so that Cynthia may have a donut?">>>>"Sure." Steve jumped down from the desk, did ten quick push-ups, >>and then>>returned to his desk. Dr. Christianson put a donut on Cynthia's >>desk.>>>>Dr. Christianson then went to Joe, the next person, and asked, "Joe >>do you>>want a donut?">>>>Joe said, "Yes.">>The professor asked, "Steve would you do ten push-ups so Joe can >>have a>>donut?">>>>Steve did ten push-ups and Joe got a donut. And so it went, down >>the first>>aisle. Steve did ten push-ups for each person before they received >>a donut.>>Dr. Christianson continued down the second aisle until he came to >>Scott.>>>>Scott was on the basketball team, and in as good of physical >>condition as>>Steve. Scott was popular and never lacking female companionship. >>When the>>professor asked, "Scott would you like a donut?">>>>Scott's reply was, "Yes, if I can do my own push-ups.">>>>Dr. Christianson said, "No, Steve has to do them.">>>>Scott said, "Then I don't want one">>>>The professor shrugged and then turned to Steve and asked, "Steve, >>would you>>do ten push-ups so Scott can have the donut he doesn't want?">>>>With perfect obedience Steve started to do the push-ups.>>>>Scott yelled, "HEY! I said I didn't want one!">>>>Dr. Christianson said sternly, "Look, this is my class, these are >>my desks,>>and these are my donuts. Just leave it on the desk if you don't >>want it" And>>he put a donut on Scott's desk.>>>>Now by this time, Steve had begun to perspire and was starting to >>slow down>>a little. He just stayed on the floor between sets because it took >>too much>>effort to get up and down. As Dr. Christianson started down the>>third row, many students were beginning to get a little angry.>>>>Dr. Christianson asked Jenny, "Jenny, do you want a donut?">>>>Jenny's answer was a firm, "No!">>>>Then Dr. Christianson asked Steve, "Steve, would you do ten more >>push-ups so>>Jenny can have a donut that she doesn't want?" Steve did >>ten...Jenny got a>>donut.>>>>By now, a growing sense of uneasiness filled the room. The students >>were>>beginning to say "No" and there were all these uneaten donuts on >>the desks.>>Steve also had to put forth a lot of extra effort to get these >>push-ups done>>for each donut. There was a pool of sweat on the floor beneath his >>face and>>his arms were beginning to turn red because of the physical effort >>being put>>forth.>>>>Because Dr. Christianson could no longer bear to watch Steve's hard >>work go>>for all these uneaten donuts, he asked Robert, the most vocal >>unbeliever in>>the class, to watch Steve do each push-up to make sure he did all>>ten in each set.>>>>As the professor started down the fourth row, he noticed some >>students from>>other classes had wandered in and sat down on the steps along the >>radiators>>that ran down the sides of the room. He did a quick count and>>saw that there were now thirty-four students in the room. He >>started to>>worry that Steve would not be able to make it. He went on to the >>next person>>and the next and the next. Near the end of the row, Steve was >>really having>>a hard time. It was taking a lot more time to complete each set.>>>>Just then, Jason, a recent transfer student, came to the room. He >>was about>>to enter when at once all of the students yelled, "NO!! Don't come >>in!!">>Jason didn't know what was going on.>>>>Steve picked up his head and said, "No, let him come.">>>>Professor Christianson said, "You realize that if Jason comes in >>you will>>have to do ten push-ups for him?">>>>"Yes, let him come in. Give him a donut.">>>>Dr. Christianson said, "Okay Steve, I'll let you get Jason's out of >>the way>>right now. Jason, do you want a donut?">>>>Not even knowing what was going on, Jason said, "Yes, I'll have a >>donut.">>>>"Steve, will you do ten push-ups so that Jason can have a donut?">>>>Steve did ten very slow and labored push-ups. Jason, bewildered, >>was handed>>a donut and sat down.>>>>Dr. Christianson finished the fourth row and started on the >>visitors seated>>by the radiators. Steve's arms were now shaking with each push-up >>in a>>struggle to lift himself against the force of gravity. Sweat was >>profusely>>dripping off of his face and there was no sound except his heavy >>breathing.>>By this time, there was not a dry eye in the room.>>>>The very last two students in the room were two young women, both>>cheerleaders, and very well-liked. Dr. Christianson went to Linda >>and asked>>if she wanted a donut.>>>>Linda said, very sadly, "No, thank you.">>>>The professor quietly asked, "Steve, would you do ten push-ups so >>that Linda>>can have a donut she doesn't want?" Grunting from the effort, Steve >>did ten>>very slow push-ups for Linda.>>>>The Dr. Christianson turned to the last girl, Susan "Susan, do you >>want a>>donut?">>>>Susan, with tears streaming down her face pleaded, >>"Dr.Christianson, why>>can't I help him?">>>>Dr. Christianson, with tears of his own, explained, "No, Steve has >>to do it>>alone. I have given him this task and he is in charge of seeing >>that>>everyone here has an opportunity for a donut whether they want it >>or not.>>When I decided to have a party this last day of class, I looked at >>my grade>>book. Steve is the only student with a perfect grade. Everyone else >>has>>failed a test, skipped class, or offered up inferior work. Steve >>told me>>that in football practice when a player messes up, he has to do >>push-ups. I>>told Steve that none of you could come to the party unless he paid >>the price>>by doing your push-ups. He and I made a deal for your sakes.>>>>>>Steve, would you do ten push-ups so Susan can have a donut?">>>>As Steve very slowly finished his last push-up, with the >>understanding that>>he had accomplished all that was required of him, having done 350 >>push-ups,>>his arms buckled beneath him and he fell to the floor.>>>>Dr. Christianson turned to the room and said, "And so it was, that >>our>>Savior, Jesus Christ, plead to the Father, 'into Thy hands I >>commend my>>spirit.' With the understanding that He had accomplished all that >>was>>required of Him, He yielded up His life for us. And like some of >>those in>>this room, many leave the gift on the desk, uneaten.">>>>Two students helped Steve up off the floor and to a seat, >>physically>>exhausted, but wearing a thin smile.>>>>"Well done good and faithful servant," said the professor, adding, >>"Not all>>sermons are preached in words.">>>>Turning to the class the professor said, "My wish is that you might>>understand and fully comprehend all the riches of grace and mercy >>that have>>been given to you through the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior >>Jesus Christ.>>God spared not His only begotten son, but gave him up for us and >>for the>>whole world, now and forever. Whether we choose to accept His gift >>to us,>>the price for our sins has been paid. Wouldn't it be foolish and >>wouldn't it>>be ungrateful just to leave it laying on the desk?">>>>>>
Suffice to say that the atonement theory of Jesus' torture by hierarchical authorities makes as little sense as one guy doing pushups for somebody else to eat donuts. If you looked at the donut story by itself, I don't think you could tell me that the pushup scheme would make sense. Same with the atonement theory -- which, by the way, was first articulated in the form we know now back in medieval times by St. Anselm of Canturbury in his book Cur Deus Homo. Before that book, people had different theories -- ransom paid to the devil, etc -- for the Passion of the Christ.
Okay, now here is an e-mail I got that contains a Q&A with Bishop John Shelby Spong, who usually comes across as an insufferable hippie rainbows-and-lollipops liberal Christian. Despite this, I find myself agreeing with the self-aggrandizing bastard about atonement theory. This post has Spong answering a question about atonement theory and why, (all respect to my actually quite intelligent sister and my actually smarter-than-me friends who believe this), it's dumb:
The Rev. Dr. Kathleen from Michigan writes: "Overcoming the widespread Christian belief that "Jesus died for my sins" seems an insurmountable challenge! Preachers, liturgical rites, hymns and religious education curricula continue to reinforce "atonement theology/theories." Would you do a series on "atonement theology/theories" - their origins, rationale, continued justification, etc.? Personally and pastorally, "atonement" thinking creates a mire of destructive results and I, for one, would well appreciate your cogent analysis of how we might best approach this. "
Dear Kathleen,Thank you for your letter and its challenge. There is no doubt that atonement/sacrifice theology constitutes a deep burden that weighs down the Christian faith today. I work on this subject constantly. It is a major theme in two of my books, Why Christianity Must Change or Die and A New Christianity for a New World. I am still engaged in this study as I begin to work on a new book scheduled for publication in 2007 and tentatively entitled, Jesus for the Non-Religious.
Atonement theology, however, involves far more than a salvation doctrine. It brings into question the theistic understanding of God and even the morality of God. This theology assumes that God is an external Being who invades the world to heal the fallen creation. It also assumes that this God enters this fallen world in the person of the Son to pay the price of human evil on the cross. It was the central theme in Mel Gibson's motion picture; "The Passion of the Christ" which might have been dramatically compelling but it represented a barbaric, sado-masochistic, badly dated and terribly distorted biblical and theological perspective.
All atonement theories root in a sense of human alienation and with it a sense of human powerlessness. "Without Thee we can do nothing good!" So we develop legends about the God who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves. For Christianity, I am convinced that our basic atonement theology finds its taproot not in the story of the cross but in the liturgy of the synagogue, especially Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement. In the Yom Kippur liturgy an innocent lamb was slain and the people were symbolically cleansed by the saving blood of this sacrificed Lamb of God. Jesus was similarly portrayed as the new Lamb of God. As we Christians tell the story of Jesus' dying for our sins in doctrine, hymns and liturgy, we quite unknowingly turn God into an ogre, a deity who practices child sacrifice and a guilt-producing figure, who tells us that our sinfulness is the cause of the death of Jesus. God did it to him instead of to us who deserved it. Somehow that is supposed to make it both antiseptic and worthwhile. It doesn't. I think we can and must break the power of these images. Just the fact that you are sensitive to it and offended by it is a start.
Consciousness is rising on this issue all over the Church, and as it does, Christianity will either change or die. There is no alternative. I vote for change, obviously you do too.
-- John Shelby Spong
I don't have exactly the same objections to the theory as Spork does, but it's sort of close. I don't really care about whether the theory posits "human powerlessness" or whether the theory advances the idea that God is "outside" the universe, whatever that means. I'm cool with the idea that humanity is essentially powerless before God (however God can be defined), and I really don't see what the point of God being "inside" or "outside" the universe is -- but that's another rant, perhaps. I do think the theory makes God look a tad ogre-ish, but without the layers. If not ogre-ish, at least as illogical as someone cutting off their hand in order to forgive you or something like that. The whole "somebody has to pay for the sin, even if it's not the sinner" goes back literally to the medieval thinking and the legal tradition of feudalism.
Okay, so not real long after posting this whole thing above, I got another Spong e-mail that also deals with the crucifixion/atonement:
Allan Hytowitz from the Internet writes: "How do you personally, and Christian doctrine in particular, reconcile the contradiction of that biblical prohibition against child sacrifice with the claim that "God sacrificed his child" in explaining the horrific death of Jesus? It seems to me that rather than the "sacrifice of Jesus" being of benefit to Christians, it serves more to threaten them with death and/or eternal punishment if they are not obedient to the wishes and decrees of the Church."
Dear Allan,I think you have hit the Christological nail right on the head. The whole sacrifice mentality that permeates Christian theology needs to be raised to consciousness and expelled from Christianity. However, it is so deep that many feel that Christianity will die if it is ever separated from this idea.
Child sacrifice was part of ancient religion even in Judaism as the story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac suggests. It was later replaced with animal sacrifice that was very much a part of worship in the Old Testament. The Passover observance was marked by the sacrifice of the paschal lamb. Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement was also marked by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, whose blood was thought to cleanse the people from their sins.
It was all but inevitable that the crucifixion of Jesus would be interpreted against the background of these two Jewish worship traditions. Paul calls Jesus our "new paschal lamb" and the images of Yom Kippur are present throughout the Gospels in such places as when Paul says: "he died for our sins"; when Mark calls his death a "ransom;" and when John the Baptist refers to Jesus as "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." Even the story of the cross in which we are told, "none of his (Jesus') bones were broken," was drawn from the liturgy of the Yom Kippur sacrifice.
Because that was how the 1st century Jews interpreted the death of Christ does not mean that we are bound by that thinking forever. Human attitudes toward child sacrifice are today violently negative. Attitudes toward animal sacrifice are expressed in such words as "cult worship," "black magic" and "devil liturgies." I wonder why these negative concepts are not allowed to flow toward the interpretation of Jesus' death as a sacrifice required by God to overcome the sins of the world. That idea makes God barbaric. It makes Jesus the victim of a sadistic deity. It introduces masochism into Christianity and it deeply violates the essential note of the Gospel, which is that God is love calling us to love.
Why can we not see the cross, not as a sacrifice, but as an ultimate expression of the humanity of one who was so whole he could give his life away and of one who wanted to demonstrate that even when you kill the love of God, the love of God still loves its killers? Why can we not get away from that message of guilt and control that is found in the pious but destructive phrase, "Jesus died for my sins"?
I believe that the future of Christianity rests on our ability in the Christian Church to escape the language of sacrifice and punishment and begin to think in terms of finding in Jesus the power to live fully, the grace to love wastefully and the courage to be all that we can be.
Thank you for your question.
-- John Shelby Spong
Again, I differ from von Sporkingham in that I'm not much bothered about the atonement theory necessitating guilt: guilt is as guilt does. The point as I see it is that the way to actually deal with guilt from a religious angle -- which for me emcompasses most of the rest of what Christians consider "repentence," with contrition and attempting to do better -- doesn't have jack shit to do with some guy nailed to a piece of wood, whether or not that guy is God. And as far as sacrifice goes, I believe that sacrifice is essential in spirituality. The thing is though that we don't sacrifice sheep or cows or toddlers or divinely infused Jewish carpenters -- what is really required of us is a sacrifice of our own egos. Anything we have to give up in order to do what is right is ultimately what God asks of us -- no more, indeed, but no less. That's my theological profundity for the day.
Anyway, I think that the Losing My Religion site puts my own personal objections into words better than that foil for the fundamentalists babbling college-talk above. The funny thing about the Losing My Religion site is that when I discovered it, I was fascinated because I had already thought of so many of the objections to Christian atonement theory already after my educational stint as a Jesus freak. Please don't think I got all my ideas about putting down Christianity from that site, because the truth is I came up with most of those same arguments before I knew about Losing My Religion.
Also, please do not think I agree with everthing they say either. I think they're a bit unnecessarily hard on the idea of God being a bully just for wanting you to be ethical. I do think that ethics can really not be justified without some kind of carrot-stick scheme such as a god would implement. On the whole, however, I agree with them well enough.
