Rejecting Substitutionary Atonement

I reject the concept of substitutionary atonement.

Bishop John Shelby Spong said in a sermon, "Jesus did not die for your sins. Let that be said a thousand times." Spong was speaking against the concept of substitutionary atonement, the idea that Jesus was sacrificed as the only possible appeasement acceptable to God for the sins of mankind. Former Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan calls substitutionary atonement "very bad theology." He goes on to say, "It's a crime against divinity." And it is. Only only works if God is vile.

God is not vile.

Substitutionary atonement depends on Man being inherently evil. It depends on all of us being born of original sin, which by some magical method, we automatically inherit from Adam and Eve and their fall from paradise.

There's a profound problem with the story of the fall in the Garden of Eden. It’s a bad story. It doesn’t ring true. Consider the initial condition of Adam and Eve. They are naked and naive. They are so naïve they don’t realize that they are naked and they don't know that there is anything wrong with being naked. They do not know what wrong means. They are blissfully ignorant of wrongness or rightness. They are complete innocents. We see this clearly in the 2nd chapter of Genesis where God told Adam, (Gen 2:16-17) “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.“ Here we see God tell us that Adam has no knowledge of good and evil, no knowledge of right and wrong, and that only if he eats a certain fruit will he acquire that knowledge. The astute reader will also note that Eve wasn’t there for the message; she was not created until later (Gen 2:22).

The first thing we hear from Eve is that the subtle serpent is talking to her, convincing her to eat of the fruit. Eve says, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.’” (Gen 3:2-3). Then the serpent says, “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” This statement, apart from telling Eve that God has lied about the fruit being lethal, confirms the woman’s innocence and her inability to tell right from wrong.

We all know what happens. Eve eats the fruit, Adam eats the fruit, they gain knowledge of good and evil, God finds out and throws them out of the garden. They don’t die (as God said they would – the serpent was right), they just have to go out and make their own living. What a crappy story! It really paints God as a lying pea-brain. Pea-brained! How can He punish Adam and Eve for doing the wrong thing when he knows for a fact that they don’t know the difference between right and wrong. It’s like punishing your dog for eating your bacon after you drop in into his dish. I reject this story because God doesn’t lie, and God’s not pea-brained.

OK fine. Now that I’ve pitched out the story of the fall, with it comes the concept of substitutionary atonement-- the belief that the reason Jesus died on the cross was to save us from our sins. This awful notion that holds that we are born so sinful that God just can’t get over it. He can't forgive us. Why not? Because we inherited so much sin from Eve, who committed the unforgivable crime of eating fruit when she didn’t know any better. Substitutionary atonement says that the only way that God could ever forgive us would be if his only begotten son was murdered as a sacrifice. Again! Another version of an asshole of a God is not only pea-brained, but mean as the dickens, unyielding, spiteful, angry and just plain vicious. I reject this story, too. God’s not an asshole, he’s not even wrathful.

So, who invented this terrible vision of God? Was it Anselm of Canterbury? Was it because he made up the theory because he couldn't otherwise understand why Jesus died?

Among other things Anselm wrote: “"Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam. Nam et hoc credo, quia, nisi credidero, non intelligam," which can be translated as "Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand." This woeful wrongheadedness for our times. Maybe it was fine for the 11th century when the world was a much larger, simpler place, but today it’s a recipe for disaster. Think about it, first believe, then understand. First make up your mind, then look for justification. This is how Rush Limbaugh makes a living. Today, this is the way millions develop their world view about issues like global warming, energy policies and human rights, as spinoffs from the way they view their religion, the view they use to accept substitutionary atonement. It is such a bad idea for our time. It is the way of crimes against divinity. God is not the product of crimes, and he doesn’t want us to be criminal, either.