Third Millennium Church

Theology - The Fallacy of the Substitutionary Atonement

I realize that it is difficult to examine the question of the substitutionary atonement in a detached and logical manner. Many of us were told for years, perhaps even from birth, that this doctrine is the centerpiece of Christianity—indeed, a doctrine without which none of us can be saved. One the one side stands Paul and his doctrine of the substitutionary atonement and on the other the despicable doctrine of salvation by works, the lair of atheists and witches. It is an emotional issue. But Jesus did not come to bring us emotional dogma. He came to bring us the truth. I want to examine three problems with this doctrine that make it untenable for me.

I have argued elsewhere for a view of hermeneutics that I call Value Interpretation and a method of theology that I call Forest Theology. I will not reargue those points here. Suffice it to say that any biblical literalist will immediately find fault with my hermeneutical and theological method. For, as Luther threw James out of the Bible because he didn’t like what he had to say against Paul, so I am throwing out Paul. I can do this, I believe, because every interpreter of the Bible "cooks the books" as it were. I am just being honest about it, as Luther was. Briefly, consider the Bible not a literal record of some mystical Truth (because it isn’t; it is full of logical contradictions), but rather as a record of the way people have followed God throughout history, so that we can learn from their successes and failures and (this is the important part) construct our own view of God, our own Christianity. The Bible is a toolbox for building religions; it does not express one solitary religion.

The Logical Fallacy

Paul’s doctrine of the substitutionary atonement teaches that Jesus died "in our place" or "as a substitute for us". His vocabulary comes from two places: legal jargon and business jargon. Paul sometimes says that Jesus took upon himself the punishment that we deserved. Elsewhere he argues that Jesus paid our debt. The idea is that we as humans have some kind of judgment against us by God, but that Jesus steps in as a substitute and sets things right with God. Thus the name, substitutionary atonement.

Paul argues that this punishment that we have coming is death, or eternal separation from God, and that it is deserved because of our sin. Some sects argue that the sin came from Adam failing God’s test in the Garden of Eden while others argue that it comes from our own personal daily disobedience to God. It does not matter for our discussion which view you hold. Why is the punishment for sin death? If we hold a traditional view of God as the Creator of the universe, that means there can be nothing binding God. God exists outside and beyond the universe. He is not subject to its laws, just as a painter is not subject to the laws of the world drawn on her canvas. God is categorically different from this universe. In other words, if God is to be the Creator, he must be absolutely free. If anything binds God, then that thing must be more powerful than God and thus be itself God. This is where Paul makes his error.

God is the only one who could have made the punishment for sin death, since God is the ultimate ground of being. There is nothing beyond him or above him. Furthermore, Paul states that God desires every human to be with him eternally. Now we have a problem. For according to Paul God has made a punishment that defeats the purpose of his entire creation. God has made three contradictory decisions. He has decided he wants all people with him. He has decided to give people free will. He has decided that the penalty of sin is death, that is, separation from him. Given his omniscience, that is, his knowledge that free will would lead to sin, it is contradictory to his own purpose for God to make the punishment for that sin be eternal separation.

Some at this point will attempt to clear the logical contradiction by appealing to God’s justice. God can’t let sin go unpunished, preachers will say. Well, sure he can. He’s God. He is bound by nothing. He can do absolutely anything he wants. The only reason the punishment for sin is death is because God chose for it to be so. Another way to attempt to clear the fallacy is to argue that the perfect cannot abide sin. If God cannot abide sin, then God is not the absolute ground of being. The words must or cannot cannot appear in connection with God. He is absolutely free. In other words, if there is anything that God must do or cannot do then he is not God. God is perfectly capable of abiding with sin, since he does it every day.

This flaw can be resolved by removing from the argument the assertion that the penalty for sin is eternal separation from God.

The Procedural Fallacy

In addition to the logical flaw in Paul’s argument, there are several problems with the procedure for applying the substitutionary atonement. First, Jesus claims that he will die for the sins of the world, but Paul changes this so that Jesus only dies for the sins of those who accept the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement. Jesus wants people to follow him; Paul wants people to believe this doctrine. One involves action; the other involves accepting a premise as true. Thus, the procedure for salvation is different for Paul than for Jesus. What is odd about this outcome is that it weakens the work of Christ. Did he really die for the sins of the world if his death must be applied by accepting a belief system? I don’t recall Jesus advocating the acceptance of any such belief system. Jesus does not require the acceptance of a doctrine from the thief on the cross. In fact, he calls those who promote doctrines "snakes and vipers".

Second, most formulations of the substitutionary atonement have an escape clause, often called the ignorance clause. This states that one cannot be judged on what one is not aware. This is a kludge of the worst kind. It violates the very principle that requires the substitutionary atonement in the first place. Everyone on earth must decide to accept this doctrine or be separated from God. Except children. Oh, and the mentally challenged. Oh, and all those who never heard the gospel. In fact, one can argue that the best kind of missions would be to never tell anyone the message of Paul’s gospel, so that they can be ignorant and be saved. Everyone in the world could be saved if we shut down every church and told every believer to be quiet. What kind of "perfect plan" is that? The ignorance clause only shows that Paul’s doctrine is fundamentally flawed, requiring patch after patch, like a pair of worn out jeans.

The Practical Fallacy

The final set of problems with Paul’s doctrine of the atonement are practical in nature. First, most Christians will admit that even after accepting the doctrine of the substituionary atonement as true (and thus having their sins forgiven) believers continue to sin. How are these sins accounted for? If they are forgiven by the acceptance of the doctrine (much like a life insurance policy) then there seems to be no penalty for continuing to sin after salvation. In fact, many sects argue for this very point, that after you say the magic words of the prayer of salvation, no subsequent sin can invalidate the contract you have signed with God. This is an odd outcome of Pauline doctrine, one that he wrestles with in Romans 7 without providing any satisfactory answer. The Roman Catholic tradition recrucifies Christ at every mass, providing remission of post-salvation sins through the sacrament of communion. Other sects just pretend that Christians don’t sin after salvation; that they have been perfectly sanctified. None of these solutions fully addresses the problem of a once-for-all salvation that is neither once nor for all.

Second, many sects offer the substitutionary atonement as a free gift from God, when in reality it is never free. The conversation often begins after an excited new Christian has said the magic words of some board-approved prayer. Then he is informed that he has to come to church every Sunday, and probably Wednesday. And he cannot drink or smoke or swear. And he can no longer associate with unsaved friends except to convert them. Or watch R-rated movies. Or listen to “secular” music. And he has to agree with the church’s statement of faith, which probably contains another twenty or so doctrines he must assent to. And he must be pro-life. And he must tithe 10% of his gross income. And mixed marriages are wrong. And he should vote Republican. On and on, etc. after etc. this "free gift" has literally dozens of strings attached to it. Violate any of them, and one will be accused of "pursuing the flesh" and kicked out, handed over to Satan for the "salvation of his soul." This is the ultimate bait and switch.

Bonus Fallacy: Eternal Space-Time

Paul of course could not have known what we know today about the structure of the universe, and in particular what Einstein discovered about space-time. I am thinking in particular of his assertions in general relativity that gravity acts by the curving of space-time. To make this formulation Einstein declared time to be a dimension just like space. This means, of course, that time does not move at all. We sense the movement of time because of the construction of our minds, but all time exists right now just as all space exists right now. Thus, when God created the universe he created all four dimensions in their full extent. This is hard to visualize, since we have trouble seeing four dimensions, but the equations of general relativity bear this truth out. Thus, not only did God have foreknowledge that all people would sin, but since he is outside the universe he could actually witness this fact for all time at the moment of creation. To think that God was somehow caught unaware of this problem and decided to send Jesus to fix it, something like patching up a wound, is to think of God as a man and not the true creator of the universe.

Final Words

I know this has been long but I also know that my arguments will be considered by many to be shocking. After all, every Christian believes in the substitutionary atonement. Well, not really. In fact, Christians have interpreted Christ’s death in many different ways throughout the centuries. Many of us have merely been immersed in a teaching, told over and over again that it is the gospel truth. That to deny it, is to deny heaven. Every scripture has been twisted to fit with this particular interpretation of Christ’s death. For example, at the last supper Jesus says, “This is my body, broken for you.” We interpret this in the light of our preexisting theology of the substitutionary atonement. We read “for you” as “as a substitute for your sins”. But if you look closely, it does not need to be interpreted that way. The word “for” just means “for”. We supply the interpretation. We have also been taught to associate certain Old Testament texts with the substitutionary atonement as if there is no other way to see them, but they can all be interpreted in different ways. And they were for many thousands of years. There are literally thousands of ways to be a Christian, and not all of them require you to assent to Paul’s doctrine of the substitutionary atonement. We need to set our minds free to see what millions of Christians before us have seen: that Paul added to the message of Jesus to promote his own agenda.

One final note. I have noticed in many churches that Paul and his letters have become almost idols to many people. All our theology comes from Paul. Some hermeneutics texts state that doctrine must come from epistles, not narratives, and guess who wrote most of the epistles? Paul never knew Jesus. He never walked with him. His theology differs greatly from what Jesus teaches us. Jesus speaks continually of action and Paul is always speaking about doctrine. His churches end up abandoning him, especially in Asia, and the only reason we get much of our theology from him is that some bishop at the early councils got his books approved and other books rejected. Thankfully, I believe in a bible that serves me in my search to be close to God, not a book that I have to serve. I can keep the things Paul says that fit with my view of God and toss out things that don’t. If your religion doesn’t give you this freedom, you should try it. God is far better than James or John or Paul.

Salvation

The first result to come from our application of forest theology is a new understanding of salvation. Salvation is what we find Jesus talking about most, with ethics coming in a close second. So it's good that our analysis has led us first to what Jesus considered most important. Our view of salvation is based upon the gospels, rather than the epistles. This is an important shift, and is based on our hermeneutical premise that the bible is a human book, complete with mistakes and biases and false teachings, that we must sift for information relevant to our culture and world. We find Paul's doctrine of salvation to be philosophically inconsistent, and spiritually rather cold. A legal contract between you and God with all sorts of riders attached does not seem to be what Jesus had in mind when he spoke of eternal life.

Instead we look to Jesus himself for our theory of salvation, and what we find is that salvation is living a life imbued with the presence of God. The early church did not have the New Testament, because they did not need it. They had Jesus. Those of us who follow him all have him as well. We do not need a priest or pastor or teacher to stand between us and interpret his words for us. We can hear directly from him daily.

Jesus told everyone who asked about salvation to follow him, to trust in him, to do the things that he does. Jesus demanded action, not a signature on an insurance policy. The action we must take is to follow his example. We are to treat people the way we want to be treated, love God, and forgive those who harm us. Notice that "following" is not perfection. We can never be perfect, but all God asks of us is to be on the right path. The language Jesus uses is that of a master and an apprentice, or a teacher and a disciple. The apprentice will not produce masterwork, but she can be learning, improving, and growing. This is what Jesus requires of us, that we be his apprentices, his disciples. We try, in our own frail, human way, to do what he does. It's really that simple.

Let me try to explain how we can spot salvation in a person. There are two kinds of people in the world, givers and takers. Takers are the ones like the Pharisees who Jesus condemns. These people live their lives only for themselves, and they take from those around them (emotionally, financially, and physically) in order to build themselves up. These are the assholes of the world. You all know some of them. Some of these people are sick, and with help can leave their life of destruction. Many of these people claim to be Christians but their lust for power and control over others shows that they are not. The second kind of person is the giver. The giver builds up the people around him. The giver is generous financially and brings joy and life to other people. Givers create, build, and raise.

Since God's greatest creation is human beings, how we treat other human beings determines whether we are saved or not. Those who are followers of God become better and better givers. Whenever we harm another person, we are acting directly against God.

What this means in practical terms for each person is different. Some people will be drawn to helping others financially, some to help others emotionally, and some physically. Some people will simply be there with an ear to listen to the problems people have, while others might actually work in a job that lets them help people. There are millions of ways to follow the master. God will call each of us to a different life, because God loves diversity. But the life of salvation is marked by its outward flow, into the lives of other people, rather than an inward flow.

People who follow Jesus are marked by kindness, generosity, care, honesty, joy, and love. Notice I said marked. We are not perfectly kind, nor always generous, nor honest at every moment. We are still human, but our striving and our direction is toward improvement. Thus, there is no guilt necessary. Legalistic religion rolls right off us. Our salvation is secure as long as we follow him.

Forest Theology

If, as we argued in the last article, we should model theology on a forest instead of an orchard, how would we go about doing it? A forest is not pure chaos. The law of gravity determines how strong vines must be to climb up a tree. The law of energy conservation determines how much leaf area a tree needs to get its sustenance from photosynthesis. The laws of thermodynamics determine how fast a rotten log rots. Thus the chaos is built upon a framework of simple elementary laws. In the same way, I want to posit a minimal set of natural laws of theology that will frame how our theologies develop. And I say theologies because every person creates their own.

If you analyze in the New Testament what Jesus says and does, as opposed to what one disciple named Paul claims he says and does, you will begin to see a clear theme in his teaching: how do you treat others? Or, to put it more positively, you should treat other people the way you want to be treated. This is important because it gives us a measure to determine if we our really hearing from God or not. Since God created and loves all people, any theology that mistreats people does not come from God. You are instead hearing the selfish human voice of the mediators, of those who want to stand between you and God and tell you how to live your life. Look at the story of Zaccheus in scripture, a man who mistreated others but who turns from his ways and begins treating people rightly. Or the thief on the cross who knew he had mistreated people, repents, and is promised a seat in heaven. Or the Pharisees who abuse and mistreat people and thus receive the only cruel words Christ ever uttered. Clearly, those who harm or otherwise use and abuse other human beings are working against God. Let's put it in a form more like a natural law.

The Golden Law: Any theology that results in the mistreatment of other people does not come from God.

Notice that it is teleological in nature, that is, it is defined in terms of the ends or results of theology. This is good, because it keeps us from having a theology of good intentions that ends up hurting people anyway. Intention does not matter. What matters is our actions.

The first law put a limit on what we can take for theology, but it gets us no closer to how we develop that theology in the first place. That's what the second law does. I've argued that God never wanted us to have a mediator, that his goal from the beginning was to be in intimate communication with each of us. But we block that communication in many ways. Often, we are too busy listening to our own inner voice to hear God speaking. Or, we find a million ways to distract ourselves. Perhaps we are afraid to hear his voice, because we have been trained by the church to think that God only accepts those who are perfect. The key, however, to building a forest theology is hearing from God. It is the only way. We are protected from the "Son of Sam" effect by the Golden Law. We have nothing to fear.

The Law of the Word: All theology is built from the words of God, spoken to us in various ways.

God speaks not only through the scripture, but in a thousand different ways as well. Sometimes it is the voice of a friend or parent. Perhaps he speaks through nature to us, or art, or meditation. It really doesn't matter. God has used all manner of communication in the past, and he continues to do so. We integrate all these sources into our own personal theology.

But a theology does nothing if it remains random thoughts about God. Our theology must be put into practice on a daily basis. If you think God wants you to help the poor, but you never give to the poor or visit the local food bank or help out at the local soup kitchen, then you don't really believe that God wants you to help the poor.

The Law of Action: All Theology results in action.

Finally, as God said in Genesis, it is not good for a person to be alone. And though you could argue that the fourth law is really one aspect of the Law of Action, I want to emphasize its importance. People who keep themselves apart from other people get freaky. This is not healthy. The problem is the church lies to us, and makes us think that we can only interact with those who have a similar faith to ours. To everyone else, we must proselytize. This is crazy, becuase there is no "one correct faith" anywhere in the world. Thus, anytime we interact with a person who follows God we can learn something.
The Law of Interaction: Any theology that results in people separating themselves from others who have differing theologies does not come from God.

This law protects us from becoming insular, creating our own little sect that condemns everyone else to hell. It also allows us to hear how God is speaking to other people. Remember, theology is a forest, not an orchard. God may stress to you that you help the poor, while to someone else he stresses being gentle and kind in personal relationships.

These are the four laws that I believe allow us to craft a theology for ourselves. The words we hear from God will allow us to live a life of constant growth and communication with God. Our theology will transform as we are transformed by it, because it results in action, not a dead page.

Why We Need a New Theology

It should be obvious from reading any of this site that I believe a great hoax has been perpetrated on all us Christians by the church. In my own awkward way I've tried, using multiple examples and scenarios, to show that there never was nor is there one true creed of the church. Throughout the centuries the church has changed its beliefs to either gain acceptance or power or control. This is why the Fundamentalists err. Their goal is to recover the "original" and "pure" religion of God that was corrupted through the ages. But this is a false goal. There never was a "pure" religion; there never was a foundation to recover. All they are doing is grabbing an arbitrary (and inconsistent) snapshot of the way God's people worshiped him. What is the truth then? Perhaps a story will help.

When I was a child I always asked the wrong questions, and my parents were often amused by this. Once we were out driving though the fields of Pennsylvania and we encountered a new freeway being constructed. The road started in a field and connected up with the road we were on. "Is this the start of the roads?" I asked my Dad. He didn't understand my question. I had reasoned that everything has a start, and since this road "began" in a field it must be the start of the roads. There has to be a first road, a beginning road, the road from which all others lead off from, right? Another way to examine this idea is to look at a globe and ask, where does it begin? Well, it's a sphere, there is no beginning. A piece of paper has an "edge" and you can argue whether one edge or the other is the "beginning" but at least the question makes some kind of sense. If you've ever printed an envelope in a laser printer, you understand how important it is to figure out "which edge goes up". But a globe has no edge and thus no start. The roads are a vast interconnected network. They, likewise, have no "beginning", no "edge" as it were.

And this is how it is with God. People who try to define one true Creed ignore the blatant fact that the bible itself portrays no one true creed. Just look at how the "truth" in the bible changes through the years. Polygamy? Ok in one era, not ok in another. Slavery? Ok in the bible, not ok today. Marriage? Arranged in the bible, free choice today. Kings? Obeyed in the bible, rebelled against in America. Kosher meat? Illegal in Acts, ok today. Women as possessions? Ok in the bible, not ok today. The Ten Commandments? Seriously, do you really want to be put in jail for coveting? Coveting is not stealing, it's just wanting. Dear God, if coveting were illegal in America how could we have all those ads for new cars on TV? The whole economy would collapse if America obeyed the Ten Commandments. Trust me, even if you think you do, you do not want the Ten Commandments made into law. But isn't it the "truth"? That's like asking if there's a first road or where the edge of a sphere is. You're framing the question incorrectly, and that is why you get the wrong answer.

Let me ask you this: what is the truth about you? Is it the list of knowledge that you have and perhaps your likes and dislikes? Is it a bunch of measurements of height and hair color and manner of dress? Is that you? No, of course it isn't. You are a person. You don't know anything about a person without interacting with her. You can know some facts about her, but you cannot know her.

Likewise, the truth about God is the interaction between us and God. And I say "interaction" to emphasize that it is a living process, not a dead record written on sheep's skin. When God wanted to represent himself in the clearest way he sent Jesus, a person. He did not send a prophecy or a text or a pronouncement or fire or wind. He sent a person. God is a person and so the truth about God is not an object or a text, but an interaction with that person. Just as I cannot know you without interacting with you, I cannot know God without interacting with God.

The problem is, interacting with God is suicide. No, really. Knowing God wipes away any sort of selfishness or arrogance we might have. Think you're hot stuff? Really? God stands outside of time and created all of space-time for his pleasure. Do that much? Truly interacting with God is a frightening thing, and most people shy away from it. So the church steps in and says, "Well, God is a scary thing. Why don't you come to God through us? We'll make him quite safe for you." And so the church becomes the priest, the mediator, between you and God. It's all there in Exodus 19. We ask for it so that we don't have to face God ourselves. In exchange for our obedience and loyalty the church will intervene between us and God. They will determine what is the truth and we just have to parrot it. No thinking required, and more importantly, no relationship with God required. The church does everything for us.

Church history is a cycle of people coming face to face with God (revival), realizing what it means and asking for a mediator (ritual), and losing sight of God (retreat). Then the cycle repeats. My goal is to break this cycle, because it's been going on for far too long. There's no need for it. God never wanted us to have a mediator. Like it or not, one day we will stand naked before God and no church will be there to coddle us. I used to laugh when ministers would describe heaven. It always sounded like one of their church services extended forever. Such people are clueless; ignore them.

Interacting with God is nothing like church. The church makes everything easy; God makes things difficult. The church draws clear lines; God made the universe fuzzy at small scales. The church likes conformity; God loves diversity. The church wants order and regularity; God loves chaos. When John said "God is love" one of the things he was pointing to was how irrational God can be. We all know love is irrational. I drive my single friends crazy when they ask me how you know when he or she is "the one". I always reply, "You just do." Love is crazy. God is crazy. If you've ever had that insane, illogical love that makes no sense, you understand what a relationship with God is like. This kind of relationship is anathema to the church, because it cannot be mediated, printed in a bulletin and done over again for the evening service.

Life is messy; God is messy. But messy is where the fun is. We need a theology of messy. Have you ever been in a forest? The tangle of vines and underbrush and fallen trees. True chaos, but so alive! Dead branches lie on top of young saplings. Animals make nests in the dead leaves. Trees fall across the trail. The church wants theology to be an orchard: orderly, productive, mechanistic. God wants theology to be a forest. After all, men make orchards but God makes forests.

In the next article I'll discuss what a messy theology might look like, and how we can live in a relationship with God without mediation.