A Liturgy on the Atonement

Holy Wednesday is known as “Spy Wednesday” because on this day, Judas is said to have made a bargain with the high priest to betray Jesus.  It is a time when the crowds, so effusive in their praise of Jesus on Sunday, now are turning against him.  They will eventually betray him, as did Judas, demanding the Romans to “Crucify Him”.

As I meditate on this scene, I contemplate how easy it is for me to be swayed by desire and fear into spaces that disconnect me from the divine.  Judas succumbed to something inside us, as did the people, in choosing to separate themselves from the god who could save them.  Is this not symbolic of so much we do as humans?  When we are filled with desire or fear, we can be swayed to a kind of mob mentality, a choice to destroy rather than to build, a choice to separate rather than connect. 

In a symbolic way, this choice to separate ourselves from God is the essence of the Garden narrative.  When Eve and Adam made a choice to be human, they chose to disconnect themselves from God.  As Mormons, we embrace this as an essential choice – the right choice, yet we must also realize that they “sinned” in doing so.   The plan was for them to learn through their own experience to distinguish good and evil, and when they would sin, a Savior would be provided for them.

So here we are, mid-Holy Week, contemplating the betrayal of Judas, the fear-based mob mentality that drives a wedge in our relationship with god, separating us from the divine.  This is the gathering of the darkness in our journey, when we contemplate the our separation from God, and our need for the Savior.   We seek something.

Atonement.

A moment of silence touches my soul as I consider the word, and how much baggage this principle provides for so many who have embarked on a journey of Thoughtful Faith.  Our Book of Mormon describes the atonement in very specific terms:

“For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord. Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption.

For the atonement satisfieth the demands of justice" (2 Nephi 9:6-7, 26)

This explanation gives me pause, because it says that God is so rigid, so fixed on justice, that he must have a *satisfaction* of the law, and such satisfaction must be infinite.  I have three responses to this:

1.  Is that a good description for a god of love? 
2.  Where did the idea of “satisfaction” of law and justice come from?

3.  How does this doctrine affect how we live?

To the first point, I do not believe that God is so vengeful, so demanding of justice, that he requires the death of his Son in order to satisfy an infinite need for justice.  I think this makes god out to be a monster, rigid and inflexible.  But more importantly, such a doctrine justifies a kind of legalism in how we behave toward one another, that we can justify condemning others based upon this principle. 

Secondly, this idea of “satisfaction” is interesting in its origin.  The use of the term indicates that the Book of Mormon’s view of atonement derives from Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory of Atonement, that Jesus Christ suffered and died to satisfy God’s just wrath against man’s transgressions, from Adam onward.  In effect, much of our LDS thinking of the atonement derives from this, and from Calvin’s Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.  Whether to satisfy god’s wrath, or to stand as substitute for the punishment mankind deserves, these theories of Atonement all make god a monster. 

The problem is that these theories of atonement do arise not from scripture, but rather, a distinctly non-Mormon worldview: that mankind is a degenerate, fallen creature, totally depraved, and incapable of freedom to choose the right.  Mormons, on the other hand, believe that we are co-eternal with God, that the Fall was a necessary part of a plan, and that mankind is imbued with free agency: we can choose to do good, or we can choose otherwise. 

As for the third point, I simply wonder, when we focus so much on the guilt and pain we have caused Christ; when we harrow ourselves with shame for our sinful selves, what are we to do differently because of these theories of atonement?  How do they help us?

I don’t believe they do.  And when I read the Passion narrative of Christ, I find no evidence at all of these theories.

I believe we need to embrace a more inspiring model for atonement, one that first examines, this Holy Wednesday, what it means for us to separate ourselves from God, and then finds the Way to reconnect ourselves to God. 

The Wednesday Liturgy starts with the betrayal of Judas.  There is a scene where Mary of Bethany anoints Jesus head with a “pound of spikenard, very costly”, and Judas reaction was that he thought this to be over the top.  Indeed, the value of twelve ounces of this imported essential oil from Nepal was an entire year’s salary for a laborer, perhaps the equivalent in today’s dollars of $30,000.  Yet as frivolous as this seemed, Jesus allowed it. 

The scriptures paint Judas as evil in his intent, but I’m not sure that is a fair assessment.  He may have had good intention, we cannot be sure.  His act was to move the story along, but more importantly, his act of betrayal, for whatever reason, was an act to *separate* Christ from his disciples, and vice versa. 

In like fashion, the people who a few days earlier celebrated hosannas at Jesus’ triumphal entry were now doubting, and ultimately called to *separate* themselves from Jesus, demanding him to be crucified.

When we look back to the symbolism of the Fall, the act of Eve and Adam to partake of the fruit caused them to *separate* from the presence of God.

If the effect and status of mankind as a result of the fall and our errors in judgment is to separate us from god, then the atonement must be the reconciliation of us to god.  When we view the various theories of atonement through the ages, whether “Christ Victor”, “Moral Influence”, “Ransom”, “Satisfaction”, or “Penal Substitution”, none of these actually address *how* we connect back to god.  In fact, they all result from a perspective that Fall creates depravity rather than separation.  None of these terms focus on what the Atonement actually is, or what we should do about it.

The Gospel of John presents Christ’s *Connection Model of Atonement*: how we become ONE with God. He starts by stating his intent:

John 14:2-3 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

We interpret this verse to speak of the heavens – that the kingdom of heaven is full of various “mansions”.  But the Gospel of John is not as much about the future, as it is symbolically about the present.  The Kingdom of God is to be found within.   When Christ receives us unto himself, it’s not so much about the next life as it is about this one: we become reborn in Christ when he receives us unto himself. 

John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 

“At that day” refers to the moment that we are received into Christ: we realize something, we shall know something: not something that is happening “at that day”, but rather, that it has always been the case.  We shall realize that Jesus is IN the Father, and we are IN Jesus, and Jesus is IN us.  We, then, will realize that we ARE NOT separated from God, but rather, his presence is here, now, within us, and we have but to become reborn – resurrected in this life – in order to realize it.

John 15:4-5 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.  I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

What is this saying?  A branch, separate from the rest of the vine, cannot bear fruit.  Jesus is stating, in unequivocal words, that we MUST be connected to the Vine, to Him.  Jesus has explained the Atonement, that only by his death will they be able to reconnect themselves to the Vine, and the connecting power, the power of resurrection, is the Comforter, who abides with us, so that we can abide in Jesus, and He in us. 

Then, Jesus prayed:

“Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee…And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent…
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.  And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be ONE, as we are.Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ONE in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be ONE, even as we are ONE: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect (complete, whole, unconditionally loving) in ONE…
And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

The Atonement, as an English word, is literally made up of a phrase, “At-One”.  For us to understand the atonement as Jesus Christ taught it, we must set aside all worldly philosophies of “satisfaction”, “Ransom”, or “penal substitution”.  Jesus wants us to be ONE *in exactly the same Way* Jesus is ONE with the father.  This isn’t future tense: he is not speaking about being ONE in some future life as a resurrected being.

As humans, we seemed to be easily estranged from ourselves, from each other, and from whatever God may be defined as being. The Atonement is an amazing principle: we are forgiven already, so stop feeling guilty and get on with living. Oh, and be One with yourself, with god, and with each other. At-one-ment means just that.

If we accept that because of the Atonement of Christ, then the original Jewish principle of the Yom Kippur scapegoat symbolism is deeply meaningful.  Let us cast aside our sins and move on to the enlightened life, each day (yom) can thus be the day of atonement (literally, what "yom kippur" means, when we recognize our deficiencies, cast them onto the symbolic atonement sacrifice, and embrace the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The Atonement of Jesus Christ is HOW we are to be ONE with each other.  Every part of the teachings Christ gave in this Holy Week liturgy has the effect of *connecting* us to the One.

On Sunday, we realized that the King of all is not found on thrones of red, but in homes of the humble, that he who comes in the name of the Lord…is us.  We are ONE when we bless each other, lifting each other’s burdens.

On Monday, we realized through the washing of feet, that we are ONE with each other, as we humble ourselves in service, connecting each other in love.

On Tuesday, we realized that the Comforter exists as ONE with us, as we connect with and comfort those who stand in need of Comfort.

The Atonement is the connecting principle, the way we are ONE with all that is, was, and will be. 

Then, and only then, will we realize and know that God is already in us, and we in God, as we declare, “Hear oh Israel, I AM our Gods, I AM ONE.”

The Way to be Sustainably One - Lao Tzu chapter 23

Laozi said,

A few words about the nature of things:

A violent wind does not sustain itself throughout the night,
A sudden rain does not sustain itself throughout the day.
What makes this so?
It's in the very nature of heaven and earth.
So, if heaven and earth does not sustain wind and rain forever,
then how can people possibly sustain their affairs?

Therefore,

Those who follow the Way in their affairs,
With respect to the Way, become one with the Way,
With respect to Virtue, become one with Virtue,
With respect to Loss, become one with Loss.

Those who are one with the Way are joyously fulfilled by the Way,
Those who are one with Virtue, are joyously fulfilled by Virtue,
Those who are one with Loss, are joyously fulfilled by Loss.

When Oneness is not enough,
then you are not One.

---

I think there is a tendency in our human nature to ever desire more, to keep progressively getting richer, smarter, more friends, more of everything.  It's kind of like a race, to continually progress, to get better.

It's admirable, I suppose, to seek for continual improvement.  In religious terms, we speak of becoming god-like in our journey toward "eternal life".  Mormons speak of "eternal progression" as this principle.

Yet there is something about this that can be unsustainable.

My wife's grandfather was a deeply spiritual man, a Patriarch, and successful in almost every way.  I admired him, and felt that his advice was a precious thing.  Yet toward the end of his life, he became bitter about losing his independence.  Deep within him, he identified with his accomplishments, spiritual power, and independence, and when these waned, he was deeply depressed.

I have seen ebbs and flows in my life -- times where I think I've done well, and other times when nothing goes well.  The Daoist writer Wenzi wrote a similar concept to Ecclesiastes, that there is a time for things, and when the time is about to come, there is no rushing to meet it, and when it leaves, there is no use in trying to hang on to it.

Becoming One with the moment, is realizing this time in the moment, amidst change. Try as we might, we often seek to manipulate things in such a way that the outcomes are always favorable to us. We want to continually progress and have success -- but such desires are often unsustainable.

In contrast, when we are faced with a situation, whether it be completely in harmony with the Way, or with Virtue, or with even a situation of grave Loss, the key is not to rue the loss of the Way, as it were, but rather, realize that the Way is simply in every situation -- even that of loss.  And if we embrace the loss, we become one with it.  This leads us to find fulfillment - healing -- becoming "whole" within the Loss.

So we speak of Oneness all the time, without realizing it.  We seek healing amidst loss, yet the terms "heal" and "health" are etymologically connected to "wholeness" -- or being One.  We speak of integrity in terms of faith and trust, yet the term "integrity" literally means, "that which makes us One" -- leading us to realize that faith and trust are the connection necessary to being One.  We realize our individuality, often thinking ourselves to be distinct from others, yet the term "individual" means "that which is not divided, not dual" -- our "individuality" is both our uniqueness, as well as our interconnectedness with all that makes us One.

We speak in religious terms about becoming "perfect", and yet, Jesus' words to this extent were intended to convey that we are to be "whole" in our dealings with others -- indeed, unconditional in love to others whether or not they are our friends or enemies (Matthew 5:43-48).  We hear Jesus praying in John 17 that his disciples might be One, in exactly the same way that Jesus is One with the Father.  He spoke to prophets more recently saying, "I say unto you, Be One, and if you are not One, you are not mine."

This desire to be One need not be something vague and impossible.  It certainly does not mean that we need to conform to a specific model of being.  Noting that the weather of wind and rain vary within nature, we too need to realize that we are all unique "individuals" with distinct identities (Identity is another word for Oneness).  Yet the key to unity is not to be divorced individuals -- a contradiction in terms -- but rather, connected, interdependent individuals -- lovingly One with all there is.

All this said, it's tough to "be one" at all times.  I feel loss, especially as I come to milestones of feeling old and useless.  I cannot sustain the relentless energy of the race track of life we call "career". Instead, I seek refuge in Oneness, and find peace even amidst loss.

Such a fool am I.

Baal Shem Tov and Joseph Smith

Baal Shem Tov, "Besht" for short, was the founder of the Hasidic movements, and was an 18th century mystic in what is now Ukraine.  Besht was to Judaism what Joseph Smith was to Christianity: he had mystical experiences, and turned Judaism upsidedown, fighting against the moribund rabbinical talmudic scholars as Joseph Smith fought against the creeds and orthodoxy.

Of all things last night, his name kept coming up in my dreams.  So, reading this morning the wikipedia entry about Baal Shem Tov this morning, I read about his teachings about god and man.  Here are some excerpts:

He declared the whole universe, mind and matter, to be a manifestation of the Divine Being; that this manifestation is not an emanation from God, as is the conception of the Kabbalah by Mitnagdim, for nothing can be separated from God: all things are rather forms in which God reveals Himself. When man speaks, said Besht, he should remember that his speech is an element of life, and that life itself is a manifestation of God 

Whoever does not believe that God resides in all things, but separates God and them in his thoughts, has not the right conception of God.
(wikipedia)

In Doctrine and Covenants 88, Joseph Smith states the same thing: that god, or at least the power of god is everywhere.  Joseph Smith thought of god as being everywhere in the beginning of his teachings, but towards the end said unequivocally, that god is a man, with material flesh and body.  Besht is panentheistic in a way that LDS might not accept, yet if we accept that the Holy Ghost dwells within us, then at least the HG is physically resident in us.  As for panentheism, consider these two verses:

D&C 88:13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

Moses 6:63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

My feeling is that Joseph Smith was a mystic, and did not fully comprehend his own thoughts and revelations about the integral nature of god and man.  He came as close as any Christian had done until that time, and by bringing god out of the ex-nihilo idealism of plato, Joseph Smith did much to move the needle.   Perhaps JS did understand, fully, this mystical vision, but at the time, the Saints were only ready for a conventional definition of god.  Milk before meat.

It is equally fallacious to think of a creation in time: creation, that is, God’s activity, has no end. God is ever active in the changes of nature: in fact, it is in these changes that God’s continuous creativeness consists.
(wikipedia)

Again, in section 88, the idea that the power of god is god and that it is the laws of nature within its respective kingdom.  Besht had identified three dimensions of reality similar to three kingdoms of glory.

Besht's concept of eternal creation is a marvellous concept.  Getting away from a physical point-in-time creation narrative, this idea that the act of creation, the garden of eden story as taught in temples, is not merely an historical event, but the ongoing creation narrative as humans deal with god and the world here and now.

The first result of his principles was a remarkable optimism. Since God is immanent in all things, all things must possess something good in which God manifests Himself as the source of good. (wikipedia)

This as well characterizes LDS thinking: Rather than the totally depraved world of the Calvinists and Catholics, LDS believe in the divine nature of creation, the world, and humans.  We are inherently optimistic (or at least should be).

For this reason, the Besht taught, every man must be considered good, and his sins must be explained, not condemned. One of his favorite sayings was that no man has sunk too low to be able to raise himself to God. Naturally, then, it was his chief endeavor to convince sinners that God stood as near to them as to the righteous, and that their misdeeds were chiefly the consequences of their folly.
(wikipedia)

This is a lesson many of us should realize in the church, especially on the topic of church discipline, and on how to treat those who don't share the TBM point of view.

From the very beginning Besht fought against that contempt for the world which, through the influence of Isaac Luria’s Kabbalah, had almost become a dogma among the Jews.

Again, back to the idea of the sacredness of creation.  This concept of the world's inherent goodness puts perspective on the hasidic concept of tikkum olam/repair of the world into context -- we should be caring for the world, treating it with utmost respect -- an inherently green viewpoint so needed today.  Not sure I see that attitude, politically, in LDS thinking, although many prophetic teachings speak of caring for the land.

He considered care of the body as necessary as care of the soul; since matter is also a manifestation of God, and must not be considered as hostile or opposed to Him.
(wikipedia)

This is doctrinally identical to LDS thinking.  All spirit is matter.  And it adds life to the idea that the Word of Wisdom, in its original intent and not current interpretation, is to care for the body.

...he fought the rigidity and sanctimony that had accreted to strict Talmudic viewpoints while not abrogating a single religious ceremony or observance. His target was the great importance which the Talmudic view attaches to the fulfillment of a law, while almost entirely disregarding sentiment or the growth of man’s inner life.
(wikipedia)

I sense that Besht was a bit of a Middle Way Jew.

While the rabbis of his day considered the study of the Talmud as the most important religious activity, Besht laid all the stress on prayer. “All that I have achieved,” he once remarked, “I have achieved not through study, but through prayer”. Prayer, however, is not merely petitioning God to grant a request, nor even necessarily speaking to God, but rather (“cleaving”, dvekut)— the glorious feeling of ’Oneness with God Almighty’, the state of the soul wherein a man or woman gives up their consciousness of separate existence, and join their own selves to the Eternal Being of God Supreme. Such a state produces indescribable bliss, which is the foremost fruit of the true worship of God.
(wikipedia)

This.  I cannot say more or better than the above.  This is the essence of the mystical experience -- that which is achieved through revelation.  Joseph Smith said that all members "who receive the holy ghost receive revelation, for the holy ghost is a revelator" -- thus to 'receive the holy ghost' upon confirmation, is to seek revelation daily in one's life as befitting one who has received the gift of the holy ghost.  Sometimes revelation comes in words, but only rarely.  The mystical experience is a oneness with god that cannot be described in words.

I believe Joseph Smith was a mystic like Baal Shem Tov.  Besht lived a longer life, and his followers picked up much more of the mystical message than Joseph's successors, who were more inclined to create the more traditional Christian LDS church that we have today.  I, for one, love to embrace Joseph's original mysticism as a pattern for my own spiritual journey.