© 2004 Richard Bain
© 2004 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
One of the most talked about and written about motion pictures of 2004 has been “The Passion,” written and directed by Mel Gibson. The press reports that church attendance has increased as this film has been viewed throughout the U.S. But the film has not been universally accepted. While many conservative Christian leaders have applauded the film, some liberal critics have panned it as another Gibson blood-bath movie and possibly an anti-Semitic one as well. Considering the way the authors of the Urantia Papers view the Christian doctrines regarding Jesus’ death on the cross, I think it is more the theological premises of the movie than the brutality that may be a major problem for folks in the Urantia community.
Orthodox Christianity views the death of Jesus on the cross as a necessary sacrifice or atonement to satisfy God’s justice so God can forgive our sins. Liberal Christians seem to either ignore the Atonement Doctrine or favor a much milder interpretation. Anyone familiar with the Urantia Papers contained in The Urantia Book knows that the authors of the Papers find the Atonement Doctrine quite offensive. For example, a Divine Counselor tells us, “The barbarous idea of appeasing an angry God, of propitiating an offended Lord, of winning the favor of Deity through sacrifices and penance and even by the shedding of blood, represents a religion wholly puerile and primitive, a philosophy unworthy of an enlightened age of science and truth. Such beliefs are utterly repulsive to the celestial beings and the divine rulers who serve and reign in the universes. It is an affront to God to believe, hold, or teach that innocent blood must be shed in order to win his favor or to divert the fictitious divine wrath.” (UB 4:5.4) What then was the origin of this “barbarous idea?”
The word “barbarous” gives us a clue to the origins of the atonement idea. Animal and human sacrifice was a feature of most primitive religions. The ancients believed that a god or gods were subject to the same emotions and passions as mortals are. Therefore, if someone did something to offend the gods, a price had to be paid, a sacrifice had to be made, and that sacrifice was at first a person, and then later on an animal. Regarding the primitive people, a Midwayer informs us, “These early Neanderthalers could hardly be called sun worshipers. They rather lived in fear of the dark; they had a mortal dread of nightfall. As long as the moon shone a little, they managed to get along, but in the dark of the moon they grew panicky and began the sacrifice of their best specimens of manhood and womanhood in an effort to induce the moon again to shine. The sun, they early learned, would regularly return, but the moon they conjectured only returned because they sacrificed their fellow tribesmen. As the race advanced, the object and purpose of sacrifice progressively changed, but the offering of human sacrifice as a part of religious ceremonial long persisted.” (UB 64:4.13) A Life Carrier says of the origin of animal sacrifice: “Very early the Andonic peoples formed the habit of refraining from eating the flesh of the animal of tribal veneration. Presently, in order more suitably to impress the minds of their youths, they evolved a ceremony of reverence that was carried out about the body of one of these venerated animals; and still later on, this primitive performance developed into the more elaborate sacrificial ceremonies of their descendants. And this is the origin of sacrifices as a part of worship.” (UB 63:6.4) The Urantia Papers trace the sacrifice idea from cannibalism to human sacrifice to animal sacrifice. The reasons for these customs were many, and usually a result of superstition, ignorance and fear. These rites and rituals were even a part of early Judaism.
The early Hebrews did practice human sacrifice. According to a Divine Counselor, “The Hebrews believed that ‘without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sin.’ They had not found deliverance from the old and pagan idea that the Gods could not be appeased except by the sight of blood, though Moses did make a distinct advance when he forbade human sacrifices and substituted therefor, in the primitive minds of his childlike Bedouin followers, the ceremonial sacrifice of animals.” (UB 4:5.5) This animal sacrifice lingered as a Jewish religious ritual until the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews. But Jews do still observe Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. And, thanks in large part to Paul of Tarsus, the Jewish atonement idea found its way into Christian doctrine.
The Midwayer authors tell us that one of two great mistakes was: “The effort to connect the gospel teaching directly onto the Jewish theology, as illustrated by the Christian doctrines of the atonement-the teaching that Jesus was the sacrificed Son who would satisfy the Father’s stern justice and appease the divine wrath…”
The Midwayer authors tell us that one of two great mistakes was: “The effort to connect the gospel teaching directly onto the Jewish theology, as illustrated by the Christian doctrines of the atonement-the teaching that Jesus was the sacrificed Son who would satisfy the Father’s stern justice and appease the divine wrath. These teachings originated in a praiseworthy effort to make the gospel of the kingdom more acceptable to disbelieving Jews. Though these efforts failed as far as winning the Jews was concerned, they did not fail to confuse and alienate many honest souls in all subsequent generations.” (UB 149:2.3) But the authors are not totally negative about Paul’s compromises. “Paul started out to build a new Christian cult on ‘the blood of the everlasting covenant.’ And while he may have unnecessarily encumbered Christianity with teachings about blood and sacrifice, he did once and for all make an end of the doctrines of redemption through human or animal sacrifices. His theological compromises indicate that even revelation must submit to the graduated control of evolution. According to Paul, Christ became the last and all-sufficient human sacrifice; the divine Judge is now fully and forever satisfied.” (UB 89:9.3) But why has this centuries old doctrine persisted in Christianity? Why does the Atonement Doctrine have such staying power?
The authors of the Urantia Papers tell us, “…the power of any idea lies, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal.” (UB 92:3.3) There are good psychological reasons for the appeal of the Atonement Doctrine, if we accept these premises:
With a pessimistic view of human nature, and especially in a religious community where unconditional acceptance is expected, it isn’t difficult to buy into all this. Many people seem naturally inclined to believe the idea that all human beings are depraved, as Paul put it.
Looking at the terrible things people sometimes do to one another, it isn’t hard to believe that we are inherently flawed and sinful beings. And since for many people justice is really retribution (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,) it is easy for these people to believe that justice requires the death of a God being to satisfy God’s justice. If we buy into all this, it brings a tremendous sense of relief. Our guilt from past sins is gone. Our fear of eternal damnation is gone. Though we are hopeless sinners, Jesus’ death on the cross has paid the bill, so we just believe, sit back, and breathe a sigh of relief. No critical thinking is required; what could be easier? But the authors of the Urantia Papers strongly dispute the philosophical premises of this doctrine of atonement.
A Divine Counselor has this to say, “Righteousness implies that God is the source of the moral law of the universe. Truth exhibits God as a revealer, as a teacher. But love gives and craves affection, seeks understanding fellowship such as exists between parent and child. Righteousness may be the divine thought, but love is a father’s attitude. The erroneous supposition that the righteousness of God was irreconcilable with the selfless love of the heavenly Father, presupposed absence of unity in the nature of Deity and led directly to the elaboration of the atonement doctrine, which is a philosophic assault upon both the unity and the free-willness of God.” (UB 2:6.5) “The affectionate heavenly Father, whose spirit indwells his children on earth, is not a divided personality-one of justice and one of mercy-neither does it require a mediator to secure the Father’s favor or forgiveness. Divine righteousness is not dominated by strict retributive justice; God as a father transcends God as a judge.” (UB 2:6.6) But this Divine Counselor makes it clear that rejection of God’s love and mercy does have consequences: “God is never wrathful, vengeful, or angry. It is true that wisdom does often restrain his love, while justice conditions his rejected mercy.” (UB 2:6.7)
“The affectionate heavenly Father, whose spirit indwells his children on earth, is not a divided personality-one of justice and one of mercy-neither does it require a mediator to secure the Father’s favor or forgiveness. Divine righteousness is not dominated by strict retributive justice; God as a father transcends God as a judge.” (UB 2:6.6)
But if God is a God in whom love is dominant and whose justice is tempered with mercy, how is it that Jesus died a painful and ignoble death on a cross? Was God involved in this? How?
In the Jesus papers, the Midwayers tell us: “The Father in heaven desired the bestowal Son to finish his earth career naturally, just as all mortals must finish up their lives on earth and in the flesh. Ordinary men and women cannot expect to have their last hours on earth and the supervening episode of death made easy by a special dispensation. Accordingly, Jesus elected to lay down his life in the flesh in the manner which was in keeping with the outworking of natural events…” (UB 183:1.2) But there were other reasons and purposes for Jesus to allow events to transpire as they did.
The Urantia Papers suggest or imply a number of other reasons for Jesus’ death on the cross besides that already mentioned. Among these additional reasons are the following:
Considering that the Atonement Doctrine has persisted all these centuries, is there any hope that this firmly entrenched doctrine will fade away? The authors of the Urantia Papers indicate that atonement theories are a normal feature in the primitive religions of a world (UB 39:5.5), and that the Atonement Doctrine will one day evolve out of Christianity, but not easily. “Evolutionary religion makes no provision for change or revision; unlike science, it does not provide for its own progressive correction. Evolved religion commands respect because its followers believe it is The Truth; ‘the faith once delivered to the saints’ must, in theory, be both final and infallible. The cult resists development because real progress is certain to modify or destroy the cult itself; therefore must revision always be forced upon it.” (UB 92:3.4) And our unseen friends will also help this evolution along: “In the more advanced epochs of planetary evolution these seraphim are instrumental in supplanting the atonement idea by the concept of divine attunement as a philosophy of mortal survival.” (UB 39:5.6)
It seems to me that the rise, evolution, and eventual disappearance of the atonement concept is driven by people’s evolving God concepts. When gods were seen as no more than superhumans with all the flaws we mortals have, the idea of God requiring revenge or human sacrifice to atone for our sins seemed logical. But as the God concept has evolved, our view of God is evolving from that of a tough tribal chieftain to that of a God of love. Yes, there is justice, but such justice is always tempered with mercy and understanding of our human frailties and imperfections. This is the picture of God that I find in the Urantia Papers. Will the majority of Christians ever abandon the Atonement Doctrine and embrace such a God concept?
While the Atonement Doctrine is entrenched in Christian theology, it would be a mistake to assume that all Christians interpret it the same, or assign it the same weight. Many liberal Christians and students of The Urantia Book who are also Christians probably don’t endorse it. Nevertheless, it is theological baggage that even the most liberal Christian churches have to acknowledge in some way. One way it’s being dealt with is to de-fang it. I once heard a United Church of Christ minister say that Jesus’ death on the cross “built a bridge between God and humanity.” Other liberal Christian churches seem to just ignore it. Many liberal Christians have realized how demeaning this doctrine can be to God as well as harmful to humankind. But once you’ve pulled this dogma’s teeth, all it can do is gum you.
How ironic that Jesus, who taught love and abhorred animal sacrifice, was himself pictured by Paul and others as an innocent lamb sacrificed to a God whose justice supposedly demands innocent blood.
How ironic that Jesus, who taught love and abhorred animal sacrifice, was himself pictured by Paul and others as an innocent lamb sacrificed to a God whose justice supposedly demands innocent blood. But let us not look down our noses at our Christian brothers and sisters. They are burdened with centuries of tradition and dogma which does not pass away so easily: “Only two influences can modify and uplift the dogmas of natural religion: the pressure of the slowly advancing mores and the periodic illumination of epochal revelation… The cult advances slowly in generation epochs and age long cycles. But it does move forward. Evolutionary belief in ghosts laid the foundation for a philosophy of revealed religion which will eventually destroy the superstition of its origin.” (UB 92:3.5)
Christianity today suffers from theological inertia. The old theology is shopworn and needs to be discarded, but Christian theologians don’t see anything new to fill the vacuum that would be left if the old theology were discarded. How unfortunate that they have not taken The Urantia Book to heart. But we must not be too critical of them. Inertia is not always a bad thing. Though inertia slows the acceptance of good new ideas, it also deters the acceptance of bad new ideas. The authors of the Urantia Papers tell us that progress that is too rapid can be suicidal. (UB 39:4.15) After all, without the inertia of a flywheel to smooth out the explosions in the cylinders of a car engine, it might shake itself apart. There is an optimum pace to progress that will neither shake us apart, nor leave us sitting in the driveway with a dead engine.
The sentiments expressed in “The Passion,” and the current growth of theologically conservative churches is perhaps only a temporary step backwards before we take two steps forward.
The sentiments expressed in “The Passion,” and the current growth of theologically conservative churches is perhaps only a temporary step backwards before we take two steps forward. I think it would be a serious mistake to publicly attack the Atonement Doctrine or to publicly emphasize the parts of the Urantia Papers that are critical of this doctrine, though I think we should certainly express our disagreement with the doctrine if we are asked for our opinion. Can we promote attunement instead of attacking atonement? I think a good way to deal with this distressing doctrine is to use the “Jesus method,” as illustrated by Jesus’ dealings with the young Philistine, Gadiah. When Gadiah asked Jesus about Jonah and the whale, Jesus, knowing how important this story was to the young man’s faith, did not refute the story. Rather, Jesus treated the details of the story as metaphors explaining how we should deal with life’s problems. (UB 130:1.2) As Jesus once advised, we should “Be as wise as serpents, but as harmless as doves.” (UB 140:8.8)
Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from The Urantia Book. The references listed are in the following format: ([paper number]:[section number].[paragraph number]).
Richard Bain is an electrical engineer, a long time student of The Urantia Book, and a consulting editor to The Spiritual Fellowship Journal.