Who Killed Jesus by Mennonite Press Inc

Copyright ÂŠ 2015 by Peace Farms No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or by any information storage without permission in writing from the copyright owner. Cover design, book design and layout by Jim L. Friesen Library of Congress Control Number: 2014956577 International Standard Book Number: 978-0-9960547-0-6 Printed in the United States of America by Mennonite Press, Inc., Newton, KS, www.mennonitepress.com

dedication To my parents, John and Evelyn, who did their best to live Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; way. Thank you for the communion, love, and healing you shared with me.

iii

vii

preface

fter many years of teaching about Jesus and the Christian faith in various Christian school settings, I found myself in one school setting that was particularly challenging. Like previous schools its staff, parents, and students identified themselves as Christian. The more I went about my usual teaching duties however, the more people became upset. Two elements seem to have contributed to their distress. First, I was teaching about Jesus, the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s great Peacemaker, at a time the U.S. military was waging war having recently invaded and occupied two other nations. Second, most of the people at the school strongly supported those wars. Through a long and difficult school year I did my best, not always succeeding, to listen to and understand people who identified themselves as Christian express pervasive and deeply held beliefs in favor of war. I spent that school year thinking and writing about the value system being communicated to me. With those values in one hand and Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Gospel witness in the other, I tried to make sense of what had become of Jesus and the meaning of discipleship in their religious worldview. Over time I began to understand that what I had encountered at that school was not particular to it but instead represented a much larger problem. I would suggest the problem is the difference between Jesus and institutional Christianity. This book is an attempt to explore the way of Jesus Christ as the solution to the problem of institutional Christianity in the hope of transforming it. It was my constant prayer while writing the book to do so in the light of Christ. My prayer required me to be aware of and do my best to at least minimize any judgments, anger, or violence I felt because of that difficult school year. Such feelings had no place in my writing. In whatever way I failed in my prayer I am deeply sorry. I apologize for whatever ways my writing is not cen-

tered upon our communion in Jesus Christ, his revelation of a loving God, and the creative healing practices Jesus witnessed for disciples. Granting my own failures, some readers may find it difficult to cope with the truths to which Jesus gives witness and this book explores. I respectfully ask those who find Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; truths difficult to please read the book prayerfully, in that same light of Christ.

acknowledgements

would like to thank the many people who helped bring this book to print. I’m grateful to Jeanne, Marty, Marie, Paul, Jennifer, Marianne, Janet, Gary, John, and Colleen for the countless conversations they had with me over the years. Though we were not always in agreement, I appreciate the many times you shared with me your beliefs and listened to me express mine. I’m grateful to Sr. Kathleen Wood SCL whose generosity and patience helped me refine this work. I am also grateful for the advice I received from Rejane Cytacki SCL. I appreciate the wisdom offered me by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Concordia, Kansas, especially that of Sister Marcia Allen. I also want to express my gratitude for Saral Burdette who was generous with her time and spirit during the book’s early stage. I am grateful for the founding vision of Shantivanam House of Prayer near Leavenworth, Kansas. Shantivanam’s members, extended community, and guests provided me an environment of prayer and spiritual growth that greatly aided the writing of this book. I’m appreciative too of the staff members at the Leavenworth Public Library for their assistance while I wrote it. I’d also like to thank the staff of De Paul Library at the University of St. Mary, founded and sponsored by the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth, Kansas. The university campus provided me many opportunities for prayer and reflection and I am deeply grateful to the community as a whole for their creative and healing environment. I’d also like to thank community members at the Sanctuary of Hope in Kansas City, Kansas. I am additionally grateful for staff at Mennonite Press. This book is also the result of numerous people who in the ordinary course of their day transform the world and all of us in it. I’ve had the good fortune to know many generous and gracious individuals who’ve done their best to bring people together in a world of division, who have been loving when

others have not been loving toward them, and who have brought a healing presence to people and circumstances bent on destruction. You have made the world a better and kinder place. Each of you made an impression upon me and I’m very grateful. You have all been patient with me while I’ve been struggling to learn Jesus’ way. Thank you.

xii

Part I

Stumbling Blocks to Jesus Christ

he title question, “Who Killed Jesus?” has been asked by countless people over the centuries, with one exception. The question wasn’t asked by Jesus’ earliest followers. It certainly wasn’t asked by those who were with Jesus on the day he died. They knew all too well who killed him. It was the same people who had opposed Jesus throughout his ministry. Disciples saw those opponents direct judgment, wrath, and violence against Jesus. At the cross, they saw opponents direct their final dose of those harmful qualities against the body of Christ.1 The answer to who killed Jesus remains a simple and known historical fact. Yet its truth is rarely spoken. How did this come to be? How is it the question of who killed Jesus changed from a known truth to become a speculative debate? It happened because the same groups of people responsible for killing Jesus have spent centuries diverting humanity from their crime. They’ve been using the same harmful qualities of judgment, wrath, and violence to do so. Judgment, wrath, and violence aren’t unique qualities possessed only by members of certain groups. The harmful qualities directed against Jesus can tempt any human heart. It therefore shouldn’t be surprising that individual Christians are tempted by them and display them. Nor should it be surprising that various groups, including Christian ones, are entangled with the harmful qualities. What is surprising is that the harmful qualities and specific groups directing them against Jesus have been institutionalized within Christianity. This exploration will show how judgment is institutionalized within Christianity through hierarchy; wrath through the theology of atonement; and

who killed jesus? violence through the just war tradition. Each institution misdirects Christians, indeed all humanity, on three important dynamics; relationships, essence, and behaviors. Hierarchy is inherently judgmental and misdirects humanity as to how people can best relate with each other. Atonement theology is based on an image of a wrathful God who inflicts suffering on sinners and misdirects people about the essence of Divinity and humanity. The just war tradition reflects an ethic of violence and misdirects humanity about behaviors considered Godly. Though hierarchy, atonement theology, and the just war tradition misdirect Christians they are presented by advocates as basic to the Christian faith. They are not. Jesus didn’t give witness to any of them. Jesus wasn’t a hierarch, nor was he judgmental. He didn’t espouse atonement theology, nor did he reveal a wrathful God. Jesus never supported the just war tradition, nor did he ever kill anyone. Each group, in truth, describes Jesus’ opponents. Members of hierarchy, believers in atonement theology, and practitioners of the just war tradition were so opposed to Jesus they had him executed. These are the groups responsible for killing Jesus. How then did these same harmful groups become institutionalized within Christianity? It happened gradually; the same way the harmful qualities of judgment, wrath, and violence become habits in our own hearts. How can Christians stop the harm being done by the groups responsible for killing Jesus? Furthermore, how can Christians give witness to Jesus’ very different life-giving way and thus revitalize their faith community? Christians can do so by becoming disciples of Jesus Christ. A disciple is someone who learns from Jesus. Learning from Jesus, disciples discover that he gave witness to communion as the relationship model which transforms judgment and the hierarchy that institutionalizes it. Within the mystery that is God, Jesus revealed love as the outpouring essence of Divinity which transforms an image of a wrathful deity as institutionalized in atonement theology. Jesus practiced healing power as the behavioral ethic which transforms violence and its being institutionalized, especially in the just war tradition. Communion, love, and healing power constitute Jesus’ life-giving way. It’s the way of all disciples and able to transform harmful qualities and harmful institutions. Transforming the three harmful qualities and the groups institutionalizing them is entirely possible and entirely likely to be met with resistance.2 Each group asserts immense control over Christianity.3 In Jesus’ name, members of these groups actively resist his powerful way of communion, love, and healing. Granting their resistance, this exploration will be done so as cen-

part 1 ter people on the way of Jesus Christ for the peaceful transformation of the world. Transformation is vital as hierarchy, atonement theology, and the just war tradition operate as an interlocking system of oppression in the world. The oppressive system diverts Christians and all people from the person of Jesus Christ, his power, and their own. It’s because these groups divert humanity from Jesus Christ that they are called stumbling blocks. Stumbling block is used in the place of devilish or evil. Devil and evil produce monstrous images and incite our reacting against people who are judged to be morally wicked. However, devil is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Satan which is defined as “adversary” and means someone or something that trips us up, hence, stumbling block.4 Stumbling blocks get in our way; diverting us, misdirecting us. Stumbling block will thus be used in this attempt to understand and transform the harmful groups that misdirect people about Jesus Christ. The three harmful groups misdirect people in the ordinary and routine course of life. They promote a supremacist way of relating, an idolatrous belief, and violent practices. Neither people who are tempted by and sometimes express the harmful qualities, which many of us do, nor those who actively participate in the stumbling blocks and promote them, are evil. No human being existed as a monstrous caricature for Jesus. Nor will anyone be characterized as such in this exploration. A great witness of the Christian faith, Peter, was once identified as evil, in other words, as a stumbling block; by Jesus. It happened when Jesus was revealing that his mission would intersect with the cross: “Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.” Peter rebuked him, “saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This will never be done to you.” But Jesus turned, and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men.” (Matt 16:21, 22-23 WEB)5 While Peter certainly didn’t want any harm to come to his friend, did Peter’s rebuke of Jesus also indicate he had a different expectation of a savior? Old Testament predictions often portrayed their savior as exercising hierarchy’s right to judge, atonement’s right to threaten wrath, and just war traditionalism’s right to practice violence. It was disconcerting to consider such harm would be inflicted upon Jesus. The rebuke of Jesus in turn signified a profound paradigm shift or radical transformation for the world.6 Jesus showed early disciples, and all humanity, how hierarchy and its judgmental way of relating, atonement theology and its wrathful image of God,

who killed jesus? and the just war tradition and its violent practices were not of God, nor were they beneficial for humanity. The very human Jesus of Nazareth was a lowly, gentle, healer and yet was received as the Anointed of God, Christ. This fully Divine and fully human person would soon suffer at the hands of those very people claiming God’s endorsed status, wrathful disposition, and violent practices. Hierarchs would judge Jesus disobedient, justify their wrath against him as a sinner with the theology of atonement, and they would practice their tradition of justified violence by putting Jesus in his grave. And Christ would rise from it. In Christ there is born, and born again, a life-giving spirit as the transforming way of Divinity.7 Jesus is a guide on that way for people who want to learn how to live in communion and transform hierarchy’s dominating model of relating, how to be loving and transform atonement’s abusive image of God, and how to act as a creative healing power in the world and transform the ethic of violence, especially the just war tradition. Jesus’ life-giving spirit also makes him a guide for people who want to learn the truth about the cross. Jesus lets people know who constructed the deadly weapon and why. Hierarchs, atonement theologians, and just war traditionalists, who nailed Jesus to the cross, use the weapon still. One of its uses is to divert people. The cross diverts people from the life-giving witness of Jesus Christ and focuses attention instead on a weapon his killers used against him; for purposes of glorifying its violence. This exploration will show how the emphasis each stumbling block, and those influenced by them, places on the cross permits the continued wounding and killing of the Body of Christ yet today. Is it possible to reconsider the cross and its meaning as this exploration progresses? As the cross diverts people from Jesus Christ it consequently diverts people from becoming disciples of Jesus Christ. People are hindered from learning about him and following his transforming way that eventually intersected with the weapon. More problematic, the cross diverts Christians from being fully reborn in the creative healing power of Divinity realized in the Resurrection of Christ beyond the cross. While Christ is often used as Jesus’ last name it will be used in an expanded manner in this exploration. Christ means One Anointed by God.8 It’s a title given to Jesus of Nazareth. It signifies the abundance of Divine communion in which the fullness of God’s love and healing power are expressed within humanity. While disciples believe Jesus embodied that fullness, expressions of communion, love, and healing power live beyond his earthly existence, as Jesus himself taught: “anyone who has faith in me will do the works I do – and

part 1 greater works besides.â&#x20AC;? (John 14:12 INT)9 Expressions of communion, love, and creative healing power thus constitute the work of Divinity and the work of humanity. Christ signifies the lived expression of their harmony. It is the harmony of Christ, Divinity alive within humanity to share communion, love, and healing power, which the three stumbling blocks hinder. It will be the attempt of the next three chapters to analyze that hindrance.

chapter 1 Hierarchy as a Stumbling Block to Jesus’ Way of Relating Relationship Model – Supremacy Hierarchy is a relationship model based in supremacy. It operates by ranking some people over other people for a system of rule.10,11 It’s a religious word and means the “rule of a high priest” and the “leader of sacred rites.”12 From ancient times onward ruling high priests led sacred rites which included making “sacrificial offerings.”13 This meant priests killed living creatures in religious rituals.14 Hierarchs, or priests, thus relate from positions of ultimate supremacy because they exercise life and death decisions claiming God sanctions their rule.15 Hierarchy is an ancient relationship model and persists today as a form of rule. The institutional Catholic Church, for example, operates as a hierarchy and its priests link their rule to Moses.16 Moses was a high priest of the Old Testament who ruled over people believing God ordained his offering violent sacrifices. (Exod 29:1-21) Catholic priests also identify Jesus as a “high priest.”17 According to their hierarchical teaching authority, or Magisterium, Catholic priests believe they’re “conformed to Christ the Priest” when they’re ordained.18 Priests believe ordination grants them the authority to rule over others.19 Priesthood’s ruling authority is concentrated in the Pope, also called the Supreme Pontiff and Bishop of Rome, who confers authority onto other bishops and then parish priests.20 All priests, in agreement with the Pope, claim to have “supreme and full authority over the universal Church.”21

Hierarchy as a Stumbling Block to Jesus’ Way of Relating Those people over whom priests believe God ordains them to possess supreme and full authority are classified as laity.22 Priests teach that laity’s baptism gives them a “share in the common priesthood of all believers.”23 However, priests also assert that the common priesthood of all believers and that of hierarchs “differ from one another in essence and not only in degree.”24 The result is a Catholic hierarchy operating as the ancient relationship model signifies; a supremacist class that believes they represent God who ordains their rule and sacrificial duties as well as laity’s obedience to them. Institutional Catholicism’s system of ranking designated superiors over subordinates in God’s name isn’t unique. Though the Catholic tradition will be used for example, the hierarchical relationship model is present in other denominations and faiths. The supremacist relationship model is also the basis of rule in organizations that don’t claim to be religious but function in the same harmful manner thus making hierarchy a world-wide relationship problem. Hierarchy as a ranked class system ordained by God to rule over others does not reflect the way Jesus related. Jesus related in communion with people. He didn’t rule over others from a position of supremacy. He specifically didn’t assume any hierarchical office while on earth. Learning from Jesus enables Christians to be free of the stumbling block of hierarchy. In Christ, all humanity is potentially free for relating in communion. Freedom from hierarchy rests in the truth that Jesus was a commoner. When Catholic hierarchs state, “Christ is the source of all priesthood,” they fail to appreciate a basic truth; Jesus Christ was not a priest.25 (Matt 8:3-4; Luke 17:14) Jesus was never ordained. He was a laborer and itinerant preacher. He was not a member of any clergy class ordained to rule over people. As he was not ordained, neither did Jesus ordain. When Catholic hierarchs claim they can’t ordain women because Jesus didn’t ordain women they’re ignoring a basic truth, Jesus didn’t ordain men.26 Priests reference “Mark 3:14” to support their erroneous position on ordination.27 The Gospel passage reads: “He appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them out to preach.” Catholic priests fail to demonstrate with this passage that Jesus appointing and sending out twelve to join him in preaching is priestly ordination. If it is, then appointing 70 persons to go out in pairs for the same mission does as well. (Luke 10:1-12) If it is, then sending Mary out to preach about the Resurrection would also be ordination. (John 20:17-18) If the former is ordination, all are ordination, but in truth none are ordination. No evidence exists to support Jesus was involved in ordination of any kind. He never elevated men or women, rich or poor, Jew or Gentile, in God’s name for rule over others. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The disciples

who killed jesus? were also commoners like Jesus and remained so. They were faithful to his humble and counter-cultural relationship model of communion. It is true that in a patriarchal society Jesus was granted rule over women. However, he did not practice, nor did he sanction for disciples, its ranked or discriminatory privileges. Therefore, though women in the culture were specifically denied a public voice (Num 30:4-16), it was a woman, Mary Magdalene, who gave first testimony to his Resurrection. (John 20:11-18) It was a woman, Martha, who declared him Christ. (John 11:27) A Samaritan woman preached Jesus’ Good News. (John 4:28-29, 39) Based on Jesus’ practice, women led early church gatherings.28 Those seeking to follow Jesus’ way of relating in a humble and egalitarian manner with all their brothers and sisters are diverted from doing so by the hierarchical relationship model. It distorts Jesus’ communal witness, falsely asserts “Jesus chose men” as priests, and then claims it is “bound by this” choice.29 It’s odd that priests feel bound by this choice as they’re not bound by anything else in the matter. Priests of the institutional Catholic Church aren’t bound by the historical truth Jesus wasn’t an ordained priest. They aren’t bound by the lay status of early disciples considering Jesus never ordained any of them. They aren’t bound by the original number of twelve. They aren’t bound by the twelve’s original marital status, ethnicity, or religion. Gender alone binds; sadly proving male supremacy is a determining element of institutional Catholicism. Jesus didn’t operate a supremacy group of any kind; not one for priests, nor one for males. Christian churches of all denominations violate Jesus’ way of communion, hinder discipleship, and reflect a value of his opponents when they relate via the stumbling block of hierarchy. It was a model for rule Jesus specifically cautioned disciples against: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.” (Matt 20:25-26) Jesus and disciples shared a common life rooted not in positional roles but in conscientious authority and therefore free of ranked rule. They posed a direct challenge to people operating from hierarchy’s supremacist class system. Present day disciples pose that same challenge to present day hierarchs who continue to oppose Jesus’ communal way. An additional element opposing Jesus’ communal way is judgment.

Image of God - Infallible Judge Generally speaking, judgment is pronouncing sentence against someone. It’s a personal tendency that can tempt anyone. It’s made worse however,

Hierarchy as a Stumbling Block to Jesus’ Way of Relating by being institutionalized within hierarchy. Hierarchs interpret their judgments as uniquely received from God with subordinates duty bound to obey them. Priests within institutional Catholicism, for example, claim they have the right to judge.30 They also specifically claim some of their judgments are infallible, meaning given to them by God.31 Infallible judgment from God is dependent upon hierarchical position concentrated in the Pope and other bishops who then extend it to other priests.32 Priests believe laity must dutifully obey their judgments.33 Obedience is an important element of hierarchical relations.34 It’s specifically important given the priestly class believes they represent God.35 Priests equate laity’s obedience to them with obedience to God and believe it helps secure laity’s salvation.36 Hierarchs subordinate all things and people to their value of obedience, even Jesus. From the Catholic Catechism: Jesus “offered his life… in reparation for our disobedience. Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience.”37 Jesus’ entire being and mission for humanity are thus reinterpreted according to a value highly prized by hierarchs. Hierarchs value obedience; from subordinates. They do not value it nor do they practice it in return, as they did not practice it with Jesus. Hierarchs repeatedly disobeyed Jesus when he was alive.38 Not only did hierarchs not obey Jesus, he didn’t obey them. When the rulers of Jesus’ time attempted to force him into submission with Sabbath and purity laws he refused to obey and lived by conscience instead.39 Hierarchs were bothered by Jesus’ freedom from their supremacist rule and judgments: “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (Matt 9:11) They were also bothered by Jesus having modeled conscientious living for disciples: “Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, “Why do your disciples disobey the tradition of the elders?” (Matt 15:1)40 Falsely assigned to Jesus, hierarchy’s value of obedience, more truthfully submission, is used both to divert and to manipulate Christians. Hierarchs first divert Christians from Jesus’ conscientious witness and therefore from living conscientious lives themselves. Hierarchs then manipulate Christians into subordinating themselves to members of the priestly class. The diversion and manipulation are apparent in the loyalty oath Roman Catholic priests mandate for laity: “I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”41 Jesus is missing from the oath. He’s missing from the oath because He’s missing as an authority figure in hierarchy’s self-

who killed jesus? referencing value system. Under hierarchy, “creative fidelity” to Jesus’ way of conscientious authority in communion is diminished in favor of submission to the priestly class.42 Having neither been a part of hierarchy nor having ordained disciples into it, Jesus placed no authority in a select group of celibate males, to their making infallible judgments, or to people obeying members of the class. Jesus shared with ordinary people of no particular religious, social, or intellectual status a quite simple message: “The Kingdom of God has come near to you.” Jesus “sent them two by two”, without rank. They never demanded obedience. Nor did they ever threaten punishment to those who rejected them. Instead, they were instructed by Jesus on such occasions merely to “go out into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust from your city that clings to us, we wipe off against you.’” (Luke 10:1-12)43 Among the ordinary people Jesus sent out to spread his humble way was Peter, a fallible human being. (Luke 5:8, Matt 16:23) The priestly class diverts Christians from Peter’s human fallibility by interpreting his receiving the “keys of the Kingdom” as the origins of their infallible judgment. (Matt 16:19)44 However, it was immediately after Peter received the keys that he rebuked Jesus and was called Satan, a stumbling block, in return. (Matt 16:21, 23) Peter repaid a gift interpreted as infallibility by dissuading Jesus from his mission and was identified as Satan. There seems to be an error in interpreting the transference of keys to Peter as the origins of infallibility. One gift Jesus did extend to Peter in this and other instances of fallibility was the encouragement to return to Jesus’ way after straying from it. Peter had most especially lost his way after denying Jesus three times. He regretted his actions and in heartfelt sorrow “wept bitterly.” (Matt 26:69-75) In his tearful fallibility Peter was loved, forgiven, and set forth again on the life-giving way of Christ. (John 21:15-19) Jesus’ relationship with Peter showed his commitment to loving communion and asked Peter for that same commitment in return. It didn’t reflect hierarchy’s assertion of infallible rule over obedient subordinates. Centered on the witness of Jesus, infallibility’s flaw is thus revealed. It attempts to elevate people from the mutual and loving relationships that were the basis of Jesus’ communal life and all human life, so well learned by Peter. Infallible hierarchs erroneously believe their elevation to be the basis of their authoritative judgments. Yet it’s that very elevation that blocks each human being caught up in the class system from the loving communal relationships that more genuinely confirm authority in Christ.45 As Jesus’ authority didn’t come from elevated status but rather communal relationships, it wasn’t conveyed through infallible judgments but rather,

Hierarchy as a Stumbling Block to Jesus’ Way of Relating in part, through engaging stories. Jesus’ teachings were simple yet thought provoking parables whose truths resonated within listeners. When Catholic priests claim: the “Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas,” it shows a misunderstanding of Jesus as well as the loving way he passed on to Peter and all disciples.46 The substance of Jesus’ life, his actions and teachings, confirms he related from the heart, wisely so, not the head, infallibly so. (Mark 6:34) Jesus’ authority was in sharing God’s love, not parsing out hierarchs’ judgments. Peter, like Jesus, isn’t the head of the church; he is, like Jesus, and all who love him, the heart of the church. The church of Jesus Christ is founded not in rule decreed by a supremacy group mandating obedience, but in loving forgiveness received and shared by all in communion.

Behavior Believed Godly – Punishment Communion can be broken by any person. We’ve all found ourselves in situations where we assert control over someone and demand they obey us. We’ve also probably had the experience that the more we demanded the obedience the worse things got until we unnecessarily threatened or even inflicted punishment. The hierarchical relationship model institutionalizes this divisive role play and adds God to the mix. Religious hierarchs claim God ordains their rule over subjects, their right to demand obedience to their infallible judgments, and, when others refuse their rule or in conscience disobey their judgments, priests also claim the right to punish them. Punishment entails subjecting others to “pain, loss, confinement, death,” “as a penalty for some offense.”47 Granting that it can be inflicted by any person, punishment becomes especially problematic when inflicted by members of the priestly class in God’s name. Jesus’ Gospel witness showed he didn’t inflict punishment on people and was instead a creative healing power for others. Hierarchy, however, once again diverges from Jesus’ witness in this matter. For example, Catholic hierarchs assert the right to punish laity: “Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty.”48 Sins judged grave, in other words mortal or deadly to the soul, result in members of the priestly class inflicting punishment, not only on earth but threatening it for eternity: “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity ... the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.”’49 Two issues connected to the Roman Catholic priesthood highlight the distinction between the hierarchical relationship model that promotes a god

who killed jesus? like rule over obedient laity with the right to punish them, and Jesus’ way of relating in communion, being loving, and sharing healing power. Those issues are women’s ordination and priest sex abuse.50 Exemplifying the distinction is Bishop Raymond Burke who addressed the first issue of women’s ordination and demonstrated hierarchy’s typically punitive response. He excommunicated two Catholic women ordained within the institutional church structure and judged them deserving of hell: “the women involved and any Catholic who knowingly and deliberately assists them risks the eternal salvation of their souls. They commit mortal sin.”51 No human being was physically hurt by the ordination of women, a truth not able to be asserted in the wake of the sexual abuse inflicted by priests. That abuse however was not responded to by punishing the priests but was instead usually covered up by other priests.52 Bishop Burke was one of many priests who never expressed similar concern about or excommunication of fellow priests who sexually abused children or facilitated it. Nor did he express regret or request forgiveness for his own cover up of such abuse.53 Hierarchy’s non-Christian relationship model is based on the enforcement of punitive measures against out-group violators of status; for example, women being ordained. It protects in-group violators of persons; for example, priests sexually abusing children.54 Hierarchy thus reflects “the traditions of men” and violates the communion of Christ. (Mark 7:8) Individual tendencies toward supremacy, judgment, and punishment institutionalized as a hierarchical class system and directed against women, children, and so many others is a problem that exists across religious, political, economic, social, and cultural systems.55 The specific sexual abuse by priests of children is but the most reprehensible example of the inherently abusive relationship model to which a supremacist, judgmental, and punitive class system subjects humanity.56 It’s possible to transform hierarchy’s abusive relationship model into Jesus’ communal model.57 Disciples can initiate the conversion by inviting priests to return to the pews. Together they can commit themselves to conscientious communion and the people of God can reclaim their authority as Church.58 They can do so with Jesus’ loving disposition as their guiding essence. Disciples can also transform hierarchs’ practice of punitive reactions into discerning and healing ones such as Jesus demonstrated and thereby effect real change. (Matt 18:2-6; 19:13) The pattern of conscientious engagement, loving dispositions, and creative healing solutions for purposes of transformation can be extended to all persons who violate others. Discernment in this matter is the catalyst for disciples to be free for

Hierarchy as a Stumbling Block to Jesus’ Way of Relating communion in Christ and freed from the hierarchical relationship model blocking it. Jesus initiated the paradigm shift from hierarchy to communion two millennia back. Making the shift entails risk however, as his life showed. It’s important to remember Jesus’ wisdom about people who relate from hierarchy’s value system and their response to the paradigm shift he inaugurated: “he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed.” (Matt 16:21) More than 2,000 years ago Jesus sent out an invitation to communion, love, and healing power. He understood members of the ruling class would respond to it with supremacy, judgment, and punishment, lethal punishment.59 Disciples need to understand, as Jesus did, that the hierarchical model’s penchant for punishment is ancient and can be lethal because it was hierarchs, both religious and political, who arranged and ordered his execution: “Now when morning had come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: and they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pontius Pilate, the governor.” (Matt 27:1-2) Hierarchs being responsible for Jesus’ murder is a simple and known historical fact. As such it’s the decisive reason for the relationship model being a stumbling block to Christ. Hierarchy cannot sensibly be asserted as the relationship model of Jesus for disciples. This deception has unfortunately been the case for much of Christianity’s history. Members of a supremacy group responsible for killing Jesus promote themselves as a ruling class within Jesus’ faith community. However, it’s also possible for those good people diverted into the harmful relationship model to heed Jesus’ call for conversion: “Repent, and believe in the Good News.” (Mark 1:14) Conversion is vital as the relationship model people are formed in strongly influences their image of God and their actions. So it is that hierarchy influences people to believe in a hierarchical image of God whose judgments align with those of the ruling priestly class and whose actions match their punitive ones. Therefore, as problematic as hierarchy is, it’s made worse by having been projected onto a deity.60 Projection in this case means “to ascribe one’s own feelings, thoughts, or attitudes to others.”61 In the pages ahead it will be shown that atonement theology is an entire belief system based on hierarchs projecting their qualities onto God. Hierarchs relating as supremacists ruling over subordinates becomes atonement’s Almighty Lord ruling over a lowly humanity. Hierarchs’ infallible judgments and demands for obedience becomes atonement’s heavenly judge angry with disobedient sinners. Hier-

who killed jesus? archs’ punishing practices becomes atonement’s God of retribution who inflicts justified suffering. The relationship model and theology developed to support it are stumbling blocks to Christ’s way of communion, love, and creative healing power.