Secular Easter is not Christian Easter

What is the meaning of secular Easter? If we set aside commercial and consumptive interest in chocolate bunnies, it seems to me that the most common way of trying to make Easter meaningful is to reinterpret it in such a way that the death and resurrection of Jesus are merely instances of a more general, less religiously specific theme. For example, we see it as a celebration of the cycle of life, death, and rebirth and, more generally, rebirth and renewal. That is a salutary theme and appropriate to reflect on, in my opinion, and spring seems an appropriate time for it considering the natural world (which, at least in the northern hemisphere, makes the timing of Easter apropos). But I do not think that the Christian story of Jesus’ death and (supposed) resurrection should be simply reduced to this broader spiritual theme. There’s a big difference between the natural cycle of life and death, on the one hand, and sacrificial killing, on the other.  The former is a salutary theme that references a force that is bigger than us—the basic constraints of all life, including human life. The latter is a cultural creation, the complexities of which I’m not going to attempt to explain here. Suffice it to say that the idea of sacrifice (human or animal) is a very old idea that is not at all unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition but has been practiced all over the world and still is in some cases. (Even if Christians are not killing sheep in their backyards, they still uphold the conceptual logic of sacrificial atonement.) In any case, sacrificial death is not the same thing as natural death.

Because the Christian understanding of Easter necessarily involves the sacrificial death of an innocent being, I do not think that there is any way of redeeming it. The Christian understanding of Easter is connected to the Hebrew sacrificial system and the basic idea there is that the atoning death of an innocent “saves” the rest of us. Christians view Jesus’ death as an instance of that—albeit the final instance. God required the death of Jesus for the purpose of forgiveness of human sin. The thoughtful person will ask the obvious question here: but why should forgiveness require the death of an innocent being? I do not think that the common Christian response—that death was justified since Jesus willingly succumbed to being sacrificed—at all works because it leaves the basic question untouched: why would a loving god require the sacrifice of innocents for the forgiveness of sin (or ransoming the sinner, or whatever atonement theory you like) in the first place?  C.S. Lewis at least recognized the force of this question by calling the scheme that requires the (spiritual) death of the sinner “deep magic” and the scheme that ransoms the sinner by the sacrificial death of an innocent, “deeper magic.”  It is to Lewis’s credit that he calls a spade a spade and recognizes that there is no answer that reason can give to this question.  

In any case, the point of the foregoing is that the death (and supposed resurrection) of Jesus should not be seen as an instance or illustration of the basic natural cycle of death and rebirth.

Joseph Campbell thus misses this point when he says, “What has always been basic to Easter, or resurrection, is crucifixion. If you want resurrection, you must have crucifixion. Too many interpretations of the Crucifixion have failed to emphasize that relationship and emphasize instead the calamity of the event. If you emphasize the calamity, you look for someone to blame, which is why people have blamed the Jews. But crucifixion is not a calamity if it leads to new life. Through Christ’s crucifixion we were unshelled, which enabled us to be born to resurrection. That is not a calamity. So, we must take a fresh look at this event if its symbolism is to be sensed” (Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor). Sounds nice but as I’ve suggested above, there’s a darkness that remains at the heart of the atonement metaphor: the necessary sacrifice of innocents. A redeemed concept of forgiveness would not require any kind of “payment” and certainly not a blood sacrifice of an innocent being.

The thing is, spiritual reinterpretations of religious rituals of world religions will almost always do violence to the original point of those rituals and undergirding doctrines. Better just to understand what those rituals were about and then either accept or reject them on their own merits (as determined by our own lights). To me, there are obviously positive things to hold onto regarding the life of Jesus. The whole trial and death of Jesus, as recounted in the Christian scriptures is incredibly moving. Jesus exemplifies forgiveness (true forgiveness, not the kind that requires a “payment”) when, even while suffering on that Roman torture device, he forgives those who are mocking him. He exemplifies integrity in refusing to back down from what he believes in, even when doing so could have saved his life. Those are two things that are worthy of being celebrated in the life of Jesus. However, there are also aspects of Jesus that the Christian scriptures uphold but that we should reject. For example, the vengeance of Jesus as portrayed in the book of Revelation. The religious figure of Jesus (in contrast to the historical one), like any figure celebrated within a religious tradition, has good and bad attributes. We should praise the good ones while rejecting the bad ones. Not all religious stories can be successfully spiritualized. When Yahweh instructs the Israelites to commit genocide and then justifies it because “those” people are evil, that is something that cannot be made morally kosher. There are plenty of others like it, including the story of the Passover. Yes, the Israelite children we saved but did the Egyptian children deserve to die? Sure, killing the firstborn is an excellent way of trying to get a recalcitrant dictator (pharaoh) to relent; but does that really justify killing innocent children? I guess my problem with secular spiritualizations is my same problem with many religious interpretations of scripture: they fail because they either ignore the hard parts or they reinterpret them in such a way that does violence to the original meanings of scripture.