Now, I don't mean to say that there is nothing redemptive about the cross. To the contrary, I believe that the cross of Jesus was indeed redemptive. I do think that Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world. I also happen to believe that Martin Luther King, Jr, bore the weight of the great sin of the South. Suffering and death can be (but are not always) redemptive. But I just don't think God demands blood. Suffering and death are not redemptive because God requires them to balance the books, to erase a debt.
I do think, however, that God calls us toward sacrifice - and particularly sacrifice of ourselves. The command to love the neighbor as the self is a call to sacrifice ourselves on behalf of our neighbor.
The confusion I see is where the emphasis is placed. The emphasis is usually placed on the act of sacrifice, whereas I want to emphasize the act of love that ends in sacrifice. The emphasis is usually placed on offering to God a sacrifice to pay back a debt caused by sin, whereas I want to emphasize the bearing the burden of another's sin to help bring wholeness into the world. The emphasis is usually placed solely on the person of Jesus and an event that happened two millennia ago, whereas I want to emphasize our responsibility in a process that is ongoing so long as wholeness is not established.
So, on this so-called "Good" Friday, the challenge is for us to accept responsibility for our role in bringing peace and wholeness into the world. Just because Jesus died on a cross does not mean that there is nothing left to be done.
And that is why, when I lead in the Eucharist (or Lord's Supper, or Communion), I adapt the traditional wording to the following:
This is the body of Christ, broken for us. Take and eat.
May we also offer our bodies out of love for our neighbors.
This is the blood of Christ, spilled for us. Take and drink.
May we also spill our blood out of love for our neighbors.
Amen.
