I agree with your statement that Jesus didn't come to start a new religion. I have my own problems with Pauline theology, and I'm not a Bibliolator. Nevertheless ...

I draw on several sources for my Christology, I guess you'd call it: what I've been exposed to in the traditional Christian context, what I've been exposed to from Hindu sources, NDEs, and what neopagans call UPG, or unverified personal gnosis.

First, the retributive justice theory of atonement is not the only atonement theology there is. Second -- and this is something I have come to realize only late in life -- the theme of sacrificial suffering may be an essential meme in the Way of Jesus. The Catholic church teaches that it is possible to suffer for others, to mystically take on their suffering for their sake. (There is a powerful image of this in Agnes Sanford's novel, "Lost Shepherd.") It was realizing this was possible that led me to understand Paul's reference to completing what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ" (Col. 1:24) as I do now. Taking on the suffering of others is an act of love, perhaps the quintessential act of love in this vale of tears.

Third, it is astonishing how often people encounter Jesus on the other side of an NDE, even people who aren't Christian or even religious. Fourth, the 19th-century Hindu saint, Ramakrishna, had his own encounter with Christ, after which he proclaimed Him "the Redeemer of the world." He didn't switch religions; I'm sure he continued to worship Kali, but he also honored Jesus.

Finally, the concept of "worship" as a hierarchical relationship is, I think, twisted; I think it comes from confusing the subjective experience with an objective interpretation of it. The individual who worships may bow down before the object of his worship, but it's not a conscious decision; rather, it's an impulse of the moment that comes from divine encounter. An observer, on the other hand, sees it differently, in terms of discrete actions. (There are many theological evils, I think, that have their origin here, in the confusion of the objective viewpoint with the subjective one.) I think "surrender" is a more applicable word for this act than "submission"; it is a gift of the heart, rather than an act of obeisance. And this is what worship truly is, in my opinion: a complete openness of heart, of self, to the other. The use of the term in the older English language of the Anglican Marriage Rite, which I think is in their Book of Common Prayer, illustrates this: "With my body I thee worship." This is not a hierarchical relationship to the one experiencing it; it's an act of love.

There was another Hindu saint in the last century called Anandamayi Ma. There are many similarities between her life and that of Jesus. Miracles fell from her like rain, and people were changed just by being in her presence. Once when she was on pilgrimage to a Hindu shrine, she passed a villager walking in the opposite direction and they shared a glance. The villager continued walking a short distance, then suddenly stopped, turned back and fell before her, calling her the Goddess. Yet, despite things like this, like Jesus, she refused to equate herself with God, despite her followers continually pressing her to do so.

So, I do not take issue with the idea that, in some mystical fashion, Jesus was the Lamb that was slain for our redemption. I'm not a fan of the penal substitution theory of atonement; personally, I don't have an atonement theory that I subscribe to, but it's a comfort to know that alternatives are out there. (You might want to check out the work of Darrin Belousek, an Orthodox scholar.) Ramakrishna announced Him the Redeemer of the world, and that's good enough for me. And I don't have a problem seeing Him as divine, either, for reasons of the foregoing.

The theme of suffering for others is more powerful than I ever before imagined. Let me encourage you to explore it.