Reflections on "Ending Judgment" Teleclass by Rikka Zimmerman

The above video has an encouraging message to remind everyone to accept ourselves wholly and not entertain any voice of judgment or condemnation in our minds or from any other source.

It offers a therapy workshop at the end of the video which is probably similar to the gospel of grace, except that it doesn't use christian lingo. I think we can also simply remind ourselves and arm ourselves with the truth that we are created to be loved and beautiful. After all, God created everything good, and God created us VERY good. We are made in Love's image. As Jesus is perfect and complete, and beautiful and blameless, so are we in this world.

We can be set free from condemning voices in the past - from family members and relatives, from workplaces, from religious circles, from our own past thought life that used to be performance-oriented. We are fine the way we are - we need not feel guilty or pressurised by the world system about having to do anything or be anything to prove ourselves. We are already valuable, already priceless, already favoured.

I believe that this revelation, when meditated on regularly, will keep any form of stress or anxiety far from us. Yes, in Righteousness (or Innocence), we shall be established, and we shall be far from oppression. We shall prosper in all things and be in health, even as our soul prospers.

Furthermore, if the truth be known, I believe that the so-called "judgment of God" and "wrath of God" in the Bible is nothing more than a projection of our judgment mentality that we once heaped upon ourselves before we came to the realisation that we are one with God and there is no separation between us and God who is Love.

Christian Theology of Violent God is Both Misleading and Pornographic

Someone astutely observed that the preaching on law and grace is part of the dispensationalist christianity camp. I think that this observation is true as the teachings on law and grace tend to portray God as a legalistic judge who will one day execute so-called "judgment" on "unbelievers". As for me, I would subscribe to fulfilled eschatology (as the preterists do), and my understanding of "judgment" is in terms of the conscience of the Jews in AD70, who mistakenly thought their God was judging them when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed. So yea, it wasn't God "judging" them or anyone at all. It was simply the "roaring of the lion" in their consciousness - Satan or the human ego - accusing them, and trying to deceive them into thinking God was angry with them, when all the while, God is already one with humankind and is never separated from humankind.

Another realisation I had recently is that Isaiah 53 also mentioned it was man who thought God was angry with Jesus at the cross. Isaiah 53:4 says "Yet WE esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions". So it is clear that it wasn't God who smote Jesus at the cross, although it appeared like that to people surrounding Him. Psalm 22 also recorded that God was all the while with His Son - "For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from Him; but when He cried to Him, He heard." (Psalm 22:24)

The truth of the gospel is that God is not angry with humankind at all - not with His Son, not with any one of us. God is love, and love keeps no records of wrongs, so the penal substitution view holds no water.

Preaching of Violent God is Nothing More than Pornography

The online Merriam-Website dictionary has an interesting definition of the word "pornography". One of the definitions given is: 

"the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>"

It is ironic that many evangelical or fundamentalist church preachers are condemning people for watching pornography (which they often think is referring to sexual materials, maybe because they are struggling with sexual temptations themselves, for whatever one resists only becomes stronger), yet by their very condemnation of people with threats of hellfire and damnation, these same preachers are promoting pornography themselves without even realising it. Why is that so? Because they are projecting the "pornography of violence", painting God as some mean, vengeful and judgmental egomaniac. Not only are they manipulating people with guilt and fear, by preaching do's and dont's instead of the divine life indwelling people, the preachers are strengthening the power of addiction and temptations over them.

Want to see an example of a "christian" hellfire and damnation pornographic material? Well, for the sake of your health and wellbeing, I won't post the video here directly. I will just put a link here - watch it only when you are prepared. If you are already set free from religion and condemnation, knowing that the christian "hell" is a myth, then you may even find this video laughable because you know the person who did the voice-over was just being blinded, brainwashed and unconscious himself. "Oh the madness!" cried the preacher in the video. Yea, right - what a mad, crazy, looney fundamentalist preacher, that is.

Someone wrote, "I think that looking for God outside of ourselves is the problem; thus, I have chosen to reconnect myself to the real world. Therefore, I'm not an object of weekly incessant brainwashing, spiritual and emotional rape, psychological and mental manipulation and abuse anymore." I totally agree with that - what sweet freedom we experience - like a breath of fresh air - when we are no longer subject to the pornography and violence of evangelical or fundamentalist church teachings!

Related link:

"the god who burns you" - David Hayward

Some Reflections on a Trinitarian View of the Cross

The following is a very interesting article by Bill Nieporte, which refutes the penal substitution view of the cross in a positive way. I can relate to this article because like the author, I used to subscribe to the penal substitution view of the cross, and later realised that this view faces several problems. I think he summarised the main problems of that view well, such as the triune God – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – is not separated from Himself or one another, and the fact that Jesus came as a revelation of God as our loving Father.

After all, in the past few years, I have listened to preachings like this: “Yes, God is love, but God is also just. God hates sin and has to punish sinners, so God punished His Son on our behalf at the cross.” Or “Yes, God is our Father, but God is also a Judge. As a Father, He wept for His Son, but as a Judge, He had to turn His back and forsake His Son at the cross – He was forsaken by the Father so that you and I will be accepted by the Father.” I have accepted this view without much questioning in the past, because the preachers sounded convincing in the way they presented this view of the cross. It was also a popular view, as it seemed to be widely accepted by people among the evangelical christian circles.

I guess the penal substitution view might even sound logical to most people because we tend to equate our human sense of justice with God’s idea of justice. In most (if not all) societies, the law court would impose on an offender some form of punishment, such as fine, jail or death penalty, depending on the severity of the crime. But this punishment is mainly retributive and serves as a deterrent for others – it is neither remedial nor restorative. The judge also gains nothing out of it. God, on the other hand, has a different view of justice – He judges on behalf of the poor, the downcast, the oppressed, and the sinners. God is love, and His justice must be viewed from the perspective that His nature is love — love wants the best for us.

So who did God judge at the cross? Not us. Not His Son. I believe God judged the devil, who is the accuser of the brethren, and he is none other than our guilty conscience, so that today, our conscience can no longer condemn us or make us think God is angry with us or out to punish us. God saves us from wrong thinking (which began in the garden of Eden), by sending His Son to open our eyes to the truth of the gospel – through His finished work at the cross, He has cleansed our conscience so that we can have the boldness and freedom to fellowship with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who is all the while with us and for us. We can boldly and freely enjoy the warm fellowship and love with the triune God in our daily life.

“The reason I am ‘hung up’ on this (as you put it) is that I am passionate about biblical theology. What is advocated by those who hold ‘penal substitution’ view of redemption is a hermeneutic that is imposed on the scripture from the outside. It does not rise up from the text. I once believed otherwise – but as I have more carefully studied the Bible – I am no longer able to accept the schizophrenic view of God that teaches that Father was dumping anger or wrath out on Jesus when he was on the cross. My foundation has been a renewed understanding and appreciation for the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

The ‘penal substitution’ view is in error in that it divides God into parts differing personalities, rather than a Triune who share the same nature (LOVE). The early church fathers referred to this as perichoresis – a Greek term that means ‘cleaving together.’ It describes the fellowship (Baxter Kruger calls it ‘the Divine dance’) that exists between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as they embrace and infuse each other. This is more than just intimacy and self-sufficiency. It is also the understanding that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one in being. Karl Barth considers the  doctrine of the Trinity so important that it became the lynchpin of this entire theology. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity (Barth referred to the ‘one in threeness’ and ‘three in oneness’ or God) was the prolegomena of his systematic theology.

Here is where the problem lies. The idea that one part of God could be angry at us and the other loving toward us is contrary to this core biblical doctrine of the Christian faith. The idea that Father could in any way pour out anger or wrath on Jesus in anathema to a good Trinitarian, as it cuts up the Godhead into separate entities, rather than affirming the unity of the Godhead. This is unbiblical.

Compounding this biblical error is that it serves as a basic denial of the doctrine of the Incarnation which teaches us that Jesus was the perfect expression of the Father in human form (see Hebrews 1:3). In Jesus, God is seen not as some wrathful God of vengeance who must be appeased. Rather God is full of compassion and mercy, as witnessed in Jesus.
What Trinitarians advocate is that the place from which to understand scripture and all doctrines of the Christian faith is by looking at the love and kindness of Jesus, who came to reveal what God was really like (as John 14:9 says, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”) Those who work from a ‘penal substitution’ view say that the discussion about the nature and identity of God begins with ‘the law’ and not with Jesus. In fact, ‘penal substitution’ draws the attention so much to ‘the law’ that even God must submit to its dictates. In this view, God is so uptight about sin (disobedience against the law) that God MUST punish lawbreakers. So, then, the two hermeneutical principles that inform my interpretation of scripture are the doctrine of the Trinity and the conviction that the nature (DNA, if you will) of God is LOVE. Both these principles rise up from the scripture, where as the ‘penal’ view does not. So, while you may disagree with me, please don’t see my objection as merely a visceral discomfort with the notion of God’s ‘anger’ or ‘wrath.’ Rather these ideas (as they are understood from a ‘penal substitution’ viewpoint) are simply inconsistent with biblical theology.

So, then, the logical question is this: “If God was NOT pouring out wrath on Jesus as a penal substitution for us, then what exactly was happening at the cross?” The answer is that the cross is a unified expression of LOVE from our Triune God. Texts that affirm this include 2 Corinthians 5:19 and Hebrews 9:14 which together place Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together, on the cross, bringing all humanity the gift of salvation. Beyond all else, salvation is an invitation to participate in ‘the Divine dance’ (perichoresis).

As I said earlier, God is not schizophrenic. He does not suffer from a multiple-personality disorder. There is not a good guy God in a white hat named Jesus, and a mean God in a black hat called the Father. There is one Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who loves without condition and has not only forgiven us, but has removed sin from us, and has made a way for full participation in the love relationship the Godhead shares. The word Paul uses is ‘adoption.’ God becomes one of us in Jesus. God takes up our cause. God draws us into relationship. (Ephesians 1:4-5)

Now with this picture in mind, how do we see this concept of God’s wrath? God’s wrath is God’s anger at sin because it hinders our ability to have intimacy with God. As a parent, I have often been angry at my children’s behavior. But I have never stopped loving them. I have never disowned them. Jesus makes this exact point in Matthew 7:9-11, when he says, “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!” The message of the cross under the ‘penal substitution’ view is that God is angry with you and poured out His wrath on Jesus. The message of the cross from a proper Trinitarian understanding of the scripture is that God loves you. That’s why we call it GOSPEL.”

- Bill Nieporte