Annie Daugherty: What we resist persists

"i understand the egoic allure of (self-)'righteous indignation', that surge of endorphins in imagining oneself the sole defender of truth and justice. yet, in the end, what we resist persists, and Jesus offered some pretty good advice regarding the 'pharisees': "Leave them alone..." - Annie Daugherty

I think that is good advice from Jesus who had much experience in dealing with the Pharisees of his day. There were times he engaged them on a discourse about God and the kingdom of God, and there were times he disengaged from them and departed from them when they resisted his message and wanted to stone him. Similarly, when his disciples shared the gospel, they also learnt to shake the dust off their feet and moved on to another town if they were not welcome in a town.

I think today's Pharisees can be likened to those who do not see Jesus manifested in the flesh (in everyone on earth) and look forward to a physical return of Jesus in future, not realising the kingdom of God is in the here and now and is within us. This egoic allure of imagining oneself to be the sole defender of truth and justice is in everyone, including the Pharisees. For example, many a times, some modern pharisees/evangelists would claim to speak for "God" and pronounce judgment on some groups or some societies for not living up to certain expectations. That could also be a manifestation of the egoic expression of the dualistic self.

When it comes to promoting social justice and setting people free from oppression, we can follow our heart and intuition, as Jesus did. Sometimes it involves speaking up for the marginalised, just as Jesus defended the woman he healed on the sabbath day who was bowed down by religious oppression. Sometimes it involves speaking in parables which invite people, including Pharisees, to think for themselves what the kingdom of God means, as Jesus said, "he who has ears, let him hear." When people's hearts are open and ready or willing to learn more about the gospel, they will come to Jesus and listen more of his teachings, as it was in the case of Nicodemus the Pharisee.

Love does not require a sacrifice on the cross because Love simply forgives

 I think somebody will appreciate the invitation to think out of the box (tradition). Let's consider these questions.

Why would 'you' need grace from a God that is love? WHEN would LOVE have ever stopped loving? Are you sure that you have a clear understanding of what grace is all about? Love would simply forgive! NOT require a son on a cross!

These questions raise a pertinent point about grace because "grace" has often been used in a legalistic way in the christian circles. To some preachers, grace is like having a transaction with God, such as "God gives us his grace only when we give God our faith" or "God needs to punish Jesus to fulfill the law in order to give us his grace and forgiveness". That is not grace; that is legalism disguised as grace because the law is always conditional whereas grace is always unconditional.

Teachings that represent God/Jesus as a vindictive and vengeful divinity are actually anti-Christ because revenge and retribution are against his loving, gracious and non-violent nature. Jesus himself taught people not to return an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, but to love their enemies. It is amazing to think how much the mainstream christian teachings that propagate a picture of a judgmental and vengeful Jesus have the gospel upside down that is contrary to his true nature.

The cross simply demonstrates Jesus' love, compassion and forgiveness. He had said "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do". If he had wanted revenge, he would have said something that was condemning.

Since God is love, and love keeps no records of wrong, then it does not make any sense for God to punish or require a sacrifice to atone for people’s wrongs. The “atonement for sin” theology therefore is man’s theology. I think Jesus came to help people repent (change their mindset) about God – that the idea of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” is not compatible with God’s love (which keeps no records of wrong), and that God’s heart is to love one’s enemies. He also came to show us that we are already innocent and perfect/complete, for the kingdom of God (innocence/righteousness, peace and joy) is within each of us.

This also answers the question “If God doesn’t require sacrifice for “sins”, then why did Jesus die on the cross?” because Jesus’ suffering and death was to demonstrate what Jesus himself taught in the sermon on the mount – he did not return an eye for an eye when he was beaten, and instead he blessed those who cursed him, and prayed for those who persecuted him. The cross is a demonstration of the love of God which keeps no records of wrong, and not to atone for so-called sins (which man-made religions have mistakenly taught).

I believe there are people who will appreciate the invitation to think out of the box and question religious traditions, so as to find their own freedom from any kind of bondage of fear and condemnation imposed by organised religions, and experience peace within themselves and with others.

Related posts

Once you start seeing The Love of God, Hell Won’t Make Sense ~Dr. Michel W. Jones
Progressive thoughts on why Jesus died on the cross and whether God’s justice is retributive or restorative

Is "original sin" a christian theology?

Actually, I think the sin theology was derived from the Jews, and the early Christians probably borrowed (and adapted or modified) the idea of original sin from Judaism. I have come to see the bible as a collection of myths borrowed from various ancient cultures, and somewhere along the way thousands of years ago, the sin concept was probably borrowed by the Jews from some of the ancient traditions that revolve around sin, atonement and sacrifices.

Until the day Jesus arrived in the scene, the Jews were still hung up about sin and sacrificial system. The Pharisees especially looked down on others as sinners. Although I have come to see Jesus as a mythological character, I do see his purpose in helping people to see themselves not as sinners but beloved children of God. He told them the kingdom of God is within them. If they were sinners, then this statement makes no sense. The fact that the kingdom of God is in us means we are all beloved and innocent children of God. While Jesus have used the term sinner in his parables, I believe he was only using their lingo to speak their language. But essentially Jesus wanted everyone to know that we and the Father are one, and we are already blameless and without spot, wrinkle or any such thing.