Year: 2023

Una pausa?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Reports

Been a while since I posted… well some 7,000kms on the road – Valencia –> France –> Italy –> Switzerland –> Germany –> Switzerland –> Galicia –> home. Great to be away and awesome to come home even if 37°C is just a little too hot. On the road, computer said ‘My time is over’ so I was not about to write a bunch of posts on my phone. But a good pause – always time to pray, talk with my companion (oh yes the one called, Gayle!), refocus etc., and at the same time holding our breath as the election in Spain took place while we were gone – outcome could have been a lot worse!!

Our main involvement while away was for Gayle to hold, with others, a ‘sanctuary’ in Italy. A safe place for anyone connected to ‘Authentic’ to explore being together, share life and stories. I am amazed at the outcome with genuine transformation. I am also deeply interested to journey with this as those of different faith / no faith get involved – one of the passions I have currently is to discover how can we be inclusive and enable people to encounter (or journey toward) the Jesus who uniquely is the image of the one true God.

In a post-Christendom Europe (so much more like the culture of the NT – maybe the answer to prayers that have been asking for a NT-type expression of faith??? I think so!) the question of how people encounter Jesus without the trappings is ever so central. If we want something that is not boxed, and something that touches those outside the box there is only one alternative – go outside the box. Cornelius did not meet Peter (and through Peter, Jesus) in Joppa… but Peter met Cornelius who met Jesus in Cornelius’ home. In the old days we might have talked about the ‘anointing on the house’, but it is now time to find the anointing that is on Cornelius’ house – and it seems to be an anointing for revelation as Peter said ‘Now I perceive…’

Big days… endless possibilities!!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A belief in transformation?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

I was asked a little while back – so what do you believe about ‘transformation’ of this world? A huge question and one on which I would like to write something much fuller on one day soon-ish. Also an interesting question as one has to try and see if there has been an evolution of a belief or a U-turn or a change of direction. For sure I once knew so much and now????

I will try and enumerate points in brief and hope that I will be clear enough to be understood and show enough about where I am at:

I am pretty conventional on the parousia – a personal return that brings about the reconciliation of all things without a set of events that precede (event commonly spoken of such as ‘antiChrist, tribulation etc.’). However, given that we might totally miss the thrust of the NT on this (same as many expectant Jews could not see the hope of Messiah being fulfilled in Jesus), I am also open to the parousia being somewhat different to what we might expect… with the resurrection of the dead in Christ being central to that future hope: that was always the hope in both testaments. So on the ‘return’ of Christ I do not subscribe to some triumphalistic (commonly called post-millennial) return.

‘Tickets to heaven’ are not what the gospel is centred on for two reasons – going to heaven when one dies is not the goal, nor are we the ones to decide who is ‘in’ or ‘out’. By all means we share our faith, and people need to be able to ‘borrow’ / ‘use’ our faith and benefit from that. Hence conventional understandings of ‘revival’ with a major influx of people to come to us and tick the same belief boxes as us is equally not the thrust of the NT. I see the context in which Paul worked as understanding that the body of Christ (ekklesia, if you like) was a body of people who took responsibility for the future of their setting. Responsibility for the wider setting in which everyone belonged, even those who did not come to personal faith in Jesus. I am deeply thankful for every person who finds personal faith and the living reality of a relationship to the God of heaven yet with much of that emphasis it furthers the separation of the them / us, and the strengthening of any ghetto. ‘Salvation’ is God’s part not a cultural experience, hence the emphasis on responsibility for the wider setting.

That responsibility involves serving at a human level, and at a spiritual level that of clearing the ‘heavens’ of everything that would pollute the context and obscure God. It does not involve the necessity nor the desire for Christians to occupy the x% of the ‘mountains’. Indeed this being the Christendom model that (my simplistic view) changed the whole nature of the gospel is something that I think is basically toxic.

We face huge challenges that are manifesting at the level of climate change (how long do we have?) and the huge displacements of people. Those issues (and other critical ones) are deeply sobering when we talk of ‘I believe in the transformation of the world’.

We will see (will = are seeing!) huge changes in our lifetime. The world will look so different in another 20 years. How different? Certain elements of transformation will be forced on us. OK… so what do I now believe?

We ONLY have a mandate to pray, work, relate and position ourselves that ‘your kingdom come’. Speculation about ‘Jesus coming soon’ we should not confuse with the hope of the New Testament (‘even so come Lord Jesus’). We should anticipate that there is a God in heaven who answers prayer.

I do see a connection between the many prayer journeys of the past few decades and the future. The answer to prayer is not always what one anticipates… the path to the ‘God come’ might not be the expected and ‘here they all come to our meeting’ but could well be (and will increasingly be) and here go those who carry that personal relation to Jesus into the world, embracing it, being changed by it, and as they are changed so is the environment and the people.

For me nothing has changed at the level of ‘here comes God transforming the world’. Well maybe what has changed is whether ‘we’ have an important and recognised position in it all. I pray today as I did more than a quarter a century ago for the transformation of cities, regions and nations. The difference is I am not counting the numbers who will occupy seats on a Sunday inside various buildings. I look to hear the voices from the streets that are calling out what is obvious wisdom for the future; I look for a sharing wider of a vision for the future that points to the future.

Transformation? Yes bring it on. And some amazing outposts of it here, there and everywhere – though perhaps not so likely to be centre-stage and visible where old paradigms (christendom) dominate.

I still look for change, for transformation. I do not see that we have any other mandate than to pray and work toward that vision. Maybe we will need a ‘conservative’ parousia along the way, but if that is not coming (we have misread… correction I have misread the NT) we still are focused on getting as close as we can to ‘the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our Lord and Christ’.

All the above is a great stimulus to getting out of bed in the morning!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Re-alignment of borders?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I read over the weekend about Orkney exploring an alignment to Norway rather than the UK, and a number of people sent me links to the article:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/02/orkney-could-leave-uk-for-norway-as-it-explores-alternative-governance

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-66066448

Ah well post-Brexit it might give me an opportunity to get a ‘passport of the Orkney kingdom’ and solve some of the issues with travel in Europe (though we have none as we are permanent residents of Spain and are about to leave for Italy by road this week). Though it would be smart to have a passport shared by only a few thousand people – and I need all the help I can get to be smart.

A number of years ago I prophesied, while in Orkney, that the council was going to be pulled into meetings with Scandinavian countries! One of those times when in my head it was ‘crazy… a small island and proper countries – not going to happen, Martin’ but hey-ho I spoke it out.

I have no idea where this all goes, but for a while I have been contemplating Paul’s little discourse in Athens:

From one ancestor he made all peoples to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps fumble about for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us… Since we are God’s offspring… (Acts 17:26, 27, 29).

Quite a dense bridge-building apologetic in those few words. We are all one people and are ALL God’s offspring – estranged children perhaps might be appropriate, hence at a God – human level reconciliation has to be at the heart of the cross, not such motifs as payment nor punishment.

In the fumbling around there can be a certain amount of accidentally finding ‘him’ (so difficult to get the right pronouns for ‘God’ who is neither male nor female, but what we might term both ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’)… so we do not need to take a hyper-oppositional stance to all religions and philosophies. And… back to Orkney in a kind of way…

The boundaries and times for the peoples so that… The boundaries have a purpose, so that there can be a God-search. What if many boundaries are really not the ones God intends? Then the God-search could well be obscured.

War has changed boundaries over and over again – witness currently in Ukraine or Sudan and a host of other places – and I doubt that most of the resulting boundaries are the ones God intends. So here is my thought that has been here for a while – we are going to see a number of boundary shifts and re-alignments. Not the re-alignments to give us back our sovereignty (sub-text: exclude people… even OT-wise with Israel boundaries were to include the alien, widow and orphan), but the re-alignment for human to human relating in well-being and for the ‘God-search’ to be under way. Where does it begin? As always for us who profess faith: prayer and alongside all who are of God’s offspring in relating across human-defined boundaries. Maybe we can’t quite get to Norway to exercise that… but I could look across the street; across the faith boundary I have set; across the ‘morally right’ border that keeps me clean.

To close a short sentence from a WhatsApp message I sent a few days ago to a prayer group:

I have little clarity… I know that Jesus did not promise that he was the way to God, but the way to the God that (seemingly) many people already know but not intimately (‘the way to the Father’), but beyond that I know there are paths we have not trodden nor understood.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

So, maybe, and I think very probable

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I kinda think – hence the title – that we are in a time of ‘collapse’. Much is shifting and here are a few perspectives I have held for some time… we are seeing a shift from west to east and from north to south. I realise once we have an interest in something we tend to get that ‘fed’ to us, so I need to be a little careful but every day I get feeds around ‘new currency’, ‘a shift from the dollar as global currency’, ‘the BRICS are planning xyz’. I don’t know if the term ‘collapse’ is too strong, and I don’t know if it is appropriate what that might look like. Certainly foundations are being shaken.

Jesus spoke into another time when foundations would collapse… and those foundations were understood to be ‘holy’ foundations:

Not one stone will stay upon the other.

If foundations are shaken / removed / they crumble then what they supported will not remain, the building will at best be filled with cracks if not something more devastating.

A time of shaking brings with it both threat and also opportunity. Threat to what has been and opportunity to embrace what is not fully known nor understood. I suggest we are right at that time. ‘End-time’ language does nothing for me as I think it is so mis-guided, but I do consider that we can legitimately use language such as ‘eschatological opportunity’. That is not for believers to own as exclusively theirs (eschatology is about the world, the planet, creation after all) but surely it would be incredibly helpful if a good bunch of believers were willing to welcome in the unknown and not to retract to a measure of self-preservation.

At a time of collapse insecurities surface and there will be a push to restore some old certainties. To hold on to old certainties might not be totally wrong, for there are values worth holding on to… however, we need to be sure those ‘old’ values are rooted in the irruption of the age to come, or as Paul puts it,

[B]ut a new creation is everything!

Everything!! Old values have to be rooted in new creation values if they should remain as foundational.

There is much talk of Judeo-Christian values and I understand that, but we cannot insist on that uncritically. I love the principles of the law such as it is illegal to maximise profits (come on you know that’s true!), but we have to be careful about what we read in the law – it was given to a nation not to the world, and God very early on clearly did not think the law on capital punishment was one he should follow, evidenced by his protection of Cain.

So I think we need to not simply receive every plea for a return to Judeo-Christian values… some of them are seriously sub-Christian! And… and there is a big and. Values that transform are values from the future. The whole aspect of ‘new creation’ being everything.

There is wisdom from the past, but if we are not careful we can embrace that which holds us back from bringing in the future. We are not looking to restore old certainties.

What would eschatological values look like?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Consider the lobster

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

No this is not a new past-time I have developed! But it is something that Jordan Peterson uses to suggest that hierarchies are inherent. Apparently we share with lobsters a similar nervous system, and that lobsters organise themselves hierarchically with those who produce more serotonin climbing the ladder. Of course, animals of all sorts organise themselves hierarchically… and I don’t think Mr. P. would appeal to the world of the honey bee to suggest a pattern that could help us with the Queen bee laying all the eggs in the colony after being fertilised by several males; and after the breeding season, the males are driven out of the colony and die!

Hierarchies exist. And there is a strong appeal to ‘Judeo-Christian’ values to (for example) push for the strong male and all that goes along with that. As I wrote yesterday we can certainly appeal to a ‘Judeo’ value, but a ‘Christian’ adjective added? Can we appeal for hierarchy from a ‘Jesus value’.

But he said to them, “The kings of the gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather, the greatest among you must become like the youngest and the leader like one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves (Lk. 22:25-27).

Hierarchy exists within the animal world; it exists among the gentiles… but… ‘not so with you’.

A Jesus-value. Masculinity needs to be restored; I am sure many of us (males) need healing in that area… but many also need to discover that a hierarchical masculinity is ‘not to be so with you’. The restoration of femininity is high on the agenda, not replacing masculinity with femininity, but in true femininity and masculinity being manifested within society, and within (both) males and females.

Mr. P. and many others are way smarter than me, but I do see a worrying trend taking place. It should not be of great surprise as at times of transition two elements come together. The first is that of ‘crisis’ (crisis of masculinity is perceived, but that is not the true crisis) and a re-establishment of former certainties… and if we can couch them in ‘Judeo-Christian’ language we will gain considerable traction.

Let’s see if we can discover some Jesus-values. The lobster and the bee are not really a good place to find a way forward. With the coming of Jesus, even ‘Judeo values’ belong to this age that is passing. The Jesus-values come from the age he inaugurated that is pulling all things in that direction.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

… and women

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

There are often a few words that appear in a text that makes one wonder. This morning I thought about Paul (Saul) and his persecution of believers in Jerusalem (Acts 8) immediately following the death of Stephen. The motivation was that fellow-Jews who had joined the ‘blasphemous’ sect that later became known as ‘Christian’ were endangering the nation as a whole. Israel was already under the judgement of God, evidenced by the control of the land being in the hands of the Romans and their puppet leaders. This was being compounded by Jews who claimed that a crucified person was none other than the promised Messiah. If this movement was not stopped in its tracks the punishment from heaven would be even greater. Hence he understood that to be zealous for God would mean he would need to stop the movement at all costs. If he did so then he would be assured that he was righteous. He was eradicating evil from among his people, and there was a strong model for this in the golden calf incident (Exod. 32) with the sons of Levi demonstrating their ‘zeal’ in slaughtering 3000 of their fellow-citizens of Israel. As a result the Levites become the priestly tribe. (Wow… there are just a few challenges in reading the OT are there not? And thankfully Pentecost changes the optic some with 3000 coming to life…)

Saul demonstrates his zeal and ‘righteousness’,

as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless (Phil. 3:6).

As zealous as the Levites who were ‘rewarded’ by God!

He does not worry about Gentiles who could claim whatever they wished about Jesus. They were condemned already – his concern was to cleanse Israel. So to do so he ‘entered house after house’. Allegiance to Christ was on a household basis, hence enter a house, and if they were following Jesus he would seek to eradicate that house.

That day a severe persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria. Devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church by entering house after house; dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison (Acts 8:1-3).

The spread of Jesus-aligned houses is remarkable, and the spread of the gospel likewise is remarkable, hence his request to go to Damascus to the Jewish community there to eradicate this blasphemous heresy.

And one very startling element in that final verse. He dragged off ‘men’ – that would have been enough in that culture. They were the ‘head’ of the household. Remove the head and problem dealt with. But this ‘heresy’ was different! Dragging of the supposed head would not be enough. The gospel liberated women, not simply through personal salvation, but liberated them culturally and socially. Paul had no option if this heresy was to be cleansed from Israel – the women had to be removed also.

‘Salvation’ was a total turn around socially as well as ‘spiritually’.

We are seeing this rise again in this era. Hence the digging in of some ‘Christian’ quarters to re-establish the hierarchy of so-called ‘Judeo-Christian’ values. Maybe we could use the term ‘Judeo’ values but I think the earliest evidence within the ‘Christian’ expression means we cannot really add the second adjective to the values.

Supporting Christian values so that there might be an establishment of them – now that is a challenge!

[Oh yes Paul writes about ‘head’ and all that within the so-called ‘household codes’… beyond this post, but against the background of the Graeco-Roman world he uses the common formula of his day that was used by philosophical and religious groups to show they were not overtly seeking to overthrow Rome. Not overtly, but subversively, Paul used the formula apologetically, but in them he sows something beyond hierarchy… Christian values.]

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

I have begun to record a few introductory videos on ‘eschatology’ and once I get the material written that expands on the videos will begin to publish them. For many reasons I have to start with the New Testament and then seek to read back; starting with the older testament of course is where many of those who see ‘signs of the end-times’ begin. (And of course I think they have in one hand the current news-stories and try to make Scriptures fit to current events. That has long been the way with those who seem to think prophecy is simply history written ahead of time.)

I have noted a couple of things this time round as I have been making the introductions. First, that there does not seem to be within Scripture the thought that what is prophesied must have a literal outworking, there is no straight line interpretation. The extreme of this is when there are clear prophecies that are not fulfilled. So I think if we are trying to make a clear line connection we are forcing something the Scriptures avoid.

It also seems to me that given that prophecy is in the realm of promise that releases faith, rather than prediction that indicates fatalism, many of the OT prophecies are contextual, they speak of an incredible hope, thus encouraging a major faith leap, but that the ultimate promise will far exceed what has been prophesied.

The incredible passage in Isaiah 19, of which I quote a few verses below, surely indicates this:

On that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians.
On that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the work of my hands and Israel my heritage.”

The ‘fertile crescent’ with Assyria to the north and Egypt to the south and little old Israel sandwiched in between the two big powers is the background (oh and maybe I should add the two non-worshipping of God two powers, who were constantly a threat to Israel). Now the promise is crazy… Those two powers turning, so much so that we are left with – so who then is Israel, in the sense of God’s covenant people, for Egypt is ‘my people’ and Assyria ‘the work of God’s hands’! This was a prophecy of transformation beyond belief for the hearers (and another aspect I am drawing out is that the prophets spoke to the people of their day, they are not speaking to us, though the words remain for us).

A fulfilment. It is coming… But what is coming?

Is it the fulfilment in the sense of a straight line? Or the day is coming when the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our Lord and Christ – the fulfilment beyond beyond the literal prophecy. That is where I land.

Why do I land there? Because so many of the Old Testament books as they wrestle with judgement and hope they are looking for a conclusion beyond themselves. And when Jesus appears everything changes. For those who read my understanding of Galatians it is literally ‘everything we thought we knew will now get us in trouble if we stay at that level’. The law defined transgression, but after the coming of Christ to try and establish law would be to take the quick path to be a transgressor. Little wonder Paul is blind for three days. Three days as he has to make a major conversion, a major turn around that the death (as Jesus cursed?) and to the resurrection (but God has vindicated this Jesus).

I am not anticipating that everyone will agree with my interpretations, but for sure Jesus has messed everything up that was so clear. He did that so that whatever was promised to Israel could be embraced by one and all. The inclusion of Israel was so that Assyria and Egypt could be drawn in on equal terms to Israel. Inclusion not to exclude, but to include without boundaries. And that is good news for Israel for they can have a place too! ‘My people’, ‘the work of my hands’, and even Israel can have a place -‘my heritage’.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

We cannot be close to the end

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I love the nonsense talk about ‘we are in the end-times’ (or I could have written I do not respect the talk that we are in the end times – read whichever sentence you wish!).

This post is a little tongue-in-cheek, but only a little!

I was quite taken by Anne’s comment on my last post:

Hope in this new earth? I can’t comment on a new heaven, not sure what that means anyway but I can comment on a new earth. Unfortunately it does not resemble what many of us have longed for. What to do? Is this something we can hope for or hope in?

First just to clarify ‘new earth and new heaven’ is a merism for ‘creation’ so I very much doubt if we are to be concerned about the ‘new heaven’ part. But if I understand Anne and anything to do with others who can document what we have done to what was our responsibility to steward is that what is future will be different – it will be a ‘new earth’ with or without a belief in a parousia along any conventional understanding of that word.

We are in the end times – theologically correct cos the resurrection and outpoured Spirit brought us there, so no worries about the term… however, when used to support so much bad all around, ‘wars and rumours of wars’ etc. we are (I consider) way off target. And even the ‘gospel to the nations and then the end comes’ approach does not get us too far, unless Paul’s multiple claims that that box was already ticked pre-AD70 was missing it.

So let’s get to the sign that we are really, really, and by that I mean really close.

See, I am coming soon…
The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.”
And let everyone who hears say, “Come.”
And let everyone who is thirsty come.
Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift…
The one who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.”
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

(I found those words in a book I read – right toward the end of an amazing story that is told in the previous chapters.)

A whole lot of ‘comings’ in there, of movement from heaven to earth. I don’t think I am pushing it too far to suggest that the voice of the Spirit, connecting to the bride, connecting to everyone who is thirsty uniting their voices… and shouting ‘Come’ seems to be what is needed so that truly ‘we are in the end times’.

The Spirit has been calling ‘come’, for the heart of God has always been for heaven to come to earth. The whole of creation was with heaven as being God’s place, the earth as the place where humans were to represent God and thus bring whatever was in heaven to earth. The tabernacle was a visible representation of that – the holy of holies being representative of heaven – OK enough of that… At Jesus’ death the inner curtain was ripped – that is the future – heaven (holy of holies) and earth (the various courts) no longer separated. So from the beginning there has been a God-desire (the Spirit is calling) for everything that is ‘above’ to come.

The bride has been calling ‘take me out’ – OOPS a contrary call to that of the Spirit!! (I appreciate that the bride has many voices, but the predominant one is that of ‘I need to escape’.) So we cannot be too close to the end if the first two voices are not in harmony. The call from the second voice is ‘NO DON’T COME, I WANT TO GO’. So until that voice changes how can we be close to ‘the end’?

Where should the voice of the bride be present? Wherever we want / need heaven to come. Every and all parts of creation where it is evident God isn’t at a significant level. That of course might mean relocation.

Maybe there is a third voice… the voice of ‘everyone’?

With or without the third voice it seems that the second voice is the key / the transition. Until it changes from ‘this world is not my home, it is a hostile place, so my hope is to be taken from here’ how can we be in the ‘end-times’.

Only semi- (if as much as that) tongue-in-cheek.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Speak up about hope

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

A Scripture that I have known for some time hit me at a new level yesterday (with the verse I am focused on emboldened below):

Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good? But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated, but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect. Maintain a good conscience so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if suffering should be God’s will, than to suffer for doing evil (1 Peter 3:13-17).

The word ‘defense’ is probably a little too strong – a ‘reply’ a ‘response’ is probably closer, like ‘asks for’ is probably better than ‘demands’… However we translate it the sense remains.

At the back of my mind of course the concept of always be ready to explain that I am full of hope of escaping eternal punishment because I am one of the ‘born again’ ones, and of course a sweet Scripture to place under the ‘evangelise / apologetics’ heading in the book of discipleship… BUT…

Hope in the New Testament is future oriented and ultimately tied to the parousia and the restoration of all things – the putting all things right. That is the hope, not the one that is in the back of my mind colouring how I read that Scripture. The context of the verse is of suffering unjustly, and not to respond with fear. The current scenario will give way to a different day. It will give way to ‘I see a new heaven and a new earth’. That is hope. Hope has come through in different contexts concerning the future -‘this world is not my home, I am just a-passing through’ was hope expressed in the context of slavery. We can critique the hope, but maybe all we need to do is change the lyrics a little. How about:

This world and its structures is not the home God intends for anyone, and as I honour Christ, I see a world beyond it, for the generations to come, and one in which I too will participate on that great day.

Not really suggesting that the above can be sung and give hope to the masses(!!), but my point is hope in the midst of this world is for the transformation of this world. Like the words of MLK when he spoke of day coming for his children when human relationships will be totally re-shaped.

Anyway back to our verse. Why would someone ask me about my hope? Well they are not going to ask if it is not evident. That is the first provocation – do I have hope for the here, or have I simply opted for a Greek-oriented (i.e. an unbiblical one) view of ‘life in the celestial by and by’? Amidst crises, pressures, setbacks if I have hope for a different world maybe someone will be provoked to ask me ‘why do you have hope’. Then I need to be ready with my answer. ‘I see a new creation’… it will come… it is coming… and even the pain and suffering is contributing to the future… that’s my hope.

Protest movements, protest marches stand against what is here, but within them is also a statement of a different future. I want to change so much – I keep watching economic structures (strictures) – but as much as protesting against, nay more than protesting against I need to see what is coming… and then to sow where I see the world is going.

There is a world that is doomed, world in the sense of what we have done with it; but there is a world that coming into view, world in the sense of ‘and God saw and it was GOOD’. There are false hopes always available to pull on, they are marked by what will pull strongly on the past, and in the Christian context draw on Scriptures and the (positive) impact of Christendom… They are false, not because they contain no truth, but simply because the viewpoint is expressed from the wrong location, and in being located there will not ease the transition but resist it.

So a note to self: Martin what is your hope? When asked why on earth (I like that phrase ‘on earth’) are you hopeful cos you are facing some setbacks… I think I will answer with ‘what is here around us is temporary, if I live inspired by what I see beyond the here and now, I am hopeful that I will contribute to the manifestation of what I see… and maybe inspire you to get similar sight… thanks for asking’.

And a final Scripture that indicates even some pretty entrenched people can be inspired by the hope they see in others:

[E]ven some officials of the province of Asia [Asiarchs] who were friendly to him sent him a message urging him not to venture into the theater (Acts 19:31).

Asiarchs… responsible to maintain the wonderful order of Rome, holding positions of great influence, having a lifestyle that would be considered a suitable reward for their work of expressing the glory of Rome far and wide; Paul proclaiming ‘Jesus, not Caesar’, disturbing all things… What hope did he carry that meant they did not want him to risk his life, even if that meant they were willing to risk their own lives? What did they see in his eyes?

The more I read the NT the more I am hopeful that if we can more and more align with what we read maybe we can come closer to that of a ‘new heaven and new earth’.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

New words?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I was provoked by a comment that Geoff made on Matheus’ post:

All in favour of the new but, having embraced the charismatic, now have some reservations about ‘apostles’ and the ‘apostolic’. Maybe new words are needed for new things?

Do we need new words? That is a big and ongoing question. I am currently reading Thomas Jay Oord’s recent book where he argues that ‘omnipotence’ as an attribute of God is dead, it is meaningless, and even for the majority who advocate it the word is so modified that it proves to be not useful. He challenges the various translations, and puts forward a new word – amipotence. He is doing more than replacing a misused word with another, he is prioritising God as (is) love over any competing attribute. A new word – I don’t anticipate that the next wave of systematic theologies will replace the omni words with his new one, but they might engage with his critique.

Words and meaning

To some extent words have intrinsic meaning. ‘Cat’ does mean a furry animal that likes to sleep all day, but that would not mean that an animal of that species is sick when in a garage a mechanic says to another that ‘the cat is kaput’… implying the vehicle will need a new catalytic converter. And if we add the word ‘big’ in front the advice would not be to stroke the animal and let it climb on your lap.

Words do have meaning in and of themselves, but context and also changes in history of the word (‘what a wicked scheme’ might not mean the same thing in the 21st and 19th centuries) make a huge difference. Etymology and usage are important, and ultimately it seems usage is more important in deciding what meaning the word / phrase is carrying.

So new words?

I have long struggled with the word ‘church’. It seems to be reduced to a place, even when we say ‘church is not a building’, with such questions as ‘where do you go to church?’ Imagine asking – ‘where do you go to family?’ I have tried to mainly use the term ‘body of Christ’ when seeking to describe those who have submitted to the Christ of God and been incorporated into Christ. Thus rather than say ‘the church is the body of Christ’ to suggest we really should be considering that the ‘body of Christ is the church’. I have tried to look at the word ‘ekklesia’ in its usage, both as the term used of a people who have come together for the purpose of hearing God’s instruction for mission (the Septuagint, in other words the OT people of Israel) and the contemporary usage in the Roman world to describe those who were qualified to plan and work toward the culture and values of their city. Do we need a new word?

Geoff raises his concerns with the words ‘apostle / apostolic’. I share his concerns with regard to how they are understood. Maybe we should emphasise that they were not used as a title – ‘the apostle Paul’ – which does give a strong hint to being above and over others, but used as a calling to live up to – ‘Paul an apostle’ – implying that he has to fulfil that ministry; he is subject to God and has to work and build carefully. Do we need new words?

I suspect that new words will be helpful, but what new words will be the challenge. And I more than suspect that the difficulty lies deeper than the words. They tend to be understood within an institutional framework and viewed hierarchically. Perhaps Mr Oord is on to something. We want a powerful God and as all other nations have a powerful god we need an ALL powerful God (don’t panic – the opposite is not a powerless god!!) and if we have an all powerful God then those that represent him (has to be a masculine pronoun here) have to also carry power, which sadly translates as ‘authority over others’.

I am all for pushing for new words, but I suspect we also have to continue to inject the current words with meaning that is more in line with the original usage, or to the corrected usage in the wider original context. After all Jesus was termed King, a very term that I consider that bottom line God rejected! (And this is why I consider the term ‘king of the Jews’ was nailed to the cross.)

Time for new words; time for old words to be modelled in a different way to how we understand them. New words, but modelling is probably more important: how the words are used in the sense of practical embodiment.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives