Year: 2024

More time, please

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

Beliefs evolve, I guess they adapt and I am sure mine are no different. In this post I am jumping to the end. Yes to the big one the ‘eschaton’, but I want to do it in a way that pulls back into the here and now, into our context.

I believe in the ultimate transformation of what we term creation. Will it look the same – solar system, sun, earth, moon and all that makes up what we might term creation? I guess there will be similarities and dissimilarities, as the body of Jesus is the pattern. Recognisable (visible wounds, eats, talks) and not simply with dissimilarities such as appearing and disappearing but as I hold he(?) is no longer male some big dissimilarities (OK dropped that in so that you hope the rest of the post will be worth reading). A material creation – ‘resurrection’ (as symbol and reality) and such words as ‘regeneration’ can hardly suggest something different. Some of the final words in Revelation of seeing a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ with God making ‘all things new’ – not making all new things – are strong words indeed. Strong words that can almost mock us when we read that every day in the past 12 months has seen the ocean temperature at the highest on record. Can creation survive? Time is not on our side to give a positive answer to that one.

There are (for me) two options. Either Jesus returns and bales us out, the ultimate rescue mission for this creation… or… And I hope for the ‘or’ possibility.

I hope for the ‘or’ option cos I consider that the work of Christ is finished as far as redemption is concerned, and redemption involves the whole of creation; I hope for the ‘or’ because I consider Jesus is worthy of more than being called on to rescue us; I hope for the ‘or’ because creation is looking to the ‘sons and daughters of God’ for its liberation.

The work of Christ is finished… the work of the ekklesia is not finished. My belief in the ‘end’ means I have to examine other beliefs too. Yes from the obvious of ‘do we go to heaven when we die?’ to ‘is the centre about a narrow view of salvation or is it about cosmic transformation?’ The latter gets my vote. If so it calls for a major shift in how we understand the ekklesia, discussions on deconstruction move into a whole different arena. To be clear ‘church’ takes many forms, not simply as we have it with diverse manifestations and denominations, but it serves in many ways – not surprisingly as the heart of it consists of those who have found personal reconciliation to the God of all creation. Training, healing, restorative, catalysing koinonia… but also as the channel through which the transformation of all things touches our world – yes the door through which the qualities of the new age enter this age. For that to take place there has to be a deconstruction of our theology and an impact on our practices.

The so-called ‘new church movement’ is what shaped my thinking, a restorationist movement that was shaped by a belief that there needed to be a partnership with God so that the church could be restored and as a result the ‘world’ would be impacted (‘want to join’ is probably what it really meant). I am sure there is some of that that still influences me, but I have made a shift from ‘restoring the church’ to a restoration of the world as the desire of heaven, and I am agnostic as to what we will see happen, but remain adamant that we are here to pray, and act in ways that the focus of a new world might become visible among us. That has to include the big ones of a new economy that does not reward those who comply (‘buy and sell’) but who are working in a way that humanises one and all; it includes that of creation care; it includes the smallest act that faintly mirrors the age when there will be no more tears.

Maybe Jesus returns and there is a millennial age when a model of true governance takes place (I really don’t go there, but accept that there is a historic pre-millennial view that has been around for centuries, nothing like the pre-millennial view of the ‘left behind’ hijackers of the term)… Maybe a lot of things… but my hope, which might be my belief, is that we are given a whole lot of more time to get out of our narrow mindedness and into the big mindedness of God and give our best shot (and a very small one that will be) at contributing toward the restoration of all things, with at the heart of it showing at some small way tiny elements of the coming age.

Practically, for scripture is very practical, if we have any sense of the time we live in, we have something around 15(with a very small ‘+’) years… could we see something happen that means we will not need to be baled out? I hope so, hence I know that we have entered through the door of the great unravelling.

[I am continuing – too slowly for my liking to write on eschatology… the next pdf I will get out will be on the direction of movement – hence a quick rebuttal of ‘the rapture’, a brief look at the history of Dispensationalism, and the final part will be on the consistent end of renewal being when the ‘trees clap their hands.]

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Disappointments – included

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

I lean ever so heavily on the side of ‘pray for a shift’ when it comes to issues that are not aligned. I am also aware that we don’t pray once ‘your will be done’ and then that sorts everything – well not every time. So we pray again… and then I am aware that there are outcomes that are simply not what we want, and as far as one can tell do not align with ‘the good, perfect and acceptable will of God’. There are so many factors in situations, factors that often go beyond our comprehension – guess what even for the smartest person there are things we just can’t figure out!

In this, what do I believe, here is a little area (sometimes a bigger area, and much bigger than we would like) that has to be included. Disappointments will come. How we handle those depends on our personality, our experience of God, and state of mind at the time! The forever optimist (I know a few) will tend to reframe and move on; the ‘never take no for an answer’ will tend to beat themselves up as they failed somewhere (I do know one or two like this), and the mature… (don’t know if I know anyone!).

That would be a novelty – becoming mature!!

The resurrection. The cross with no resurrection is half a narrative, and actually as far as faith is concerned a failed narrative. Crucified as an insurrectionist (albeit a non-violent one) by Rome, and as a blasphemer by the Jews one or both of those claims would be the analysis of what went on… from a religious point of view yet another failed Messiah.

But raised from the dead, declared to be ‘Son of God’; raised from the dead as firstborn of all creation. And Paul is pretty strong when he writes ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins’. More than ‘life after death’ (what does ‘life’ mean in that statement?) there is a physicality, a substance to the future. This means that ‘every cup of cold water given’ has value.

All the ‘let your will be done’ (and ‘on earth’ is so key) and we come out the other side with ‘did not work out’ is not lost. It is sown into the tomb, then we discover the tomb is empty. Every tear is wiped away – just not now, but in the context of ‘I saw the future – I saw a new heaven and a new earth’. I don’t know how… but it will happen, then.

If I push this post into a bit of ‘theology’ then I kinda think that God is very patient with regard to us. And very compassionate. If the ‘end’ were to happen now what kind of age to come would we have? The ‘ingredients’ for the age to come are mined from this age… God will put together what we give. Not only will tears be wiped away but there will be a lot of laughter as we see the difference that our insignificant contributions made. That surely is the context for Paul’s instructions to be careful how we build, as to what material is used. The easily available of wood, hay and stubble… or the harder to find, the gold, silver and precious stones.

Disappointments and laughter.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

God can be found in…

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

Seven Spirits of God… so John writes about, some suggest that this represents the seven archangels that come up in some Jewish literature, however I take it to be a way of speaking about the full manifestation of the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit. In Jewish monotheism the Spirit was a way of speaking about the presence and activity of the one true God, into Christian theology the Spirit became personal, with the Spirit being God, but distinct from the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’.

Irenaeus (130-200AD approx, bishop in Lyon) is the probable originator of the term ‘the two hands of God’: the Spirit being the universal ‘hand’ that was present everywhere and the Son being the particular hand that brought people to the Father. Thus we have the presence of God everywhere and yet it is through the Son that people come to the Father. The Spirit is present everywhere and it is that Spirit that believers receive, at which point we can name that one Spirit ‘the Spirit of Jesus’.

‘Universalism’ refers to a belief that ‘all will be saved’ but there certainly is a Universalism that relates to God in and through all things. Paul wonderfully affirms this (in a pagan context of idols to many gods)

[God] is not far from each one of us. For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we, too, are his offspring.’

Paul’s suggests the unique claim for what he was proclaiming (call it the Christian faith) was that ‘What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.’ If I update his words, he did not say that ‘Christians know God’, but that they know who this one God is, that there is a relationship, an ‘I-Thou’ relationship. This was what set Jesus apart, and also set him apart from Judaism, he was the way not to God, but to the Father, to a familial relationship to the one true God. That is an astounding claim! To seek to make an image of this God is futile as it holds that we can draw lines around God and present God… maybe some of our theology does just that? The invitation from Jesus means we expand, with all our ignorance, into the knowledge of God. Idolatry does just the opposite… maybe why Paul was (strangely) non-confrontational in Athens is that at least one of their altars seemed to represent that God was beyond their knowledge (‘the unknown god’).

I am going somewhere in this post!!

‘Saved from their sins’. That was according to Matthew what Jesus was going to do for the Jewish people. Not ‘saved from hell’. I think we focus too much on what we consider will happen ‘then’ rather than what is promised ‘now’. There is some talk of ‘wrath to come’ but some (most?) of it seems to historically fit with a context of earthly trouble… the real issue is being set free from the slavery and bondage of ‘sin’ which is represented as a dominating power (alongside its partner ‘death’).

Not a very full post this one, but when it comes to beliefs, I do not believe we are justified in ‘God is not present in…’ and we can fill in the blank. Maybe making it more concrete, if we ask the question is ‘Allah God?’ we can’t (OK, I can’t) come back with an automatic ‘yes / no’ answer. Let me go a roundabout path first – ‘is the Christian God God?’ That depends what you mean by the word ‘Christian’. Or to make it very personal – ‘is Martin’s God God?’ The answer has to be ‘yes’ and ‘no’. The grace of God / that universalistic hand means even for Martin God is present, and the particular hand of God (through Jesus) there should be some evidence of a growing into the intimate knowledge of God in my life.

God can be present where we do not think any ‘decent God’ (one in my image!) should travel. This does not mean that ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ is found there. Truth is in the final analysis, and always will be, personal not propositional.

God is present with those who are not ‘believers’ (to what extent?) but I wish that there is a fullness, a knowing the unknown God that is on offer to them, a true being saved from their sins. The proclamation of the Gospel is a proclamation of freedom from captivity and an invitation to an adventure with the God of Israel and the Father of our Lord Jesus through the One Spirit.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Random but not…

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

Beliefs, non-beliefs, just a random set of posts, but never controversial and never, ever wrong! It is amazing the diversity of Christian belief all claimed to be based on Scripture. That should tell us something about what God is looking for, and it does not seem to be ‘correctness’. The law and the prophets hung on two commandments, and I suspect the newer covenant likewise. It would be easier at one level if it all hung on right beliefs, but I guess given the huge amount of disagreement we might all come a cropper. And centring everything in on love for God and for those close and those far just highlights that I do not need greater understanding simply a bigger space for yieldedness to the Holy Spirit.

So randomly let me jump to the new heaven and new earth. ‘In the beginning (when) God created…’ I love that chapter with its major opposition to similar creation myths from the surrounding cultures. In it certain aspects of science might not be ‘corrected’ but deviant views of the divine certainly are. The whole of creation as a Temple, a place where God dwells and the image not made of wood or stone but of the very dust of the earth that is inbreathed by God. So profound – earthly creatures, image of God.

Those two elements are intrinsic to humanity and when we lose either it seems to me that we fall short of the glory of God – when we lose either or treat people as less than either we ‘sin’: miss the mark of being human. The wonder of the encounter with Jesus is that we no longer see anyone according to previous culture-shaped categories. Of the earth – super-spirituality is not something to be admired nor intimidated by, and we see in Paul a hesitation to talk about experiences that were clearly ‘other worldly’. We are of the earth and have a wonderful calling to be access points for heaven to touch this world. We are inbreathed by the Spirit to become resources for anyone that comes across our path (I am thinking currently about ‘presence’ being a better way to describe our calling rather than ‘power’).

It is strange that many people have this belief of the future is some sort of disembodied life in heaven without the physicality of either body or creation. Such a view suggests God began something and then seems to give up on the conclusion of that ‘project’. [Heaven and earth is a ‘merism’ for the whole of creation. A merism is something that takes the extremes and includes everything in between – I searched ‘high and low’ does not mean I did not search in the ‘middle’!] ‘I saw a new heaven and a new earth’ (and with the sense of ‘re-newed’: kainos not neos being the adjective). We pray for the coming of the ‘kingdom’ to earth… Jesus prayed that God would not take us out of here… we hope for the regeneration of all things… Jesus is the firstborn of all creation…even the trees of the fields will clap their hands – a sign of true liberation from the bondage that creation has been subjected to.

‘Going to heaven’ is not a biblical hope, but one day that every tear will be wiped away, death will be no more, and God will dwell with us (if we think of a move it is not from ‘here’ to ‘there’ but from ‘there’ to ‘here’). To live in a way that fits with that hope is surely the first step in being ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us? [An Aside: there is one NT passage – with a bad translation, actually with a Greek verb that was changed in a later strand of manuscripts, from the ‘works in the earth being found / disclosed’ to the ‘works being destroyed’. Changed because with a view that came into Christianity of the devaluation of creation, it made no sense to have ‘works being found’… even some manuscripts don’t change the verb but add ‘not’ in front of it (‘not found’)!! Bad translation, change of verb by a scribe aside… Peter has already said that the former world was destroyed by water (the flood) and at the final judgement creation will be totally ‘destroyed’ by fire in the sense of totally and completely purified in a way the flood could not achieve.]

I don’t intend to pick up a course on harp playing so that I might get a starring role in the heavenly world, I personally would like a long life here as it seems that being here is the place of leverage to contribute to change (to the works that will on that day be disclosed). The transition from this age to that age does not appear to be an evolution for the new Jerusalem (a symbol both for the people of God and the whole of the new creation) has to come down, not rise up – there has always been a rival city that seeks to rise up – but if the works that come through the fire are the building blocks for the future surely there has to be some measure of random evolution in our world. To contribute to that future would be wonderful. To have the hope of going to heaven when I die would be a little less than a response to the opening verses of Scripture.

My hope is ‘he comes’ not ‘I go’. That we all together see a ‘new heaven and a new earth’. Between then and now? A contribution, maybe a tiny one, to a new creation and a new humanity.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A random set of ‘nots’

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

What do I believe, well here is a set of random ‘I do not believe’. And on each point I could be wrong!

I do not believe God is outside of time. Contrary to what is often said… in my humble opinion not shaped by a Jewish approach to time. Time is not primarily a scientific measurement but a necessary element ‘attached’ to personality. God awaits the future! With great anticipation.

I do not believe in ‘everlasting punishment / burning in a lake filled with sulphur’. I propose that the imagery used is of the burning up of Sodom and Gomorrah, imagery of total destruction with the smoke of its torment rising up. The destruction was ‘eternal’ – not open to change. So I land on ‘eternal punishment’ not ‘eternal punishing’.

I do not believe in predestination in the sense that it is often used, i.e. predestined to salvation. Every redemptive result is in Christ. Jesus is the ‘eternal elect one’ – anyone who is in Jesus is therefore elect from all eternity. My destiny… if in Christ then his destiny is mine (predestined).

I do not believe in God punished Jesus on the cross. I certainly have more work to do in my understanding of the cross, but there is no appeasement taking place there. God does not need to the cross in order to be able to forgive; we need the cross in order to find the path to forgiveness, and I think we need to back away from simply projecting what human forgiveness looks like on to God. The cross brings freedom from the powers, and that includes sin and death as a power (maybe the two centrally and united powers?).

I do not believe that salvation is a ‘ticket to heaven’. It certainly means finding a home in God at a familial level and becoming another means by which that wonderful era of the new creation can manifest to a level here.

I do not believe that God is male. This should be obvious, sadly not at a practical level. If God is not male we need to rethink so much. And what if (and this I believe) Jesus post Ascension is no longer male… OK I know I was supposed to be writing on what I don’t believe and I am in danger of straying just a tad, so will stop this one there.

I do not believe in a 6 day creation with a resulting young earth. Wonderful myth. Powerful myth. Deeply profound myth. World-changing myth. I think we should read it as (my opinion) intended so that it comes to us powerfully.

I do not believe that God instructed wholesale destruction. OH my this one challenges me and my reading of Scripture.

I do not believe the future is fixed in the sense of a set of events. A God of power could indeed do that… but a God whose very being is love (and all other attributes defined by what love, true love means) will always work with all possibilities to the one goal that we know as the ‘restoration of all things’. Yes, I do not dot all the ‘i’s’ and cross all the ‘t’s’ when it comes to omnipotence and omniscience. For me takes a ‘bigger’ God to act as I suggest. A more knowing God!! And if I am to image this God at any level down goes control and up goes love… and patience without losing hope.

I do not believe that the opposite of ‘election’ (church / those in Christ) automatically means damnation for others.

I do not believe every prayer is answered as we would like. Too many other factors involved! I do not elevate suffering, but how we respond to the setbacks becomes a great help to undoing the slavery that resulted to our sin (the whole of creation is groaning… God works all things together for good with those who love God and flow in God’s purposes). We do not exalt suffering… but it is the path to glory.

I do not believe in a millennial rule on earth, all too symbolic for me in a wonderful book of ‘cartoons’ (nearest genre we have to apocalyptic literature). One day the restoration of all creation withe fullness of God’s three-in-one presence with us. A permanent home for us… and for God.

I do not believe all of this is to burn up and I hope that we don’t simply limp out of here rescued by God. The last part expresses a hope that we can see some evidence of ‘new creation’ realities manifest around us. [And added to the last point, I am not post-millennialist either… just focused on ‘on earth as in heaven’.]

I do not believe that all those ‘outside of Christ’ are therefore devoid of the Spirit. The Spirit manifests in many ways, we who have responded to Jesus at a personal level are to manifest the Spirit as ‘the Spirit of Jesus’.

I do not believe that everything outside of the Christian faith is meaningless, simply that in Jesus is the ‘fullness’.

I could go on. And I could be wrong. This is why I have not signed a ‘statement of faith’. The Christian faith has a core to it – how could it not as it is centred on a Person? Outside of the core the variations are enormous. And I am supposed to find Scripture ‘useful’ and instructive, and to guide me to the Centre.

I hope you enjoyed the cursory run through. Please resist sending me a statement of faith – I am not smart enough to critique or agree with it!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Of this I am sure

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

I did say that these posts will be somewhat random, jumping from one area to another… I read today of a writer who described himself as ‘a post-classical-trinitarian-wondering-what-comes-next’… On a number of issues I am post-this-and-not-sure… That’s how it is and I think it is really healthy. (I think) there is one strong anchor point for me in my faith and it is the resurrection of Jesus.

I find the resurrection so incredible it just has to be for real. The central claim – that could have been repudiated – was that his body is no longer in the tomb. It was not that he is alive beyond death, for such a claim would not have meant very much particularly in that early Jewish context. Resurrection, a hope that was a predominant hope among Jews, was expected to happen in the future for the righteous (and the unrighteous?) and would mark that ‘the end’ had come. The claim that Jesus had been raised from the dead was very divisive in the early Jewish context. It was not so much a declaration of a new faith, but of a new era. I think this is why the term ‘this generation’ had such a strong temporal warning element to it in the early (Jewish) context of the book of Acts.

The challenge for us is we have not had a visitation from the Risen Christ (even a direct visitation from Jesus is it is from the Ascended Christ) and so our faith is based on those eye-witness reports. But I find the context so compelling. How on earth would the message of ‘Jesus and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18, ‘he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection’) have gained any level of traction. People did not rise from the dead, certainly not after being crucified and buried! (Resurrection not being that of the order of Lazarus (resuscitation) but permanent and in Jesus’ case with both discontinuity and continuity of physicality.) People did not rise, but the message takes root and in one city after another in the Roman empire people came to believe. They did not add ‘Jesus’ in as another god into their pantheon but belief in Jesus nullifed belief in all other gods, and put the recipients of this new faith in conflict with the whole Imperial setting. If there was no substance behind the claim that ‘he is risen’ there would have been no response within the Jewish culture, forget the ‘ends of the earth’.

I believe in the resurrection, and it marks Jesus out not as a ‘son of God’ but as the son of God (each Caesar was declared the divine son of the previous Caesar who had been divinised – the claim for Jesus, made by Paul in the letter to the believers in the capital is very poignant).

Belief in the resurrection has implications. Time being one of them. A new era is here now. That calls for sight at a different level, for without sight at that level it is evident that there is no new era present. It calls for a place to work from as much as a place to work toward. What does the new era consist of? No more tears, no more death (and decay). We can fight the old disorder or work from the new. I read with great appreciation the comments Ann makes on some of the posts. She knows more about climate change and crisis than most people I know and she of all people could be hopeless. I am sure her hopes are challenged many times, but her approach (and I hope I am reflecting it accurately) is that we are where we are, in that sense the old world has passed there is a new one here now. In the new one how can we respond in a way that we don’t simply grieve what is gone but within this context work for the future, for the next and subsequent generations. The resurrection of Jesus has much to say about the environment for Jesus is the first born of all creation – no burning up… and in the same way that at the return of Jesus that which is physically present will be transformed, so with those alive and that which is alive.

Inbreakings, irruptions from heaven. Disruptions, outbreaks. All of that become possible, and both together. Heaven (as a symbol of the new era) can break in. But that has to mean that the old gives way to the new. I think there is too much prayer for ‘heaven to invade earth’ without the corresponding commitment for ‘earth’ (as symbolic of the way things are) to give way. The resurrection of Jesus is not a simple add on that enhances this life but also displaces / transforms all values that we have been taught are normal.

It is my anchor point. In the light of that how do I live, for beliefs can be less than what is considered ‘orthodox’ but it seems that actions and behaviour are so important.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

What a book

Not as clear as I would like

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

From as far back as I can remember I was taught (ordered) to read my Bible. Growing up with the King James version I learned by heart some key texts. I now realise that Scripture is not as inherently transparent as one would like to think, and I could well have done without the archaic language, another level of obscurity being added.

Not as clear as one would like. But why would I want it clear? Probably to satisfy my desire for certainty. So much that is unclear and a few verses that (ok quite a few) I wish were not in there. And the other side so much that is clear, clear in terms of behaviour and values. ‘Bless those who curse you… offences will come… love your enemy…’ Clear. Some things very clear and other aspects unclear. That should say a lot in itself. The ones I want clear are tied to what do I believe and the ones that are already clear relate to my attitudes and actions. ‘All Scripture is God-breathed’, we read, and ‘is… useful’. What a great word, ‘useful’. Useful to guide us in life, not to fill us with knowledge.

I like scholarship that gives us background that helps us make sense of what we read… and I do not like scholarship that comes up with something new that undermines what I wanted the text to mean. What a wonderfully annoying book.

I guess the bottom line is we are not a people of the book, after all in the NT era they did not have what we term the Bible, even what we call the OT was not a fixed set of books – Jesus probably read most of what we have… and a few others, such as the book of Enoch, which is a late piece of writing that the name Enoch was attached to to give it some weight! (And in our canon we have a reference to the book of Enoch, with the writer seeming to accept that it actually recorded what Enoch ‘the tenth from Adam’ said.)

I don’t think I am simply a product of the Enlightenment when I say that I am sure there is ‘truth’ in the sense of facts and factual statements, but I think also there is probably some room in God to be barking up the wrong tree theologically… the judgement will always be with regard to what I did not with regard to what I know. A freedom that has boundaries, a freedom to follow Christ. I might (where did the word might come from in this sentence?) think Calvinists are imposing a system on Scripture, but God does not divide the world between Calvinists and ‘the others’. The cross and cruciform living is where the divide comes: and I need to be on the right side of that divide.

I am deeply pragmatic. I accept the books I have – 66 of them – as the canon I read and work from. I don’t pause to think that it is inerrant, nor the only possible canon. That for some would paint me as inevitably going off track from the beginning. But what about my name’s sake: Martin Luther, he had serious doubts about Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation? So I drop back to the pragmatic position. These books have stood the test of time and I have enough in there to work with!

I read a progression, not a linear progression, but nevertheless something unfolding with the revelation of God being ultimately in personal not written form. Jesus being the ‘word’ of God, the express image of the invisible God. Paul’s letters might appear earlier than the Gospels did in written form, but Paul’s Gospel has to be read from the Gospels, not vice versa.

Disputes are (for me) clear within Scripture, some naughty texts dropped in by later ‘editors’ as if they were part of an earlier belief… but all inviting me into the dialogue as to what I believe. I cannot choose to believe whatever I wish and disregard what I read in the texts, but I also have to interrogate certain texts in the light of others, and particularly in the light of what is revealed in and through Jesus.

Scripture seems to allow me to choose a track. Take kingship for example. It seems that Kinship is predominantly approved of (‘there was no king in the land…’) but also we read the very clear exposé that in choosing a king the vote was against God. David as ‘a person after my own heart’ was chosen to end kingship, and as that choice was not made, we read that on the cross above Jesus was nailed the term ‘king of the Jews’. That is how I read it. I could be wrong. But choice is what God seems to give. And my choice has to be guided not primarily by my intellect but by the same choice that was there from the beginning: ‘knowledge (of good and evil)’ or ‘life’. And that means I could (and in that sense probably often do) get it wrong. But what do we mean by ‘wrong’? That kinda ties with the most major way of getting something wrong is to dehumanise – the core of ‘sin’, which Paul affirms that we have all sinned and come short (not of standards as per law) of the glory of God.

I find the book difficult, obscure, clear, inviting, but would certainly be at quite a loss if it was taken from me, at a loss because I lose sight of Jesus all too easily, and even when I get frustrated with what I read there is a constant flow that pushes me to Jesus, the ultimate and final word.

Labels are challenging. I am a Christian but not like… I am an evangelical but not like… I am charismatic but distance myself from… I would find it hard to sign certain creedal statements as I would have to say ‘but what do you mean by that?’, but the central element that shapes me (or at least I like to claim it does) is the centrality of the life, death, resurrection of Jesus; that Jesus is unique, set apart from all other members of the human race; that Jesus was and is God incarnate who came to set us free from captivity; and secondly, that my beliefs are shaped by what I read. What I understand of what I read can evolve (and devolve) but it always has to align with what is central.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Pondering on my core beliefs

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

It is many years ago I wrote a series of blogs on ‘Scotty still believes’ and thought I would have another go at writing about my convictions, that which shapes my perspectives and (I hope) impacts how I act, speak and behave. The practical outworking is the scary part for we all know (of) people who boldly proclaim how orthodox they are (what they believe) but their everyday ethical behaviour is a denial of that. In Jesus there was no separation of the two – he was the truth, the reality.

[Not simply to be provocative, but to keep pushing toward the boundaries let me suggest that this does not mean everything Jesus believed and said was ‘true’. He did not have the education that we have received, maybe he would have thought the earth was the centre of the universe, that there was a literal Adam and Eve, that Jonah was historical etc. Maybe not. I put that in here as ‘getting it right’ does not mean we are communicators of the truth; I am certainly wrong on some of my convictions – the number of historical and current Christians who would disagree with me on many points mean that I am in the minority, hence I would be foolish to think I have the truth! However, the bigger challenge is not what I believe, but who I am. Paul said ‘follow me’ and even he had to qualify it with ‘as I follow Christ’. Jesus as the truth is pointing far beyond his words.]

In lockdown I wrote four small books under the overall title of ‘explorations in theology’ (all four are available at: https://bozpublications.com . I started with ‘Humanising the Divine’ so let me explain why. Theology when written almost always starts with ‘God’. Then very soon comes the Christology part and the wrestling with the two natures of Jesus. I object to that approach for Jesus placed himself as the lens through which God is seen, a non-Jesus like God is not GOD. All centres in on Jesus… and not simply the ‘this is who God is’ but ‘this is humanity as intended / will be’. God and humanity – made by God for one another. God has a HIGH view of humanity not a low view… those passages that come back with ‘all your righteousness is as filthy rags’ and the like are critiques of vain attempts to reach to God. Forget it, God is among us, for in him we live and move and have our being. The passages that are along the lines of ‘I am but a worm… in sin I was born’ we can all identify with, but they are hardly theological statements! And why do we identify with them, because they speak eloquently of our ‘falling short… of the glory of God’. We have such a high calling that we all face moments of ‘and I am called to image God, to be like Jesus’. Sin stares us in the face – our sins that mark us out as not being who we are called to be / become and sin (singular) that power that too often successfully traps us and condemns us to being slaves of sin.

At some stage in theology comes a discussion on eternal destinies – inadequately summarised as ‘heaven and hell’. From the Scriptures it is not possible to determine what Jesus thought about those subjects, those references to ‘gnashing of teeth and outer darkness’ certainly have no immediate reference to things ‘eternal’. I respect those who hold to such beliefs but suggest that they are far from central in Scripture. ‘Salvation’ in its various shapes we find it are far more immediate, salvation from sins rather than from ‘hell’ being central. And I find I need salvation on a daily basis, with the great hope that one day I will truly be saved.

So I will slowly just write up over the coming days – as I ponder as to what Scotty believes and why – in a random way where I think some of my core convictions lie, and I am sure in the process I will receive some sight of where there is a gap between my professed beliefs and my practices. Always the OUCH part.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A podcast worth watching

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Here is a podcast of Mike Morrell and Thomas Oord… Worth digging into as Mike posts a set of questions to Oord. From a list of questions three are picked out:

  • Can faith traditions actually help reverse our runaway climate catastrophe, or do they only hurt the cause of ecological healing?
  • Can I affirm the wisdom found in other faith traditions while being rooted and grounded in the Way of Jesus?
  • How can I embody a counter-cultural faith in light of rising Christian nationalism, and the worship of power over love?

Helpful – also to get into Oord’s mind if anyone has never read his books or found it difficult to access.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

All Israel… who?

Anything but conclusions

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Toward the end of Paul’s (definitely not) aside on Israel in Rom. 9-11 he says ‘all Israel will be saved’. It has been an anchor point for the claim that at the end of this age there will be a mass turning of Jews to their Messiah… however, to hold to such a view logically would only involve Jews alive at the coming of Jesus, thus all those who had lived before that would not be ‘saved’. A further issue is that the phrase, sometimes translated ‘and then’ is NOT a temporal phrase (kai houtos, has to be translated ‘in this way‘). There is no time reference in what he writes but the means of ‘salvation’ coming is what he has been consistently writing about in these chapters. The question is ‘how’ will all Israel be ‘saved’ not when.

And a twist I am trying to think about is the distinction between ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’. The work of Jason Staples in ‘The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism’ argues that the two are not synonymous, with ‘Jew’ referring to those who belonged to the Southern kingdom and Israel referring to the bigger entity of the 12 tribes. This morning I was reading Paul’s defence before Agrippa and took note of what I had not seen before:

I stand here on trial on account of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain… It is for this hope… that I am accused by Jews! Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead.

He was accused by Jews and he claimed his hope was the hope of Israel! [I am thinking this might give yet another twist to ‘Are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel at this time?’.]

The northern kingdom (the ‘ten tribes’) ‘disappears’ with the Assyrian exile leaving (eventually post-a trip to Babylon) Judah, Benjamin and some of Levi, the ‘southern kingdom’ that had been faithful to David and his line. Generally speaking that is what is referred to as ‘Judah’ and gains the description ‘Jews’. Then we can add so many twists but how about this one: Ephraim and Manasseh are elevated to the position as tribes. They are the sons of Joseph and ‘Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On’. Joseph’s wife: an Egyptian and from a dodgy spiritual line!! Ethnic purity – NOT. [And Jewishness comes through the mother’s line?]

‘All Israel’… and not ‘all those descended from Israel are Israelites’… wow, all a tight knot that is not simple to undo(!) but leading surely to where Paul is headed in these chapters – ‘so that he might be merciful to all’. And ALL is a big term.

I have some unpicking still to do but it seems Paul is not arguing for some great future event but a process that is ongoing that we should not reduce to being able to produce some physical DNA results as evidence. The hope of Israel, the twelve tribes… Paul, from the tribe of Benjamin, becomes an apostle to the non-Jews (Gentiles), so that the ‘hope’ of God might be fulfilled, that of a transformed world, in which the hope of Israel will also be fulfilled. Israel is bigger than Jewishness; Israel is ‘dirtier’ than ethnicity. And above and beyond it all God’s ‘hope’ is bigger than my hope, or the hope of Israel.

I have no direct conclusions as yet on the tight knot, but ‘in this way’, in God’s way there is an eternal ever expanding reach toward all of humanity.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives