A few interim points first

My last post was on ‘alienation’ being the plight for humanity and that it is expressed in four directions:

  • alienation from God
  • alienation from one another
  • alienation from oneself
  • alienation from creation

I will post on the antidote that comes to humanity through the work of Messiah inn order to effect reconciliation but prior to that a few preliminary points here and in that laying out my presuppositions.

Our approach to the Bible is a key element. I am in process of reading through in a year and recently the NT aspect took me to Acts. It is no secret that I am not of a Calvinist / Reformed position and I come across Acts 13:48,

When the gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the word of the Lord, and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers.

A golden proof text for the Calvinist… though they have to read a little into it and subconsciously read ‘predestined for eternal life’ with the idea that these were elect prior to the foundation of the world and that regeneration precedes faith. It doesn’t say that. I come at the text and I baulk a little and want it to make fit my views and think it is not too difficult to do – maybe I will do a post one day on it. However both the Calvinist and the Open theologian have presuppostions – the text must mean, or it can’t mean. I am no exception to that… as is everyone else.

Probably if Luke knew the debate that ensued in history he would have been a little more careful (though the context is VERY helpful to the likes of me!) and would have put in brackets with an author’s note: ‘please note I did not write predestined from all eternity; where on earth did you get that idea from?’ And probably it shows that they are not too concerned about the issues we are concerned about.

This leads me to the obsession we have with ‘salvation’ or maybe better put that we are ever so clear who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’. Assuming there is an in and an out that will be revealed on that future day that is God’s business not ours. Our task is to witness. Beyond that I consider that our salvation is far more for something than from something. That view will affect my approach to reconciliation.

I was told last night that there is a reckoning that among Gen Z they are 5x more likely to believe in God / the Transcendent than their parents. Amazing!! Hold that thought… I am reading with a small group ‘Lamb of the Free’ – if you wish to have a challenging read that can give you serious brain ache then that is the one. It is essentially a look at the OT sacrificial system from within and he comes out STRONGLY that there is no element of substitution involved in it (animals are not being sacrificed so that God forgives; they are not being substituted for us). Entering into that OT world is a challenge. It is a totally different world to the one we inhabit so getting one’s head around what is going on with the rituals is quite something. The next chapters will be on the NT in the light of what he has been establishing thus far. What hit me last night was the OT sacrificial system was not put in place to bring people into covenant with God… a cursory reading of the NT and it is through (let me call it) the sacrificial system that is witnessed to in the cross that we Gentiles are brought near and enter the covenant. I presume that is why Paul does not labour on about the OT sacrificial system when preaching to the Gentiles (we look to the book of Hebrews for that). I do have a point here!! And the point is the eternal Gospel cannot be changed, but what is presented does change dependent on culture…

Western Europe / world has been christianised; the Reformation came into that context; the revivals were in that context. Wales and 1904 is highly idealised, but it is instructive to visit Wales and check the dates on many of the chapels. Many date from, or were enlarged in the 1890’s. The people were already in church and a few years later something connected them to living faith; the Hebrides / Lewis were similar with a strong Calvinist belief that included no-one can respond to God until they are regenerated (born again), so until the time came when the conviction of God came on them they were not responding to God in what we consider is a dynamic way… then in a short season…

We do not change the Gospel, but what we express of the eternal Gospel is also in measure contextual. If the Gen Z aspect continues we are looking at the bridges that could be utilised to communicate the ‘good news’ of heaven’s pleasure to this context that is increasingly a reality in the Western world.

Back to the Bible. I read Scripture as narrative, not merely as salvation history, to borrow a phrase, but as a trajectory from creation all the way to new creation. The story is set in motion and we cannot deviate from the direction but there will be new (yet faithful) ways of living out and telling the story that we do not find a biblical text for. I appreciate that the likes of me can get accused over this, but give me a break… robes, titles, ordination, pulpits – even church buildings that some call sanctuaries. Not exactly an abundance of texts on that! We all go beyond Scripture… I think I do OK where I go.

So as I come to look at ‘reconciliation’ into the four areas of God, others, self and creation I might push the boat a little way out from shore but given my presuppositions I don’t think I am deviating from the eternal Gospel. Perspectives abound! The next post will come one day soon.

Reconcilation… wholistically

Single lens approaches to themes can be helpful but also limiting. The classic is that of the ‘atonement’ with a particular theory being made the explanation of what took place – and this includes the popular ‘scapegoat’ approach – popular among progressives. I write the previous words to acknowledge that I am about to write about a single lens approach to creation, fall and redemption; I am also going to push the boat out, maybe away from the shore too much for some, as this blog is entitled ‘perspectives’ – though I am getting close to being ready to put my weight on the concept I will present and I think it will not give way! The next post will be the one where the exploration is expressed.

The single lens is that of alienation and reconciliation. (Single lens – not that of guilt and forgiveness / justification as per the Reformation.) I do not read Genesis as perfection and fall but as humanity created for relationship with God and created where that relationship can grow (all is good, not perfect as in the sense of mature), so not a hard fall but a departure from the path that leads ever closer to God, but a fall that is a historic statement on humanity so that ‘all have sinned (missed the purpose of what it is to be humanity) and thus have fallen short of (not attained) the glory of God (as would have been revealed if humanity had grown – as revealed by the one who came and having suffered grew into true humanity)’…. (Hope Paul is happy with my parenthesis!)

The result of not taking the path of eating from the tree of life but from the tree of (independent) knowledge of good and evil, of taking the independent path of becoming like God is relational alienation. Shame enters the world of humanity and there comes an inability to see God. The hiding from God is somewhat ironic for what it meant was not that humanity was able to hide but that the result was that they could not see God – it was if God became the hidden God! The ‘devil’ works off the back of this to blind the eyes so that sight becomes impossible.

The relation with each other – the one who is both like us ‘bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh’ and also different ‘male and female s/he made them’ is distorted with the other in the wrong (hence ‘scapegoating’ is not an irrelevant aspect) thus the inter-human-relationships are deeply affected, spilling over as we read beyond the Genesis 3 ‘fall’ of familial murder and then into wider warfare, written about both implicitly and explicitly in the expanding narrative concerning nations and city building.

We also have the rather strange passage about the outside-of-appointed-boundaries sexual relations between ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of women’. Myth but truly representing the distortion of rightly-ordered respectful relationships – affecting not simply our habitat but the entire cosmic order.

And we add to this the tension on the physical world around us – ‘cursed because of you’.

So my summarised single lens is that of ‘alienation’ that outworks in at least four ways:

  • Alienation in the relationship to God – not on God’s side, but the invisible God becomes the hidden God
  • Alienation from the other
  • Alienation from creation
  • Alienation from oneself

If we then jump beyond Genesis 1-11 we come to the opening lines about God appearing to Abraham in the land of Mesopotamia and called him to walk a (literal and spiritual) different path we begin on the redemptive narrative. A relational path away from the centre. The laws that then follow are given to a redeemed people so that in turn they can be part of the redemptive activity of God. The laws concern the alienation ‘problems’ – addressing at the centre the first two areas, with a focus on (as Jesus said) what the entire law and the prophets are based: love for God and for the neighbour. I wrote in The LifeLine (yes go and order it!) that the cross is essentially to do with cleansing so that there can be a meeting point for anyone to meet with the holy God, or in Paul’s words that ‘God was in Christ (Messiah, representative Israel / humanity) reconciling the world (all humanity) to him/herself’. Once Jesus dies there can be no sanctuary per se; the temple curtain must divide not only as a sign but to reveal that when the full truth is revealed what is hidden can be shown not to be present. Emmanuel, God with us, is not in a sanctuary, but ‘with us’ to the end of whatever age we choose to measure things by.

Reconciliation. And reconciliation in four directions:

  • Reconciled to God
  • Reconciled to the other
  • Reconciled to creation
  • Reconciled to one self

The issues have always been relational – the solution has to be relational. The centre is not legal to be settled in a cosmic lawcourt before a Judge, but the familial setting is central – we call no one ‘father’ but the God whose eyes have always seen us (read the Hagar story) resulting in a re-establishing of familial relationships, as described by Jesus:

Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matt. 12:49-50)

My single lens – alienation and reconciliation. In the next post I will seek to explore the four areas of reconciliation.

Mammon, The Market & The Commodification of Life

This post is a republication with permission of Adrian Lowe’s second article exploring how our existence is shaped either by God or Mammon. The original was published at Substack:

https://adrianslowedown.substack.com/p/mammon-the-market-and-the-commodification


The universe is composed of subjects to be communed with, not objects to be exploited

Wendel Berry

The free market is one of the most influential ideologies in the developed world, and it has become a cornerstone of Western civilization. The promise of a free, fair system of trade – untethered from government control, allowing for private ownership and opportunity for “all” – has a utopian ring to it. Economists and politicians often speak of its virtues in terms that seem to attribute salvific power to it. However, if we’re honest, we all know this ideology may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. In the shadow of what appears to be one of the West’s greatest strengths lies an even bigger weakness. Beneath the neatly shorn sheep guiding its every move is a gargantuan and greedy machine called Mammon. None of us can escape its power; it has become an intrinsic part of the architecture of our collective existence. Our “living, moving, and being” (Acts 17:28) are subject to the automaticity of Mammon.

At a macro level, I suggest the Mammonic Machine is influencing the proponents of globalization, an economic order that is relationally disruptive, in that its aim is to connect the world through trade and migration (labour movement). This results in cultural dislocation as borders are erased and a sense of place and locality are degraded, all of which, according to the Genesis creation narrative, are the foundation for individual and collective meaning and are a core requirement for humankind to flourish. At a micro level, individuals have an insatiable appetite for more, newer, bigger, and better, fuelling our acquisitive lifestyle. Our fear of scarcity and our idolatrous affection for comfort and security feed our tendency towards limitless consumption and accumulation.

The Pressure of Mammon

So it is that the Mammonic Machine exerts pressure on the marketplace, demanding obsolescence to be built into design, as we have come to obsess about all things ‘new.’ It dictates that we have a system of mass production to sustain our collective desire for ‘more for less.’ Disposability thus comes to lie at the core of our throwaway culture, resulting in the devaluation and de-sacralization of belongings as their identity is reconfigured from being the gifts of a good God into commodities.

The Power of Mammon

Of course, the power exerted by Mammon is not limited solely to the marketplace. It is Mammon that is the unseen power behind the commodification of life in its entirety. In truth, Mammon and its economic value system have become the lens through which we perceive reality. This commercialisation of life results in human existence—including individuals, their bodies, labour, and natural resources—being treated as commodities, objects of economic value to be bought, sold, or exploited. In this process, life itself is reduced to something that can be exchanged in the marketplace, with its value determined not by inherent dignity or purpose, but by its economic worth or utility. This often involves turning human beings, relationships, or natural resources into objects of profit, stripping them of their endowed sacred or intrinsic value and viewing them primarily through the lens of commercialism or consumerism.

‘Silver and Gold’

The Bible has much to say about Mammon’s deceptive and dehumanising ideology, its accompanying narrative around the controlling power of ‘silver and gold’ and its idolatrous status—idolatry being an Old Testament metaphor for the commodification, commercialisation, and “financialisation” of human existence, another way of saying Mammon!

The Exodus narrative speaks extensively about the domineering and enslaving economic, social, and spiritual power of ‘silver and gold’ that held God’s people captive for 400 years, and, of course, of how Yahweh defeated them and liberated Israel from their internment. ‘Silver and gold’ were the currency of Egypt and symbolised the commodification of life under Pharaoh. This was a world of coercion (the drive to perform better and produce more) and competitive advantage. Pharaoh’s insatiable appetite for the accrual of wealth and power became the engineering that formed the reality of life in Egypt. Driven by anxiety (an absence of peace), fear (of loss), and restlessness (an inability to stop), Pharaoh turned to ‘silver and gold’ for his salvation, constructing for himself gods of ‘silver and gold.’ Later, Yahweh will expressly warn against the idolization of the commodity market. Pharaoh’s surrender to the gods of ‘silver and gold’ governed the architectural framework for life in Egypt.

The Exodus narrative exposes the results of a commodity-driven market economy in terms of its impact on people. The intrinsic sacred value of human life and labour is degraded and demeaned; it is no longer determined by inherent dignity and purpose but by its economic worth and utility in the marketplace. The sons and daughters of God lose their true identity as they become slaves for the monolithic machine called Mammon.

It must come as no surprise that following Israel’s liberation from a life codified by the gods of ‘silver and gold,’ Yahweh gives clear instructions on how to remain free from its stranglehold. Moses receives a mandate for the way in which Yahweh will reconstitute and reengineer what being the community of God looks like.

“I am the LORD your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of your slavery.
“You must not have any other god but me.
“You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea. You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. (Exodus 20:2-5)

First, Yahweh reminds them of their rescue from the Egyptian Leviathan, the powers of sin that had enslaved them. This exhortation is repeated numerous times, for example:

“…be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” (Deuteronomy 6:12)

In effect, God is saying, ‘don’t forget that you were once slaves!’ His instructions are clear: the idolatrous social, economic, and spiritual model of Egypt is over. Miriam makes this clear in her celebratory prophetic song where she declares that the ‘horse and the rider have been thrown into the sea.’ This is the metaphor used for God’s redemption of His people. The horse and the rider symbolize Pharaonic power. Judgment is executed on the systems of power that held God’s people captive.

Rabbinic thought suggests that the horse was the symbol of the culture of Egypt. When the Israelites sang of the downfall of both ‘horse and rider,’ they were expressing their appreciation of the fact that not only were Pharaoh and his slave masters being removed from the scene, but so, too, the oppressive culture of Egypt coming to an end. Throughout the Bible, the culture of Egypt is identified with the horse, which is a symbol of militarism and the ideology that ‘might makes right.’ The horse is also a symbol of arrogance and pride. When God brought down Pharaoh and his cohorts, He also removed from the world stage a belief system that justified crushing and enslaving other human beings. The removal not only of the dictator but of his doctrine, and not only of the tyrant but of his theology, is part of the pattern of history from a Jewish perspective.

Later in the text, Yahweh provides greater clarity in instructing Israel:

“…..do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.” (Exodus 20:23)

One of the hallmarks of this new community, liberated from their slavery, is revealed in God’s command to Israel that they do not make idols of ‘silver and gold.’ This is an invitation to live together in a counterintuitive way to that of the Pharaonic, Mammonic love of money. He also foresees their temptation to a life of dualism (‘You shall not make gods of silver to be with me’ Exodus 20:23)—the attempt to serve two masters, as Jesus puts it. God knows Mammon is enslaving; its mantra calls for our enhanced performance. It demands we work harder and longer in order to meet the desire it places in our hearts for ‘more.’ This love of money exercises coercive economic power. It also divides people as it stratifies society by creating ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots,’ rich and poor. In effect, what Yaheweh gives are guidelines for staying out of slavery by living a life free from the commodification and productization of existence. It’s a lesson on how to be and to remain fully human, protecting the Imago Dei and thus revealing Yahweh as the Creator who loves His creation.

AMOS – What Happens When Commodity Becomes King?

I am part of my church family’s preaching team. Recently, we decided to speak on the minor prophets, and without thinking too much, I volunteered to speak on the book of Amos. I hadn’t read it for a while, but I committed to doing it. When I re-read the book, I began to wish I hadn’t! However, as I laboured through the collection of seemingly disjointed poems and declarations, I began to see how history can repeat itself, how not heeding Yahweh’s plea to ‘remember’ but instead forgetting, results in a return to captivity—slavery to the gods of ‘silver and gold,’ and the consequential spiritual, social, and economic decay that follows in its wake.

In summary, the narrative tells us that Israel was enjoying unparalleled economic prosperity under the rule of King Uzziah of Judah and King Jeroboam II. However, this success led to a market ideology assuming an idolatrous status. As all idols do, they demanded devotion, surrender, and obedience—the Mammonic Machine would accept no less. God plucks Amos, a nobody, a shepherd and fig grower, out of obscurity to confront the idolatry of the rich and powerful. Their totemisation of economic success resulted in them forgetting God and His ways. To quote Walter Brueggemann, “Prosperity breeds amnesia.” The people had forgotten God’s deliverance from the corrupt, oppressive, and corrosive socio-economic system of Egypt that held their forebears captive for over 400 years. They had become captivated by the same Pharaonic, Mammonistic system that had dehumanized a previous generation.

Amos is uncompromising in speaking the truth and identifies how Israel’s growing affection for ‘silver and gold’ is contemporizing and re-engineering their individual and collective life.

‘You can’t wait for the Sabbath day to be over and the religious festivals to end so you can get back to cheating the helpless. You measure out grain with dishonest measures and cheat the buyer with dishonest scales. And you mix the grain you sell with chaff swept from the floor.’ (Amos 8:5-6)

The prophet challenges a worldview shaped by personal gain and private profit that had resulted in the re-codification of their values and behaviours and confronts a form of worship that has become disconnected from the way they live, work, and do business. Socio-economic injustice was rife, as the gods of commodity exerted their power and malformed reality. Amos articulates the many ways in which these gods were disfiguring and dehumanizing Yahweh’s people. Let me mention just three.

1: The productization of people and relationships

At the heart of Christian ethics is the belief that human beings are made in the imago Dei, or the image of God. This concept, rooted in Genesis 1:26-27, holds that all humans possess intrinsic dignity and worth because they reflect God’s nature. Unlike other aspects of creation, human beings are endowed with rationality, free will, and the capacity for moral decision-making. They are not objects to be used for personal gain, nor are they products to be bought and sold. However, in a world, ancient or modern, where the Free Market is idolized and venerated, lives are commodified, people become products to be traded, and relationships are de-sacralised.

‘…because they sell righteousness for money and the needy for a pair of sandals’. (Amos 2:6)

When God is forgotten and economic success (‘silver and gold’) becomes our god, the intrinsic God-given human value of individuals is swallowed up in a market ideology. People become products in the market and a means to satisfy the personal desires and needs of others. Modern capitalism and consumerism reduce human beings to mere economic units, depriving them of their inherent worth as created, image-bearing beings.

This process of commodification could be described as relocating relational goods from the humanistic sphere and placing them in the commodity sphere. Mary Harrington, writer and contributing editor of UnHerd, says, ‘Commodification takes something out of the context of relationship, isolates it, and gives it a market value other than that which relationship bestows’. . She cites the porn industry as a powerful example of this and makes the point that ‘whilst the industry might say that this is about self-expression and empowerment, the truth is that this is a cold-blooded, merciless commercial machine that hacks human pleasure centres for profit’. Sex is made homeless; it is extracted from the context of relationship and bought and sold as a commodity.

2: The primacy of personal gain and private profit

A radical individualism has been at work on both the political right and left over many decades, and this too has contributed to the commodification of the human being and to technocratic tendencies, both of which are dehumanizing and undermine our ability to build the common good together.

One of the roots of the commodification of life is the consumer culture that dominates much of the modern world. This culture encourages individuals to define their worth and happiness in terms of material possessions and measures of economic success. Advertising, media in all its forms, and the marketplace constantly reinforce the idea that life’s meaning is found in pursuing an acquisitive lifestyle regardless of the cost to others.

‘You trample on the poor and extract taxes from him, you have built houses hewn of stone’ (Amos 5:11)

From a Christian perspective, this consumerist mindset is deeply problematic because it distracts people from the true purpose of life: to love God and neighbour (Matthew 22:37-40).

Mammon and his commodification of life foster a culture of individualism and greed, which is antithetical to the Christian virtues of humility, generosity, and community. It leads people to view relationships, experiences, and even themselves through the lens of consumerism. This is particularly evident in the rise of social media, where personal experiences, bodies, and even personalities are commodified for likes, followers, and brand endorsements.

And when we see life through a commercial lens, where trading has invaded, conquered, and then codified collective behaviours, our common socio-economic life becomes fractured as it centres around ‘my (individual) prosperity’ at the expense of my neighbour.

Brueggemann captures this so well in his commentary on Psalm 73 where he describes the “two ways” before which the faithful stand: a way of self-enhancing commodity and a way of relational communion. He describes these as the choice that is before our own society, and before every society. ‘Our society in its dominant forms is now committed to the rat race of self-sufficiency and self-enhancement, the pace of which is set by greed, celebrity, and violence that contradicts the depth of human life. In that lethal rat race, the refocus of faith is the (re)discovery that such a set of priorities has no staying power. What lasts is a life of communion in obedience that is preoccupied, not with the love of self, but with the love of God and the love of neighbour.’ (From Whom No Secrets are Hid – Introducing the Psalms, Walter Brueggemann)

3: Truth has only a commercial value

Amos points to the depths to which the god of the markets, the god of commodity, Mammon, will go in that ultimately it makes even truth a commodity to be traded for commercial gain.

Listen to this, you who trample the needy
and do away with the destitute in the land.
You say, “When will the new moon festival be over, so we can sell grain?
When will the Sabbath end, so we can open up the grain bins?
We’re eager to sell less for a higher price,
and to cheat the buyer with rigged scales!”

As the prophet points out, when we forget God and become worshippers of the god of economic success, this idol, as all idols do, demands our absolute devotion. Not only that, but all idols also require sacrifice. Mammon – ‘silver and gold’—has its own accompanying sacrificial system. In a world where this god is revered, loving neighbourliness is reconfigured by a market economy and, in doing so, people and relationships are commercialized and productized for personal gain and private profit. Eventually, honesty, integrity, and righteousness will find themselves as an offering on its altar. Truth can become whatever it needs to be to ensure the continuation of success and is corrupted for the sake of maintaining the momentum and progress of the Mammonic machine.

Final thoughts

That all sounds a little bleak! As I have already mentioned in my first essay on the subject of Mammon I am going to point to the hope that the Gospel offers and in doing so suggest some countercultural, counterintuitive ways of thinking and living. In my next essay, I will explore the concept of Repair as a form of resistance against the forces that seek to commodify every aspect of our existence. This will not only be a philosophical reflection but also a call to practical action—ways in which we can tangibly embody this hope.

Before I sign off, I want to leave you with a couple of lines from John’s Gospel where he quotes Jesus Himself.

‘“I no longer call you slave, because the master doesn’t confide in his slaves. Now you are my friends, since I have told you everything the Father told me”’ Jesus Christ (John 15:15)

Isn’t this simply beautiful! In just a few words, Jesus dismantles one worldview and ushers in another. He shifts his hearers from a paradigm of servitude to one of freedom, replacing hierarchical, transactional relationships with the radical intimacy of friendship.

Jesus doesn’t see human beings as instruments of profit, stripped of their endowed sacred value through the lens of commercialism and consumerism – slaves. His words don’t just challenge economic paradigms; they upend the entire value system that measures human worth by productivity and profit. Instead of being trapped in a transactional existence, He calls people into a relational, dignified existence—one of friendship, trust, and intrinsic worth. He sees them through the lens of the Father’s love, an emancipatory love that restores what has been degraded and reclaims the Imago Dei in each person.

A new book

I had a note yesterday about a new book that will be out in May by Greg Boyd & M. Scott Boren (no relation!) entitled ‘God looks like Jesus’. The back cover apparently has a brief summary as follows:

In the past several decades, a grassroots global movement has people rediscovering a Jesus-looking God who is raising up a Jesus-looking people to transform the world in a unique, Jesus kind of way. 

The three elements are so succinct and I wish I had come up with them:

  • A Jesus-looking God

I think so many of us have a sneaky suspicion that parts of God looks like Jesus, but there are some ‘tough’ parts that Jesus did not show us… and even in one movement that crept into the charismatic world and also the Reformed world was that such instructions as we find in the Sermon on the Mount to ‘turn the other cheek’ are only temporary instructions for the day will come, in the future… and because the movement was post-millennial, in this age when that instruction will not apply. Far from turning the other cheek we will be the ones admonishing people and we will be the ones who ‘strike them on the cheek’!!

But God is like Jesus – the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus, to see Jesus is to see the Father. The cross becomes the meeting point for humanity and deity precisely because the life offered there was none other than truly the God and the human life. The cross is not the appeasement of wrath / payment but the point of reconciliation – as I have oft quoted ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’.

God did not send Jesus into the world to condemn the world; the ‘delay’ in the parousia is so that none might perish (we have to allow that to modify any exclusivist view that only those like me will be saved!).

  • A Jesus-looking people

Oh… this is the challenge. Orthodoxy has reigned supreme – do I believe the right things; orthopraxy has been left aside – my actions, my responses. Or when I have acted it has flowed from what I believe rather than seeing the person. That is why a percentage of ‘evangelism’ is not ‘good newsing’ it but approaching others as others and inferior. which leads to:

  • A Jesus kind of way

I am convinced at the centre of the good news is that through the crucified one the transformation of all creation is announced. But a Jesus kind of way. Recently I had some dialogue around The Lord of the Rings and the character Borrowmier who had a goodish heart and motivation but wanted the ring to bless others. To use power for good! That one cuts deep and I have been convinced for the past couple of years that this is where the Spirit is drilling deep among us.

The Jesus way. I am still working my way through on the legitimacy of using power (I think primarily of political and economic, but also need to include gender, class and race) for good. Jesus’ kingdom was not of this world… a Jesus kind of way.

The three points from the book are where it is at. We have to move on from views of God that owe more to pagan philosophy (the unmoved mover, omnipotence, omniscience etc) to the Jesus-lens. We have to become guilty of resembling Jesus – would my neighbours ‘accuse’ me of that? BTW – that was one of the Pauline requirements for leadership among the people of faith! And cleansed of ‘we have the power’.

I hope the book is good… for sure the agenda of the above three points remain, have always been in the foundations but are being examined in this season by the Holy Spirit.

Read on… and on…

OK so into Numbers as far as my OT reading takes me this morning (with a splash of Psalms and Proverbs that help the medicine go down!). Here is a sample this morning – feel free to read:

On the twelfth day Ahira son of Enan, the leader of the Naphtalites: his offering was one silver plate weighing one hundred thirty shekels, one silver basin weighing seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of choice flour mixed with oil for a grain offering; one golden dish weighing ten shekels, full of incense;  one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering;  one male goat for a purification offering;  and for the sacrifice of well-being, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Ahira son of Enan (can be found in Numbers 7).

The previous verses are a list of who did the same thing on days 1 – 11. They all gave the same offering, then at the end the offerings are totalled… I could well do without reading all of that, and if it were voted out of our Bible I would not be found mourning. Made me think.

It is partly ‘boring’ cos it has nothing to do with my history and we can easily get bored with something that has nothing to do with our personal history; it also makes no connection to my world – all that ritual is a world away. But I also realise that I have been brought up to find a verse (two verses of course make it even more convincing) that defend my views, in other words my reading has been shaped by ‘proving me to be right’. It is said that the people who read most reviews of (and view most adverts for) a product are those who have just bought it – they want to be convinced they have made the right choice. I think sometimes Bible reading can be like that. I read until I find what I agree with, or rather what agrees with me.

We are quite removed from reading the Bible as narrative but I am convinced we need to get back to that. Having said that I am not sure I will ever do a jig around the apartment when reading Numbers chapter 7 in the future… but might be more comfortable with what I don’t know. Maybe…

Patriarchy – challenging to write as male

I appreciated the feedback on Romans 13 and the requirement to ‘submit’ to the powers. One of the comments that came in was focused on another biblical requirement of submission – namely that of women to men, with a note on the current context where in different ways a renewed emphasis is being placed on patriarchy mascarading as masculinity. Defining ‘femininity’ or ‘masculinity’ can be problematic and I think so it should be.

Let’s hit a major issue head on. Jesus was male. Jesus was Jewish. We could interpret that to mean to be male and to be Jewish is to be more in the image of God than to be female and non-Jewish. To assume that leads to a challenging conclusion, particularly when there is ‘neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male and female’, so even if the above assumption is made (male and Jewish is closer to God-likeness) there is an awesome change through the resurrected Jesus. I also come at the male / Jewish aspect with an assumption. Jesus, sinless, comes in sinful flesh and ‘all have sinned’ but the sin of male and Jew is where it is focused. That is not to make either males nor Jews greater sinners, but what has been acted out since creation has been the sin of dominance by males (patriarchy), and that Jesus first dies for the nation (John 10:51) to break the ‘curse of the law’ from Israel so that the blessing of Abraham might not be blocked but might come to Gentiles (Gal.3:13). In other words, Jesus as male and as Jewish is not a sign pointing to God but a sign pointing to the plight of humanity.

In this age belong, biological sex, covenantal marriage and singleness. In the age to come there will be no more marriage (and therefore no more sex) for covenant will be a living experience between all who are redeemed. I cannot pull forward a Bible verse – and that often leads us to suggest something that agrees with our view but abrogates the biblical narrative in the process – but I strongly suggest that Jesus is no longer male (or maybe no longer exclusively male). He continues as human for the firstborn of all (new) creation is the one to pull all redeemed humanity to its destiny.

I am reading back in Leviticus (finished this morning – always a sigh of relief when that happens!) and again today noted the difference in value for redemption of the male and the female. It is (for me) not possible to get away from the patriarchial bias of many of the OT laws – reflecting the culture, and yet (thankfully) an improvement to the culture of the day. That ‘improvement’ runs through Jesus, the Easter Event and on into new creation, and that ‘improvement’ takes creation to its fulfilment, that being the reason why Paul makes the grammatical change in the Galatian 3 text of Jew / Greek, slave/free. Grammatically he could have gone on to write ‘and neither male or female’ but he breaks the expected language with ‘no longer male and female’, a quotation from the Genesis record of creation regarding humanity in the image and likeness of God. There is a fall in Genesis, but perhaps not the ‘hard’ fall of sin (guilt) but of taking a path that would never be the path to maturity… one repeated by Israel.

Submission… wives to husbands – so clear but what is the significance of the language when there is not a ‘submit’ word in that verse (Ephesians 5:22) but that in verse 21 there is the ‘submit’ word with the instruction to ‘submit to one another’ with the added phrase ‘in the fear of Christ’. No submission because of a creational aspect – biological, nor related to birth – nationality, nor cultural – social. New humanity in Christ and the inter-relatedness of one another – WOW!

Yes there are texts that call for submission in Paul… Those instructions are contingent based on the situation and into the Graeco-Roman world which was very fearful about women not being faithful to the gods of the Empire. Plutarch (b. 46AD/CE) said:

A wife ought not to make friends on her own, but to enjoy her husband’s friends in common with him. The gods are the first and most important friends. Wherefore it is becoming for a wife to worship and to know only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the door tight upon all queer rituals and outlandish superstitions. For with no god do stealthy and secret rites performed by a woman find any favour.

All directive texts calling for submission within the household can (and I consider should) be read as moving the culture forward without making an absolute break that would leave no bridge in place… in other words not the final word but the missiological word.

So here I go, writing as a male, with huge blind spots and shaped by my culture, but I consider that the renewed emphasis on ‘the restoration of masculinity’ will not bring us closer to new creation. This is why we have to go beyond signing up to all ‘again’ messages. The path ahead is challenging, but we have the trajectory that we can follow through the Jesus’ lens. And I suggest that there is a focused battle now (as has always been) on ending the culture of patriarchy. Should that go we will find a leverage point has been found that will accelerate the momentum of the new creation manifesting in our midst.

Perspectives