Year: 2026

Istanbul… we are here

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Updates

Well at least we plan to be as I wrote this post a few days ago and scheduled it to come out today (21 May). Scheduled as I had started to write pushing into how we approach Scripture when it presents us with mammoth sized problems provided we don’t simply ignore the issues. Anyway, Istanbul.

For those who followed our journey in Sicily where we sensed that we needed to go to a) track with the Imperial history of Europe that has been tied up with Christendom’s expression and b) sow into the future. How successful? No idea at all. And if a good step maybe the smallest contribution into the future.

While there as we prayed and journeyed to different places it seemed that Istanbul became the next place. Neither Gayle nor I have ever been there (though Gayle’s sister has been teaching there for the past couple of years) but the history of the place – back through the Ottoman empire to the clash between an expression of Christianity and an expression of Islam as well as being key as a portal between east and west pulls.

I am asked sometimes ‘Is Allah God’. Interesting question as the word ‘Allah’ means ‘God’. My actual response is to ask a question back – ‘is the Christian God, God?’ I ask that as it depends what content we give to the word ‘God’ as to whether we describe ‘God’ or simply a ‘god’ of our own making. I guess we all have a ‘god’ who is less than ‘God’, and it depends how much less as to whether the less-than-God still has enough resemblance to ‘God’ or not.

To make judgements is not our place, to seek to understand who God is and to make God known is our place. I am not to know if (say) a Muslim who has an understanding of ‘God’ that they were given and seeks to do what is right is going to be a companion in the age to come; neither do I know if someone who grew up understanding God to be continually in a bad mood will be a companion. Salvation is through Jesus alone, not through belief, though both belief and action are relevant.

I do consider though that there are unholy allegiances and there is a fearful similarity between Christendom (clearly exemplified with the crusades in history, and in all forms of hatred) and the desire for some from within the Islamic community to exercise sharia law over others. ‘Over’ is such a key word. The work of God is to invite people not to put something in place that is over. Go back in history and Paul was so clear that he was honouring ‘God’ through the persecution of what he considered was a blasphemous cult. Did Paul serve ‘God’ or was he serving a ‘god’?

Sworn enemies can be at each other’s throats but can be operating from the same source! Jesus aligned the strict sect leaders within Israel (Pharisees) with their ‘father the devil’. I don’t think that went down too well. Christendom – a manifestation of a kind of Christianity, certain more extreme forms of Islam, and certain expressions of Judaism (or Jewishness with those who do not express faith) in my opinion seem to align themselves with the same (kind of) ‘god’.

In history Istanbul was ‘Constantinople’, the new Rome and capital of the Eastern Empire, the headquarters for Christendom. That magnificient cathedral was converted into a mosque. Those conversions of buildings from one religion to another were always seen as a symbol of victory, but I believe something deeper was going on. Islam aligned with Christendom’s model at that point, and I have held for years that the ‘well’ that Islam draws from is that of Christendom.

This will be one aspect we will pray into… There is more that will come out, particularly as this trip we will lean heavily on four people who have insight beyond mine. Grateful for Kathy & Steve Lowton, Maria and Bjorn Isacsson and Paul Wood who will bring what they carry both in terms of insight and story. I suspect as the few days unfold I will post updates.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

So what do we do with them?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Title AKA – inadequate answers.

A flat cannon?

I think it is fairly obvious that we are not asked to place all texts at an equal level. This is why to force a pre-determined doctrine of Scripture on the text will eventually lead to issues. Of course there is always the fall-back position of ‘as originally given’… but we do not have the original manuscripts from (say) Moses (or rather the ‘editors’) hands. If we hold to truth is told in the narrative to which we seek to live out under the inspiration of the Spirit in community we do not need to revert to superimposed doctrines that heavily depend on the in- words such as inerrant or infallible.

Those who insisted on being involved in the slave trade had the Bible to defend them, but from where we are today they did not have the trajectory of liberation on their side. The narrative / trajectory gave an greater authority to certain texts over others.

There is an intra-canonical debate

Not all Scripture is in agreement with all other texts. Take three wisdom books. Proverbs give us nice statements and there are any number of texts to choose from should one wish to embrace a ‘blab it and grab it’ theology. But put alongside it Job and the blabbing does not fit too easily. The righteous do suffer. Then jump along to Ecclesiastes and – with few exceptions – we have a somewhat pessimistic presentation: all is vanity and the most fortunate human is a dead one! Agreement – no. But the scene is set with the implicit invitation to enter the debate. The value of Scripture is not simply seeking to understand what does it mean, but how do I read it? What does it mean to me is key. The ‘final exam’ will not be on my biblical knowledge but somehow will relate to the measure to which I embodied what I understood. ‘All Scripture… is useful’; it is to be used / lived out.

Law – a direction (for Israel) not a terminus

There are laws in other ancient cultures that have similarities to the ones we read in our Scriptures. But virtually at every point of comparison the Torah moves the instruction further in a positive (humanitarian) direction. The slavery laws are one example; the ‘lex telionis’ (an eye for an eye…) is another example, limiting the level of response. But a) they are laws given to Israel and as such are as much a constitution for societal government as they are for their worship and b) they point in a direction but they do not arrive. The destination is Jesus, and the summary of the termination is ‘love’ which the New Testament makes clear includes love for the ‘enemy’.

Those aspects above help me enormously for they underline that it is a ‘Jesus lens’ through which we must read all Scripture, as for those who see Jesus as the express image of the invisible God he is the embodiment of the instructions of God. He is the true human one.

And then…

Archaeology is an ongoing activity.If something new is uncovered then at times previous readings of history have to be revised. At the current time not all archaeology accords with what we read in Scripture. Jericho had walls – just not at the time of the Conquest by Joshua; there was an Exodus, just probably not completely as we read. So…?

We should try and avoid putting on Scripture what we consider are the correct criteria, particularly regarding history that is written. We have a phrase that ‘history is written by the victor’ and ancient history was often written with a ‘bias’ (our perspective) to explain how things are as they are currently or to give a defence of who they were as a people. The level of genocide recorded is almost certainly exaggerated and (maybe I am now going to be controversial but it is hard to see it any other way) the words that we read that says ‘God spoke’ are at times more words put in the mouth of God than those that came from God’s mouth. God is misrepresented at times, and inadequately at others. But fully (and only) represented in Jesus, to which the Scriptures keep stretching to witness to.

 Coming to the ancient literature (the Bible) we can see even within the same book (by our criteria) that there are contradictions. Did they conquer the whole land? Early in the book of Joshua clearly they had:

So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings; he left no one remaining but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel had commanded… So Joshua took the whole land (Jos. 10:40; 11:23).

But a few chapters later we read,

Now Joshua was old and advanced in years, and the Lord said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and very much of the land still remains to be possessed (Jos. 13:1).

Not easy to reconcile those two statements, and it would not have escaped ancient scribes (had we pointed it out) that those statements are not easily reconcilable. Uncomfortable as it is we have to sit with it that we don’t always have history as we think of it, with dates and figures.

Story telling, recounting the past, is so part of ancient culture and it does not simply follow our norms and expectations.

We are invited to read and enter into the story without being under pressure to justify nor to agree with what we read. We run with the narrative for the Scriptures point to Jesus. The cross does not change God (anger to mercy) but reveals God. Yes, I do challenge that God said ‘wipe them out’, and certainly don’t sing songs with arms raised about bashing the brains out of young children of those I have decided are my enemy (and in modern warfare that is fast becoming an ever increasing reality).

These are inadequate answers and could be challenged, corrected, improved or replaced. Whatever solutions we come up with, if we read Scripture through a Jesus-lens we will come across some tough texts but will not come under them and come out the other side as ‘I can’t believe in God’. We have to read Scripture – even those tough places in a way so that they are useful. And useful for me is to be shaped by the God who is revealed in Jesus. The goal of Scripture is not Scriptural knowledge or even understanding, but knowledge of God by the Spirit through Jesus.

A final little note. The biggest issue for the Christian faith is that of suffering. It is compounded by a pre-set of beliefs that come without adequate explanation. God is all-powerful and all-loving: there the issue is increased. A mystery – yes. But I question whether we have a presentation of God as ‘able to do anything that he (and it is a male God at this point) chooses’. Not in this world. Suffering within creation is down to us and the work of liberation is down to us who follow the Lamb. We do need to revise what is meant by ‘sovereignty’ and ‘omnipotence’.

Suffering for the Christian faith is a challenge. For the non-theistic evolutionist the big issue is that of the incredible balance and combination of factors (close to infinite) that have to come together for life to exist. The probability? Add to that all of this came from nothing (something from nothing) and the statistical probability is staggering.

For both Christian and atheist a further challenge. Both love to speak of ‘time began’ – that I consider is an oxymoron!

For the Christian we might come up with better answers than I have, but they will still remain inadequate. Thank God that even in the midst of a lack of understanding we have a God who entered into the pain and suffering of the world – not for God’s sake but for ours… but to express that the Creator God is the redeemer God.

Jesus went beyond the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament. Consider for a moment, the animals were not sacrificed on the altar, but were killed humanely outside. They did not ‘suffer’ as they had to be presented without blemish. The Old Testament points forward… but we have to journey forward. Yes there are Scriptures that ‘fall short’ of a Jesus expression.

I hope I have provoked. I have so much more to read, for,

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Oh there are quite a few!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

There are more than an odd verse here and there that cause us as we read them to raise an eyebrow as to what they record, or go beyond recording to indicate that God approves of the behaviour described or even indicate that he commanded the action recorded.

Today I will indicate some of them – a little stark and in your face when listed like this, but maybe by doing so we might realise that this is not a minor bump on an otherwise smooth trajectory. It will also probably indicate why so many see God as a well-grumpy ancient one who is just waiting to give expression to some built up anger (spelt ‘wrath’).

Let’s start with a Scripture that is easily ‘defended’. Lot’s offer to give his two virgin daughters to the men to rape,

Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” (Gen. 19:6-8).

Easy to defend because Lot’s offer is indefensible and there is no mention of God giving such instruction or advice. There are a number of texts that are like that. They record indefensible behaviour often because of a twisted view of the God they serve.

Jephthah makes a vow and ends up sacrificing his daughter (Jud. 11:29-40). This is well screwed up and all stems from a wrong view of God, of doing a deal with God. (Thankfully this is not set in the context of Jephthah did the right thing.) Vows taken, the Torah says, can be annulled if a wife makes one and the husband says ‘null and void’, or a daughter does and the father cancels it. A sigh of relief… but ever so hierarchical and patriarchal. That is a continuing issue that comes through in the law- a cleansing offering to be given after the birth of a child, just the mother is unclean for twice the length of time if the child is female. That patriarchal bias is not removed throughout the Old Testament and some see it not removed even in the New – another post needs to be done to knock that on the head!

So many examples of the patriarchal bias (understatement!) of the laws given. Two men arguing – the problem – a wife intervenes – to solve it – and she can have her hand cut off! No mention of any punishment for the men. OUCH.

Slavery is not critiqued and not even overturned in the New. There are so many texts that can be quoted,

When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property (Exod. 21:20,21).

Slaves are ‘property’ and the text below not only refers to them as ‘property’ but allows for the obtaining of slaves from within families in the land (‘human trafficing’?).

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property (Lev. 25: 44-46).

There are numerous instructions from God that classify as advocating genocide or ethnic cleansing. Maybe the horrendous nature of it can be seen in this text from Psalms (the hymbook!):

O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
    Happy shall they be who pay you back
    what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
    and dash them against the rock! (Ps.137:8,9).

OK God did not command this, but there are those Scriptures where God commands the wiping out of whole communities, including children. And this text above to be recorded as a song to be sung! Yes we could spiritualise it, but the ‘meaning as originally intended’ was not spiritualised.

I was reading a couple of days ago about the ‘man after God’s own heart’. He lays out Moabites head to foot (easier to count) and then allows every third one to survive – killing the others; and of course as always as he grew in governance and made Jerusalem his capital he ‘then perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel and that he had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel’, so as God blesses him he goes out to take ‘more concubines and wives’ (2 Sam 5:13).

There are some challenging Scriptures. As I have noted some at least do not attribute to God the action described; we are left with some such as Jephthah’s vow that we have to answer as to what the right thing would have been to do. We have a bunch within the Torah that simply don’t stack up! And we have the genocidal instructions that are hard to reconcile with the God that is revealed in Jesus. At least Marcion opened a door, but the door he opened was beyond one we can simply go through.

I will return to this issue in the next post.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

When did the fall occur?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

This should be a short post – no idea?

How many falls were there? No idea.

Was there ‘a’ fall? Don’t know.

End of post!

Classically we have the creation of Adam and Eve; they choose to disobey; the result is ‘the’ fall. Could well be so, and theologically that is how we approach it all. But ‘historical’? That is to put a category on those Scriptures that (IMHO) is unfair.

In the same way as the ‘Old Testament’ acts as a backdrop to our ‘New Testament so Genesis 1-11 acts a background to Genesis 12- Malachi 4. The language, the style of writing and the various themes (not to mention the era it was written in) are such that we are not being presented with history in the sense of a researched piece of writing. Story-telling was (and remains) so vital. The important part is that those chapters present us with a backdrop to Genesis 12… God’s choice of Abraham so that the nations might be blessed. Gen. 3-11 gives us the mess we are in; but a solution is proposed – redemption through the line of Abraham.

The majority belief among Jews (second Temple and current) was not / is not that of ‘original sin’ as often is taught in Christian circles. If Paul taught that in Rom. 5 it would indicate quite a shift from his background. Neither did Judaism believe in salvation by works. I mention that as so much is pinned on Gen. 3 as ‘the fall’ in that classic sense. What remains is that creation as we find it did not move toward the goal that Gen. 1 & 2 seemed to indicate. The world and humanity are indeed fallen. I do, though, not believe I am required to accept as literal a talking snake – that might be described as ‘Satan’ in the book of Revelation but snakes were a symbol of wisdom (‘wise as serpents’) throughout much of Jewish literature; nor of ‘angels’ having sex with women; nor of a huge boat that saved the ‘two-by-two’ varied species. Those Scriptures do not offend me nor embarrass me, nor do I ‘wish’ they were not there. They accurately draw back the veil so that we can see the multi-layered mess that we are in, and also point toward what redemption might look like. (Hence the problems run much deeper than individual sin and therefore the solution deals with much more than that. I suspect if we could move away from the individualistic world view of the Western world we might be able to re-read Scripture.)

Scripture does not end with Genesis 11. A path does not begin with Abraham for God had been walking that path beforehand, but from Genesis 12 onwards Abraham joins the walk towards ‘the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.’

And in the literature that recounts the ups and downs of that journey and, unlike the literature of Gen. 1-11, there are stories that are seriously difficult to resolve. Ones that are quoted to defend the response of ‘I read the Bible and became an atheist’!

I don’t have neat answers to them. Privately I wish they were not there or at least had a serious footnote explaining why they are present. Tomorrow I will list some of the key passages. Honesty requires we do not simply erase them! And maybe as a prelude let me make one note here as I close. God does not agree with all that was written! Yes, this we also need to add to the ‘difficulty’. It is clearly recounted in the Torah that God required the death penalty for a number of violent acts, including that of murder… and yet in response to the first recorded murder in Scripture, God covers and protects the guilty one. A clear act of not submitting to the law!

Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him (Gen.4:15).

Of course we could suggest that God can do one thing (e.g. command genocide) but that it is not acceptable as human behaviour (nor compatible with ‘love your enemy’). God can act unrighteously and our reasoning is that it is a mystery (try to line that up with ‘be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’); but I think better that we carry lightly when certain behaviour is attributed to God when it is either condemned elsewhere in Scripture or is incompatible with the Jesus we read of who was the ‘express image of the invisible God’.

No neat answers ahead.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Creation and / or?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

With the model I presented in the previous post (and for now by-passing discussions on what we mean by inspiration and any other in- words) the protology presented by our Scriptures is essentially all that we see and experience came through the spoken word / activity of God (and the NT nails that down as being as a result of personhood – through the Word).

The ancient world has numerous creation stories. Understandably so, for there will always be a reaching out for explanations for ‘how’ something came to be the way it is. The genre we give to those stories is ‘myth’. Myth does not necessarily mean ‘made up’ but neither does it mean ‘take this literally as if a historical event was being described by an eye-witness’. We have not only differences in the two versions between Genesis 1 and 2, but it seems we also have other ancient stories that come through such as that of the slaying of the chaos monster:

Yet God my King is from of old,
    working salvation in the earth.
You divided the sea by your might;
    you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
    you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness (Ps. 74:12-14).

Those verses probably are reflecting an account of how creation came into being that is more ancient than the Genesis versions.The slaying of the monster is common to Babylonian, Norse, Greek and Egyptian; for example the Babylonian version (Enuma Elish) has Marduk, the storm god, killing the primordial chaos goddess Tiamat, who is depicted as a chaotic sea monster or dragon. Marduk creates the heavens and earth by splitting her body in half, separating her water-dominated form to create structure. Something of that seems to be reflected in the Psalm I quoted.

There are both similarities and differences between the seven-day account (Gen. 1:1 – 2:4) and the ‘Adam and Eve’ account (Gen. 2:4-25). I think it is a pointless task to try and hammer out the differences. Differences are present and we do a great dishonour to the ancient writers if we think they simply were not smart enough to spot the obvious differences.There are two accounts, one highly structured that over six ‘days’ – and I do think they were aware that until the sun and moon came into being ‘days’ as in 24 hour periods cannot be measured!! I kinda think if they were to read how certain apologists try and modernise the language that they might just think – after all those millennia they are not so smart after all. The highly structured first account shows how over the first three days the problem of ‘without form’ is dealt with and how the ‘void’ issue is eliminated over the final 3 days. The second account is human-centric and goes beyond the ‘formless and void’ issue to where the relational aspect is central; human companionship being the solution to loneliness.

The differences between those two accounts can be noted.

  • There is a difference of order:
    Genesis 1 has plants, then animals, then humans last.
    Genesis 2 has human either as male or as containing both male and female (‘Adam’ can certainly be pulled in either direction), then plants, then animals, then woman (or human as expressed as distinct persons).
  • A different Deity name is used:
    Genesis 1 uses “Elohim”.
    Genesis 2 uses “Yahweh”.
  • There is a difference regarding the method of creation:
    Genesis 1 features creation by command (“Let there be”).
    Genesis 2 features God forming creation by hand.

I don’t think the differences were missed by the ancients nor is there evidence that they tried to iron out the differences! The creation stories are just that.They are not of the same genre as Jesus’ parables but no ancient hearer was going to set about an investigation as to what the date was when the sower went out to sow and if he really sowed seed among thorns on that day! The genre meant that the historicity of the parable would never be subject to such an investigation. The creation stories is of a different genre to that of the parables (don’t be offended ‘myth’) but they were similar in that history, in the sense of observable activity, was never thought to be what was at stake as if unless they were ‘historically’ (factual and perhaps also scientifically) accurate that the stories did not carry authenticity. And certainly there is no science present in the story – that is to subject the genre to a false investigation not to mention how that would be importing questions from an inappropriate other era.

And on the big question of the ‘when’ of creation I would actually have less problems if eventually we found out that creation was eternal than the idea of a young creation. Mysteries for sure with it all, but was there ever when God who is creative was not creating? We will never solve the puzzle, and thankfully Scripture does not get bogged down in them. It pushes us beyond and higher than such questions.

And maybe a word about the ‘theory’ of evolution. Great pleasure can be taken from the word ‘theory’ as if there is within it a self-acknowledgement that it is ‘just’ a theory. But a ‘theory’ in the scientific world is the current way that an examination of the facts can be explained. Gravity is a ‘theory’ as well a ‘relativity’. Both might be revised / nuanced but I don’t think we should campaign to make sure that such theories are simply guesses and no Bible-believing person should engage with either!

Yes, there can be significant personal reasons why someone might wish to adopt evolution as their explanation of the world; particularly an evolution that eliminates a personal deity. I am far from being a scientist and am neither interested in seeking to refute nor give it major space. The ‘how’ of creation has some options, the ‘why’ is where the Scriptures focus.

The ‘well who created the god who created the god who created the world?’ retort is meaningless. If it carried meaning then the question would be infinitely long. The God who created is the uncreated God. Removing God from the equation (as with a non-theistic evolution) is what presents enormous issues – for that to ‘work’ at some point something began from nothing!

I am slowly getting into this set of posts as I want to explore the thought of Scriptures I would rather not be there! The creation stories are not part of that. Embarrassing for some people, maybe, but only if we try and twist them into something that they are not. Leave them alone and there is a profound richness within them. God providing for humanity, not just an environment, but food (other ancient stories have humanity existing to provide food for the gods); God setting humanity at the pinnacle of creation; of giving dignity to humanity as image-bearers – other sources have stories of temples with images, images that cannot talk nor walk. Creation as a temple and a call to look at humanity as the very image of the divine. Relational harmony.

One final observation I am not convinced that Genesis presents us with a perfect creation – it seems to indicate that creation is good and everything is present for (infinite) growth toward perfection.

Well, Genesis 1 & 2, I am very glad you are in there. The ‘protology’ (first word) helps us on our journey toward a healthy eschatology. God loves humanity and approves!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

What is this book?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Of course I have could have entitled this post ‘what are these books?’ but regardless of choice of title we still run into issues. What books should be included? We operate with 66 books with a firm line around them so that none others can enter – but other traditions use a different set. I have always struggled with the arguments that inevitably use various in- (fallible / errant) words to defend a doctrine of Scripture. Each lecture I sat through no New Testament introduction had to prove that the authorship was ‘apostolic’. I suspect that in part fuelled the view that became reasonably popular in the more-academic charismatic circles that the Old Testament prophets spoke the very words of God and the New Testament prophets were not at that level… the New Testament apostles being the counterpart of the Old Testament prophets. I have never driven a bus but I think without any training I could drive right through that without hitting anything! It all ends up so convenient; the church is built on the foundation of the prophets (=OT) and apostles (=NT)! Built on a book or on the lives of those who provoked people to follow the ‘Lamb wherever the Lamb goes’?

Yes Houston we have a problem.

The ‘canon’ is a problem that I do not think can ever be fully bottomed out. Not too different to that the Jews faced. They had books / scrolls, but it might surprise us if we were able to find out which books Jesus read. Maybe 1 Enoch was in there – a book that definitely does not go back to Enoch, not at any level in spite of being quoted as ‘Enoch the tenth from Adam said…’ No. It seems that the Jews formed – or moved toward forming a canon pretty much to exclude other writings, probably the list to be excluded included some of what we term the ‘New Testament’. There are other ‘gospels’ out there that are not included. Some might contain authentic sayings of Jesus, but…

I am very happy with the 66 we got! I treat them as authoritative (and inspired) in a way that I don’t treat other incredibly helpful (and inspired at a level) pieces of writing. The practical issue is the interpretation of what is written.

The first incredibly helpful presentation I heard on the authority of Scripture was from a youngish-definitely-up-and-coming person who went by the name of Tom Wright. (This was 1989; he has become fairly well-known globally since – his writings are more widespread even than mine!) He suggested that the authority of Scripture lay in its narrative and suggested if a lost (and unfinished) Shakesperean play had recently been found it might be a good analogy to the book(s) we have.

The play in 5 parts with:

  • Act 1 being that of origins / creation
  • Act 2 that of the Fall / falls
  • Act 3 Abraham and the historic people of God that we read of in what we term the OT
  • Act 4 being centred on Jesus, and
  • Act 5 being the opening scenes of the New Testament and the spread of the message… then the script is clearly unfinished although within the existing texts there are ‘hints’ where the play will end.

Wright put forward that the authority of Scripture is the narrative with the centre being Jesus.

I have suggested we could have three responses to the ‘Shakesperean’ story:

  • We realise the value of the writing, store the script in a museum and organise regular lectures on the play, its historical context etc.
  • We draw together experts who could ‘write’ the missing part and through their knowledge enable us to have in our hands a completed play.
  • We bring together Shakesperean actors who immerse themselves in what we have, rent a theatre and let the play roll. When the original script runs out just let them carry on with no predetermined script nor action.

Those three options do not have to be totally exclusive one of the other, but the priority has to be the third option. The theatre – our world; the actors – well these are not professionals, but are from the ‘not many…’ group! Passionate about the story, learning to act, react, speak, listen, challenge, making mistakes, but increasingly with a passion for the narrative and wanting to move the story forward toward the hints (‘new creation’) that are within the existing script. Acting ‘under’ the story, motivated by the Spirit, and with an eye on where the narrative is headed.

It does not answer all the issues of ‘canon’ or in what way are the texts ‘inspired’, but maybe that model describes what we do have before us and how we should respond to it. All our attempts to tie up the loose ends probably only take us to places that are unhelpful. ‘All Scripture’ (and what did that mean in the context of that text???) ‘is inspired… and is useful‘. That would not make for a very long lecture if that was the extent of what we had to say on our doctrine of Scripture. But once we make statements beyond that (the ‘Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy’ (1978) for example maybe did not give us much material to enable our response to the Bible to be useful but certainly gave us material to argue with others!) we run into the favourite land that Protestants / evangelicals have inhabited: ‘I am right and you are wrong’. Now all readers of these posts know I am right(!!) but (sadly) I discovered years ago that being right did not seem to be high on God’s agenda as a goal for my life. ‘Being perfect as My Father in heaven is perfect’ was certainly nearer the goal for my life! And that perfection (in the context where Jesus made that statement) was to do with how I related to others. Inspired and useful. (Maybe useful should be translated ‘will nail you down’?)

Subsequent to reading Tom Wright’s narratival approach I discovered the Anabaptist ‘Jesus hermeneutic’. Scriptures are not at the centre, but Jesus is, therefore the Gospel accounts of Jesus are not subject to the clever theology of the letters but rather the other way round. I am not a Marcionite (see last post: the god of the Old Testament is not the God of the New) but to give a hint of where I will be headed in future posts – not everything declared about God / what the text implies are an accurate reflection of who God is.

Jesus is the express image of the invisible God.

I am not Barthian (apologies to all the current wave of Trinitarian writers) but his description of the three-fold dimension of the ‘word’ of God is helpful. Our speech (or for Barth ‘preach’) that is based on Scripture that bears witness to the revealed word of God in Jesus. If we wish to use inspired, inerrant etc. with capitals we reserve that for Jesus – although even he had to ‘learn’.

So far then my overall approach to Scripture is both that of narrative and that it has to pass through the ‘Jesus lens’ to be authoritative! For example the patriarchal parts? No they don’t pass.

I have not resolved everything but have noticed recently that there are some YouTubes and articles on ‘how reading the Bible made me an atheist’. We could certainly add to that ‘How reading the Bible made me a religious bigot / hate anyone different / afraid of the world / want Palestinians to be wiped out…’

We do have (a) difficult book(s).

I write this glad that we have the NT. One of my readings this morning was:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.

Useful. Now it requires me to align, for ‘we are NOT justified by faith alone!’

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

I struggle with…

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

A few posts about to come. And if I was the reflective type, I am sure an all-but infinite number if I were to follow through on the title, but not being too reflective (strength: I look forward; weakness: I learn next to nothing!) and I am narrowing these posts down to Scripture – so nothing close to an infinite number about to be written. For sure most of us would be more comfortable if certain parts of Scripture were simply erased. I will probably miss out huge parts I don’t get cos I will try to write as things come to mind and am not working from a list that I have kept over the years.

Scripture…one can almost get from it what one wants. The death penalty – there it is. Slavery – clearer than abolition. Male supremacy and ‘headship’. The list is endless. I often say to Gayle that of the three Abrahamic faiths I am so glad we have a ‘New Testament’. Imagine simply having what we term the Old Testament or the Quran. Take for example Paul who writes a hefty part of the NT prior to his ‘conversion’. His pinnacle of righteousness was that of persecuting the church, approving of deaths. And he has Scripture defending him, nay endorsing him – the Levites were just one of the ‘ordinary’ tribes until they rose up and slaughtered 3000 of those who deserved to die(!), once they had done that they were rewarded for their zealousness (an aside: contrast the 3000 who find salvation on the day of Pentecost, the feast when the giving of the law was celebrated, that being the context of the zealous slaughter carried out by the Levites).

Marcion of Sinope (85- 160) was always held up as a heretic because he went full-blooded with the god of the Old Testament is not the God of the New Testament. A radical solution… but if push comes to shove I would rather that approach than a case built on OT Scriptures that are used to justify violence (such as with the Crusades… and has that ‘crusade mentality’ ceased?).

I will have to have a go at how I (currently) handle those texts that I would rather be eliminated(!!), but will go a little slower over the next few posts till I get there.

Labels are a challenge. Gayle was with a very soft-hearted Sikh a couple of days ago who was part of a workshop. The person in private said ‘I can see you are spiritual, are you a Christian?’. Shorthand answer would be ‘yes’, but that kind of answer does not help because it depends on what the hearer has in mind. So we often answer obliquely with something along the lines of ‘I don’t use that term as it can mean so many different things…. but Jesus…’ And that ultimately is where it will become evident that I land. I do not understand loads of Scripture but if it is to point me to Jesus I have to centre there (the well thought through term that Norman Krauss used of ‘a Jesus hermeneutic’).

Anyway labels. In common with the evangelical world there are a minimum of two elements that are at the centre of my faith – an approach to Scripture which I claim is the authority by which I believe what I believe, and that the cross of Jesus is the pivotal point of all history through which people are reconciled to God. Others might wish to add much more than that at the centre. I was glancing at a YouTube video of someone I met years ago declaring how anyone who embraces ‘open theology’ is heretical; I might wish to suggest that anyone embracing Reformed Theology is incorrect in their approach! The person on YouTube had a few more than two points at the core… and I think he would not be happy if I were to suggest that I fit within certain ‘orthodox’ theological houses!

Ah well I am so glad I can go to sleep every night knowing that I am correct at every key point of interpretation!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Alternative society?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I wrote a few days ago about ‘no kings’ and ‘no temples’ and thought I would give a bit of a follow up on that post. First my background. I was shaped from around 20 years old (50 years ago!!) by what was termed the ‘House Church Movement’ in the UK; its roots go back to very early explorations (1950’s) of ‘church’ and its NT form. Many of the early participants were from a Plymouth Brethren background so already came in with an anti-clerical perspective; they also came with a background in ‘Dispensationalism’! The thrust of those very early conferences was that of ‘the restoration of the church’ and inevitably there was a clash between that hope and belief and the pessimistic outlook of the eschatology (I had a copy of some early notes and in the margin someone had written ‘what about Laodicea?’, indicating the clash. In such movements (and I observed this in my years of travelling to the USA teaching on eschatology goes on the back-burner for a while… until the conviction is strong enough on ‘the restoration of the church’.)

Texts such as Acts 3: 20,21 were fairly central:

Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration [restoration of all things] that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.

That was to be understood as the return of Christ would not take place until (‘until’ being a key word) there was the restoration of the church (something that had begun in earnest with the Reformation – apologies to all prophetic voices such as the gentleman in Rome). Add to that Ephesians 4 with the foundation being the apostles and prophets so that the body might grow up (mature) until it was presented to the Lord without ‘spot or wrinkle’.

Dating the house church movement is not an exact science, but there was distinct growth from the late 1960s and the magazines of the two distinct streams (though there were other less defined streams) Fulness and Restoration had a major influence in the UK and beyond. (Even yesterday I was on a zoom with a representative of a significant stream in Brazil that drew from those magazines from those early days.)

Gradual restoration? Maybe I am still influenced by that perspective, but more below. (In 1997 I completed a thesis on the Eschatology of the New Church movement with some interesting (and fair) examiners. Partly to push back on them I had a section in there that suggested that the idea of ‘restoration’ was not novel to some ‘apostles and prophets’ but that theologians were so convinced they had made advance that they now knew more about what Paul meant than he did! True/false? Simply the fruit of good scholarship / the fruit of the Enlightenment?)

Before coming to ‘and the truth that I believe today’ section (whole truth and nothing but the truth of course) I am coming back to the former post. God works everywhere – as evidenced by the king being anointed and the Temple filled with God’s presence… those manifestations being rooted in a rejection of God! Yet God is always ‘looking’ for something and where does s/he look for it? Among those who have taken on the name of Jesus. I see a very big principle in the words of Jesus when he said, ‘you have heard it said… but I say to you…’ If we want to see a shift in ‘murder’ there has to a shift at a ‘seed’ level etc. The Christian faith is not here to give us a ticket to heaven (a Hellenistic reading into the text) but to enable us to be seed within society. Seed and harvest with a time gap between the two, hence long-term vision is required. The phrase made popular in the Civil Rights movement that originated during the abolitionist period remains so apt for us:

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

God is always at work… and at work means working toward an eschaton. BUT… and here comes the but! But does not work independently, but with those who at some level are aligned to that work. I can see it no other way but the Pauline mission was not a big evangelistic tent crusade but a proclamation that ‘new creation’ had broken in and the right response was that of repentance toward God, faith in Jesus, receive the Holy Spirit and to carry the message of reconciliation (of all things) throughout their world. In it all was the transformation of the world.

Back in the day it was that of ‘get the church right and all will want to come join’. Let the body of Christ manifest an alternative society. Some part of that still seems right! But the centre is not the ‘church’ but the world with (as those of ancient times wrote) the body of Christ as the soul / life source to the world in the same way the ‘soul’ is to the body.

I am not a millennialist – it is understandable that some (only some) within that original Restorationist perspective of the House Church Movement were post-millennial (Jesus in heaven until) – I am not post-, pre- (not even in its historic, pre-rapture form), nor a-millennialist. Maybe I am apocalyptically-milennially? Beasts with heads, allowed to run riot for 42 months etc… Put away the calendar and the time lines, and I suggest we do the same with the millennium. Let Revelation and the throne room of heaven stand as the true and every other throne with 24 elders around it be seen as counterfeit. Why do I mention ‘millennial’ at this point? Because it is often shaped by, and shapes, our expectations. Dispensationalism with God will get us out of here is shaped by a view of an antagonistic world, and further shapes and fuels all kinds of conspiracy theories; triumphalism looks within the four walls and a full stadium and proclaims the kingdom has arrived.

The pessimist looks at the glass and it is half empty; the optimist and proclaims it is half full; I suggest the one touched by heaven says what can I contribute to raise the level in the glass? There might be a leak, but even if there is here I am to contribute. Judging the level of the glass contents is not to make a contribution!

I am so ignorant on so many topics and totally agnostic (and I do claim to have read the relevant Scriptures many times) on such issues as an antiChrist, a millennium, a great persecution and the like. Start with a system and one can work it all out (or start with a Bible with notes… read the text, don’t understand it, read the notes now I understand it – or the notes have become my Bible. The ‘brilliance’ of the Scoffield Bible). But ditch the system then just be free to make a small contribution that might make this world a tiny more like heaven (as the ‘citizens’ in Philippi were encouraged to do).

And on the corporate level the kings and temples (temple-mentality) really needs to be shelved.

I get briefly discouraged when there are ‘church’ exposures but then think ‘well that has to go if something more authentic is to come’… and then I think if there is something more authentic then there is hope that the long arc of history is bending in a good and righteous direction.

I have no idea what is to occur before the return of Christ and honestly do not believe that the Bible comes up with predictions, but it sure does come up with instruction in the meantime. In a heavily apocalyptic set of verses discussing the delay of the Lord’s coming Peter provokes us as to:

what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

No kings… and no temple

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

‘I have a dream’ said the man in August 1963; ‘I saw a new heaven and a new earth… I saw no temple in the city’ so said the Seer some 65 years after his Master had died (well not 100% sure of the date). We await the fulfilment of the dream and of the sight that was declared. When will they be fulfilled? Not a clue, and I don’t need a clue, for both are to provoke us in the present. I am reading in 1 Samuel at the moment and of course in there is the painful dialogue of ‘give us a king’. Samuel gets upset but God points out the rejection is not of Samuel but of God. They were never supposed to have a king… and how they loved to recount in later generations how amazing David was as king and that one day a king from that royal line will come and rule over them.

Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them (1 Sam. 8:7).

Yet God anoints the king… God’s blessing does not indicate God’s ‘approval’ of our choices.

Later the people realise they have gone in a wrong direction (1 Sam. 10) but Samuel responds with a perspective that further indicates God will work with whatever we present:

See, here is the king whom you have chosen, for whom you have asked; see, the Lord has set a king over you. If you will fear the Lord and serve him and heed his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God, it will be well (1 Sam. 12:13, 14)

The temple – centralised, controlled worship – once a path is entered on there is a direction that is hard to reverse. Did God want a temple?

You shall not build me a house to live in. For I have not lived in a house since the day I brought out Israel to this very day, but I have lived in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people, saying, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’ (1 Chron. 17:4-6).

The tabernacle – a tent, not so impressive as the grandiose temples of the surrounding nations. We so want people to be impressed by God we know we are the ones born to help God out. When Jesus appeared and ‘moved into the neighbourhood’ John uses the verb ‘tabernacled’ among us. Moving here and there, never giving undeniable proof, but to those of humble heart his glory (truth within the grace container) was there to be seen.

And then John who had many times made the journey to Jerusalem, that temple that had a city around it (20% of the land was temple and temple buildings). It was way beyond being a city with a temple (like Canterbury – a city with a cathedral) – it was a temple-city; the astounding vision he has is the city had no temple when describing the new Jerusalem. The contrast is enormous.

A tent!

Put it up, put it down. Move it from here to there. Mobility.

Never get discouraged when something comes that is the most amazing manifestation of God’s presence… and then it goes. Mobility. There will always be a ‘God is here’ shout. Meanwhile it is necessary to continue to hold a dream. ‘I saw no impressive people who were ‘head and shoulders’ above the rest of us; but I saw unimpressive people and God was moving here and there among them and through them’.

I am NOT post-millennialist (mainly because I am not millennialist) and have no idea of what will be. But I continue with a dream. And while on such subjects as the ‘end-times’ the way we are headed there will be an antiChrist (or many more to join the ones already here… but not because the Bible says so (I don’t think it makes such a prediction!)… there will be because that is the outcome of where we are pushing. God’s people hold the key and the more we continue to believe in ‘we need a king’ and promote platforms the more we are sowing into the realisation of an anitChrist. Look at the trajectory from 1 Sam. 8 to the crucifixion – the inevitable outcome is ‘we have no king other than Caesar’!!!

I would rather be off the wall with my (lack of) end-time beliefs and hold on to a dream of ‘one day no king and no temple’ than have a set of beliefs that stop the dream.

Many others have carried a dream – but again I give thanks for MLK and that Seer on Patmos.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A summary of ‘all Israel’

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

From time to time I write an ‘extended article’ where it is to explore a theological topic. As part of the ever-so-slow to write on various aspects of eschatology but also as feeding into issues surrounding soteriology (salvation – what does that entail) this latest piece on Israel seemed to be what came next. The full article can be read /downloaded:

All Israel will be saved

It is a bit of a read so now that it is completed here is a summary of the key points.

‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ are not used synonymously

Consistently from the Exile (597BC) and even from the Assyrian conquest (722BC) the term ‘Israel’ and the term ‘Jew’ were not used synonymously. Jew being the term for the people of the southern kingdom (of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin); Israel never returning to the land (northern 10 tribes) – though Samaritans claimed to be Israelites. This Samaritan claim was debated but never was it debated that they were Jews. Consistently in what is termed Second Temple Judaism the term ‘Israel’ was only applied to the whole nation (or the ‘lost’ tribes), to the people when referring to them in history past, or when expressing a hope in the future of their restoration (hence the question to Jesus by the disciples).

  • All Israel will be saved is not referring to the Jews of Paul’s day, but is expressing the hope that has been carried for centuries, such as is expressed in the New Covenant promise of Jer. 31 – a covenant made with both houses (north and south) thus with ‘Israel’.

Paul does not use a temporal phrase such as ‘and then’

The phrase he uses is ‘and in this way’ all Israel will be saved. This is the normal way the phrase is used and the consistent way he uses the phrase in his writings. He could / would have used a totally different phrase should he have wished to convey something that will suddenly occur at the eschaton.

He has been arguing from the opening Romans 9 concerning how God has been and continues to be faithful to his/her promises. He is not outlining a timetable nor even seeking to explain why so many Jews had not welcomed their Messiah.

  • God is faithful and Paul argues that there is a process going on that will lead to all Israel being saved. That process is already taking place – and the process involves the Gospel going to the nations (the Gentiles – ta ethne).
  • Israel (as in the northern tribes) are among the nations (Josephus goes to great lengths to explain this) so for them to come in the Gospel has to go to them, even though the majority of them have been ‘Gentilised’, such is the faithfulness of God.

Those Gentiles who respond to Jesus are incorporated into Israel

Converted Gentiles do not become Jews but the terms used of Israel are applied to them. Israel’s ancestors are their ancestors; Paul describes converts as ‘when you were Gentiles’ and as ‘chiidren of Abraham’.

  • Thus a second strand of ‘all Israel’ is that of Gentiles being incorporated in – or as described in Rom. 11 – grated into the (one) Olive tree.

‘All Israel’ never meant ‘all Jews’ and it also never meant all physical descendants of Abraham, for not all ‘children / offspring of Abraham’ were the ‘seed of Abraham’. Faith meant that those who were of Abraham was (both) smaller than those who were physically descended from Abraham and also that it was bigger than those who were physically descended from Abraham.

  • Salvation then is a process that is ongoing as the good news of Jesus comes to the whole world, and in this way the promises will be fulfilled by the faithful God.

Of course there is much more in what I have written in the article and I acknowledge the recent research and writings of Jason Staples (such as ‘Paul and the Resurrection of Israel’).

A return to the land was always predicated on repentance; nowhere in the New Testament is there indicated that there are two paths to salvation (an using that word we should not reduce it to the binary understanding of ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’).

I do suggest in the article that there is a particular focus on the land we call Israel as a place where reconciliation of differences should be manifested; I do not look to the land as somehow carrying a ‘promise’ in the way that Christian Zionism does – I think Paul gives that hope to the world (kosmos).

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives