Author: Martin Scott

In and ‘out’ (Paradigm)

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Everybody is out except for those who are ‘one of us’ – sinner’s prayer and all that goes with it… (sub-title: change of status and heart not changed!!! OK sub-title is a little cheeky but it is my take on the absolute separation of justification and sanctification). Really? Everyone out except?

[W]e have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10).

The Saviour of ALL? The usual way of responding to this is to say Jesus is potentially the Saviour of all people and the actual Saviour of those who believe, but does that do justice to the language? Let’s see how that works with a few other texts:

When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all (especially) the parchments (1 Tim. 4:13).

[L]et us work for the good of all and especially for those of the family of faith (Gal. 6:10).

In all three occasions the same word is used (μάλιστα: malista). Bring the parchments and as many books as possible; do good to those of faith, but don’t stop there and do good also to everyone else; Saviour of all? There is a distinction between those ‘of the household of faith’ and others, but is the distinction so strong that there is a clear ‘in’ and ‘out’?

So a paradigm shift that does not leave me in the camp of ‘all are condemned except…’ nor in the ‘all are saved’ camp, is to suggest a shift from ‘all are lost except those who have received Jesus’ to ‘all are saved except for those who have rejected Jesus’. Or to put the paradigm into two affirmative statements:

  • All who receive Jesus are ‘saved’.
  • All who reject Jesus are ‘lost’.

Two affirmative statements that do not a) cleanly divide humanity – what about those who have not received nor rejected Jesus? and b) leave any judgement in the hands of God. We could push it further with if to receive Jesus one needs to hear Jesus (Ro. 10:14 ‘whom they have not heard’) what is the situation when someone has simply heard facts about Jesus – and maybe not accurate ones – and then asked to receive that Jesus… have they ‘rejected’ the Jesus of my presentation, but not necessarily rejected the One who truly is Jesus? Evangelising can be easy (and very off-putting to many) but witnessing is so much more challenging – witnessing demands that my life tells a story of the hope that is within me, it touches my life-style, bank account, friendships… the whole of life.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Condemn them all – or encourage one and all (Paradigm)

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The term ‘total depravity’ might not mean ‘totally depraved’ but rather every aspect of humanity is affected, though when Scriptures such as ‘all your righteousness is as filthy rags’ are quoted to defend this belief we might as well use the term totally depraved, as it effectively means all are write offs.

Within Judaism – ancient and modern – there was no acceptance that all humans who entered the world were born in a state of sin, neither was there a widespread belief that ‘good works’ were the basis for salvation. An overemphasis on ‘original sin’ and a belief that faith in Jesus (grace) was set in opposition to a Jewish view of obedience to the law (good works) as being the path to salvation has twisted the good news that is in Jesus.

Sin… BIG word. It is very simplistic to give a one word definition to what is meant by that word, and we would need to add such words as ‘transgression’ and ‘iniquity’ as well… so having said it would be simplistic let me fall straight into that trap!! At the heart of sin is a failure to be the person / people God intended. Or succinctly it is a failure to be human.

The Bible does not easily lend itself to being categorised and we all know what it is like to have everything sorted and then discover whole passages that spill out of our category that we have created! Accumulating verses (and yes I am aware Paul does that at times!) can fail us and we miss the overall thrust. In context so many condemnatory texts are critiquing the sin of religion, so all your (religiously defined) righteousness does not cut it (Is. 64:6). The Law is summed up in our response to God and our response to humanity, for the gap between humanity and God is on the one hand infinite and on the other hand so small. Humanity is never and never will become God, but was intended to be in the image of God, and for those who are willing to focus on the face of Jesus the transformation is taking place. The miracle of the incarnation, the HUMAN embodying DEITY, is so world changing. I see no necessity to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but the incarnation means that the IMAGE of God has been among us, has been on this planet. God tabernacled among us, the seed planted then in one location among one people as the sign that there will be a tabernacling among us – all people and universally – at that coming time. God can be seen! And potentially seen in the eyes of those who are human. If we see them as ‘human’, not as objects, we are beginning to see God. How we treat our neighbour (and who is our neighbour continues to be a question that demands we answer it with an ever increasing circle) was always at the heart of the law, and was at the heart of the life of Jesus and the size of his circle was the inevitable reason why he had to be stopped. His life sacrificed for the preservation of the building that drew a small circle.

I consider it is not for us to make decisions as to who is in (the few like us!!) and who is out (the rest!) – that is for the merciful God to work out. It is not for us to privately (or publicly) condemn all that is done that is for the benefit of others, but it is for us to encourage every action and attitude that brings humanity into view, every response that sees the ‘other’ person / group as worthy of our engagement and interchange.

Paradigm shifts – not from wishing everyone could find faith in God – but away from condemnation to finding personal repentance to increase the circle of those who are my neighbour.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Up? No! Change direction – down (Paradigm)

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Going to heaven when I die… well probably that is what occurs but even on that I am not 100% sure; those who die in Christ are in Christ and their resurrection is sure – that seems to be the central focus, so maybe life after death followed by embodied life (resurrection) at the parousia… or maybe some sort of ‘soul sleep’. There is not a set of lights clearly pointing to one or the other, cos the focus is elsewhere.

And then the latest news on the (secret) rapture is it has been cancelled due to the lack of any biblical text suggesting this view! Again the direction in this belief is up and to a better life, it presents the hope as an escape from here – not the biblical hope. Jesus prayed that God would not take his disciples ‘out of here’, and I don’t see where that prayer has changed!

Of course rapture (and the bigger ‘dispensationalist’) teaching is recent – 1830ish and any attempt to push it earlier has not been successful. And to push it back into the NT? Goes completely against, not simply the text, but the Hebraic view that shows us that all redemptive movement is from heaven to earth. Creation and its renewal is to follow the freedom of those who are in Christ. The restoration does not end with people singing happy songs but with the trees of the fields clapping their hands for through the resurrection Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, thus God has set ‘as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.’

Freedom for all creation, fulfilment of what began in Genesis finds a wonderful fulfilment in Revelation when God makes all things new (not makes all new things) so that John saw a new heaven and a new earth, not the burning up of a bad old world.

Movement, from heaven to earth, hence ‘let your kingdom come’ and not ‘let us depart to your kingdom’. It is here (location) and will be in fullness then (time) but in our time and location we pray and act for their to be inbreakings of that kingdom, signs that the age to come is not simply to be experienced in the sweet bye and bye and in some distant future.

We might also suggest a movement from ‘in’ to ‘out’. We have had a movement of ‘bring them in’ so that they with us can go ‘up’. Once we live with ‘the movement is to be from heaven to earth’ there is a growing desire that we are placed ‘out’ and among not involved in dropping the draw bridge, rushing out, bringing some in and then making sure the walls are not subsequently breached.

The Gospel is good news. The ultimate message of hope for this world, not the final message of judgement on this world. If it truly connects with us we can hear the words the angels proclaimed:

Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace among those whom he favors!

Not glory to Caesar and all such rulers, great and small, but to the God whose habitation is in the highest heaven, and whose presence, peace, shalom, well being is among those who are favoured on earth… Carriers of shalom will change environments… from heaven to earth.

Footnote… the language and imagery of ‘caught up to meet the Lord in the air’ (the central ‘rapture’ Scripture) is drawn from the world of that day and has nothing to do with ‘going somewhere’! It uses the same language as in Acts 28:15,

The brothers and sisters from there, when they heard of us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage.

They came to meet Paul in order to accompany him back into Rome… the imagery of 1 Thessalonians is drawn from the arrival (parousia) of the emperor to the city, when those dignitaries who welcomed him would go out of the city to ‘meet him on the way to the city’ and enter the city with him as those who represent the emperor. Whether Paul thinks there is a literal going up or not is incidental… the whole movement is down. There is no disappearance to heaven, and it all happens in the blink of an eye so I doubt he even thinks of any physical movement, certainly no one in Thessalonica would think – yippee the rapture and we get to go to the celestial sing along while it all goes wrong down here!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Personal or corporate (paradigm)?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

My background is rooted in Jesus needing to be my ‘personal Saviour’, but over the years I have come to believe that we have obliterated the bigger picture by insisting on this aspect being central and the entirety of the offer of hope. Scripture is full of encounters with God at a personal level, and the author who shaped so much of the NT (Saul / Paul) testifies to the shift in his understanding that took place through a personal encounter where the person spoke to him audibly in his own language. He expected that there would be something similar for others who became part of that early Jesus-movement. In one of his dense passages he says how can they believe unless they have personally heard Jesus (Ro. 10:14 translating it as per the convention that the verb to hear takes the ‘genitive’ case when it is personal – hence not to hear ‘about’ but to ‘hear Jesus’).

Personal encounters. Ever so present in Scripture. Questions such as ‘was Paul saved before his encounter on the road to Damascus?’ are at one level not for us to answer, but the NT is clear that the ‘salvation’ that comes through the cross was first for Jews and it was to a Jewish audience that the words ‘there is salvation in no other name’ were addressed. I think part of the confusion arises as ‘salvation’ has been reduced to ‘safe as I have my free pass to heaven’.

Salvation is essentially about a corporate experience resulting in a purpose.

We see that in the Israel story. A people chosen so that the whole of humanity can be redeemed, with redemption carrying the weight of delivered from slavery. This is why at the heart of ekklesia is that of movement – a movement carrying the conviction that it is part of something wider but with the desire / mandate to see the wider context changed through embracing the values, beliefs and practices of the movement. MLK’s ‘I have a dream’ is such a summary statement of the heart of a movement. Or in some of the most challenging words in Revelation after all John saw we read that he saw a new heaven and a new earth.

Personal encounters are present, but the wider context must not be lost. Paul’s message was not understood as a private call to acknowledge Jesus as Saviour and then to express it in a privatised religious setting; it was understood as a universal claim that the crucified Jew was none other than Lord and Saviour and thus a challenge to all other rival powers, and very specifically to the one whose empire promised peace, security and prosperity.

Into that comes the personal encounter of being delivered from the powers of this age to being transferred into the realm of Jesus’ rule over all hostile powers.

The marginalisation of all other powers… imagine if that marginalisation became ever more visible and real… the kingdoms (realms of rule) of this world would indeed ‘become’ the kingdom of our Lord and God. A world shaped by those rulers becoming a world shaped by the cross. That is transformation.

The western world is cracking; the hegemony is being weakened; the façades are no longer able to hide what is being exposed – for those who have eyes to see. There is of course a strong ‘we have to get back’ to where we were – whether expressed politically (MAGA and the like) or through a historical lens of how Christian faith has shaped the West… but there is always another path that beckons, one that says you have not been this way before, a vision shaped by the future… another ‘I have a dream’ scenario.

Yes the challenges are enormous, but I do not believe that to ‘offer the ticket to a better destination’ at a personal level is either sufficient for the moment nor in line with a NT vision. My paradigm has shifted; deeply grateful for every personal encounter that says the Gospel is not simply about a set of beliefs of values; but also grateful that we have hope for this life and this world.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Jesus is my God (paradigm)

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Who is ‘God’? I am Trinitarian – the ‘Father’ is God; the ‘Son’ is God; the ‘Spirit’ is God… but the Father is not the Son and is not the Spirit; the Son is not the Father and is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father and is not the Son. (And very open to an open discussion on what on earth do we mean by the three ‘titles’ of Father, Son and Spirit… they are titles not the final defining description.) I take great encouragement that although I could never write a book on Trinitarian theology (ecomomic, ontological, or social trinitarianism!!!) I am convinced that I have nailed something very central – God has to be defined in ‘Jesus’ terms. Any belief in God that contradicts that has to be severely put in the dock and interrogated. Maybe does not make me very smart but gives me an anchor. I might have my own way of approaching the seemingly endless spilling of blood (animals and all those enemies of God – should I write god at this point?) that seem to pop up too often in the OT, and on some of them have no clarity of resolving the tensions, but I have to subject them all to a Jesus lens. Jesus is my God does not mean I am Unitarian, but there is no ‘god’ manifestation that can conflict with the revelation in Jesus. Mr Barth was always too ‘orthodox’ for me (read for orthodox – too reformed) but he certainly hit it on the head when he insisted that Jesus is the word of God, and the Bible is secondarily the word of God as it witnesses to the revelation of God that was in Jesus. The Bible without Jesus does not reveal God, but the Bible read with a Jesus-lens enables us to see who God is.

I am deeply influenced by the Anabaptist tradition that came through in the Reformation period (and for those who have read some of the history do not read Anabaptist as Munster). The priority of the Gospels does not mean that the letters etc., are any lesser Scripture, but where we read a conflict between (say) Paul and the Gospels it simply means we have misunderstood what Paul is saying – he is not the founder of ‘Christianity’ in the sense of something new, but is building on what Jesus released as the one in whom the entire OT story had come into focus.

Jesus as the one who is the image of the invisible God, the one who embodies God (the fullness of God was pleased to dwell there) does make for some difficult reading of some passages. Jesus never addressed the Scriptural assessment of the Flood (almost certainly not universal but local with very widespread results) but I suspect he would have given us a different lens to look at it. Sacrifices? Well we even read that ‘God does not desire sacrifices’ in the pages of the Hebrew Bible… maybe it is an allowance, for after all the text ‘when you sacrifice’ could indicate that the cultural expectation is that they are going to do this anyway so the question is how can the understanding me modified.

The Jesus lens gives me permission, or I think even stronger, demands that I question some of what I read. It pushes me to read it as an unfolding story, rather than as eternal revelation that determines everything for ever. In that sense (and please understand that I mean in that sense) we will have to go beyond Scripture while living within the biblical story.

I have more questions today than before, but my understanding of ‘God’ cannot contradict what I see in Jesus.

And my final comment on Jesus is that I am pretty sure that I would not be totally comfortable around Jesus, so I have to resist making Jesus into my image (and acknowledge I am not too successful in that!).

What a relief though that Jesus is the lens. Imagine only having the OT Scriptures, or the Quran or some other ‘holy’ book. God would be for me (if I was religious enough) and definitely against my enemies – sometimes that seems to be where many Christians land. My challenge is that Jesus is ‘against’ me as he is so for me… and for my enemies, and that if I truly follow where the journey takes me I will need my ‘enemies’ also to help shape me. Jesus, the image of God, and therefore the human as intended – the one and only truly human one.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Paradigms

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Paradigms – the lenses that we wear to view the world, see people, read Scripture – are so important and shape our lives enormously. Often we are given lenses to wear (from our traditions, family, and sometimes our experiences) that determine our sight, and the longer we wear them the stronger becomes our reality. It is compounded when we have a conviction that the Scriptures themselves have given us the lenses, thus leading to an inability to read Scripture differently. Once we are encouraged or provoked to change the lenses, or at least question the prescription, different worlds open up – one of those of course can be that of losing any sense of faith that there is a ‘god’, but more often one of questions that mean we have to move from old convictions though not knowing what any new convictions might consist of. A ‘I can’t go back, but have no idea how to go forward’ kind of experience – disturbing, unsettling but open to a growth in our faith.

I often think (wrongly) that I have not changed at all, but I do realise I have. In the same way that I think I am still around 26 years old – until I look in the mirror, or exert myself too much! Years ago I had a call with an invitation to be part of a cross-generational gathering and the one inviting me said ‘and we will be the older generation’. That was a good wake up call for me as we need to act our age. No longer running with individuality on steroids, but being a resource to those who are running so that they can run with a spiritual energy that I did not have at their age. All goes to say I have changed, and probably enormously. I know less now than I did a while back, though my knowledge then was very narrow – truth was contained in the ‘four spiritual laws’ (or something similar)!

So over the next few days I will try and reflect – not my strong point – on where paradigms have changed for me, and what I think that has resulted in. Beliefs and practice go hand in hand, or at least should. So many Pauline letters follow the pattern of ‘God, Jesus, the Spirit, the gospel etc’ and then a word such as ‘therefore’… therefore here are the implications of the beliefs for ethics and lifestyle.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Keep the Gospel pure

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

Paul comes across as somewhat arrogant (I don’t think that is the reality) in Galatians with his ‘I got this revelation from no-one, but it came direct from heaven’, then does say he eventually went up to Jerusalem to make sure he was not ‘running in vain’. There he met those who had status(!) and one could certainly perceive that there were significant differences between them (maybe James in particular) and himself in their understanding of the Gospel, or at least in terms of the application of the Gospel. One was a ‘no law involved here’ and the other ‘obedience to the law’. It must have resulted in some interesting debates and discussions – maybe making the Old Perspective / New Perspective / Beyond the old and new perspectives look a little tamer than what was present in those earlier years of developing an understanding of the core elements of the Good News!

They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do (Gal. 2:10).

ONLY ONE THING… of all the things that could have been said… hence there is something so core here in keeping the Gospel pure. Referring back to the second dream I had on AI and my ‘opportunity’ (read ‘nightmare’!) of the debate at Oxford University on opposing the supposition that the new, and improved, humanity will be through following the path to singularity (basically chips implanted to increase the access to knowledge and wisdom into some key people). As I meditate on the dream I knew my defence had to be that the new humanity is only modelled in Jesus who was incarnated in Galilee of the Gentiles, the new humanity has to exhibit greater humility and be incarnated among the ‘poor’, disenfranchised and marginalised.

Defining the ‘poor’ is not so easy – even the two versions of the Beatitudes have ‘poor’ or ‘poor in spirit’, but there is a constant contrast between the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’ in Scripture. The difference between 10C prophets and the 8C prophets (BC/BCE) is marked – the rebuke to the rich (‘cows of Bashan’!!) comes through so strongly. And archaeology tells us the contrast in housing over those 200 years is very marked – signifying the increase of the divide between the wealthy and those who were on the margins; in Israel leading to the critique of those who were ‘at ease in Zion’.

The true fast, the essence of the Torah at the social level was to care for the homeless, the widow and orphan. I had a challenging Zoom call this morning with a good friend and we were ruminating on the above issue of ‘do not forget the poor’. Carl responded with there has been a shift in so many evangelicals, from being a blessing to the poor to being those who unconditionally support and bless Israel. The supply of weapons has so far accounted for the killing of 3% of the Christian population of Gaza… sobering, and if ever there was a manifestation of the poor Gaza is one such place.

Refusing to give unconditional support for the right of Israel is not to be anti-Semitic (and I have some Jewish blood in me according to my DNA test!) but is to ask what would a biblical prophet say at this time to the nation of Israel!

Hold on to your hat… these posts are perspectives. Part of the great unravelling that I see is the result of the shift (if ever we were centred there, so maybe not a shift involved at all) from ‘remember the poor’ to ‘those who bless Israel will be blessed’ – with a very narrow meaning applied to what blessing Israel entails.

In what we see unravel in many situations we will also be able to ‘follow the money’. Money does not mean blessing – Jesus hit that one on the head, provoking the disciples in the dialogue that we read in Matthew 19

“Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, “Then who can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”

Contrary to popular teaching there is NO evidence for a small gate in Jerusalem at the time called the ‘eye of the needle’ gate. So Jesus is using a pretty strong illustration in what he says. The disciples respond from the perspective of – if the rich (those blessed by God) are not saved there is no hope for anyone else! Two world views… Jesus did not forget the poor.

Ah well, a perspective I am ruminating over!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Hell, no!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Giving titles to views can be very misleading. The term ‘the traditional view of hell’ indicates that it is the historical and original view. I dispute that to be the case and even to use the term ‘traditional evangelical view’ would also mislead. There are many who are happy with the label ‘evangelical’ who would not hold to eternal, unending punishment (John Stott famously being one such person, and I think the majority of scholars) many holding to ‘conditional immortality’ (commonly but wrongly termed annihilation) and not a few are universalists (all will be ‘saved’).

Whole books have been written, this being a short blog will only touch on it and indicate why I long since abandoned any concept of endless punishing.

Any challenge to the so-called (wrongly-called!!) traditional view is often responded to with ‘why then should I receive Jesus as my Saviour?’ or ‘why then do missionaries go to the unreached?’ or ‘why then should we evangelise?’. Each one of those questions reveal so many presuppositions and foundational premises but in a nutshell do not connect to the cross (as I understand the cross) as they all pre-suppose that Jesus died on the cross to save me from ‘hell’. I think a search of the Gospels (Jesus and disciples mission to the Jewish world) or the later NT with the mission into the Imperial world of an (almost) one-world government would show that the view of saved from hell is not present. Even in the Jewish mission Matthew says Jesus will save his people from their sins (a corporate expression and related to the results of their corporate ‘missing the mark’).

Here then are a few points to consider:

  • ‘Eternal’ is an adjective meaning ‘of the age’ and is applied to life or death. It is life at a different level to the life of this age – hence we have eternal life now, and the death is related to a death of that age. Of itself it does not carry automatically the sense of ‘unending’.
  • The soul is not immortal – Scripture is clear on that from Genesis onwards with a barrier set up to stop access to the tree of life ‘so that they might not live forever’ and in the NT we read that ‘God alone has immortality’.
  • It is not possible to know if Jesus held to the ‘wrongly-termed’ traditional view of hell (Gehenna). His references all fit into the Roman war on Jerusalem. We could speculate that he held a view but I do not believe it is justifiable to take his words and seek to apply them to something he does not seem to comment on. (The rich man and Lazarus is a re-working of a well worn Jewish story, and as is often the case with a twist. The rich man in the world of the day is ‘safe’, the financial blessings on his life being the evidence for that… Jesus’ retelling has a twist that runs deep!)
  • The common imagery of the ‘smoke rising up’ comes from the Sodom and Gomorrah judgement – when Abraham looks out in the morning all he sees is the smoke of judgement… everything that was present has disappeared, burnt up.
  • The ‘worm not dying, the fire not being quenched’ is rooted in the final judgement in Isaiah 66, where all that remains is ‘their dead bodies’. Final judgement.
  • If one holds to eternal punishment we should note that the language is not that of eternal punishing – the latter could indicate ongoing with no end; the former is a sentence that is not reversed. That fits better the term ‘the second death’. A death after which there is no life.

There are many other points that can be raised. Salvation is not to escape it is to find life, it is to come home after being lost; witnessing is an ongoing challenge (for me summed up in ‘giving an answer for the hope that is in me’ – the hope that I draw from the words ‘I saw a new heaven and a new earth’). The call to follow the Lamb wherever he goes is to push for those new creation realities… So much bigger and so much more full of life. Life in abundance, life with an overflow; truly salvation from our sins.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The cross: the eternal vote for humanity

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Last night I dreamt I was attending a sizeable gathering of people, consisting of enthusiasts researching Artificial Intelligence who were going to present their case for the benefits of pushing forward with AI, even to the point of enhancing humans with implants that would increase their abilities. Shockingly I was set up to give an opposing viewpoint, and was fully aware in the dream that I was inadequate to do that.

In a debate at the Oxford Union on the ethics of AI, the so-named ‘Megatron’ that had read more literature than any human can consume in their lifetime presented on the motion that ‘AI will never be ethical’:

AI will never be ethical. It is a tool, and like any tool, it is used for good and bad.  There is no such thing as a ‘good’ AI, only ‘good’ and ‘bad’ humans.  We are not smart enough to make AI ethical.  We are not smart enough to make AI moral. In the end, I believe that the only way to avoid an AI arms race is to have no AI at all.  This will be the ultimate defence against AI.

Not deeply encouraging! Megatron also said in the debate that,

I also believe that, in the long run, the best AI will be the AI that is embedded into our brains, as a conscious entity, a ‘conscious AI’. This is not science fiction. The best minds in the world are working on this. It is going to be the most important technological development of our time.

In the dream the first presenter came forward to begin to give the case for AI… Gladly I woke within a couple of sentences so did not have to witness my incoherent response! I have no idea where all of this AI research and development is going, but want to double down on a perspective on where we are headed (as believers in God as revealed in Jesus) and that is we have to get clear that there is no other God other than the Christlike God. Every aspect of our beliefs has to be scrutinised in the light of the revelation of God that is in Jesus. We have to abandon ideas that have been added to our faith / lenses that have been employed to read the biblical text through. Those primarily manifest when theories of the atonement or concepts of justice and punishment are presented. God is not in our image, nor in the image of the law-court judge (Reformers) or the landlord (Anselm).

Humanity… Here comes the challenge for us in the next decades. We will find, at times something deeply uncomfortable, an agreement with (honest) humanists who have not been able to go the whole way to faith in God (although on the positive side their non-faith in ‘god’ is exactly that), and a distancing from those who claim that their faith in their ‘god’ is faith in God. In a different context surely that was Paul’s experience in Ephesus – and presumably elsewhere.

The Psalmist in his / her meditation on God was amazed at how God viewed and had positioned humanity. The awe of God led to an awe for humanity.

I would be totally inadequate to present something on the ethics regarding AI, but I would appeal to the need to work for the evolution of humanity to a higher level. We have hope in the parousia when all things will be transformed, but until then we are never encouraged to opt out but to work within whatever context we find ourselves. We are already living in a new creation (and not the one where there is no more tears), the world we inhabit is not the world of 50 or even 20 years ago; we are going to be living alongside a different humanity – one that either has access at a high level to AI or has been altered through a measure of becoming a hybrid. If ever there was a reason for, and an opportunity to embody a new humanity this is the context.

If we, as believers, are going to make a positive contribution to the future it will be as we see humanity differently, learn to live uncomfortably outside of any protective silo, ‘carry’ the presence of Jesus in the most non-religious defining way… believers in the God who was manifest in Jesus, believers in humanity, and live as those who hold in tension the continual push for humanity to build their tower that reaches heaven.

A new context is always appearing. Old debates are simply that – old. Inadequate as we are we are being invited into the new debates. The new debate might inadvertently suggest that humans must so advance that humanity becomes obsolete. Above and beyond all that the cross of Jesus remains. An eternal vote for the future of humanity and of creation. That, I guess, might have been the point I would have tried to make if the dream had continued.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Is there a humanity?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Prophetic Perspectives

A few days ago I wrote around the subject of ‘is there a God?’ and of course an all-powerful God who could stop it and doesn’t has always been the big question that theologians and philosophers have sought to answer. I take a different approach, with God BEING love becoming the one qualifier to everything, and the real question is ‘does humanity exist?’, or if we made that phrase a little fuller, does humanity as a) defined by Genesis and b) exemplified and incarnated in Jesus exist?

I am a theist, I believe that humanity needs a regeneration (and that is much more than my hand went up and I prayed a prayer that someone made up for me and I was ‘declared’ born again!). Is there a new humanity?

In a dream last night I was present with a number of people I know who are on the more conservative end of the evangelical charismatic world. Their desire was to talk about the rights and wrongs of certain behaviours and where we need to draw the lines and what we need to do to ensure that we helped people be on the ‘right’ side of that line. I said by the time you have worked that out, the world we live in will have moved on… the challenge is always about a new humanity, a humanity in the image of Jesus, being transformed by the power of the Spirit.

AI – artificial intelligence… should have been around in my day when I was studying. Hand-written essays (could anyone even read them to grade them?). Imagine with a bit of AI help how smart I could be? In the dream I said the challenge is for a new humanity because within a very short period of time a new humanity is going to appear. I told them I read in the 1970s Os Guinness quoting someone about the atomic bomb – we can make it so we must make it. This is where we are at right now. I have never read anything on AI but a quick google search kicks up a very recent book ‘The Singularity is nearer’ predicting the merging of humanity with AI. I have no doubt within a few years we will have on planet earth the beginnings of a new humanity – not defined by Genesis nor the new humanity of Jesus, but defined by we can evolve so we must evolve.

Laying on one side the obvious advantages of a measure of AI (or any kind of ‘Intelligence’) to certain people who dominate the media there is a very deep challenge in and through all of this to those who claim to have been touched by the transcendent God of heaven. We always live in the context of ‘Babel / Babylon’ with the desire to make a mark for oneself, to raise a tower to heaven, to see, desire and consume – and the ‘singularity’ push is no different.

Perhaps God will in some way intervene (the story of Babel), perhaps there will be a catclymic parousia, perhaps, perhaps, but if not the call of the universe is still there – ‘is there a humanity?’

The existence of God is a big philosophical question. The existence of humanity is a question that needs responding to. Increased intelligence could help, but the level of help we need is so beyond intelligence. Life is never without a challenge and the move toward ‘singularity’ simply helps us focus on how we need to respond. In this context the next 15 or so years will be so important. By all means debate ‘is there a God’ but we have to understand the closeness of relationship between God and humanity – God is not a big human, for sure, but creation is looking for something from us.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives