Category: Theology

Going too far? #5

The elastic is stretching!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

This post is a stretch for me; it is a follow on from yesterday. If we should not be obsessed with ‘who is in and who is out’, and that salvation is salvation to purpose, so for example ‘he will save his people from their sins’ is not a ‘he will save all who respond from eternal damnation’. It was first concerning ‘his people’ (Jews – the context for Jesus ministry and the early chapters of Acts so we cannot legitimately simply take texts from there and make them universally applicable beyond their context). Second it is a saving from their sins – the failure to live covenantly which meant living with responsibility for the world (and with benefits). Salvation was then to do with truly being part of a covenant people living in line with heaven – our citizenship is in heaven – for the sake of all others. Salvation to a purpose. If there is an ‘in’ and there is an ‘out’ that is a God-call not one for us to make. For the record, I think most evangelicals will be called ‘in’ as God is a God of great mercy… however, not my call.

Yesterday, why ekklesia – for the sake of one and all, taking responsibility for wherever it is located.

How effective will that responsibility be? How long is a piece of string, or to use the analogy from one of the early comments on this series – how far can this elastic stretch without breaking? Could it stretch as far as including those who are not (now what word would I use? saved?) as part of the new humanity? Or maybe as ‘not fully’ part of the new humanity? In other words what level of transformation might come?

I know a reply can be made with ‘all our righteousness is as filthy rags’ but that again is a Scripture to Jews who were ‘doing’ rather than ‘being’ in relationship with God. We can’t simply make it universally applicable to someone who is ‘doing good’ – after all that is what God was ‘doing’ in the beginning, so there has to be some element of that being reflective of God – image and likeness of God.

We should not write humanity off – God doesn’t, we shouldn’t, though the devil seeks to do so at every turn.

I have no clue as to how far the elastic stretches; I think though we can – and we who are ‘saved’ can – eat, rest and pray for one and all so that health, goodness and a little more of heaven is expressed. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we discovered the elastic is more stretchy and also stronger than we ever thought. I think that might be a better approach than setting ourselves up as the judge of who is in and who is out. And I suspect the buzz from the bees might add their approval to the shift.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Going too far? #4

But why an ekklesia?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Paul seems intent on seeing an ekklesia in every significant city / area within the oikoumene (‘civilised’ land – most commonly used of the territory governed by an empire). In those cities there was already an ekklesia, maybe if we gave it a modern twist, a city government, a body of people who took on the responsibility for the shape, culture and values of the city; they were focused on enabling the city to a better future.

With Paul’s language it is not surprising that the initial understanding was not that he was calling people to raise their hand and pray the sinner’s prayer but that he was presenting a political vision for the oikoumene, indeed for the kosmos. And when he bodly called those who responded ‘the ekklesia of Jesus’ in that city that political understanding would have been re-enforced. Adding to this that the word ekklesia, in the Greek translation that was in common use, translated the Hebrew word qahal – used of the people when they were called to act in response to God. Seems to me that ekklesia has a lot to do with purpose and a purpose related to the wider community setting. If the Imperially endorsed ekklesia were to take responsibity for the city, to ensure that (e.g.) Corinth was a copy of Rome (headquarters), then the Jesus’ ekklesia had a responsibility to work toward (e.g.) Corinth being modelled on heaven (headquarters). This being the understanding behind Paul saying that ‘our citizenship (passport?) is in heaven’. It has nothing to do with going to heaven when we die, but a lot to do with here and now, not a much later idea to do with there and then.

So far no issue raised but as I am suggesting ‘going too far’ – although this time I do not think it is too far.

Paul was focused on getting something in place. He wrote to the Corinthians that if only their faith would increase he would no longer need to be working with them. His apostolic work would have been complete, that of laying a foundation so that they could get on with the work, the work of enabling heaven on earth, or within that part of the oikoumene that they carried responsibility for. What did Paul have in mind once that first task – an ekklesia in every city – had been accomplished?

We can have many debates on ‘church as shaped by the New Testament’, but I think we are probably missing the point. Why an ekklesia? Maybe Paul had something in mind once ‘their faith’ had increased, something beyond church as caring community? I think so, but then again he might only have had sight of the first level of strategy, in reality it does not matter too much what he saw or didn’t. What does matter is what do we see?

Church as healing community, as all-embracing of those who are open to the embrace of the love of heaven, is a wonderful reality, and exchanging that for a purpose driven, law-demanding group of dysfunctional people on a mission would be a disaster. There must always be a place for those who have been broken by the oppression of ‘sin’. Gayle is convinced John the disciple of Jesus had special needs, and ‘The Chosen’ presents Matthew as somewhere on a spectrum that we consider is not ‘normal’! There is space for all of us who don’t fit. A place for everyone, and not a place provided we get all our issues sorted and then can become some sort of warrior. However… you knew there would be an ‘however’.

There has to be something in evidence among ‘us’ that we take responsibility for where we are located.

I consider that with respect to the Bible we have to be ‘post-Pauline’, we need to follow the trajectory that we can see in his writings.

To be ‘post-Pauline’ we will not be un-Pauline. But we will need to move beyond getting dogged down in ‘church’ debates; moving beyond drawing firmly in the dust a line of who is in and who is out. If we are willing to draw in the dust as Jesus did (with the woman caught in adultery) we will touch the dust of humanity and challenge all religious judgements while calling people to their true humanity.

Losing the small vision of getting more people on the inside of our box, but encouraging the small people so that their faith will grow. Those who are serving but have no understanding of demonic powers should not be dealing with demonic strongholds – surely that is an area of responsibility that is ours. Removing powers that have dominated and restricted forward momentum so that good people can serve – our task. Painting a vision for a future that is not based on past inadequate foundations. The sky (heaven?) is the limit.

Paul seemed to have a level of vision (and a vision for the whole of the oikoumene) that he presented daily in Ephesus that got the attention of those who held supremely endorsed Roman authority to ensure that Ephesus (and the wider Asia Minor) was mirrored on Rome.They had not submitted to the ‘Jesus as personal Saviour’ message but had been impacted by ‘Jesus as the Saviour of the world’ message. Maybe if we focus too much on the ‘Jesus as personal Saviour’ message we might find that people wander in darkness without a clue about what a new heaven and earth might look like; maybe if we focused on ‘Jesus as the Saviour of the world’ people might find their way to Jesus as personal Saviour. Maybe then (and I think is possible) that the bees might buzz with anticipation that they will survive.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Going too far? #3

A little breather

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Thanks for all the comments thus far, and I loved the language that Rob used in his comments as to how far the elastic might stretch. I am pretty conservative in my beliefs, certainly at least on the central ‘fixed’ points, but am convinced that scripture pushes us to engage with some of the internal debate we read of within those pages and that ‘right doctrine’ is far more about right living in relationship to heaven and to earth than it has to do with my professed beliefs. I am glad that we do not have to work out too much more, and certainly that I have not been elected to join the final jury – way beyond all our pay grades, for sure!!

The return of Jesus is a fixed point – but what might that be? I will post on that soon, just aware that we can so easily fall into the trap of knowing what that will look like being absolutely sure we will not get our interpretation of scripture wrong unlike those who could not understand how a crucified messiah could possibly be the personal visitation of God! In all my conservativeness on (e.g.) the parousia I need to take note that there are likely to be some major surprises, and on my stretching of the elastic I need to make sure that it does not get disconnected from where it connected.

What I am convinced about was that Paul (one of my heroes… I see he perfected some of my weaknesses and his focused strengths leave me knowing I need to ‘beef up’ – all personal reflections that probably reveal too much of my misfitedness!!) believed the Gospel that brought Jesus to die in Jerusalem, as no prophet could die outside of the religious setting, was the key to unlocking all of creation. I have no idea if he had sight beyond AD70, but we certainly must. Maybe he thought it would all end with the Fall of Jerusalem, maybe he thought that would be the marker that Rome (and all the other Romes since then) would also fall, be re-shaped and be some kind of tentative image for the New Jerusalem vision. By that I do not mean anything close to the conversion of the emperor and the Imperial forces being the servant of christianising its subjects. If, as I suspect, that Paul did not see the ‘end’ as being the fall of Jerusalem, I think Paul had a long-term vision. No conversion of the emperor would satisfy, but the removal / transformation of structures that reward the opposition to the arc that I wrote about yesterday. The work of the powers (earthly and heavenly) is to dehumanise, and to reward all who dehumanise… Reduce humanity to a number and be rewarded – buy and sell.

We take bread and wine proclaiming his death (why did he die?) until he comes. The past and the future together, giving us a trajectory for now. The trajectory has not changed (or maybe it has, but the trajectory that the cross sets has not changed). I am totally agnostic about what will be transformed prior to the parousia but I am totally convinced that our hope and vision can be set on that trajectory and not be deviated by ‘but what a mess this all is and it is getting worse’. It might be getting worse, but the Gospel says it can get a whole lot better!

I had a call yesterday where someone was saying that child trafficking is now one of the biggest ‘trades’ taking place. That is a sad sign of things getting worse than ever, and I am thankful for all who are involved in responding to this heinous sin. Without diminishing in any way the awefulness of this I write tentatively that it is a sign of the end of an age. As an age passes sins that were present in ‘acceptable’ seed form manifest in full sight. Money, fortune and prosperity make the world go round… and round… till it is unhitched from its axis. Child sacrifice has always been based on sacrificing the future for present prosperity. The gods (Moloch) will reward us today with bountiful crops as those that we should be working to give them a future are sacrificed. Our economic systems have worked toward this – reversing the order that there ‘will always be seedtime and harvest’. When one is sold the lie that one can have today what we have not sown for yesterday we are reversing how we are to work with creation… and it spins off.

Crisis… it is here, but the doorway that indicates transition has always been labelled ‘crisis’. I do believe we are headed toward the end of an era. Maybe that end will mark the end (certainly the fall of Jerusalem was ‘the end of the age’), maybe it will mark the end of an era, where Jerusalem is not our home nor our hope, but the world becomes our one and only place of habitation and we have a hope for the world; that we do not lift a glass to say ‘next year Jerusalem’ but raise a glass concerning the world that has been occupied by alien forces and we say ‘next year the kosmos, the world, the ktisis, the creation’).

Not to get distracted we can get on and pray for the restoration of the bee colonies (a Gospel prayer), for the smart scientists to come up not simply with vaccines and cures, but healing for the eco-system. Pipe-dreams? Could well be, but the elastic can stretch a long way, for the death of Jesus that we proclaim encompassed from the highest point to the lowest – all of creation, visible and invisible.

The elastic has a stretch and a non-breakability inbuilt as the embrace of God is eternal and universal.

Paul lived pre-AD70; I might be living pre-end-of-an-age. His vision went beyond AD70… what about ours? There will always be ‘seedtime’. And if there is ‘seedtime’ there will always be ‘harvest’.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Going too far? #2

'Theory' of Evolution

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I have heard so many people say – OK evolution claims to be a theory… that is all it is, a theory. Correct, however the term ‘theory’ in the world of science is used slightly more firmly than we might think. Data considered and weighed is then used to put together a ‘theory’ – something that best fits the data. A bit like a court case where there is no film footage of what took place, interrogations are made and then the jury have to come to a conclusion – we might term their decision is based on a ‘theory’.

I am not a scientist, far from it, and there are those who are scientists who are certainly very unhappy with the ‘theory of evolution’; I have no basis to enter into the debate. Perhaps though with a little bit of understanding of ancient myth stories and genre I would certainly be very negative about trying to defend a young earth / 6 day creation in any literal sense. Hence I am not opposed to evolution – as indeed are many Christian scientists, take for example the book The Language of God by Francis Collins. He being one of the main team of scientists who pushed the understanding of the gene code and as a result embraced both an evolutionary understanding of ‘creation’ and a firm belief in God the Creator.

What is at stake is not the theory of evolution vs. a theory of creation (a theory based on a rather pre-determined approach to an ancient text) but a belief in the God that is revealed in Jesus or a denial of that God.

So here is a thought that might well be going too far!!!

If God is the author of life – does the life that is released inevitably move toward an expression of that life as ‘the image of God’?

The Civil Rights movement used to say:

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

Wow… that takes faith. A long arc, but bending always toward a future that is different to one around us, always bending toward justice. What if life (OK let me go too far, before I pull back) begins as a single cell, but there is evolution? Where will the ‘arc’ of life move to? Will it inevitably lead to ‘at last an expression of life (human) that we can say is ‘in our image, after our likeness”? I kinda like that. Death exists but life is stronger than death.

So pulling back into real life, and away from pretending to be some psuedo-scientist. I think I am on to something. Submit to the process, go with the life of God and there is an arc, even if it is a long one, of pulling humanity toward being the image of God. True at a personal level, could it be true at a universal level?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Going too far? #1

Beyond the Bible?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I am going to make a few posts that might provoke a ‘this is too far’ kind of response. No worries… fixed points help us travel further than we might otherwise. I walked up a mountain in Italy – higher that Ben Nevis (Scotland) with our dog. It had some paths, but not very clear, and I certainly got myself somewhat lost… however there was a farm house that I had noted on the way up that acted as my guide, and showed me I was now the wrong side of a valley going back down the side of the adjacent mountain. OK – get the point? We can wander and get lost, but if we keep some fixed points we will be able to make a few adjustments in our wanderings.

This first post is one where I think I am no where near in danger of wandering off on another mountain and finding that I have no way of knowing how to get home! I will put it boldly first and then invite you to wander a bit with me:

We have to go beyond the Bible, or
the Bible is not the final word.

Put boldly like that it is amazing what reactions can come, and then I think – and those who object? Why then be happy with ‘pulpits’, ‘ordination’, ‘bishops’, ‘seminaries’ etc. Somewhat beyond the Bible methinks. So we really should not object. Most of what is acceptable that is beyond the Bible comes through tradition, ‘church’ tradition. I want to push in a different direction, and I want to do so as I see developing revelation and understanding within Scripture itself. Very evident with Jesus – you have heard it said, but I say to you… And the change with Jesus is beyond profound. He was either deceived at an incredible level (the Scriptures pointing to him!) or he has to be placed central, with Scripture moving out of the category of timeless truths disembodied from history / culture, to a record of an unfolding story of a people of faith on a journey recording that journey with at times a stronger and at other times a fainter line pointing to the revelation of God in Jesus, and therefore necessarily pointing away from itself. A sign is not the arrival point and at times signs can be confusing (just ask us we tried to follow google maps these past weeks at some crazy junctions!). We can find ourselves with a ‘phew we are still on the right path and direction’ to other times ‘well that was a bit of a dirt path, but here we are back on track’. That is the richness of Scripture – the internal disagreements are so enlightening as they tend to be the ones that expose our personal internal disagreements. (Could this be why the entrance to the kingdom that we favour is ‘you must be born again’ over ‘go sell all you have’? Both statements spoken to an individual – one religious and one rich.)

Surface, and at times deeper than at surface level, disagreements within the pages should alert us to look deeper than wave a few favourite verses around. The God who gave instructions about the death penalty certainly did not abide by those instructions in the Cain / Abel story (nor in the ‘repeat’ in the Jesus / Barabbas story). And as mentioned above – the Jesus approach that overturned / went beyond Scripture with his ‘but I say to you’.

The Gentile mission (Paul) went beyond what they understood. They went beyond Scripture. Of course that can be justified with ‘the Scriptures are apostolic’. I remember well the various lectures on the New Testament where the big issue was of seeking to root the books in either ‘written by an apostle’ or ‘someone so connected to the apostles that they are writing with apostolic authority’. Why? Seems that was a belief imposed on Scripture not coming from Scripture. And this has come through in certain charismatic views of prophecy where (I paraphrase) the apostles of the NT write without error and are the partner to the prophets of the Old Testament – thus prophecy of the NT is not at the same level as prophecy of the Old… (Not substantiated by the testimony of Scripture, so friends of the ‘Gospel Coalition’ this one does not get my vote and I suspect it is supported by (yet again) an imposition on Scripture.) Oh how I love to pontificate!

Moving forward quickly… to be biblical we need to be immersed in, but not drowned by, the text(s) and allow the forward flow to carry us to and through uncomfortable territory. We can be carried beyond Scripture, but it has to be on the same trajectory; we might repeat parts of the story, but a continual repetition might simply lock us in a ‘chapter’ that has already been written. If I am unable to recall earlier ‘chapters’ I will lose the plot, the story. I need the fixed points, the characters, the drama, the flow. But then?

The tension is that the biblical ‘story’ (story-line) holds the answers as they point to Jesus, but if we use the story (the text(s)) to be the end in themselves we will use yesterdays answers and seek to apply them to today’s issues. And on the latter issue highly dangerous when we try and explain biblical discussion and uproot the discussion from the story – such as with the cross of Jesus and the ‘wrath’ of God.

Where could this take us… maybe quite a bit of wandering, but come on there are mountains to be climbed and sight to be gained of a landscape that we have not seen clearly into.

I am provoked by Paul – apostolic writings if ever there were any! He saw ekklesia. Did he see what might lie beyond his passion to get an ekklesia in every place where there was already an ekklesia. What should follow after (I assume there was an ‘after’) there was a community who understood they were (with all their faults – that is grace!) the chosen ones to take on board the future shape, culture and health of what was within their territory? Did he have sight on that? But probably more importantly do we? And then we could explore what territory might mean today – simply geographical? Boundaries and times are in the biblical story – now where might we wander if we keep our eyes on the fixed points?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Re-alignment of borders?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

So, maybe, and I think very probable

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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

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

Not one stone will stay upon the other.

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

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

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

[B]ut a new creation is everything!

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

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

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

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

What would eschatological values look like?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Consider the lobster

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

We cannot be close to the end

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Speak up about hope

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives