No I am not about to write a few more chapters to correct(!!!!) Paul’s theology of the gospel. Rather I am going to make a few comments on the first two Scriptures that I was taught to use in ‘witnessing’ – Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23
For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Everyone has sinned… so tell me you have never done anything wrong? Tick box. The result is you will die (= eternal punishing), however there is a way out of that situation. Tick box. With a few nuances we might be able to run with that, but as always we are reducing this to something individualistic. Paul has been working with a ‘Jew first, then Greek’ framework (makes some sense of chs. 9-11 and the Israel / Gentile material there and the final instructions how to relate together when there could be divides over food issues and ‘one day above another’ approaches). ‘All’ have sinned in this context is not as simple as ‘you + me + every other individual’ but all in the contextual sense of whether you are part of the covenant people or the non-covenant people – ‘all / both groups have sinned’. Paul has made that clear a few verses earlier:
Both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin (Rom 3:9).
After the typical Jewish way of collating a set of verses (almost proof-texting!!) he concludes with 3:23 and defines sin as ‘falling short of the glory of God’. Coming from the guilt-heavy background of Western Christendom sin has been defined in relation to law / doing wrong, but Paul lifts it to a new level and with his opening chapter of Romans where he says that ‘they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles’. He roots sin with language that is deeply set in creation – where humanity is in the ‘image’ of God and was given stewardship with regard to creation – now the exchange is incredible, it is to fall from human identity and calling, hence to fall short of the glory of God. This is why I went with sin as a failure to be human when I wrote ‘Humanising the Divine’. (For an excellent article on sin, iniquity and transgression try https://bibleproject.com/articles/sin-iniquity-and-transgression-in-the-bible/)
A failure to be human surely puts into context the many community laws in the Old Testament. The Torah being a guide as to how to live, how to be the social beings that we were created to be. It is much more than a set of laws that are standards that we break… and when we come to the NT we have an elevation of expectation – we move beyond (e.g.) not lying to ‘not leaving a falsehood’ with everything set in the context for ‘we are members of one another’. Community; ‘in Christ’; ‘body’…
The result / outcome of sin is ‘death’ (far more the outcome than the punishment… the inevitable result / wages). When we (corporate ‘we’) fall short of being (truly) human the result is death. We can make that personal, but I think Paul is focused on the transformation of the world so we should not lose sight of death at every level, including that of society and creation. By contrast to be in Christ is to receive life of another age (eternal) as a gift (charisma).
The gospel is responded to individually but the framework is corporate; a humanity who has fallen from who they were created to be into ‘one new humanity’, a new humanity where ‘both have been reconciled to God’ (Ephes. 2:15, 16 – where the words ‘create… humanity’ are used).
The invitation of the gospel to one and all is to receive eternal life, to be created anew, to live within this world as if there is an eternal world in the midst of this temporary world (and this does not mean a ‘world set for being burnt up’!)… to enter the path of being truly human. Reconciliation to God, to others, to creation and to self.
Adrian Lowe published this on Substack and with permission I reproduce it here. For those who are regular readers they will note that it continues a set of essays regarding ‘mammon’.
But old clothes are beastly, continued the untiring whisper. We always throw away old clothes. Ending is better than mending, ending is better than mending, ending is better… — Aldous Huxley.
My proposition in this collection of essays, that we are all in some way or other subject to the power, control and influence of Mammon, is one thing; offering a proposition of how we could live free from the domination of the Mammonic narrative is something quite different. It requires what the late Walter Brueggemann calls ‘prophetic imagination’—a God-given vision of an alternate reality to that which we see unfolding in the prevailing culture. He was right! However, the truth is that, at best, we are spellbound by the rewards Mammon promises, and at worst, we are slavishly labouring on Mammon’s treadmill. And so, it does indeed require divine imagination to begin to conceive of a life liberated from its stranglehold.
The good news is that the gospel inspires prophetic imagining and vision. It makes a way for us all to break free from the power of the ‘machine’, the god called Mammon. The declaration of Christ at the cross that “It is finished” lies at the heart of the gospel. The dehumanising and predatory powers of sin, along with the accompanying forces of darkness that enslave you, me, and the whole of creation, were defeated by the holy, self-sacrificing love of Christ at Calvary. We now, as the apostle Paul says, need to reckon ourselves dead to the ‘machine’, dead to those predatory powers that seek to enslave us again, and alive to Christ. Emancipated from the tyranny of consumerism’s liturgy, individualism’s mastery, and secularism’s unbelief, we seek the peace and prosperity of our neighbourhoods, cities, and nation.
So, what does this look like in practice? This is an important question! James, in his letter, tells us that, ‘Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.’ (James 2:17). He alludes to a new form of labour (work) inspired and reimagined by the very faith we have in the labour (work) of the crucified Christ. What I hope to do in between my articles on Mammon is suggest that there are some practices and rhythms that enable us to take a stand and resist the powerful tide of Mammon and its plundering nature.
Modern life depends on the habit of discarding things
So, ‘What is the picture of the loo seat doing at the start of this article, and what has it got to do with resisting Mammon?’ you may ask. There’s a story attached to it! We’ve had this toilet seat for a number of years. Recently, I noticed that the varnish had started to flake on the top of the seat. Often, in circumstances like this, my normal reaction would be to say that it has served us well, I’ll throw it out and get a new one. That’s not unreasonable—or is it? As you may observe from the photograph, I decided to take this oak toilet seat apart, sand off the varnish, re-varnish the seat, and put it right back from where I’d taken it. I made a deliberate choice for repair rather than replace.
This was not simply about saving money but a very small act in which I was not just resisting our ‘throwaway culture’, standing in opposition to it, and resisting the powerful tide of Mammon. In some small way, it was also answering the call of God to steward the material world. Sound bizarre or even pious? Stay with me!
The history of a ‘throwaway culture’
Discarding the old and buying the new, along with built-in obsolescence of consumer goods, has been a cornerstone of developed economies for over a century. In his book Made to Break, the American historian Giles Slade suggests that 1923 was the year when manufacturers began to create a cycle of obsolescence and replacement as the mainstay of their growth strategy. Companies’ success in the previous century had been sought by building a reputation to produce durable and repairable products. Many manufacturers’ designs tended to reflect an ethic of stewardship. It was this ethic that guided Henry Ford in the development of his famous car, the Model T. He aimed to build a car affordable to the masses, engineered for years of use and easy to fix. His idea caught the imagination of Americans everywhere. By 1920, 55% of families owned a Tin Lizzie. Later, he was reported to have said his aim was to build a car that was ‘so strong and well-made that no one ought ever to have to buy a second one.’ Oh, how things have changed!
His competitor Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors had different ideas; he saw an opening in the market and took inspiration from the world of fashion. He trialled bringing out new car models each year, often just changing the shape or colour, so that the fashion-conscious could acquire their newest model of Chevrolet. His associate Harley J. Earl was frank and open about their intention: ‘Our big job is to hasten obsolescence’. In 1934, the average car ownership span was 5 years; now [1955] it is 2 years. ‘When it is 1 year, we will have the perfect score.’ It worked! GM became the world’s largest car manufacturer. Slade suggests that ‘Deliberate obsolescence in all its forms—technological, psychological, or planned—is a uniquely American invention.’
Soon, psychological obsolescence became the primary means of growing businesses. As the development of branding, packaging, and marketing became more sophisticated, this fuelled the growing throwaway culture as consumers increasingly made choices based more on trend than technical reliability. Slade remarks: ‘In manufacturing terms, psychological obsolescence was superior to technical obsolescence, because it was cheaper to create and could be produced on demand.’ Over the last century, the principle of designing in obsolescence in all its forms and speeding up the replacement cycle has become an immutable part of the manufacture and sale of goods around the globe.
Mammon and the material world
We’ve all fallen under the spell of the Mammonic Machine to a greater or lesser extent. Our collective ambitions for new, bigger, better, and ‘more for less’ come at a cost. The environmental impact of vast quantities of waste, some of it toxic, that are the result of our acceptance of obsolescence and disposal in favour of acquisition and consumption, are staring us in the face. These, according to the late Pope Francis’s 2015 Encyclical Laudato si’, are the symptoms of a ‘throwaway culture’—and he doesn’t mince his words! He writes: ‘The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth’. He addressed the many ways the ‘throwaway culture’, a by-product of an industrialised technological society, impacts the environment. More than this, he used the term as a metaphor for our broken relationships, including that of the natural world itself— ‘our common home’—and it as a symbol of the disposability of people, those he called ‘excluded’.
I believe that the architecture of both our individual and common life is profoundly misshapen in the hands of an alternative potter—Mammon. As the grip of commodification, commercialisation, and financialisation becomes even tighter, our four primary human relationships take on a different form and nature. Pope Francis makes this point too (although he talks of three relationships rather than four) when he writes:
[H]uman life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with earth itself. According to the Bible, these three vital relationships have been broken, both outwardly and inwardly.
Mammon’s powers to commodify, commercialise, and financialise radically change our relationship with the material world. In the process, we have exchanged communion—right relationship with the material world—that could be described as stewarding and guarding, for commodity—a wrong relationship with the material world—resulting in exploitation and profiteering.
God and the material world
I grew up as a new believer in the late 70s when evangelicalism had been intoxicated by an escapist eschatology popularised by books and novels like Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth (The Left Behind series written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins trod a similar path from the mid-90s). Most of us young believers lived in fear of The Day of the Lord. We were told stars were literally going to fall from the sky, the evil and corrupted earth would be consigned to some kind of cosmic dustbin, eventually to be replaced by a new one—a better model! Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors would like the sound of this eschatology! The gospel’s power was ring-fenced to the repair and renewal of a single relationship—that of ‘mine’ with God.
As I have written before, I now believe this to be a highly individualised and extremely narrow lens through which to comprehend the work and ways of Christ. Jesus’ death and resurrection signify not just His triumph over ‘my’ ‘sin’ but much, much more. He wins the battle over the powers of darkness and ultimately the power of death, both of which are at work in creation as a whole. This is captured in the famous ‘Gospel verse’ in John’s gospel: ‘For God so loved the world (Greek word: cosmos) that he gave His own Son…’ (John 3:16). Of course, it’s good news for every one of us that believes, but the significance of this world-loving act is registered cosmically. Jesus labours to make a way for the repair and renewal of all things.
A new relationship—with creation.
Tom Wright suggests in his epic book Surprised by Hope that the scene set out in Revelation chapters 21 and 22 presents the greatest images of cosmic renewal in the whole Bible. This is imagery that uses the relational metaphor of marriage. The new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven adorned like a bride for her husband. It plainly reverses the trajectory I was taught in my early years as a Christian—of a disembodied ascent to heaven to await with fear and trembling a type of judgement that also included the disposal of the once-good creation. Wright points out: ‘This [Revelation 21 & 22] is the ultimate rejection of all types of Gnosticism, of every worldview that sees the final goal as the separation of the world from God, of the physical from the spiritual, of earth from heaven’.
‘Behold, I am making all things new…’ (Revelation 21:5)
This promise offers hope and a vision of a restored and renewed creation—not a redundant old creation that requires replacement. It signifies a future where all things will be made new and free from the old, imperfect order. God will abolish death and decay forever. Heaven and earth are not poles apart needing to be separated—no, they are made for each other. It speaks of the restoration, renewal, and repair of all things.
Saying no to a ‘throwaway’ culture
So, back to my earlier question: what does this look like in practice? If the ultimate climax of the Gospel is not the destruction of the material world but its repair, then we are called to live in the light of this message. Perhaps we can resist Mammon and its accompanying throwaway culture by embodying a culture of stewardship through developing the new habits of repair and re-use.
We might not have a dedicated space, the tools, or the skills to repair our own stuff! There is, however, a growing network of grassroots organisations that are fostering a repair and re-use culture. Here are just two:
iFixit is both an online resource for those wanting to repair rather than replace or recycle consumer goods. They also have a growing network of repair shops. This grassroots initiative’s manifesto, among other things, suggests that repair connects people with things and makes consumers into contributors.
Repair Cafés have over 3,500 sites all over Europe, including the UK. They are free meeting places, and they’re all about repairing things (together). In the place where a Repair Café is located, they offer tools and materials to help you make any repairs you need for clothes, furniture, electrical appliances, bicycles, crockery, toys, etc. You’ll often also find expert volunteers with repair skills in all kinds of fields.
We may not all be able to fix a toaster or sew a torn sleeve, but we can all choose to value what we have, honour the work of others, and resist the tide of waste. In doing so, we not only care for creation—we reclaim our humanity. The culture of repair is not just about things; it’s about people, relationships, and the world we long to see healed.
In a world shaped by disposability and driven by Mammon, choosing repair over replacement is a quiet act of resistance—and a bold act of hope. Each time we mend what is broken, we participate in the divine work of renewal. Let us be people who imagine differently, live prophetically, and steward faithfully. The culture of repair begins with us.
Reconciliation is to come into a harmonious relationship, where any former barrier has gone and an open to the other relationship can grow. In relationship to God those barriers are exactly what the cross removes. The ultimate revelation of the glory of God takes place at the cross for it is there that we see our God is a crucified God, a God who is for us, whose prayer is that ‘we are forgiven’. All internal barriers are removed (and we have to stay clear of suggesting that there were barriers on God’s side as that so easily sides into appeasement and a pagan view); not only the internal barriers of guilt and shame, but the external enslavement that Paul sums up as ‘sin and death’ or in other passages as ‘principalities and powers’.
Reconciliation to others is to love them, to desire that they might indeed become who they were born to be, to seek to be a support to them on their journey of integrity. It is first to humanise them, and that starts by no longer seeing them classified by any human-devised category.
Sometimes it is not possible to be in complete reconciliation and Paul was very pragmatic over that. He qualified his instruction to live at peace with all with a ‘as far as is possible’ proviso,
If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all (Rom. 12:18).
Scripture is not idealistic, but in its eschatological thrust it calls us to go further and deeper at every point. Progress, not perfection, being the measure.
Reconciliation to self
Jesus commanded us to love others (even those who oppose us) as we love ourselves. It is claimed that we live in an epidemic of narcissistic culture and there is much to suggest that to be the case. A heavily ‘me’ centred world with an obsession to have ever more social-(media) friends, to be liked etc. points in that direction. Self-acceptance and a seeking to be the best possible ‘me’ that will have a positive outworking for others seems to be what the gospel advocates. ‘Me’ at the centre? Not in that narcissistic sense but only in the sense of giving attention to oneself. The rub of Narcissus is that what motivated him was not self-love but the love of the image of himself. The gospel comes to help me discover the real me, not the image that I have been given or created. Part of that might involve areas of painful awareness, but the greater part is the discovery of who I can become (and ultimately defined by the image of Jesus). The gospel re-defines all values including what ‘success’ means. No longer measured by social status or economic prosperity but by how true I am being to myself and how much of a life-giving source I am to others.
Some aspects of ‘self-help’ or even therapy might fall short given the narcissistic culture but where there is genuine help to enable self-reconciliation we have to affirm that this is part of the work toward ‘the reconciliation of all things’.
Reconciliation to creation
It can be argued that Roman 8 is the centre of that great piece of theological writing and there pre-eminently we have the close relationship of the human race and creation laid out. Such an understanding is present from the beginning of the Hebrew Scriptures. We are formed from the ground (‘mother earth’ might be a term we consider opens a number of quasi-spiritual doors, but cannot be viewed as totally wrong!) and the ground is in bondage (cursed) because of humanity. Paul virtually gives the creation personal identity with a voice that longs to follow where we are and are going. The voice of those who have received the Spirit is one of reconciliation to God – crying ‘Abba, Father’, and that voice is within creation also, expressed as a longing for liberation.
Theologies that have over-focused on spiritual transformation owe much more to Hellenistic philosophy than they do to a Hebraic understanding. The transformation that the cross was central to is the transformation of ‘all things’. Creation has a future, one that Jesus described as the ‘rebirth of all things’ (Matt. 19:28).
Reconciled to God and…
To be able to articulate the equivalent of ‘Abba, Father’ is a deep privilege and a joyous expression of being free from slavery, with the language that Paul is using (Rom. 8) surely recalls the freedom from Egypt, a freedom from slavery and the task masters that afflicted them. Paul moves from our freedom to the cry of creation that is in slavery (and I consider that there is an underlying thought here that just as Israel was subject to taskmasters in Egypt, so the creation has been subjected to taskmasters – the human race no longer imaging God), and alongside the groan of creation is the voice of the saints within whom the Spirit coming to our aid with ‘inarticulate sounds’ (groanings too deep for words, alaletos). Reconciled to God and instruments of pulling to the future, and the future glory is to pull all things in that direction. This explains the ‘glory’ and the ‘suffering’ that are present now.
One of the drawbacks of religion is to affirm that we are in the right and the diverse forms of the Christian faith is not exempted from that drawback. We might wonder how Paul can claim to be blameless according to the law and yet a persecutor, even a murderer, of others. He was certainly not without biblical precedence, with the origin of the Levitical becoming the priestly tribe being rooted in a similar response. If I claim to be reconciled to God and there is no ongoing evidence that I am involved in the ‘ministry of reconciliation’ I am either deceived (probably) or at best have stopped on the journey toward the future. I am encouraged (required?) to be pulling myself, others and creation to that future.
If I claim to tick the box of ‘reconciliation to God’ but there is no filling in of the other three boxes…..
Reconciled to self, creation and others and…
If we allow Scripture to critique our spirituality and do not reduce spirituality to me and my so-called devotional life we can easily see how there should be some evidence of a wider reconciliation, than simply me and God. (And most ‘me and God’ scenarios come up with a God of our creation and a me of my desired image.)
Conversely I am ready to bring this article to a conclusion in considering the very real possibility that anyone who is (knowingly or unknowingly) pulling toward the restoration of all things is at some measure being reconciled to God. It is not for me to go on to make statements that would set me up as the judge of all, but I remain deeply optimistic. The future shape of all things depends on the mercy of God and I suspect that a response similar to the one made by Peter at the household of Cornelius will be appropriate. Peter spoke before he had proclaimed the truths concerning Jesus, and before the assembled household received the Spirit just as those in the Upper Room had (Acts 11:15),
I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every people anyone who fears him and practices righteousness is acceptable to him (Acts 10:34, 35).
His journey to that experience was one that was conducted without pre-judgement (Acts 11:12, verb is diakrino – to make a judgement). Pre-judgements can determine the outcome; experience can challenge our previously held beliefs. At no point will naivety be our aid, nor the abandonment of what we have known, but if it be true that the body of Christ is to hold space so that agents of the kingdom arise, perhaps we all have to go on a journey, and as we do we might discover people who are stronger advocates and activists in sowing toward the reconciliation of all things than we have been. Surely we belong together and we have much to learn. And in it all there is one who has the last word, the one who is the ‘first and the last’. From creation to new creation, and just as there were a number who left Egypt with the tribes of Israel, I sincerely hope there are those who are journeying toward that new day.
An Addendum: meals
Eating meals. That has a long tradition in many settings; meals not merely to satisfy hunger but to indicate our union with one another. The sacrifices in the Old Testament are not primarily a matter of the slaughter of animals but of eating together. Jesus said unless we can eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we will have no part in him.
Putting the ‘Lord’s Supper’ back into the meal context where we eat at his table we are told that when we do this we ‘proclaim his death’ as we ‘remember him’ and that we do this ‘until he comes’. I suggest this has been transformed into a focus on ‘remembering his death’ and a soberness has come in that was not present in the original setting. We are to remember Jesus, the Jesus of the gospels, the Jesus of today, the Jesus of tomorrow, and to proclaim his death – all that was finished at the cross and all that was inaugurated there… and that we do that until things are completed.
That meal, and each meal, is an eschatological sign that we are caught up in a movement that believes in the restoration of all things, the reconciliation (putting back together again) of all things, whether in heaven or on earth.
Commentary on meals and their setting in the New Testament era is beyond this brief addendum, but I put the above here to suggest that some level of eating together with all who have a belief in the reconciliation of all things, including those who have a different narrative for their hope and activity, should be encouraged.
The biblical God took on the responsibility to solve the issue of alienation and set something very concrete in motion with the invitation to those who have received the Spirit of reconciliation to be actively involved in activity that serves that ultimate goal. That we can be reconciled to the God of creation is truly ‘good news’, and along that journey we can rejoice at every act carried out that works for the increased manifestation of the healing of alienation. We can, and should be, open to every opportunity to share the reason for the hope we carry while rejoicing with all those who are contributing to the increase of shalom.
The third post on ‘reconciliation in four directions’; at the end of the previous post I referenced Acts 19:30,31 and the riot in Ephesus where: “Paul wished to go into the crowd, but the disciples would not let him; even some officials of the province of Asia who were friendly to him sent him a message urging him not to venture into the theater” (emphasis added). The ‘Asiarchs’ were those who were in authority from Rome to ensure that the area they governed within was reflective in culture and values to Rome. This included the appointments within the temple structure (and the riot centred on ‘Artemis of the Ephesians’) and they were to ensure that the prosperity of the city was maintained (the silversmiths were the instigators of the riot). Remarkably these ‘non-disciples’ held space for Paul – an indication of the remarkable future-oriented vision he carried. A case of ‘if they are not against us, then they are for us’?
The great eschatological goal
Personal reconciliation to God is clearly within Scripture and this was the central part of Paul’s message but it did not contain the whole of his message. The eschatological goal was always of God’s presence permeating everything, expressed in such texts as ‘the knowledge of the glory of God covering the earth as the waters cover the seas’ (Hab. 2:14; Is. 11:9). Equally expressed in the future vision of John:
See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them and be their God… And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. Its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there (Rev. 21:3, 23-25).Reconciliation of all things, not just people, but the entire creation ‘project’, the restoration of all things, on earth and in heaven. The future is not a non-physical celestial existence but the fulfilment of the reconciliation that was accomplished at the cross. The biblical hope is therefore for the knowledge of God to permeate all things (reconciliation to God), a liberation for creation (reconciliation to creation), and the very real intimate (but not sexual) embrace between all those who express the image of God (reconciliation to others and self).
[There will be no marriage in the age to come is not indicating that marriage is not important, but that marriage, as covenant, is a sign of the depth of relationship to come in that age. Covenant in this age is what marriage consists of, and any other covenant should be entered into with utmost caution. I am not an advocate of (for example) seeking to replicate the David / Jonathan covenant – one only has to track the marriage fiascos that followed in David’s life and line to see that it could well be that covenant that was the root of causing subsequent issues. Marriage is exclusive: the future age and depth of relationship will transcend even that.]
Reconciled to God
In the above illustration I am prioritising (as Paul does) reconciliation to God and illustrating that If I am truly reconciled to God then God’s Spirit is within me and there will be an outworking of that reconciliation into the other areas. Paul speaks of being reconciled to God and receiving the ministry of reconciliation; reconciliation has an outworking. And what if there is no outworking? Again let me re-iterate that we are all a work in progress and any ‘final’ outworking awaits the future, but Scripture is clear that,
How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help? (1 John 3:17). Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love (1 John 4:8). Those who say, “I love God,” and hate a brother or sister are liars, for those who do not love a brother or sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen (1 John 4:20). For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (Matt. 6:14).
Those scriptures are unequivocal – if there is no outworking in a loving / forgiving way on the horizontal level then any claim for forgiveness at a vertical level is deceptive. It might be argued that John and Jesus are restricting this to our responses within the ‘household of faith’ but when we add Jesus’ command to love our enemy (Matt. 5:44) I suggest we have to embrace that any outworking of being reconciled to God means we embrace all others, including those who oppose us or persecute us.
A claim of being reconciled to God only has integrity if there is at some level a level of reconciliation to those who have been created in God’s image. [There are NO biblical texts that suggest that ‘the image of God’ is lost post-the fall. That image continues and those who are in Christ are being transformed into HIS image – the image of the eschatological human, the image of created humans but brought to fullness.]
So far then I suggest that any reconciliation to God has an outworking of coming into right relationship at a horizontal level (and with that I include creation, from which we came, and ‘self’). If there is absolutely no outworking in that direction scripture challenges the legitimacy of our claim to having been reconciled to God.
The next step in our exploration might prove to be a step too far for some. I now want to explore the possibility of being (in some real measure) reconciled to others / self / creation but not even believing in a Personal God, and that in doing so such a person might be participating in and expressing the reconciling work of Jesus.
A few notes first
In taking this approach I am not making any comment on the ‘eternal salvation’ of such a person. I am not seeking to make a judgement in either direction; one direction being ‘they are saved’ and the other direction being ‘they are damned’. I do have an underlying commitment to the image of God being present in everyone regardless of their creed, and that ‘good works’ are good. A belief that I can earn salvation is wrong because it is a wrong belief in God. God is gracious (giving us what we do not deserve) and merciful (not giving us what we do deserve); God is for us, the Saviour of all, especially of those who believe. I remain optimistic about the redemptive activity of God.
I find no biblical evidence for eternal punishing (the language ‘eternal punishment’ when taken to be about final judgement is exactly that – nothing ongoing, but something irreversible); if we through behaviour having become less than human I am not convinced that the call to ‘enter into My kingdom’ will be given, but the very nature of being reconciled to others / self / creation is to act humanly.
As I explore this possibility that in some way, and at some level, there is an ‘unknown’ reconciliation to God taking place, I am bearing in mind that to claim a reconciliation to God without outworking is false, so perhaps there is room to suggest that if someone engages with the ‘outworking’ perhaps there is a covering of the area that is central to Scripture, that of being reconciled to the One and only true God.
And a final comment in response to the emotive question of ‘why then should I be a committed believer? / what is the point in being saved?’. Those kind of questions reveal so much. The point of being saved is not to be ‘safe’ but to be overwhelmed by the goodness of God, to know this God at a personal level and to participate in the ‘ministry of reconciliation’.
The possibility of sharing the age to come with those whose path in life was to pursue what it is to be as human as possible is not at any level to shy away from sharing the reason for the hope that is within us. We should be ready to do so at any appropriate time, indeed to do so with those who proclaim faith in other gods, or who proclaim that they have no faith at all… and with those who proclaim they have been reconciled to God – particularly those who are so sure of their eternal destiny as they have prayed the sinner’s prayer. Paul was intent on coming to Rome, the capital that was the centre for the imperial gospel (euangellion), in order to proclaim there to the believers the gospel – the reason for the hope that he had.
In this second post I will try and lay out some of the presuppositions I hold that will shape where I go with future posts. If there is absolute disagreement with the presuppositions I guess any conclusions I will bring will automatically be disagreed with.
Presuppositions
We all approach theology with presuppositions and I consider what follows are some of mine that undergird my views. To acknowledge them is important.
Scripture
Scripture is of paramount importance, but it is an unfinished ‘book’. Not unfinished in the sense that I can break the pages open and insert some fresh text, but unfinished in the sense that it does not bring us to a conclusion on every aspect. There is, for example, no text that outright condemns slavery, nor even one that indicates a dream that slavery will disappear prior to the parousia. There are no unequivocal passages that speak of the abolition of patriarchy. This makes the task of progressive theology deeply challenging to those of an evangelical persuasion, and I appreciate that what I write in this article might indeed be challenging.
We do not add to Scripture in the sense that we make any idea carry biblical weight.
Yet we do not stop where Scripture stops – it gives us a thrust and a momentum beyond the pages but in the same direction as we found in the pages. It is often said that the book of Acts is unfinished and we are living (or should be!) in Acts 29. The final word of Acts is the word (without hindrance)… without a ‘stop there and go no further. The direction that the Spirit empowers is toward the fullness as will be revealed in the parousia (commonly translated as ‘return’ of Christ, but with the word essentially meaning ‘presence’ a test as to how faithful we are to the trajectory will be the presence of Jesus – and not a Jesus simply of our theology).
We are not to decide the line of ‘in’ and ‘out’
A focus on ‘eternal’ things, commonly thought of as ‘eternal destiny’ and who is ‘saved’ is probably not where the Pauline Gospel is centred. There are distinctions in Scripture, such as ‘do good to all especially those of the household of faith’; there is the recognition of those whose faith is centred on the God of Israel. God is said to be the ‘Saviour of all, especially those who believe’. In what sense is he also the Saviour of those who do not believe (‘all’)? The same terminology is used in the Pauline text where he instructs Timothy to bring ‘the books especially the scrolls’ (2 Tim. 4:13). He does not mean bring only the scrolls but make sure they are brought in and bring as many books as you can also. Texts such as those indicate there is a ‘wideness in the mercy of God’ and that we are not to be those who declare who is in and who is out. Paul might have been pleasantly surprised when finally Timothy came with all the books as well as the parchments. Perhaps we will be likewise surprised. (I often say I am not a Universalist, but have a sneaky suspicion that God just might be!)
If we focus too tightly and insist that we know who is in and who is out we will be replacing God with our knowledge (maybe a kick back to Genesis 3?) and we will probably see no value in any act that contributes toward a better future.
Good works are good!
All have sinned, all fall short, all need salvation, but this does not mean there is no value in what we can term ‘good works’. The ‘righteousness that is as filthy rags’ was a verdict given to the outward obedience to a set of religious practices (ones that seemed to be ordained by God), the phraseology was not given as a blanket statement to describe anything good done.
Evangelicals have been fearful about ‘salvation by works’ and this is indeed something that the Reformers helped us steer away from. A belief in ‘salvation by works’ falls short primarily because it presents a faulty image of God, that we can earn salvation. We do not earn with the God who has always taken the initiative to bring us to our future.
The concept of the law court acquittal also falls short. James exposes this when he says faith without works is dead. There is a false over-divide between ‘justification’ and ‘sanctification’. We dissect something in life to see the inner working, but life does not exist with the divides we make. And perhaps we should also lose the temporal succession of justification comes first then comes sanctification; perhaps the process can be reversed at times! What if someone is on the road to a greater level of sanctification and has not yet arrived at the place of knowing they are justified!
Perhaps it is uncomfortable but there are numerous mentions in the New Testament about a judgement according to works. Jesus told the story of the sheep and the goats being separated out on the basis of how they treated others. Both groups respond with the same words – ‘when did we…?’ Those who were told to enjoy the kingdom were evidently not seeking to prove how righteous they were, this was not salvation by works. The over-emphasis on ‘by faith alone’ for salvation left Luther struggling with the letter written by James, terming it an ‘epistle of straw’. If faith in the Pauline corpus is reduced to ‘belief’ then we do have a major tension when we come to the book of James. However, James makes clear it is not a question of an either / or but that genuine faith has an outworking. ‘Faith without works is dead’ and he claimed that he would show his faith by his works, insisting that even the devil has faith! Faith alone he claims is devilish.
In Romans Paul said his goal was to bring about the ‘obedience of faith’ among the Gentiles; not an obedience to the law but an obedience to the God who raised Jesus from the dead.
The over-emphasis on ‘salvation’ in the sense of being ‘safe’ with a ticket to enter heaven has caused a divide between the ‘evangelical gospel’ and the ‘social gospel’. ‘Do good to all’ is a continuing requirement, and I suggest that given the strongly political words that consistently appear in Paul’s writings that we have to rethink ‘salvation’ as far more for a purpose than as a status. Surely it is when Israel loses sight of her election for the world that we can track from that point her increased captivity.
For those who see their calling as leading people to faith in Jesus in a more classic evangelical sense my plea is that we do not treat people as objects to be witnessed to. By all means share our faith in the context of respect for the person and by no means are we to reject them as friends if they do not respond. Friendship evangelism that treats people as objects is neither friendship nor evangelism.
And for those who see their calling as ‘doing good to all’ I ask that we do not replace Jesus with our activity. Scripture exhorts us ‘to be ready to give an answer to the hope that lies within us’ and that answer is not merely about a set of values, nor simply of a philosophy of life but is firmly centred on the person of Jesus.
The calling of the ekklesia
A final presupposition is with regard the word (ekklesia) that we translate as ‘church’. It certainly, and not surprisingly, carries meaning from the Hebrew Scriptures where it was used for the people of covenant when they were called to listen to the voice of God or were being sent on ‘mission’. It was used when there was action connected to who they were. In the wider world of Paul’s day it was used to describe the officially appointed deciding body of a city or region. The New Testament uses many words to describe those who are within the covenant people, but ekklesia is the central word. This indicates that there was a strong sense that the ekklesia of Jesus Christ was to take responsibility for their appointed setting. This would involve an authority to create space where certain things could flourish and others not. Like the salt of that time it was used as fertiliser to promote growth in the field and as a disinfectant with regard to the ‘dung heap’.
The body of Christ (another term common in Paul) is not simply about activity, so I am not suggesting reconciliation promotes human ‘doing’, after all before Jesus sent the 12 out as apostles to heal the sick, cast out demons and proclaim the kingdom, he chose them to be ‘with him’. The ‘doing’ came from a place of well-’being’.
I grew up with George Ladd’s theology of the New Testament which helpfully centred so much on ‘the kingdom of God’. He stated, and I have repeated many times, that the church is not the kingdom but is ‘the agent of the kingdom’. Incredibly helpful to distinguish the two, but I suggest that it did not go far enough. I would propose that the church is the body that is to take responsibility for agents of the kingdom to rise. And by pushing it to that point the implication is that not all ‘agents’ (individual or corporate) will be those affirming a biblical statement of faith!
I consider that the above presuppositions will explain why I explore what follows as I do. The centrality of Jesus as the person through whom God has been present to initiate the reconciliation process and as the person through whom the process will be completed is central to me; likewise Scripture as laying down the parameters and the trajectory for our journey is essential. Those two, under the power of the Spirit, invite us all to be involved in the ‘ministry’ (service) of reconciliation.
Is that work limited to ‘reconciliation to God’? I think not. And is that work limited to those who are committed to a Jesus-centred faith? Well Paul seemed to have space for others beyond simply the members of the ‘household of faith’ and maybe as important was that they had space for him (Acts 19:31).
Here is the first post exploring ideas surrounding ‘reconciliation’. The first few will try and set the scene and give some (of my) pressupositions / boundaries. I will eventually publish these posts in an edited and expanded form in a pdf document.
There are many ways in which people approach God’s redemptive work and probably when it is reduced to a single lens much is lost in that process. One very common way is to emphasise God’s holiness in contrast to humanity’s sin and guilt, thus with some measure of payment introduced to enable redemption to take place. This approach, at worst, can present a divide in the Trinity (God, the Father demanding justice and the Son sacrificially taking the consequences so that justice is met; two principle actors – could this contribute to the marginalisation of the Spirit in much theology?); at best ‘payment theories’ can be presented using an analogy such as when someone breaks something of value that belongs to someone else and thus to repair it there will be a cost that has to be borne by someone. Such theologies then say that the ‘payment’ is not met by the one who broke the valued item but the generous God of creation undertakes the repair at his / her cost. This view undergirds Anselm’s satisfaction theory of satisfying God’s honour and the predominant view from the Reformation of restoring justice – restored, we note, through punishment. The inadequacy of the illustration, though, is that what needs to be repaired is something external whereas the repair in the biblical story is a relational repair. In that sense the cost of repair is not something that has to be weighed up for a God who so loved the world but does everything to bring about the healing that is needed relationally. Did Jesus pay a price? Yes indeed, but also we need to marvel at ‘for the joy set before him’, the utter commitment to bring about restoration. We might suggest that the pleasure of seeing humanity healed and thus able to fulfil their destiny is what motivates the journey of Incarnation through to the cross.
God was in Christ reconciling
A relational framework is central to Scripture. The God of Scripture is not some great unmoved mover, but an intensely motivated ‘Person’. Rather than focus on guilt and falling short of a standard it is better to focus on relational alienation. Disobedience is present in the first chapters of the Bible and subsequently throughout but the response desired is not for humanity to come back to obeying a set of laws but back into relationship, to be reconciled to God. Sin is to fall short, to fall short of the glory of God as humans (Rom. 3:23). Paul has already in the first chapter of Romans contrasted the glory that is ours (made in the image of God) with the choice made:
and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles (Rom. 1: 23).
Sin then is deeper than a ‘not doing what we were told’ and is centred in ‘not being who we were created’. Created to bear / carry the image of God, to be God-like, to be relational and to be agents of reconciliation where relationships are damaged. Sin is best understood as falling short of bearing the name of God as image-bearers, of falling short of displaying the wonderful God-glory so that it can be visible. The words we read in John’s Gospel of Jesus that, ‘We beheld his glory full of grace and truth’ reveal what true humanity looks like, Jesus being the express image of the invisible God.
True humanity
Alienation and reconciliation might be a reductive approach but it is one I consider is sufficiently representative of the biblical narrative as it focuses on the broken relationships and the redemptive process in bringing about healing. Alienation is expressed in multiple ways in the aftermath of ‘eating the forbidden fruit’. Divides and distancing are expressed in so many areas in that chapter and the subsequent ones.
God / human
male / female
self alienation
human / creation
familial divides
angelic / human.
Such tensions and divides are throughout the biblical narrative; alienation, being a relational word, is at the heart of the problem, thus reconciliation is at the heart of the solution.
In this extended article I will follow the theme of reconciliation and how that outworks in four directions
Reconciliation to God
Reconciliation to fellow-humans (and this has to include the ‘other’, even the person(s) that might be termed the ‘enemy’)
Reconciliation to oneself, or as commonly termed ‘self-acceptance’
Reconciliation to creation, the planet on which we live.
I am not suggesting that the above four are of equal status, but neither am I suggesting that any one aspect can eliminate one or more of the other three. All four aspects are essential as we hold out for ‘the reconciliation of all things’.
We might wish to argue that the first (reconciliation to God) has to come first in a temporal sense and without that taking place the others have no ‘kingdom’ value. I prioritise the first as of greatest value, but am not prepared to denigrate the others as having no value; indeed the other three should critique the claim that we have been reconciled to God.
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us (2Cor.5:19).
What aspects of the world was God reconciling? Paul centres in on ‘us’ as we are the core of the problem. If we are out of sync everything else follows suit, such as we read in Genesis that the ground was cursed because of us. Reconciliation, and the great hope was of the reconciliation of ‘all things’. This reconciliation, Paul insists is to take place through the cross:
and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature [to the whole creation] under heaven. I, Paul, became a minister of this gospel (Col. 1:20-23, emphases added).
The reconciliation is already ‘ours’, but the message goes beyond us – to all creation (NRSV translating ktisis (creation) as creature). Paul’s vision of salvation / restoration is as big as to solve all issues, thus the universal statement of ‘all things, whether on earth or in heaven’. The apostolic gospel is cosmic in its message and the apostolic commission is to partner with the fulfilment of that message.
There is a small statement in Mark (short Gospel but with a number of small statements that can be missed) with regard to the temptation of Jesus, a note of heavenly and earthly reconciliation:
He was in the wilderness forty days, tested by Satan, and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels waited on him (Mk. 1:13).
The angelic and human together, and… the wild beasts with the true human thus bringing a major aspect of the ‘all things’ of creation into harmony as expressed in the Isaianic vision of ultimate transformation. The true human who, unlike the first Adam does not submit to the ‘god of this world’, exhibits in the wilderness of all places (the supposed domain of the demonic) something of the reconciliation of all things.
Reconciliation to God is central, but the theme of reconciliation does not find its completion with some spiritual state for the redeemed elite. Hence the exploration of reconciliation in these four dimensions.
The next next of posts will take a slightly different direction. During lockdown I wrote four books with the overall title of ‘Explorations in theology’ and have held various Zooms on their content. I consider behaviour is more important than belief but know that belief shapes behaviour. I am not sure what label is appropriate for where I sit on the theological spectrum. I guess I could be labelled a ‘progressive evangelical’, evangelical in the sense that the canon of Scripture is the authority for what I believe and the cross of Jesus is the means of reconciliation to God (as put out in Robert K. Johnston 1990’s paper); David Bebbington suggested four elements that define evangelicalism: conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism. As per all terms each one needs to be filled with meaning and meaning is where theology steps in. ‘Progressive’ in the sense that there is one eternal gospel but our understanding of it is shaped by our cultural setting, and we are no longer living in the Anselmian era of feudalism, nor the Reformers’ era of indulgences and the law-court. If progressive is appropriate then I also make a loud shout that we must always be assessed by our faithfulness to the parameters of the great narrative of Eden to New Jerusalem. (And to be a little provocative… surely a belief in the rapture falls way short of being faithful to those parameters; and to be even more provocative – we have to go beyond ‘belief’, maybe a statement of faith that could not be critiqued would be one borrowed from ‘the devil’ who believes!!!! Purely provocative – but the point is faith has to contain allegiance and perhaps should be defined by allegiance?)
Since writing the four books I began to write some extended articles (https://3generations.eu/journals) and am about to start another one in that ‘series’. It will be an exploration and my plan is to write it as a series of posts that I will then extend (maybe with the help of comments and push back) and publish it as the next pdf extended article. This will be an exploration into the reconciliation of all things, not in the sense of eschatological reconciliation but at the level of ‘redemptive’ reconciliation – what now and here is to be reconciled; in what areas are we to experience and work toward reconciliation. I will suggest that there are four ways in which reconciliation is to be expressed:
reconciliation to God
reconciliation to others
reconciliation to the creation
reconciliation to self.
The first is of course obvious and very ‘Pauline’; the second comes through clearly with the command to love our neighbour… and the extension of that to love ‘our enemy’; the third is clear in Romans 8 and is much more visible as an urgent necessity in our day than in Paul’s day; the fourth has become the domain of the therapeutic world but is within that command to love others as we love ourselves. So far so good, but not really much of an exploration! A very short article.
We can claim to be reconciled to God but if we ‘hate our brother / sister’ we are a liar! Strong words. In reality if I am truly reconciled to God then there should be a flow into the other areas – sadly a ‘believe the right doctrine’ and righteousness is ‘imputed’ does not stack up with Scriptures that extend the meaning / implication of faith in God. We are in process so I am not suggesting some level of perfection required – grace is grace. Full, realised reconciliation awaits us.
I will seek to explore these four areas and allow Scripture to critique our approach to Scripture and the area that might prove a little uncomfortable is whether there is scope to begin with an area of reconciliation other than that of reconciliation to God (in the personal / Christian sense).
Let me put it this way – if we (I) claim to be reconciled to God through the work of the cross then there is the legitimate expectation that there will be evidence that I am embracing the other three areas of reconciliation. That is the challenge to me as a believer – demonstrating my faith, not simply articulating it. Then exploring the position of someone who is not a believer:
Could it be that there is someone who does not even believe in a transcendent personal God who is increasingly being reconciled in the three other areas and as that takes place they are in fact being, in limited but yet real measure, reconciled to the God who is revealed within creation and within humanity?
Panic not! Explorations… but I will also wish to explore the implications of any such view. Where am I on the theological spectrum – willing to explore as Jesus is the centre of all.
I have just finished reading Lamb of the Free – the fourth reading of the book and if I had the energy I would need one more reading that included the footnotes, a Bible in one hand and a pen and paper to make extensive notes. That is not going to happen today and I will probably let the material settle for a while. (I highly recommend this book and a challenging read but a major pushback against ‘substitutionary’ view of the atonement.) What was not new for me is the idea that sacrifice is not something done in my place but in order to cleanse… forgiveness of sins does not require blood / death but cleansing – so Heb. 9:22 “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”; Acts 15:9 “in cleansing their hearts by faith [the Gentiles] he has made no distinction between them and us”. Cleansing, purifying being the effect of both the OT sacrifices and that of the death of Jesus. God not requiring the death of Jesus in order to forgive – indeed (from memory) in Acts we always read that ‘you’ put Jesus to death BUT God raised him from the dead. Anyway enough of the book and my smart observations!
Partly provoked by the book and also my own readings it seems clear that Hebrews focuses on areas regarding the work of Jesus from unique angles. So what took place after the death of Jesus – and death is understood as the presentation of life to God, hence the death of Jesus is the presentation of an indestructible, perfect human life to God. Maybe there are two ‘opposite’ answers – he went to ‘hades’ to proclaim freedom to the captives:
He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison (1 Pet 3:18, 19).
Or the very opposite!
Thus it was necessary for the sketches of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves need better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the holy place year after year with blood that is not his own, for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:23-26).
Moses had to make the tabernacle according to the pattern he saw in heaven – and that needed cleansing (sacrifices) so as it would be a meeting point of heaven and earth. Is there a ‘heavenly’ tabernacle? And why would that need cleansing? I think rather than there being a heavenly tabernacle what Moses was to create was a reflection of heaven itself (we read ‘Jesus entered into heaven itself’)… but that still raises the question as to why heaven needs better sacrifices, and needs to be cleansed! Maybe heaven was left polluted after the fall of Lucifer (not likely to get my vote) or perhaps the sin of humanity affected heaven also (OK a tentative vote from me this time).
If I had to choose between the visit to ‘hades’ or to ‘heaven’ I go for the latter – though of course both might be possible.
And on the going to heaven I think probably what we have is the flip side of cleansing of things merely earthly but to include all of creation (‘heaven and earth’ being a merism for the whole creation).The result being that rather than the separation of the two (dualism) that the path is opened through the cross for the reconciliation of all things – things in heaven and things on earth. Jesus’ death is much more than my sins + your sins placed on Jesus (indeed I don’t see that at all!) – it is the defeat of every power that stands in the way of the divine presence manifesting through all things. Thus the death of Jesus is that of the indestructible human life that overcomes all hostile powers (narrowed to ‘sin and death’ and including ‘principalities and powers’) being presented to the Creator God, thus cleansing the Temple (heaven being the throne and earth the footstool) in totality. Jesus the one who ‘tabernacled’ among us risen and ascended to ‘fill all things’ cleanses all things by his blood (and here we have to think life, death, resurrection and ascension) – hence there can be no more need for a tabernacle / temple (ripped curtain).
Now I guess over to us – what aspect do we fill out, not with domination, but with presence?
I am currently reading Lamb of the Free by Rillera. A substantial read and I am on my third reading of it. It is the most consistent challenge that I know of that pushes back against a substitutionary view of the atonement (and beyond that of the most common ‘penal substitution’). Most recently in Chapter 5 where he moves from Old Testament material on sacrifice to the New Testament I was very taken by how he holds together the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. In simple evangelical theology we can be forgiven for thinking that the life of Jesus is simply a prelude to his death, and the resurrection proof that his death is sufficient.
The aspect that stood out for me was the description that Jesus was the ‘mobile holiness’ of God present on earth. As such he confronted and overcame the effects of the power of death, such as healing, casting out demons and raising the dead (and commissioned his disciples to do likewise) and then in death he confronted death itself which could not hold him captive. Living and dying ahead of us rather than for us in a substitionary sense. [An aside Paul uses the same language for the resurrection in relationship to believers as he uses for the cross. If Jesus died so we do not have to die then he was raised and thus we will not be raised!!! OOOPS!!]
A few days ago I posted concerning David’s desire to build a ‘house for God’. Here is the biblical text:
Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the Lord: Are you the one to build me a house to live in? I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’ (2 Sam. 7:5-7).
The mobile God… Jesus described his own body as a Temple – destroy this Temple and I will raise it up in 3 days, speaking of his own body… The Temple the location that God never requested; in John’s Gospel we read that he ‘dwelt among us’, using a very specific Greek verb σκηνόω – to dwell in a tent, to pitch a tent, to ‘tabernacle’. Mobility – the restoration of the tabernacle.
Post Pentecost – ‘Go’. Mobile not static. We are in process, there is a restoration of mobility. The way God always was and desired to be.
There is a fairly oft-repeated perspective that in many countries where symbols of Christianity were once prominent that we are now facing in those places Christianity being marginalised, and to such an extent that the suggestion is that those who profess Christian faith are even being persecuted. Along the same line great positivity is expressed when a writing comes out that outlines how the West has been shaped by the Christian faith.
There could well be some truth in the above, but…
The early Centuries after the death of Jesus those who lived by their confession that ‘Jesus is Lord’ were truly marginalised. Embedded in the Imperial world always living with the threat that they would not be able to buy and sell. So maybe if there is truth in the marginalisation / persecution narrative perhaps it will serve to bring us closer to the context (and faith?) of the New Testament. [A story: when back in the day and Gayle and I were travelling we had just finished a conference with a couple who are fairly well-known in the Christian world (many who read this post probably have a copy of one of their books on their shelves). We were told to get guns and be armed… initially I thought this is a joke with a punch line. However no punch line but the explanation that Muslims have a vision for Europe so we need to be ready to kill them! My reply – maybe for the sake of the Gospel ‘they’ might have to kill us… That story illustrates two different world-views.]
I read recently that 1) there is no God other than the Jesus-looking God, who is 2) looking for a Jesus-looking people who 3) are seeking to engage with the wider world in a Jesus-looking way. All views of engaging with the world need to be shaped in that way. Turning the other cheek (not a pacifist act but something much deeper), or expressed in summary ‘following the Lamb wherever he goes’… or as summarised ‘loving the enemy’, has to be present.
If we insist on Christianity not being marginalised we need to be sure it is the genuine article… we could end up (and I have a perspective so would use the verb ‘will’ rather than ‘could’) with Christianity re-established and Jesus marginalised. Let us not confuse Christianity with faith in Jesus. As I have oft-written no-one assumed that Paul was calling for those to pray a ‘sinners prayer’ and then attend Bible study sessions. The call was considerably deeper and one that motivated him to get to the ‘centre for the propagation for the gospel’ so that he could declare what he was convinced was the true Gospel in that place (Rome and the letter to the ‘Romans’).
I might be considered weird by some but I am not so weird that I am asking for all aspects of the Christian faith to be marginalised(!) but I am suggesting that we are at a very intense time of reset when either there will be ‘success’ in the traction to make Christianity central again, or… I like the ‘or’.
The central body of faith in Jesus’ time classified people as ‘sinners’. It was not as simple as ‘they broke the commandments’ but that they did not follow our tradition. One cannot come up with a one view as to why Jesus died but one aspect concerning his death was that he ate with the wrong people. Part of the ‘or’ alternative will be that a Jesus-looking people will be guilty of eating with the wrong people… of refusing to have arms and accepting the injustice of marginalisation.
If the restoration of Christianity means the marginalisation of Jesus and the marginalisation of Christianity means that Jesus can be witnessed to… I choose the latter. It is probably not a binary choice – but I deeply suspect that the Jesus-way is closer to the latter option than the former.
[W]ho through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received their dead by resurrection. Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, in order to obtain a better resurrection. Others suffered mocking and flogging and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned to death; they were sawn in two; they were killed by the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, persecuted, tormented— of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains and in caves and holes in the ground (Heb. 11:33-38).
