Category: Theology

Carrying God’s image

Posted on
by Simon Swift
Posted in Theology

Another article by Simon Swift on exploring humanity as in the image of God. I particularly liked, ‘As we leave the Garden of Eden to head into the wild. We should not hunger for a return to the garden, rather in the wild we should create a garden’.

In our modern understanding of history and science based fact which is supposed to be based on evidence rather than mythological story telling, we can lose a lot of depth of meaning that can be found in the biblical stories if you take them literally as fact. We have to remember myth does not mean untrue. The Genesis stories are a case in point; especially the first couple of chapters. I find in the creation stories deeper truths can be dug out if you don’t take them literally. It is especially helpful as our own world view changes from that of other generations and we can re-visit the stories to help us understand the world around us and ourselves. The suggestion that we are made in God’s likeness is profound and we would do well to take on board the implications of such a blessing. 

It suggests not so much that we look like God visually, rather we have a destiny within creation to represent God’s intent. I like how Tom Wright(* YouTube Video at the end of the post) advocates that it should not be seen as a static image but a dynamic one. We reflect God’s image into the world through what we do, the way we be, and how creatively we redeem the world through restorative justice. Now if you want a purpose in life I suggest that should be your number one choice.

Perhaps, the story of what we call the fall had to happen. How else would both Adam and Eve be able to tell the difference between good and evil? After all, it was the fact they did not know the difference that led them to eat the apple in the first place. They ended up with knowledge but not wisdom. They were, you could say, immature in how to use this new found knowledge and it led to discovering new emotions like shame and fear. They had to be sent on a journey out of the garden into the wild. Maybe it was God’s intent all along: We as humans have a life which is one big journey through a dark valley where we learn to live in his presence; and waiting for us is an overflowing cup.

Is this not similar to how we grow up, discovering the world is not as safe or as simple as we found it in childhood? Unfortunately we find it difficult to mature into the destiny of reflecting God’s image into the world. There seems to be within the knowledge of good and evil a corrupting temptation which we easily find attractive. The world is cold and dark without a light and so turning to self-preservation we lose sight of who we are as humans. Our ego is prone to make us think the world resolves around us, further drawing us into the trap of selfishness. Unable to see passed our own nose, we do not realise we are walking into the kingdom of death. We create a culture driven by exploitation and lose the delight of beholding creation and of the creator himself. The temptation is for power and control. We celebrate people with such power, we build ever taller towers in homage to it; it becomes our idol. We become owned by an empire based on death and our freedom can only be paid for by blood. Biologically we are human, yet our humanity shrinks in this kingdom of death. In this empire of power, humanity loses its meaning and worth. 

But there is hope. There is one who is fully human and has paid that price of blood. We can now leave behind the kingdom of death and enter into the kingdom of heaven. It is the way of the pilgrim on the narrow road. It winds its way through the dark valley and onward to the overflowing cup; it is still waiting for us. Perhaps it is this journey which gives each of our lives a meaning, finding connection again with the light of the world. A journey of encounter and exploration of God’s love based power. A rebirth into an eternal life connected to the spirit. It may seem counter-intuitive to give ourselves away as we make our way on this pilgrimage, but when we do we find we are filled again with the bread of life.

The challenge for us is to learn how to live immersed in the power of love and freely give that power away into a world run on empire power and death. Have we the courage to live creatively, bringing redemption into the world? The passion enough to see structures, institutions and philosophies stolen from the power of empire, redeemed and repurposed by the creative power of love?  Are we ready to suffer for a kingdom based on love when faced with the demands of the dominating power of empire? Perhaps maturity is to be found in living out a life of love power while still being in enemy territory; not escaping but subverting. 

As we leave the Garden of Eden to head into the wild. We should not hunger for a return to the garden, rather in the wild we should create a garden. Perhaps the wild is, and always was, waiting for us. Waiting for us to learn the way of love, maturing and using the knowledge of good and evil in wisdom. Let us take our destiny, purpose and inheritance as God’s image bearers and give life in all its glory a meaning. The story of Humanity and God is not finished, far from it. The exciting thing is, you and I are writing the story right now. How do you want your chapter to be written?

* N.T. Wright on What It Means To Be An Image Bearer

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Seven Mountains… NO!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Jeff Fountain sends out a ‘weekly word’ and this week he explains that there is not a straight line from Loren Cunningham’s belief in engaging with the seven cultural spheres of influence and what is being taught today. He suggests the difference is essentially bottom-up or top-down. Control or serving. [This could be further explored as from within with a bias toward the marginalised?]

https://weeklyword.eu/en/top-down-or-bottom-up/

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

God or Mammon – Introduction

Posted on
by Adrian Lowe
Posted in Theology

I have known Adrian for some 20 or so years, and he and Marion have given me hospitality on different occasions. Humble, smart and always wishing to be authentic. He recently posted on SubStack this article that he gave me permission to re-post here. The link at SubStack (which also gives a link there to follow his posts) is:

https://open.substack.com/pub/adrianslowedown/p/god-or-mammon-introduction?r=8d2x8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

God or Mammon – Introduction

This is the first in a series of essays exploring the how the architecture of our existence is shaped either by God or Mammon.

In 2005, I resigned from my position as a senior manager at one of the country’s leading retailers to take on the role of lead pastor at my local church. I had worked for Marks and Spencer for nearly 30 years, was 45 years old, and had felt called to serve in paid ministry since the age of 18. Now, one of my dreams was finally being fulfilled. In my mind, I was leaving the relentless, cutthroat commercial world to serve God and His people!

Looking back, in my naivety, I had failed to fully comprehend that the free-market ideology underpinning the cutthroat commercial world I had left behind held no respect for the imagined boundaries I believed existed between the sacred and the secular—the church and the world. As time went on, it became clear that the lifeblood of “buying and selling” coursed deeply through the veins of the many different forms of church. In truth, much of what I had thought of as “church”—local, national, and global—seemed gripped by the forces of commodity, commerce, and consumerism. Beneath the jargonized spirituality lay the acquisitiveness of the shopper and the shop, the client and the service provider!

Of course, it became starkly apparent that I hadn’t escaped its talons either. While taking some time out on retreat, ten years into my newfound ministry, it dawned on me that in many ways, I had remained a “shopkeeper,” focused on keeping my “customers” happy. I felt as though I was struggling to breathe under the mounting pressure to lead people into ever-new and greener pastures. During this time, I came to realize that the treadmill was less a material reality than an existential one—it lived within me, providing an overarching narrative that governed and judged not only my ministry but my life as well. Anxiety and fear gnawed at my calling, leaving me to wonder whether, as a shepherd of the flock, I could ever truly satiate the deep longing of those I led.

By the grace of God, while on retreat, I came across John chapter 6 and the story of Jesus’ challenge to Philip to feed the five thousand. “‘…He said to him, ‘Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?’ He asked this only to test him…” (John 6:5-6). In short, Philip’s conclusion is that, however long he laboured (on the treadmill), he could never satiate the appetite of those who had gathered. You know the rest of the story! Jesus goes on to describe himself as the bread that comes down from heaven—sustenance and satisfaction without human labour and free from the notion of buying and selling.

My eyes were opened. To use the Apostle Paul’s words, my struggle was not merely with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers that sought to govern, regulate, and codify not only my life but also the very essence of what it means to be human. A friend refers to these as “the faceless powers that seek to control and influence us.” I wonder—can we put a name to any of these faceless powers? I believe we can!

‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.’

Genesis chapter one, verse one, furnishes us, its readers, not just with an account of a God whose creative genius is of cosmic proportions, but also bequeaths us a vision of who God is. Yahweh, by nature, transcends the dark, chaotic mass of the material world and is revealed as the architect of a different reality—a bringer of light where there was darkness and order where there was chaos. His work is to create an architecture for existence—an environment that enables us as humans, God’s image-bearers, to flourish.

Everything has a beginning; all that was created had a starting point, an origin, and Yahweh is that person. The meta-narrative of the creation story teaches us that everything that exists has its origin in something or someone that transcends the material world. It is the transcendent that illuminates our way, brings order to our chaos, and gives shape, form, and meaning to our lives. To use the apostle Paul’s words, the world “in which we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28) finds its structure, definition, and purpose in the story of whichever ‘god’ we serve. The narrative of the Bible is that the very architecture of existence—what it means to be human and ‘do life’—is founded in the person of God.

Yahweh, the God of the creation narrative, is by His very nature a relational being. He is the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is no surprise that the four primary pillars that support the perfect environment for human flourishing, that is for our living, moving, and having our being, are central in the creation story and that all are relational. First and foremost, though not standing in isolation from the other pillars, is our relationship with the transcendent—with God. Secondly, our relationship with ourselves—knowing myself. Thirdly, knowing one another—we are sociological beings. And finally, our relationship with the earth, the planet, the world, with which we have been entrusted. In the creation story, God constitutes reality by giving His order, shape, and purpose in and through relationships.

If, as it seems to me Paul suggests when he confronts Athenian idolatry, our living, moving, and being find their origin in the ‘god’ that we worship and serve, then it follows that both our individual lives and our collective life can be ordered, shaped, and empowered by ‘another god.’

Which brings us to the words of Jesus:

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon.” (Matthew 6:24)

Jesus’ words are profound, clear, and indisputable. We are faced with an ‘either or’ decision. There are two ‘gods,’ two voices that transcend our material world and potentially give purpose, structure, and definition both to our individual and collective ‘living, moving, and being.’ They configure the very framework [PF1] of our collective human existence. Unsurprisingly, they are described relationally, using the terms of love and devotion, and thus it is that both compete for our affection. Ultimately, there are just two ways the world can be ordered. There are just two masters calling for humankind’s fidelity. Humanity must elect to serve God or Mammon. By implication, our collective decision will have a radical impact on the four relational pillars of creation that we talked about earlier. How I understand and relate to myself, how I relate to my neighbour, and how I relate to the world in which I live—these relationships, which have been critical to human flourishing from the beginning, take their form from our worship. These are two opposing kingdoms, and each has an ideological and theological framework that dictates the structure—the architecture—of human existence. The altar at which we sacrifice delineates the architecture of our collective life.

After all, Jesus teaches us that the dwelling-place of God, heaven, is not an ‘otherworldly’ destination, an upward trajectory, or a future disembodied reality. Quite the opposite: it’s a downward trajectory, from heaven to earth. Not only does Jesus teach His disciples to pray, ‘Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven,’ but the apostle John also sees a ‘Holy City…coming down out of heaven.’ Both suggest that heaven’s design must affect the earth’s architecture. So, in His declaration, “You cannot serve God and Mammon,” “No one can serve two masters,” Jesus is suggesting that there are two principal ways in which life in the ‘here and now’ is ordered. There’s the order of God, heaven’s architecture, or alternatively, the world is organized and codified by an alternative transcendent personality, another ‘god.’ Just perhaps, there’s another potential superpower called ‘Mammon,’ enticing humankind into a relationship, ultimately demanding its own code of sacrificial devotion. When Jesus talks about Mammon, it seems to me He’s not merely referring to money—pounds and pence, dollars and dimes. I want to suggest He’s talking about a global social and cultural architecture, an ideology, and its power to systematically control us and the rest of creation – the four pillars of our shared life. This is a ‘god’ that not only exerts its power in shaping an economic vision—which, of course, controls us—but more than that, ‘Mammon’ fundamentally shapes human relationships. This other ‘god,’ like all ‘other gods,’ is by its very nature formational; its character is discipling. It configures our ecological, sociological, and psychological relationships—how we relate to the planet, the people around us, and perhaps most critically, it shapes our identity—our ‘self.’

This ‘either or’ that Jesus articulates is nothing new. There are a great number of Old Testament texts that allude to the need for a life-defining ‘either or’ decision. I’ll mention just three.

First, Moses in Ancient Israel. In the Sinai covenant, the practice of which finds its outworking in the book of Deuteronomy, Moses articulates a clear and decisive ‘either or’ that ancient Israel was faced with. The Ten Commandments call Israel to covenantal fidelity and the loving of their neighbour as self (Exodus 20:1-7). This text is part of the re-imaging of life post-Israel’s emancipation from Pharaoh’s predatory social, economic, and spiritual system in which they had been held captive in Egypt for over 400 years. In the passage, Moses seeks to fend off the “Canaanite” alternative that eventually seduced Israel away from their covenantal fidelity. The term “Canaanite” used in this context is not a reference to ethnicity but alludes to spiritual and socioeconomic [PF2] practices that dehumanize life by the process of commodification, turning neighbours into greedy competitors. They risk a return to the slavery they had been liberated from. Moses identifies the way of the covenant or the “Canaanite” alternative as an ‘either or,’ a “life or death” decision.

See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the Lord swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob (Deuteronomy 30:15-20).

Moses makes this emphatic declaration because the “Canaanite” alternative appears to offer a life of ease, comfort, and security, when in truth its power is dehumanizing. Eventually, self, neighbour, community, and creation will fall prey to its destructive power.

Secondly, when, finally, Israel is settled in the land of promise, Joshua leads Israel in yet another ‘either or’ decision. He assembles Israel for a critical covenant-making ceremony where he presents his ‘either or,’ exhorting Israel to choose Yahweh, the God of life, and reject all alternatives. ‘Choose this day whom you will serve.’

Now, therefore, revere the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods that your ancestors served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. Now if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord (Joshua 24:14-15).

And finally, one more example of an Old Testament text that echoes the words of Jesus as He talks about the ‘either or’ of God and Mammon—the prophetic contest on Mt. Carmel. This is where Elijah assembles Israel to hear yet another dramatic ‘either or’ when he says:

How long will you go on limping with two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him. (1 Kings 18:21).

Elijah tells Israel they can’t have it both ways, saying it’s not possible to be faithful worshipers of God while assimilating the way’s of Ball, the god who embodies the world of commodity, productivity, and profit. They have to decide: who will they serve, God or Baal (Mammon)?

As we have already seen, Jesus stands in the same covenantal tradition as His forbears as He exhorts His listeners, including us, to make a similar ‘either or’ decision. In Christ, we too now stand in that same covenantal tradition and are being challenged to make a similar choice, ‘choose this day whom you will serve,’. And like in the day of Moses or Joshua, it’s a life-or-death decision. Who will we allow to give purpose, structure, and definition to our lives, both individually and collectively?

I am convinced that it is the spirit of Mammon that empowers postmodern capitalism’s ‘Machine’ [PF3] and fuels materialism and consumerism, creating a paradigm of reality defined by ‘things.’ Our consumer culture is driven by the myth of secularism—the idea that there is nothing more than stuff, that you are just stuff, so grab all the stuff you can before you die. This is the ‘god’ of commodification, and it is inherently dehumanizing. Mammon also ignites an obsession with progress—progress at all and any cost. Value is measured by productivity; we become monstrously performance-driven, and our worth is calculated based on outcomes. All this results in us all wanting more for less. This is a world order where accumulation is the goal, economic viability is the wise arbiter, people are assets or products, what they can do is more important than who they are, and so human beings become human doings. Mammon is the ‘god’ behind the ‘Machine’ and the author of objectification, disavowing us of our humanity by exchanging human dignity for utilitarian value. Under Mammon’s tyrannical reign, we humans are progressively dehumanized. As God’s image-bearers, we are demeaned, His image is diminished, and we struggle to flourish.

Mammon is more than an ideology; it’s theological. It assumes a transcendent status and is more akin to religion. The ‘Machine’ is a ‘god’ who doesn’t just require mental assent to a political or cultural idea but insists on soulish devotion and fidelity, often demanding sacrifice from followers enticed into servitude and spellbound by its promise of progress, anticipating the next breakthrough.

In this next series of essays, I am going to attempt to explore our contemporary culture’s social, economic, and spiritual enslavement to the tyrannical rule of Mammon. I aim to uncover the methodology of the dehumanizing stealth ‘Machine’ and how it has systematically degraded our vision of what it means to be fully human. I also hope to show that we are not without hope! The story of God, which culminates in the birth, life, death, resurrection and intercession of the God-man Jesus, makes the claim that it’s possible to make an Exodus from the tyrannical rule and enslavement to the powers of Mammon. And so, I also hope that we’ll unearth some of the ways the Gospel liberates us from the treadmill of the Machine.

I must say, I remain ever grateful for the gift of Walter Brueggemann. If you can be discipled by reading, he is my Rabbi. I am also deeply appreciative of the insightful, timely and prophetic perspectives of Paul Kingsnorth. Both Walter and Paul have been a source of inspiration for my writing.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Give me a title

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

By default we are so accustomed to describe biblical writers as (e.g.) ‘the apostle Paul’ thus both giving him a title and therefore authority. Jesus in critiquing the scribes and Pharisees stating that they ‘take the seat of Moses’ (position of authority above others) says that in contrast those who follow his path are to be careful to shun titles that support hierarchies.

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father, the one in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted (Matt. 23:8-12).

In Luke’s Gospel he describes himself as ‘one among you’:

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 (Luke 22:25-27).

Shaped by the age to come… living within this age… the tension is present, but we have to live from the age that has been inaugurated by Jesus. Titles… They have to be pushed away; hierarchies have to be resisted; gifts and callings respected – but they cannot be allowed to obscure ‘you are all brothers and sisters’ and we have to be ‘among’ one another.

Paul: an apostle. He was clear as to who he was called to be. In prison he does not write as ‘Paul, a prisoner, apostolic call temporarily on hold till I get out of here and demonstrate my authority’. If he was the apostle Paul he would be above everyone and the title would give him authority, but because he was an apostle he now was accountable to live up to that calling.That would place him under authority/ the authority of heaven, the accountability to heaven.

When pushed to tell a story of his heavenly encounter (2 Cor. 12) he uses less-than-veiled language that makes it clear that he is writing about himself. How does he describe himself?

I know a person in Christ.

A person in Christ! This is why he ends in some measure of internal conflict. He defends himself and claims he is not lesser than the ‘super-apostles’. As I read it he seems to be unclear if he has done the right thing in describing his experience, but what remains clear is he is (simply) a person in Christ. No title can replace or improve that description.

To be in Christ, to be among and alongside others who are in Christ; to be Christ to one another.

There is coming a revolution. There always has been a revolution, for the democratisation of the Spirit at Pentecost has effected that revolution (‘all flesh’ and particularly the margins mark Pentecost) so that all can hear the voice of heaven in their language. The Spirit and the democratic revolution; our resistance exemplified by the pedestals that we create. The revolution is picking up speed and momentum. Discrediting is here and will cast a wider net resulting in babies thrown out with bath water. The revolution will increase and ‘these signs’ will follow. Yes, perhaps, those who are living the life of ‘an apostle’ might need to be present at times (Dorcas is raised from the dead by Peter though she died in a community that was acquainted with the miraculous) to keep the bar raised high, but if they come with their title, let’s not be surprised when we are disappointed.

The titles, and the positions – and by positions I also mean our self positioning with respect to others – let them go; ‘persons in Christ’, let us connect with the revolution.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Asiarchs on board

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I came across this verse about the ‘Asiarchs’ – or maybe it came across me – about a decade ago. It had always been there but it jumped out of the page.

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 (Acts 19:30,31).

So backing up a little… Paul’s time in Ephesus was quite remarkable. Two years of lectures in the hall of Tyrannus with the message getting out far and wide – to the whole region of the Roman province of ‘Asia’ and to both Jews and Gentiles; handkerchiefs being taken to those who needed healing; burning of books that were steeped in occult (Ephesus has been shown to be a major centre for occult with many ‘magic papyri’ having been discovered) and a turning away from occult with ‘the word of the Lord growing mightily and prevailing’ (Acts 19:20).

And major objections that centre around two elements, the economy and religion (what has changed with that!). So a riot begins. [Those two elements – mammon (and the previous post on ‘Moloch’ has a tie to this) and religion will always come to the fore when there is a clear advance of something genuine coming from heaven to a region or culture.]

So Paul decides to be superman and calm down the crowd and he aims to go into the (open air) theatre. The disciples resisted him doing this. Understandably so as they value his life. However it is the next response that stands out with some of the ‘Asiarchs’ (they are not disciples, and Luke indicate that this response was of some of the Asiarchs) who were friends of Paul who also did not want him to risk his life. Here is a description of who the Asiarchs were:

An official of the province of Asia, Asiarch, a wealthy and influential man, probably connected with the Imperial cult; an Asiarch, an officer in the province of Asia, as in other eastern provinces of the Roman empire, selected, with others, from the more opulent citizens, to preside over the things pertaining to religious worship, and to exhibit annual public games at their own expense in honor of the gods, in the manner of the aediles at Rome

They were the representatives of the imperial cult, commissioned to maintain the order that would hold in place Roman Imperial customs, culture and religious affiliation. Paul’s message ‘Another Caesar’; Paul’s denial that Rome brought peace; that Caesar was not ‘king of kings’ nor ‘lord of lords’; that the good news did not come from the centre of the world but from the unique crucified one… his message was not one that was ‘good news’ to Asiarchs. It was a message that they had to be opposed to and in the current situation what an opportunity to rid themselves of the messenger who was nothing but a thorn in their flesh.

We have reduced the message to something ‘spiritual’ and private and due to our blindness to the context (a huge Imperial rule) and language (even words such as ekklesia, gospel, peace carried strong political connotations) we have failed to see that ‘sins forgiven’ was one element in the proclamation. We don’t know what the contents of Paul’s lectures were, but I suspect they must have covered a whole range of topics, and given the wider message of his gospel huge elements must have challenged the Asiarchs and their vision. Paul – Paul as the messenger of the God who raised the Jewish Messiah from the dead – had a vision for a different world. A different economics, a different society; something that had not been seen before. Something very down to earth and only utopian in the sense it had not yet been manifest anywhere.

Asiarchs who were not (as we would say) ‘Christians’, and among them some were taken by the vision of the future. [An aside that could be explored – were they followers of Jesus but not ‘Christian’… and are all ‘Christians’ followers of Jesus?] The dynamic in Ephesus was not of getting ‘Christians’ to the top of the ladder so that they had the power to bring about change – I think the book of Revelation would shout loud at that point ‘deception’; neither was it ‘we got to get all those influential people saved’. Maybe it was more let us discover the hope that is in us, a hope for this world, so that it permeates us and we can articulate our hope for a different world / society; let us be open to one and all so that there is a genuine friendship bond; and if there is enough authenticity about us maybe some of the Asiarchs will pull for that same new world that we have articulated.

Years ago Steve Lowton said to me ‘Scotty you have not changed’ with a sideways reference back to the wonderful crazy days of prayer for city transformation. I hope what he said is true. It is not about ‘Christians’, ‘believers’, ‘the church’ being at the centre of change as if we are the ones, but it is about those who have been touched by the powers of a different age taking responsibility for our world so that Asiarchs are not colonised, controlled, nor even converted to serve our narrow agenda, but are envisioned to put their own reputation, careers on the line because they have seen a new tomorrow that has never been manifest before.

I honestly think the ‘Gospel’ proclamation is crazy. But I believe it to be true. It is based on the resurrection – you cannot find the body is to make a crazy claim… but I believe it to be true. He is the firstborn of all creation.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

How complex is ‘Moloch’

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The foreign deity ‘Moloch’ was one that required child sacrifice as part of the ritual. Crazy as it sounds, imagine for a moment the ‘Moloch’ evangelist coming to town (evangelist = proclaimer of good news so a rather large oxymoron there!). Presentation of the advantages of acknowledging the deity, and then comes the requirements – sacrifice your child, preferably your first-born. And amazingly the deity has takers. What is going on here?

There is a very sobering account of the sacrifice of a first-born by the king of Moab:

When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through opposite the king of Edom, but they could not. Then he took his firstborn son who was to succeed him and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land (2 Kings 3:26,27).

Sacrifice tomorrow to obtain something today is at the heart of all this. How do we get prosperity today – the sacrifice of tomorrow will appease the ‘gods’. Favour will come for us once we sacrifice the future… the next and future generations.

We see this in motion with climate change such as in this recent report:
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/climate-set-warm-by-31-c-without-greater-action-un-report-warns-2024-10-24/
Our behaviour today and our willingness to bury our head in the sand means rather than storing something good for the next generation(s) we are, at the minimum, making it harder for them to do well, and perhaps actively annihilating the human race in the process. Of course we can hide behind it is all going to burn up anyway, ignoring that is NOT what the good book says and our requirement to steward what is here from one generation to the next.

We see the sacrifice of tomorrow for current blessing in the mouths of so many politicians with their appeal to go back to some apparent good old day… where is the imagination among them for the future? Oh, I guess if that imagination is not there in the hearts of those who follow the God who raised Jesus from the dead as the ‘firstborn of all creation’ why should we expect it to be in the heart of politicians – so the reverse of the Pauline trajectory where the ‘Asiarchs’ were not even settling for maintaining the prosperity of Rome but were fascinated by Paul’s future political vision.

So in summary ‘Moloch’ might not manifest as a big bad deity demanding blood… but probably is too visible in other forms, particularly in the agreement with mammon.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Right and wrong?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Oh my we do get ourselves into all kinds of jiggery pokeries when we try to work out what is right and what is wrong.

Thou shalt not kill / murder (Exod. 20:13)

Seemed appropriate to use the thee / thous there as it just adds such a weight to it all!!! Then down the centuries the ‘just war theory’ has developed; an ‘ah yes but…’ response to not killing. (Attributed to Augustine of Hippo but within many ancient cultures prior to Augustine – in Egypt, Greece, Rome and beyond.) Then to make it all a bit harder for us all killing an animal for food in the wrong way was counted as bloodshed in ancient Israel,

If anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp or slaughters it outside the camp and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, to present it as an offering to the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord, he shall be held guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood, and he shall be cut off from the people (Lev. 17:3,4).

And given nothing can atone for the shedding of blood,

You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it (Num. 35:33).

the person ‘murdering’ an animal was expelled from the covenant people.

Discerning what is right and wrong is not so easy at times, and not so easy as the law was a gift to Israel and cannot be divided into moral, ceremonial and civil law… it was one whole package to regulate life and practice in Israel. Legalism pulls us back to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so if we are pursuing the tree of life what might be some of the considerations? Here I present 3 guiding principles that might be considered. See what you think – relational, eschatological and redemptive.

Relational

So then, putting away falsehood, let each of you speak the truth with your neighbor, for we are members of one another.

Put away falsehood – so much stronger than ‘don’t lie’. It is possible not to lie but to leave a false impression, defending ourselves with ‘I never said that’. Speech is central but there is something deeper going on here. ‘Falsehood’ is also translated as ‘deception’, so there is a deep call to live transparently where the gap between what is private and what is public is increasingly getting smaller. It has to include self-deception, for any level of self-deception / lack of self-honesty will be reflected in how we present to others.

For we are members of one another. Not even ‘we are fellow members of a group’ but inter-connected to others. There is a relational dynamic at the heart of this requirement. It amazes me how many times we do not connect the dots. We can complain about the lack of honesty in our world but have opportunity to be transparent and pass it up. When Gayle and I first moved to Oliva we had a knock on the door. A neighbour…. after the initial ‘hola, estamos vecinos…’ came ‘how much did you pay for the apartment?’ What an opportunity. So I started with figures. He stopped me and left to come back two minutes later with pen and paper so he could write everything down. Price paid, tax to government, renovations made etc. Totalled it and looked at his wife with first a finger indicating Gayle and I then a hand on his chest indicating them. ‘They are rich, we are poor.’ I said ‘correct’. They had two cars, we had been without a car for 5 years; we had one apartment, they had 5 properties. We were truly rich and they poor (as perceived within themselves) and we are rich in the global scene. I chose to give them all the details as our intention was how can we live here transparently… if ever they and other neighbours are to share our faith they have to see our lives – the good, the bad and the ugly.

Eschatological

We are to give an answer for the hope that is in us… how then are we to live in the light of the coming of the Lord… we will all be judged by what we have done… masters treat your slaves well for you have a master in heaven… Eschatology might be the study of the end but the resurrection and outpoured Spirit means what is to come is being tasted now. We live as aliens in this world as we belong now to another (a new) creation. This is not a mandate to believe this ‘world is not my home I am just a passing through’ but to live from that coming – and what has already come – age in the here and now. What do we see of that coming age, for that has to shape our responses now. No outsiders; always a fresh opportunity; no tears; destruction; devastation… and so we can add to those descriptions. If it does not exist in the age to come we cannot justify it in this age as being something we accept. This was the driving element in the abolition of slavery, the freedom of the genders… and of course in our current scene something that has to be central in any consideration regarding discussions on same-sex relationships. Beyond Scripture is the call of Scripture!! [Please don’t read contra-Scripture into that statement.]

This eschatological aspect is why we have to go so far beyond the goal of getting people over a line, so that they are ‘born again’. Living in an old creation or in a new creation is surely the marker, and we can so easily slip back into what we think is ‘the world we live in’.

Redemptive

Can we always do what is right, in the sense of what is ‘perfect’? That is like asking can we unscramble eggs and put them back in the egg-shell. Thank God for redemption, not for perfection. Life goes wrong; circumstances come along that are far from ideal. Our choice as we get involved is to try and find the most redemptive way forward. That is nearly always what nurtures the relationship, amidst the mess that cannot be neatly resolved. If we do not do this we lose relationship on the basis of ‘we are holding to a principle that we know is right’. We see this right from the beginning, (though myth it might be, but so strong in theology) when Adam and Eve left the garden God left with them and became visible on the road to Emmaus; the sentence of death something that God carried with them… and moving forward to Cain, rather than God pronounce the law over Cain for murder God covered and protected Cain (another reason why we cannot look the law as an absolute).

If we stop asking what is the right thing but what is the most redemptive way forward we will be acting eschatologically and relationally… I consider that is more closely aligned to the tree of life and will enable us to stop looking at the fruit that looks good to eat, that fruit that will make us like ‘god’… and perhaps as we do that we will become slightly more god-like ‘accidentally’!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A very big paradigm shift

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Maybe one of the biggest paradigm changes to consider would be as I try to describe below…

In our evangelical world there are some paradigms that are shifting such as a very helpful and necessary move away from this world is dispensable and salvation is a ticket to heaven with some kind of eternal celestial spiritual life at death / parousia to that of thinking of the fulfilment of the Genesis story being that of a ‘new heaven and new earth’, the restoration of creation. The former view is very Hellenistic (influenced by Greek philosophy) and lends itself to language such as ‘saving souls’, or ‘soul winning’.

If we push the shift even further to where the ekklesia, those in Christ through a conscious response to the Jesus of history, are more to be the redeeming community rather than the redeemed community where might that take us? Or to make that clearer rather than the task of the ‘church’ to be that of ‘saving souls’ but to work in the direction of the redemption / rebirth of the world. If that be the only emphasis we could well lose the wonderful aspect of how it is within community that we find healing for our ‘souls’, but without the shift of emphasis that I propose I think we will continue to move far away from the call of Abraham – the father of faith for us all – and thus the call for the nations of the earth to be blessed.

I consider that there is a major shift taking place and where the soil will settle after this shaking of all things is hard to see with all the current dust and debris. We cannot simply carry on as is and if we take the disciples’ prayer seriously then our eyes have to shift to the here and now so that it moves toward the there and then.

I am deeply grateful for the path I have come along. Yesterday a person brought me an article I wrote some 35+ years ago. I cringe when I read it – how to shape Christian community. Ever so clear but filled with a world view of opposition to the world with a drive of our task being to get ‘them’ in ‘here’! I am grateful for the path but the landscape changes as one travels. What one saw then is not what one sees later on the path, and the future will open new horizons and the future will give us sight beyond belief.

Ekklesia is being taught to embrace the world and be embedded in the world; we are being encouraged to stop trying (emphasis on trying) to save souls and be a witness (so what is different in my household to next door?) so that people see / hear Jesus and can respond. As they do the redeeming community can recognise and support their creational context and gifting.

A mess partly results. But maybe if my Hebrew was better (existed at all!) we might then consider something akin to the opening words of Scripture – when God (the redeeming community) began to create (participate in the work of the values of heaven being expressed on the earth) the whole thing was chaotic, without any real shape or content.

The above is not a theoretical paradigm shift but one that is being forced upon us (in the Western world). Christendom is over and I meet many people who quote to me how intellectuals are expressing how the Western world has been shaped by Judeo-Christian values and then hold forth hope for a return to that context. (I think I might adjust the viewpoint to ‘some Judeo-Christian values’ while ignoring others.) Regardless the challenge of faith is to be shaped by the future not by the past, and the next couple of decades will be the context for the transference of those of faith into the ‘field’ which is the world so that wheat and weeds can grow together for harvest.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Forgive! Hey, slow down

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

You got to forgive… so often so true as holding on to a grievance is not smart, and as is said bitterness is to drink of the poison one wants someone else to be drinking. But been thinking a bit lately – always dangerous I know!

I have been looking at the three big words that are used to describe the catch-all word ‘sin’ and the one I have focused on is ‘trespass’. Crossing boundaries, overstepping a line – that kind of meaning. Immediately after Matthew’s account of the disciples’ prayer he records Jesus as saying,

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (Matt.6;14,15).

How do we trespass? There are the obvious ways – crossing a boundary that we should not… the ‘original’ sin is described by Paul in Rom. 8 as a trespass (paraptoma). Our ancestors crossed a boundary, ‘do not eat from the one forbidden tree’ – a critique of global history in that prohibition. We cross boundaries every time we seek to control / manipulate someone else, and there are many warnings in Scripture about moving boundary markers.

And the non-obvious ways, when we are being ever so good and our ‘kindness’ and ‘love’, so wanting the best for someone (cos we really know what is the best for them) we simply go too far. Paul said live at peace (and being a Jew he is thinking ‘shalom’) with all as far as is possible – sometimes the other party draws a line, with a ‘so far but no further’. To go beyond the line they draw – maybe that is a trespass?

I came back the other day to say to Gayle that I am challenged about a situation I am praying into, in that maybe I should stop praying about it and simply trust God that s/he is right in there and does not need any prayers that simply help settle any anxieties I have. Maybe to be prayerful I need to pray less about it. So easy to cross boundaries without realising it.

Forgive us our trespasses. Forgiveness. I like one of the uses of the word ‘forgive’. It was used in ancient Greek of the release of a boat to its journey. How about applying that to situations. Untie the situation / person and release them (thank God that s/he travels with them – after all s/he left the ‘garden’ with our ancestors). We can hold on too tight, not always to a wrong done to us, but to the ‘I am so important and vital and know what is best’ scenario.

Living a godly life seems not to be so much about being good as being made well.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Is theology useful?

Posted on
by Simon Swift
Posted in Theology

Simon Swift (UK) is someone I met on Zoom and, like so many of us, in seeking to engage with the who and what of our context has explored what a biblically-informed faith and beliefs might look like. I look forward to reading them as they will be practical as well as provocative. Enjoy this first one!

So often one is given the impression that you must have an understanding of God packaged in a set of rules and facts. These facts defining the type of christian you are. Often labelled by this or that theology. This can constrain our ability to develop an understanding of God within the world we live in. Surely theology should be a tool to help us in our discovery of who God is and the on going story of humanity in God’s creation. In other words theology should be a useful guide.

Theology shapes what type of believer you are. It is often defined by the type of church you grew up in or was most exposed to when you became a believer. Yet a lot of Christians are unaware of where their beliefs come from and how they are born out of theological debate and argument. There are many different church movements and denominations promoting their own theologies as the truth, one wonders which one is right. We should not let theology be a form of christian identification and exclusion.

But what if theology was not meant to be defined in such a tribal way. Instead simply an attempt to be helpful in understanding God and our relationship with him. That these theologies are best understood as forming out of a context of those developing their knowledge of God and faith. A theology based on the Bible, understood through the lens of our circumstances and experience. This will mean that different generations will have a different take on how they interpret what they meet in the scriptures. Even our own experience, language and world view will mean we to have to do the work of developing a theology for our generation. For example, what the gospels meant for black slaves in the historical Americas compared with today’s inner city populations in the UK will be different. How do we in different circumstances and ages relate to God the Father or what does Jesus’ Death on the cross means for those living in the 21st century?

In the west the corporate economic system has struggled to deal with a changing world. The imperial powers have evolved out of industrial revolution to a digital technology driven system. The pressures have lead to the rise of populist politics, culture wars, and the power of social media. In the UK the speed of fake news transmitted around the world led to riots on the streets. Fortunately, what looked like an attempt to destabilise the newly elected government failed and came to nothing, but it has left a scar and the divisions in our society have been exposed. In these turbulent times what has Jesus’ journey to the cross have to say to us?

We do not have fake news, but the Good News. However, if we want to speak into our times and the people of our nations with this good news. We have to learn to interpret Jesus’ teaching, and what the passion of Christ is and able to do, in a way that modern people, whether boomers, x, y, or z generation can understand and see as meaningful to their circumstances. In short what does being set free mean in the modern world of consumerism and digital technology?

Sure you can answer that with a discussion about going to heaven or hell. But does it have any meaning to the people of today? To be honest, it doesn’t mean much to me. I’m a heaven down to earth kind of guy. I’d want to see heaven come down to earth in the here and now. When we meet Jesus for the first time we are helped by the holy spirit and find it a wonderful experience, but then comes the settling down as we go to church and are invited to read the Bible. That can be difficult without help and the cultural gap between us and the ancients is massive. Here theology can come to the rescue. But if the theology is old itself, we can find it difficult to align our own world view and be able to make it meaningful. I’m not saying theologies from older times are wrong, no, they where probably right, but for then. I just question whether they make sense now and do they answer the questions of today. Here is where scholars and academics can be a great benefit in helping us to understand the background to the development of the different theologies.

In many of the stories that fill the Bible we encounter people who often have to go on a journey, discovering who God is. Abraham is a good example. Looking for a fertility god he encounters the creator god. But it takes him a long time to learn this, to be able to comprehend the magnitude of the promise he is given. When we read his and other stories from the Jewish scriptures, do we get it, do we see the Father God of creation, of his son Jesus or do we just see an archetypal god of wrath and judgement?

In the gospels, as we follow the stories of the disciples, we see the change in their understanding. In particular Peter, his perception of Jesus and his relationship with him changes, their relationship strained and almost broken. Yet it was always about a living relationship that created a meaningful faith for Peter and a deep friendship between both of them.

Is theology of any use? I think so. Just as Jesus taught his disciples, taking them on a journey of discovering faith. So too we journey in our faith, we too have to grow in our relationship with the trinity and have our worldview impacted by the gospels. The theologies we have can help us in that journey. But for us to grow we must understand our theologies are never complete. That some of our understanding will be wrong. We must be able to hold such theories lightly, letting go of them if needs be. There is such a thing as bad theology. We must temper our knowledge with love, gaining wisdom to avoid theologies that bring hate and division.

We do need theology, allowing it to inform us, giving us a good foundation to build our faith on. However, we must remember our lived out relationship with God, the Son and Holy Spirit within creation and expressed in our lives will teach us: there is always more than we know and the adventure of life is to find out.

Our theologies should be capable of equipping us to speak in our modern language, into our world, to our times, bringing the freedom of the Gospels and the kingdom of heaven down to earth. Just one word of warning, the Gospels are not conservative; they are radical. Jesus has a habit of upsetting the apple cart. If we want to speak into our world, are we ready for that, those of you living in the western world?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives