Category: Theology

Going beyond the [B]ook

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

For the past few weeks I have been lamenting, well occasionally reflecting. I am not very good at reflecting, and as for lamenting – not even too sure I know what the word means.

My reflectful lament has been over the four books written so far – the two you all rushed to buy and the two in the pipeline for publication. I have realised that the readership will be predominantly people like me (not the majority world). People who have a strong background in the evangelical (and likely charismatic) world but are willing to consider concepts that some think are outside the box. I am not going to get an atheist to read them and desire to join a zoom group, but I sure would love honest dialogue in that direction. Not to ‘convert’ them (when was that part of the job description of the Great Commission?) but to present Jesus as the ‘face’ of God and as the ‘face’ of ‘actualised’ humanity – OK theologically ‘true humanity’.

So I have made a start at writing for that audience, and also for those who do not position themselves completely at that end of the spectrum of faith / non-faith. (The other audience I would love to dialogue with are those born after 1980, so help me God!) I am not writing an apologetic, there are others much better equipped at that, but trying to write something that is open and transparent. It is interesting in trying to do that cos one’s own presuppositions have to be challenged in the process. A few days ago I said to a friend / neighbour who expressed (past tense) he was an atheist, and then (present tense) ‘I would like to believe, but…’, that perhaps faith wise I need him as much as he needs me. I need him to challenge my faith, cos although faith cannot explain everything it must have substance.

I am planning an opening chapter on Jesus and a second one on our holy book, the Bible. In doing so I wrote the obvious concerning Jesus that he grew up in a prejudiced world, that was also fed by an interpretation of the holy scrolls that he looked to. It is hard to believe Jesus also did not have biased perspectives, particularly with respect to Gentiles and women. Scripture clearly says he ‘became mature’ through what he learned, and as I have written in an earlier post he is the great teacher because he was the GREAT LEARNER. It is amazing that he broke through beyond the culture and his own preconceived perceptions. To be fully mature by 33, and in that culture… Here I am all-but double that age and… (Any way to follow this through the interaction with Gentiles and women is very informative to observe the learning process in Jesus.)

The guidance that the holy scrolls gave Jesus is instructive for us and the guidance we receive from the Bible. Today I wrote:

Jesus was so far ahead of his culture and setting, and that his holy book (set of scrolls) both helped to shape his life and thoughts and at the same time restricted his progress. And of course this is something we have to consider also when we as Christians read our holy book, the Bible, consisting of Old and New Testaments.

Never articulated it like this before, but seemed obvious as the words appeared on my screen. We are very grateful for Scripture. Jesus must have been so grateful as he meditated on texts and saw in them his true identity and destiny. I am not sure if the right word is ‘balance’, but let me use that. We have to balance that invaluable guide that the Scriptures are with the realisation that we can also be restricted by the pages we read. Of course there are good restrictions, but there are also restrictions that prevent us moving beyond the pages. Yes beyond. For the Scriptures are to speak of Jesus, not of themselves, and Acts 28 is an unfinished record of the continuation of what Jesus is doing and teaching. A progression beyond has to faithfully follow the trajectory set out but if the whole journey is not described in the pages we have to go beyond.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

This time – it is the end

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

COVID-19; no-deal Brexit a real possibility; recount the election AGAIN; Jewish group not happy with arms deal to UAE; Santa on strike and no Christmas pudding in the shops. Any combination of the above of course can be read as signs of the times that the end is here within view.

There could be an end in view of course with democracy being repeatedly challenged, or the possible economic outcome of a non-deal for the UK, or if the virus is only the first of a number to whack us this century. End of the world? No, but the end of certain states of play as we have them. That has always been the case and societal endings are often amidst crisis, something giving way for something else to rise in its place, either something better or worse.

I have completed four books – two waiting publication – and am just hanging around a little before finding the right direction for the final three. I intend them to be on our future hope, but with a flashy title of course. Not sure what to write as on many of the classic themes (Middle Eastern conflict; Armageddon; great persecution; rapture; millennium; antiChrist) I think the Bible is either silent or quite eloquent as to why we really should not go there. If I go down the silence of Scripture route not a lot of material for a series of three books – simply a page in large print with the words from the parenthesis above and then a dash and the word NOT following it.

So while hanging around, a short little explanation here. There are ‘horizons’ in view in Scripture. (Back in the day writers such as George Ladd gave a helpful way of describing the Jews with one horizon, a future that marked the two epochs of ‘this age’ and the ‘age to come’, which the NT separated the division yet further with the kingdom being ‘already but not yet’. Helpful but over-simplified. Reading the Scriptures even more consistently as historic-narrative N.T. Wright, and even more radically Andrew Perrimann, opens up a slightly more complex view – one horizon becomes further divided.)

Although it is not totally accurate to say ‘the Jews believed…’ as there were diverse beliefs among Jews, but ignoring that caveat the Jews believed in a future horizon, when Messiah would appear and there would be a total re-ordering of the world (NB: not much ‘going off to heaven’ going on here; we have the Greeks to thank for that angle.) Simplistically we could suggest they had a horizon in view; a one-horizon view.

Along comes the Incarnation and for those who believed he was the Messiah, certainly post-the-cross the one-future-horizon was inadequate. Looking back from the resurrection they understood that what took place over that period of time from the first Christmas to the first Easter was a horizon. It was a dramatic intervention of God in the world, into the Jewish context, and at a very specific time, when there was an all but one-world government that was opposed to the values of God, that oppressed all. Peace established through war, so much so that the temple to ‘Peace’ (goddess) was on Mars Hill (Mars being the god of war!). [Netflix have a great series on the Roman Empire that gives some good insights into it.]

That intervention marked something incredible for there was the revelation of who the God who created all things really was. The cross being one of the places where that glory was revealed, hence the self-emptying of Jesus (Phil. 2) can only be understood as a revelation of the eternal nature of God, not something taken on for a short season. (If not yet read I think that Thomas J. Oord, Uncontrolling Love, is so worth a read.)

That first horizon had enormous implications for the world. But first, huge implications for the Jewish world. Into that world came the proclamation of no other name under heaven by which people can be saved (Acts 4:12); not the name of Abraham, the patriarchs, David the idealised king. None of them can do it… this is picked up in Revelation 5 in what I reverently term cartoon form. When we read the New Testament in its historic context, with the majority certainly written before the calamitous era of 66-70AD, we necessarily read the pages somewhat differently. It is not about our day, nor about our future… but is deeply significant for our day and our future.

Leads us to that second horizon that now comes in view. Jesus spoke of a future that would happen within a generation, that the events would be climactic and therefore when it came to fleeing to pray the flight might not be in winter or on the Sabbath – all of which are speaking into a specific geography and a specific time of history. No reason to push it to our future, but to understand it as the foreseeable future of those hearers, and that was the horizon that the early followers of Jesus had understood him to be speaking of. The horizon that culminates a generation after that first Easter. In the final days of that time when, as predicted, ‘the armies shall surround Jerusalem’ the Romans were crucifying up to 500 Jews on a daily basis by the city walls so as those inside knew that their days were numbered. The upside was that this was the sign of the Son of Man coming (Daniel 7), but that upside was an upside in marking the end of an era in terms of the intervention of history, the actual era of history was indeed very painful for the ‘elect’ those who were part of the chosen nation, but had not aligned with the truly elect one.

Given that our writings are pre-70AD whenever we come to future references such as Paul in 2 Thessalonians (maybe 52AD) concerning the ‘man of sin’ there is again no reason to push something beyond the lifetime of the readers, to something that had no reference to their time and setting. I still see such events as past for us, future for them and sitting in that same period of time before the second horizon came fully into view.

A third horizon though does seem to persist through all the writings, and I think it is the horizon that inspires the hope that comes through in Revelation. The book might well have had an initial write in the mid-60s but I stick with a late date (maybe 96AD) for the book as we have it. After the Jewish wars. The focus has switched, the Temple has gone, not one stone upon another left… but the beast has continued, indeed survived against all odds on numerous occasions but particularly in that ‘year of the four emperors’ that took place in the midst of the tumultuous era of the Jewish Wars. Mortal wounds to the head, but continues – that was the story and continues to be the story.

So time to bring this post to its appointed end. ‘Do I believe in a future antiChrist?’ Perhaps and probably as history witnesses to many antiChrists (past) in both limited and all-but universal situations. There is always a tendency to ‘make a name for ourselves’ towers to be raised, along with the witness of Scripture that they will never reach heaven and be permanent. ‘Do I think the Bible predicts a future antiChrist?’ No. No more than it predicted Judas Iscariot, but when the time came it easily said that he fulfilled the Scripture.

Well that would be some of the content to appear somewhere in books 5-7, along with references to the books of Scripture that show how there were clear predictions and also a recording of the history related to the predictions, yet the predictions were not fulfilled. A shocker? Or a nice indicator that prediction like that is not the area that Scripture deals with – rather the category of ‘promise’. Now there’s a thought – fulfilments of Scripture that look nothing like they were predicted. Might just get on with writing those books.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Volume 3 – an extract

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Each volume builds on the former and each time Scott presents something so amazing…’ OK that’s the sales blurb, the real blurb is not quite at that level! It is great doing Zoom calls with people and if I were to write the books after the calls there would certainly be some re-writing involved – and I so thought they were inerrant as originally given.

Anyway – volume 2 is out:

https://www.bozpublications.com/significant-other

Volume 3 is pretty close to ready to go to the final edit and then to the publishers. It is called ‘A Subversive Movement’, building on vol 2 (the political – small ‘p’ – nature of the ekklesia within the Imperial world). I try to move away from the popular ‘seven mountains of influence’ but address such aspects of how would the Gospel help us approach some of the shaping areas of society. In the chapter on Law and order, which I suggest appeals to some Christians as the right / wrong paradigm seems a good fit… However,

  • I suggest the more biblical paradigm is that of life / death, and that the right / wrong paradigm originates in the garden of Eden and where it all went wrong;.
  • That the very strength of (for example) Islamic sharia law is the desire among Christians to get the right / wrong agenda legislated for. Ah well!!

I have over the past two days added a short discourse on ‘Law-Breaking’, civil disobedience if you like. The books are short discussions so I do not cover every aspect but here is the excerpt (there are footnotes in the document – I include them here in brackets):

Law-breaking?

‘Obey the powers, for they are ordained of God’ (loose translation of Romans 13: 1), is used to hold us all in check, but it is doubtful if that is what Paul intended. The passage cannot be taken in an absolute fashion that will never have any exceptions. (Footnote: One of the early Christian martyrs, Polycarp, makes it clear how he read the passage in Romans. Replying to the Roman proconsul he said, “You I might have considered worthy of a reply, for we have been taught to pay proper respect to rulers and authorities appointed by God, as long as it does us no harm; but as for these, I do not think they are worthy, that I should have to defend myself before them.” Polycarp adds some provisos: whether the authorities are worthy and if it does not do harm to the Christian faith.) The immediate context forbids taking a violent stance against powers, (Footnote: Romans 12: 14-21. It seems false to claim that Jesus and the early Christians were pacifists, if by that we mean they did not resist. Resist they did, but the resistance was of a non-violent resistance. The activist, Gandhi, in resisting the British oppressive rule took inspiration from the practice of Jesus.) but the verses that follow (our chapter 13) are contextually written and contain a measure of irony within them. The command to pay taxes was written in the historical context when there was much debate and public unrest with regard to taxation within the city of Rome. (Footnote: The Roman historian, Tacitus, writes of this unrest as coming to a head in 58AD; Paul’s letter to the Romans is normally dated 56 or 57AD.) This is not to suggest that there is no application of these verses beyond the historical context, but to indicate that the letter is written to a specific situation at a specific time. Then with regard to the seeming endorsement of the use of the ‘sword’ by the civil powers there is quite some irony in what he writes. The emperor at the time, Nero, made the claim that he did not need to use the sword to enforce order, such was the benevolent and developed rule that he exercised. (Footnote: The Roman philosopher Seneca (4BC – 65AD) said of Nero that his gift was of ‘a state unstained by blood, and your prideful boast that in the whole world you have shed not a drop of human blood is the more significant and wonderful because no one ever had the sword put into his hands at an earlier age.’ If only that was the case!) Right in the heart of the chapter Paul writes:

But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason (Rom. 13: 4).

In that verse there is a little side-swipe at the lie Imperial power tells. Comply and there will be no ‘sword’, but for those who do not comply? (And given that Paul was probably executed under Nero’s rule shows the irony in the claim that rulers only exercise the sword to punish the wrongdoer!) Any reading of Romans 13 needs to be placed alongside a reading of Revelation 13 where the true nature of Imperial rule is exposed, and all kinds of marginalisation takes place for the non-compliant ones.

Shakespeare wrote an oft-repeated line:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks (from the play ‘Hamlet’).

I suggest we might coin a new phrase that ‘we, the privileged do not protest enough’. There is cautious wisdom within those chapters in Romans dealing with life at the centre of the Empire. Advice such as pay what you owe (13: 6,7) or to live at peace with all, as far as is possible (12: 18) makes good sense in the context. We might paraphrase it as, ‘Choose how you protest, for in your context any protest will have significant repercussions.’ We see the same practical advice regarding marriage in the Corinthian context that Paul gave ‘because of the present crisis’ (1 Cor. 7: 25). Those early Christians living in the seemingly all-powerful world of the Roman empire were indeed living in a time of extreme pressure, and they needed to think carefully about how they responded.

The same practical advice is relevant today, but for those of us whose lives are not threatened by the majority of our actions, we need to consider how best to use that luxury. To protest against persecution, climate crisis and the oppression of voices that challenge the status quo in certain parts of our globe could well be life-threatening. That is not a reason in itself not to protest in those situations, but any response needs to be taken soberly and wisely. However, in other parts of the world (mine included) the luxury of protesting without the consequence of one’s life being threatened means we would have to consider reasons why we would not add our voice and physical presence to those who are protesting and calling for an end to injustice

Such protest might be seen as ‘law-breaking’ but the push back against injustice requires a higher allegiance than that of complying. One might suggest that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was not exactly compliant with Roman or Jewish custom and law! It was indeed a political act against all dominant political power.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Small acts

Two cents worth

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

In editing a chapter in Volume 3 (surely it will be even better than Volumes 1 and 2?) I looked up the references that I was alluding to. I was referencing the widow who put her last couple of pence in the offering. I had written:

Perhaps, in Scripture, the widow who put her small contribution into the Temple treasury made a much bigger contribution than she realised. Did her sacrifice accelerate the coming to an end of such a magnificent and impressive structure?

The chapter I was editing is on how small acts being the catalyst for change, suggesting that although there are times when there are believers who shape the future and are appointed to the realm of the high and mighty (Daniel), that the movement of the ekklesia is a subversive movement, many times unseen and unrecognised. So in tidying the chapter up I thought I would go read the text (never a bad idea!). Here’s what I noticed.

The end of Luke 20 is a rebuke on the religious hierarchy. Jesus’ strongest rebukes were always reserved for those people for they were not releasing the human agency of God to serve their purpose but were in fact using them to serve their own ends, and in the process they,

devour widow’s houses (Luke 20: 47).

In the name of religion they exploit and impoverish those that the law said were to be protected. In the next chapter the opening verses that immediately follow this exposure of what is going on is the story of the widow depositing her last coins in the temple offering:

As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” (Luke 21:1-4).

They devour widows’ houses, as Jesus looked up he saw… Then the disciples saw how wonderful the Temple was, how magnificient (Luke 21:5). Jesus provoked them to look to what was going to happen within a few years:

As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down (Luke 21:6).

Religion, those at the top… a widow exploited and at the bottom… acting with integrity… her offering was far beyond what anyone else put in to protect and beautify the structure yet even more… she did something of eternal value… what was temporal now had a sell by date stamped on it.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Two Trees

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

One of my privileges is to participate in the Zoom groups that are discussing the first volume, Humanising the Divine. Preparing for, and thinking about, the discussion afterwards occasionally helps me see some new patterns. Some groups have been in the chapter on Cornelius this week, and in that chapter I touch on ‘alienation’ as being the result of the various falls. (Note to reader, I read those chapters Gen. 1-11 as myth, myth being used to communicate truth, and in that setting more profound than anything literal; I see Gen. 1 and 2 being from two different sources, they being complementary; Gen. 3-11 being the backdrop to the call of Abraham, the one called to be the agent t solve the issues Genesis 3-11 outline.

If alienation is the result then the work of the Cross is that of reconciliation. Not reconciling God, but the God who was in Christ was reconciling the world to himself.

So this pushed me to look again at the trees. The only tree that was forbidden being the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The temptation by the serpent (seen in ancient texts as the provocative agent of wisdom – ‘wise as serpents’? – , later Jewish and Christian of course as the Satan, the adversary) was to become as God. This would mean they (humanity) could determine what was right and wrong. It outworks either without God – I decide; or as present within religion, with ‘god’, and my book / tradition on my side informing me what is right and wrong, and I act it out. The ‘I’ in both cases is at the centre.

The relevance of this for the Cornelius chapter is Peter, the Jew, comes on the scene with an ‘unclean / clean’ divide. He is one side, Cornelius the other. His first words when entering the house of Cornelius is ‘now I perceive’. He saw differently. God has not endorsed the line that Peter had drawn.

The cross (tree) that Jesus died on (symbolically) was that tree (of the knowledge of good and evil). The tree that divides, that puts me on the right side and you on the wrong side. He dies (as human representative) to being the one who can determine what was right and wrong. That alone is reserved for God. Who is in / out… what does in /out mean… is there an in / out… what is unclean / clean… God’s territory, not ours. Result of death – reconciliation where there is no Jew nor Gentile…

So we are to be careful in making judgements. While we are keen to be under the judgement (assessment / critique) of heaven at a personal level. There remains what is unclean and what is clean… I think a clue is what dehumanises, what endorses me as above someone else. We have to be tentative as to how we respond to this. Brings me to the second tree:

The tree of life. Not to be eaten from alone. Not eaten from and then given to someone else. There is something corporate in the eating, a prelude to the final great banquet. It is the source of life, and life is not what is consumed but in what is given. In the giving there is a return. I think we even see the corporate nature in the protection of that tree – ‘lest they eat and live for ever.’ Every Gospel meal with Jesus is eating fruit from that tree.

Alienation. Only overcome by embracing the ‘other’. It was never good for there to be a solitary human, so the ‘other’ is formed. The other can be seen as the opposite – and that is one of the alienations resulting from the falls; or seen as ‘flesh of my flesh’. Different, but equal – humanised. The other acts as the mirror to see oneself.

Post falls the other is blamed and scapegoated. The blame game is the source of alienation resulting from dehumanisation.

Sadly our currently polarised oppositional world illustrates how far we are off course. The major fuel for the oppositional stance is supplied by ideologies and religion (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

Time for Gospel meals. ‘All of you (including Judas) eat’. ‘Eat what is set before you’ and there is healing and peace in the home.

So we can make no judgements as to what is good and evil? That would make life easy would it not? Live and let live… The background though is leaning that way – do not judge otherwise you will be judged. That needs a little balancing out, cos we will be judged! The area of greater caution is that of ‘judging the world’. Paul said:

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside (1 Cor. 5: 12,13).

There is an appointed judgement but that is in the hands of the one appointed by God – the only true Human, Jesus.

But among those of us who follow Jesus. Seems Paul is saying ‘grow up’. You have been touched by the values of the age to come, when you will even judge angels – an indication that humanity in the image of God is closer to God than the angelic. If that is how we are to be then we should be able to sort out stuff among ourselves – even down to court cases (1 Cor. 6:1-3).

Never easy working all this stuff out. Don’t judge. Do judge. You will judge. A key seems to be that we give ourselves to ‘sincerity and truth’ (1 Cor. 5:8), and if anyone says ‘I follow Jesus’ but the core of their being is sexually immorality, greed, idolatry, slandering, drunkenness or swindling (1 Cor. 5: 11) we cannot ignore it. Pretty serious stuff as Paul says ‘Do not even eat with such people’. It seems there are two elements to help us move forward cautiously in this – we are to live personally with sincerity and truth; and the list is not simply pointing out traits but something at the core that they are giving themselves to (and of course we note that this is not something applied to those who make no claim to follow Jesus).

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Volume Two

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

A piece of advice for all who are wanting to know what should they really do today. Rush to the web-site at Boz Publications:
https://www.bozpublications.com/significant-other
and get your order in. I do not wish to big this up but this is definitely the most significant Volume Two I have written in this series. Just in case I have overdone the publicity there let me counterbalance it with – wish I could say that this one is written so much better than Volume One, but I really can’t. Ah well we await a dynamic Volume Three!

If wishing to engage with this book I guess it can be done just as is, but it is really a follow on from Vol. 1. For that reason if you have not read Vol. 1 it is best to start there.

In it I suggest that the work of Jesus on the Cross is finished but the work of Jesus through his body is unfinished. Hence I explore the two ends of the spectrum concerning healthy groups: community (here to enhance one another) and movement (here to bring about a transformation in the wider world). Not surprisingly I emphasise the latter, while giving a nod toward the former! Following the trajectory of Israel, called for the health of the world as royal priesthood. Blah blah blah.

I have not yet decided but will probably run Zoom groups on this one on the book as a whole not on the individual chapters. I think that would allow for a freer discussion. Zoom groups would not begin before January.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Life… but not as we know it?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I was never a great Star Trek viewer but I do remember the line that was woven into a song:

It’s life Jim… but not as we know it.

Humanising the Divine. The Incarnation does just that. The resurrection makes it permanent. God was and is eternally humanised. Humble and accessible.

Then we come to the life of Jesus – fully human, but the temptation is to respond with ‘He’s human [Jim], but not as we know it’. And that is where it stops for many. An affirmation that Jesus is fully God and fully human but with a huge advantage. Once we understand the miracles are not performed through his divinity, but by the anointing of the Spirit that closes the gap a little, but I think the aspect I am pursuing at the moment closes the gap further.

He is the GREAT LEARNER, breaking out beyond his contextually induced prejudices through his encounters with those he would not have been able to see (naturally) as fully human. Gentiles, Samaritans and women (maybe also children?).

Jesus gives God a human face, a human life; the great learner then humanises Jesus (I think Hebrews is the book that pushes this aspect, further than Paul for example does in his letters).

Maybe Jesus has an advantage over us. I certainly was not filled from my mother’s womb with the Spirit. But living life from then on? We are both on the same track. Through our encounters with those who our tradition / culture conditions us not to fully see, we can grow toward true humanness. (And maybe from a Christian perspective, those we have been able to label as ‘unclean’, and so are unable to see them with different eyes?)

And perhaps Jesus had an advantage. I am sure that I could not make it to becoming truly human, without sin along the way, and thus become a source of eternal salvation to all! Anointed by the Spirit, but always with a choice to follow the path of the Spirit or not. I am glad that he rescued us.

  • Jesus fully human – not an infusion mixture of divine and human. Like us.(Also fully God.)
  • Jesus, human anointed by the Spirit, in ways that we are not by nature, but in order to rescue us so that we can be anointed by the same Spirit.
  • Jesus, without sin, but not mature, going through the natural process of growth and development, with provocative encounters that confronted his environmentally induced perspectives that he stepped beyond. Thus becomes mature, becomes truly human.

I have often quoted the remarkable response of Jesus in the dialogue of Luke 13: 27, 28.

As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

The woman’s worldview was one shared by and deeply imprinted on her mind by her culture. A woman started at the bottom, but could rise, provided: she was married, she was a mother, she gave birth to a son, and if the son could be a rabbi like Jesus then she would indeed be blessed.

Jesus’ reply completely transformed that worldview. With a ‘no… you are human, in the image of the divine… not in any way lesser than anyone else… gender does not enter into any assessment of value.’

Now I wonder did Jesus carry that transformative worldview with him, or did it come to him in that moment. Like us, most revelation of where we need to adopt a different worldview comes when we encounter something / someone that means we can no longer live with authenticity from the former box.

Jesus… When we look there we can say – there’s life and just as I know and experience it. His responses, his willingness to learn and adapt – now there’s a gap.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The small

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I am just finishing the edits of volume 3 in the amazing series (oops… and I had some paragraphs in earlier versions of not believing one’s own advertising) of explorations in theology. The second volume will be available any day soon. Below I put in some extracts from the closing chapter of Volume 3.

We can be very thankful when there are believers who have a position where they can influence the future. In those situations they face particular challenges as to how they exercise any influence they have. The powers might even make space for believers who do not understand the kenotic nature of God. As a result the church might rejoice, and yet the healthy outcome the kingdom of God should bring is set back years. In such situations I think we might be witnessing two aspects: answered prayer and kingdom setback! So ironic as those two phrases (‘answered prayer’ and ‘kingdom setback’) should be a total oxymoron.

Following Jesus was once simple for me. Respond to Jesus as Saviour, read the Bible with a set of lenses that my tradition gave me, keep on track and make sure that I remained thankful for the ticket to heaven. Now, I realise that with a fresh prescription, the Bible ends up more wonderful, relevant and challenging than ever, that there is a path to follow, and as I long for heaven to come… I think you get the thrust.

I can only see the future that is healthy being made up of the multiplicity of the small. Not the uniformity of the big, the ‘one size fits all’ program. The small complemented by the richness of diversity.

Some will be positioned in a place of influence. Use it wisely, prayerfully, and in following Jesus, kenotically. Others will be marginalised, their gift not welcomed. Seek to live at peace with all, ‘as far as is possible’ (Rom. 12:18), and find a way of rejoicing that the one you follow was likewise marginalised.

The body of Christ is here to influence, to shape the world as is. Paul, working in specifically defined localities, used the highly politicised word, ekklesia, to describe the community he planted. The politicised term for those called to speak up concerning the future direction and to act in a way that helped shape their localities. We should expect that to continue, and with the incredible developments beyond localities (even now with ‘virtual spaces’) we should also anticipate that there will be an even greater diversity of expression. Shapes can change, ways of doing things can develop, but faithfulness to the story has to continue.

********

With the resurrection of Jesus a new world had already been brought to birth therefore old values were not appropriate. The ethics he proposed were based on behaviour suitable for a world different to that of the Imperial order. Rome instructed behaviour to be ordered ‘because you are members of Rome’; Paul instructed believers to behave a certain way because they ‘were members of each other’. Those who had received the Spirit of Jesus, and Spirit as in Person, were equipped to be the ones acting in that world. They were uniquely placed to live it out, to show and to inspire, and also to be persecuted.

In the course of the ongoing history of the world’s interaction with the people of Jesus there have been times of influence (for good and for bad), times of compromise and also of great opposition. The church has grappled with the questions raised. Questions such as, ‘Is the church to be separate, somehow holy and set apart from the world?’ And at times of extreme opposition, ‘Is the world destined to always oppose the values of the kingdom?’ And at times when the lines have been blurred, the question arises ‘Is the world to embrace the values without embracing the Person of Jesus?’

Those, and many more, questions persist. This volume has not answered them all. In this book you will have had hints at my responses to the questions. My responses, not the final word, and my responses at this time and context. We can, and should, seek to make our response so that at this time in history we are faithful to the trajectory as we understand it. To do that we need wisdom from heaven, grace toward one another, and an insatiable draw to the world, the environment where God has placed us.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Jesus: great Teacher / Learner

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Jesus was more than a great Rabbi, but a great teacher and revealer of who God truly is. When he spoke there was a wisdom that astounded people, so his words are words of ‘eternal life’, and the words are just that because they come from his inner reality, that reality that carried and revealed the God he spoke about.

Following on from the post on sinlessness being also a growth toward a fullness of true humanity, rather than something static and intrinsic to some internal nature, I have one further suggestion.

Jesus was a GREAT TEACHER because he was a GREAT LEARNER.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Jesus and sinlessness

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

A little cheat here – this post is a copy of a post I have written on the forum that I hope will develop with respect to discussing the book(s) I am writing on explorations in theology (invisible sub-title – ‘and with huge gaps in the suggestions’). I have suggested book #1 a re-centring of the concept of sin as being to fail to be truly human. That made me think – so if we re-centre that definition, we should also try to re-centre the definition of sinlessness.

Forum link:

Forum

An interesting possibility with regard to sin / sinlessness. If the heart of sin is defined as ‘never discovering the reason for which one was born’ (a paraphrase of Walter Wink’s creative approach), or as failing to be truly human, thus falling short of the glory of God (my attempt!), we would also need to re-think sinlessness.

Traditionally we have sin as falling short of a set of standards, and sinlessness (of Jesus) as being some form of perfection. If that view is badly skewed Jesus becomes the superhuman. However, when we raise questions such as ‘did baby Jesus cry?’, (or ‘did he push back against his parents’) we press into normal human behaviour and development. It is very hard not to attribute this level of normalcy to Jesus, otherwise in what sense was he fully human. So why not also posit other areas of development? He lived life as a first-Century Jew, his culture influencing him. He does not arrive here from somewhere else untouched by here. He is a baby that grows. I suggest that he grew in his truly humanness as he was confronted by situations. He learned obedience…

Although he was a son he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for who obey him (Heb. 5: 8,9).

These verses are either tied specifically to the struggle in Gethsemane (verse 7), but even if it is I think we are not pushing it too far to posit that what was applied to his struggle in Gethsemane, was typical of his journey throughout his life. He is on a journey toward ‘truly’ human. Once he becomes ‘perfect’ (the verb from the word group telos, to reach the goal). Although I question the literalness of Adam and Eve, the narrative does not have them created ‘perfect’ but with the possibility of moving toward perfection or away from it. To manifest glory, or to manifest shame; to display the image of God, or to distort it. The verdict is, whether we are in the people of the Law or not, all (‘both’: Jew and Gentile alike) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Jesus is not manifested ‘perfect’ – in the same sense of Adam and Eve. He can move toward ‘perfection’ (reach the goal of being truly human). It is a journey. Once reached he becomes the source of eternal salvation.

Did Jesus know the right response before the various events, or does he make the right responses when required? He challenges Simon the Pharisee concerning his sight of the prostitute, with the words ‘do you see this woman?’ Jesus saw the woman, but when did he see the woman? Did he approach the situation ‘perfect’ and ready, or was it a challenge to him and then he came through yet this one more hurdle on the path to being truly human.

He became perfect (a process), though was never with sin at any point.

[Another example might be that of the Syro-Phoenician woman, asking for healing for her daughter. Jesus replies with (a defence?) that he was sent to the house of Israel; she replies with ‘but even the dogs eat the crumbs’. Jesus replied with a comment about her faith, someone outside of the Israel community – and a woman. Does she help Jesus to jump another barrier, another prejudice? We could also suggest the centurion whose servant is healed simply through Jesus speaking the word, causing Jesus to respond that he had not found such faith anywhere else in Israel (Lk. 7:9). Are these encounters with non-Jews (and a woman) essential to help Jesus on the path of true-humanness? And on the latter story the connection to Cornelius, the centurion might make an interesting link (also in a book written by Luke).]

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives