Faith in who… not what

A couple of Scriptures in Romans suggest to me that we should not be thinking ‘only those who have received Jesus personally are saved, all others lost’, but rather we should be reversing that with ‘only those who have rejected Jesus are lost’. This has been the approach I have taken for many decades, using the (for me) helpful complementary statements of:

  • all who receive Christ are saved
  • all who reject Christ are lost.

This opens up a number of questions:

  • the above statements do not seem to yield two water tight categories that we can neatly divide humanity into. What about those who have neither received nor rejected Christ?
  • and what does it mean for a person to either receive or reject Jesus? Surely it means something different for those who have never heard about Jesus and those who have.
  • and what does even hearing about Jesus mean? (More on that later.) If I present (even with all the facts intact) ‘my’ Jesus but he is really not the true Jesus has that person truly heard about Jesus?

For all those above questions I think it is not too wise to take the hard-line of only a few will be saved. I am not a Universalist, just too many ‘if’ Scriptures, such as Col. 1:23, where Paul states that we were reconciled through death ‘provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard.’

Faith does not seem to be simply a ‘I believe x, y and z’ but to involve that of a commitment, an allegiance to a person. By this I do not suggest there can never be any wavering but if that core allegiance disappears we are instructed to view such people as those outside the family of God. The whole approach is messy, but for those who have been truly exposed to the Presence of God much is required.

On the one hand I suggest that the Scriptures raise a high bar for those of us who acknowledge Jesus at a personal level. Our behaviour is anticipated to be marked, as a true exposure to the living God does more than give us a forensic verdict in the law court. There is a deep interaction that leaves us different after the encounter.

On the other hand I am optimistic about those who do not see themselves as within the family of God in the way that we are accustomed to think. A high standard for those who have truly encountered Jesus, and an incredible generosity to those who have not encountered him in a deep personal way. I don’t think it is easy to reconcile those two ‘hands’. So to my two Scriptures.

The first of the two Scriptures, Romans 4: 24

It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

This Scripture is about Abraham who believed God’s promise that he would inherit the world (to focus on the Land as the promise is very sub-New Testament!!), and by implication that this would be for him and his descendants. His faith was so strong, in spite of all the hard facts he faced up to. Using Abraham as the example Paul says we too will be reckoned righteous by believing in him who raised Jesus from the dead. Although he is not addressing the issue of those who are not ‘believers’ his language is intriguing. He does not state that we who believe Jesus was raised form the dead, but believe in the God who raised him. Paul passionately believed and proclaimed that Jesus had been raised from the dead, the whole eschatological future depending on that event; but his language here is not about believing that event but is focused on the identity of the one who did that, the God who did this.

This opens up a window for me. At one level maybe we all have sub-faith, by which I mean faith (even strong faith/ believism) in a sub-Jesus-like-God is sub-faith. It is possible to be a Christian and have sub, very sub-faith. Who knows the final destiny of those who went out to conquer the world (and Jerusalem) for God through the many Crusades that took place, but I cannot see that their actions reflect faith in the Jesus-like God. We can judge their actions, though we cannot simply judge them. With their knowledge at that time, maybe we too would have responded in that way. Then moving on, those who do not have a ‘Christian’ faith might exhibit a faith in the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Even for some of those who have been burnt by religion and its twin of control, who might even profess to be atheists, we might find out that they so believed in humanity that their belief was nothing less than also a belief in the God who so believed in humanity that he raised the human Jesus from the grave on behalf of humanity. A wild thought but one that I am more than open to. After all if presented with a God who controls, who enjoys punishing, the only faithful response would be that of ‘atheism’ to that God!

The second Scripture Romans 10: 11-17 (emphasis added)

The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” But not all have obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

  • Jew and Greek alike have to call on the Lord.
  • Isaiah connects obedience and faith (as does Paul in this letter). Faith is not simply a hand up in a meeting, but is a relational and therefore a transformational term.
  • Then working back we have a) those sent b ) to proclaim, c) so that there can be a hearing, d) and from the hearing comes faith, e) and the faith produces a call for salvation.

Sent from heaven is the sense that Paul lived with, sent to represent heaven, to represent God, and with that sending came the responsibility to proclaim, and this is the important point, so that people could literally hear the voice of Jesus. Faith comes by hearing the word (rhema) of Christ (v. 17). I put in bold the NRSV translation which follows most others, and could be understood as the need to hear a set of facts (to hear ‘of’, in the sense of ‘about’ Jesus). As in a number of languages, Greek will use a different case with certain verbs when they are referring to a person in contrast to when the verb is used with respect to a thing. The verb ‘to hear’ is one of those verbs. To hear a sound (a thing) the case used is the normal objective case (I hear a sound), but if it is used of hearing a person the genitive (possessive) case is used (I hear a person – and a person’s voice is ever so personal). The genitive is translated ‘of / belonging to’ but it should not be translated that way when with the verb to hear. Hence my emphasis, that Paul is not suggesting faith comes by hearing about / of Jesus, but by hearing him speak, hearing his voice, and the later repetition with ‘faith comes… through the word of Christ’ underlines this.

This then is where I am headed. For faith to come people have to hear Jesus. Proclaiming facts might or might not enable people to hear Jesus. Proclaiming facts about Jesus, in a way that distorts who he is, or with an attitude that does not accord with Jesus, and it might even hinder the person hearing Jesus. They might reject the Jesus that was presented to them, they might reject the facts presented, they might never believe that Jesus was raised from the dead… but they might not have rejected Jesus. It always has be about a ‘who’ not a ‘what’, true for all of us, whatever stage of faith we are at.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Betrayal leads to the cross

The cross is a complex issue. Years ago I heard Tom Wright say he was teaching Sunday School to children and he asked them to come up with the reasons for the crucifixion. Eventually the varied answers from the group came back. Some picked up on those (bad) Romans, others on the jealousy and opposition of the Jews, others went for forgiveness by God through the cross. Perhaps overstating things he suggested that between those kids they held together what theologians had been unable to. The reasons for the cross were manifold.

Sin of course meant the cross. Some interpret that as the wrath of God had to be appeased as he cannot look on sin… I am suggesting though that sin at every level meant the cross took place. The sin of Empire, for Jesus suffered the death of the rebel against Rome, the sin of the alignment of religion and money / compromise (better one die than they come and take away our freedoms and this place), the sin of wrong valuations – 30 pieces of silver is what this is worth (how many ways are there to kill people through unjust trade deals?). One more I have been thinking about is betrayal. The betrayal opened the door for the high priests and Sanhedrin to hand Jesus over to the powers. I don’t know if betrayal was necessary for the cross, but what is sure is Jesus drank the cup of betrayal to its finish.

Betrayal, let down, shafted, stitched… in whatever form or shape it comes it is part of what shapes humanity and its sorry state. Stemming from a devaluation of others (hence the irony of valuing the transaction at 30 pieces of silver).

What a potent combination – money, religion, compromise, false alignments, and the anticipated punishment of the Jewish state by Rome. They are all there as part of the cross. But seemingly unlocked by betrayal. Far from the idea that Judas was predestined to betray is the thought that betrayal opens the door, the deepest of which comes from those on ‘the inside’, and Jesus knew from the beginning who it was that would betray him.

If we safeguard ourselves against betrayal (not possible!!) we will be forever putting limitations on the effects of the cross.

Thus endeth my pleasant thought for the day!

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Elect… in Him

This will be a quick blog to suggest the easiest way to understand election. By easiest of course I mean the biblical my way. From as far back as I can remember I had always struggled to understand election as some chosen and others not. The Armininian position of elect according to foreknowledge was at least a softer option. In that approach God did not influence the choice but simply knows beforehand who would respond (normally also the Greek view of timelessness was also part of the package, so God knowing everything without being the cause of the knowledge). The Calvinist position was effectively the reverse of that – so that foreknowledge was based on pre-determination simply never sat easy for me. It seems the Calvinist position reversed this because ‘the sovereign will’ of God has to be preserved. His power and will being pre-eminent.

It seems unlikely that Scripture suggests a literal understanding of Adam and Eve as the first human pair but rather to understand them as either simply representatives of humanity or probably better as some sort of prototypical analogy to Israel as the chosen nation. They stand in unique relationship to God, as God’s representative (image) on the earth. As such they have a responsibility. Chosenness comes with a task responsibility. The task was to flow out of a relational understanding, for the task was to be carried out as representatives of God. God appears in the garden as the Gardener (an insight from Ray Mayhew). Hence the beautiful phrase from Mary to the unrecognised risen Jesus ‘I thought you were the gardener’! How God appears in the original creation and how he appears in the New Creation. God does not appear in the garden as the despot, dictator nor even as king. He walks in the garden as the gardener. The task is not to rule but it is to rule in a certain way. By getting hands dirty, serving, cultivating, nurturing. Hence, with the choice of the disciples Scripture says Jesus first chose them to ‘be with him’. If there is no ‘being with’ the manner in which the task is performed will not be understood. Jesus explained that in a very strong way when he said miracles will even be done in his name but his confession will be he never knew the person performing the miracle.

Election is to task, but it is vital to understand how the task is to be carried out.

This election to task I understand is at the heart of Israel’s reason for being. Israel (and then the body of Christ) is called as the royal priesthood. That which comes to serve the nations, to represent God to them and them to God, to enable them to become the best (most redemptive) version of what they can be, where in mutual co-operation and partnership something of heaven appears within creation. This is a vision not of transformation with the church triumphant, but of transformation with the body of Christ present as salt (throughout) and as light (not to be looked at but to enable others to have clearer sight). The church is vital, and triumphant but not over others but triumphant in completing the task.

Election is in him

Chosen in him before the foundation of the world.‘ The language is precise. This is not an expression of arbitrary election but of election that is in him. I parallel this with the confession of a Jew. A Jew was chosen in Abraham and a date can be attached to this before the birth of that Jew, say 1800BC. The individual Jew is not the primary chosen one. Abraham is the chosen one, he is the elect one. The Jew is chosen in him. Because the Jew is in Abraham the Jew is chosen. And the Jew can date that… way back in time. Likewise the believer is chosen in Christ. Jesus is the chosen one, the believer is chosen in him. When… way back in time!! Even before the foundation of the earth for Jesus is the eternal chosen one. The moment a person is in Christ they are chosen. When did that choice take place? Before the foundation of the earth. Whoever is in Christ is chosen. The predetermination is not over some choice to save some and not others, but that those who are chosen (those who are in Christ) will be conformed to the image of Jesus. Jesus is the chosen one, those in him are pre-destined, they are caught up in his destiny, and therefore will be conformed to his image.

I have used the above parallel between Jew and believer, but we should really push this a little beyond that. The focus of Scripture is not primarily on individuals, but on a corporate people. It is a ‘we’ not an ‘I’. ‘We’, the nation of Israel, ‘we’ the ekklesia are chosen, elect. The corporate reading of Scripture opens new vistas. So, in reading Romans, Daniel Kirk suggests the sense of ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ is not a statement of the evil-ness of humanity, but if we read it as ‘both (Jew and Gentile = the entire world) have sinned…’ that we will better get Paul’s argument, ‘to the Jew first, then to the Gentiles’.

Summary: election is

  • coporate not individual
  • to fulfil a task
  • in him, he being the chosen one.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Does not remain the same

Resurrection: continuity and discontinuity. Jesus, rises, not someone else. His body can be touched, he can eat. He is recognised. Clearly there is continuity. But there are changes. He appears and disappears from sight. He eats not to stay alive, maybe indicating that eating is always about more than satisfying hunger, but each time we take food we are ‘guests at his table’. Continuity and discontinuity at a personal level. And also at a corporate level.

The Hosea Scripture, ‘on the third day he will raise us up’, indicates that his resurrection was the resurrection of Israel. And because it was the resurrection of Israel there is continuity and there is discontinuity as far as corporate identity is concerned. The second sign of the arrival of the kingdom (resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit) was promised to those who repented, for the promise was for ‘them’, for all those who saved themselves from that corrupt generation (Acts 2:39,40). The crisis had truly come as far as the apostolic preachers were concerned: refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and the fate will be to be ‘utterly rooted out of this people’ (Acts 3:23), clearly indicating that those who refused the Messiah will no longer be viewed as part of ‘the people’ (Lev. 20:3, 5, 6).

A strong perspective to say the least. But the strength of it is in proportion to the intervention of heaven through the life of Christ. ‘Born of a woman, born under the law’, coming to his own who do not receive him, punished by the twinning together of Imperial and religious powers, but vindicated by heaven.

The very title ‘son of God’ is not a title indicating divinity. Israel was God’s son, called out of Egypt, and Jesus is declared ‘son’ by the resurrection (Rom. 1:4). He is raised as the one true Israel, the one and only truly human one.

The ‘people’ called to be a sign of the age to come, to image themselves (imagine) not on the Imperial powers of the day but on the radical horizontal outworking of a devotion to a God who is not in the image of any Pharaoh nor Caesar, that son had failed. The Son comes and overcomes, even death cannot hold the Author of life.

Such life is so strong that everything has to be redefined. There is continuity – the call continues; there is discontinuity – those in Christ are the children of promise, the descendants of Abraham. It took a while for there to be an outworking of where the Gentiles fitted in the scheme. It seems the early days were spent in seeking to provoke as many (Jews) from the broad way that would only lead to destruction and on to the narrow path that would lead to life. Those early days were spent in persuading Jews. They knew they could be part of the ‘people’, but only if they came through the door of life.

This is not ‘replacement theology’ but Christocentric theology. Christ at the centre of all of God’s purposes redefines everything. Those in Christ have to pick up that calling to be imaged by God for the sake of the world, to be signs that both point to that reality and as signs bring that reality ever closer. Salvation from… is important, but salvation for… is what defines the ‘people’. A Christocentric definition does not necessarily condemn all Jews (and Paul wrestled with that one), nor does it condemn all those outside of Christ. A judgement to come will decide on those issues! It does not condemn, but it calls from that tomb for all who through their obedience to Christ, can humbly line up to be counted among the ‘people’.

Israel, today, cannot be whitewashed for treatment of those who are their neighbours. Any such, unthinking response cannot stand the test of any biblical prophet, and one can only applaud the recent comments by Pope Francis for his public rebuke.

The tasks that lie ahead are enormous; the energy flowing from the tomb though is more than necessary for the fulfilment of the task. The early call was to the Jew; now we understand the call is to one and all for there is no Jew nor Greek, but ‘all’ are in Christ.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

The third day

He was raised on the third day, ‘according to the Scriptures’, so goes the early confession of the believers which we can read in 1 Cor. 15:4. The Scripture has to be Hosea 6:2

After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

That Scripture, relating to the resurrection has enormous ramifications for who are the ‘chosen’ people, and one that I will get to in the coming days. Alongside that Scripture the other central text given as a ‘sign’ is that of Jonah (Matt. 12: 39,40).

No sign will be given.. except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was for three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.

I like the NRSV translation above – not whale but ‘sea monster’. I am really not sure that Jonah literally existed and there are certainly some ’embellishments’ in the Jonah text (3 days to cross Ninevah!!), and we certainly have no need to defend the historicity of the story to get its significance. Mission, was the significance and mission to the nations, even to the ’empire’ of the day that stood (as all empires do) against God’s outpoured, ridiculously generous, love.

The sea monster (the one who re-appears in Revelation maybe?) vomited Jonah up and out. He vomited him up and out not back into the place of comfort and certainly not of escape but into the launching pad for the nation(s). The sea monster could not hold him.

Neither could death hold Jesus. God raised him, and maybe death spewed him out in reaction to that impartation of divine life. Life entering the place of death meant there was a holy reaction.

Resurrection re-configures Israel (Hosea) and restores why there was a chosen people. God’s huge ‘yes’ to humanity is testified to in the resurrection. Those ‘in Christ’ are commissioned not to be separate from those not yet in Christ, but are ‘spewed up’ out of the belly of the sea monster ready to go to Ninevah. Ninevah might not be as big as we think, but to cross it will truly take three days. The journey across takes three days, the time in the belly of the sea monster, it will take the entire history of our bondage, and our death to that system to travel across our Ninevah.

For Paul his Ninevah was the entire Imperial lands of Rome. He likewise was blind for 3 days (Acts 9:9) in that transition out of his religious bondage and deception until he could truly see light.

We all have our ‘three days’, and often experience repetitive cycles of three days, but on the third day without short-circuiting it, we are ready. Spewed up as always by the system. On the dry land, the place God separated from the waters for humanity to care for: dry land that has been polluted, Ninevahs that have been built on it. But the ‘Jonahs’ are coming!! Jonah sought to get to the ends of the Empire (Tarshish / Cádiz) to escape. Paul sought to get to the ends of the earth (Spain). He did not aim for the religious centre. That was truly ended at the cross. The Temple curtain ripped. That was the end. The third day, post-vomit is the beginning.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

A ‘YES’ from heaven

What a day to look forward to… the hope, because of the faithfulness of God, that the righteous will rise to participate in the age to come, to be with God when he comes to put all things right. Then right in the midst of the place that was to keep that hope alive, Jerusalem / Israel, probably as the day dawned, Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead. That he died was not disputed, that his body could not be found in the grave was not disputed, but the implications for Israel and for the world? Those implications were just too much for many. Deny he had risen – the disciples had stolen the body – otherwise they had a major issue to face.

There would have been no controversy worth arguing about if the disciples claimed that Jesus was alive beyond death. Life after death was not a focus nor that controversial, but resurrection was both the hope and the controversial element that raised enormous questions. Crucified by the Romans, the death penalty for sedition and rebellion against the state, seen through Jewish eyes as confirmation that he was a blasphemer, cursed of God being all those who ‘hang on a tree’. For the early Christians to state that this Jesus had been raised by God as an affirmation of his faithful life was an affront. Within a short while Saul of Tarsus was pursuing all deviant Jews who had come to believe this about Jesus. At one level it would not have concerned him what the pagans thought, but for Jews to believe such a thing would only bring yet more judgement on Israel, therefore in line with his passion for holiness he set about imprisoning and even sentencing to death such believers.

The resurrection, human life in bodily form, was God’s huge affirmation of Jesus: he declared him to be the son of God in power through the resurrection, but it is more than an affirmation of Jesus, the resurrection is the hugest affirmation of humanity. For humanity to be in the image of God and set in creation was a strong affirmation, but to raise Jesus bodily is an affirmation of the fitness of humanity to participate in the age to come, and goes beyond even that creational identity. The ‘yes’ echoes around the walls of the empty tomb. God is for humanity… God wants to spend time, for ever, with humanity.

Because of the resurrection:

  • We must have a high theology of and for humanity.
  • We have a firm assurance that what we see around us is not all going to burn up. Through the fire, yes, but through the fire.
  • We recognise a new world has appeared for those who can see it. That new world is calling now for those to inhabit it with the values of the age to come. That original great Easter morning opens the door to the great new world that is coming, and is here.
  • We see all of life that affirms dignity, well-being and relational health as resonating with values that heaven responded to that morning. We cannot elevate the ‘spiritual’ above the ‘mundane’. The strength of heaven is so invasive that God is found wherever we travel.

What a day… what a hope… what a provocation to LIVE now, to sown now for then.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

The Right Time… as always

I like the rawness and speed of Galatians. There is no real messing about, and some of the arguments seem to be as non-watertight as many of mine! Take this one:

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

Just a few little leaps there that evade the Western mind as to how on earth Paul got from Hagar → to Sinai → to the Jerusalem of his day. He is certainly moving beyond a careful examination of the original context, author’s intended meaning, blah, blah!!

At the beginning of that chapter he hits something right on the head regarding the coming of Christ. He holds out that the timing was so specific, ‘the fullness of times’:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God (Gal. 4: 4-7).

This is much more than it was a time of good communication, such as language, structure, transport etc., even if from a strategic point of view that might be the case. It seems to me that Jesus came when there was no hope. No hope now for the Gentiles because there was no hope for the Jews. So bad that we might as well draw a straight line from Hagar through Sinai to Jerusalem!! Jesus came as a human (born of a woman) to rescue humanity, and this is why a truly humanitarian approach has to also understood as a godly approach. Yet his rescue of humanity is as a Jew (born under the law), not because they were the chosen race, in the sense of chosen and others condemned, but because they were the failed chosen race. They were under bondage, their bondage being under the (good) law, and Paul can compare their bondage to the Gentiles under bondage to the elemental spirits. The coming of Christ then is for the Jew, his death is as a Jew under Roman execution, so that ‘we’ (normally when Paul uses this in these contexts he is indicating ‘we – Jews’) might be adopted as children! Hagar and child had been thrown out, hence his ease at being able to use such an analogy for Israel. Those adopted as children had received the Spirit – those whether Jew or Gentile.

Jesus came at the crux of history. The time of no hope. The chosen people were focused on how they were chosen but not fulfilling their call (their reason for being chosen) to be there for everyone.

This is not God acting in Christ outside of the rules, but entering into the rules of engagement. He is not a God-in-the-flesh untouched but victorious. The miracle of the Incarnation is not simply he becomes one of us, but the depth of the pit he enters. That pit is described as the ‘fullness of times’. The time of no hope. He does not arrive in the flesh to walk with Adam and Eve, nor appear at the time of the prophets, nor at any other hopeful moment. Present, of course, throughout, but only present in that intense way when there was no hope. Jew and Gentile alike under deep bondage. Coming to free those under the curse of the law, and those who were not chosen.

We enter the Easter season. It always speaks of personal hope. Yet for huge numbers Easter and every other day is just another day in the calendar as they struggle under the bondage of oppression through war, displacement, slavery and a host of other evils. There is no easy word to give to those multitudes. I believe God has not, nor never will, forget them. There is some kind of connection to that personal arrival (the parousia) when what is wrong is righted and the contribution to that ‘fullness of times’ that is to be pioneered by those who have received the Spirit. Easter gives personal hope and provokes an understanding of chosenness that we are to make a contribution to filling up the time. Not with universal bondage and no hope as the sign of its arrival, but of the abundance of gold, silver and precious stones, that had been stored up throughout human history, even some stones that came through when there was apparently ‘no hope’.

Jesus came at the right time. Not simply the most strategic time to communicate. In that coming he finished what the Father gave him to do. That work, the work of Christ is the finished work. He will return when we have finished what we were called to do. Easter says he values our (tiny) contribution. Maybe we can even say he needs our contribution. He certainly needs it to complete what he has always desired: to make his dwelling with us.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Judas to the rescue

I have been rescuing a few posts from years before, and thought that I had done enough when I remembered that I had blogged on Judas Iscariot, so went looking for those posts. I think they are worth rescuing. They were originally posted in March 2009, here they are in slightly modified form.

Why Judas?

WWJD – what would Jesus do? WDJDWD – not quite as catchy, and not likely to take off as a trend, yet I think an important question: why did Judas do what he did?

The conventional reading is of Judas as thoroughly evil, the betrayer from the beginning. And if one is of a Calvinist bent, one predestined to betray Jesus (and implications in that for choice / accountability?). There are always some tough Scriptures that clash against any and all viewpoints, but I suggest that there is another reading of the Judas narratives that fits better. I have long been provoked by the similarities between Peter and Judas. One denied Jesus – and not once but three times; the other betrayed him. One was heartbroken at his own failure – oh, yes, so was the other one and took his own life as a result. One lived to be restored – the other…

Is there really a great difference between the two?

Could it have been different? I think it could have been very different. It is that that gives me hope. Hope because there is a bit of Judas in us all – and dare I say it a little more than a bit. Perhaps also that same Judas ‘spirit’ has infiltrated so much of what we have done as church and our proclamation of the Gospel.

It was my good friend Johnny Barr who was the first one to speak about the connection of Judas’ weakness and the task Jesus gave him. The task: look after the money. The weakness: love of money, to the extent that he was called a thief!

A love of money and looking after the money bag. Great choice for a church treasurer!

Why the choice of treasurer?

What is taking place? I am sure there is a depth to this choice that we do not fully understand but there are at least three key elements:

  • Jesus is showing that he trusts his Father as his supply and that he was not relying even on ‘good stewardship’ for his provision.
  • Jesus is demonstrating that people are always valued higher than money. He is showing that people cannot be valued in monetary terms.
  • Jesus is discipling Judas. His discipleship is not through confronting his weakness, but enabling Judas to look at his weakness in the eye.

There is enough in those three points to bring about significant correction to my approach to life. Prophetic critiques of Israel were centred around two issues: you are not trusting God a) as your Provider nor b) as your Protector. Nothing has shifted at the level of prophetic critique that comes to God’s people.

The actions of Jesus are challenging for anyone professing to be a Christian and involved in earning money. The bottom line for a ‘kingdom’ business can never be that of money. Indeed maximising profits cannot be justified, not even justified by ‘we will have so much more to give’. The means cannot cleanse the final product. Perhaps a key element in business is a strategic plan where and how to lose money. Seems Jesus had that plan. Money is neutral, but the spirit that operates in that realm is not neutral and a radical response is what Jesus showed to that spirit. Of course he had first dealt with it in the wilderness when offered the ‘kingdoms of this world’.

If money is the bottom line, then people will fall by the way, they will become dispensable. If people are the focus money will find its place.

Jesus’ discipling I think reversed so much of what we do. We tend to confront weakness and cover sin. Jesus covered weakness and exposed sin through the person gaining self-perception.

Self-discovery

I have lived my life many times at a level of hiddenness. By that I don’t mean deep hidden sin, but at the level of not facing up to my reactions, such as fears, anxieties, anger or arrogance. Those reaciton that reveal what resides within. Discipleship, following Jesus, allowing him to shape us seems to begin with a healthy dose of self-discovery.

I suggest that there is never a breakthrough to a new level without self-discovery

So back to Judas and money.

Jesus deliberately gave him the money bag. I am sure that Jesus knew exactly about Judas’ weakness. In giving him the finances to look after he was provoking Judas to come to a place of self-discovery, and to go beyond that self-discovery to the place of honesty. He had the opportunity to come to Jesus privately, and say something along the lines of ‘I would rather not look after the money’ (but in Greek or Aramaic of course!). I am sure that Jesus would have been very happy to work with Judas in his weakness, making arrangements for Andrew (for example) to look after the money. Weaknesses, such as Judas had are not an issue to Jesus. They are simply an issue to us, and if not faced up to, that issue will have serious repercussions.

Here then is a root. The weakness is not the problem. Denying the weakness is the problem. Honesty is where it all begins. In the parable of the seed and the four soils, one Gospel writer describes the soil as good and honest soil.

I see the same principle in the thought behind the phrase in the Lord’s prayer: lead us not into temptation. Scripture says God does not tempt, but here we come close to the opposite of that belief. I read the phrase in the prayer as a cry for self-discovery and a level of honesty to what we discover. ‘I am weak, I am liable to go wrong, so I ask that you protect me so that my weaknesses are not exposed so that they are exploited. I humble myself…’

Honesty concerning our weaknesses and the clothing of humility is the path for the disciple. The path way of ‘never would that happen to me’ is not the way for the disciple to travel.

Judas and Peter might be similar in many ways. Maybe they essentially began on the same path but but at the level of honesty there was a divergence right there. We can have a weakness and seek to cover it, or we uncover it / let it be uncovered and find that there is a protection from heaven.

Judas carried with him an unresolved personal weakness. Maybe that weakness was a love of money, but the more serious issue was his inability to be honest about himsel. Self-justification becomes a major hurdle for him and for us.

A vision for the kingdom

Judas (and we, of course) know better. We have a kingdom vision.

Judas has an unresolved inner issue. That is serious but when this unresolved issue connects to a vision of the kingdom, then the problems multiply. Here then is the reading of Judas life that becomes so vital for us. Judas has a vision for the kingdom, for a different world, he connects to Jesus, believes in this Messiah. So far so good, but as time goes on can see things Jesus cannot see. He can clearly see the pathway of peace, of non-violent resistance will never bring in the kingdom, but rather it will crushed. Power, and the exercise of it is important. Getting to the place of influence is obviously the way to go. Judas can see that Jesus’ method and pathway is the pathway to captivity or even to martyrdom (and a futile martyrdom at that). It is not the pathway to confront the evil powers and put the world aright. So…

A plan is hatched. A plan that necessitates Jesus first receiving a gentle but rude awakening. Jesus will have to realise that to succeed he has to step it up a level and exercise his authority where and how it matters. After all, Judas believes in this Messiah. Judas, I suggest, believes he has a strong element of righteous care for the Messiah.

So he arranges for a group of captors to come and he knows how Jesus will respond. He has been with Jesus who has raised the dead, walked unharmed through hostile crowds. This will be the moment, and what a moment it will be. Right there in Jerusalem (God’s centre) with an exposure of God’s enemy (Rome). A climactic moment for the kingdom, for the moving forward of Jesus’ mission. Bring out the soldiers and Jesus will assert himself. Then truly the movement will move into the next phase, the kingdom will advance. Success, rather than failure, will result.

Jesus will take his place, visibly as the promised one. Of course the disciples will also have a place. Maybe even Judas will gain a key place for his catalytic role in bringing about the next phase. Israel will rally round, and on the movement will go from Jerusalem to Samaria, and on to the ends of the earth! Truly Judas to the rescue.

A likely scenario? I think what I present is a lot more plausible and makes more sense of the texts than the simple ‘Judas was evil and wanted to betray Jesus’ interpretation.

Yes, he betrayed Jesus. But maybe so much of what has been done in the name of Jesus, and done to help him, because we know better how the kingdom should come, has also betrayed him. Do we not hear again and again: Jesus, yes; but the church, no.

The kingdom comes, but how it comes is often a mystery. It comes in weakness. It comes when we feel we have been misunderstood, marginalised, and history records, even when we have been martyred. The first resurrection (John in Revelation), the better resurrection (Priscilla in Hebrews) was reserved in Jewish thought for the martyrs. [OK we are not quite sure if Priscilla wrote Hebrews, but then we don’t also know for sure if John, one of the 12, wrote Revelation either!!]

Judas is shocked. He cannot believe that Jesus is captured. Personal weakness and his vision of the kingdom, his ability to know what will help the cause, brings him to the point of despair. However this is not too unlike Peter, who cuts off the ear of the servant, and then goes on to deny Jesus, and to do it three times.

Another opportunity

Peter is given a fresh commission, in spite of his own mistakes and weakness. Three times he is asked if he loves Jesus, three times he is commissioned to look after the sheep. Judas is given no second chance, but had he stayed around? We’ll never know what might have been for him. He simply did not stay around long enough to be freshly commissioned.

His journey began with an unresolved personal weakness.It ended in suicide, but

Before he commits suicide he is delivered of his personal weakness. Money no longer holds him as he throws it back to the religious powers. The death of Jesus is a delivering death, and even Judas is an evidence of this.

He throws it back in the Temple. The place that stood, no longer as a house of prayer for the nations, but as a ‘den of robbers’, a place that stood as a sign of the compromising union of religion and money. What an uneasy truce was there. Religion offered support to the Imperial power, and the Imperial power gave them freedom. The money crashes back in there. A statement of Judas’ new inner freedom, and a prophetic sign that true faith will be freed from the domination of Mammon.

Inner freedom. Don’t be too quick to act Judas, you are free, free, free at last. You were not alone in betraying Jesus. I was there too. But…

He moves quickly, the regret and grief is too strong for him to handle, and takes his own life.

What would have happened if he had hung on another day or two? Maybe he could have been like the husband and wife on the way to Emmaus:

we thought he would restore the kingdom, and he has been crucified, and now it is the third day (my paraphrase).

What would a third day have done for Judas?

Judas never have lived to experience the third day, but he died experiencing the love of Jesus and the delivering power of Jesus. And yes… I do expect to see him in the age to come.

I am too like Judas – maybe this is why he is one of the 12. Maybe too much of Christianity has modelled itself on Judas. Hidden personal weaknesses, after all can we really be expected to be vulnerable? We accumulate knowledge that will help establish the kingdom; and if we do well, if we are those who believe for greatness then we can expect to gain a significant position as we help Jesus out.

But there is always a fresh opportunity.

Good-bye Judas… yet hoping one day I will say ‘Hello, and glad to meet you – I learnt a lot from you.’

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Evangelise or bear witness?

(Modified, originally posted in August, 2016).

A while back I read a blog post from Scot McKight on Rethinking: Evangelism, and alongside reading Brian Zahnd’s book ‘Water to wine’ of his own journey of faith beyond the narrow approach of ‘in / out’.

McKnight asks the question of how we should evangelise:

so now then how do we evangelise… what do we say in that 3-5 minutes when that might be the only conversation we have.

This is a poignant question when we think beyond a person ‘going to heaven and needed the entry ticket’ – what then is evangelism?

Zahnd’s book is deeply moving as it is his personal journey of integrity. I cannot make the journey he has made where he appears to me to be deeply sacramental and (in my perspective) a staunch believer in the institution and liturgy of church, and although he seems to come at it by a different route his journey likewise challenges the traditional understanding of what it means to evangelise.

Both carry the label of ‘evangelical’, and although I sometimes question the validity of that label, in as much as it means having a centre in Jesus, salvation through his atoning death as revealed through the authority of Scripture then I too am probably happy with the label. The label describes some core beliefs for us all, and it is in that context the question of ‘then what about evangelism’ becomes important. The question becomes a relevant question when the Gospel is seen as broader than the four spiritual laws. And it becomes harder and harder to reduce the Gospel to those (or similar) kinds of laws / statements. The 3-5 minutes under the former viewpoint was easy, now what?

For Gayle and I we live deliberately missionally. In our opinion the call to follow Jesus necessitates that. I appreciate that the first call of Jesus to the apostolic band was to be with him (Mk. 3:13), the apostles were those who ate and drank with Jesus (Acts 10:41), so maybe I miss something in all this. Being (with) before doing and acting. However, I confess that we think purpose. We think that way because we think all believers are called to live that way. However, we have stopped using that (missional) language because far from seeming to help others find purpose two things happened. A view that it is different for us – ‘you live in Spain’, as if an address makes a difference? (And it does at times – try living in Saudi Arabia, Syria etc… or in some Western nations that have all-but sold out to materialism.) And secondly, it seemed to carry an expectation that because we are living in Spain there are certain things we are / should be doing. So we use the phrase ‘living life’. This might become a less than useful phrase too. What we mean by the phrase is life centred on the values, teaching and person of Jesus, so the whole of life is shaped by that viewpoint, and I hasten to add ‘imperfectly’. Now we all live life – whatever our address, but a follower of Jesus has to be ‘guilty’ of living life shaped by the One who died for their redemption.

Long paragraph there, but the reason is, McKnight, Zahnd or Scotts, who all see the Gospel as broader than the four spiritual laws have to answer the question of evangelism. I am not a Universalist (too many Scriptures there for me), but neither do I automatically submit to all are off to hell at death except for the born-again ones, and partly as I see the ‘hell’ Scriptures as both having an AD70 application and that where they do not the issue is eternal punishment not eternal punishing. So maybe there is an easier, softer-edged approach to my theology, that avoids me living with the imagery that all are in a burning building and our task is to get as many out as possible by whatever means (evangelism that treats people as objects therefore is not too objectionable under that imagery). I still hold to ‘those who receive Jesus are saved’, so I want the whole world to receive Jesus. What then about evangelism?

McKnight used the word ‘witness‘ in his post. I found a resonance in that. We are called to be witnesses to Jesus – we read this of course regarding the promise upon reception of the Spirit, where Jesus explicitly harnesses the Israel calling to the nations, as in Isaiah, conferring that on the disciples (Acts 1:8). The Acts 10:41 scripture I referred to above says:

but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

We are witnesses and perhaps all the better witnesses if we eat and drink with him. Lifestyle witnesses. That was why when the bank assistant swore at a reasonably high volume asking me to make some kind of monetary response, I had made a witness. She then said to me ‘I know money is not important to you’. Did I evangelise her, rebuke her for her use of the well known ‘-er’ verb? No, but I bore witness. Off the back of that one day, maybe… But I am not about to exploit the situation.

Witnesses to values, based on following Jesus. He is the centre, not some facts about sinfulness and ‘wrath’. We can connect with people, we can confront racism, sexism, abuse, unfettered capitalism (note ‘unfettered’) all on the basis of our Jesus’ discipleship. We can resonate with activist groups that care for the poor, and when there is an opportunity we can explain the reason is that ‘this so closely resonates with what our teacher instructed us‘. The witness is to him.

The language of ‘witness’ gives us some language that we find helpful. Living life is missional, witnessing is evangelism (good news-ing). Living life is eating and drinking with Jesus. If he is important the occasions when we encounter the restricted 3-5 minutes might contain some verbal communication in summarised form about sin and the cross, but more likely the challenge will remain as to how we live life. That is the core element of witnessing, and the only way to effectively plant seeds where people can ‘hear him’ and not simply some approximate truths about him.

A little theology

I do not believe the Bible teaches the eternal punishing of ‘sinners’. In summary: the soul is not immortal; God alone has immortality; the tree of life was barred to humanity so that ‘they might not live forever’; the imagery drawn is from Sodom and Gomorrah, they being destroyed by eternal fire and all that remained was the smoke of their torment, and from the closing verses of Isaiah where ‘their worm did not die’, the fire was not quenched but the result was non-existence. This is the difference between eternal punishing and eternal punishment. One is unending and ongoing, the other (at some stage) final and irreversible. I also consider that many of the warnings in the Gospel are concerning the ‘hell’ of AD70, so not relevant to the issue of eternal destiny.

I also lean to the blurred line position of ‘all who receive Christ’ are saved (we then have to wait to see what it means to receive Christ – what about those who received an image of Christ, and how perverted is an image until it is no longer a Christ but an anti-(replacing the authentic) Christ?), and all who ‘reject Jesus are lost’ (again what does it mean to ‘reject’ Christ). This is not a Universalist position but holds solidly to the universal inclusion through the Cross. This gives room for those to be included in the age to come who have not come through the narrow door that those from an evangelical / fundamentalist background have been (implicitly) taught to work with. Though it needs to be noted that the above is well within the boundaries of evangelical faith.

[Side note: the narrow path, flee the wrath to come type of Scriptures fit totally the coming judgement of AD70… We have to read the Scriptures narratively first, not as a set of doctrines.]

I consider that such theology takes some of the angst out of the ‘one opportunity so quickly discharge your responsibility’. Other issues I have with the hard line ‘one opportunity’ scenario is that we can treat people as objects to be saved, preached to, or whatever. Something I think is far from the scenarios we find in the Gospels with Jesus or in the Acts with the Gospel mission. There was a ‘I-Thou’ relationship (to take out of context a quote) that seems to me to be about the encounters we read there. In many of the scenarios a giving in relationship was the context, and that takes time.

The Pauline Gospel has at the centre a belief concerning the death and resurrection that proclaimed a new foundation for the world. A new creation is on its way because he is the ‘firstborn of all creation’, and (I think) by implication there was a new way to be society in the light of that. Paul could proclaim this in the market place alongside the other philosophers. The huge added dimension was a transcendent one, witnessed to by the inbreaking of heaven’s realities with miracles and the expulsion of demons. Immediate signs of another dimension, and subsequent signs of a different dimension evidenced socially if someone took a focus on the transformation among the marginalised.

For me then the proclamation of the ‘kingdom of God’ is not a three step:

  • all sinned
  • Jesus died for all
  • receive him and you are saved.

Hence I think our call and Paul’s preaching was ‘to bear witness’. This seems to accord with his desire to come to the Roman church to proclaim the Gospel, not to reduce this to work with them to ‘evangelise’. His desire was to preach the Gospel to ‘them’ (the church).

Now the flip side. There is wonderfully more than enough evidence throughout the letters that personal salvation is a reality. Paul spoke of wanting all to be in his situation (minus the chains) when addressing the royal court. He wished for them to be as he was personally bonded to Christ.

This is why we need to be very sensitive to the ‘in the next five minutes I need to get across the deeply core aspect of the cross that Jesus was present to reconcile all to God’. If we call that evangelism, then let’s be very sensitive to evangelise. I simply think that is one aspect of bearing witness, and an aspect that if forced in another situation might not be a bearing of witness.

Praying for a sick person without explaining the four spiritual laws, digging someone’s garden or whatever might be the most powerful witness we can bring at a given time. Our witness is not to how good we are, nor to how bad someone is who is not a ‘believer’ but our witness is to Jesus, that there is a new creation here and coming.

So my tentative position is that we are to bear witness. We must resist the temptation to evangelise at all costs. We have to be passionate about Jesus so that we see people as he saw them. Perhaps to the religious person we might have to insist that without them being born again they will not even perceive the kingdom; maybe to the rich person we might need to exhort them to sell everything for without it they can never be free to enter bondship to Jesus; perhaps to the financial cheat we should go eat with them and only when they look to put right what they have done do we take the liberty to proclaim that salvation has come to their household; maybe… Yes all gospel stories and ones centred in on Jesus’ ministry to Israel so they have their limitation, but maybe they also have enough provocation to bring me to repentance over the situations where I have opted to evangelise when I should have born witness, or have missed on out on that specific opportunity to ‘evangelise’ when I opted to avoid it.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Are we to blame?

There are some crazy things that take place in society and more-then-crazy things proposed in response. I seek to hesitate to comment on anything in the USA as I it is not a geography that I have been asked to take responsibility for, but Gayle and I are over here a few days, and the gun debate is of course in focus. Arming teachers? Once one starts with the good people can (and must) have control we are on a slippery slope. I can (almost) handle the kind of response to issues when it is phrased with ‘regrettably for now the best way forward is, but we want to be clear, this is only because at this stage we are unable to make a better response…’

Responses that involve an escalation of power never seem to bring a solution, and ironically of course reflect the view that many have of God’s government! Making a healthy response at a legislative level is never an easy one, but those who do that have to at least have one eye firmly fixed on the future, in the sense of where will this take us in 5 / 10 years time.

I wonder how we are to measure the health of the church in any given area? We could of course consider look internally and consider how the body is nourished, what level of care is shown one to another. However, if the church is to take responsibility for the health of the wider society we would also need to look at the what is taking place in wider society. I am sure that there is a principle laid out in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus moved from murder in society to the issue of anger among the disciples. There seems to be a correlation. Seeds in the body and fruit in society.

The terminology of the NT is highly political, the word ‘ekklesia’ being a common word already in use. The Hebrew background of ‘qahal’ is important, but the immediate context of the NT is of the city government. Paul did not, in one sense, plant an ekklesia in the cities he worked in, he planted ekklesias ‘in Christ’. The city already had an ekklesia, he planted a ‘Jesus’ version. I suggest the use of the word indicates, that just as the city ekklesia was there for the future of the city, so also the ekklesia in Christ.

We cannot control the outcome within a society, there are choices that are there to be made, and freedom indicates that the wrong choice can be made. However, I believe we can shift (bind = limit) powers that control. Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but we have a battle.

If the church measures its health only by what is happening within the four walls we are going to miss it. We have to let the issues within society reflect back. We are not to blame for what happens, and if the church is marginalised in a setting survival might be the main focus… but where it is established we really have to step up to the plate.

Back home we take this seriously. We now have political prisoners (from Catalonia), none of whom have been involved in violence. We have corruption (named as the most corrupt government in Europe), control of the media and so on. Are we to blame? No. But we have to live in a different way and outwork our faith so that in 5 or 10 years time there is a change.

Any temporary responses that give more power to the ‘good'(!!!) people have to give way to shifts that are visibly reflected in society along the lines of care for the marginalised, co-habiting of space, peace and well-being.

We are not to blame, we cannot dictate the outcomes… but we need to take responsibility now to open up possibilities that look different in the future.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Perspectives