Category: Theology

Reconciliation – post #1

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Here is the first post exploring ideas surrounding ‘reconciliation’. The first few will try and set the scene and give some (of my) pressupositions / boundaries. I will eventually publish these posts in an edited and expanded form in a pdf document.

There are many ways in which people approach God’s redemptive work and probably when it is reduced to a single lens much is lost in that process. One very common way is to emphasise God’s holiness in contrast to humanity’s sin and guilt, thus with some measure of payment introduced to enable redemption to take place. This approach, at worst, can present a divide in the Trinity (God, the Father demanding justice and the Son sacrificially taking the consequences so that justice is met; two principle actors – could this contribute to the marginalisation of the Spirit in much theology?); at best ‘payment theories’ can be presented using an analogy such as when someone breaks something of value that belongs to someone else and thus to repair it there will be a cost that has to be borne by someone. Such theologies then say that the ‘payment’ is not met by the one who broke the valued item but the generous God of creation undertakes the repair at his / her cost. This view undergirds Anselm’s satisfaction theory of satisfying God’s honour and the predominant view from the Reformation of restoring justice – restored, we note, through punishment. The inadequacy of the illustration, though, is that what needs to be repaired is something external whereas the repair in the biblical story is a relational repair. In that sense the cost of repair is not something that has to be weighed up for a God who so loved the world but does everything to bring about the healing that is needed relationally. Did Jesus pay a price? Yes indeed, but also we need to marvel at ‘for the joy set before him’, the utter commitment to bring about restoration. We might suggest that the pleasure of seeing humanity healed and thus able to fulfil their destiny is what motivates the journey of Incarnation through to the cross.

God was in Christ reconciling

A relational framework is central to Scripture. The God of Scripture is not some great unmoved mover, but an intensely motivated ‘Person’. Rather than focus on guilt and falling short of a standard it is better to focus on relational alienation. Disobedience is present in the first chapters of the Bible and subsequently throughout but the response desired is not for humanity to come back to obeying a set of laws but back into relationship, to be reconciled to God. Sin is to fall short, to fall short of the glory of God as humans (Rom. 3:23). Paul has already in the first chapter of Romans contrasted the glory that is ours (made in the image of God) with the choice made:

and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles (Rom. 1: 23).

Sin then is deeper than a ‘not doing what we were told’ and is centred in ‘not being who we were created’. Created to bear / carry the image of God, to be God-like, to be relational and to be agents of reconciliation where relationships are damaged. Sin is best understood as falling short of bearing the name of God as image-bearers, of falling short of displaying the wonderful God-glory so that it can be visible. The words we read in John’s Gospel of Jesus that, ‘We beheld his glory full of grace and truth’ reveal what true humanity looks like, Jesus being the express image of the invisible God.

True humanity

Alienation and reconciliation might be a reductive approach but it is one I consider is sufficiently representative of the biblical narrative as it focuses on the broken relationships and the redemptive process in bringing about healing. Alienation is expressed in multiple ways in the aftermath of ‘eating the forbidden fruit’. Divides and distancing are expressed in so many areas in that chapter and the subsequent ones.

  • God / human
  • male / female
  • self alienation
  • human / creation
  • familial divides
  • angelic / human.

Such tensions and divides are throughout the biblical narrative; alienation, being a relational word, is at the heart of the problem, thus reconciliation is at the heart of the solution.

In this extended article I will follow the theme of reconciliation and how that outworks in four directions

  • Reconciliation to God
  • Reconciliation to fellow-humans (and this has to include the ‘other’, even the person(s) that might be termed the ‘enemy’)
  • Reconciliation to oneself, or as commonly termed ‘self-acceptance’
  • Reconciliation to creation, the planet on which we live.

I am not suggesting that the above four are of equal status, but neither am I suggesting that any one aspect can eliminate one or more of the other three. All four aspects are essential as we hold out for ‘the reconciliation of all things’. 

We might wish to argue that the first (reconciliation to God) has to come first in a temporal sense and without that taking place the others have no ‘kingdom’ value. I prioritise the first as of greatest value, but am not prepared to denigrate the others as having no value; indeed the other three should critique the claim that we have been reconciled to God.

In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us (2Cor.5:19).

What aspects of the world was God reconciling? Paul centres in on ‘us’ as we are the core of the problem. If we are out of sync everything else follows suit, such as we read in Genesis that the ground was cursed because of us. Reconciliation, and the great hope was of the reconciliation of ‘all things’. This reconciliation, Paul insists is to take place through the cross:

and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.
And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature [to the whole creation] under heaven. I, Paul, became a minister of this gospel (Col. 1:20-23, emphases added).

The reconciliation is already ‘ours’, but the message goes beyond us – to all creation (NRSV translating ktisis (creation) as creature). Paul’s vision of salvation / restoration is as big as to solve all issues, thus the universal statement of ‘all things, whether on earth or in heaven’. The apostolic gospel is cosmic in its message and the apostolic commission is to partner with the fulfilment of that message.

There is a small statement in Mark (short Gospel but with a number of small statements that can be missed) with regard to the temptation of Jesus, a note of heavenly and earthly reconciliation:

He was in the wilderness forty days, tested by Satan, and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels waited on him (Mk. 1:13).

The angelic and human together, and… the wild beasts with the true human thus bringing a major aspect of the ‘all things’ of creation into harmony as expressed in the Isaianic vision of ultimate transformation. The true human who, unlike the first Adam does not submit to the ‘god of this world’, exhibits in the wilderness of all places (the supposed domain of the demonic) something of the reconciliation of all things.

Reconciliation to God is central, but the theme of reconciliation does not find its completion with some spiritual state for the redeemed elite. Hence the exploration of reconciliation in these four dimensions.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A little writing that is to come

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The next next of posts will take a slightly different direction. During lockdown I wrote four books with the overall title of ‘Explorations in theology’ and have held various Zooms on their content. I consider behaviour is more important than belief but know that belief shapes behaviour. I am not sure what label is appropriate for where I sit on the theological spectrum. I guess I could be labelled a ‘progressive evangelical’, evangelical in the sense that the canon of Scripture is the authority for what I believe and the cross of Jesus is the means of reconciliation to God (as put out in Robert K. Johnston 1990’s paper); David Bebbington suggested four elements that define evangelicalism: conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism. As per all terms each one needs to be filled with meaning and meaning is where theology steps in. ‘Progressive’ in the sense that there is one eternal gospel but our understanding of it is shaped by our cultural setting, and we are no longer living in the Anselmian era of feudalism, nor the Reformers’ era of indulgences and the law-court. If progressive is appropriate then I also make a loud shout that we must always be assessed by our faithfulness to the parameters of the great narrative of Eden to New Jerusalem. (And to be a little provocative… surely a belief in the rapture falls way short of being faithful to those parameters; and to be even more provocative – we have to go beyond ‘belief’, maybe a statement of faith that could not be critiqued would be one borrowed from ‘the devil’ who believes!!!! Purely provocative – but the point is faith has to contain allegiance and perhaps should be defined by allegiance?)

Since writing the four books I began to write some extended articles (https://3generations.eu/journals) and am about to start another one in that ‘series’. It will be an exploration and my plan is to write it as a series of posts that I will then extend (maybe with the help of comments and push back) and publish it as the next pdf extended article. This will be an exploration into the reconciliation of all things, not in the sense of eschatological reconciliation but at the level of ‘redemptive’ reconciliation – what now and here is to be reconciled; in what areas are we to experience and work toward reconciliation. I will suggest that there are four ways in which reconciliation is to be expressed:

  • reconciliation to God
  • reconciliation to others
  • reconciliation to the creation
  • reconciliation to self.

The first is of course obvious and very ‘Pauline’; the second comes through clearly with the command to love our neighbour… and the extension of that to love ‘our enemy’; the third is clear in Romans 8 and is much more visible as an urgent necessity in our day than in Paul’s day; the fourth has become the domain of the therapeutic world but is within that command to love others as we love ourselves. So far so good, but not really much of an exploration! A very short article.

We can claim to be reconciled to God but if we ‘hate our brother / sister’ we are a liar! Strong words. In reality if I am truly reconciled to God then there should be a flow into the other areas – sadly a ‘believe the right doctrine’ and righteousness is ‘imputed’ does not stack up with Scriptures that extend the meaning / implication of faith in God. We are in process so I am not suggesting some level of perfection required – grace is grace. Full, realised reconciliation awaits us.

I will seek to explore these four areas and allow Scripture to critique our approach to Scripture and the area that might prove a little uncomfortable is whether there is scope to begin with an area of reconciliation other than that of reconciliation to God (in the personal / Christian sense).

Let me put it this way – if we (I) claim to be reconciled to God through the work of the cross then there is the legitimate expectation that there will be evidence that I am embracing the other three areas of reconciliation. That is the challenge to me as a believer – demonstrating my faith, not simply articulating it. Then exploring the position of someone who is not a believer:

Could it be that there is someone who does not even believe in a transcendent personal God who is increasingly being reconciled in the three other areas and as that takes place they are in fact being, in limited but yet real measure, reconciled to the God who is revealed within creation and within humanity?

Panic not! Explorations… but I will also wish to explore the implications of any such view. Where am I on the theological spectrum – willing to explore as Jesus is the centre of all.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Where did he go?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I have just finished reading Lamb of the Free – the fourth reading of the book and if I had the energy I would need one more reading that included the footnotes, a Bible in one hand and a pen and paper to make extensive notes. That is not going to happen today and I will probably let the material settle for a while. (I highly recommend this book and a challenging read but a major pushback against ‘substitutionary’ view of the atonement.) What was not new for me is the idea that sacrifice is not something done in my place but in order to cleanse… forgiveness of sins does not require blood / death but cleansing – so Heb. 9:22 “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”; Acts 15:9 “in cleansing their hearts by faith [the Gentiles] he has made no distinction between them and us”. Cleansing, purifying being the effect of both the OT sacrifices and that of the death of Jesus. God not requiring the death of Jesus in order to forgive – indeed (from memory) in Acts we always read that ‘you’ put Jesus to death BUT God raised him from the dead. Anyway enough of the book and my smart observations!

Partly provoked by the book and also my own readings it seems clear that Hebrews focuses on areas regarding the work of Jesus from unique angles. So what took place after the death of Jesus – and death is understood as the presentation of life to God, hence the death of Jesus is the presentation of an indestructible, perfect human life to God. Maybe there are two ‘opposite’ answers – he went to ‘hades’ to proclaim freedom to the captives:

He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison (1 Pet 3:18, 19).

Or the very opposite!

Thus it was necessary for the sketches of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves need better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the holy place year after year with blood that is not his own, for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:23-26).

Moses had to make the tabernacle according to the pattern he saw in heaven – and that needed cleansing (sacrifices) so as it would be a meeting point of heaven and earth. Is there a ‘heavenly’ tabernacle? And why would that need cleansing? I think rather than there being a heavenly tabernacle what Moses was to create was a reflection of heaven itself (we read ‘Jesus entered into heaven itself’)… but that still raises the question as to why heaven needs better sacrifices, and needs to be cleansed! Maybe heaven was left polluted after the fall of Lucifer (not likely to get my vote) or perhaps the sin of humanity affected heaven also (OK a tentative vote from me this time).

If I had to choose between the visit to ‘hades’ or to ‘heaven’ I go for the latter – though of course both might be possible.

And on the going to heaven I think probably what we have is the flip side of cleansing of things merely earthly but to include all of creation (‘heaven and earth’ being a merism for the whole creation).The result being that rather than the separation of the two (dualism) that the path is opened through the cross for the reconciliation of all things – things in heaven and things on earth. Jesus’ death is much more than my sins + your sins placed on Jesus (indeed I don’t see that at all!) – it is the defeat of every power that stands in the way of the divine presence manifesting through all things. Thus the death of Jesus is that of the indestructible human life that overcomes all hostile powers (narrowed to ‘sin and death’ and including ‘principalities and powers’) being presented to the Creator God, thus cleansing the Temple (heaven being the throne and earth the footstool) in totality. Jesus the one who ‘tabernacled’ among us risen and ascended to ‘fill all things’ cleanses all things by his blood (and here we have to think life, death, resurrection and ascension) – hence there can be no more need for a tabernacle / temple (ripped curtain).

Now I guess over to us – what aspect do we fill out, not with domination, but with presence?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Mobile Holiness

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I am currently reading Lamb of the Free by Rillera. A substantial read and I am on my third reading of it. It is the most consistent challenge that I know of that pushes back against a substitutionary view of the atonement (and beyond that of the most common ‘penal substitution’). Most recently in Chapter 5 where he moves from Old Testament material on sacrifice to the New Testament I was very taken by how he holds together the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. In simple evangelical theology we can be forgiven for thinking that the life of Jesus is simply a prelude to his death, and the resurrection proof that his death is sufficient.

The aspect that stood out for me was the description that Jesus was the ‘mobile holiness’ of God present on earth. As such he confronted and overcame the effects of the power of death, such as healing, casting out demons and raising the dead (and commissioned his disciples to do likewise) and then in death he confronted death itself which could not hold him captive. Living and dying ahead of us rather than for us in a substitionary sense. [An aside Paul uses the same language for the resurrection in relationship to believers as he uses for the cross. If Jesus died so we do not have to die then he was raised and thus we will not be raised!!! OOOPS!!]

A few days ago I posted concerning David’s desire to build a ‘house for God’. Here is the biblical text:

Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the Lord: Are you the one to build me a house to live in? I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’ (2 Sam. 7:5-7).

The mobile God… Jesus described his own body as a Temple – destroy this Temple and I will raise it up in 3 days, speaking of his own body… The Temple the location that God never requested; in John’s Gospel we read that he ‘dwelt among us’, using a very specific Greek verb σκηνόω – to dwell in a tent, to pitch a tent, to ‘tabernacle’. Mobility – the restoration of the tabernacle.

Post Pentecost – ‘Go’. Mobile not static. We are in process, there is a restoration of mobility. The way God always was and desired to be.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Marginalised…?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

There is a fairly oft-repeated perspective that in many countries where symbols of Christianity were once prominent that we are now facing in those places Christianity being marginalised, and to such an extent that the suggestion is that those who profess Christian faith are even being persecuted. Along the same line great positivity is expressed when a writing comes out that outlines how the West has been shaped by the Christian faith.

There could well be some truth in the above, but…

  • The early Centuries after the death of Jesus those who lived by their confession that ‘Jesus is Lord’ were truly marginalised. Embedded in the Imperial world always living with the threat that they would not be able to buy and sell. So maybe if there is truth in the marginalisation / persecution narrative perhaps it will serve to bring us closer to the context (and faith?) of the New Testament. [A story: when back in the day and Gayle and I were travelling we had just finished a conference with a couple who are fairly well-known in the Christian world (many who read this post probably have a copy of one of their books on their shelves). We were told to get guns and be armed… initially I thought this is a joke with a punch line. However no punch line but the explanation that Muslims have a vision for Europe so we need to be ready to kill them! My reply – maybe for the sake of the Gospel ‘they’ might have to kill us… That story illustrates two different world-views.]
  • I read recently that 1) there is no God other than the Jesus-looking God, who is 2) looking for a Jesus-looking people who 3) are seeking to engage with the wider world in a Jesus-looking way. All views of engaging with the world need to be shaped in that way. Turning the other cheek (not a pacifist act but something much deeper), or expressed in summary ‘following the Lamb wherever he goes’… or as summarised ‘loving the enemy’, has to be present.
  • If we insist on Christianity not being marginalised we need to be sure it is the genuine article… we could end up (and I have a perspective so would use the verb ‘will’ rather than ‘could’) with Christianity re-established and Jesus marginalised. Let us not confuse Christianity with faith in Jesus. As I have oft-written no-one assumed that Paul was calling for those to pray a ‘sinners prayer’ and then attend Bible study sessions. The call was considerably deeper and one that motivated him to get to the ‘centre for the propagation for the gospel’ so that he could declare what he was convinced was the true Gospel in that place (Rome and the letter to the ‘Romans’).

I might be considered weird by some but I am not so weird that I am asking for all aspects of the Christian faith to be marginalised(!) but I am suggesting that we are at a very intense time of reset when either there will be ‘success’ in the traction to make Christianity central again, or… I like the ‘or’.

The central body of faith in Jesus’ time classified people as ‘sinners’. It was not as simple as ‘they broke the commandments’ but that they did not follow our tradition. One cannot come up with a one view as to why Jesus died but one aspect concerning his death was that he ate with the wrong people. Part of the ‘or’ alternative will be that a Jesus-looking people will be guilty of eating with the wrong people… of refusing to have arms and accepting the injustice of marginalisation.

If the restoration of Christianity means the marginalisation of Jesus and the marginalisation of Christianity means that Jesus can be witnessed to… I choose the latter. It is probably not a binary choice – but I deeply suspect that the Jesus-way is closer to the latter option than the former.

[W]ho through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received their dead by resurrection. Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, in order to obtain a better resurrection. Others suffered mocking and flogging and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned to death; they were sawn in two; they were killed by the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, persecuted, tormented— of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains and in caves and holes in the ground (Heb. 11:33-38).

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Not the centralised God!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

My reading this morning took me to 2 Samuel 7… and a little insight into God’s attitude to the Temple. Of course you are about to get my reflections on what I read – that is the power of Scripture and the danger of it too. Down to how do I read it… and that might be different to how you read it. That’s why I am looking forward to the day of assessment, looking forward to it with a little nervousness. Did I really live out my life authentically? Here is the bit that stood out for me,

Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the Lord: Are you the one to build me a house to live in? I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’ (2 Sam. 7:5-7).

There are those who hope and believe for a third Temple to be built in Jerusalem as some sort of fulfilment of prophecy. I do not read prophecy that way and the chapters in Ezekiel that are taken that way do not describe a temple location, just the Lord will be there (then we can jump over to Revelation in a short while). I loved the phrase that I have emboldened above, ‘I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle’. Mobility. Where the people go God goes; where God goes the people are to go. Hence the people who are born of the Spirit are like the wind – movement. Yes we can use the ‘wind’ as a description of the Spirit but Jesus applied that description to those who have been born from above. (That would make ‘evangelism’ interesting… not ‘who is going to raise their hand and pray this prayer’ but who will make a commitment to the God of the universe and live unpredictably from this time on in the power of the Spirit!!!)

Tabernacled – the same verb used of Jesus who ‘tabernacled among us’. The same thought at the end of Matthew’s account of the great commission to go into all the world and (here I reflect the OT parallel in 2 Chronicles) and establish a temple there. The same imagery as in Revelation – a city with no distinct, separate temple.

We get another insight to God in this passage. The compromising God. OK then ‘let him (Solomon) build a temple’. I am 100% convinced that this was not what God would have chosen, any more than he chose a king. But this is the God who walks and moves about with us. Jesus became of no reputation, not simply because he was human but because he was God in the flesh. I think we could add ‘and God has become of no reputation’ or at least ‘God’s reputation has been greatly tarnished’ because he has always moved about and not centred him-(her-, their-) self in some impressive way.

Here we are the other side of the resurrection. I totally believe in a historic resurrection of Jesus but what is vital is that there is a follow on to be part of the God who has never requested a building but to move in a tent and tabernacle in and through the whole ‘city’. That city that was the size of the then known world and the shape of the holy of holies.

Individual and corporate tabernacle(s).

Once we go down the route of ‘give us a king’ Temple building seems to follow. So I guess we need to make sure we do not go in the king making direction. Pentecost is to follow in our ‘calendar’ – the democratisation of the Spirit. We have probably gone down the route of domesticating the Spirit… and yet God, the Spirit, also becomes of no reputation.

In this time of global disruption could we who believe that heaven has touched us break out of some constraints and ‘move about’?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Release unto us Cain

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Well they actually asked for Barabbas but there is a strong narratival echo in the story that pushes us back to think about Cain and Abel.

Although I am not one who follows the ‘church’ calendar I am aware that the two festivals of Christmas and Easter come round every year (don’t think I will earn any brownie points for that!). I have posted, in a previous ‘holy week’ about the contrast of Pilate’s entry to Jerusalem with full military show each year and Jesus’ entry on a donkey (thanks to Crossan and Borg). I don’t know if others see the parallel between Jesus and Barabbas and Cain and Abel but I do believe there is a deliberate echoing in the biblical narrative.

In some manuscripts (for Matthew’s Gospel) we have the name ‘Jesus’ added to Barabbas – original or not it seemingly underlies that there are 2 possible ‘Jesus-es’ we can choose to follow, and if we tie it to John 19 Pilate is persuaded that he cannot release Jesus the Messiah and continue to be a friend of Caesar. So here we have yet another time when the Imperial aspect comes through again in the Gospels, and for sure it is there with Pilate describing Jesus as ‘the king of the Jews’ (cynical or otherwise).

Cain and Abel. Two brothers, two sons of the same father. Jesus and Barabbas, two sons of the father (the meaning of Barabbas is son of the father). Do they have the same father? One in submission to the Father, one not dealing with ‘sin that crouches at the door’ and thus being controlled by it (Gen. 4:7).

Abel’s blood crying out for a justice that punishes, God hearing the ‘blood’ but in spite of his own law that there was to be the death penalty for those who murdered he covered Cain; there is no reciprocal penalty. Redemption does not demand payment; redemption is not even as the result of someone else being punished; redemption offers forgiveness for a sin that there is no sacrifice to cover (‘You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.’ (Num. 35:33)) . In the light of our choice Barabbas goes free; in the light of our God Barabbas goes free. The Gospel’s real offence is not in who is excluded but with respect to who is included.

How strong is that prayer for forgiveness for ‘them’ (us) who have no idea what we are doing!

I ponder many times as to the cosmic significance of what unfolded in that first Easter week. I don’t think I will ever get it because I still have a ‘god’ that is too much in my image. Little wonder Paul in summarising ‘sin’ says it is to fall short of the glory of God. Glory is revealed in the cross with a wonderful invitation to enter new life the other side. An invitation that extends to Barabbas, Cain and to Martin. For that I am very grateful for the reminder.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Reconciliation at last (or eschatological reconciliation)

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I have acknowledged that using a single lens through which the fall (I prefer the term ‘falls’: what we read taking place is of successive falls from the ‘good’ in Genesis 3-11) and through redemption will always have a weakness, nevertheless I think that ‘alienation’ and (the converse) ‘reconciliation’ is the central way of viewing those two aspects… thus with the classic ‘creation, fall, redemption (and culmination)’ I am suggesting ‘creation, alienation, reconciliation, new creation’ as injecting content into that helpful framework.

By drawing on alienation and reconciliation I am placing relationship at the centre, not some legal framework. Relational terms are foundational – the term ‘to know’ both in Hebrew and Greek are relational terms. However placing relationships at the centre might be prove challenging so I post here what might prove to be so:

  • An emphasis on ‘salvation’ as being heavily weighted toward salvation for a purpose – to be part of the movement (of small people) committed to act and behave in the light of new creation, rather than salvation from (e.g.) ‘hell’.
  • That those who participate in the age to come (‘new creation’) will be determined by God. Personally, I am not a universalist, but believe in a wideness in the mercy of God, based upon the character of the God revealed in Jesus. The cross is universally cosmic in effect but calls for a response.
  • That the cross is not presented as the means by which God can forgive (‘the wrath of God was satisfied’) but the means by which God can bring in a new era that is not subject to death nor sin (both described as powers in Paul). The resurrection then is vital as if Jesus is not raised from the dead there is no legitimate claim that the new age has been inaugurated – we would still be, as Paul says, ‘ in our sins’. (Jesus has poured out this Spirit from on high – an eschatological Isaiahanic promise.)
  • Old Testament sacrifice is within the context of those who are already within the covenant, not presented as a means to enter the covenant – this is an aspect that should be recognised when coming to the Easter story, and seems often to be forgotten.
  • That Scripture presents us with the governing story line, but we need to be aware of two aspects – so much of what we read is contingent on a given situation and that the end parts of the story are not pre-written. Contingent in that so much of OT law is focused on Israel as a people, the Gospels as a record of a renewal movement among Israel (or maybe better Judeans – that requires another post to draw out the distinction between ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’); the Pauline letters being the application of the Gospel into the Gentile (those who are not of Israel) world. And the guideline is present where those who claim a God-inbreathed authority for the Scriptures need to stay within the story frame but have to also develop the God-unfolding story into their situation.

Each of the above needs considerable expansion, so I only flag them up here to alert some of the deeply held presuppositions that have been brought centre-stage through the Reformation.

We enter the world of tensions when we engage with things theological and in presenting the four aspects of alienation (and the four aspects therefore of reconciliation) the first tension that we come to is that of reconciliation to God. One of four aspects and the ultimate ground for the reconciliation in the other three areas. God is the source, the ‘space’ within which reconciliation takes place, thus more than one aspect among four. Stating reconciliation to God as an aspect is therefore somewhat limiting. Likewise when we begin ‘from below’ we can marginalise the transcendent. However…

I place humanity at the centre of this discussion, not because we are the centre of the universe but the problems are centred on and came through humanity. I consider such theories of the cross as described in ‘penal substitution’ contain a major flaw as they can present a God who needs to be reconciled. The ‘problems’ are not on the God-side, but on the human and cosmic power side. Reconciliation has never been an issue to God, thus the story of Adam and Eve leaving the Garden (‘temple’) is the story of two parties leaving – the human and the divine. God also leaves the Garden to carry the consequences of what took place there, thus the Psalmist writes ‘where can I go… even if I make my bed in Sheol you are there’. God was in Christ, not separate to Christ, but in Christ reconciling the world to himself.

Alienation from / reconciliation to God

There is alienation from God expressed in multiple ways, but shame, exalted ego, and an inability to ‘see’ God are certainly some of the symptoms. The prototypical humans’ eyes were open and saw they were naked, whereas it takes the revelation of God in Jesus to enable us to see God; in that passage that is the reversal of that first recorded fall involving the couple (the story of Emmaus read as the ‘incarnated new Adam and Eve’) who were on the road is that their eyes were open… open not to see their nakedness but to see Jesus.

The promise of Jesus is that he is the way to the Father, not that he is a way to God, and not even that he is the way to God, but in using a relational term the reconciliation is familiar – the way to the Father. Thus ‘brother, sister, mother’ becomes a term for all those who are aligned to the will of God.

One of the great dangers – one which we do not totally avoid – is that of the extent to which my relationship with God is ‘make believe’! By that I do not simply mean fantasy but I / we all relate to the God of my / our creation, and it is not until he comes that we will be like him, for then we will see him as he is:

What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is (1 John 3:2).

That first letter of John hits hard. If I claim to be in relationship with God but do not walk in the light or hate a fellow-believer then I am deceived:

All who hate a brother or sister are murderers, and you know that murderers do not have eternal life abiding in them. We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers and sisters. How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help? (1 John 3:14-17).

Here is a foundational principle. Reconciliation to God is not based on a law court decision but is deeply practical (hence I think we err if we insist on orthodoxy as being the measure or heresy, we at least have to add orthopraxy). Perhaps we have a ‘hierarchy’ of reconciliation – to God and then to those who carry genuine faith in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Perhaps a hierarchy, perhaps better thought of as concentric circles going out, and perhaps this is why Jesus said the law was summed up in the two commands to love God and to love the neighbour.

Alienation from / reconciliation to ‘others’

There has to be a reconciliation to ‘the other’, and ultimately the ‘neighbour’ is widened to include all. ‘Who is my neighbour?’ and ‘am I my brother’s keeper?’ are questions that receive elevated answers. Eve was the other to Adam and also the same as Adam being ‘bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’. All others are distinct from me, but I have to see them with the same eyes as I see myself, or even stronger to ‘no longer see them after the flesh’ (all categories relating to this age).

Reconciliation to others, reconciliation within community to the level that ultimately all competition (such as trade wars), aggression and conflict (all and every level of war) disappear. Political decisions are not easy but we cannot rejoice when language and activity is used that is so opposing the eschatological hope of Scripture. We could add terms such as ‘scapegoating’ and ‘suspicion’…. and every other aspect that we engage with that pushes us away from others. Perhaps a big one for those of us who carry faith is that of objectivising others or of relativising the contribution of those who do not share our faith.

Alienation from / reconciliation to self

I was not sure what order to bring in the aspect of ‘others’ or ‘self’. We are told to love others as we love ourselves and we could push that toward understanding that if we do not come to terms with who we are that we will not be able to extend that same understanding to how we see others. If the centrality of sin is to fail to discover the reason for which I am alive (‘to fall short of the glory of God’) then true self-discovery is a vital part of our growth toward becoming truly human.

Selfish pursuit with a self-centred focus on self-achievement is fraught with danger but to become the ‘best’ version of who we are so that we can become the best resource to others is important. It is said of Jesus that he became mature (through what he suffered / experienced) so that the result was he became ‘the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him’ (Heb. 5:9).

In reconciliation to oneself issues of shame, guilt, self-forgiveness, and of developing a right perspective so that we become a life source.

I presume it now becomes clear that the ripples go in all directions. If reconciliation with God is at the centre and that is the starting point the ripples should flow from there in every direction though sadly the ripples can stop. Once they stop religion replaces something genuine (relational) with something false.

Alienation from / reconciliation to creation

And the final area of reconciliation is with the wider material world that we are intrinsically part of. ‘Mother earth’ as a term carries the danger of either we are nothing more than material or that all is divine, and yet there is a sense in which Genesis pushes us in that direction for the witness is that humanity is made of the dust of the earth. The relationship of people and land is so explicit in Scripture (if we read Scripture with no pre-knowledge of the book and then was asked to give the connecting word to ‘heaven’ we would reply with ‘and earth’, not ‘and hell’). With over 1200 references to land in Scripture it is not a small theme, and in the record of the ‘falls’ we have that ‘the earth will be cursed because of you’. Alienation results, with the only way for fruit now to come is through the sweat of the brow and engaging with the thorns and thistles.

There is an eschatological hope for the liberation of creation, not its destruction – and there is even a judgement in Revelation on those who destroy the earth:

the time [has come]… for destroying those who destroy the earth (Rev. 11:18).

[A slightly aside note:
There is also a judgement in Paul on those who destroy the ‘Temple’ of God, the people within whom God has placed the Spirit. We have in 1 Cor. 3: 17 ‘If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple’; I highlight the Greek verb in use here in Paul: εἴ τις τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φθείρει, φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ θεός… (ftheiro); in Revelation we have the same verb with an augment added (diaftheiro) – augments are often added to make the verb stronger! καὶ διαφθεῖραι τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν γῆν (Rev 11:18).]

In Romans 8 where Paul writes about the groan of creation it seems that he is drawing from the experience of bondage in Egypt under Pharaoh. Then Israel cried out; now creation cries out in bondage; now we are the new Pharaoh, humanity being a hard taskmaster ever commanding for more resources to be brought for what we are building.

The four areas above deserve much more development, and one day I might do that, but for now a few observations / challenges.

Observations

  • The four above areas are not necessarily on the same level but they are deeply interrelated.
  • Wholistic reconciliation would be evidenced by a development in all four directions and certainly where there is no development beyond ‘reconciliation with God’ there is ever the potential and danger to draw us into deception or even to living a lie. There is a line that can be crossed from relational reconciliation to religious entrenchment.
  • The ‘best’ is when there is a continual back and forth of ripples of reconciliation that flow between all four aspects.
  • We should affirm wherever we encounter works of reconciliation that take place in any of the above four areas – and writing as one with faith in ‘God’ – wherever we encounter any such works, including where it is expressed by someone who does not carry faith, and might even be in opposition to faith. We have to get beyond the fear of ‘salvation by works’ and let such critical verses be set in their context: that of religious activity!
  • And pushing it further, there is a wideness in the mercy of God, we do not need to claim that someone is ‘saved’ provided they are working for (e.g.) an ecologically-healthy future, but neither do we need to write them off in the here and now nor in the ultimate future (none of our business… that is a God-task!). Some might come to faith who begin in one of the other aspects of reconciliation; some might not. Our task is not to narrowly evangelise but to widely evangelise – to spread ‘good news’ for the hope that is in us at every level, which includes our hope for this world’s future. (Beyond, and in contrast to what we have reduced evangelism to, ‘witness’ is the requirement on us… life-style, words, and in the light of this post, how we work toward reconciliation in every area. Maybe even to borrow a concept from elsewhere – we are as reconciled to the extent that we are promoting reconciliation.)
  • I am not happy with terms (sorry to get technical) with regard to pre-, post-, or even a-, millennialism. I am agnostic as to what we will experience this side of the parousia but I am clear we are to work, pray and relate so that our contribution is pulling toward ‘new creation’ realities.
SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A few interim points first

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

My last post was on ‘alienation’ being the plight for humanity and that it is expressed in four directions:

  • alienation from God
  • alienation from one another
  • alienation from oneself
  • alienation from creation

I will post on the antidote that comes to humanity through the work of Messiah inn order to effect reconciliation but prior to that a few preliminary points here and in that laying out my presuppositions.

Our approach to the Bible is a key element. I am in process of reading through in a year and recently the NT aspect took me to Acts. It is no secret that I am not of a Calvinist / Reformed position and I come across Acts 13:48,

When the gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the word of the Lord, and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers.

A golden proof text for the Calvinist… though they have to read a little into it and subconsciously read ‘predestined for eternal life’ with the idea that these were elect prior to the foundation of the world and that regeneration precedes faith. It doesn’t say that. I come at the text and I baulk a little and want it to make fit my views and think it is not too difficult to do – maybe I will do a post one day on it. However both the Calvinist and the Open theologian have presuppostions – the text must mean, or it can’t mean. I am no exception to that… as is everyone else.

Probably if Luke knew the debate that ensued in history he would have been a little more careful (though the context is VERY helpful to the likes of me!) and would have put in brackets with an author’s note: ‘please note I did not write predestined from all eternity; where on earth did you get that idea from?’ And probably it shows that they are not too concerned about the issues we are concerned about.

This leads me to the obsession we have with ‘salvation’ or maybe better put that we are ever so clear who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’. Assuming there is an in and an out that will be revealed on that future day that is God’s business not ours. Our task is to witness. Beyond that I consider that our salvation is far more for something than from something. That view will affect my approach to reconciliation.

I was told last night that there is a reckoning that among Gen Z they are 5x more likely to believe in God / the Transcendent than their parents. Amazing!! Hold that thought… I am reading with a small group ‘Lamb of the Free’ – if you wish to have a challenging read that can give you serious brain ache then that is the one. It is essentially a look at the OT sacrificial system from within and he comes out STRONGLY that there is no element of substitution involved in it (animals are not being sacrificed so that God forgives; they are not being substituted for us). Entering into that OT world is a challenge. It is a totally different world to the one we inhabit so getting one’s head around what is going on with the rituals is quite something. The next chapters will be on the NT in the light of what he has been establishing thus far. What hit me last night was the OT sacrificial system was not put in place to bring people into covenant with God… a cursory reading of the NT and it is through (let me call it) the sacrificial system that is witnessed to in the cross that we Gentiles are brought near and enter the covenant. I presume that is why Paul does not labour on about the OT sacrificial system when preaching to the Gentiles (we look to the book of Hebrews for that). I do have a point here!! And the point is the eternal Gospel cannot be changed, but what is presented does change dependent on culture…

Western Europe / world has been christianised; the Reformation came into that context; the revivals were in that context. Wales and 1904 is highly idealised, but it is instructive to visit Wales and check the dates on many of the chapels. Many date from, or were enlarged in the 1890’s. The people were already in church and a few years later something connected them to living faith; the Hebrides / Lewis were similar with a strong Calvinist belief that included no-one can respond to God until they are regenerated (born again), so until the time came when the conviction of God came on them they were not responding to God in what we consider is a dynamic way… then in a short season…

We do not change the Gospel, but what we express of the eternal Gospel is also in measure contextual. If the Gen Z aspect continues we are looking at the bridges that could be utilised to communicate the ‘good news’ of heaven’s pleasure to this context that is increasingly a reality in the Western world.

Back to the Bible. I read Scripture as narrative, not merely as salvation history, to borrow a phrase, but as a trajectory from creation all the way to new creation. The story is set in motion and we cannot deviate from the direction but there will be new (yet faithful) ways of living out and telling the story that we do not find a biblical text for. I appreciate that the likes of me can get accused over this, but give me a break… robes, titles, ordination, pulpits – even church buildings that some call sanctuaries. Not exactly an abundance of texts on that! We all go beyond Scripture… I think I do OK where I go.

So as I come to look at ‘reconciliation’ into the four areas of God, others, self and creation I might push the boat a little way out from shore but given my presuppositions I don’t think I am deviating from the eternal Gospel. Perspectives abound! The next post will come one day soon.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Reconcilation… wholistically

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Single lens approaches to themes can be helpful but also limiting. The classic is that of the ‘atonement’ with a particular theory being made the explanation of what took place – and this includes the popular ‘scapegoat’ approach – popular among progressives. I write the previous words to acknowledge that I am about to write about a single lens approach to creation, fall and redemption; I am also going to push the boat out, maybe away from the shore too much for some, as this blog is entitled ‘perspectives’ – though I am getting close to being ready to put my weight on the concept I will present and I think it will not give way! The next post will be the one where the exploration is expressed.

The single lens is that of alienation and reconciliation. (Single lens – not that of guilt and forgiveness / justification as per the Reformation.) I do not read Genesis as perfection and fall but as humanity created for relationship with God and created where that relationship can grow (all is good, not perfect as in the sense of mature), so not a hard fall but a departure from the path that leads ever closer to God, but a fall that is a historic statement on humanity so that ‘all have sinned (missed the purpose of what it is to be humanity) and thus have fallen short of (not attained) the glory of God (as would have been revealed if humanity had grown – as revealed by the one who came and having suffered grew into true humanity)’…. (Hope Paul is happy with my parenthesis!)

The result of not taking the path of eating from the tree of life but from the tree of (independent) knowledge of good and evil, of taking the independent path of becoming like God is relational alienation. Shame enters the world of humanity and there comes an inability to see God. The hiding from God is somewhat ironic for what it meant was not that humanity was able to hide but that the result was that they could not see God – it was if God became the hidden God! The ‘devil’ works off the back of this to blind the eyes so that sight becomes impossible.

The relation with each other – the one who is both like us ‘bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh’ and also different ‘male and female s/he made them’ is distorted with the other in the wrong (hence ‘scapegoating’ is not an irrelevant aspect) thus the inter-human-relationships are deeply affected, spilling over as we read beyond the Genesis 3 ‘fall’ of familial murder and then into wider warfare, written about both implicitly and explicitly in the expanding narrative concerning nations and city building.

We also have the rather strange passage about the outside-of-appointed-boundaries sexual relations between ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of women’. Myth but truly representing the distortion of rightly-ordered respectful relationships – affecting not simply our habitat but the entire cosmic order.

And we add to this the tension on the physical world around us – ‘cursed because of you’.

So my summarised single lens is that of ‘alienation’ that outworks in at least four ways:

  • Alienation in the relationship to God – not on God’s side, but the invisible God becomes the hidden God
  • Alienation from the other
  • Alienation from creation
  • Alienation from oneself

If we then jump beyond Genesis 1-11 we come to the opening lines about God appearing to Abraham in the land of Mesopotamia and called him to walk a (literal and spiritual) different path we begin on the redemptive narrative. A relational path away from the centre. The laws that then follow are given to a redeemed people so that in turn they can be part of the redemptive activity of God. The laws concern the alienation ‘problems’ – addressing at the centre the first two areas, with a focus on (as Jesus said) what the entire law and the prophets are based: love for God and for the neighbour. I wrote in The LifeLine (yes go and order it!) that the cross is essentially to do with cleansing so that there can be a meeting point for anyone to meet with the holy God, or in Paul’s words that ‘God was in Christ (Messiah, representative Israel / humanity) reconciling the world (all humanity) to him/herself’. Once Jesus dies there can be no sanctuary per se; the temple curtain must divide not only as a sign but to reveal that when the full truth is revealed what is hidden can be shown not to be present. Emmanuel, God with us, is not in a sanctuary, but ‘with us’ to the end of whatever age we choose to measure things by.

Reconciliation. And reconciliation in four directions:

  • Reconciled to God
  • Reconciled to the other
  • Reconciled to creation
  • Reconciled to one self

The issues have always been relational – the solution has to be relational. The centre is not legal to be settled in a cosmic lawcourt before a Judge, but the familial setting is central – we call no one ‘father’ but the God whose eyes have always seen us (read the Hagar story) resulting in a re-establishing of familial relationships, as described by Jesus:

Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matt. 12:49-50)

My single lens – alienation and reconciliation. In the next post I will seek to explore the four areas of reconciliation.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives