The triumph of protest

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The ‘protest of all protests’ follow on from the triumphal entry to Jerusalem which was in fulfilment of Zechariah 9:9 as Jesus rode in on a donkey. There is the very graphic contrast to Pilate’s entry with great pomp and military presence coming in through the gate at the opposite side of the city, as he did annually. The might of Rome on display; time for all to honour the ‘peace’ and order the Empire brings. At the same time, at the opposite side of the city comes a humble miracle-working carpenter from the margins riding on a donkey. In fulfilment of Zechariah he comes as ‘king’! The contrast was great. Here is the wider text from Zechariah (vv. 8-17) with a few highlighted areas:

Then I will encamp at my house as a guard,
so that no one shall march to and fro;
no oppressor shall again overrun them,
for now I have seen with my own eyes.
Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!
Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!
See, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
and the war horse from Jerusalem;
and the battle bow shall be cut off,
and he shall command peace to the nations;
his dominion shall be from sea to sea
and from the River to the ends of the earth.
As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you,
I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.
Return to your stronghold, O prisoners of hope;
today I declare that I will restore to you double.
For I have bent Judah as my bow;
I have made Ephraim its arrow.
I will arouse your sons, O Zion,
against your sons, O Greece,
and wield you like a warrior’s sword.
Then the Lord will appear over them,
and his arrow go forth like lightning;
the Lord God will sound the trumpet
and march forth in the whirlwinds of the south.
The Lord of hosts will protect them,
and they shall consume and conquer the slingers;
they shall drink their blood like wine
and be full like a bowl,
drenched like the corners of the altar.
On that day the Lord their God will save them,
for they are the flock of his people,
for like the jewels of a crown
they shall shine on his land.
For what goodness and beauty are his!
Grain shall make the young men flourish,
and new wine the young women.

Humble and riding on a donkey – the ‘king’ would come on a war horse when coming to conquer, but on a donkey when they came in peace. The people welcome Jesus, the prince of peace, at that gate crying out ‘Hosannah’ which literally means ‘save us’. Save us? We should not reduce this through a narrow evangelical lens, it is the cry for Messiah to come and for the true shalom to be in the land… as Zechariah says, protection, peace and a wonderful extent of shalom from ‘sea to sea’. Little wonder that those who were oppressed were the ones gathered at the gate crying out for salvation; a salvation that was not primarily about internal transformation but about societal and institutional change.

That entry could only lead to the Temple. Compromised and aligned to political and economic structures that promised well being to all who complied; Jesus made a whip and disturbed in no uncertain terms (turning the tables over was graphically disturbing) and told those who ‘sold doves’ that the system they were supporting and propagating had to end.

The den of robbers (and the prophets equated oppression of the poor to the taking of life / murder) was to fall; there had to be a house of prayer (God save us) for all nations (us = all).

Jesus did this all those years ago. Is he the same yesterday, today and forever?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A time to protest

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The ‘cleansing of the Temple’ maybe should be termed the ‘protest of protests’, being a major protest against the twin powers of religion and mammon, or perhaps the three-fold cord that is not easily broken of religion, mammon and politics.

A few things probably need to be clarified as we look at the passage(s).

  • The temple: not a big ‘church’ or ‘cathedral’ but something much more than that. If we do not grasp what the temple was then we might think Jesus was simply seeking to maintain some sacred space where prayer could be made and commercial trade was kept separate. A certain level of money exchanging took place to enable the sacrifices and Temple tax to be maintained so the exchange of money per se was not Jesus’ focus.
  • Jesus did not create a whip to attack anyone, indeed only one Gospel (John) says he created a whip and that (almost certainly) was used to drive the animals out of the temple. The driving out was far more than an explosion of anger against people – he was pushing against something far deeper.
  • [An incidental third aspect is that John puts the cleansing right at the outset of Jesus’ ministry leading some to suggest that there were two cleansings, however it is far easier to suggest that John puts it early on, immediately following the water to wine miracle for theological reasons. The one cleansing follows Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem and that context is important.]

The Temple

The temple and the buildings that were associated with it (‘in my Father’s house are many rooms’, storehouses etc.) occupied something like 20-25% of the area of the city. Jerusalem was not a city with a large ‘cathedral’ in it, rather the Temple was more or less the city. The high priestly family were one of the richest families in town, the temple was an economic institution as much as it was a religious one. It governed much of the politics, with a mutually beneficial relationship between the Roman powers and the Jewish powers (the Sanhedrin met in the Temple).

The economic power of the Temple meant that they could offer loans to those who farmed the land, thus keeping the poor oppressed; this coupled with the taxation system imposed from Rome meant there were many who lived at a subsistence level. (‘Blessed are the poor’; the despising of the ‘tax-collectors’ make a lot of sense in that culture.)

There is one aspect that is highlighted in three of the Gospels – ‘those who were selling doves’ (Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15; John 2:16). Only John mentions other animals (cattle and sheep) but he focuses on those who were selling doves. Matthew and Mark do not specify other animals and only mention ‘those who sold doves’; Luke does not specify what was being sold. The economic system as a whole is the broad focus while the sharp focus was on those who sold doves. Why? Doves were allowed for sacrifice for those who could not afford something bigger, it was the sacrifice made by the poor of the land (and one that Jesus’ family made after his birth, the stipulated ‘sin offering'(!!) after the birth of a child – thus indicating their economic status and also that the translation ‘sin offering’ is not appropriate – another subject, another time).

The system in place was essentially one that not only maintained the status quo but actively perpetuated inequalities, and all in the name of ‘God’. Little wonder John puts the cleansing right after the water into wine miracle; the water jars for ritual cleansing become the containers for celebration, indeed the text is somewhat offensive for when it says that the guests were already intoxicated (μεθύω John 2:10) when Jesus turned the water into wine. The contrast of the old religion and what was on offer from Jesus is very stark. It is then, in John, we read of the cleansing of the Temple and the identification of Jesus as the eschatological Temple.

The protest is not about ‘sacred space’ but goes much further into societal restoration. Given that the historical context is that of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matthew, Mark and Luke give us this context) I will in the next post tun my attention to that context.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Leaving the land of the dying

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

Jimmy Carter has passed away yesterday, 29th December, aged 100 years old. Not perhaps your ‘normal’ president but a humble man who was involved in humanitarian work and expressed clear faith in the Living God. His grandson in May this year said:

He really is, I think, coming to the end that, as I’ve said before, there’s a part of this faith journey that is so important to him. And there’s a part of that faith journey that you only can live at the very end. And I think he has been there in that space.

And he himself said when addressing the Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Georgia:

I assumed, naturally, that I was going to die very quickly,” Carter told the congregation at . “I obviously prayed about it. I didn’t ask God to let me live, but I asked God to give me a proper attitude toward death. And I found that I was absolutely and completely at ease with death.

Profound words from the mouth of someone no longer present in the land of the dying.

A few days earlier (26th December) John Cobb passed away, a few weeks shy of hi 100th birthday. Who is John Cobb, I hear you ask… He belonged to the school of Process Theology, very articulate and a prolific author. Process Theology is not viewed as being too orthodox, but theology per se does not bring us to a knowledge of God. One of the last (perhaps the last) essay he wrote is on Thomas Jay Oord’s page:

Amipotence vs. Omnipotence

Orthodox (and what is that?) or not it is well worth a read, and for it to be a challenge; he writs beyond the personal but here is one quote:

[T]here is a strong tendency for those who feel secure in their relations with other people to love them. If we know that God loves us, it is much more likely that our feelings toward God will be loving. But also, we are more likely to love God’s other beloved creatures.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

With us

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Christmas day – the arbitrary day that was chosen centuries ago to mark the entry of God in the most personal (and human) way possible:

[T]hey shall name him Emmanuel, which means, “God is with us.”

That whole chapter of Matthew seems to be about the end of Exile with the return of God to Zion (e.g. Isaiah 42)… the long night of Exile over and God present. That is the eschatological hope when finally it will be announced ‘God’s dwelling place is with humanity’ and there will be no break in that presence. One significantly wiser than me, used three prepositions to describe human interactiveness: ‘to’, ‘for’, ‘with’. we can do things ‘to’ people – even when not considered abusive it is colonial and based on inequality, power being the dominant element present. God does not do things ‘to’ us. ‘For’ is a move forward and probably is at times necessary. To do something ‘for’ someone else can be generous and kind, but there is a dimension beyond that: ‘with’ and ‘among’. That is the activity of God that we bear witness to in this season. He will be called ‘Emmanuel’. Or as John puts it ‘he moved into our neighbourhood’, and as Matthew closes his Gospel with ‘I will be with you always…’

The effect of being with us is that he will ‘save his people from their sins’ (Matt. 1:21). Yes, universal application, but in context to ‘his’ people, the Jews of his day who were suffering an ongoing Exile for their sins. God with us brings that to an end – end of exile at every level.

So we celebrate, and are called to witness to the irruption of God into our world at a personal level. I am deeply provoked by the challenge to ‘carry’ the presence of God in a way that is noted; not noted through manifestations, but through the testimony of others. That testimony has to be largely ‘I felt released from my sins’, not simply in the sense of forgiveness as we understand it, but the weight, the effect to be gone, witnessed to by wholeness and well-being. He was called ‘Emmanuel’, so all followers at some level, and collectively, should be known by ‘God was with us’. This is why I believe in transformation of a world caught up in exile.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The presentation of life

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

The cross… death, dying in my place etc…

We have been in the UK for a few days and set the date to arrive for the funeral of Lucie Moore, passing away at 44. She was born literally a few doors away from where Sue and I lived, and the Moore family have always been a connection and more than that an inspiration of faith, humility and above everything love.

The parish church in Luton was packed with a real testimony of Lucie’s amazing impact. Never one to shout out about her own achievements but present were family, work collegues, University contacts, neighbour, friends from childhood, inter-faith groups. Hugely moving, and of course premature at 44 years old, but a testimony to a life lived to the full and for the transformation of our world.

(Her focused work was as CEO of CEASE.)

Got me thinking too about death and the death of Jesus. With the death of Jesus (and for this I owe my developing thoughts to Andrew Rillera’s published work in Lamb of the Free) it is more about the presentation of life to God – if Jesus was not raised from the dead then we are still in our sins (1 Cor. 15), and though the redemptive work on earth is finished with the cross, but beyond the cross in the hours that were the other side there was the continuance of work leading into an ever-continual intercession. Death of the saints? I am sure that there is the presentation of life, our life’s work to heaven’s presence.

I am sure that for Lucie her life’s work are having a continued impact, not simply through inspiration, but an impact into our world. I was provoked. One life, today to respond and act, and every cup of cold water given noted by heaven. Changing the world through one cup at a time, a life presented to God.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Annual(?) podcast with Richards and Scott

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

How many consecutive years and we can legitimately call something ‘annual’? Anyway here is this year’s podcast that Martin Purnell (off Grid Christianity) hosted with a Christmas Quiz (sadly I think Noel won this one) and some serious banter… and some not so serious banter. Anyway here it is to bring life and insight into your Christmas!!

Off Grid Christianity – Episode 108 – Annual Christmas Special
SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The Discipleship of Love

Posted on
by Simon Swift
Posted in Personal Perspectives

An article by Simon Swift how about his approach that because we are in the image of God we have the birthright ‘to love and to be loved’.

The best description of love I have ever heard was ‘Making room in my life for someone else to be themselves.’ Sounds simple, yet we struggle to do it. It’s easier to be judgemental and expect others to fit into our sense of what is right and wrong, and what is expected behaviour. Sometimes we judge ourselves, not allowing our own self to simply be, perhaps we fear the judgement of others, even God. As Christians we are not just called to profess a love of God, but to embody that love in our daily lives. That means loving ourselves, our neighbours and even our enemies. It is the way of the disciple: To learn how to love; giving and receiving.

I think some of us have to learn to receive love. We can have a tendency to let false humbleness to get in the way. We need to be able to receive love in whatever form that may take. It may be a gift, a recognition of success, a hug, or just a simple compliment. We should accept and receive these things as a blessing, being thankful for them while not letting our ego feed on it. We must nurture compassion for ourselves as well as each other. It is a two way connection, through love, with God, family, friends, neighbours, and even the rest of creation. It is a place of vulnerability and it is a risk.

Humanities identity is wrapped up in the idea of carrying God’s image and reflecting it into the world. It is our birthright: to love and be loved. Yes, it is something we are entitled to. Not in a selfish ‘me’ way, the kind of negative meaning that is often implied with the word ‘entitled’. No, it is the realisation of our purpose and so as a disciple of ‘The Way’ we must not be trapped by the ‘I’m not worthy’ thinking. That does not belong in the mind of the disciple. At the core of this purpose, and our relationship with God is grace.

Grace is not about getting something you don’t deserve, of escaping some sort of judgement like going to Hell and enduring eternal damnation. Grace is God taking the initiative in liberating us. He was even willing to send his son, who was also passionate enough to die for us. That initiative took place despite humanity being more than happy to forget about divine purpose and play at being our own gods. We do as a species tend to be all ‘me, me, me.’ God on the other hand chose not punishment, instead, he chose to set us free before we even made any commitment to changing our ways. That’s grace: It isn’t a ‘get you off the hook’ free pass, no, it is an action with a purpose and it comes with an invitation.

That invitation is into a love empowered life. As humans we have the right to be loved and an obligation to love. Needles to say we have to sort out our own ego: not demanding our rights but accepting them with grateful thanks. When we learn to love ourselves and others we begin to enter into eternal life and perhaps we even add to it, expanding it into Creation. This is the anvil of our discipleship. When we step into the Kingdom of Heaven I don’t think God wants us to start blubbering about how unworthy we are. No, He wants us to accept his love, to drink it in, to be transformed by it. Yes, to be grateful, but not to have the ‘I’m a terrible person who doesn’t deserve this’ mentality. From this point on you can say to the Accuser, ‘Go, do not darken my door again. I have found my salvation and it is through the grace of God. You can not accuse me anymore.’

Now we are disciples there is the hard work of repentance. Our world view changes, we have different priorities, and a new way of being. A new life to live which throws off the chains of sin that we have wrapped round ourselves. We are now able to take the risk and vulnerability that comes with loving. Paul, in one of his letters, gives good practical advise on love. On how to live the life of love and what that means in our daily lives. As disciples we begin to practice that love.

This is what the emphasis of church life should be: The discipleship of it’s members, learning to live a life empowered by love. Not how to put a good show on Sunday mornings. No judging others who don’t fit in or who’s life falls short of their God given purpose. Instead we are called to invite everyone into a kingdom based on love and discover the grace of God, becoming transformed by it.

Lets us be done with the religion of fear and trying to get God on our side, lets leave that with the pagan gods. Instead accept the grace given to each of us and walk the way of love. As for Satan, you can tell him exactly where he can stick his accusing finger.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Summary of ‘Long Awaited’

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I haven’t yet put together a 7-10 minute video of the pdf on ‘Eschatology: Here not There’ but I thought I would just put together a very short summary here and why I consider it to be important. The article covers two areas – one a kind of rebuttal of the ‘secret rapture / Dispensationalism’ and then the second part being a positive – the direction of eschatology being focused on ‘here’ and not ‘there’.

Dispensationalism is late on the scene and the consensus of perspective is that it appears around 1830; some have suggested that J.N. Darby was influenced by a vision that Margaret MacDonald had around that time; others (myself included) see some measure of antecedent in the charismatic revelations / teachings from within Edward Irving’s movement. What is clear is that J.N. Darby developed the ‘dispensational’ scheme around that time and in the decades that followed. More latterly with the view that ‘the secret rapture’ was not found any earlier than this time frame there have been those who are committed to the ‘secret rapture’ teaching have sought to show that it was present in earlier church writings, however there is nothing that is clear, and the writings have to be interpreted through that presupposition.

Even if there are earlier references that can be found the real issue is that (for me) it flows not from Scripture but a later abandonment of the Hebraic worldview for Platonic / Hellenistic that saw the material realm as without value, the soul needing to escape the body, and this material world to be destroyed.

Beyond that the hope of the New Testament is that of the appearance / coming of the Lord Jesus (maranatha – Lord come), not of our disappearance. To change the hope changes how we then live – rather than looking for transformation we look only to see ‘souls saved’; rather than focus on life here we look to ‘life after death’ as all that is important; we tend therefore to draw the line of what is sacred and what is secular, rather than see all of life to be the place where God is present.

The Scofield Bible (and subsequent similar study Bibles) with its notes that explained the various dispensations, effectively replaced the text as the notes explained (replaced?) the meaning of the text. (Of course the same should be noted with all writings – even mine!!). Over decades there have been books written that have explained how current events fit with what we read in Scripture (my era – the writings of Hal Lindsey) who bizarrely explain the visions of Revelation with the perspective that John could not know what he was seeing as he was actually seeing realities of the 20th Century with such military equipment as attack helicopters, inter-continental missiles etc!!! Of course as his writings progress he has to revise what he wrote earlier. Add to books that ‘educate’ a set of novels and films and a very powerful understanding is planted in the sub-conscious and conscious minds of those who are exposed to this.

The danger is of an overriding desire to depart which at worst is that of an escape mentality.

That is the first part of the article, in summarising the second part I draw on numerous NT passages that show the movement is from there to here and the transformation of this creation, that any redemption of people does not stop at the human level but includes the whole of creation. Let me simply take one passage (that wrongly could be thought to underline that ‘this world is not my home’) to illustrate.

But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:20).

The article expands on what I put below but in summary one of the challenges with Scripture is that it was not written to us so we can misread some texts if we assume the Bible is in parallel to our culture. In that culture and in Philippi specifically those who were born free were not citizens of, for example, Philippi but they were citizens of Rome. The reason for this was that there was a tendency for people to move from where they were based with a desire to get to Rome which caused a problem for Rome as the infrastructure struggle with the growth. So to counteract that issue people were made citizens of Rome with the desire that they would work to make sure where they lived had as much of the culture and values of Rome in their location. So when Paul wrote to Philippi his language would have been instantly understood, not as ‘Philippi is not your home, heaven is your home’ but as you live in Philippi so your desire needs to be to work / pray for as much of heavens’ values and culture shape the future of your city. In the same way that within the culture the citizens worked for Rome’s values to be expressed, the believers were to work for a heavenly culture to be expressed; the citizens had a hope that one day the emperor would come from Rome and in the same way the believers hoped for the ‘Saviour’ (a title the emperor also had) to come from heaven.

I hope the summary helps a little to position what I have written, and this again I consider as foundational before any discussion about such topics as ‘millenium’, ‘tribulation’ or even life after death.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Long awaited!!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The above title is what is often attached to a piece of writing that we have long been anticipating but has not yet the bookshelves but we simply know it will be a block-buster and consequently sell millions. However… language is defined by usage more than by etymology… the above is the common usage of the word, but in my small world I am using it somewhat differently!

I have just completed another pdf on the theme of eschatology. It is long awaited – for me. I have been waiting, waiting, waiting and at last have finished it. And no it does not hit the bookshelves, and isn’t about to be read by millions, but here it is at last! This is the third and we are still very much in the foundational realm… no mention of millennial, tribulation or such topics.

The book is about ‘movement’. The direction of eschatology. Is it ‘heavenward’ or ‘earthward’? The first part I look at the popular movement from here to there with the secret rapture as the sharp focus on that. This is as far from my view as one can get! The second half is taking the various Scriptures that a) talk of a movement earthward (God changing postcode I might suggest) and how redemption through the cross and resurrection includes, or one might even say, centres in on a comic dimension. No ‘late great planet earth’ or ‘the earth will be burned up…’

Some time soon I will make a short video to go along with this volume and look to have an open zoom in the new year with an invite to one and all.

Eschatology_directionDownload
SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Alienation and reconciliation

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

What words do we use regarding the biblical narrative of ‘fall’ and ‘redemption’. The Western world since the Reformation has focused on sin and used that to essentially describe the problem in a right / wrong framework with humanity on the wrong side thus being condemned for not living obediently up to the standards of heaven. ‘Guilty’ being the resulting judgement. (An unpayable debt being the forerunner to this ‘guilt perspective’, with deliverance or recapitulation predominating the early post-NT writings. Shame being another lens mainly contributed from an eastern perspective.)

I am convinced that we have to find a different set of lenses than guilt which will bring about re-definitions to how the Reformation taught us to see. God is relational, and the problem is how to bring about a relational restoration. Not only do we need redefinition of the various ‘sin’ words (sin, trespass, iniquity) but also to such terms as ‘forgiveness’ and certainly a deeper understanding as to how forgiveness comes about.

There is a very hard view of the cross which in simple terms has an angry God and a Jesus who is willing to be punished in our place, so that the wrath of God is satisfied. A softer presentation is along the lines of (illustration) we have visited a home and broken a vase and as a result someone will have to pay to replace the vase (this softer version being as much aligned with the pre-Reformation debt as it is with the guilt model). Thankfully that is a softer approach but misses it with the illustration – it is not a broken vase, or even a broken commandment that is the heart of the issue, it is a broken relationship. This is why forgiveness is so key, not forgiveness on the basis of payment, though all forgiveness proves costly.

We do need to bring redefinition to certain words when they are applied to God. We can make the error of transferring human / fallen emotion on to God. Wrath / anger – if we see this through human emotion what picture of God do we end up with? likewise when we read that God is a jealous God we tend to project emotions from a broken romantic relationship; and I also propose that we have to go a little deeper with the word ‘forgiveness’. When I am wronged I might have to process what took place, and then go through various feelings to eventually get to the place of forgiveness. Imagine if that was the process with God… eventual forgiveness but the carrying of billions of wounds, suspicions and a resultant reticence to commit again, with a great level of self-protectionism!!! We cannot, as Barth said, say ‘man’ (sic) with a loud voice and imagine we are saying ‘God’. Neither can we project human experiences of emotion on to God and imagine that we are reflecting the emotional experiences of God.

The word aphesis / forgiveness has at the roots that of releasing so the untying of a boat to sail to its destiny was an aphesis. God’s forgiveness is right at the forefront, not as a result of working through a process, but right at the forefront is the releasing of whoever to their destiny. Forgiveness is not that of overcoming a sense of being wronged but of desiring freedom for one and all and actioning that desire.

Back to the relational aspect of all things and to the relational aspect therefore of the cross: we have to understand this is not about payment for something broken, but an act to bring about the restoration of relationship, as Paul puts it ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’.

What beautiful words… the world, reconciliation, and to bring about a relational connetion. And as we follow it through we realise there must also be an annuling of wrong relatoinsips to the powers that have dominated, powers that are summed up with the two words ‘sin’ and ‘death’, with all the sub-categories of principalities and powers.

Reconciliation:

  • to God
  • to others
  • to self
  • and to creation.

(Adrian Lowe put me in touch with a video of Iain McGilchrist who approaches these dimensions from the view of a psychiatrist; a not short interview but full of insights:

Every aspect of those four relational areas in the early chapters of Genesis were broken as an account of the various ‘falls’ are outlined. The God /human might be at the forefront, but the creational rift is very evident (‘cursed because of you’) and the othering of even close familial relationships with blame shifting (Adam / Eve) and and murder (Cain / Abel) are seeds that inevitably lead to inter-tribal division.

Reconciliation is a process, for salvation is a process (and this is perhaps why ‘healing’ is a good synonym to use for salvation). And if a process perhaps salvation is more on a spectrum than ‘in/out’ language suggests.

Mending what is broken is God’s work and the invitation to participate in that work is still open.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives