A response to ‘So how do we share the gospel?’

Posted on
by Simon Scott
Posted in Theology

Simon Scott (no relation, but great choice of last name!) responded to my post of a few days ago, and I asked him to post something here.

Reflecting on Martin’s ‘So how do we share the gospel?’

Martin’s post suggested the intriguing possibility that salvation may mean we are saved ‘for’ rather than ‘from’ something and that something could be the revealing of a new creation or a new kingdom if you prefer that language. Great suggestion. So, we are all a part of something a little larger than our own selves which I have to say is a bit of a relief really! I mean, what kind of world would we be in if it were all about us? The thing is that we, humanity, are rather important at least on a couple of levels. From a faith perspective we are made in the image of God, we have God’s breath intimately given. Personally, I find this inspiring and humbling and my identity is certainly there- at least in those moments when I am not preoccupied with my identity in various (minor) successes and failures and so on. What would a grown-up version of me look like if I could live in that image? Back to that in a minute. The other reason humanity is important is the influence we have as the dominant species on our planet.  A worldview that doesn’t think firstly that we are in God’s image, asks us to see ourselves as one species among many, to get over ourselves and realise we share the planet with all life forms that deserve a future-and whilst it shouldn’t need saying that does include all people. Humanity’s (ab)use of the planet is increasingly evident in human and non-human suffering.

So, I have been pondering the idea of salvation being a reciprocal kind of deal, between each person and between us and the planet. (Romans 8.18-23 is the go-to passage linking creation, humanity and salvation/liberation). That in some way the depth of salvation and transformation we experience is connected to our part in the liberation of others. Have to be careful with language of course as suggesting salvation is achieved by doing things has a long history of not doing well!  I’ve certainly been influenced by Liberation Theology for which the defining question is ‘what does Christian salvation have to do with physical liberation in the present?’ The genuine concern and criticism is that salvation becomes reduced to freedom from social oppression and loses the inner freedom of a spiritual transformation. But then isn’t the Christian hope to see the removal of this either/or scenario so that spiritual and physical liberation are joined? And even that the cross and resurrection have already accomplished just that.  Often this is (only/mostly) a future post-parousia hope and less of a now hope? Liberation theology in all its guises says that salvation starts now, whatever the future brings.  

Back to ‘the image’. I am discovering the Eastern Orthodox idea of salvation as theosis, becoming like God (not becoming God), which is similar to the West’s sanctification. Salvation is an invitation into union with God and the ongoing transformation through the Spirit and a sense in which salvation becomes an individual and a shared experience in embodied reality. Bodies are important, reading only the smallest amount of black or feminist liberation theology seriously challenges this white male to see in a new light and the incumbent responsibility to ask, ‘how should I be?’ and how haven’t I seen?

Sharing the gospel then becomes an invitation to relationship with God and others that is tangible and experienced. Maybe it means planting gardens and businesses before churches or joining in with the things that people care about. Maybe it’s about recognising the other person before anything else because God was there first, the Spirit is present and it’s not about us. Lots of maybes lots of questions!

Another one. Maybe our idea of salvation, of being human, is evolving and maturing. Maturity not being even more certain of what I always knew but growing into the likeness of the one I am still getting to know.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Water

New Supplies... Neighbours need it

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

The screenshot above of the Palestinian woman bathing her kids puts a different perspective to any complaint we might have about life. It again illustrates that we are in the top x% of the privileged in the world.

A small challenge this morning making breakfast with no running water. Dirty dishes that we could not wash yesterday, no water in the tap, no water in the toilet cistern… at least I had a shower back in February so that part was not urgent…

So here is a story.

Saturday morning we get a panic call from Alejandra. We have never met her, but we sent her our keys so as she could stay in our apartment in Madrid. We can go back there legally now, but for over a year we were not able to travel there because of lockdown. We all have choices to make, and we sensed that giving her the keys was a redemptive choice, redemptive as it pushed back against a culture that we do not wish – we have to sow where we want the world to go, surely that is the practical outworking of refusing to acknowledge the lordship of Caesar?

The boiler is broken and water is pouring out. She then said she woke at 2.00am to the sound of rain, but it sounded inside the apartment. Back to sleep… woke and got up at 8.00ish. So some 6+ hours of water pouring out had caused quite a lot of damage, inside the kitchen and to the apartment below as well.

One day later, we had just been out for an hour, and when we came back the neighbour asked if we had water. Up we go and discover no water. An hour later he owns up that he had drilled through our water pipe, with the words that we had heard the day before – ‘Your water poured out everywhere’.

Compared to the Palestinian woman in the screenshot our situation is a blip, an inconvenience… but 2 cases of ‘all your water came pouring out…’ over neighbours are either coincidental, weird or…

Our entry to Madrid was ‘ up the inside of a sewer pipe’. We certainly had challenges, and then to remind us the upstair’s (there is one floor above us) toilet leaked through our ceiling. Not too pleasant water coming in. Now in both places our water has poured out (sorry neighbours!).

There is only one source for water – spiritual water. How we connect to that source can change. In both places the first step was that the mains water supply was stopped. Re-connections, new conduits etc., had to be put in. Then a connection back to the main source. I don’t think we are reading too much into it, for this has been our story this year. Thank God for water (past), thank God for the sign that neighbours can benefit from ‘your water pouring out’. But we are now in a season of getting a whole new supply of water, different pipes etc… OK more to it – but I think this might be a sign wider than ourselves. A year is here for connection to the one and only source, but expect changes, for the flow to neighbours of the old supply is changing.

Oh… and hopefully by the end of today we will be able to wash the dishes, and I will need to consider carefully if another shower might be due.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Anxiety meets Christian faith

Certainty or a Person?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Prophetic Perspectives

Quite frightening being an expert. Some years back I took part in a few days on the enneagram, so now am quite an expert on that. How many books have a I read on it, I hear you ask… well that depends on whether you mean ‘read’ as in content, or read as in read the title on the cover. Assuming the latter – I can answer ‘3’, so I pretty much now know everything I need to know. And now that Gayle is working with Authentic Lives, I of course know so much more (core process, future self… see I have totally grasped two concepts). I am fast tracking myself on being an expert, and in the process my insights are indeed quite amazing, nay frightening. So I am sure with my credentials laid out you are ready to read on.

Fear. Fearful over the future. Unsure, so not ready to ask the question that might disturb my security. There are people like that. (And pulling on my enneagrammic background, that is not putting people into a box, it is simply helping you / me identify the box we are in.) Hold that thought.

I am increasingly seeing as I read Scripture that it does not give us all the answers, indeed within the pages there is some significant debate (not to mention some cheeky words that seem to be put in God’s mouth – how did that stuff in Deuteronomy get in about the king, when God was not too keen on the idea of a king?) Anyway makes Bible reading harder, but so much more is required. The more being essentially, ‘so what about you Martin, how do you line up and why?’

It seems then that the Christian faith is the way to go if we are ready to embark on a journey where we do not have all the answers, where inner rest in God (I would probably instinctively write ‘Jesus’ cos I am not that good as a well-balanced Trinitarian) is exactly that – a resting place – that clams anxieties, soothes stress, that gives a deep assurance that all will be well, because of that Passover / first Easter.

Christian faith meets fear. Now what?… Depends some on what we consider the Christian faith consists of. If it is one of certainty, and one that clearly has a world view that everything outside of my context is ‘evil’ (after all the whole world is in the hands of the evil one) we will quickly find a way to trust wherever there teachings of certainty are being propagated. We might even gravitate toward a Christian community where the leadership have a developed world view (not to mention eschatology!!!) that explains everything, assures us that our fears are indeed justified, but encourages us to stick in with them and we will come out all right – certainly in the end even if persecution is already here. That persecution is not yet putting us in prison, but is evident in the censorship of free speech, and the narrowing of acceptable opinion in the name of tolerance. It leaves me free to live, but I can see that the persecution is everywhere (except my home, phew!!!), and all the while I know where things are headed, these are the signs of the times. Welcome to the world of the Christian sect (not cult) that in the more developed end also has cult-like leaders. (Developed also can be spelt ‘charismatic’. And I write as one who is definitely at home with the label charismatic.) The Christian world being remarkably similar to the world that saw the development of the sects of the New Testament… and the early Christian faith was viewed as yet another (deviant) Jewish sect, so I am not using the word too pejoratively. (Those sects seemed to find fertile ground when Israel was more separated from the world… post-Exile, blah de blah.)

Oh yes… Back to my expertise. There are groups who are made up of a leadership who more or less are of a certain enneagrammic personality. And the people who are part of those movements are more-or-less part of another enneagrammic personality. A ‘union made in heaven’. Well not actually in heaven, and very much a union made on earth.

Fear meets Christian faith… Or, if we, with all our uncertainties, meet a Christian faith that says Jesus is our security (I should have used a Trinitarian term there, but am working on that) and will be with us beyond the end of the age (slight adjustment to Matthew’s pre-70AD rendition), what a journey we can embark on. A ‘I don’t know about…’ response to so much, but a ‘presence of God with me’.

Fear… meets certainties. Or fear meets a Person to journey with. Now what will I choose? I suspect the path I choose will determine who I embrace.

And given it is Sunday morning and you are begging for more to read, here is an article I read this morning. I found the description of the ‘fourth generation’ of warfare very insightful.

https://www.salon.com/2021/06/12/trumps-army-of-god-doug-mastriano-and-the-christian-nationalist-attack-on-democracy/

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A land promised

Prediction or Promise?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

It’s straightforward… God promised a land and brought the people into it. Maybe not so straightforward is what we make of the ‘land’ today. However, I want to back up quite a way. What if God did not promise a land? Yes, I am aware there are numerous Scriptures that you can either use to quickly dismiss my comment or to bash me over the head with, but while gathering together the ammunition just give me a moment.

I am not about to deny what the text says, but as with many texts we do not have in them the fullness. God is understood to be speaking and we encapsulate what is being said the best we can, but we reduce it – we prophesy in part, we speak on God’s behalf but only get so far; and God also accommodates himself to what we can hear, what we can embrace. The fullness of God’s word is personal, as revealed in Jesus, everything else is derivative.

We read that there will always be someone on David’s throne, a promise for ever. And of course we can draw a line from David to Jesus, but there were periods of time when there was no king on David’s throne, so we have to be careful about pulling our Scriptures out to back us, indeed I think Scripture demands that we become somewhat creative with what is written there… for we are dealing with the realm of promise not of prediction.

Let me come at this from two ends: Paul in Romans 4:13 informs us that:

For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

We do not have Paul using the term ‘land’ but kosmos / world and of course the play on words is there with ‘seed’ (descendants – singular, a collective noun or creatively referring to one person) – is he referring to the (physical) seed of Abraham or to Jesus as ‘seed’. Either way the concept of a promised land is not at the forefront in Paul’s understanding of the Abrahamic covenant. The ‘promise’ was of the world, the prediction might have been different.

Then let’s back up to the pre-Abrahamic chapters (the Old Testament’s Old Testament so to speak, Genesis 1-11). The final two chapters are given record the ‘sons of Noah’:

These are the families of Noah’s sons, according to their genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood (Gen. 10:32).

Then Genesis 11 is given to the after-effects of the Tower of Babel, the dispersal of the nations.

Abraham’s call and subsequent journey is with those chapters as the backdrop, for in him all families of the world will be blessed (or in NT language, will receive the gift of the Spirit). The nations that act as the backdrop to Abraham’s call are dispersed, Abraham’s seed is to be present for the dispersed seed. In the dispersed (yet understood to be centre) context of Ur of the Chaldees, a major settlement at the time, God calls Abraham to go on a counter journey to the traffic of the day. Walk away from the centre to the land that will be revealed. (I appreciate the language now goes on about Canaan.) Moving forward… Abraham will have seed more numerous than the stars (Gen. 15:5), and he will possess the land that he can ‘see’ and where he can ‘walk’,

The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Raise your eyes now, and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth; so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted. Rise up, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.” (Gen. 13:14-17).

How far can you see? How far can you (and your seed) walk? In the latter context it is interesting that Jesus in response to Greeks who had come to Jerusalem to see Jesus, that he responded with the seemingly strange statement that ‘unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies it remains alone…’ I suggest that was Jesus affirmation that the Greeks were going to see Jesus. A Greek Jesus, not now, not in Jerusalem. Later when the seed arrived in their land. And there will indeed be an African Jesus, even a Scottish Jesus (!), and certainly a feminist Jesus, a Jesus in the rich diverse clothing of all the manifestations of humanity.

Conflict of perspective regarding land is very obvious in Joshua. ‘He took the whole land’, ‘there remained much still to be possessed’. Which is correct?… and given that they are both in the same book we should assume the writers did not see a conflict between the two statements. I resolve it by considering that they are working much more with the dynamic (and changing) element of promise rather than the fixed idea of prediction. Promise means what was predicted had not come to pass, but they are on the way to what lies beyond the prediction. Prediction is but a stepping stone. Here are two Scriptures that stand in coflict;

Jos. 11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal allotments. And the land had rest from war.
Jos. 13:1 Now Joshua was old and advanced in years; and the Lord said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and very much of the land still remains to be possessed.”

Prediction would suggest that there was a land to be received by Abraham’s seed, with the dispute over the extent of the boundaries of the land, and a continued discussion as to when the land was ‘theirs’, that certainly was debated after the return from the Exile back to land, when it seems the majority view was that Israel was still in exile, even though no longer in Babylon. Land did not dictate freedom, freedom being possible with or without land.

Promise… promised the world. How far can you (and your seed) see? How far can you walk? A step along the way might be a land with boundaries but that can only ever be to test, to mature the people to live without land. I am not sure Jeremiah wold like me to put words in his mouth, but I think he was hitting on something when he told the people to stop mourning about the loss of land, but to buy land in Babylon; and I think Stephen was activating something expansive when he gave as his parting speech that God’s activity was outside the land, and that the only burial plots that came close to home were in Shechem, the land of the Samaritans (Acts 7)! Not a popular speech. Yet as he released revelation about promise it found a landing space that day in the hearts of a right-old-biggoted ‘I’ll kill you over my zeal for the land’ Pharisee named Saul /Paul.

I am not suggesting that Abraham and his seed could make the stretch to conceiving of a people without land, of being seed scattered in the dispersion of Babel, a people living from what they had seen in the heavens. It is inevitable that they settled for a land, and perhaps I should really say that they wonderfully increased in faith so that they could believe God for a land. That I both understand and applaud and want to learn from.

What I do not think is laudable is when we fall back to such talk as Christian nation. I might not have a huge vision, I might simply be able to think of my street as being blessed because of the gift of the Spirit having come to this Gentile, but it is part of that big promise to Abraham. Leave where you are and I will give to you and your descendants the world.

Did God promise a land – yes (prediction) and no (promise).

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

So how now do I share the Gospel?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I am just finishing up zooms with the first three books and last night we threw around a question that hangs around. Let me try and present the scenario first. The books present a shift in emphasis that might be summarised along these lines:

  • We move from everything being personalised, personal salvation to a bigger concept of salvation of a people. (Oh and why do we pick out the required path to one person ‘you must be born again’ over and above the required path to another person ‘go and sell all you have’?)
  • We shift from a salvation ‘from‘ to a salvation ‘for‘. (And, if like me, on reading the Scriptures there is a conviction that eternal punishing is not taught, that can be seen as one more element to slow down the urgency in our proclamation.)
  • The cross is not an event in history that deals with God’s ‘wrath’; the cross being essential for us, but perhaps not essential for God (in the sense of forgiveness), though given the kenotic Being that God is, the necessity in God is due to that kenoticism, not issues centred around ‘righteousness’.
  • An older and established paradigm is ‘all guilty, under judgement / wrath… only one path of escape… hence personal forgiveness and salvation.’ If that shifts with the nature of the Gospel being a universal proclamation regarding the birth of new creation, what does this mean at a personal level… ‘and how do we present the Gospel?’

This is certainly a journey I am on, and have been on for a while, so here are my very few pointers.

There is a core that has not changed. To bring someone to faith is not something we can do. That is done by the Holy Spirit. So shouting louder ‘you are a guilty sinner’ does not do that work! However, a lack of integrity in our lives might well make the probability of a person we know coming to faith less likely.

Guilt is not the only door that people come through (more on forgiveness below). The eastern world view would emphasise shame much more than guilt, and I guess the Orthodox world would highlight inner sickness that needs healing. In adding these elements to the scene does not change the core issue: there still is the need for connection, in the sense of the person has to connect with whatever ‘door’ as a very real need that cannot be self-solved, and for that the conviction of the Spirit is still necessary.

Jesus’ teaching, and the outworking in the Pauline Gospel, remain ‘politically’ world transforming. We cannot and should not short-change people on being exposed to that content, although I for one cannot claim to have a handle on the fullness of that! The content can be received at that level (as per the Asiarchs in Acts 19?), but there is a dimension that goes beyond the teaching, that takes us beyond the most remarkable earthly wisdom and world-view to experience the transcendent heavenly aspect in the context of relationship. That is where our personal testimony kicks in.

Yes people can follow the teachings of Jesus, but on ‘offer’ is the promise of the Spirit, to empower, transform and open up the heavens to us.

Now to forgiveness. I am considering that in the same way as we wrongly interpret wrath through a projection of human anger on to God, maybe we do the same with forgiveness. (On wrath: human anger is never described as righteous, even the term ‘righteous indignation’ does not occur in Scripture. We have an anger issue we have to learn to deal with; God’s anger is not personal, hence we make a mistake when we extrapolate from the human side to the divine and then suggest that Jesus’ bore the wrath of God for us…) With forgiveness we have all experienced it from both sides. I have done wrong to someone; I go apologise and they then have a choice to release me or not. The term ‘release’ being the underlying significance of the ‘forgiveness’ words. Those words certainly can carry that legal sense of being released from an obligation, but it can also be used of (e.g.) releasing a ship to its journey, and Josephus even uses it of (the release of) death. The root is ‘release’, but the point I am considering is not simply to do with the root meaning, but concerning the danger of simply projecting on to God our human experience. Until I am forgiven I am ‘held’ by the person I have wronged. Perhaps forgiveness should carry a broader range of meanings and that God’s forgiveness might primarily be a release from whatever could be holding us. That could be ‘guilt’, past / family bondages, mind-sets, and that overarching power known as ‘sin’ (in the singular, not being a collection of all my ‘sins, but a corporate, cosmic power). Certainly ‘forgiveness of sins’ for the Jews of the NT era was a promise of release from their captivity, and as they experienced that they would experience God’s favour.

So putting all this together, I suggest that our presentation is bigger but continues to be personal. And what an invitation, to be saved for a purpose, a purpose that connects us to our true core being, causes us to interact with heaven, and become in greater measure agents for transformation. I do not think we have ‘lost’ the Gospel but are on a process to discovering what it might be. Deeply relevant to the former worlds of Jew and Gentile, and the only lasting hope for the world(s) that exist(s) today.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Come back Peter, come back Paul

The conflict in Galatia

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

A right old conflict. For you enneagram lovers surely that Paul chap was a ‘no. 8’. He seemed to like a good old conflict, and I enjoy reading the public conflict of Galatians 2. I start with that in LifeLine. The conflict was incredibly strong… and I think remains incredibly provocative in our world – maybe even more so today.

It is easy to quickly side with Paul. He was right after all. But hang on a few minutes. Why did Peter pull back from eating with the Gentiles. Not because he jumped out of bed one day and thought ‘I know what, enough of all that Cornelius’ conversion stuff, from now on I will simply be a hypocrite.’ I don’t think so. And to make matters worse, dear Barnabas gets himself into a right old two and eight in the midst of it all, he also pulling back. Generous, ‘I only see the best, I am the original encourager’ Barnabas withdraws.

For Barnabas to draw back you have to suspect there was a convincing case going on. And I am sure there was. A good solid MISSIOLOGICAL case at that. So Peter and Paul – both acting out of missiological, ‘for the sake of the Gospel’ convictions.

That’s what makes the conflict deeply relevant today.

The outcome was that of (presumably) a relational holding together, but two separate ‘fields’ to work in, and we remain the beneficiaries of the ‘freedom’ strand.

Seems maybe we need greater diversity, apostles to the… (filling in the many blanks that are calling from our world) risking following their convictions. Result will be untidiness, otherwise known as ‘mess’ and ‘unsatisfactory’. On the positive side, diversity, multiple incarnations in all kinds of strange and shadowy places. In short the Gospel of freedom.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The Lifeline

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

The fourth in the most dynamic series ever written is out… (Disclaimer: by dynamic series I obviously mean written by me over the previous few months – how could I ever make a bigger claim that that?) Copies – hardback and eBook available from:

https://bozpublications.com/explorations-the-series

What a smart title I hear you all say with one voice. ‘Yes’ I reply cos when I was thinking about a title I thought I would do something very clever and tie the end of the book to the first volume. First volume tries to start with the real division is not about right and wrong, but regarding life and death. The tree of life… in the day you eat of the other one (the ‘infallible guide to right and wrong?’ tree) you will die… death enters into the human race… who were created to live forever (no, and not that the soul is immortal; wrong book being read to come up with that novel idea)… choose life that you may live… Israel chooses the other path… Jesus takes the consequences, tasting death for all… so that all may live… the lifeline.

In the book I try to dig in to the Pauline Gospel some, and suggest that there is a radical feminisation of creation, and the word ‘new creation’ is a much better term than that of a ‘new world order’. Last chapter, God does not require sacrifice; we are the ones who needed the death of Jesus. Root issue is the cleansing of the heart / conscience, that it is not ‘without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness’ but that verse puts in another step along the path… Blood is not necessary for forgiveness but the author does suggest it was necessary for the step that leads to forgiveness.

I was going to (maybe will) write another three volumes (eschatology – drawing on the call of Israel, hence no ‘Promised Land’ promised, past nor future; the traumas of 66-70AD, hence no expectation of antiChrist future; prophetic utterances that Scripture records as not coming to pass, hence the difference between promise and prediction, blah de blah…), but maybe I should consider that the issues that are more important are the ‘so what’ with regard to the trajectory from creation in the way distant path, of course not being a scientist I am not qualified to use the word ‘evolution’, to the close of the New Testament (pre AD70 with a one-book spill over that helps further guide us in our world). So using provocative language, our relationship to ‘mother earth’ (settle down I am simply ramping up slightly the ‘the first humanity was from the dust’ perspective, that I am pretty sure is there in the early pages, and repeated when taking a look back from the future – 1 Cor. 15); relationship to gender (drawing on the already / not yet, implications of the Ascended Christ for gender, what wisdom we might be able to hear from the market square; pre-Pauline issue of ekklesia and post-Pauline approaches; and of course our relationship to the ‘state’ and the creation of money and a redemptive economics.

If the last paragraph sounded as if I know what I am writing about… apologies. Explorations in theology can lead to explorations from theology, and also to the discovery that one of God’s many gifts to humanity is the ability to make mistakes.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Wrath…

Wrath and the cross

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

In the penultimate chapter of Humanising the Divine I make a quick stab at the ‘cross’ and what it means. To accompany it, for those on zooms I put up a video today.

Here are some bullet points:

  • The idea of a transaction taking place is not the most ancient (post-NT) view(s).
  • Transaction begins to gain traction with Anselm (approx 1060AD) with his view that we owe God a debt that we cannot pay, this moving from the feudal system to the law court with the Reformers… hence today our penal substitutionary view; we are guilty, Jesus pays the penalty.
  • Human anger is never called righteous anger, so we cannot extrapolate what is the wrath of God from anything human. God’s wrath is not personal.
  • The cross does not deal with God’s anger issue!
  • God did not turn away from Jesus on the cross, ‘unable to look on sin’. It is not so much a mis-reading of Scripture, but of not reading enough verses!
  • The major thrust of the New Testament is to do with the ‘when’ of the cross. If we do not answer that we will not be able to line up an answer to the ‘what’ takes place there and the ‘why’ of the cross.

It is a first stab… I come back to it in book 4 which will be out in the next few days!!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives