Jesus: great Teacher / Learner

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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

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

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

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Jesus and sinlessness

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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

Forum link:

Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A 72% perspective I have

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

This site is headed as ‘perspectives’. I just held back from calling it ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ but then just mentioned to resist. I am now involved in these zoom groups and believe it or not there is not just a simple agreement that what I have written there is the finished article. I am shocked! So I thought I would scribble here a few thoughts that are maybe along the lines of a perspective that is firming up. Don’t take it as the truth (unlike everything else I write….)

I am still wrestling a little with how I write vol. 5 which I plan to be an introduction to our hope. First what I don’t go for – no millennium (just too many symbolic numbers in the book to try to make this one literal); no Armageddon (the place does not exist, indicating that surely it cannot be literal); no rapture (an invention from 1831); no signs of the times (a little more controversial and take a little longer to explain why); etc. So not along the lines of what many think of as conventional eschatology. My question is whose conventions?

Basically for me very simple. We provide the building blocks (hence Paul’s warning to apostles not to mess around in 1 Cor. 3) and God builds it. We do not build it; God does not provide the material. Then Jesus has not yet returned as not enough material.

Can be a little depressing as it would be nice for God just to wind it all up and all the injustices sorted. So, if we are waiting, a lot seems to be down to us… But here is a thought.

What if there is already (and has been for some time) enough material to wind it all up and to bring in the age to come. But the age to come could be even better yet and for this reason God would like to hold back a little longer so that it can be even better still?

Crazy thought? Well it is only a perspective and one that I am only 72% endorsing. I do wonder though if the word ‘eschatos’ pushes us beyond the 72% conviction? ‘Telos’ is the other word for ‘end’ in NT Greek, used for example of Jesus being the end of the law, the terminus and termination. Maybe eschatos (‘eschatology’) indicates it is the end but not the final. What if the eschaton is to be the beginning of something incredible, and God is holding back to give us the best beginning that we can help bring about?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Social Dilemma

Biased - me? Never!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

We recently watched this film ‘The Social Dilemma’. Frightening as it exposes the algorithms that give us feeds that are in line with our tastes / ‘biases’. So if I read news feeds, social media ensures that what I read is in line with my political bias. The term ‘fake news’ is so abused, but if I read conspiracy items aligned to one side of the argument I will receive yet more items confirming the conspiracy. Eventually my rightness will be confirmed by many voices, and I will be closed to any contrary voice – indeed I will not even be able to read them as they will not be fed to me. If I do come across any it will instantly be discerned as ‘fake news’. All driven by advertising so as I get it all for free. Free as in ‘at the cost of my own soul’.

I would love to be analysed as to what I read and why. I am not on social media – yes this will be linked to a facebook page – but I am never on facebook, never read if anyone leaves a comment there (well maybe I have read one or two this year). I am not on twitter, dah, dah, dah. But I am still pretty sure that pure Mr. Scott is not exempt.

If I was (just by way of example!) of a left-leaning politics my feed would be hyper at this time in the USA pre-election. (Coming from Europe I am not sure what with as Mr. B running is anything but left wing… even the suggestions is that former president Mr. Ob was more right than many of his predecessors from the Republican party!) If I was (and this time it is genuinely by way of example) of a right wing persuasion my feed would be biased in the other direction all-together. The result – the divide is exaggerated; civil war at one level or another. [BTW I suggest that Jesus would label all war as civil war – war against ourselves and fellow humans.]

I have to confess that once we make an alignment we are in great danger. If we do not realise that we are biased and find it hard to hear the opposite we will soon be in trouble. (We were privileged – now almost two years ago to have a conservative, anti-Brexit person staying with us. So good to hear from them. So hard to listen, but I think we managed to listen.)

So we are biased. The ‘other’ is biased. The question we ask is ‘are you for us or for the other?’

If we are to sow any seed that has any element of the Gospel in it there has to be seeds of love, respect and peace. Once we sow anything that is dehumanising we have lost the plot. A call to pick up arms (literal), or to revert to using the arms of hate speech (and maybe words are more powerful than arms as hate words fashion arms and they become more lethal as a result) can never be used.

The difference that has to mark us out cannot be what news feeds do we receive. The bias was already there, social media just exaggerates it. The difference has to be love. And if love can be present there is room for faith and hope.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

We’re all

Posted on
by Gayle Scott
Posted in Prophetic Perspectives

We’re all drinking from cups that are too small. There’s a river. And the arrows that we’re firing that were once sharp are now blunt. They miss the target and fall down useless. Someone suggests we need a new box of arrows…

In the middle of the night I woke with this dream and know better than leave it to the morn to try and recall it. My phone was bright and stuck on bold, which was hurting my tired eyes, three times I tried to get back to normal font but the two words We’re all wouldn’t change and stuck as the title.

There is something in this time, this pandemic era, about unlearning and relearning. There’s a stripping away of what we’ve always done and known.

The emphasis on individuals struck me in the dream. Individuals are important; the pandemic is pushing us into smaller and smaller gatherings. Each of us is finding new ways to live and work.

Individuals are truly essential because we are part of a body. Do we know who we are? And are we functioning in our individual roles? Have we lost sight of the richness of diversity? We’re a body made from remarkably varied parts.

Cooperate identity became bland. Homogeny is disfunction.

It’s time for us individually to really know who we are and to re-function in that revelation.

Many people are going to retrain, move job, begin to point themselves in the direction they’ve actually always wanted to go, consciously or not. Old personal identity issues are going to resurface creating the opportunity for new levels of resolution. Who we are matters.

Why are we drinking from cups? The cups are too small. The cups are individual and inadequate. Our font/source has been held in a limited container. Our resources / life will run out unless we reposition ourselves.

There’s a river in front of us all in the dream. There’s a river.

We are invited to go straight to the water, straight to the source of all life and provision and to put our faces in the river and drink. It’s not about intermediate tools or intermediate people. They are both too small. There is a limit. We are individually responsible for how we drink.

…….

I was recently asked to interpret a dream and immediately reacted to a specific image and believed the symbolism to be negative. After clearing my mind of my own prejudices and thoughts, a totally different interpretation came to me. Our bias and old views have got to be laid aside in order to see the new. Old assumptions don’t cut it.

So, it’s time for the new box of arrows. The arrows are what…? Previously I would have seen arrows to represent prophecy and prayer and word. Now I see the arrows as our very being and also therefore our focus. The new arrows will be sharp and focused. The things that used to work are now blunt and general and ineffective. The ‘same old’ has gone and is now useless. Where, as individuals, are we focused? It’s time to focus on our true being, and being true, truly be focused. An arrow is not a bomb; it’s a specifically targeted, individually fired entity. Aimed at one small space. What is your space? What are you born for? Who are you really?

We’re all in this together so let’s, each of us, be true to who we really are and drink deeply from the one who made us as we reposition ourselves to be truly authentic.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Interesting

Humanisation a trend?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Just finished a zoom last night – finishing at 11.00pm here in Spain. On chapter 1 of Humanising the Divine. For me it was great, particularly as there was some healthy pushback on my ideas. It is wonderful to write something that could be well off, or at least wonderful if it helps others to push back against it and come to a far better position.

Anyway… I find it interesting that (and here I am being ever so positive about what I have written) in seeking to put humanity much more central to theology, there is either the possibility of just following a trend that has nothing to do with theology, or there is something very deep going on at this time concerning humanisation.

In recent work on women in politics – in some places there are (at last) record numbers of women entering the political realm that has been dominated not simply by men but by masculinity – there has been a shift with how violence is understood. Violence has often been equated with physical injury, but in policy and academic research the term is now being defined more broadly to mean a violation of integrity. Violence being any act that harms a person’s autonomy, dignity, self-determination, and value as a human being.

Humanisation… and for me theologically the work of demons is to dehumanise; sin is when we no longer act as ‘true’ humanity.

Then jumping forward some volumes (#3) of what I am writing I push into the necessity for the feminisation of humanity, with Jesus being (of necessity) 1st Century Jewish and male not because they are superior, but they (as defined above) have been the major perpetrators of violence. The male being universal, and the first Century Jewish context being that of isolation, separation and superiority. (Chosen, yes… but chosen for who?)

Back in the day I remember so much being unveiled concerning the imperial spirit, and the ‘rolling up of the Roman way’. It seemed at the time that those same themes were being unfolded outside the holy confines of church life also.

So maybe the humanising theme is coming through in theology because this is the time for a major push on this globally, and if so then there has to be a new breath expected in and through women. I like to think that.

If my thinking is in the right direction of course there will be an unholy push back against such a direction, the expression of that push back will be violence, as defined above and as classically thought of.

And of course I could well be wrong.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Dreams

Azahar, COVID, Militia...

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

In the next few days I will have a guest writer here, Gayle, who will post about a dream she had recently. I have a few ‘key’ dreams per year that help me understand some aspect or I gain a new perspective. There is a common ‘place’ I visit in dreams and when there gain an insight I have never had before, so the dream always contains a surprise. The element of newness and surprise is always underlined in that those present do not get the revelation at all, and the place is known for the prophetic and response to God. We all see in part and given the nature of the people at the place not getting the revelation it symbolically shows there is always new revelation. A few a year, but Gayle has many. We have our apartment in Oliva resulting from two dreams she had, including one that had her typing in a (previously unknown) Spanish word ‘azahar’ into a google map to show someone where we live. 700metres away from our apartment in Oliva on the sign pointing toward our apartment is the very word ‘azahar’ (orange blossom).

Earlier this year we were sent a dream concerning the COVID virus and its path. The person who sent it had been praying about two things a) COVID and b) how would God communicate times and seasons in an urban / Western setting (in contrast to Pharaoh and the agricultural setting, with cows and grain).

The dream has been for us very key in understanding the phases the virus is currently and will go through.

Anyway… dreams. They are fascinating. Recently we read of one that showed the rise of civil war in their land, complete with militia on the streets, with the twist that God was standing behind these militia to give them success, effectively returning ‘the nation to God’. Wow! How does one interpret that?

Dreams can be from God and show us what we had never considered before. They can be from ‘God’ (maybe, or from our own ‘soul’) showing us more about ourselves than about God’s desire / plan for what is to come.

Our theological convictions of course affect how we interpret a dream. If violence is one of God’s normal tools, and there is a time to pick up the sword for the Gospel we will go one way with the interpretation… if the path of non-violent resistance is seen as the Jesus’ (third-)way then we will go another way. (Someone known to some of the readers of this blog, Charles Strohmer, has responded to the theology of ‘get a sword’ very eloquently here):

“Arms and the Man” v. “Put up thy Sword”: Tough Questions for Rick Joyner, Jim Bakker, and the Prophetic Movement

We need to be challenged concerning our beliefs when we present a dream, we need to be open to them being about us, not a ‘God-dream’. We all see in part, and the lack of sight is often springing from my distorted alignment and any allegiance that sits alongside my allegiance to Christ (hence my view on not taking an oath in court or elsewhere).

All the above is to give a little backdrop to the guest writer of all guest writers who will have fingers to keyboard probably by the end of the week. The dream seems to be very timely in this epoch, and is to be weighed.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Get up

Maybe it will be a very short book

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I found an interesting set of quotes the other day regarding Martin Luther. Although never dogmatic, and apparently not always easy to work out what he believed, he seemed to lean heavily toward ‘soul-sleep’ for those who have died.

Lutheran scholar Kantonen (The Christian Hope) quotes Luther as writing:

For just as one who falls asleep and reaches morning unexpectedly when he awakes, without knowing what has happened to him, so we shall suddenly rise on the last day without knowing how we have come into death and through death… We shall sleep, until He comes and knocks on the little grave and says, Doctor Martin, get up! Then I shall rise in a moment and be happy with Him forever.

Not sure Jesus will actually call him ‘Doctor’ Martin but aside from that very cute indeed!

I have always vacillated between the two positions of ‘soul-sleep’ (though don’t like the word ‘soul’ in that context) and an interim bodiless existence post death in ‘heaven’. Why vacillate? Because one view might just have the vote biblically, the other I think wins it theologically. That kind of dilemma illustrates why it is not always easy to be certain. On this issue it does not matter too much – we will all find out one day! It does not greatly affect the here and now. Gender issues (male / female relationships… not to mention the complications that arise when we consider the gender spectrum) would be something that cuts a lot deeper with respect to the here and now; our view of the planet, the economy etc., now those are critical issues.

As above on Luther’s view a theology that enables us to interpret texts will be essential; and that theology has to be nuanced through listening to the voices of science for such studies are not intrinsically anti-Scripture, far from it! And we cannot just adopt a theology that ignores the texts.

So I continue to vacillate on the post-death issue that I started with, and probably on more issues than I care to admit. On post-death there seems to be a big empty space in Scripture, for the texts are predominantly shaped by a focus on quality of life here and now, and on life in the age to come – life post-post-death, post the parousia of Jesus, what I describe as the ‘here and then’. For this reason it is probably best to be agnostic and focus on life here (being human, truly human) and on life then – when we will be truly embodied humanity.

I am partly interested in this as I am wrestling with how to write volume 5 of my short series. I wanted it to be an introduction to our hope, but was going too quickly down the line of bashing through a bunch of texts, instead (a heads up coming) I am thinking of just a broad sweep suggesting the reasons why I don’t believe in an antiChrist, a millennium, a great tribulation, a rapture, eternal punishing (note the last three letters, happy to replace with four others), a rebuilt temple, blah blah blah. I would certainly include prophetic writings where in the same book of the Bible that contains the prophecies the outcome is mentioned, and the outcome is vastly different to the prophetic word (that messes with one’s head for sure, and I think is a lack in the works that suggest the apostles are the equivalent of the prophets of the Old Testament… a view not sustainable by Scripture, but one I suspect is motivated to endorse a view of inspiration). I might write about ‘there could be a future antiChrist that matches the description in the Bible, but even if so I don’t consider the Bible taught us to believe that there will be one, it did not predict it.’

And I will probably write a chapter on the only concern we have, and the only delay in Jesus’ appearing is that we have not supplied enough building material yet for the new creation.

Or I might just say ‘deeply agnostic on all the above but consider that what we do here and now is shaped by what we believe will be here and then, and what we do now will shape here and then.’

If I choose the latter and no more that truly is a booklet. Maybe this post is the fifth book(let).

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

From certainty to uncertainty and then…

Longing for certainty?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

I have just completed the first round of zoom calls related to ‘Humanising the Divine’… (BTW I now hear an inner voice saying ask them why they have not yet bought this life changing piece of work? Quickly squashed by ‘Life-changing… really?’). OK no more advertising. Second BTW have you seen ‘The Social Dilemma‘? It is huge eye opening exposé of how vulnerable we are and how society after society is being manipulated to be polarised. It also fits with the preface with my confession that I am biased and believe certain things cos it suits me, and I can defend myself with the Bible… until someone comes along who knows a lot more than me!

I have been very moved by hearing the journeys that people have been on and the integrity with which they have responded to God provoked by crises or difficulties. It highlights what I suggest that the major ways in which we change is not simply through a ‘God-encounter’ but through how we respond (to God) when issues come up. A number spoke of the days (past) of certainty.

I have set out two aspects (borrowing from Robert Johnston) for certainty. The means of reconciliation to God is via the cross, and the authority for what we believe is Scripture. That faith cannot be expressed in a box, not in a statement of faith that someone signs. (Penal substitution, inerrancy, millennial rule etc., are all interpretations of Scripture, not teaching of Scripture, but are often written into statements of faith – on none of the above could I sign such a statement.) Those two certainties that I am settled on do not settle too much beyond that point. A Calvinist believing in limited atonement (Jesus only died for the elect) and a Universalist both tick the above two boxes… Not to mention the more challenging issues of ethics, such as a view on marriage or divorce.

If we have an evangelical background we will probably have come through to a place of confidence in a set of beliefs. That is such an advantage. However, there nearly always arise questions that push back against those beliefs. A common one of course is to do with justice and the ‘problem of evil’: if God foreknew… what about all the ethnic cleansing in the OT… etc.

The questions can of course be much more personal, particularly when we face issues that are very close to us relationally.

I have observed that there is a journey from a narrow certainty, to questions that lead to uncertainty (that is why I think the context for this uncertainty are the two ‘certain’ points above – cross and Scripture). It might be nice to think that there is a journey from certainty to uncertainty and back to a mature certainty. Nice thought!

I actually think the critical part of the journey is from certainty to uncertainty… and to a new place (and space) of openness. Not open to any wind that blows, but open in the context of non-defensiveness, humility, and less motivated by an anxiety to nail things down. Actually a healthy place to get to.

I know less now than I knew years ago. But I know more about myself, understand more about others, and although I still try to squeeze God into my perfectly formed box I am aware that there is a mystery in God and s/he is more outside my box than inside. A God I have found (cos s/he found me) so I have to on a daily basis get on my proverbial bike and go in search of the elusive God who is present everywhere.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Adding to Holy Writ

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

I like to write my own scriptures. I guess we all do a bit of that when we choose the ones we like and ignore the others. I am certainly guilty as charged. But I am not referring to my propensity to pick and choose, but to the times I see a text that is not there, but I think should be.

I mentioned one recently in a post, ‘owning everything but possessing nothing’. I made that up but I think it is pretty biblical, and (sorry Paul) more relevant to me than his inspired version of ‘owning nothing but possessing everything’. It is kind of the reverse of what is there, or better the mirror image. So here is another one drawn from Heb. 11 (thanks to Priscilla?):

Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.

I think the writer would be happy to have that Scripture applied to the others in Hebrews 11 also. The ongoing voice of those who lived by and died in faith. Faith has a voice for Paul says (good to quote a male voice to balance the female voice above?):

Since we have that same spirit ofc faith,i we also believe and therefore speak (2 Cor. 4: 13).

So the made up mirror text reads something like this:

They though alive are not speaking.

That first makes the Hebrew writer’s words very powerful. Having a voice though having died. Second, it puts in contrast the tragedy of not speaking.

The creative act began with, ‘and God said’. True speech is more than words, it is deeply personal. It comes from somewhere / someone. It carries somehow substance.

A number of years ago I was looking for a recording I had of something I had been teaching, to make a copy for someone. I found the box, the disks were not labelled and I pulled out the one I thought was the right one. I pushed play. It wasn’t me on the recording, but Sue. She had passed away a year or so earlier. I instantly knew her voice, and her ‘presence’ filled the room. It was one of the most scary memories I have to date (and sacred memories too).

The sheep follow him because they know his voice (Jn. 10:4). The voice that brings the presence, the substance of God.

The first prophet in Scripture that Jesus refers to was Abel (Lk. 11:50,51). Yet Abel did not prophesy as far as we have it recorded. He spoke… His life, his actions they spoke.

He (they) being dead still speak. The list in Hebrews does not record what they said, but it does record that they spoke.

It is possible to say things, oh ever so possible to say so, so much. To say so many good, biblical words, to be extremely clever, even wise… But to speak? Maybe that is what we need to learn. To stop talking and to speak.

I seem to have, as far as we can test, a sound discrimination issue. This is not a lack of hearing, but a difficulty, a confusion in distinguishing what I hear. True physically which is a bit of a bug in the system when it comes to language. A while back I was listening to a recording in Spanish and a person said a common phrase, ‘todos las veces’ (every time). It made no sense to me so I played it back four times and eventually asked Gayle why are they using a phrase that means nothing in this context, ‘all the mushrooms’ (todas las setas)!!!

But what is a much bigger system bug is not to discriminate what we hear from heaven. God speaks and my discrimination is such that I repeat ‘mushrooms’! No answers in the comments please as to how many times I have done that!

The lasting impact of speech, true speech is presence. When I heard Sue’s voice it was her substance, who she was that impacted me. When God speaks it is the substance / presence of God that is the lasting impact.
There is a reason why there are those who have died but still speak. It is to do with their substance. There is a reason why there are those who are alive but do not speak. It is tied to their substance, who they are.

Light came from a voice. Substance came from the source of all substance, the speech was simply the bridge it came across.

Words can be cheap. True speech is not cheap. It comes from the substance of a life.

So I like to make up my own scriptures. I think one might even be biblical. I think Priscilla would approve.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives