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

Pray (what) for Israel

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

Glad to read of people praying for Israel, and in these days of resurgent violence to be praying for peace. Individuals and families being thrown into pain and suffering.

Something happens though that seems so predictable with a Scripture pulled out to defend whatever ‘Israel’ does. So here I go into a little turbulent waters.

What is meant by ‘Israel’? There are many answers to that question – dependent on what theology shapes the reading. And when I write theology, we also have to include Jewish theologies. Not all Jews (now, nor in biblical times) accept that ‘all Israel is Israel’. Even Jewish theologies differ on their perspective of the ‘land’.

Never speak a negative word about Israel… really? That seems so far from being in line with the biblical prophets. They spoke into the life of other nations but mainly spoke into the life of Israel. And given the various streams in the Scriptures if we let the streams of conflict to influence each other it would be very difficult to jump on a bandwagon of ‘support Israel at all costs’. In all situations, support can also mean challenge… don’t let me get away with whatever path I choose.

I am not actually convinced that God promised the land to Israel. Of course there are many, many Scriptures that suggest that… but then again there are some Scriptures that suggest God ‘ordained’ monarchy (Deut. 17:14-16)… whereas I much prefer 1 Sam. 8 as being God’s response to monarchy (for Israel). Oh and the land… I think Paul agrees with me in Romans. And if Paul does not then I think there is a Paul somewhere in the world who does! (Of course the first sentence above is a little provocative… but I appeal to Paul of Tarsus, Jeremiah, and to Stephen; to the original promise to a certain gentleman from Ur and to his ‘seed’.)

I am not interested in replacement, but am interested in fulfilment; I am interested in calling, and calling for the sake of the entire world (book #2 on ‘Significant Other’ tracks the downward trajectory of Israel as royal priesthood so that it opens the understanding of Jesus dying for the Jew (first)).

There is one incredibly strong Scripture concerning Israel… and I do not think that an appeal to the host of Scriptures that are often appealed to cut it… after all someone on the throne of David forever, priesthood for ever… for ever… for ever…

‘Because of the patriarchs’. Now that is strong. Says a lot about God… gives me a lot of hope for all peoples.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Inaccurate?

Inaccurate prophecy - an issue?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

Prophecy, prophecy, prophecy and some more prophecy. Predictions…

Alongside getting blessed and helped, ever get troubled by what is / has been prophesied?

Maybe you are blessed when someone puts their hands up and apologises for getting it wrong? Well a big honour to anyone who walks in integrity and humility when that takes place… And yet, and yet there is something much deeper than accuracy that is often involved.

To compound issues there are inaccurate predictions recorded in Scripture. [There is in some charismatic circles a teaching that the prophets of the Old Testament spoke the ‘very words of God’, those in the New did not speak in such a way (Agabus is quoted). This approach was essentially formulated to back up a view of the inerrancy of Scripture, the New Testament being ‘apostolic’ and so the ‘very words of God’. Seems that whenever we start with a ‘this must be the case’ and then impose it on Scripture that we come to find out it does not stack up!]

So to the inaccuracies. There are a number of examples, and I am not thinking of ones such as Jonah and the ‘reversal’ of the word due to repentance. Here is one example:

Jeremiah prophesied that (king) Jehoiakim would die a death without any honour. No one would mourn for him, his corpse would be dragged around and thrown outside the gates of Jerusalem; unburied his body would decompose in the sun (Jer. 22:18-19, cf. 36:30). Jeremiah also prophesied that no descendent of his would sit on the throne (Jer. 36:30-31). As it turned out, however, Jehoiakim received a proper burial and his son succeeded him as king (2 Kings 24:6).

The predictions and the (non-)fulfilments are both recorded in Scripture.

Accuracy is important… but there is always something deeper that is more important.

There is an interesting passage in Luke 9 when Jesus and the disciples were on the way to Jerusalem. They were not welcome in some of the Samaritan villages and so the disciples asked if they should call down fire on them! Jesus turned and rebuked them (Luke 9:54-56).

In some Manuscripts (and rightly rejected) there are a couple of additions, the disciples say, ‘should we do what Elijah did’ (1 Kings 1 we read that Elijah twice called down fire on a group of 50 people), and we also read that in Jesus’ rebuke he added that they ‘did not know what spirit they were of’. Both additions are almost certainly not original, but seem to be from a scribe / scribes who are trying to make sense of what was written. I like the sense they make of the rebuke.

The problem is not their appeal to Scripture, perhaps even the problem is not their discernment / revelation, the problem was their spirit.

If the (additional to the text) explanation is deemed a good one it is very telling. We can be right but wrong. We can be right at a level but wrong at a fundamental level. Certainly this is where the weight of Scripture lies. It is not a simple judgement of ‘right / wrong’ but of the effect, and the effect runs along the ‘life / death’ paradigm.

Prophesying from our expectation causes all kinds of problems. Peter (and most of his compatriots) had an expectation about the coming Messiah. He received revelation that Jesus was the Messiah… had Jesus not rebuked him and he would have posted on some famous prophetic word internet site he would have prophesied ‘be ready, Jesus is about to come and kick those Romans out, restore all us nice people to tell them what do’. The revelation was affirmed by Jesus, and the expectation came from the ‘dark side’.

In the final days within Jerusalem before the fall of the city hope was kept alive by prophetic utterances that knew of the deliverance of God, after all remember our roots, God is the God of the Exodus. Imagine how the hopes rose in 68AD when the Roman general had to return to Rome in the year of the ‘four emperors’… And within 2 years all collapsed, at great cost.

Vested interest. Interest tied in the case of Peter and Jerusalem to national interests and a strong ‘dominion’ theology that the people of faith will rise to the top, vindicated visibly from on high.

Yes I am disturbed when predictive prophecy does not come to pass… but am more disturbed by some deeper issues.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives