Tag: Christendom

Divided we stand

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Prophetic Perspectives

On one side or on the other? Some years back Gayle and I were advised (strongly advised = all but commanded) to get guns. The one who told us was a house-hold name in the Christian world. We waited for the punch line as obviously this was a joke. No punch line came, but an explanation for the advice. Apparently as we lived in Spain we were in mortal danger of Islam entering the land and bringing our lives to an end, hence the nation (and us) needed defending and we should be prepared to do this apparently as our Christian duty. I replied with that if this was connected to the ‘success’ of the gospel and this terrible vision of the future unfolded then no guns should be found in our hands and it is we who might have to lay down our lives. Not satisfied with this response the person with considerable exasperation in their voice said that if we would not enter into the fray that if they were any way close at the time they would undertake to do the necessary killings.

OOOOOFFFFF!

Defend the faith at all counts. Yet…

Jesus said, “My kingdom does not belong to this world; if my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. No, my kingdom does not belong here!”

My followers would fight… if.

There is a desperate battle currently not for the preservation of the Christian faith but for the preservation of Christendom (and the oxymoric term ‘Christian nation); Christendom which is centred on the use of power for ‘good’. I am not a reader of Lord of the Rings but in that story there is a very poignant character ‘Boromir’ who wants to use the ring’s power but only for good.

So deceptive. Imagine if we had the ear of the key politicians; imagine what we could do if we had an endless source of finances… or imagine if Jesus could have used the efficiency and reach of the Roman Empire of his day? [And that is one of the explanations used for Jesus coming at ‘the fullness of times’ – a reason that only a pro-Christendom reading could come up with a being the core understanding of that phrase!]

And…?

It is exactly that offer that Jesus turned down. The devil showed him the kingdoms of the oikoumene and was told that those could be his to use for eternal ‘good’. (For the use of oikoumene for Roman Empire see an earlier post.) Or in Tolkien language – take the ring and use it for good.

I do believe we are facing global crises; the hegemony of the West is coming to a close… but the biggest crisis of all is with regard to our faith. The path ahead is not an easy one but the biggest crisis now is whether the ring being taken for good dictates the future of our faith. The ring has to be rejected if we are to be the truly redeeming agent in the world. Challenged but also optimistic that we stand at the entry door to an amazing future – the end of an era or the beginning of a new one. Brave (and probably marginalised) vision for the future. Poets, artists lead the way.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Time – repeats or the future arrives?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Prophetic Perspectives

Time is such an elusive factor – a discussion within the scientific community, a theological / theo-philosophical discussion (I am not of the ‘God outside of time’ school, but cannot easily resolve all the factors – another post another day!), and in the light of the video that I reference here it is a challenge prophetically. I am deeply disturbed by the ‘again’ language that is used explicitly and implicitly. In times past I came across people who said that the most basic step in the prophetic was to have authority over the weather but I have come to the conclusion that the greatest requirement is to enable kairos time (arrival of heaven) to chronological time. Otherwise history just repeats.

I recorded three videos, the first one here and I will publish one a day over the next couple of days. The first is on the issue of time and not being caught in the snare of ‘again’. The second is a shift I see that is vital that we move from ‘demonstrating the power of God’ as a conclusive sign to that of the presence of God, and the third I look at the shift from Jerusalem –> West, and now what?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Marginalised…?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

History repeats / rhymes

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Prophetic Perspectives

There are various quotes about history repeating itself. Here are two such quotes:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. (George Santayana).
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (Winston Churchill).

And Mark Twain added a nice little nuance:

History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

Not sure where this post will go but here are a few background elements that provoked me to write this morning.

  • I have been agitated over the various ‘again’ messages these past few years. ‘Again’ that looks back is not based in the eschatological vision of the New Testament. ‘I press on’ was one of my readings this very morning. Hence my seeking to understand how to align (chronological) time with heaven’s (‘kairotic’) time.
  • Late 1990s / early 2000s a major emphasis was the rolling up of the Roman way which culminated in Steve Lowton initiating a walk from Whitby (UK, where the Celtic church effectively submitted to the pattern and teaching of Rome in 664 AD/CE) to St Peter’s Square, Rome to bring that focus to a conclusion.
  • The strong belief that the Gospel is not from this world but is for this world. It is not political in the sense of ‘capitalism vs socialism’, or any other such supposed polarities but is deeply and essentially political with the language used being both explicitly and implicitly political.
  • Jesus was offered to become the Caesar of the then Roman world – he was offered the oikoumene, the term that was used of the Imperial territory.
  • Paul’s great desire, and understanding of ‘the gospel to the nations and then the end shall come’ was that of the Gospel from Jerusalem to Spain.
  • And of course my understanding of the book that shapes us is that we do not have within it ‘history written in advance’ (popularised as ‘the bible predicts…’) but as a provocative call to shape the future through our actions, relationships, prayer in the power of the Spirit.

There are other aspects I might wish to add, but the above will give a something of a window into any bias I carry!

I do not find it a great surprise that in our historical setting we have conflict within the Western world currently, as the conflict area is over the ‘offer of the oikoumene‘ – the offer to shape the territory that can express the Roman order with a ‘God-order’. Hence I respect those who are writing about how Judeo-Christian values are what has shaped European / Western culture but the conclusive appeal is normally that we need to revert to Christendom. ‘My kingdom is not of this world….’ The sword does not belong in that kingdom but as Paul points out (with great irony) in Romans 13 to the world of Imperial authority. Today the Italian PM (Giorgia Meloni) heads to Washington to represent the EU… I am not suggesting this is sinister but I do read it as a sign. Will the West be held together as ‘Christianised’ or will there be a division that will allow space for the radical followers of Jesus who are to be like the wind to manifest? (I have said for decades that the strength of Islamic ‘sharia’ law is that of Christendom. The very thing that is thought needs to be brought in place to hold the ground is the very thing that tills the ground for all levels of terrorism.)

At this critical point of history, in the shift from the West to the East, we have much work to do if we are going to find an increase of pace in the right direction. Jesus died in Jerusalem so that the Gospel could go West and bring down the Roman order – surely it is significant that Paul’s Gospel is best outlined in some detail in the letter to the ‘Romans’? – but there is nothing in the NT about the work to the East. Unfinished work.

I am no great student of history but the shift from Republic to Empire in Rome seems to carry a lens through which we can see what is happening currently. Rome was effectively an Empire before it became an Empire, but the shift came in a defined way through Julius Caesar and solidified with Augustus (in power 27BC/BCE – 14AD/CE). Jesus appeared at the ‘fullness of times’ into that era, hence what was happening in the world at that time is highly significant.

Augustus… The early signs in his reign was of the Senate allowing him to bend the rules without pushing back; of he introducing unelected people (including those of his own family) into decision-making roles, and the move was made effective through the support of the ultra-rich of Rome. (A simplified summary but one that can be expanded on should one choose to read a history on Rome.)

Through his actions Rome became what it always was – an empire in disguise. Honour was given to the god of peace (Pax) with the phrase the Pax Romana being held up as something awesome, but visit Rome and you would have seen that the temple to Pax was built on Mars field (Mars the god of war).

History repeats / rhymes.

We are in this critical period. My prayer is ‘Europe do not concede’, or better… come on those of you born from above and act like the wind. No one really knowing where you came from, or where you are going but influencing the future through helping to hold a shape for all kinds of wholesome aspects to come through.

My reading this morning was in Philippians… a city that Rome had named as being Imperial. Those who lived there were to work to make sure that Rome’s values prevailed. Into that Paul wrote that their citizenship was in heaven (nothing to do with going to heaven when we die) and therefore in that context to ‘stand firm’ in a way that was consistent with those who were waiting for a Saviour to come from heaven to earth.

Many aspects are converging. Global crises. History rhymes. Fullness of times. West and East. Christendom or Jesus.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A change, how much of a change?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Prophetic Perspectives

How much has changed with the passing of the Queen? The honour that has been forthcoming is more than an expression of sentimentality but seems to come from the awareness of her life of service. For many reasons I am not of a royalist persuasion (and theologically believe God chose David, ‘a man after his own heart’, to end kingship… not prolong it… another post one day), but as we live in a world in which all forms of government and hierarchies are present this is not the most pressing element in my small life!

Something though has changed, beyond that of the death of a monarch. It seems significant that we have moved from male Prime Minister, who was prophesied to carry a Churchill anointing, to a female PM, who at some level is embodying what Maggie Thatcher carried; conversely we move from a female head of state to a male head of state. Signs of the pressing nature of how we respond to issues male and female / maculine and feminine.

[At one level I am troubled by prophetic words that proclaim (e.g.) ‘this new leader will carry the anointing xxx of and restore Britain to her glory…’ Troubled because they seem to be based in a belief that the future is all down to who is present in No. 10 (or the equivalent). Seems so opposite to Scripture – Luke 3, the entire thrust of Revelation (esp. ch. 5), Jesus’ words that it was the Father’s good pleasure to give the kingdom to a bunch of nobodies… etc. At another level I think there is often some revelation in the words, but the expectation that is added is skewed. I do think we had a ‘Churchill’ in No 10. Great news is he did not last very long! The expectation of restoration of ‘Great’ into ‘Britain’ was not fulfilled… and now we have a season of female strength. I believe in leadership, the issue is not leadership it is the style, and maybe a style is appropriate at one time (war – Churchill… maybe!) that is not appropriate at another. And when the season changes what has been and is desired, and desired by believers in particular, has to manifest to be finally emptied out.]

In a time of significant change there is an old ‘covering’ that is removed. Hence I do anticipate these next 7 months will open up the land to confusion, chaos and a number of backlashes.

An aside: Defender of the faith? Or…

The history of the term was that it was given to Henry VIII by the then pope (Leo X), before he abandoned the Catholic expression of faith. A tad ironic as Henry took the title with him and was no longer there to defend the Catholic faith, his marital status influencing which expression of faith he would defend. However, my objection goes a little deeper than that. The only defence for a monarch having the title can be rooted in a ‘I vote for Christendom’ perspective. So count me out on that one. I have no doubt the Queen had personal faith, and in line with Paul we should ‘wish that all (royalty and rulers) present were as he was’ (i.e. with faith in Jesus), but their task is not to ‘defend the faith’! We are to give a defence, an explanation, a witness to faith, but any legislation or force that defends the faith? No, not in my books.

If there is a title, defender of faiths, would be something I would be more comfortable with; but probably defender of freedom, of justice, of human kindness – all of that would sit better. So without disparaging the title-giving former pope, I hope there will be some shift on these issues.

Royalists (I hear there are some Christians who are in favour) and non-royalists alike, we simply need to be ready to be re-focused. Some titles might go, some will stay, but all of it is not nearly as central to how I live. I can raise my placard (what placard and in Spain!!!) and if I feel strongly enough there is public space for that, but if my objection to royalty is an objection to hierarchy, elitism and the like I should not raise any placard, not until I have dealt with the issues of the heart. If it is a time for something fresh to come forth regarding male and female, that has direct implications for me in my household.

The Gospel – all about changing the world, how can it not be when the claim is that the Imperial powers had stolen the very word? The Gospel – all about the micro of my responses.

There are some ‘tough’ election results being counted in Sweden and whatever the outcome the far-right xenophobic party with neo-nazi roots will have made major gains. Painful. And very painful to Maria and Bjorn who have stood with, created jobs for, challenged the powers, with regard to those driven from their nations and ended in Sweden (the sentence does not begin to tell the journey). What does it mean for those that they love, those that they have taken into their household / family? That is a very real issue. If the woman who threw in her two coins brought down a most luxurious Temple (a Temple that occupied around 25% of Jerusalem, that was spoken of in Rome as a building that just has to be seen), then I know that Bjorn and Maria have continually put 2 coins into the system that ‘robs widows of their houses’. The election is painful. Faithfulness is what catches the eye of God. (Even the disciples were focused on the incredible building – has nothing changed? Jesus meanwhile saw the widow.)

There are huge changes I believe that are here. They will unfold.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Economic, religious and political rule

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

There are many ways in which the temptations of Jesus can be viewed. We can certainly learn from them at a personal level, but the temptations are the temptations that the agent of the kingdom had to face. Although ordered slightly differently in Matthew and Luke the same three are recorded.

  • Turn the stones into bread.
  • Throw yourself down from the Temple.
  • Bow and you have all these kingdoms (and Luke specifically the ready-made Imperial system).

The response to the ‘stones into bread temptation’ was that Jesus was called to a deeper source of sustenance – to every word that came from heaven; the response to the ‘throw yourself down’ was not to put the Lord to the test; and the response to the ‘offer of the kingdoms’ was to worship and serve God’.

I suggest we can look at the first temptation as an economic one, to gain sustenance and resource through an abuse of miraculous power; the second as a religious temptation with God serving the pre-set agenda with protection; and the final one as a political rule temptation with the marrying into the system to exercise a ‘godly’ agenda.

What a trio, and a trio that are intertwined, a three-fold cord that is not easily broken. A trio that one could argue could have served the ‘kingdom’ agenda and enabled the message to be spread quickly and efficiently.

I have heard too many times ‘that is just the way it is in business / economics’. Yes, I guess it often is, but if to that statement is brought the ‘every word’ that comes from God we really do need to see an adjustment. From the exposure of (all varieties of) ‘consumerism’ in Gen. 3: ‘I saw, I desired and I consumed’; to the prohibitions not to maximise profits; to the command to care for the ‘widow, alien and orphan’; to the appointment of Judas to look after the money bag. Every word seems consistent, and Jesus certainly hit that big one on the head.

The religious agenda is where we have a vision and God will back it up. And back it up he often does, with the very clear example of the anointing of the king for Israel so that they might be like the other nations. He backs it up cos he goes where we go (after all he also walked out of Eden with them), and then there comes a time when he does not back it up and we end up perplexed. When he does not we are to open our eyes to where we have served religion and the ever so polished up religious agenda.

Of course, politics and what I have written on the political nature of the Gospel is so key, and I consider that Jesus broke the economic power structures so that he could then clearly observe the economic exploitative system that ‘robs widows of their houses’ was being undone when it sought to swallow also the last coins of a widow, leading him to prophesy the end of an era that had deteriorated into religion and exclusivity (rather than faith and inclusivity) so that the likes of Paul ‘apostle to the nations’ could spend the last days in Rome. From economics through religion (that had swallowed the economic exploitative system) to the ungodly marriage of religion and politics being pulled apart… so that there might be the hope of ‘the kingdom of this world becoming the kingdom of our Lord and Messiah’.

In Ukraine all three of these powers are manifest. A re-ordering of the world of economics is at hand, with the big ‘winner’ being the Imperial power of China who has no need to enter the current conflict at a military level, but is winning the war economically. Sanctions are a response, but we as body of Christ, have to pull deeper, drop down lower. Economic sanctions imposed by a Western ideology that has bowed at the feet of ‘the invisible hand of the market’. I am pro-sanctions (but what do I know?) but as always I consider there are keys within the body of Christ, and those keys are closer to home than we might realise.There is a battle religiously, with views of Christendom being at the forefront, and of course that of political rule.

We need great help from heaven. Angels coming. Angels holding back advancing forces; causing confusion, opening prison doors. (Thanks to this understanding through a conversation with Elly Lloyd.) Unashamedly ask the Lord to send angels, for Jesus was attended to by angels in that wilderness battle.

We are in global shifts. We have to lift our eyes as well as express the pain. And as we lift our eyes we will see body of Christ shifts. Not pushed to the margins. Nor seated at the centre. But both hidden and visible within the place that has sought to displace God with economic, religious and political rule.

The big questions of Ukraine and what are we to do are beyond me. The personal questions are present as always.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Roman religion

Christendom is that religion

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Prophetic Perspectives

No, not a post on the ‘what did the Romans ever do for us…’ but I have just come off another interview with Stephen Hill (I will put a video up here when it is available). He has a way of asking questions that provoke thought and today was no exception. First though a dream.

A few weeks ago I had a dream (short version here) where I went to a city that I knew well. I walked past a big church building that had been built when church-going was at its highest. I almost walked past it as I did not recognise it, the whole place – outside and inside – had been changed beyond recognition. I went down the hill to where I knew there was a cathedral. I went inside it and the inside (formerly impressive but not personal) was transformed. Carpeted, arm chairs, sofas. It felt as homely as any home could be. I am looking at this when someone comes past me that I recognise. This person was from a ‘new church’ background and was working inside the cathedral, absolutely buzzing with the responses of the people. I was very positive in my response, but said, ‘This is not for me I am off to get involved in what I have to do.’ I knew somehow that the transformation was not simply surface but deeply interior, and that it was connected to a decision taken some 30 years before that ‘christendom is over’, and to live in the light of it. (More to it – short version.)

Back now to Rome. ‘Peace on earth and goodwill to all’ – a message from angels or from Rome? Pax Romana, peace on earth, and in the light of it goodwill to all… just imagine and experience the quality of life as a result of this peace. Let us be grateful and offer up our sacrifice to the god of peace. So we make our way past / through the field dedicated to Mars and on to the temple. (Mars – the god of war.) Of course there is peace, there are no enemies, all comply willingly, unwillingly, or are removed – and that included a certain young Jew from Galilee.

Christendom is the result of the ways of Rome. Christianity became the state religion, so it is no surprise that Christendom is peace through war. Our Temple is built on the mountain of war. (The so-called ‘religious’ mountain is exactly that, and the idea that Christianity / the church is to be the top of the mountain speaks volumes… Christendom is long-since over but the war to see it re-established is far from over, though in its last crazy stage, comparable to the many prophets inside Jerusalem in the closing days of the end of Jerusalem – 70AD. God will act as he always has, he is the God of the ‘red sea’; yes another exodus, but this one is a Jesus’ exodus.)

Peace on earth… what happened to the enemies? We saw them differently, we saw them no longer according to the flesh. The contrast of the two ‘gospels’ is absolute.

Only an embrace of the end of christendom can bring about a change to the interior. Embrace, not reluctant acceptance. And an embrace of ‘new creation’, for that is all that counts says Paul.

[A sidenote – the speech on Mars Hill, Athens, by Paul is very instructive. War centralises and controls and unifies through elimination. There on Mars Hill Paul speaks of distribution, freedom and expansion.]

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Power and politics

Corrupting Power

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Prophetic Perspectives

The well known adage by Lord Acton:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.

In writing about the choice of king, the first one being Saul, there are some very interesting aspects about the move to kingship. First Saul was a humble chappie, hiding in the baggage. What if Saul had never been selected as king? Would he simply have been a friendly giant wandering the land? God then instructs Samuel to tell the people what the king will do, not what Saul will do, nor what a bad king will do! Is there the indication that once we give someone an exalted title and with it authority we really are setting them up (Lord Acton quote)?

Christendom…. Here is a great article I have just read:
https://www.redletterchristians.org/christians-dont-understand-how-horrible-christendom-was-as-is/

A quote from it:

Whenever the name of Jesus is invoked to vilify any group or nation, and whenever a pastor spiritualizes hate or weaponizes scripture to oppress others, and whenever biblical rhetoric is used to inflame nationalism and spread partisan fear, we must recognize these forms of spiritual manipulation for what they are: evil. Because throughout history, Christendom has been a favorite tool of dictators, authoritarians, and countless others who selfishly used it to harm others.

The dominant place afforded to institutional Christianity in Europe is over, resulting in either a hankering back with a cry of ‘we are being marginalised’, or a re-appraisal of what was done wrongly in the name of Jesus (without writing off the genuine missionary / humanitarian work). But now…

Is there a fresh offer coming to the fore in certain places not only to give Christians a place at the table, but to sit at the right hand of authority? If ‘Christendom has been a favorite tool of dictators, authoritarians, and countless others who selfishly used it to harm others’ is there a dangerous proposal that will simply empower dictators and autocrats to bring about oppression legitimised by the use of the name of Jesus (not to mention how lies can be first ignored, but left ignored for a length of time, falsehood will become ‘truth’).

With no offer on the table in Europe we are so privileged. No need even to hide in the baggage. Yes, probably some detox still needed as the hankering after power is so strong and insidious. Add to this the COVID-19 forced break, a call to re-positioning and I hear the word H-O-P-E. Ears and heart open I think is the right response.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

No, not an advocate of Christendom!!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Had a few responses to the post ‘Toward the vacuum’ and also Steve Lowton re-posted it on his facebook page soliciting a few more comments. In the post I was both reflecting back on the dream from years back on the opening up of the façades, the response of a number of believers in the public sphere and the danger of the ‘familiar’ being our default response. In the post – now some 8 years on from the dream – I suppose there were a few paradigms that crept through that I am becoming increasingly aware of. So I thought I would outline what I think they might be below.

Surprisingly (!!) I am not an advocate of Christendom. I have been too heavily influenced by anabaptism, the new church movement and the like to be in that camp. I see Christendom as an aberration of the apostolic faith, not as some sort of fulfilment of eschatological hope. And given the nature of God (another paradigm here) this does not mean that God did not use Christendom… he works in all things for a purpose. His work ‘in’ does not mean his approval ‘of’.

Paradigm 1: the church is here for society

The primary role of the church is not to evangelise society (keep reading…), but to, as witness to God, create / fashion / hold a shape where something redemptive can fill it. It is our responsibility as royal priesthood to stand to mediate the presence of God to the world and to allow the world to grow up into a healthy space. This is not a) withdrawal to a spiritual realm (sorry to one stand of anabaptism there) nor b) to impose some kind of theonomy on the world (sorry to that strand of Calvinism, Reconstructionism, Kuyperism, 7 mountains etc.). The latter is ultra-Christendom. Not all come to faith, but there are those who will grasp the Jesus’ values and fill space in a Jesus-like way, even if some of those were to be atheists. (I see this in the reference to the Asiarchs in Acts, for example.) The former (a withdrawal) is to deny the intensely political nature of the Gospel. Not political in the sense of party politics, but carrying an all encompassing vision for society. The kind of vision we have been trying to capture with the word ‘convivencia’.

(Now don’t read ‘don’t evangelise’ into the above but do read ‘some evangelism is not a witness’.)

Paradigm 2: the world is not the church

My background of course left me very clear on that… however, the two realms are related. One has been redeemed, the other, not being evil but fallen, is there to be redeemed. The church that resorts to the familiar and does not connect with the era in which it is placed and participate with God’s redemption of the world might not be able to fully own the term ‘church’. Church is political (the ekklesia of Christ in every geography was a provocative term when the cities of the empire already had their ekklesia shaping the city and future). We have to somehow engage with the tension that not everything is in Christ but everything is in God. In him we move, live and have our being…

In Jeremiah 22: 16 Josiah is honoured because

He judged the cause of the poor and the needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? says the Lord.

The chapter begins with a call to:

Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.

Jeremiah did not say that Josiah’s behaviour was indicative of someone on the way to knowing God, nor that someone who knows God will seek to behave in this way. His words are too strong for that. Someone behaving in that way is showing the evidence that they know God! (And Jesus promise was not that people who followed him would know God… but that they would know who this God was.)

Paradigm 3: God is not in control

A little strong maybe? But what on earth do we mean by ‘in control’. Love and partnership have to be the ways in which we understand God at work in the earth, not omnipotence. Love means he is at work. It means he will work in and through whatever he is given. But he does not act in isolation – we are partners with heaven.

In all the above I am not an advocate of Christendom, I do see a distinction between the church and the world. I am not looking to Christianise society, but to heavenify it. That kingdom that comes from heaven does mean that convivencia has to manifest. Space for those who are not believers in Jesus to express their gifts for the sake of others. It means any wall that is built is a sign of failure, that any bridgebuilding will mean we are trampled on from both sides.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Perspectives