Sicily…

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Reports

Seems like forever ago that the Mighty Gayle and I spent a few months on that island. We were just reflecting yesterday that it was just over a year ago that Sicily first came on our radar. I know we are all different and many people know how to spell the word ‘reflect’ but I genuinely find that hard to do and I think that helps me focus on today and tomorrow (OK you did not need to say it – and learn very little from yesterday).

Gayle picked up the following report this morning:

https://abcnews.com/International/wireStory/italy-seizes-gold-luxury-villas-cash-tied-sicilian-133376592

Italian authorities have seized more than 200 million euros ($232 million) in assets linked to the late mafia boss Matteo Messina Denaro’s drug trafficking network, in what anti-mafia prosecutors described Thursday as a blow to the Sicilian Mafia’s attempts to rebuild its financial power.

Maybe our prayers, particularly in Palermo into the mafia, made a small contribution? Prayer is awesome – every prayer a small contribution… and the multiplicity of the small.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Writing in the dust

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

I have written elsewhere about the encounter of Jesus with ‘the woman caught in adultery’ (Jn. 8:2-11) as how he handled the situation (set-up) is intriguing. Like many biblical stories we are challenged as to how we read it. There is the obvious patriarchal bias in the Pharisees – the woman is brought, but the man?… and that bias continues in so much of the Christian faith – the woman is to blame for the sin committed; the man has to be restored.

In what I wrote I suggested that Jesus does not reply immediately as he buys time by writing in the dust. He did not come to each and every situation with a ready made encyclopedia full of the right answers. As one of us he had to dig deep; as one different to us he did not quickly respond with the right (‘religious’ nor even ‘biblical’) answer. Jesus leaned on God and was always the Great Teacher because he was the Great Learner. Buying time and connecting. Connecting with our humanity for we came from the dust and are but dust of the earth. Connecting with the realities of life, our humanity and also the presence of ‘the serpent’ who crawls on its belly on the dust of the ground. Jesus bridged as always the gap between the divine and the human. If we are to come with a ‘God response’ we have to touch, and be touched by, humanity. And if we are to touch humanity we have to be connected to the divine. Then an answer can come that is deeper than the right answer, but is the redemptive solution so that an empowerment, that is both a release from condemnation and a breaking free of enslavement, results.

And yet there is more. I owe this further observation to a post I read yesterday by Conrad Gempf:
(https://gempf.com/wp/2026/05/29/a-non-supernatural-miracle-john-82-11/). (My take – read his post for a fuller observation.)

Conrad draws out that in Jesus’ response he provokes the accusers to find their own humanity. They come as a collective and the result would have been that they (‘the crowd’) would have stoned the woman. Jesus responded to the crowd / mob but addressed each one as an individual – ‘Let anyone (lit: the one) among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’

Don’t hide behind the crowd, don’t go with the crowd. He pushes them to their own (fallen but ever so human) humanity.

Personal responsibility; the mob no longer is a cover, no longer an excuse. They came as a crowd but left as individuals: ‘When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.’

The story began with the woman ‘standing before them’ and ends with the ‘them’ having gone (one by one) and she is standing before Jesus. Two different places to stand. Standing before a patriarchal crowd strengthened by religious ‘rightness’. And finally standing before true humanity. The ‘one by one’ crowd that was ever so right have gone when they face their fallenness. She remains.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Back from Istanbul

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Reports

Arrived home on Sunday, not only does it take time to reflect but also how accurate are any reflections, but I will give it a go! First though back in time!

We all (I think) have a framework within which we see life. That framework can be small or big and ‘big’ does not mean more important. I say that as mine tends to be big which probably means the only way I know what is going on at a ‘real life’ level is when Gayle gives me a kick up the proverbials.

A background

Some while back as I was praying (and I am not a great pray-er) a map of the world appeared before me and as it appeared two great land masses moved. South America moved to position itself under Europe and Africa moved east being positioned under China / far east. I noted that the Indian sub-continent did not move. Way back in the day when I was travelling regularly to Brazil I declared that Brazil would remove its currency from a dependency on the US dollar and relate to the Euro (I cannot remember if I said it would drop its currency and join the euro or not). Obviously South America as we have it was shaped by the colonising exploits mainly of Spain and Portugal. It has encouraged us to see that Spain has taken steps toward repentance for the genocides and colonisation – more has to come. Africa is invested into heavily by China, and with the Indian sub-continent not moving I suspect it will become much more of a global trade partner and have influence on the global scene.

China, and her relations in the far East, is set to become the next global super-power. I hold that when there is a shift of imperial power that the rising power has to ‘eat’ the former power. China – communist or not now? Or has it been eating gradually the capitalism of the West?

The big factor for me though is that of faith. Christendom, sometimes characterised as society that has ‘Judeo-Christian’ values, has shaped the West, and from the West to many parts of the globe. Christendom is more than an expression of ‘Judeo-Christian values’, but that which privileges ‘Christianity’ often with a state-church or even where government is supposedly Christian. I do not see that as the original setting for faith nor set as a goal to be established. This is why I have such high hopes for Europe. ‘Secular’, ‘post-Christian’ and many such labels are put on this continent. However, given that such culture as we now see developing – multi-faith for example – we are moving toward something much more akin to the context of the first century. Faith in Jesus was much more than the expression of a private religion but a declaration that there was an open invitation to join the movement that believed ‘new creation’ was breaking in already, and the days of Caesar and the like were numbered.

I am deeply grateful and full of admiration for the commitment to Jesus in the far east, but… yes there is a but! A Christendom-free, kenotically-shaped gospel is what Europe can lead the way in .

Spain became clear to Gayle and I as being ‘the only nation on the planet that can claim on the basis of Scripture that there are first-century unanswered apostolic prayers in the ground’ and that if they could be partnered with the possibility of the resurrection of the ‘Pauline gospel’ could begin. (That perspective in no way suggests that we have found the keys nor that we will ever be the custodians of such a gospel. We all have a part to play and everything anyone does, small or big, is done in the name of Jesus for the sake of the body of Christ.)

Sicily became clear as a place, based on its history and geographical setting, where there could be a leverage point to pray and push for the future. From there we got sight of Istanbul – a city of 15 million in the land (Roman province of Asia) where Paul worked – as a follow on from Sicily. Located in Europe and Asia; history of (Orthodox) Christianity and Islam; formerly known as Constantinople (new Rome) as capital of the Eastern Empire… with so much more history and significance.

Anyway I put the above here to try to give a context, realising that even when we have sight we see in part.

A merry band of 7

Bjorn & Maria – from Sweden. A wonderful couple who have given and given again at great cost into the marginalised who have come to Sweden, many fleeing for their lives. Huge respect to them.
Next is Gayle – awesome person!
Then Kathy and Steve. Huge commitment from them both into the holding together of the far east (with two wonderful daughters from China as well as two older daughters born in the UK). If you look closely you will notice that Steve’s legs are very short due to walking from Whitby to Rome and then on to Saudi Arabia! Then me coming along for the ride. And finally Paul who has heavily invested into the Middle Eastern world, and from my memory, this time was the 6th time he had been in Istanbul.

We leaned heavily on Paul for guidance through the city physically (15+ million people) but more importantly through the layers that are present. Steve held this ‘magnificent seven’ all in place. It really was easy and a pleasure being together (always helps when there are no ‘egos’).

The background to coming there was the months that we had spent in Sicily where the (very tangible) layers of Imperial domination and historical oppression and incarceration of the feminine was clearly visible through both myth and story. Sicily being the centre of ‘middle earth’ / first colony of Rome / centre of the then Empire / first place ‘conquered’ to form the modern Italy, she gave sight to what lay beyond and Istanbul as ‘the new Rome’ (Constantinople through Constantine); headquarters of the eastern Empire / displaying the contention and divide between Islam and (Orthodox) Christianity; meeting point and divide of the two continents of Asia and Europe… so from Sicily Istanbul ‘called’.

It is so hard to pull out points that answer the question of ‘and…?’ but here is a small attempt.

We were very aware that the beast (Jewish writers used the term ‘beast’ or drew on undomesticated animals to represent imperial hostile powers) can appear to be obliterated but that a head can resurrect (Rev. 13:3) and we are seeing this very clearly at this current itme with the attempt to resurrect / keep alive Christendom. It does seem that the original seat of ‘Christianised’ faith in Istanbul (Hagia Sophia) was taken over by Islamic faith and once Islam took on the clothing of that brand of Christian faith Islam was able to expand. In reality there is a deep resonance between those who claim Christian faith but want it expressed through dominance over; an Islamic faith that is expressed through opposition to all other faiths and the claim to pull on the God of Israel as we see within Zionism. Those three ‘Abrahamic / monotheistic’ faiths when they are used to empower dominance over eventually submit to the same ‘god’ – that ‘god’ not being the God of Israel and the parent of our Lord Jesus. Violence and killing is what Jesus attributed to the ‘devil who is a murderer from the beginning’.

So one strand was into the untwining of the threefold ungodly cord – at the surface those three faiths might not be seen as aligned but I have a deep conviction that they are… and the challenge therefore remains of – regardless of ‘faith label’ – being a Jesus-aligned person.

Jumping ahead in our time-line in Istanbul when we crossed to the Asian side and got off the boat we were immediately met by a very oppressive call to prayer coming from the Mosques (much heavier than on the European side). And immediately in front of us was a shot-out car – either taken from Gaza or replicated from a car that was shot out there – complete with over 300 bullet holes and the occoupants left murdered. It was alongside a highly sobering display of the ongoing genocide that is taking place in Gaza. The history of faith being used to legitimise killing. Trauma, trauma, trauma.

Painful to wak through but ever so necessary.

The divides were where we were focused – the faith divides; the divide between Asia and Europe (so much more could be said about the need for Europe to find an identity, not simply for Europe’s sake nor simply for now. Without it China / Far East will simply eat the current Western hegemony and there will be no real shift); the feminine space – the lack of it being seen so clearly in a city dominated by the toxic masculine.

Prior to going I had had a conversation with Rowena who had considered coming with us to Istanbul and she had talked about her desire to put Jasper into the city, into the spaces. This we did – naming each Jasper that each of us put into the various ‘cracks’ – including into the Bosporus.

Jasper is the first stonein the new city:

It has the glory of God and a radiance like a very rare jewel, like jasper, clear as crystal.

And the results???? What a smart question that we have such a tendency to want ot ask! Who knows, but prayer sows into the (open) future. The day we left the news carried that Erdogen’s government had put the squeeze on the opposition with violence against their headquarters. Of course those things happen (and not just in Turkey!!!) but perhaps the timing indicates it was a sign that as we sought to press into the ‘cracks’ that the pressure made some impact.

We did have a very nice sign indeed at the last meal we had together. Throughout the time we encountered the number ‘7’ – on the wall of the apartment where we stayed, on the wall of the blue Mosque where we prayed and at numerous other points in the city. The last meal came to exacty 7777.00 Turkish Lira. Four 7s – a hugely significant combination of numbers in Revelation – symbolic of the completeness for the sake of the entire creation. Maybe we should not assume we have sorted out all of creation(!!!) but that what we went to do is our small part into that ‘reconciliation of all things’ or now. I am sure a very small part, but deeply encouraging.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Istanbul… we are here

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Updates

Well at least we plan to be as I wrote this post a few days ago and scheduled it to come out today (21 May). Scheduled as I had started to write pushing into how we approach Scripture when it presents us with mammoth sized problems provided we don’t simply ignore the issues. Anyway, Istanbul.

For those who followed our journey in Sicily where we sensed that we needed to go to a) track with the Imperial history of Europe that has been tied up with Christendom’s expression and b) sow into the future. How successful? No idea at all. And if a good step maybe the smallest contribution into the future.

While there as we prayed and journeyed to different places it seemed that Istanbul became the next place. Neither Gayle nor I have ever been there (though Gayle’s sister has been teaching there for the past couple of years) but the history of the place – back through the Ottoman empire to the clash between an expression of Christianity and an expression of Islam as well as being key as a portal between east and west pulls.

I am asked sometimes ‘Is Allah God’. Interesting question as the word ‘Allah’ means ‘God’. My actual response is to ask a question back – ‘is the Christian God, God?’ I ask that as it depends what content we give to the word ‘God’ as to whether we describe ‘God’ or simply a ‘god’ of our own making. I guess we all have a ‘god’ who is less than ‘God’, and it depends how much less as to whether the less-than-God still has enough resemblance to ‘God’ or not.

To make judgements is not our place, to seek to understand who God is and to make God known is our place. I am not to know if (say) a Muslim who has an understanding of ‘God’ that they were given and seeks to do what is right is going to be a companion in the age to come; neither do I know if someone who grew up understanding God to be continually in a bad mood will be a companion. Salvation is through Jesus alone, not through belief, though both belief and action are relevant.

I do consider though that there are unholy allegiances and there is a fearful similarity between Christendom (clearly exemplified with the crusades in history, and in all forms of hatred) and the desire for some from within the Islamic community to exercise sharia law over others. ‘Over’ is such a key word. The work of God is to invite people not to put something in place that is over. Go back in history and Paul was so clear that he was honouring ‘God’ through the persecution of what he considered was a blasphemous cult. Did Paul serve ‘God’ or was he serving a ‘god’?

Sworn enemies can be at each other’s throats but can be operating from the same source! Jesus aligned the strict sect leaders within Israel (Pharisees) with their ‘father the devil’. I don’t think that went down too well. Christendom – a manifestation of a kind of Christianity, certain more extreme forms of Islam, and certain expressions of Judaism (or Jewishness with those who do not express faith) in my opinion seem to align themselves with the same (kind of) ‘god’.

In history Istanbul was ‘Constantinople’, the new Rome and capital of the Eastern Empire, the headquarters for Christendom. That magnificient cathedral was converted into a mosque. Those conversions of buildings from one religion to another were always seen as a symbol of victory, but I believe something deeper was going on. Islam aligned with Christendom’s model at that point, and I have held for years that the ‘well’ that Islam draws from is that of Christendom.

This will be one aspect we will pray into… There is more that will come out, particularly as this trip we will lean heavily on four people who have insight beyond mine. Grateful for Kathy & Steve Lowton, Maria and Bjorn Isacsson and Paul Wood who will bring what they carry both in terms of insight and story. I suspect as the few days unfold I will post updates.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

So what do we do with them?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Title AKA – inadequate answers.

A flat cannon?

I think it is fairly obvious that we are not asked to place all texts at an equal level. This is why to force a pre-determined doctrine of Scripture on the text will eventually lead to issues. Of course there is always the fall-back position of ‘as originally given’… but we do not have the original manuscripts from (say) Moses (or rather the ‘editors’) hands. If we hold to truth is told in the narrative to which we seek to live out under the inspiration of the Spirit in community we do not need to revert to superimposed doctrines that heavily depend on the in- words such as inerrant or infallible.

Those who insisted on being involved in the slave trade had the Bible to defend them, but from where we are today they did not have the trajectory of liberation on their side. The narrative / trajectory gave an greater authority to certain texts over others.

There is an intra-canonical debate

Not all Scripture is in agreement with all other texts. Take three wisdom books. Proverbs give us nice statements and there are any number of texts to choose from should one wish to embrace a ‘blab it and grab it’ theology. But put alongside it Job and the blabbing does not fit too easily. The righteous do suffer. Then jump along to Ecclesiastes and – with few exceptions – we have a somewhat pessimistic presentation: all is vanity and the most fortunate human is a dead one! Agreement – no. But the scene is set with the implicit invitation to enter the debate. The value of Scripture is not simply seeking to understand what does it mean, but how do I read it? What does it mean to me is key. The ‘final exam’ will not be on my biblical knowledge but somehow will relate to the measure to which I embodied what I understood. ‘All Scripture… is useful’; it is to be used / lived out.

Law – a direction (for Israel) not a terminus

There are laws in other ancient cultures that have similarities to the ones we read in our Scriptures. But virtually at every point of comparison the Torah moves the instruction further in a positive (humanitarian) direction. The slavery laws are one example; the ‘lex telionis’ (an eye for an eye…) is another example, limiting the level of response. But a) they are laws given to Israel and as such are as much a constitution for societal government as they are for their worship and b) they point in a direction but they do not arrive. The destination is Jesus, and the summary of the termination is ‘love’ which the New Testament makes clear includes love for the ‘enemy’.

Those aspects above help me enormously for they underline that it is a ‘Jesus lens’ through which we must read all Scripture, as for those who see Jesus as the express image of the invisible God he is the embodiment of the instructions of God. He is the true human one.

And then…

Archaeology is an ongoing activity.If something new is uncovered then at times previous readings of history have to be revised. At the current time not all archaeology accords with what we read in Scripture. Jericho had walls – just not at the time of the Conquest by Joshua; there was an Exodus, just probably not completely as we read. So…?

We should try and avoid putting on Scripture what we consider are the correct criteria, particularly regarding history that is written. We have a phrase that ‘history is written by the victor’ and ancient history was often written with a ‘bias’ (our perspective) to explain how things are as they are currently or to give a defence of who they were as a people. The level of genocide recorded is almost certainly exaggerated and (maybe I am now going to be controversial but it is hard to see it any other way) the words that we read that says ‘God spoke’ are at times more words put in the mouth of God than those that came from God’s mouth. God is misrepresented at times, and inadequately at others. But fully (and only) represented in Jesus, to which the Scriptures keep stretching to witness to.

 Coming to the ancient literature (the Bible) we can see even within the same book (by our criteria) that there are contradictions. Did they conquer the whole land? Early in the book of Joshua clearly they had:

So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings; he left no one remaining but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel had commanded… So Joshua took the whole land (Jos. 10:40; 11:23).

But a few chapters later we read,

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 (Jos. 13:1).

Not easy to reconcile those two statements, and it would not have escaped ancient scribes (had we pointed it out) that those statements are not easily reconcilable. Uncomfortable as it is we have to sit with it that we don’t always have history as we think of it, with dates and figures.

Story telling, recounting the past, is so part of ancient culture and it does not simply follow our norms and expectations.

We are invited to read and enter into the story without being under pressure to justify nor to agree with what we read. We run with the narrative for the Scriptures point to Jesus. The cross does not change God (anger to mercy) but reveals God. Yes, I do challenge that God said ‘wipe them out’, and certainly don’t sing songs with arms raised about bashing the brains out of young children of those I have decided are my enemy (and in modern warfare that is fast becoming an ever increasing reality).

These are inadequate answers and could be challenged, corrected, improved or replaced. Whatever solutions we come up with, if we read Scripture through a Jesus-lens we will come across some tough texts but will not come under them and come out the other side as ‘I can’t believe in God’. We have to read Scripture – even those tough places in a way so that they are useful. And useful for me is to be shaped by the God who is revealed in Jesus. The goal of Scripture is not Scriptural knowledge or even understanding, but knowledge of God by the Spirit through Jesus.

A final little note. The biggest issue for the Christian faith is that of suffering. It is compounded by a pre-set of beliefs that come without adequate explanation. God is all-powerful and all-loving: there the issue is increased. A mystery – yes. But I question whether we have a presentation of God as ‘able to do anything that he (and it is a male God at this point) chooses’. Not in this world. Suffering within creation is down to us and the work of liberation is down to us who follow the Lamb. We do need to revise what is meant by ‘sovereignty’ and ‘omnipotence’.

Suffering for the Christian faith is a challenge. For the non-theistic evolutionist the big issue is that of the incredible balance and combination of factors (close to infinite) that have to come together for life to exist. The probability? Add to that all of this came from nothing (something from nothing) and the statistical probability is staggering.

For both Christian and atheist a further challenge. Both love to speak of ‘time began’ – that I consider is an oxymoron!

For the Christian we might come up with better answers than I have, but they will still remain inadequate. Thank God that even in the midst of a lack of understanding we have a God who entered into the pain and suffering of the world – not for God’s sake but for ours… but to express that the Creator God is the redeemer God.

Jesus went beyond the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament. Consider for a moment, the animals were not sacrificed on the altar, but were killed humanely outside. They did not ‘suffer’ as they had to be presented without blemish. The Old Testament points forward… but we have to journey forward. Yes there are Scriptures that ‘fall short’ of a Jesus expression.

I hope I have provoked. I have so much more to read, for,

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Oh there are quite a few!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

There are more than an odd verse here and there that cause us as we read them to raise an eyebrow as to what they record, or go beyond recording to indicate that God approves of the behaviour described or even indicate that he commanded the action recorded.

Today I will indicate some of them – a little stark and in your face when listed like this, but maybe by doing so we might realise that this is not a minor bump on an otherwise smooth trajectory. It will also probably indicate why so many see God as a well-grumpy ancient one who is just waiting to give expression to some built up anger (spelt ‘wrath’).

Let’s start with a Scripture that is easily ‘defended’. Lot’s offer to give his two virgin daughters to the men to rape,

Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” (Gen. 19:6-8).

Easy to defend because Lot’s offer is indefensible and there is no mention of God giving such instruction or advice. There are a number of texts that are like that. They record indefensible behaviour often because of a twisted view of the God they serve.

Jephthah makes a vow and ends up sacrificing his daughter (Jud. 11:29-40). This is well screwed up and all stems from a wrong view of God, of doing a deal with God. (Thankfully this is not set in the context of Jephthah did the right thing.) Vows taken, the Torah says, can be annulled if a wife makes one and the husband says ‘null and void’, or a daughter does and the father cancels it. A sigh of relief… but ever so hierarchical and patriarchal. That is a continuing issue that comes through in the law- a cleansing offering to be given after the birth of a child, just the mother is unclean for twice the length of time if the child is female. That patriarchal bias is not removed throughout the Old Testament and some see it not removed even in the New – another post needs to be done to knock that on the head!

So many examples of the patriarchal bias (understatement!) of the laws given. Two men arguing – the problem – a wife intervenes – to solve it – and she can have her hand cut off! No mention of any punishment for the men. OUCH.

Slavery is not critiqued and not even overturned in the New. There are so many texts that can be quoted,

When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property (Exod. 21:20,21).

Slaves are ‘property’ and the text below not only refers to them as ‘property’ but allows for the obtaining of slaves from within families in the land (‘human trafficing’?).

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property (Lev. 25: 44-46).

There are numerous instructions from God that classify as advocating genocide or ethnic cleansing. Maybe the horrendous nature of it can be seen in this text from Psalms (the hymbook!):

O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
    Happy shall they be who pay you back
    what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
    and dash them against the rock! (Ps.137:8,9).

OK God did not command this, but there are those Scriptures where God commands the wiping out of whole communities, including children. And this text above to be recorded as a song to be sung! Yes we could spiritualise it, but the ‘meaning as originally intended’ was not spiritualised.

I was reading a couple of days ago about the ‘man after God’s own heart’. He lays out Moabites head to foot (easier to count) and then allows every third one to survive – killing the others; and of course as always as he grew in governance and made Jerusalem his capital he ‘then perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel and that he had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel’, so as God blesses him he goes out to take ‘more concubines and wives’ (2 Sam 5:13).

There are some challenging Scriptures. As I have noted some at least do not attribute to God the action described; we are left with some such as Jephthah’s vow that we have to answer as to what the right thing would have been to do. We have a bunch within the Torah that simply don’t stack up! And we have the genocidal instructions that are hard to reconcile with the God that is revealed in Jesus. At least Marcion opened a door, but the door he opened was beyond one we can simply go through.

I will return to this issue in the next post.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

When did the fall occur?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

This should be a short post – no idea?

How many falls were there? No idea.

Was there ‘a’ fall? Don’t know.

End of post!

Classically we have the creation of Adam and Eve; they choose to disobey; the result is ‘the’ fall. Could well be so, and theologically that is how we approach it all. But ‘historical’? That is to put a category on those Scriptures that (IMHO) is unfair.

In the same way as the ‘Old Testament’ acts as a backdrop to our ‘New Testament so Genesis 1-11 acts a background to Genesis 12- Malachi 4. The language, the style of writing and the various themes (not to mention the era it was written in) are such that we are not being presented with history in the sense of a researched piece of writing. Story-telling was (and remains) so vital. The important part is that those chapters present us with a backdrop to Genesis 12… God’s choice of Abraham so that the nations might be blessed. Gen. 3-11 gives us the mess we are in; but a solution is proposed – redemption through the line of Abraham.

The majority belief among Jews (second Temple and current) was not / is not that of ‘original sin’ as often is taught in Christian circles. If Paul taught that in Rom. 5 it would indicate quite a shift from his background. Neither did Judaism believe in salvation by works. I mention that as so much is pinned on Gen. 3 as ‘the fall’ in that classic sense. What remains is that creation as we find it did not move toward the goal that Gen. 1 & 2 seemed to indicate. The world and humanity are indeed fallen. I do, though, not believe I am required to accept as literal a talking snake – that might be described as ‘Satan’ in the book of Revelation but snakes were a symbol of wisdom (‘wise as serpents’) throughout much of Jewish literature; nor of ‘angels’ having sex with women; nor of a huge boat that saved the ‘two-by-two’ varied species. Those Scriptures do not offend me nor embarrass me, nor do I ‘wish’ they were not there. They accurately draw back the veil so that we can see the multi-layered mess that we are in, and also point toward what redemption might look like. (Hence the problems run much deeper than individual sin and therefore the solution deals with much more than that. I suspect if we could move away from the individualistic world view of the Western world we might be able to re-read Scripture.)

Scripture does not end with Genesis 11. A path does not begin with Abraham for God had been walking that path beforehand, but from Genesis 12 onwards Abraham joins the walk towards ‘the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.’

And in the literature that recounts the ups and downs of that journey and, unlike the literature of Gen. 1-11, there are stories that are seriously difficult to resolve. Ones that are quoted to defend the response of ‘I read the Bible and became an atheist’!

I don’t have neat answers to them. Privately I wish they were not there or at least had a serious footnote explaining why they are present. Tomorrow I will list some of the key passages. Honesty requires we do not simply erase them! And maybe as a prelude let me make one note here as I close. God does not agree with all that was written! Yes, this we also need to add to the ‘difficulty’. It is clearly recounted in the Torah that God required the death penalty for a number of violent acts, including that of murder… and yet in response to the first recorded murder in Scripture, God covers and protects the guilty one. A clear act of not submitting to the law!

Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him (Gen.4:15).

Of course we could suggest that God can do one thing (e.g. command genocide) but that it is not acceptable as human behaviour (nor compatible with ‘love your enemy’). God can act unrighteously and our reasoning is that it is a mystery (try to line that up with ‘be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’); but I think better that we carry lightly when certain behaviour is attributed to God when it is either condemned elsewhere in Scripture or is incompatible with the Jesus we read of who was the ‘express image of the invisible God’.

No neat answers ahead.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Creation and / or?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

With the model I presented in the previous post (and for now by-passing discussions on what we mean by inspiration and any other in- words) the protology presented by our Scriptures is essentially all that we see and experience came through the spoken word / activity of God (and the NT nails that down as being as a result of personhood – through the Word).

The ancient world has numerous creation stories. Understandably so, for there will always be a reaching out for explanations for ‘how’ something came to be the way it is. The genre we give to those stories is ‘myth’. Myth does not necessarily mean ‘made up’ but neither does it mean ‘take this literally as if a historical event was being described by an eye-witness’. We have not only differences in the two versions between Genesis 1 and 2, but it seems we also have other ancient stories that come through such as that of the slaying of the chaos monster:

Yet God my King is from of old,
    working salvation in the earth.
You divided the sea by your might;
    you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
    you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness (Ps. 74:12-14).

Those verses probably are reflecting an account of how creation came into being that is more ancient than the Genesis versions.The slaying of the monster is common to Babylonian, Norse, Greek and Egyptian; for example the Babylonian version (Enuma Elish) has Marduk, the storm god, killing the primordial chaos goddess Tiamat, who is depicted as a chaotic sea monster or dragon. Marduk creates the heavens and earth by splitting her body in half, separating her water-dominated form to create structure. Something of that seems to be reflected in the Psalm I quoted.

There are both similarities and differences between the seven-day account (Gen. 1:1 – 2:4) and the ‘Adam and Eve’ account (Gen. 2:4-25). I think it is a pointless task to try and hammer out the differences. Differences are present and we do a great dishonour to the ancient writers if we think they simply were not smart enough to spot the obvious differences.There are two accounts, one highly structured that over six ‘days’ – and I do think they were aware that until the sun and moon came into being ‘days’ as in 24 hour periods cannot be measured!! I kinda think if they were to read how certain apologists try and modernise the language that they might just think – after all those millennia they are not so smart after all. The highly structured first account shows how over the first three days the problem of ‘without form’ is dealt with and how the ‘void’ issue is eliminated over the final 3 days. The second account is human-centric and goes beyond the ‘formless and void’ issue to where the relational aspect is central; human companionship being the solution to loneliness.

The differences between those two accounts can be noted.

  • There is a difference of order:
    Genesis 1 has plants, then animals, then humans last.
    Genesis 2 has human either as male or as containing both male and female (‘Adam’ can certainly be pulled in either direction), then plants, then animals, then woman (or human as expressed as distinct persons).
  • A different Deity name is used:
    Genesis 1 uses “Elohim”.
    Genesis 2 uses “Yahweh”.
  • There is a difference regarding the method of creation:
    Genesis 1 features creation by command (“Let there be”).
    Genesis 2 features God forming creation by hand.

I don’t think the differences were missed by the ancients nor is there evidence that they tried to iron out the differences! The creation stories are just that.They are not of the same genre as Jesus’ parables but no ancient hearer was going to set about an investigation as to what the date was when the sower went out to sow and if he really sowed seed among thorns on that day! The genre meant that the historicity of the parable would never be subject to such an investigation. The creation stories is of a different genre to that of the parables (don’t be offended ‘myth’) but they were similar in that history, in the sense of observable activity, was never thought to be what was at stake as if unless they were ‘historically’ (factual and perhaps also scientifically) accurate that the stories did not carry authenticity. And certainly there is no science present in the story – that is to subject the genre to a false investigation not to mention how that would be importing questions from an inappropriate other era.

And on the big question of the ‘when’ of creation I would actually have less problems if eventually we found out that creation was eternal than the idea of a young creation. Mysteries for sure with it all, but was there ever when God who is creative was not creating? We will never solve the puzzle, and thankfully Scripture does not get bogged down in them. It pushes us beyond and higher than such questions.

And maybe a word about the ‘theory’ of evolution. Great pleasure can be taken from the word ‘theory’ as if there is within it a self-acknowledgement that it is ‘just’ a theory. But a ‘theory’ in the scientific world is the current way that an examination of the facts can be explained. Gravity is a ‘theory’ as well a ‘relativity’. Both might be revised / nuanced but I don’t think we should campaign to make sure that such theories are simply guesses and no Bible-believing person should engage with either!

Yes, there can be significant personal reasons why someone might wish to adopt evolution as their explanation of the world; particularly an evolution that eliminates a personal deity. I am far from being a scientist and am neither interested in seeking to refute nor give it major space. The ‘how’ of creation has some options, the ‘why’ is where the Scriptures focus.

The ‘well who created the god who created the god who created the world?’ retort is meaningless. If it carried meaning then the question would be infinitely long. The God who created is the uncreated God. Removing God from the equation (as with a non-theistic evolution) is what presents enormous issues – for that to ‘work’ at some point something began from nothing!

I am slowly getting into this set of posts as I want to explore the thought of Scriptures I would rather not be there! The creation stories are not part of that. Embarrassing for some people, maybe, but only if we try and twist them into something that they are not. Leave them alone and there is a profound richness within them. God providing for humanity, not just an environment, but food (other ancient stories have humanity existing to provide food for the gods); God setting humanity at the pinnacle of creation; of giving dignity to humanity as image-bearers – other sources have stories of temples with images, images that cannot talk nor walk. Creation as a temple and a call to look at humanity as the very image of the divine. Relational harmony.

One final observation I am not convinced that Genesis presents us with a perfect creation – it seems to indicate that creation is good and everything is present for (infinite) growth toward perfection.

Well, Genesis 1 & 2, I am very glad you are in there. The ‘protology’ (first word) helps us on our journey toward a healthy eschatology. God loves humanity and approves!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

What is this book?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Of course I have could have entitled this post ‘what are these books?’ but regardless of choice of title we still run into issues. What books should be included? We operate with 66 books with a firm line around them so that none others can enter – but other traditions use a different set. I have always struggled with the arguments that inevitably use various in- (fallible / errant) words to defend a doctrine of Scripture. Each lecture I sat through no New Testament introduction had to prove that the authorship was ‘apostolic’. I suspect that in part fuelled the view that became reasonably popular in the more-academic charismatic circles that the Old Testament prophets spoke the very words of God and the New Testament prophets were not at that level… the New Testament apostles being the counterpart of the Old Testament prophets. I have never driven a bus but I think without any training I could drive right through that without hitting anything! It all ends up so convenient; the church is built on the foundation of the prophets (=OT) and apostles (=NT)! Built on a book or on the lives of those who provoked people to follow the ‘Lamb wherever the Lamb goes’?

Yes Houston we have a problem.

The ‘canon’ is a problem that I do not think can ever be fully bottomed out. Not too different to that the Jews faced. They had books / scrolls, but it might surprise us if we were able to find out which books Jesus read. Maybe 1 Enoch was in there – a book that definitely does not go back to Enoch, not at any level in spite of being quoted as ‘Enoch the tenth from Adam said…’ No. It seems that the Jews formed – or moved toward forming a canon pretty much to exclude other writings, probably the list to be excluded included some of what we term the ‘New Testament’. There are other ‘gospels’ out there that are not included. Some might contain authentic sayings of Jesus, but…

I am very happy with the 66 we got! I treat them as authoritative (and inspired) in a way that I don’t treat other incredibly helpful (and inspired at a level) pieces of writing. The practical issue is the interpretation of what is written.

The first incredibly helpful presentation I heard on the authority of Scripture was from a youngish-definitely-up-and-coming person who went by the name of Tom Wright. (This was 1989; he has become fairly well-known globally since – his writings are more widespread even than mine!) He suggested that the authority of Scripture lay in its narrative and suggested if a lost (and unfinished) Shakesperean play had recently been found it might be a good analogy to the book(s) we have.

The play in 5 parts with:

  • Act 1 being that of origins / creation
  • Act 2 that of the Fall / falls
  • Act 3 Abraham and the historic people of God that we read of in what we term the OT
  • Act 4 being centred on Jesus, and
  • Act 5 being the opening scenes of the New Testament and the spread of the message… then the script is clearly unfinished although within the existing texts there are ‘hints’ where the play will end.

Wright put forward that the authority of Scripture is the narrative with the centre being Jesus.

I have suggested we could have three responses to the ‘Shakesperean’ story:

  • We realise the value of the writing, store the script in a museum and organise regular lectures on the play, its historical context etc.
  • We draw together experts who could ‘write’ the missing part and through their knowledge enable us to have in our hands a completed play.
  • We bring together Shakesperean actors who immerse themselves in what we have, rent a theatre and let the play roll. When the original script runs out just let them carry on with no predetermined script nor action.

Those three options do not have to be totally exclusive one of the other, but the priority has to be the third option. The theatre – our world; the actors – well these are not professionals, but are from the ‘not many…’ group! Passionate about the story, learning to act, react, speak, listen, challenge, making mistakes, but increasingly with a passion for the narrative and wanting to move the story forward toward the hints (‘new creation’) that are within the existing script. Acting ‘under’ the story, motivated by the Spirit, and with an eye on where the narrative is headed.

It does not answer all the issues of ‘canon’ or in what way are the texts ‘inspired’, but maybe that model describes what we do have before us and how we should respond to it. All our attempts to tie up the loose ends probably only take us to places that are unhelpful. ‘All Scripture’ (and what did that mean in the context of that text???) ‘is inspired… and is useful‘. That would not make for a very long lecture if that was the extent of what we had to say on our doctrine of Scripture. But once we make statements beyond that (the ‘Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy’ (1978) for example maybe did not give us much material to enable our response to the Bible to be useful but certainly gave us material to argue with others!) we run into the favourite land that Protestants / evangelicals have inhabited: ‘I am right and you are wrong’. Now all readers of these posts know I am right(!!) but (sadly) I discovered years ago that being right did not seem to be high on God’s agenda as a goal for my life. ‘Being perfect as My Father in heaven is perfect’ was certainly nearer the goal for my life! And that perfection (in the context where Jesus made that statement) was to do with how I related to others. Inspired and useful. (Maybe useful should be translated ‘will nail you down’?)

Subsequent to reading Tom Wright’s narratival approach I discovered the Anabaptist ‘Jesus hermeneutic’. Scriptures are not at the centre, but Jesus is, therefore the Gospel accounts of Jesus are not subject to the clever theology of the letters but rather the other way round. I am not a Marcionite (see last post: the god of the Old Testament is not the God of the New) but to give a hint of where I will be headed in future posts – not everything declared about God / what the text implies are an accurate reflection of who God is.

Jesus is the express image of the invisible God.

I am not Barthian (apologies to all the current wave of Trinitarian writers) but his description of the three-fold dimension of the ‘word’ of God is helpful. Our speech (or for Barth ‘preach’) that is based on Scripture that bears witness to the revealed word of God in Jesus. If we wish to use inspired, inerrant etc. with capitals we reserve that for Jesus – although even he had to ‘learn’.

So far then my overall approach to Scripture is both that of narrative and that it has to pass through the ‘Jesus lens’ to be authoritative! For example the patriarchal parts? No they don’t pass.

I have not resolved everything but have noticed recently that there are some YouTubes and articles on ‘how reading the Bible made me an atheist’. We could certainly add to that ‘How reading the Bible made me a religious bigot / hate anyone different / afraid of the world / want Palestinians to be wiped out…’

We do have (a) difficult book(s).

I write this glad that we have the NT. One of my readings this morning was:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.

Useful. Now it requires me to align, for ‘we are NOT justified by faith alone!’

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

I struggle with…

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

A few posts about to come. And if I was the reflective type, I am sure an all-but infinite number if I were to follow through on the title, but not being too reflective (strength: I look forward; weakness: I learn next to nothing!) and I am narrowing these posts down to Scripture – so nothing close to an infinite number about to be written. For sure most of us would be more comfortable if certain parts of Scripture were simply erased. I will probably miss out huge parts I don’t get cos I will try to write as things come to mind and am not working from a list that I have kept over the years.

Scripture…one can almost get from it what one wants. The death penalty – there it is. Slavery – clearer than abolition. Male supremacy and ‘headship’. The list is endless. I often say to Gayle that of the three Abrahamic faiths I am so glad we have a ‘New Testament’. Imagine simply having what we term the Old Testament or the Quran. Take for example Paul who writes a hefty part of the NT prior to his ‘conversion’. His pinnacle of righteousness was that of persecuting the church, approving of deaths. And he has Scripture defending him, nay endorsing him – the Levites were just one of the ‘ordinary’ tribes until they rose up and slaughtered 3000 of those who deserved to die(!), once they had done that they were rewarded for their zealousness (an aside: contrast the 3000 who find salvation on the day of Pentecost, the feast when the giving of the law was celebrated, that being the context of the zealous slaughter carried out by the Levites).

Marcion of Sinope (85- 160) was always held up as a heretic because he went full-blooded with the god of the Old Testament is not the God of the New Testament. A radical solution… but if push comes to shove I would rather that approach than a case built on OT Scriptures that are used to justify violence (such as with the Crusades… and has that ‘crusade mentality’ ceased?).

I will have to have a go at how I (currently) handle those texts that I would rather be eliminated(!!), but will go a little slower over the next few posts till I get there.

Labels are a challenge. Gayle was with a very soft-hearted Sikh a couple of days ago who was part of a workshop. The person in private said ‘I can see you are spiritual, are you a Christian?’. Shorthand answer would be ‘yes’, but that kind of answer does not help because it depends on what the hearer has in mind. So we often answer obliquely with something along the lines of ‘I don’t use that term as it can mean so many different things…. but Jesus…’ And that ultimately is where it will become evident that I land. I do not understand loads of Scripture but if it is to point me to Jesus I have to centre there (the well thought through term that Norman Krauss used of ‘a Jesus hermeneutic’).

Anyway labels. In common with the evangelical world there are a minimum of two elements that are at the centre of my faith – an approach to Scripture which I claim is the authority by which I believe what I believe, and that the cross of Jesus is the pivotal point of all history through which people are reconciled to God. Others might wish to add much more than that at the centre. I was glancing at a YouTube video of someone I met years ago declaring how anyone who embraces ‘open theology’ is heretical; I might wish to suggest that anyone embracing Reformed Theology is incorrect in their approach! The person on YouTube had a few more than two points at the core… and I think he would not be happy if I were to suggest that I fit within certain ‘orthodox’ theological houses!

Ah well I am so glad I can go to sleep every night knowing that I am correct at every key point of interpretation!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives