A few jottings after watching the video by Glen Scrivener and reviewing some of the questions raised.
Introduction - the Spacecraft
I quite liked the spacecraft idea with which he opens, but I suspect (from general reactions) that it is more designed to engage with younger people. However, he does stack the cards in what he does with it.
There are three people who awake and find themselves on this spacecraft. Doc, Hope, and Sasha.
“Doc” probably represents those people who look at the order and beauty in the world, and think it must have been made. In a way he is an exemplar of the old Paley’s watch argument. William Paley's watch argument, presented in his 1802 work Natural Theology, is a teleological argument for God's existence. It poses that just as the intricate, purposeful design of a watch implies a watchmaker, the far more complex, functional design of the universe and natural, living systems (like the eye) implies an intelligent, divine creator. This is very much how “Doc” is presented.
But post-Darwin, I’m not sure this holds up well. David Attenborough provides a counterweight. He talks about an African worm eating a child's eye, the implication being if God exists, he is heartless. A post-Darwin world is one with complex, functional designs, but also a contingent mechanism – evolution – for explaining them. Darwinians like Richard Dawkins (atheist) or Stephen Jay Gould (agnostic) don’t get a look in. Even on the level of basic earth science – growing up the general idea was that the earth was a balanced homeostatic system, and stuff about Gaia probably also fed into this. Sadly, as we see from the effects of climate change, this was disastrously mistaken.
Hope is the optimist, the “spiritual not religious”. She thinks there must be some kind of purpose, but this is not clear. Now it is true, as Paul Heelas notably demonstrated, that the “Spiritual revolution” has led to a quest for authenticity and identity in all kinds of New Age practices. Some of this is patent nonsense. But it is, I think, a way of understanding, or seeking to understand, the kind of emotions – awe, reactions to beauty, music, or to what the Celts call “thin places”. There are experiences that are outside the rationality of a “Doc”, and humans are biologically geared to seek explanations of the world around, including such experiences. I think this can be very self-centred and indeed selfish, and that is where Pagan revivalist practices, such as Druidry, draw strength because they bring together community, care for the planet, and seek focus away from the self.
Sasha is the “not convinced” by the others category, which is obviously where Glen Scrivener wants to lead us. This is not exactly filled out like the other two.
Rescue or Restoration?
A man appears in a space suit and says “I am the rescue”. The notion of rescue here seems to imply (if the earth is the space ship) a rescue from the world. This seems to be to have if not spelt out carefully something of a Gnostic approach which depreciates the world. Or for that matter, the escape from the world to heaven, where the world is only temporary. The idea that everything is “written off” – in extreme forms in the Left Behind / Rapture theology, is not one I think is good, and it hardly encourages care for the planet.
I prefer the theology of “Nothing is Lost” found in Tom Wright’s eschatology. He suggests that "every act of love, every deed done in Christ" is not wasted. He uses the metaphor of a stone-mason working on a cathedral: the individual stone you carve today will be part of the final, completed "New Creation". In this view, the world isn't a disposable "waiting room" for heaven. And our work (including environmental care) isn't just "cleaning a sinking ship"; it’s preparing the materials for the final restoration
This is also brought to life in the Narnia book “The Last Battle”. When the characters enter the New Narnia, they are initially confused because they see familiar landmarks (like the mountain of the King’s castle, Cair Paravel). But Lord Digory (the Professor) explains that the Narnia they knew was just a "shadow or copy." The New Narnia is the Real Thing. Everything beautiful about the old Narnia (the friends, the landscapes, the "good" memories) was preserved. As Lewis writes: "All of the old Narnia that mattered, all the dear creatures, have been drawn into the real Narnia through the Door."
Unlike some philosophers who say the physical world doesn't matter, Lewis (and Wright) argue that the physical world matters immensely because it is the seed of the next one. You don't throw away a seed just because the flower hasn't bloomed yet.
Moral Values
Scrivener then moves towards looking at Jesus as “the rescuer”. Moving forward, Scrivener draws on Tom Holland’s “Dominion” to suggest that all of our moral values derive from Christianity, such is the significance of Jesus.
Now the thesis of this book (best read as I did on Kindle as it is huge!) is indeed that Western European values do all derive from Christianity and how it expanded and changed the Western world. However, Holland does not and would not suggest that values from other cultures such as India (Hinduism / Buddhism) are derived from Christianity. Again I feel that Scrivener is stacking the cards in his favour.
Oddity
A man appears in a space suit and says “I am the rescue”. The notion of rescue here seems to imply (if the earth is the space ship) a rescue from the world. This seems to be to have if not spelt out carefully something of a Gnostic approach which depreciates the world. Or for that matter, the escape from the world to heaven, where the world is only temporary. The idea that everything is “written off” – in extreme forms in the Left Behind / Rapture theology, is not one I think is good, and it hardly encourages care for the planet.
I prefer the theology of “Nothing is Lost” found in Tom Wright’s eschatology. He suggests that "every act of love, every deed done in Christ" is not wasted. He uses the metaphor of a stone-mason working on a cathedral: the individual stone you carve today will be part of the final, completed "New Creation". In this view, the world isn't a disposable "waiting room" for heaven. And our work (including environmental care) isn't just "cleaning a sinking ship"; it’s preparing the materials for the final restoration
This is also brought to life in the Narnia book “The Last Battle”. When the characters enter the New Narnia, they are initially confused because they see familiar landmarks (like the mountain of the King’s castle, Cair Paravel). But Lord Digory (the Professor) explains that the Narnia they knew was just a "shadow or copy." The New Narnia is the Real Thing. Everything beautiful about the old Narnia (the friends, the landscapes, the "good" memories) was preserved. As Lewis writes: "All of the old Narnia that mattered, all the dear creatures, have been drawn into the real Narnia through the Door."
Unlike some philosophers who say the physical world doesn't matter, Lewis (and Wright) argue that the physical world matters immensely because it is the seed of the next one. You don't throw away a seed just because the flower hasn't bloomed yet.
Moral Values
Scrivener then moves towards looking at Jesus as “the rescuer”. Moving forward, Scrivener draws on Tom Holland’s “Dominion” to suggest that all of our moral values derive from Christianity, such is the significance of Jesus.
Now the thesis of this book (best read as I did on Kindle as it is huge!) is indeed that Western European values do all derive from Christianity and how it expanded and changed the Western world. However, Holland does not and would not suggest that values from other cultures such as India (Hinduism / Buddhism) are derived from Christianity. Again I feel that Scrivener is stacking the cards in his favour.
Oddity
An oddity is when he suggests Jesus spent his years before his main mission as a “builder’s labourer”. I’d love to know where he gets that from. Usually the accepted (and sensible) idea is that he took up his father’s craft of carpentry.
"Claims"
There's a lot about Jesus making "claims" about his divinity. I'm not sure I read the same gospels as Glen Scrivener. In the Synoptics, I see an enigmatic figure who presents any stories about himself as parables and mostly calls himself the ambiguous title "the Son of Man". As is well known, Mark's Gospel is particularly strong on "The Messianic Secret" of how Jesus enjoins people to keep silent about who he is.
Also in the Synoptics, the term "Son of God" has a first century meaning of "Messiah" and again is ambiguous, shying away from any exact and formal relationship with God as found in the creeds. The Fourth gospel has a notably higher Christology in that regard, but even then the "claims" are given in images - the Good Shepherd, the Bread of Life etc - rather than explicit statements in the teaching.
If we look at the case of Simon of Peraea (4 BCE), for example, we see explicit claims, whom Josephus says was "of a tall and robust body; he was one that was much superior to others of his order, and had great things committed to his care. This man was elevated at the disorderly state of things, and was so bold as to put a diadem on his head, while a certain number of the people stood by him, and by them he was declared to be a king, and he thought himself more worthy of that dignity than any one else."
While Josephus does not use the specific title "Messiah" (Greek: Christos) for them, modern scholarship identifies these "diadem wearers" as would-be messianic claimants. In that respect the "Life of Brian" got its history right when it was putting forward an "alternative messiah" around the time of Jesus.
Who is Jesus?
Glen Scrivener presents a case for saying that "Jesus is what God is like". My preference is to reverse that and say "God is what Jesus is like."
Glen Scrivener presents a case for saying that "Jesus is what God is like". My preference is to reverse that and say "God is what Jesus is like."
This may seem just semantics, but John V Taylor in "The Christlike God"leans hard into that reversal.
Instead of starting with abstract attributes of God and then trying to fit Jesus into them, Taylor insists that the only reliable picture we have of God’s character is the life, actions, and self‑giving of Jesus. Not a deduction, not a metaphor but a disclosure.
Taylor observes how much theology starts with an idea of “God” (omnipotent, omniscient, immutable…) and then interprets Jesus through that lens. It is this often which ties theology in knots about Jesus being human and divine.
Taylor argues that we need to start with Jesus, his mercy, his table fellowship, his vulnerability, his refusal to coerce, and let that define what “God” means. So we do not bring ideas of divinity (often from a kind of Platonic philosophy) into our encounter with Jesus in the Gospels.
The Two Models: Superman and Superman II
When we approach Jesus through the presupposition of an idea of God, Jesus becomes like Superman in the first Christopher Reeve Superman film. In this Superman takes on an appearance of an ordinary moral - Clark Kent - but it is a disguise. Superman is the “real” being; Clark is the mask.
Taylor observes how much theology starts with an idea of “God” (omnipotent, omniscient, immutable…) and then interprets Jesus through that lens. It is this often which ties theology in knots about Jesus being human and divine.
Taylor argues that we need to start with Jesus, his mercy, his table fellowship, his vulnerability, his refusal to coerce, and let that define what “God” means. So we do not bring ideas of divinity (often from a kind of Platonic philosophy) into our encounter with Jesus in the Gospels.
The Two Models: Superman and Superman II
When we approach Jesus through the presupposition of an idea of God, Jesus becomes like Superman in the first Christopher Reeve Superman film. In this Superman takes on an appearance of an ordinary moral - Clark Kent - but it is a disguise. Superman is the “real” being; Clark is the mask.
This is the classic reading: Superman is essentially superpowered, invulnerable, above humanity. Clark Kent is a temporary costume, a way of blending in. The disguise hides the true nature rather than revealing it.
The theological analogue with Jesus here is that this is the model where God is fundamentally omnipotent, impassible, remote, and the Jesus of the Gospels is the temporary human disguise God puts on for a mission. It’s the “God is really like Superman, but pretends to be Clark Kent for a bit” model.
In the models of Jesus, the closest here is the one called "docetic" where Jesus only really appears to be human. By leaning heavily into the prologue to John's Gospel, and on "claims" of Jesus - which are more claims by Glen Scrivener - this is tending to a Jesus who is not quite as human as we are.
In Superman II we see Superman renouncing power but remaining himself. He gives up the powers, but not the identity. He steps into a crystal chamber and loses his powers, but importantly, he doesn’t become a different person. He becomes vulnerable, but he remains Clark/Superman in character, intention, and identity. He doesn’t pretend to be human, he becomes human, without ceasing to be himself.
The theological analogue (much closer to JV Taylor) is that Jesus doesn’t “mask” God. Jesus reveals God’s true character precisely in vulnerability, self-giving, and non-coercive love. Power renounced is not identity lost; it is identity expressed. The renunciation is not a loss of divinity, paradoxically it is the unveiling of it.
Miracles
Some Christians say Jesus’ divine nature gives him the power to do miracles. This is the muddle we get into with bringing an idea of God to Jesus. Yet Jesus repeatedly says things like “The Son can do nothing by himself” and “I do only what I see the Father doing.” The “miracle power” model is basically the Superman‑disguise version. This is the model where (to put it crudely) Jesus has a divine “power pack” inside him, and can switch it on whenever he wants. His humanity is the costume; the miracles are the moments when the cape shows underneath. Miracles are seen as proofs of divinity, rather than as acts done through the Spirit (as the Gospels often frame them).
But Jesus’ own language undermines the “power pack” idea. When Jesus says: “The Son can do nothing by himself”, “I do nothing on my own authority”, “The Father who dwells in me does his works” he is not describing a divine-human hybrid with two power sources. He is describing a relationship, a flow, a dependence, a mutuality.
In Superman II we see Superman renouncing power but remaining himself. He gives up the powers, but not the identity. He steps into a crystal chamber and loses his powers, but importantly, he doesn’t become a different person. He becomes vulnerable, but he remains Clark/Superman in character, intention, and identity. He doesn’t pretend to be human, he becomes human, without ceasing to be himself.
The theological analogue (much closer to JV Taylor) is that Jesus doesn’t “mask” God. Jesus reveals God’s true character precisely in vulnerability, self-giving, and non-coercive love. Power renounced is not identity lost; it is identity expressed. The renunciation is not a loss of divinity, paradoxically it is the unveiling of it.
Miracles
Some Christians say Jesus’ divine nature gives him the power to do miracles. This is the muddle we get into with bringing an idea of God to Jesus. Yet Jesus repeatedly says things like “The Son can do nothing by himself” and “I do only what I see the Father doing.” The “miracle power” model is basically the Superman‑disguise version. This is the model where (to put it crudely) Jesus has a divine “power pack” inside him, and can switch it on whenever he wants. His humanity is the costume; the miracles are the moments when the cape shows underneath. Miracles are seen as proofs of divinity, rather than as acts done through the Spirit (as the Gospels often frame them).
But Jesus’ own language undermines the “power pack” idea. When Jesus says: “The Son can do nothing by himself”, “I do nothing on my own authority”, “The Father who dwells in me does his works” he is not describing a divine-human hybrid with two power sources. He is describing a relationship, a flow, a dependence, a mutuality.
Miracles, then, are not displays of Jesus’ private divine energy. They are acts of alignment with the Father’s will and expressions of the same relational life Jesus invites others into. In other words, miracles are not “proofs of divinity.” They are manifestations of communion. This is why Jesus can say: “Your faith has made you well” and also “Greater works than these will you do”. If miracles were about Jesus’ personal divine power, those lines would make no sense.
Key texts for a kenotic model
The Superman II model comes very much to the front in Philippians 2:6–7:
"being in the form of God”
“did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped”
“but emptied himself (ekenōsen)”
“taking the form of a servant”
John 5:19: Jesus says: “The Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing.”
John 14:10: “The Father who dwells in me does his works”
John 13:3–5 : The footwashing. John frames the footwashing with a high Christology: “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands…” And what does he do with “all things in his hands”? He kneels and washes feet. This is the Gospel’s clearest picture of kenosis: power expressed as self-giving love.
"being in the form of God”
“did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped”
“but emptied himself (ekenōsen)”
“taking the form of a servant”
John 5:19: Jesus says: “The Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing.”
John 14:10: “The Father who dwells in me does his works”
John 13:3–5 : The footwashing. John frames the footwashing with a high Christology: “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands…” And what does he do with “all things in his hands”? He kneels and washes feet. This is the Gospel’s clearest picture of kenosis: power expressed as self-giving love.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment