The Case for Kingdom Theology (Part 6)

The Case for Kingdom Theology 

(Part 5) –OR– The Miraculous Redemption of Creation.

The miraculous redemption of creation is a statement that can raise a few eyebrows. This is not some kind of new age theology or something like that. It simply means that from the beginning, all that God created, God called good. Then God put humans in place to rule and reign over creation. With that in mind, what was lost in the fall was not just human innocence, health, and freedom but the innocence, health, and freedom of all creation. Consider that human sin brought death to creation, because human sin was more than just two people’s private fall. Adam and Eve were rulers over the earth, and their sin was an abdication of the right to rule over God’s creation. Consider the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 8.19-24a

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.

Reflect on those words, “… the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.” All of creation is waiting to be set free, all of creation is longing, all of creation has been subjected to futility and is waiting just as the human soul longs for redemption. Therefore, creation also waits for that day when humanity will be redeemed, not just in the Spirit, but in the flesh. 

If the “green thing” and all the political stuff that goes with it bothers you, don’t let that keep you from getting this point. Simply read, all of creation awaits that great day, when all is revealed, and our bodies are redeemed. It is a beautiful picture of God’s restorative power, of his ability to redeem anything and everything that he has made and called good.  It is also a powerful reminder to every believer that sin is not a private, personal issue.  

Looking from a Kingdom perspective at the issue of redemption, keep in mind that throughout the Old Testament leadership was always held to a higher standard. Every prince, king, priest, or ruler of God’s people was held to a higher standard. Even their offerings were more costly. Looking at the collateral damage surrounding the fall and redemption of humanity, Adam and Eve’s actions are far reaching because they were the de facto rulers of creation.  Thus the far reaching effects of redemption include the restoration of everything damaged by their sin. (The implications of this for harmitology are huge.) 

Thus, the kingdom perspective on redemption is not limited to the redemption of humanity, especially as central as it is to the biblical narrative, but rather a more grand restoration of all God’s creation with humanity as the crown jewel. However, this more grand and inclusive kingdom perspective does beg questions about human stewardship of the earth like creation care, the treatment of animals, etc. As well, such a perspective also challenges the notion that it is acceptable to consume the earth because you think its all going to burn anyhow (2 Peter 3.10). That’s not just bad hermeneutics, but from this perspective, it’s bad theology. These points obviously need more in-depth development to address all the issues. 

The Case for Kingdom Theology (Part 5)

The Case for Kingdom Theology (Part 5)–OR–The glorious redemption of humanity 

At the core of the gospel is not only the restoration of God’s rule & reign but also the redemption of humanity.  It is this two-fold understanding of the gospel pulls the entire biblical narrative together. Without the fall of humanity there would be no loss of God’s rule and reign over creation, and without God’s rule and reign there would be no means of redeeming humanity. 

Yet, some have suggested that the Apostle Paul’s focus on redemption is a different gospel from that of Jesus’ kingdom of God narrative in the gospels, but such a view looks at the pauline passages regarding redemption in isolation. 

In contrast, a more holistic view of redemption in the Bible begins with creation in Genesis 1. In the creation account of Genesis 1.11-25 each kind reproduces seed after its own kind, until we get to man (v. 26) made in the image of God. While never stated implicitly, the implication is that we are of his kind, and thus man is set over the garden to rule and reign over God’s creation (v. 28). Likewise, the fall is not simply one of sin and death but a change of humanity’s status. Adam and Eve are no longer are masters but those who are being mastered. So the fall of man was not just about a loss of relationship with God, but in change in status. This is further illustrated by the new striving between man and woman, that she would desire to rule over him but he would dominate her (Genesis 3.16). 

The fall is not unidimensional. Despite reductionist efforts to limit the fall to a need for forgiveness, the idea of restoration in the Bible includes the redemption of man’s relationship with God, but also with other human beings (male and female, slave and free) in Galatians 3.28 and with the earth and the beasts in it (Romans 8.19-24), which will be explored more in the next article. 

The central point for this post is that our redemption includes our ruling and reigning with God (2 Timothy 2.12; Revelation 2.26-27, 5.10, 21) and one cannot be separated from the other.  The scarlet thread of redemption that runs from Genesis through Revelation is also the thread of the kingdom. 

The Case for Kingdom Theology (Part 4)

The Case for Kingdom Theology (Part 4)  -OR- Kingdom Eschatology

So then, if we accept the premise that the gospel does need a kingdom centered definition, the implications are that a kingdom centered gospel also includes a triumphant view with regard to the restoration of the rule and reign of God. What do I mean by that? 

So much of popular theology today is centered around defeat. The demise of Western culture creates a tendency in western Christians to put their cultural narrative over the biblical one. Add to that the American Church's huge impact on global Christianity (money, publishing, seminaries, missionaries, etc) and those concerns not only dominate western theology but they tend to redefine everyone’s view of the world, prophecy and any other eschatological concerns too. The end result of the Western church  losing ground in society becomes the driving premise in global eschatology that the church of Jesus Christ must essentially be defeated by the world in order for Jesus to return. In contrast, the Bible teaches that there are two kingdoms in conflict (and its not the USA vs. the devil) and that the kingdom of God is triumphant, overcoming the kingdom of darkness, so that the gates of hell are unable to prevail. The prophecies of Daniel tell us that the kingdom of Christ will fill the earth and crush the feet of the kingdoms of this world and that God will establish his rule and reign forever. Even now, in contrast to this defeatist eschatology, the global church is advancing all over the face of the earth (with the exception of the West) yet Christians keep declaring defeat because of the ground lost in the West. The truth is that the Kingdom of God is much more than the Western Church! In fact, the rule and reign of God is even bigger than just the church. Still, the point is that the church is growing in the majority world by leaps and bounds, even as it losing ground in the USA. As well, kingdom values like: human rights, justice, mercy, the sanctity of human life, loving our neighbor, the brotherhood of humanity, and even equality are all becoming more common among the nations. This is not some “Pollyanna” naive worldview, despots are not becoming benefactors. On the other hand, countries who once had terrible human rights records like China, Russia, Romania, South Africa, and others are engaged in the discussion of human rights, and the International Olympic Committee will not allow a country to host the Olympics if they are not making any effort to do what is right. These are advances! The point is that the Kingdom of God  is advancing and that the rule and reign of God is being revealed even to those who deny it.

Moving toward a more triumphant eschatology is NOT promoting Dominion theology or Christian Re-constructionism or even Kingdom Now theology. The church cannot make the kingdom come, but neither should it hide it's heads in the sands of reality, injustice, or the failures of society. It does not mean adopting the expectant humanistic eschatology of the late nineteenth century that saw the advances in science as the arrival of the kingdom. This is not advocating that we can bring the kingdom of God about, or that we will clean up the whole earth before Jesus’ return to vanquish his enemies. It is the celebration of the inauguration of the kingdom in Jesus. It is seeing the win, when there is a win to celebrate, as a triumph over evil, over temptation, over disease, sickness, and demons. And when there is a loss, that the people of God do not surrender to defeat, but pray all the more earnestly, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 

This is important, because in contrast there is the dispensational eschatology of LaHaye and Lindsey, whose narratives essentially teach us that the church is the fallout (result) of the Jews rejecting Jesus as messiah.  It is a doctrine that says, Jesus failed. Subsequently, it teaches that Jesus went to the cross to save the gentiles, and that one day he will return and then the Jews will know that Jesus really is the messiah, but until then the church is fighting a battle against evil that cannot be won, in a heroic effort to save a few, while the majority go to hell. Then when it looks as though all has been lost, Jesus comes back, vanquishes his enemies, rubs there nose in their sin, and rescues the very few, and of course the Jews, and declares himself the winner, despite having lost the vast majority of people to sin and death. 
Is it really enough for God to be proven right? If that was so then he would not have needed to go any further than the garden. In contrast to these relatively recent eschatological views, John 3.16 says, God so loved the world, that he sent his Son, and the picture of Revelation 19 is one of triumph, of myriads of believers from every tongue, tribe and nation worshipping him who is King of kings and Lord of lords. Then in Revelation 20 Satan is bound so that he can no longer deceive the nations. Once released he does not triumph! He is again defeated swiftly. Gog and Magog are not the dreadful events of the Left Behind novels but an exclamation point of defeat again. Followed quickly by the final judgment. It does not take a neatly worked out eschatology to know that God wins; that the triumph is not secret! Satan is not just beaten back but utterly defeated, destroyed, humiliated not only by the cross, but again, and again on the world stage. 

Likewise, Jesus' parables on the kingdom continually illustrate the idea of the church advancing over the face of the earth, taking ground not through wars or by force, but advancing through the subversive acts of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. It is through subversive activity like loving your neighbor as yourself, self-sacrifice, generosity, and the like. These are not pacifist acts of acquiescence but the radical confrontation between kingdoms. This is taking kingdom authority over the violence that has been perpetrated against the kingdom of God. 

In Colossians 2.15 it says that the cross was triumph, disarming and making a public spectacle of  the powers and authorities that opposed his kingdom. Why then persist in a theology of defeat, doubting God, emotionally surrendering, forming social ghettos in the social media, television and music, making poor imitations of everything in the world. The goal here isn’t to offend but stop the bleed. When do we see the goodness of the world, and give credit to the work of God in the world? What if we give God credit even if he does that good work through those who are not Christians? Doesn’t the Bible tell us again and again, that people like Pharaoh, King Darius, and even traveling Samaritans do what is right? Doesn't Jesus celebrate their good works? Can't it be celebrated by the people of God giving credit to Yahweh God who is God of all creation (Psalm 24.1, 1 Corinthians 10.26) not just that which is redeemed? 
Look at the parables, the vision is one of the kingdom of God filling the earth, defeating nations (Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome). Add to that list nations not that have disappeared from the world stage after becoming a threat to Christianity like the Suleiman’s Ottoman Empire, Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Stalin’s U.S.S.R., Mao’s P.R.C. Christianity has outlived them all and withstood the attempts of each of those nations to stomp it out.  At the dawn of the twenty-first century Christianity not only regained ground in each of those regions, but has over-taken much of the continent of Africa and continues to spread among almost every nation in the world, only loosing ground in the West. Given the evidence of Christianity’s expansion into nations once hostile to Christianity, there is every reason to believe that it will retake even the West in time. That does not mean that earthly governments will all become Christian, but it does means that the Kingdom of God and the church will be present and healthy among every people group and nation. 

With that in mind, a triumphant ‘hermeneutic' or principle ought to yield an eschatology that is throughly biblical, historically valid, presently viable, and expectant of the future. It should exalt Jesus as King of kings, and Lord of lords, it should expect his final vanquishing of his enemies, and give reason for every knee to bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father. It should not glorify man, except to the extent that God does, and it should substantiate the entire witness of the Bible, not confound it.  To that point what eschatology does all that? Here is hoping that a kingdom centered eschatology will yield that ideal.          

The Case for Kingdom Theology (Part 3)

The Case for Kingdom Theology (Part 3) -OR- The Authority of the Kingdom

Last week as I wrapped-up the second part of The Case for Kingdom Theology, I said that if we accept the premise that the gospel does need a kingdom centered definition the implications of a kingdom centered gospel also include the need to flesh out what is meant by the rule and reign of God. Namely, what does it mean for the the rule and reign of God to be already present (inaugurated) but not fully realized?

In my association, the Vineyard, these are common terms used to contrast statements by Jesus like, “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. (Luke 11.20) and the experiences of praying for the sick that do not get healed. It is not capitulating to defeat or spirtualizing a lack of faith, but rather the recognition that even Paul prayed for a throne to be removed that wasn’t and that some of his friends took more medicinal routes to dealing with their ailments (1 Timothy 5.23). While this is not the primary intent behind the doctrine of the now and not yet it does become a simple but profound explanation that shrinks the divide between cessationist objections and pentecostal insistence. However there must be more to the idea of the now and not yet of the kingdom if we are to justify refining the gospel in a kingdom-centric way.    

For the sake of clarification, this is NOT to be confused with the concept of Kingdom Now theology or Dominion theology or Christian reconstructionalism, or anything like that. This is not advocating that we can bring the kingdom of God about, or that we will clean up the whole earth before Jesus’ return to vanquish his enemies. This is a statement of Jesus’ indisputable authority as present in the current age and in the age to come.  

The rule and reign of God is evidenced in this present world because Jesus Christ is able to set free the captives, not only in salvation, but from the present temptation, sin, disease, and the demonic.  It also means that he has control over nature, the earth, time, and even space. These last things being generally accepted to varying degrees by most modern believers even if they accept a cessationist worldview (i.e. The idea that the gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased with the Apostles).  Yet, even if you believe that the demonic has ceased to play a role in our world, then you would have to conclude that demons were vanquished by the authority of Christ, making the point that the rule and reign of Christ is both now and not yet. Now because some principal elements of the rule and reign of Christ are present leading people to salvation, the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer, the power to resist temptation and sin and not yet when we acknowledge that not everyone has victory, that temptation and sin overtake us all at some time, that sin and disease, and even death has not been dealt the final blow.  So we wait as does all of creation for that final day when all is to be revealed (Romans 8.19).

This theology of the now and not yet of the kingdom is not limited to charismatic circles, nor to any specific eschatology. George Eldon Ladd who first put forth the idea of the inaugurated kingdom in his book The Gospel of the Kingdom was not charismatic, was a dispensationalist, and held a classical premillennial viewpoint. However, looking back over the last fifty-four years, his little 140 page book has been the catalyst for numerous discussions on the kingdom of God as the rule and reign of God, as a life realized, as a demand, and as something yet to come. Dr. Ladd did not make all the conclusions put forth in this series of posts. He did, however, realize the centrality of the kingdom to understanding the message of Jesus and insisted that it needed to return to the center of our understanding of the gospel. That is the pursuit that I am most engaged in. How do we do that? Even if you do not agree with the more charismatic points of these blog posts, of if you hold a more dispensational viewpoint. A common understanding of the the authority of Christ should move us toward a more kingdom centered gospel. It demands that we see his role as the means by which we have received good news, making our need secondary to his rule and his reign. 

Next week’s post will focus on the bigger challenge of  eschatology and probably the most difficult post for those whose minds are already made up. However, those pan-theology folks (those who believe it will all pan-out in the end) may yet enjoy the undefined (or maybe unrefined) nature of the post. My eschatology has gone from certain to very much in process as I am working out my conclusions about kingdom theology and the resulting kingdom eschatology.       

The Case for Kingdom Theology (Part 2)

The title, The Case for Kingdom Theology, fits this series of posts but the actual article  ought to be: Refining the definition of the gospel in kingdom perspective. Last week’s post focused on the need for a kingdom centered theology and view of the Bible. In that post one of the implications for a kingdom centric view was the need to redefine what we mean by the term ‘gospel.’ When you state something like that it immediately becomes worrisome to many that you might use this as an excuse to water down the gospel or as a platform from which to preach “another gospel.” So for that reason let me be clear that I have no issue with the gospel as it is presently defined in every evangelical church. The gospel is the power of God to save. Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection is what paid for my sins. Any gospel that teaches me to depend on less than that is not THE gospel. So then what do I mean?

As I look across the scope of the Bible’s narrative, the Scarlet Thread of Redemption as some have put it, or the Scheme of Redemption, as others have put it, I see a bigger picture than “just” my personal salvation. I also see the triumphant restoration of the rule and reign of God, the glorious redemption of humanity, the miraculous redemption of creation, and the complete and final restoration of all that God has made. This is reflected in the teachings and life of Jesus Christ and subsequently the early church as it sought to make disciples of Jesus (teach and form in them the cruciform life.)

As mentioned in the the previous post, most of our creeds and our statements of faith were written in times of duress and sought to address the problems related to that duress. They are grand and well written. I can subscribe to everyone of them on some level, and to most of them in their entirety. The focus of these creeds spoke to Jesus’ divine and human natures, his equality with God, the equality and personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the virgin birth, and the bodily death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Nonetheless we tend to boil the gospel down to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Meaning that there is a large amount of Jesus life in the gospels that are not included in our over simplification of the gospel. These reductionist statements do not intentionally cut-out over three-fourths of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry as being non-essential to the gospel but in fact, it is what we do in practice, and in our theology when we say things like, ‘nothing else matters.’ How can any of the gospel matter less than any other part of the gospel? How can we conclude that Jesus’ life and ministry is anything less than the gospel? Do we believe that the apostolic biographies (the Gospels) have extemporaneous information? Or are our well written, but utterly human creeds and confessions, and our succinct definitions of the gospel lacking and in need of being broadened? The salvation of the individual is essential to the gospel, but the gospel is not only the saving of a human souls from hell. 

If we concede that the gospel includes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus,  and we include the birth and life of Jesus we should begin a move toward saved with a purpose, birthed into the mission and adventure of Christlike living, and transferred not just from the clutches of hell but into the kingdom of God. We begin down a path that is bigger than our tendency toward a man-centered gospel. Still we need to go further! After all, If all we do is include the life of Jesus and add a kingdom component to our definition we still have fallen short of the bigger picutre. We must put Jesus at the center of the gospel. The gospel is the reinstatement of God’s rule and reign over all creation through the completed work of Jesus Christ, which includes the restoration of all things, including those who receive Jesus Christ as King (Lord) and Savior.  

However, even as I read my kingdom centric definition of the gospel, I bristle with nearly five-hundred years of Reformation/Evangelical history that screams the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Can anyone relate? But this discussion still matters, because just like the Reformers, it is not enough for us to settle on the hindquarters of our tradition. On-one-hand, I am comfortable with what the Reformers said, on-the-other-hand, I am well aware of the results of this kind of reductionism, and the tendency of pop-Christianity to make it all about us, even as we claim it is all about Jesus. 

The definition that I put forth doesn’t solve all of those problems. I don’t presume to be the one to solve all the problems. Yet as a pastor I feel the need to address the problems with those entrusted to me. I feel compelled to engage not only in instruction but to be a student. I feel that I need to engage with the larger church and not simply work out my answers in a vacuum.  

The Case for Kingdom Theology (Part 1)

As a new Christian I heard a great deal about the kingdom of God, but I soon realized that when people used the phrase the kingdom of God that they all meant something quite different by it. Some people meant the kingdom of God in the sense of God’s rule and reign in the world, others meant the church of Christ on earth, some their denomination, and still others meant the physical manifestation of their eschatological understanding. Yet as I read the Bible, and the words of Jesus more specifically, I believed that these definitions fell short, in part because they approached the kingdom as one topic among many topics in the Bible rather than as the central theme of the Bible. That conviction has led my study of God’s word for the past fifteen years.

As I understand the subject, Jesus’ primary message while he was on earth was about the Kingdom of God. Even in his resurrection, in both Luke 24 and Acts 1, Luke has the risen Christ speaking to his disciples and “opening up their minds” to understand the Scriptures through the lens of the Kingdom. However, that changes our our praxis, and this inherently changes our entire understanding of the whole biblical witness, our entire theology, our view of church history, and should impact our understanding of ecclesiology too. Consider the following four fundamental assumptions laid out by N.T. Wright from his book, How God became King: 

First, that the climax of Israel’s story is the story of Jesus, and that he is the fulfillment and purpose of Israel’s story. The implications of this mean that the Old Testament apart from the New Testament, and New Testament apart from the Old Testament are little more than moralisms and mythology not unlike the Iliad and the Odyssey.  

Second, that the account of Jesus in Israel is not a new solution, but the story of Israel’s God returning to his people just as he promised.

Third, that Jesus’ earthly ministry inaugurated the restored kingdom of God and launched his renewed people (i.e. The church) into action. 

Fourth, the current status of things is one of war, a clash between kingdoms, that will conclude with the triumph of Christ’s Kingdom over the Kingdom of darkness. This victory will not be a secret victory, it will not be a theoretical victory, but it will conclude with the utter decimation of the kingdom of darkness and every power, person or thing allied to it.  

If you consider each of Wright’s four propositions, each is packed with implications that we do not have time to fully unpack in short post, but here are some implications:  

1. We need to refine what we mean by the gospel. Not because the gospel needs redefining, but that the current reigning definition is too small. Most of the church creeds, and other historical documents, that we use to define the gospel were written to address problems in the church, but are woefully inadequate to define the gospel entirely. If our gospel is only the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and our response to that, then our gospel has left out the bulk of the text contained in the Gospels (biographies of Jesus), as well as the entire witness of Israel, the history of Acts, the apocalypse of Revelation, and much more. 
2. We need to flesh out what we mean by the rule and reign of God. What does that mean? For instance, Dr. John White, the famous Christian Psychiatrist gave four lectures on the kingdom of God after spending a year with John Wimber at the Anaheim Vineyard. His theme was the Authority of Christ, including Christ’s authority 1) over temptation, 2) over sin, 3) over disease, and 4) over demons. We could easily expand that to include Christ authority over 5) the earth & nature, 6) over time & space,  and possibly you can think of a few more. This includes the tension of the now and the not yet of the kingdom of God. The problem for us is to expand our understanding of the now and the not yet of the kingdom of God and not just use that theological tension as an excuse (i.e. cover) when Jesus’ authority does not trump a person’s sin, disease, demons, addiction, injustice or whatever we/they are battling against. We need to ask, what can we articulate about the now and not yet besides unanswered prayer?
3. We must consider what are the implications of the kingdom for eschatology. For instance popular church culture has embraced the eschatological concepts favored by Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye because of their popularity of their books on the end times. However, with those popular eschatologies comes a whole host of hermeneutical and doctrinal considerations.  As I understand it, the conflict between Kingdom eschatology and dispensational eschatology is that dispensationalism begins with a premise that Jesus did not accomplish his mission when he came to earth, and that the church is a stop-loss measure designed to give the Jews another chance. This has given rise to a culture of fear in the church, and taught us to acquiesce to the triumph of evil in society as a necessary progression toward the return of Christ, and does not agree with the assertions of the kingdom triumphant (Daniel 2.35, Luke 13.18-19, et al).
4. This also has implications for our soteriology. How big (or small) our understanding of salvation and restoration are will depend on how we view the continuance of the story. If we do not embrace points one and two listed above with regard to the kingdom, then salvation and restoration would be limited to only personal implications (personal salvation, escaping hell, etc.) However, if we do embrace the whole of Kingdom theology then we must include the restoration of all creation. Before you react to that, think about Romans 8.19-24, the whole of creation groaning in anticipation for the redemption of the sons. There are big implications from that vantage-point about creation-care, not just as theological pondering but as the logical out-growth of our entire theology. Not to mention what role does this play in our understanding of divine healing, or of other redemptive expressions of the kingdom. 
5. As well, the issue of Justice become more than a side-interest that leads to some neo-political social justice concern for the poor.  Authentic discussion of Justice moves to center stage, along with a renewed interest in the minor prophets, and our need to do more than hand out a few sandwiches.

There are other implications that arise from shifting to a kingdom centered theology and would invite any comments to that end. Meanwhile, I plan to unpack each of these a little more over the next few posts. So stick around, and engage. 

* 
Eschatology- a belief concerning death, the end of the world, or the ultimate destiny of humankind; specifically : any of various Christian doctrines concerning the Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, or the Last Judgment.

Soteriology- theology dealing with salvation especially as effected by Jesus Christ

Ecclesiology-the branch of theology that is concerned with the nature, constitution, and functions of a church.

Is God Really All-loving & All-powerful?

As a pastor I regularly get questions that go something like, If God is all powerful why doesn’t het stop disasters or make this happen or that happen. Or is it that there is no all-powerful God, so even if he does love us he can’t do anything about it. I heard it again in a television interview recently. The investigative journalist  asked a pastor about a disaster and said, is it that God is not all powerful or that he just doesn’t care enough to stop the disaster from happening.  When the pastor became frustrated with the question I heard people chime-in to say that of course he was frustrated because it proves there isn’t an all-powerful, all-loving God, but the question isn’t a question at all, at least not an honest question, because it begins with a proposition. The proposition is that either there is an all-powerful, all-loving God or there is suffering, but we know there is suffering so there cannot be an all-powerful, all-loving God.

This kind of propositional statement is worded in such a manner that you must give the interrogator the answer they demand. Let’s be honest, Christians have used this kind of             questioning in numerous evangelism programs and apologetic material. Its makes people angry because they are pushed into a philosophical dead end with no means to defend themselves. It is dishonest and it turns people off. Yet this model persists. I suppose it will continue as long as people are out to win arguments rather than pursue truth. 

The proposition also assumes a closed system of temporal existence, and that our current existence is the measure of all things, which in effect eliminates the idea of eternal life that exists on another (spiritual) plane. If life and its value can only be measured in terms of temporal experience than life is a disappointing, and not believing in God will not help you escape that, in fact you ought to despair. The hope of eternal life through Jesus Christ is not escape, it is about forgiveness for my sin, my part in making this mess, forgiving me for the hurt and pain I have afflicted on myself and others. The cross is God’s answer. The point of this short life (70 years or so) is the realization of the cost of sin, it is the recognition of what life looks like apart from the rule and reign of God. If you look around and you are content with what this life has to offer you will probably won’t like heaven. Because the reason that the kingdom of heaven is free from all of this pain, suffering, sickness, and disease is because God’s will is done perfectly there. There is no sin! That means not even my sin or yours. You see a world free of consequences, disease, storms, or pain is a world free of disobedience. It’s not that God cannot, or that God is hateful, or any of the above. We were cut off from eternal life as the just response to sin. Once we are born into this sinful world we spend our years determining learning the lessons of our sins and the sins of others. You may say that you aren’t hurting anyone, but you are wrong. We live collectively in the same world, and you’re sin and my sin are the pollution that we are all suffering. But this life is relatively short in comparison with eternity. On the other hand, if don’t have enough discipline to delay gratification until tomorrow then seventy years may seem like an eternity. But the original point is that the proposition presupposes a closed system without God, without eternal life, that is entirely evaluated on the immediate evaluation of this life. Such a proposition demands that if this life is less than what I want it to be than God doesn’t exist, and that is neither true, nor will it fix your problem. It may lead to defeat and make you the victim of circumstances. Or it may make you the captain of your destiny, but beware, if you are the captain, then you are also at fault when disaster befalls. Who will you blame then? Luck I suppose? I on the other hand have the constant reality check, that when pain and suffering come my way, that I have sinned, and that even if I did not commit the specific sin that has caused my suffering, I am not exempt from the fall out of sin in the world I live in. I am guilty. When the people I love suffer, I remember they live in a sinful world, and even if they didn’t do it, I did, my ancestors did, and so did other human beings, and if they lived long enough, they would certainly contribute enough to the sin in the world to explain not only their own suffering but someone else’s sin too.   It is not a sweet syrupy answer, it doesn’t comfort people when their children are suffering, or when they see a parent dying slowly of Alzheimer disease. That is why we need to work out our thoughts about things like this before we suffer through them. If I wait until then I will never be able to step back and be objective. I will be hurting and I will find no comfort in this. I know, I have suffered a great deal of loss in my life, but what I decided before-hand about God, life, suffering and sin is what got me through my suffering, and it was my eternal perspective that gave me the patience to endure. 

In like manner, the proposition that either there is an all-powerful, all-loving God or there is suffering, but we know there is suffering so there cannot be an all-powerful, all-loving God, is the misapplication of scientific method to realities of life. Science is powerful. I love science. I love to read magazines like Popular Science, I read about Quantum Physics on occasion, I like to study the science behind passive solar and alternative energies, and about space exploration. Still I know that science is the systematic study of what is observable. Science fails when it reaches the limits of its ability to observe. From there scientist begin to dabble in the philosophical disciplines based on the the observations they do have. Its not wrong, but it is limited because of the lack of empirical evidence.  But science does not produce wisdom. Science can inform philosophy and theology, and it can create new questions but it cannot address the issues of ethics, of the origin of life, etc. Darwin and Neo-Darwinism are philosophical concepts, based on limited observation. They also have scientific problems that the faithful overlook for the sake of the bigger ideology with the belief that eventually science will observe and “prove” that it to be scientific fact. The proposition that we began with, because we observe suffering there cannot be an all-powerful, all-loving God, concludes that my observations are all there is to the world. At best such a conclusion is naive. No scientist that I know honestly believe that we know everything there is to know about the world, or how it works. They have confidence, even a zeal that there is so much more to discover about our world and about life. They also know that somethings are beyond the reach of science. My observations about life and the application of those observations are of the philosophical school of wisdom. It is interesting to note that in our day and age of great scientific knowledge and discovery that there is very little wisdom, and maybe that is the real issue at hand . . .

The development of wisdom takes time, and intentional reflection. Wisdom does not fear pain or take extraordinary measures to avoid it, but wisdom embraces life, examines it, and makes application. In the process, it lessens the pain of folly, it guards against the folly of others, but in the end wisdom is gained through life, not by avoiding it, nor blaming others. It is that process that develops character and ultimately gives purpose to pain and suffering, and makes me stop blaming God for it.  

Verse of the Day

“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
    and your young men shall see visions,
    and your old men shall dream dreams;
even on my male servants and female servants
    in those days I will pour out my Spirit, 
      and they shall prophesy.
                                         Acts 2.17-18

Empowering Word

On occasion I get requests for copies of my Sunday morning sermons and I point them to the church website: VineyardChristianChurch.net Recently I got a new request from the blog site so I thought I would post a link to my most recent message on the web site. Currently we are in a series on Acts. I hope you enjoy it!

http://hernandovineyard.com/messages/message/20130512-acts5-mp3.html

Verse of the Day

Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.  Luke 24.50-52

Acts 2: The Launch of God's Renewed People.

I regularly get asked to articulate my position on Acts 2 since I am do not characterize myself as a Pentecostal but rather an Empowered Evangelical.  This is something have I have done often on this blog, nonetheless, here is a link to my new series on the book of Acts entitled: The Ordinary Church. I hope you enjoy the series and follow along: http://hernandovineyard.com/component/preachit/message/launching-the-renewed-people-of-god-a.html?Itemid=

Should We Go to Two Services?

Over the past few months we have been weighing out a decision about going to two services at Vineyard Christian Church. I started broaching the subject early on so that there would be plenty of time for prayer and some discussion. This is always a big subject in a church that hasn’t had two services before or in a church where it did not go well when they tried it. On the other hand, in growing churches with multiple services adding a service or adding a second service after outgrowing another building isn’t usually a big deal. Actually, recent studies show that 85% of growing churches have more than one service on Sunday morning.

The biggest attraction to doing multiple services is making room for others in the space we already have. Expansion is expensive, buildings, or even renting and refurbishing generally runs people about $100/square feet. That’s not cheap! So using the space that you have is a great solution. It also gives us a chance to reach a greater number of people. Two different service times is a kindness. Many people work on Sunday and need an earlier service, while others do not work Sunday and prefer a later service time. By have two or more services it gives us a chance to reach more people. These two reasons are excellent reasons to have multiple services, but there are concerns about two services. 

One concern is, “I won’t know everyone.” Its true! It is also true that you don’t know everyone now. I encounter this every week, I will be talking about someone who has been at our church for months and  people have no idea who I am talking about. That’s because already we are bigger than your comfort zone. Most people can only maintain a handful of friendships. One service or two services you aren’t going to know everyone.  

A second concern is that multiple services will divide the body.  I actually have never understood this one, and I don’t believe it to be true. I grew up in a church with multiple services, I got saved in a very conservative church that had multiple services, I have worked for several churches with multiple services, and almost every growing church that I know has multiple services. I never encountered division over two services until I was in a small church that didn’t already have multiple services. In fact, the first time I heard this in a small church I thought they were joking, I never dreamed anyone was serious until they got mad, and left the church, called me names, and told me I was dividing the church . . .  I was confused. Tell me, which of us actually divided the church? A church is unified by Jesus Christ, and his mission, not by a building, nor by the number of services. I suppose if you had two different pastors giving a different vision, to each service that it could get divisive, but a pastor who has an agenda like that won’t be stopped by one service. I have seen that kind of division in one service. They didn’t need multiple opportunities. Our unity is not based on being in the same room, at the same time. It is based on Jesus Christ and his mission. 

If you compare the two basic motives of One Service vs. Multiple Services, (i.e. Making room & offering additional time slots vs. I won’t know everyone and it will divide the body), these two sets types of reasoning are very different. The concerns are about fear, while making room and making time, are about mission. I am all about the mission of Christ. Sure I have fears. I most fear that if I force this decision that people will lose confidence in me as a leader and doubt my ability to hear God and to lead, or that people will be mad and stop inviting their friends because they didn’t get what they wanted. My guess is that I am already being too transparent for some people, just by admitting my fears. (Ha, ha, sometimes you just can’t win.) But since I am being transparent, let me also say that two services is harder for me. In fact, with every class, training, baptism, etc. That I add, I am adding work to my schedule. I am already very busy, and at the end of the day, I don’t get paid more for more activity or by the hour. As well, I am aware that to start, we will need people to be at both services, serving one service and attending the other service, until there is enough momentum and workers to sustain each service. That requires a sacrifice on the part of many. I don’t want to downplay that. So I am asking for you help to move forward in faith rather than fear. 

On a side note, I have not opted for a Saturday service because Saturday is my only day with my wife who works and my children who attend school. The same is true for our worship leader, Todd. I feel the need to protect those families, so I rarely offer anything on a Saturday, and do not want to offer something on a regular basis like that for the sake of our leader’s families. 

As to financial issues, a new building, and other topics that I didn’t cover in this post, let me say that our current lease is through November 2013. We have to pay that no matter what. Second, any move will require money, to a rented school hall, another strip mall, or to purchase our own building. Our goal is to raise $200,000 and we have raised $24,000 of that already. Leaving us a balance of $176,000. I am confident that by the time we reach this goal we will have found the right place, and we will be well positioned to move into a space that will accommodate us all in one service. 

I hope you will join me in this strategic move to include more of our community. 

Grace and peace, 

Hal     

    

   

Verse of the Day

“Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” Luke 24.5b-7

Verse of the Day

And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph. And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mark 15.42-46

Verse of the Day

And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”  Mark 15.37-39

Eucharist: holy communion in a worthy manner

Today is Holy Thursday (a.k.a. Maundy Thursday). It is the anniversary of the Lord’s Supper that Jesus Christ instituted on the night he was betrayed by Judas in the middle of the passover celebration. For the Christian Church, this is our passover celebration. Having said that, I might add that I have often enjoyed celebrating a Passover Meal with friends, especially my messianic Jewish friends, as a teaching moment and as a time to celebrate God’s faithfulness to his people. The point is that the Eucharist is what Jesus gave his disciples to celebrate when they came together in his memory.   

In the church that I pastor we celebrate Holy Communion every Sunday, and at other times as well, as a normal part of our worship. Prior to the Reformation the Eucharist was a normal part of regular celebration in the church but the evangelical church sought to break the hold that the mystery of the mass had over the church, and moved the pulpit to center-stage making the sermon the high point of protestant worship. Over the years a number of “restoration” movements have attempted to put the Eucharist back at the center of protestant worship but with little success.  The reason I put the Eucharist back into every Sunday morning worship celebration has nothing to do with restorationism and nothing to do with my Roman Catholic upbringing. It has everything to do with thanksgiving, my great love of Jesus, my grateful appreciation of his sacrifice and obedience, my deep desire for communion with him and with the larger body of Christ, to proclaim my faith in Christ, and because, just like you, I need a constant reminder of God’s goodness. Those are the very same reasons Jesus Christ instituted the supper.  It is a concrete reminder of what Jesus did and why. I say all of this to clarify that while I see the normal practice of the early church being a weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper, I do not think that Jesus’ mandate to, “Do memory of me . . .” came with a specific directive to do this every week, once a month, or once a year.   So I in no way want to sit in judgment of any church that celebrates holy communion less frequently than we do. 

So back to this anniversary, the mandate was to do this remembrance of Jesus and that is the point of every anniversary and every memorial, to remember. Don’t forget what happened, don’t forget what Jesus did, don’t forget his sacrifice, don’t forget that he is coming back for us. This whole point of not forgetting is driven home by the situation in Corinth. The Corinthian church had turned the Passover Meal and the Eucharist into a big party, and along the way, it became about something other than giving thanks, and remembering what Jesus did. They forgot that the point of the Lord’s Supper is to remember what Jesus Christ did for them and they forgot about what Jesus Christ did for their brothers and sisters in Christ. To this end, the Apostle Paul wrote them and said, “. . . your meetings do more harm than good . . .” (1 Corinthians 11.17). For this reason he wrote them to stop making the meal about food and drink, and to partake of the meal in a worthy manner (1 Corinthians 11.27).  This is important because many people here miss the point and then start to think that examining themselves and partaking in a worthy manner has to do with being worthy to partake of holy communion. That of course misses the point of the meal all together. This memorial is not really about you and it certainly isn’t about you being worthy of it. If anything it is a reminder that I am not worthy. I partake of this meal to remember the only one who is worthy, Jesus Christ. My partaking in a worthy manner is that I not make the meal about feasting or drinking or my personal failure, or even about me, as much as I put my focus on Jesus Christ and his work. I remember him, and anything less than that, is an unworthy manner.  Any other focus that takes my attention off of Jesus Christ is an unworthy manner. 

So how should I partake of the Lord’s Supper? I should remember, and give thanks, and commune with Jesus Christ and his body, the church in a holy way. So if you find your self at the Vineyard Christian Church celebrating holy communion with us, let me invite you to do that with us. This is the Lord’s table and anyone who belongs to him is invited to partake in it with us and with him. 

Verse of the Day

And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Luke 22.15-16

Verse of the Day

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” John 12.32

Verse of the Day

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” Matthew 21.43-44

Verse of the Day

Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him. Matthew 21.31b-32