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.