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.       

Verse of the Day

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