|
Monday February 8, 2010 ~ 24 Comments
I believe we need to be careful not to assume that this is the first time there has been concern, for example, over the relationship between social justice, evangelism, and the Kingdom of God. We can learn a lot by looking at those who have gone before us and walked through these issues. In fact, if we don't look at this part of the conversation, we could easily make some of the same mistakes that caused the leftward shift in a theological direction during the missio dei movement in the mid- and late-20th century. When you look at the historical trajectory of the "church and mission" conversation, it was a deeply theological discussion. We must continue to filter this discussion theologically. In fact, I would say that missional must be tied-- and I believe it is-- to something inherently theological, particularly, the missio dei. If not, it is just another descriptor in a long line of descriptors: church growth, seeker-sensitive, church health, emerging. In previous "Meaning of Missional" posts, we looked at the nuanced discussion over the relationship of the kingdom of God, mission, and the church. Today we will look at the role of eschatology (in this case referring to the coming of the Kingdom) and its relationship to mission and the church. In the last century, the church began to be perceived (particularly within the conciliar missions movement) differently than in previous centuries. This would pave the way for a decidedly distinctive relationship between the church and the biblical concept of the Kingdom of God. In contemporary ecclesiology, the church moved away from being identified as institution and increasingly became acknowledged as "sacrament, sign, and instrument."[1] Gunther Gassman has shown that the broad reception of the ecclesiological use of the terms "sacrament, sign, and instrument" in ecumenical deliberation explains that this terminology is "helpful in describing the place and vocation of the church and its unity in God's plan of salvation."[2] The images of "sacrament, sign, and instrument" give articulation to the idea that the church is the only social order in the world that exists for the sake of those who are not yet members of it.[3] The understanding of the church as sacrament, sign, and instrument also led to a new perception of the relationship between the church and the world. Missions became viewed as "God's turning to the world," representing a fundamentally new approach in theology. For centuries, a stagnant notion of the church had triumphed; the world outside the church was recognized as a antagonistic; the outside were, at most, "prospects" to be won.[4] Put differently, according to David Bosch, the church was a world on its own and "it wasn't until after the Second World War that the essential orientation of the church toward the world was being embraced more widely in Protestantism."[5] Today, that view is widely embraced in most missiological circles (and many popular ones as well). This idea was not first "discovered" in the modern missional movement or the missio dei movement that preceded it. At the turn of the twentieth century, New Testament scholars such as Albert Schweitzer contended that eschatology should be central to the church's mission. It wasn't until just after World War 2 (around the missio dei movement) that a climate would be created in which new eschatological thinking would be win the day.[6] But this "new eschatology" was far from homogeneous. Citing Ludwig Wiedenmann, Bosch states there were four major eschatological "schools" in German Protestantism, each of which had a noteworthy influence on missionary thinking. Perhaps the most influential theologian in the salvation-historical "school" was the Lutheran theologian Oscar Cullman. Bosch says a case could be made that practically all contemporary schools of eschatology and of missionary thinking are "offshoots" of Cullman's salvation-history approach and his understanding of eschatology is the "soundest base for an understanding of the eschatological nature of missions from earlier positions."[8] Now, evangelicals would have some robust concerns with many of the theologians and movements mentioned, but they have influenced much of evangelical thinking today. Putting names aside, perhaps it would be helpful to unpack it practically. George Eldon Ladd provides a helpful explanation in The Gospel and the Kingdom, "God's Kingdom creates the Church and works in the world through the church." It might help to define the Kingdom of God a little further to fully consider the theology. One way to define it is that the Kingdom of God is where the will of God is done. Obviously, when Jesus the King came and lived on Earth, the Kingdom of God was here. Jesus prayed, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven." The reign of God is active, allowing His will to be done. When Jesus returned to Heaven, the church was left here on Earth, clearly not the Kingdom of God, as it was still in a fallen world, but most would say that it was a sign and instrument, even a sacrament, of the Kingdom of God. For example, when people look into the church (not the building, but the relationships and community) and they see marriages restored, people made whole, and miracles taking place, they should say, "Oh, that's what the Kingdom of God looks like." Thus, the church is a sign and an instrument of the Kingdom. It engages in Kingdom work for a Kingdom agenda. The church is the Kingdom's tool. In order to understand the missional church, we must consider the Kingdom of God. Christians are talking much more about the Kingdom. I think that is good but not without some concerns historically and theologically. I'll unpack this more in the coming days, but let me pose a few questions:
[1] Avery Dulles, Models of the Church (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1974), 58-70. [2] Gunther Gassman, "The Church as Sacrament, Sign, and Instrument: The Reception of this Ecclesiological Understanding in Ecumenical Debate," Gennadios, ed., Church, Kingdom, World: The Church as Mystery and Prophetic Sign (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986), 13. [3] Dietrich Bonhoffer, Letters and Papers From Prison (London: SCM Press, 1971), 382. [4] Howard Snyder, Liberating the Church (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983), 52. [5] David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991), 502. [6] Ibid. [7] Ludwig Wiedenmann, Mission und Eschatologie: Eine Analyse der neueren deutschen evangelischen Missionstheologie (Paderborn: Verlag Bonifacius-Druck-erei, 1965), 26-49, 55-91, 131-178, as quoted by Bosch, Transforming Mission, 502. [8] Bosch, Transforming Mission, 504. Posted on February 8, 2010 at 2:26 PM ~ 24 Comments Tagged with: Subscribe via RSS or Follow us on Twitter
Share This Post            24 CommentsComment PolicyComments are welcome on discussion posts. Comments are not moderated but do require a keyword to avoid spam. If this is your first time commenting, please review the comment policy. Leave a comment |
  
  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed,
Your work is always thoughtful, interesting, and sometimes provocative.
Here's my question. Have you thought about the connection or disconnection between Kingdom and Church?
Is Jesus building the kingdom? Is Jesus building the Church? Are they the same?
Thanks again
Grace Freak Dan Rockwell
Dan,
What do you think?
Ed
-What needs to change to have such a Kingdom focus?
Begin to understand that we do not "expand" or "build" the Kingdom, but instead we "participate in" or perhaps "enter" God's Kingdom.
-How is that important to the missional conversation today?
It seems to be foundational to the missional conversation. As we begin to make the proper distinction between the Kingdom and the church, we begin to understand (as you point out) that the church is God's instrument sent into the world to participate in His mission. As a result we hopefully begin to discern/examine where/what God is doing in our local contexts and ask how we can participate.
-Are there any dangers inherent with a Kingdom focus?
We must not forget that the church is indeed God's sign/foretaste/instrument of the Kingdom. It is in the life of a redeemed community (the church) that people will (should) see/experience the Kingdom here on earth.
Ed,
I am glad there is a conference you are putting together to keep you after this series. Some of us have been waiting since you put it down. Let's not delay it another 3 years.
Peace.
Todd
Ed,
You say Missions became viewed as "God's turning to the world," representing a fundamentally new approach in theology.
In my understanding, the missional movement has been making a pretty firm distinction between "mission" and "missions." Perhaps, if you have a minute, you can clarify that for me.
For my part, I am as yet unconvinced that there is much if any kingdom emphasis in the church. I know I am in the minority on that, but my understanding of the kingdom is pretty broad based on the OT revelation of what the kingdom was and what it was to be like, and based on Jesus's life on earth when he said "the kingdom is in your midst." That seems far different than marriages being restored and people made whole (things which are good and which certainly stem from the gospel). There were actually miracles taking place, unlike today I would argue. When someone can take a single casserole and make it sufficient for the church potluck, then we are on to something :).
The biggest danger, as I see it, is two-fold.
1. The exchange of the biblical idea of the kingdom for a much watered-down idea in the effort to see it now. The kingdom in the OT is a huge, expansive, incredible thing. There was a taste of it in the earthly ministry of Jesus, which has passed off the scene. To me, there is a significant reduction in the idea of "kingdom" in the modern missional movement, as I understand it. (I am certainly open to the idea that I misunderstand.)
2. The old danger of the social gospel, that the kingdom idea of social justice and the like overtakes the idea of personal salvation. The church emphasis, in the Acts and epistles, not so much on cultural transformation as it is on spiritual regeneration of individuals. There are many today who are equating gospel work with social justice issues. Both are good. Only one is the gospel. So while I think there does seem to be a renewed concern over avoiding the social gospel movement of the late 18th-early 19th century, I am uncomfortable that we have actually put up a big enough barrier.
But I won't elaborate on that more here for the sake of space. It is your blog, after all.
Thanks, Ed.
Larry,
I feel like your view is not consistent with Hebrews 2 where we see a now/not yet nature to the kingdom. Drawing from the Psalms (8 and 110) the author of Hebrews is clearly making the point that even though we don't always see it as so, Jesus is king over everything, though as Calvin notes, the Kingdom is not without it's rebels.
I also think that you are picking and choosing that which Jesus is king over: i.e. Personal salvation but not public Justice. I would argue based on Hebrews that because of what Jesus has done at the Cross God has made him king over everything and while we may not see the fullness of that kingship in this life, we as Christ-followers, who have been transformed by Christ are under obligation not to live like the Rebels but live the reality that Jesus is king over every square in of the universe.
That said, while I do not believe that social justice is "mission", neither do I believe based upon the rule of Christ that it is to be ignored.
D
Larry,
Excellent.
I think that the key to fully understanding the eschatological dimension is to see just how "big a deal" the Kingdom of God is in scripture and to Jesus. Jesus talks about the Kingdom over 80 times but only mentions the church twice.
I listed some ways that the church is a sign or foretaste of the Kingdom. But, it is also an instrument of the Kingdom.
Luke 4:18ff is key for me. We follow Jesus on mission into the world to help the hurting and be about Kingdom work. And, you cannot understand Luke 4 without understanding the full expression of the Kingdom throughout the scriptures. Luke 4 only makes sense when you get the Old Testament background.
Ed
Ed,
Thanks for the historical insight into the doctrinal development. My take on your questions:
1. As a dispensational literalist, I see the mission of God as one of redemption and reconciliation. In the nation of Israel that will be through the literal Millenial Kingdom one day. In the church age that is accomplished through the reconciliation ministry given to the members of the church (2 Cor. 5:14-21).
2. In my opinion, the rapture of the church.
3. Missional conversation is very important in that it keeps the church on task toward evangelism and discipleship.
4. The danger of kingdom focus would be replacement theology that potentially ends in either a social gospel or a prosperity gospel by claiming kingdom promises that will be realized actually once the Christ takes His throne and applying them to this current age and the Church.
Daniel,
Since you are a dispensationalist, I am interested in how you view the Kingdom. Dwight Pentecost (Dallas seminary king of dispensationalism) fought with G. Ladd about the Kingdom-- said it was not "already," but completely "not yet."
Do you think you can do Kingdom work here now?
Ed
I always enjoy the encouragement to think and consider this topic.
Not that I can claim some fancy title but I have always considered myself to be a cultural exegete. I spend a considerable amount of time observing the culture both inside the church and, especially right now, outside the church.
I've always been interested in how the church culture has paralleled and been influenced by the outside culture, especially here in America.
In reading your thoughts, I wonder how the move in USAmerica culture to a "me" based society has impacted the Christian's ability to understand and grasp the Kingdom.
The emphasis, I believe, is obvious in our world, but in the evangelical church there has been such an emphasis on "personal relationship" that I think we've lost the communal / OT understanding of God's people and God's Kingdom.
I guess my question is that, even though history and theology are necessary are we, the church, really paying the price for walking along side our culture and creating so many "me" Christians that we've lost the ability to see ourselves from a larger, Kingdom, perspective?
Ed,
You asked what I thought and I did leave a few comments but it looks like the Internet gobbled them up... I'll watch and learn.
Thanks,
Dan Rockwell
I would agree with D.P in that it is not yet. I do not kid myself in thinking that I am fully versed in the issue but think that kingdom work is to be done by those that were promised the kingdom. I am doing the work of reconciliation and evangelism. A lot of semantics, but, in my opinion, can guard against doctrinal issues. I, at risk of over-simplifying, see most docrtrinal problems growing out of poor hermeneutics caused by non-dispensational thought.
Believe that the church should be missional, but struggle with using "kingdom" verbage.
Daniel,
That is helpful. I want to write some suggestions (one day) on how dispensationalists can still love the Kingdom now. ;-)
Ed
I will look forward to those. Could help me keep my job a little longer since my senior pastor insists on using the term :) (I think you went to lunch with him a couple of Saturdays ago)
A couple of last comments:
David: I don't think that Hebrews 2 is about the kingdom at all. It is about our "so great salvation" which we ignore at our own peril (v. 2). It says that not all things are subjected to him now, something completely "unkingdom, it seems to me. Further, v. 5 says he is talking about "the world to come," which is not now.
Ed: I am unconvinced that Luke 4:18ff is a call to follow Jesus on kingdom mission. I must also confess that I am unsure what you mean by "tool of the kingdom." I will have to read more of your writing to understand that. I think the reason Jesus talks of the kingdom 80 times and the church twice is because he was talking to Jews about the kingdom, and because the two are so separate. If they were more closely connected, or if the church had started in the gospels or the OT, I would expect those numbers to be closer. So I have a hard time saying they are the same, or coextensive (which I don't think you are saying). But you can take your shot at me in a month or so. I will be listening attentively.
I too am a dispensationalist, and I think Alva J. McClain's *The Greatness of the Kingdom* kind of puts the nail in the coffin, so to speak. I think, with a few exceptions in his work, he has a masterful work that is worthy of far more consideration than it typically gets. McClain, of course, was at Grace Theological Seminary back in the day after he left Ashland I think.
That's one reason for my comments above that I am uncomfortable using kingdom language for the church.
Thanks again
Larry,
I disagree, the passage is about both of those things, it is talking about a kingdom that is both now (He has been made king over all things) and not yet (we do not yet see all things under)... The thrust of those verses have a built in tension, Christ is incarnate yet Exalted, which I think mirrors the now/not yet nature of the Kingdom...I also think we see again in the Passage the the Kingdom is associated with Christ himself (we do not yet see....but we do see Him vs 8-9).
But alas as a non-dispensationalist I seem to be in the minority here... :)
David said: But alas as a non-dispensationalist I seem to be in the minority here... :)
Doing my part to get you ready for the "not yet" ... :)
David,
There are only 342 true dispensationalists left and they all showed up here today. ;-)
Ed
P.S. The kingdom is already, but not yet, so I am not among them!
The church I attend has recently been using the "Kingdom" language a lot lately and I so earnestly want to understand. Reading through the comments I'm still a bit foggy on the whole thing, but I will keep up with the blog topic.
That's what they said about conservatives in MA:) We are out there, we just arent' disciplined enough to publish.
Been thinking about this all night. Our role in the kingdom would mirror Paul's in Romans 15. I can live with that:)
Ed,
You rock. I love seeing a missional post with some actual depth ;) Here is my question/concern. It seems to me that the missional movement is more the church following culture than providing a necessary correction to theology and the missio dei. I meet just as many non-Christians with a concern for social justice as I do Christians. I think its just a wider cultural awakening to the hollowness of individualism that peaked at the end of the last millennium. There is a huge danger in this. In the past few decades when the church became consumer and individual focused, it was much easier to collectively critique it. The problem now is that a focus on social justice seems much more Christian and is harder to correct when it goes awry. To me there seems to be a much bigger danger that the church will look no different than the culture.
That is why we need to focus on evangelism as a key component of our social justice efforts. The kingdom of God is not expanded by just serving people and being an advocate for the marginalized. I hear too often that if we just lovingly serve people they will come to us and ask why. To me that just sounds like a new attractional strategy. Instead of direct mail the new hook is good deeds. The problem is I've met a lot of nice non-Christian people who serve their guts for others. I'm I way off on this?
To add another term to the conversation, may I suggest Kevin Vanhoozer's image of the church being a "parable of the Kingdom," as talked about in The Drama of Doctrine. I like this picture much better than a "tool of the Kingdom" because by nature a parable has multiple linguistic possibilities (ie..various metaphors) to the various aspects of a narrative.
Ed, it might be worth an additional footnote to this very well written piece.
I love a good discussion on Eschatology and mission. I am wondering where Jurgen Moltmann would fit into the discussion here.
Ed, thank you for prompting such meaningful dialogue. I’m entering this conversation a bit later, but I’m grateful for it.
I believe that our eschatological views will naturally determine the way we live in the present. If we are simply passive in this life, just waiting for the Kingdom to “come,” or even worse, not thinking about it at all, I think we’re really missing the boat – namely, the opportunity to participate in what our loving God is doing in His ministry of reconciliation and restoration in this broken fallen world. By the grace of God we (the church) have the capacity to participate in His mission (reconciling, restoring, redeeming, etc.), thereby revealing at the very least a glimpse of the Kingdom. Thereby, allowing the Kingdom to penetrate, maybe even invade, people’s lives and the abovementioned conditions of this world. And although it’s often an imperfect glimpse that we can give, we aren’t pointing to the works that we’re doing, or the mission, we’re pointing people to the King.
And on the question of “what needs to change to have such a Kingdom focus?” – In a word: storytelling. Many churches are doing a better job of finding creative ways to tell the stories of saved/changed lives, restored marriages, and city renewal, to name a few things, but there’s still a ways to go. If we (again, the church) are active in a variety of different arenas in this world those stories should be there – we should be celebrating them together. When churches find ways to tell those stories they tend to gain momentum as a movement.
One danger – we can end up worshiping the mission (or what we’re doing) instead of the King.
Just a few initial thoughts. Thanks again for your ministry, Ed.