Also See The Leaders.. What The Pioneers of The Emerging Church Think, Say And Who They Endorse.
ON THIS PAGE The Kingdom of Emergent Theology – Part
It has been claimed that Sigmund Freud enjoyed telling his followers a story of a pastor who visited an atheist insurance agent who was on his death bed. The family had asked the pastor to share the gospel with their dying loved one as they waited in another room. As the conversation continued longer than expected there was hope that the pastor was being successful in his mission. When the pastor finally emerged from the bedroom it was discovered that the agent had not converted to Christ but he had been able to sell the pastor an insurance policy. The Kingdom of Emergent Theology – Part 2
Having seen in our last paper the emerging church distortion of the kingdom of God, we move on this time to discuss its effect on the gospel The Kingdom of Emergent Theology – Part 3
In our last two papers we have examined the emerging church's distortion of the kingdom and its impact on the gospel. In this paper we will explore what Scripture teaches about the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of Emergent Theology - Part 1 It has been claimed that Sigmund Freud enjoyed telling his followers a story of a pastor who visited an atheist insurance agent who was on his death bed. The family had asked the pastor to share the gospel with their dying loved one as they waited in another room. As the conversation continued longer than expected there was hope that the pastor was being successful in his mission. When the pastor finally emerged from the bedroom it was discovered that the agent had not converted to Christ but he had been able to sell the pastor an insurance policy. While Freud used the illustration to warn his fellow psychoanalysts to stay true to their beliefs, Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, from whom I obtained this account, has another application to offer. While a most unlikely source (in my opinion) to offer the following warning, Mouw writes, In rejecting the very real defects of fundamentalism during the past few decades, evangelicals have begun to take very seriously their responsibilities to the larger culture – and with some obvious signs of success. The questions we must face honestly are these: Have we sold a new policy to the culture – or has the culture sold us a policy (emphasis mine).[1]
This is a most thought-worthy question in light of the emergent church movement’s recent inroads into evangelicalism, and in some cases even fundamentalism. The emergent church is a movement deeply concerned with impacting the culture. But evidence is mounting to the effect that culture is having more impact on the emergent movement than the other way around. As a matter of fact emergent seems to be chasing culture, even imitating culture, rather than changing it. The reason this is true has to do with its understanding of the kingdom of God. Mark Driscoll defines the emerging church as “a growing, loosely-connected movement of primarily young pastors who are glad to see the end of modernity and are seeking to function as missionaries who bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to emerging and postmodern cultures.”[2] Thus defined, the emergent church sounds like a welcome addition to the Christian community. However, all is not as it seems. Whatever the intentions of the original founders of the movement (or conversation, as they call it), it has rapidly morphed into a serious threat to the faith. Today, while the emergent community is barely a decade old it has permeated churches, Bible colleges, seminaries, and parachurch organizations throughout the world. It is a movement that is difficult to define because it is not monolithic or static. However, at least two basic wings have become discernable. One wing calls itself “emerging,” claiming to have solid theological credentials, having only adopted methods more in tune with postmodern mindsets. The other wing is termed “emergent” and is composed of those who not only are adopting new methodologies but who also challenge the most sacred of doctrines. This wing is obviously the most concerning to us and is even under fire from the emerging wing. For example, Driscoll, who was one of the originators of the conversation, but has since distanced himself from emergent leaders such as Brian McLaren, writes, The emergent church is part of the Emerging Church Movement but does not embrace the dominant ideology of the movement. Rather the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates post modernity. [3]
I have written extensively on the emergent church movement in other venues and will not rehash that information here.[4] I would mention that, while the “emergent” movement is far more disturbing, the “emerging” element is not without its doctrinal and philosophical problems. Both, for instance, embrace errant views of the kingdom of God which in turn lead to a misunderstanding of the role of the church (a role emerging leaders call missional), which in turn has a distorting affect on the gospel message. Since both emerging and emergent camps have the same view of the kingdom, I will be using the term “emergent” throughout this discussion to refer to both wings. Emergent Eschatology Emergent and emerging leaders may differ over any number of issues but they present a united front when it comes to the kingdom of God—and the kingdom of God plays the pivotal role in their theology and purpose. At a recent conference in Baltimore – The Big Event 2007, Imagine a World…a New Vision for God’s Kingdom on Earth – the PowerPoint presentation assures us “the kingdom of God is here now.” [5] The idea that the kingdom is here now is the one doctrinally unifying factor in emergent theology, yet some in the “conversation” have been honest enough to admit that even they are not always sure what is meant by the term. Mark Scandrette confesses, A central and reoccurring theme of conversation has been a renewed fascination with the present availability of the kingdom of God… [Yet] the term kingdom of God has become so popular, and its usage so varied, that it is difficult to know if we are even talking about the same thing… There is a tendency to see the kingdom of God as whatever is progressive, exotic, foreign, and obscure (emphasis in the original). [6]
Nevertheless a consensus by both emerging and emergent leaders is expressed by Sherry and Geoff Maddock: “Our principle (sic) desire is to see God’s kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. We believe this happens when God’s people are renewed around God’s mission of love and justice in the world.”[7]
The conversation apparently views the kingdom as being on earth now but progressively becoming like the kingdom in heaven as Christians live missionally on earth. Such an understanding of the kingdom of God is obviously at odds with pre-millennialism, yet the Maddocks’ view is reflected by many in or on the fringes of the movement. Tony Campolo represents many emergent thinkers as he contrasts dispensationalism with emergent theology, This is a theology that – with its implicit threat of being left behind, of time running out – is used by Dispensational preachers to great evangelistic effect. It has been a very effective goad to conversion… To the contrary, the history of the world is infused with the presence of God, who is guiding the world toward becoming the kind of world God willed for it to be when it was created. Human history is going somewhere wonderful.[8]
N. T. Wright, the primary link between the “New Perspective on Paul” (which claims we have misunderstood Paul and, in turn, the gospel, since the foundation of the church) and evangelicalism, has the same eschatological underpinnings, “[Paul] was to declare to the pagan world that YHWH, the God of Israel, was the one true God of the whole world, and that in Jesus of Nazareth he had overcome evil and was creating a new world in which justice and peace would reign supreme (emphasis mine).”[9] Jim Henderson, co-author of Jim and Casper Go to Church, is also interested in bringing the kingdom of God to earth. “I want to make this world a better place. I want to see Jesus’ prayer answered that his Kingdom would come on Earth as it is in heaven. I want to see kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our God and his Christ.”[10] To Brian McLaren, the most prolific emergent writer, the ultimate goal of Jesus (and God) is the kingdom of God, brought to earth.[11] Just how is the kingdom brought to earth? Through our good works. McLaren states, “I hope that they [his neighbors] and I will become better people, transformed by God’s Spirit, more pleasing to God, more of a blessing to the world so that God’s kingdom (which I seek, but cannot manipulate) comes on earth as in heaven (emphasis mine).”[12] What does this kingdom that we are to bring through our good works look like? Rob Bell has some thoughts: Salvation is the entire universe being brought back into harmony with its maker. This has huge implications for how people present the message of Jesus. Yes, Jesus can come into our hearts. But we can join a movement that is as wide and as big as the universe itself. Rocks and trees and birds and swamps and ecosystems. God’s desire is to restore all of it.[13]
And For Jesus, the question wasn’t how do I get into Heaven? but how do I bring heaven here?... The goal isn’t escaping this world but making this world the kind of place God can come to. And God is remaking us into the kind of people who can do this kind of work.[14]
Emergent theology sees the kingdom of God as present now with future culmination as we (the subjects of the kingdom) restore justice, eliminate poverty, clean up the ecosystem, tame global warming and the like. Of course the issue is not whether Christians ought to be involved in finding solutions to these earth-related concerns (we should be and have been and are), but whether this is the mission of the church and whether doing so will more quickly bring in the kingdom. I do not believe Scripture teaches either, but Robert Webber, in his very influential book Ancient-Future Faith, differs, “[The] result of the cosmic work of Christ is that the kingdom of God, God’s rule over all things, is now manifest.”[15] By Christ’s “cosmic work” Webber means, among other things, that “Christ has bound Satan and all demonic powers.”[16] While Webber admits to a future in which a more complete binding of demonic forces will prevail, demons are limited enough at this time to allow for a “secular salvation” (that is the salvation of the planet and culture) within society. Webber is confident that due to the present binding of demonic forces, and God’s kingdom rule now, believers can and should expedite massive social and cultural changes. As a matter of fact it is the mandate of the followers of Christ to be focused on this “secular salvation.” He writes, Faith in Jesus Christ, who is the ultimate ruler over all of life, can break the twisting of political, economic, social, and moral structures into secular salvation. Because those structures that promise secular salvation are disarmed, they can no longer exercise ultimate power in our lives. The powers have been dethroned by the power of the cross.[17]
The church, given this paradigm, becomes the change agent in society. “The church,” writes Webber, “as a transforming presence in the world stands in the tradition of those Scripture passages that emphasize the power of the gospel to change not only the life of an individual but also the life of culture.”[18] It is thought within emergent circles that when the church operates as this type of change agent the world can’t help but get better. Carla Barnhill, former editor of Christian Parenting Today magazine, assures us that emergent style parenting, a style in which it is more important to teach creativity than obedience, “is about celebrating the goodness of life with God, a life that looks more like the kingdom with every generation.”[19]
Prominent emergent leader Tony Jones, in the process of poking fun at the dispensational understanding of this age and the one to come, states, “But those of us represented in this book take the contrary view. God’s promised future is good, and it awaits us, beckoning us forward.”[20] To both Barnhill and Jones the world is becoming a better place to live as time goes by, and it is our job to hasten its rejuvenation. If there is one thing the emergent conversation has closed ranks around it is that the kingdom of God is on earth now, but it will progressively resemble God’s kingdom in heaven as Christians understand their true mission, which is to make this world a better place for all. The emerging movement sees itself as a wakeup call to those who would follow Jesus. It is our task to bring the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven by aggressively challenging injustice, fighting poverty, aiding the sick, working on ecological concerns and, in general, saving this planet and everything on it. Emergent leaders believe that people are catching on to this new vision of the kingdom, and as a result, are optimistic about the future. No doomsday tribulation period is on their radar screen nor is Jesus coming in judgment upon the wicked. The kingdom, while already here, will progressively become like heaven as we attend to the social ills and needs around us. Tomorrow looks bright and the day after that looks brighter still. We Have Heard This Before All of this stirs hope within our hearts. Maybe the emergent leaders are right, maybe the world is getting better and better and, if we Christians would just get more involved, eventually earth will be like heaven. Sounds great, but is it biblical? It is helpful to know that the Christian community has been down this trail before. Emergent eschatology is by-and-large identical to liberal postmillennialism which flourished prior to the mid-twentieth century. In general postmillennialism is the view that Christ will return after the millennium, or the kingdom age, which is presently on earth. Conservative postmillennialists believe that “through the proclamation of the gospel in the present age, an unprecedented number of people in the world – in fact, the vast majority – will turn to Christ and be saved.” [21]
The focus of God’s people in this kingdom age then is to expand the kingdom through the preaching of the gospel. As the world is increasingly evangelized it will become a place of “spiritual prosperity, universal peace and righteousness, and economic well-being.” [22] In conjunction with the spread of the gospel is the progressive binding of Satan. As the world is Christianized Satan will gradually lose his hold over its inhabitants. Loraine Boettner, a postmillennial theologian, summarizes, Postmillennialism is that view of the last things which holds that the kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individuals, that the world eventually is to be Christianized and that the return of Christ is to occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace commonly called the millennium. [23]
Theological liberal postmillennialism shares some of the same optimism as its conservative counterparts but directs its attention to social enhancement of the planet. Liberal postmillennialism focuses on societal transformation rather than personal conversion. Their “social gospel” sees the saving of society from social evil as the great purpose of the church. The mission of the church is not to preach the gospel to sinners in need of God’s great salvation, but rather, to liberate mankind from poverty, racism, disease, war and all kinds of injustice.[24]
The similarity between liberal postmillennialism and emergent philosophy is striking. It is worth noting that the postmillennial system, which was nonexistent in the early days of church history, was originally systematized by liberal Unitarian minister Daniel Whitby (1638-1726). His system grew legs due partly to the optimism of the age, but lost steam when the two world wars of the twentieth century shattered dreams of the world progressively improving. Since that time a more realistic understanding of human development has set in and most recognize that the earth is not only not moving toward utopia but is more likely closer to annihilation. Emergent kingdom theology, like its liberal postmillennial predecessor, is based not so much on the observation of an improving world but on feelings of desperation. McLaren admits that many might see his kingdom views as a mere pipe dream, but if that is so, “what do [we] have to look forward to if they are right? Simply more of the same in human history…”[25] But truth does not emerge from groundless optimism or “what if” desperation; it emerges from the Scriptures. What God says about life now, the future and the kingdom is what matters. In answer to McLaren’s question, we have much to look forward to, for Christ will one day bring His kingdom to earth, at which time the very social and earthly issues that concern emergent people will be corrected and made right. But this kingdom will come through the power of Christ, not the good deeds of men. It will come when He returns, not as a prelude to it. It will not only remedy societal wrongs it will usher in the world-wide righteousness and justice of Christ. We have much to look forward to when the kingdom comes, but it will come about because of God’s actions, not ours. It is right that we seek to correct social ills, but our actions do not usher in Christ’s kingdom. Next issue we will discuss the effect of emergent theology on the gospel. The Kingdom of Emergent Theology - Part 2 Having seen in our last paper the emerging church distortion of the kingdom of God, we move on this time to discuss its effect on the gospel. The Effect on the Gospel It is not surprising with this understanding of the kingdom of God that David Gushee in a recent Christianity Today article asks, “Is it permissible to reopen the question of salvation?” While Gushee follows up his question with some things worth pondering, he states that when “Jesus was asked about the criteria for admission to eternity, he offered a fourfold answer: love God with all that you are, love your neighbor (like the Samaritan loved his neighbor), do God’s will by obeying his moral commands, and be willing, if he asks, to drop everything and leave it behind in order to follow him.”[26] While Gushee is confusing salvation with sanctification – the free gift of righteousness with its effects on our lives – at least he is still talking about salvation. Brian McLaren, on the other hand, is not concerned about these matters. In reply to his own question about who is in heaven and hell, he neatly sidesteps the whole issue by asking another series of questions, Isn’t it clear that I do not believe this is the right question for a missional Christian to ask? Can’t we talk for a while about God’s will being done on earth as in heaven instead of jumping to how to escape earth and get to heaven as quickly as possible? Can’t we talk for a while about overthrowing and undermining every hellish stronghold in our lives and in our world?[27]
It would be hard to imagine a more arrogant statement. McLaren speaks as if Christianity began yesterday and we are just now getting around to asking basic questions pertaining to life and eternity. But this is no problem for McLaren who boldly states that we do not have even the gospel right yet. “What does it mean to be saved?... None of us have arrived at orthodoxy.”[28] More than that, we have virtually no truth nailed down. Ask me if Christianity (my version of it, yours, the Pope’s, whoever’s) is orthodox, meaning true and here’s my honest answer: a little, but not yet. Assuming by Christianity you mean the Christian understanding of the world and God, Christian opinions on soul, text, and culture… I’d have to say that we probably have a couple of things right, but a lot of things wrong, and even more spreads before us unseen and unimagined. But at least our eyes are open! To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall.[29]
Samir Selmanovic, in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, goes so far as to totally distinguish Christianity from the kingdom of God. “The emerging church movement,” Selmanovic states, “has come to believe that the ultimate context of the spiritual aspirations of the follower of Jesus Christ is not Christianity but rather the kingdom of God.” [30]
What is Selmanovic’s point? Simply that the message of Christ and salvation as found in the biblical record is incomplete. God “place[s] his truth in others [religions] too.”[31] Therefore salvation is obtainable without a relationship with Christ, If a relationship with a specific person, namely Christ, is the whole substance of a relationship with the God of the Bible, then the vast majority of people in world history are excluded from the possibility of a relationship with the God of the Bible, along with the Hebrews of the Old Testament who were without a knowledge of Jesus Christ—the person. The question begs to be asked: would God who gives enough revelation for people to be judged but not enough revelation to be saved be a God worth worshiping. Never! [32]
As a result of this type of thinking the emergent church has become a champion of inclusivism, the idea that while salvation (whatever that means to the emergent crowd) may be based on the person and work of Christ, people who may have never heard of Christ can be saved by responding to God on the basis of the revelation they have received. With this understanding a Hindu, Muslim or animist, while not a follower of Christ, could nevertheless be in the kingdom of God because he has followed the light he has been given in nature and in his religious system. These individuals would not be Christians as such, but they would occupy a place in the kingdom every bit the same as Christians, perhaps more so because citizenship in the kingdom is predicated more on what we do rather than on what we believe. Theoretically a kind-hearted spirit worshipper from New Guinea would occupy a greater place in the kingdom than the dreaded fundamentalist, foundationalist, dispensationalist who, according to emergent thinking, has in his exclusivism declared those of other religions lost and bound for hell. It is because people from all religions and all walks of life (people who are in the kingdom now) are working together to bring the kingdom of heaven to earth through their efforts of love and missional living that Rob Bell can say, “The gospel is good news, especially for those who don’t believe it…. [As a matter of fact] if the gospel isn’t good news for everybody, then it isn’t good news for anybody.”[33] According to McLaren, our concern should not be about who is saved but how to be blessings. “…My missional calling: blessed in this life to be a blessing to everyone on earth… My mission isn’t to figure out who is already blessed, or not blessed, or unblessable. My calling is to be blessed so I can bless everyone.”[34]
All of this blessing is for the purpose of helping “our world get back on the road to being truly and wholly good again, the way God created it to be.”[35] In other words, by our good deeds to mankind and the planet we will usher in the final stage of the kingdom, “I hope that both they and I,” McLaren continues, “will become better people, transformed by God’s Spirit, more pleasing to God, more of a blessing to the world so that God’s kingdom (which I seek, but cannot manipulate) comes on earth as in heaven.”[36]
A positive response to the emergent message concerning the kingdom would result in the “new world…promised by the prophets. Jesus’ secret message tells us, then, that this new world is so possible it is at hand, within reach… We can be part of God’s dreams for planet Earth coming true”[37] The emphasis on this world is partly because of the belief that this world will not be destroyed but transformed, not replaced but fulfilled. McLaren dreams of this world becoming “a place God is at home in, a place God takes pride and pleasure in, a place where God’s dreams come true.”[38] As can be deduced by now, many within the emergent movement equate “eternal life” or salvation with the kingdom of God. To be in the kingdom is “a life that is full and overflowing, a higher life that is centered in an interactive relationship with God and with Jesus. Let’s render it simply ‘an extraordinary life to the full centered in a relationship with God.’”[39] While this is a truncated understanding of the kingdom and of eternal life at best, it gets more complicated when we are informed that the kingdom is really within us. McLaren writes, “The secret message, the mystery of the kingdom of God: that Christ the King indwells you, which means that his kingdom is within and among you here and now.” [40]
In the emergent gospel, salvation, in the sense of forgiveness of sin, redemption, and being given God’s righteousness because of the finished work of Christ, plays a minor, often nonexistent, role. McLaren believes that most planet dwellers are in fact already in the kingdom. “Maybe God’s plan is an opt-out plan, not an opt-in one. If you want to stay out of the party, you can... But it’s hard for me to imagine somebody being more stubbornly ornery than God is gracious” (emphasis mine).[41]
If McLaren’s understanding of the citizens of the kingdom is on target we should not be surprised to find that people from all religions are in the kingdom and possibly more advanced in that kingdom than many Christians.[42] No wonder Heather Kirk-Davidoff echoes McLaren’s idea of evangelism by asking, “What would evangelism look like if we…counted conversations rather than conversion?”[43] Such an evangelistic transformation is predicated on the perceived purpose of the gospel. Kirk-Davidoff goes on the explain, It is a change in the reason we engage in evangelism, shifting the focus from recruitment to the cultivating of relationships that are an end in themselves, indispensable to our spiritual journey… We want to build relationships with other human beings. Because of that, we’re willing to give up just about everything we’ve ever learned about how to grow a church or spread the gospel.[44]
Sherry and Geoff Maddock flesh out this understanding of salvation, “Through practices such as caring for AIDS sufferers, feeding the homeless, protesting the wanton destruction of the environment, or welcoming newly arrived refugees, we find salvation that is closer to the shalom of Scripture (emphasis in the original).”[45] True to its liberal postmillennial roots, the emergent gospel has been reduced to social betterment of culture and physical improvement of the planet. There is little discussion or interest in the true spiritual needs of mankind; instead, the focus is on physical and perhaps emotional needs. If we can relieve suffering, care for the ozone layer, correct injustice and racism, we can save the planet and make this a better place to live for all. This is the same agenda used by old liberalism which thrived under modernity. All that has changed is making adjustments for the same theology under postmodernity. If we would protest that none of this is biblical, the emergent leaders have a retort: God is doing a new thing, something not revealed in Scripture. It would not be the first time God has broken out of religion, which carries his message, and made something new. If God found it good for his followers to break out of the confines of a religion two millennia ago, why should we expect God not to do such a thing in our time? Maybe Christianity should be thinned out and broken up, spent like Christ who gave himself for this world.[46]
Of course, in response Hebrews 1:1-2 comes quickly to mind, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son…” (NASB). When God chose to replace the dispensation of Law with that of the church age that change was communicated to us through His Son and those who wrote the New Testament (Hebrews 2:1-4). Why should we not expect God to dump the Christian faith and give us something new? Because God “in these last days has spoken to us in His Son.” The final revelation to mankind has been given. There is no further revelation forthcoming, no new era to be started by the actions of men; rather the next era will be initiated by the return of Jesus Christ. We will discuss the biblical view of Christ kingdom next time. The Kingdom of Emergent Theology - Part 3 [Also See What Was the Message of Jesus?] In our last two papers we have examined the emerging church’s distortion of the kingdom and its impact on the gospel. In this paper we will explore what Scripture teaches about the kingdom of God. A Biblical Understanding of the Kingdom Acts 1:3 informs us that during the 40 days in which Jesus was making appearances following the resurrection He spoke to the apostles concerning the kingdom of God. We are uncertain about exactly what He said but we know the kingdom was at the heart of His discussions with them during that time. In verse six Jesus is preparing to depart the earth and they have one question for Him, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel ?” While we do not know precisely what Jesus had told them about the kingdom we do pick up on a couple of important pieces of information. The kingdom was still coming. Whatever Jesus told the apostles about the kingdom it had not dampened their expectation that it would be eventually “restored to Israel .” This of course implied that the kingdom had not yet come. If the kingdom was on earth at that moment, whether in their hearts or in another form, they would not have asked such a question. The only thing they did not know was the timing. In Jesus’ reply He does not deny that the kingdom is coming. The disciples were on target and Jesus did not deny this in any way. This is important to observe for, as John MacArthur states, “If they are mistaken about this, Jesus’ failure to correct them is mystifying and deceptive.” [47] Jesus had promised earlier that the kingdom would come in the future (Luke 21:25-31; 22:18, 30) and all the apostles wanted to know was when. The kingdom would take form as promised. Throughout the Gospels it was obvious that the Jewish people were expecting the Messianic kingdom as foretold in the Old Testament prophecies. Jesus never contradicted their basic understanding of that kingdom, and as a matter of fact repeatedly told them in the early years of His public ministry that the “kingdom was at hand” (Matt 4:17). That is, Jesus made a legitimate offer to establish the kingdom at that time, but to do so they would have to accept Him as their King, something they ultimately refused to do. The kingdom therefore was postponed until Christ would return, but it was never withdrawn altogether. This is the obvious understanding of the apostles as Jesus prepares to ascend. The promised kingdom was still on the agenda – but when?
What tends to confuse the interpreter of Scripture at this point is that the term“ kingdom of God” does not always refer to the same kingdom.[48] To get a handle on this we first must recognize three essential elements of any kingdom: With these elements in mind we turn to the Scriptures and there we can identify six unique kingdoms as related to God: The Universal Kingdom Of God. This is God’s rule over the entire universe. He is the eternal, sovereign ruler over all creation. The Spiritual Kingdom Of God. This is God’s rule over all believers. Anyone who is born again is part of this kingdom (Col. 1:13). Therefore during this dispensation the church could be called the spiritual kingdom of God in the sense that God has a special ruling relationship over the church, His subjects. The Theocratic Kingdom. This was God’s rule over Israel in the OT, which was to be ruled directly by God not by kings. It is for this reason that when Israel demanded a king they were in rebellion against the monarchy of God. This kingdom ceased in practice with the set up of earthly kings and in totality with the rejection of Christ. The Mystery Form Of The Kingdom. Matthew 13 explains that when Israel rejected its King it also rejected the promised Messianic kingdom. As a result it was temporarily replaced by a mystery form in which both good and evil are present. It is what we might call today Christendom; that is, all who would claim to be Christians are in this mystery form of the kingdom but not all are regenerated. Therefore it is not equivalent to the church. The Messianic Kingdom. This was the kingdom promised to Israel in the Old Testament. It was to be an earthly kingdom with Christ (the Messiah) sitting on David’s throne ruling the earth in righteousness. It was postponed due to Israel’s rejection of Christ but will come at the end of the church age and, according to Revelation 20, will last for 1000 years. The Eternal Kingdom. This is God’s rule throughout eternity following the Millennial kingdom.
It was the Messianic kingdom about which the apostles were inquiring in the first chapter of Acts. They specifically wanted to know when the Lord would restore the “kingdom to Israel .” If the Lord was not intending to restore the kingdom to Israel , with all of its physical and land promises, would not this have been a great time to say so? If the Lord intended to take the promises of Israel away from it and roll them over into the church, why did He not tell the disciples? Instead He clearly implies that the kingdom will be restored to the people of Israel but the timing is not for them to know. Alva McClain makes a compelling argument in his The Greatness of the Kingdom that the kingdom is actually offered again to the Jews in Acts 3:19-21. But as it was rejected when Jesus was on earth, so it is rejected under the ministry of the apostles and therefore it is postponed until a later date.[49] It is interesting to note that the kingdom is prominent in the Gospels but begins to fade in the Acts and the epistles. The word “kingdom” is found only five more times in Acts (8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). Each of these passages references the kingdom but none gives us any more details about the kingdom than we already processed from the Old Testament and the Gospels. Of the 18 references to a kingdom in the epistles, most are referring to a future kingdom (either the Messianic or the eternal). However a few passages (only 4 clearly) such as Romans 14:17 and Colossians 1:13 show that God’s kingdom is what McClain calls a mediatorial kingdom. That is, a kingdom already chartered but which will have its manifestation in the Millennium when Messiah comes and literally restores the kingdom to Israel and sits on David’s throne. Conclusion The emergent church has badly misunderstood the biblical teaching on the kingdom of God. Actually, it has chosen to ignore what the Scriptures teach and has chosen to impose its own understanding of the kingdom in order to set forth its own agenda for the church and the world. One is reminded of Jesus’ warning to the Pharisees in Matthew 15:3, 6, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” Then he said, “By this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your traditions.” Without question the emergent church is doing something very similar today. In fact, the Messianic kingdom of God is not on the earth today but awaits the return of Christ. People’s good deeds toward one another and the planet are welcomed, but they do not form the kingdom, advance the kingdom or hasten the kingdom. The church’s mandate is not to clean up the planet, wipe out illness, eradicate poverty and injustice and call for peace treaties, as worthy as these actions are in their place. Our mandate is to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20). We are not to set up Christ’s kingdom on earth; that is His job. We are instead to call sinners to Christ that they might join us in proclaiming “the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). By rejecting the biblical teaching on the kingdom, a teaching dispensationalist have long championed, the emergent thinkers are leading their followers down a path Christ does not choose to take us. In so doing they have wrapped the emergent movement around a superimposed doctrine of the kingdom that agrees neither with Scripture nor reality.
Notes [1] Richard J. Mouw, The Smell of Sawdust ( Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), p. 64. [2] Mark Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev. ( Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), p. 22. [3] Ibid., p. 21. [4] See Gary E. Gilley, This Little Church Stayed Home ( Darlington, England : Evangelical Press, 2006). [5] http://www.baltimorepresbytery.org/TheBigEvent2007ImagineaWorld....htm. [6] Mark Scandrette, “Growing Pains” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, ed. Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones ( Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007) pp. 26, 29. [7] Sherry Maddock and Geoff Maddock, “An Ever-Renewed Adventure of Faith, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, p. 80. [8] Tony Campolo, in Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point ( El Cajon, Calif,: Youth Specialties, 2003), p. 59. [9] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), p. 37. [10] Jim Henderson and Matt Casper, Jim and Casper Go to Church (2007), p. 168. [11] Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy,( Cajon, CA: Youth Specialties Books, 2004), p. 267. [12] Ibid., p. 263. [13] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis ( Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), pp.109-110. [14] Ibid., pp. 147,150. [15] Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Faith, ( Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004) p. 53. [16] Ibid., p. 49. [17] Ibid., p. 51. [18] Ibid., p. 169. [19] Carla Barnhill, “The Postmodern Parent,” An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, p. 58. [20] Tony Jones, “A Hopeful Faith,” An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, p. 130. [21] Matthew Waymeyer, Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate ( TheWoodlands, TX: Kress Christian Publications, 2004), p. 3. [22] Ibid., p. 4. [23] Loraine Boettner, “Postmillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. R. Clouse (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity, 1977), p. 117. [24] Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy ( Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2006), p. 144. [25] Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus p. 128. [26]David P. Gushee, Christianity Today, March 2007, p. 72. [27] Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p.112. [28] Quoted in Andy Crouch, “The Emergent Mystique”, Christianity Today, November, 2004, p. 40. [29] Ibid., p. 293. [30] Samir Selmanovic, “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness, “An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, p. 192. [31] Ibid., p. 194. [32] Ibid., pp. 194-195. [33] Rob Bell, pp. 166-167. [34] Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 113. [35] Ibid., p. 223. [36] Ibid., p. 263. [37] Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus ( Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2006), pp. 181, 183. [38] Ibid., p. 203. [39] Ibid., p. 37. [40] Ibid., pp. 100-101. [41] Brian McLaren, The Last Word, and the Word After That ( San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005). p. 138. [42] See Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus pp. 86-89. [43] Heather Kirk-Davidoff, “Meeting Jesus at the Bar,” An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, p.35. [44] Ibid., pp. 36, 37. [45] Sherry Moddock and Geoff Maddock, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, p.82. [46] Samir Selmanovi, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, p. 199. [47] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Acts 1-12, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p. 20. [48] This outline is a summary of the excellent presentation found in Paul N. Benware’s book, Understanding End Time Prophecies pp. 185-195. See also John Walvoord, “Biblical Kingdom Compared and Contrasted,” Issues in Dispensationalism, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994) pp. 75-91. [49] Alva McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, (Winona Lake: BMH Books, 1987), pp. 403-406. | 
Index to 
