|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 22, 2024 20:29:18 GMT -5
Part 1: Definitions
This article is cross-posted on Founders Ministries.
What is the kingdom of God? How is cultural, societal, political transformation related to the kingdom?
In defining the kingdom of God, we start by recognizing that the rule of God is inescapable. God is king (Ps. 47:7). By his very nature as God, he reigns sovereign over the hearts of his people, the affairs of nations, and movements of the cosmos.
But it is necessary to make a distinction. When Jesus began his ministry, he proclaimed, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mk. 1:15). So, there is a progressive, unfolding dimension to the kingdom of God that must be considered in addition to God’s ever-present, universal rule.
We may distinguish between God’s rule in creation and God’s kingdom in redemption. God rules creation by virtue of his meticulous sovereignty over all whatsoever that comes to pass, and this is manifest in his providence in history (Ps. 24:1, 33:11; Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11). By contrast, God rules his redemptive kingdom by means of his Spirit operative in the hearts of his regenerate, covenant people. This eschatological kingdom includes those who were saved by virtue of the covenant of grace in the Old Testament and was promised under the types and shadows of theocratic Israel. The kingdom of God was formally inaugurated in Christ’s redemptive work, as Christ now reigns in heaven from the right hand of the Father, and now extends progressively in the present age through the propagation of the gospel. And this kingdom will ultimately give way to the eternal state on the last day.
In his first coming, Christ received the redemptive kingdom (Ps. 2; Dan. 7:14; Rev. 11:15). Jesus has total authority (Mt. 28:18) and is putting all his enemies under his feet (Ps. 110:1). His kingdom is presently growing under his blessing as the church obeys her Great Commission duties. At the consummation, the Son will render his domain, now fully subjugated to him, back to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24). The future, consummated kingdom is the “not yet,” while there is a present and progressive element now to the spiritual kingdom of Messiah, and nothing can stop the messianic pebble from becoming a great mountain that fills the earth (Dan. 2:35).
This leaves the question of cultural, societal, and political transformation and its relation to the eschatological kingdom. As with most things, there are ditches on both sides of this road. On the one hand, we must be careful not to commit the sacral error of equating the kingdom of God with a formally Christianized state. The central manifestation of the kingdom of Christ is in the invisible church, and the church is not the state. (This distinction between the spheres of church and state is not strictly a New Testament concept; cf. 2 Chron. 26:16-18.) Conversely, we must not imbibe the fantasy of a secularized state in which the liberal order coheres without any reference to the transcendent. Great civilizations prospered under common grace prior to the age of the gospel, but they all ultimately crumbled under their own weight. So we note that separation of church and state does not mean separation of God and state.
Jesus Christ now sits enthroned in the place of supremacy over the entire universe. Jesus is Lord not only of his redeemed people but also over each distinct human institution, including the sovereign spheres of state and family. The kingdom of Christ has visible impact on the world not only within the walls of the church but wherever his word is believed and his lordship obeyed. The kingdom is only ultimately advanced as sinners respond to the gospel in faith and repentance and submit themselves to the lordship of Christ; the people of Christ “offer themselves freely on the day of [his] power” (Ps. 110:3). Yet as Christ saves people from every nation and stratum of society through the new covenant age, the fruit of the church’s obedient discipleship is of such Spirit-wrought potency that society, over time, cannot remain unaffected.
The kingdom of Christ has visible impact on the world not only within the walls of the church but wherever his word is believed and his lordship obeyed.
Tweet
The history of Christendom bears this out, particularly in the West, even for all its foibles. The combined effect of Christians living out their callings—including even Christian magistrates—has an impact. The gospel leavens the world over time (Mt. 13:33). The cultural fruits of the kingdom should not be equated with the kingdom itself, however, as pagan cultures have in the past prospered under the law of God in nature inscribed under the conscience (cf. Rom. 2:14), and as a society (such as ours) can still bear Christian fruit on the tree long after the spiritual root has been severed. This is when revival becomes necessary. Yet the fruit is not the problem; the lack of the root is. When conversions, revival, and church plantings occur, a society rooted in the gospel will bear cultural fruit. The cultural fruit of Christendom in the West, though sometimes overripe and worm-eaten, still stands to remind us that the gospel cannot help but transform.
This process will continue amid trial, triumph, and setback until the return of Christ as he puts his spiritual enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25). These enemies include such things as principalities (Eph. 6:12), ideologies (2 Cor. 10:5), and us (Rom. 5:10). Christ has promised to superintend the fulfillment of the Great Commission by means of his presence in the person of the Spirit (Mt. 28:20), so as his spiritual reign fills the earth (cf. Ps. 72; Is. 2:1-4, 11:1-9; Hab. 2:14) we should expect to see the kingdom of God result in noticeable cultural fruits. This is not a utopic vision, because the kingdom is of such a spiritual nature that makes it invisible to unregenerate eyes (Jn. 3:3). Nor is the fruit always political, strictly speaking; a society that is 99% regenerate but is governed by the unregenerate 1% is, for example, closer to the Puritan vision than one in which a 99% unregenerate populace is ruled by a 1% theocratic elite.
Yet this does not mean the kingdom and its fruits will not become increasingly visible with the progress of the Great Commission; the cumulative effect of evangelization and reformation across nations throughout the ages is undeniably visible. Ancient temples of idols sit empty, cannibalistic tribes have been converted, and innovations pioneered by thoughtful Christians revolutionize the planet. And yes, at the same time, the wicked characteristically go from bad to worse (2 Tim. 3:13, Rev. 21:22), chafing all the while against the Lord and his Christ.
An underlying theme of the entire new covenant period is that godly Christian living will always provoke the ire of the other side (2 Tim. 3:12). Tares do remain in the field. Yet the unregenerate person can live amid all the other kingdom advances and still not see the kingdom, much less attribute it to a Rabbi who was crucified. The problem is in the blind, unregenerate eyes and not the kingdom itself.
Yet the question remains: has God actually promised to change human societies through the power of the gospel? We will consider this in the next installment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 22, 2024 20:31:39 GMT -5
Questioning the Kingdom? – Part 2: Cultural Transformation
This article is cross-posted on Founders Ministries.
In the previous installment, we considered that the kingdom of God consists in the spiritual reign of Christ over the world and over his people in the church. This kingdom bears fruit in society as the gospel is preached and hearts are changed.
But does God promise to change our society in the gospel, such that we should expect him to do it if the church is faithful?
First, let us acknowledge that the gospel of the kingdom has undeniable social effects if understood and applied rightly. The gospel centers on the redemption of sinners (1 Cor. 15:3-4) yet has cosmic implications resulting in nothing less than a new creation in Christ.
Until this new creation is consummated, the gospel of grace trains us in righteousness (Tit. 2:11-12).
The people of God begin to fill the earth (Isa. 66:19) and obey the law of God by the Spirit (Rom. 7:6).
Regenerate disciples of Jesus apply his word, imperfectly yet increasingly loving their neighbors as themselves, training their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, caring for the poor, treating their employees kindly, and conducting their affairs with justice. We should expect the entrance of Christ’s kingdom into history to alter society as the full number of the elect are brought in and live out their faith.
But this is not really in question. Of course the gospel changes societies. The question is whether God has bound himself to bestow blessing on our society necessarily in response to our obedience. The answer is: it depends. In the long-term, we are promised that the Great Commission will be fulfilled and that Jesus will subject his enemies to himself. Wickedness, over time, does not work. Fruitless, unbelieving societies will inevitably recede (Ps. 1:4, 37:1ff). But in the short-term, we have no promise in Scripture that our input always necessarily results in such blessing. To believe that obedience always results in temporal success is to succumb to the prosperity error. Obedience cannot pry blessing from God’s hands. But obedience does often result in blessing.
We should expect the entrance of Christ’s kingdom into history to alter society as the full number of the elect are brought in and live out their faith.
@ajkocman
There are, of course, exceptions. Oftentimes a faithful Christian church may lose in the culture and is buried beneath a wave of persecution. We also do not have any Scriptural promise that ournation will endure to the end; many nations have risen and fallen both before and after the time of Christ, and the promise of Revelation 5:9 and 7:9 does not undo this fact. God would be just to allow our nation to recede under his judgment and the sands of time.
Yet it would be wrong of us to stop there in our understanding of Christian faithfulness and its effects. The cross precedes the crown. Death precedes resurrection. So, the manner in which the gospel of the kingdom saturates and transforms societies is a stable, up-and-to-the-right march of progress.
Rather, we overcome by loving not our lives to the death (Rev. 12:11).
We save our lives by losing them (Jn. 12:25).
This is always true in the eternal, heavenly sense and is often true in history. Tertullian was correct to identify the blood of the martyrs as the seed of the church. This was true for the church in the first century, the Protestants of the 16thand 17thcenturies, and the pioneer missionaries of the 19th century (whose seemingly unimpressive groundwork has now resulted in the explosion of Christianity in the two-thirds world). We always win by losing. Only by grasping this subversive plan for victory will the church in the West be able to endure joyfully the dark providence overtaking our civilization.
So—are Christians to work to “bring in” God’s future kingdom? If so, how?
Taking “God’s future kingdom” to mean the consummated kingdom (or the kingdom of the Father, or the eternal state, or the new creation), the simplistic answer is “no”—in that we are not God and cannot dictate to him the timing of the final judgment and return of Christ. God’s sovereign decree is fixed and unknown to us (Deut. 29:29).
But in another sense, the answer is “yes.” God uses means.
Our Lord commands us to pray for the kingdom to come (Mt. 6:10). These prayers are not in vain: “And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?” (Lk. 18:7).
The New Testament also describes the salvation of the elect and our own holy living as “hastening” the future kingdom (2 Pet. 3:8-12). Christ will not return until all his elect are saved, and he accomplishes this through the instrumentation of his bride, the church, empowered by his Spirit.
We are both given the task of world evangelization and are simultaneously told that it will certainly be accomplished (cf. Mt. 8:11). Since Christ has not yet returned, we must assume he has more work for us to do.
We always win by losing. Only by grasping this subversive plan for victory will the church in the West be able to endure joyfully the dark providence overtaking our civilization.
@ajkocman
One additional point related to this topic. It has been said that this optimistic eschatology is little more than the doctrine of progressive sanctification applied to the church corporately. This is a salient observation. Just as the individual believer generally, imperfectly, and really grows in holiness from conversion to glorification, so the invisible church over time is growing up into Christ and bearing fruit with increasingly visible results. And just as this journey is marked with ups and downs for the individual believer, so it is for the history of Christianity.
Another question remains: how? Or, as my pastor friend recently asked me, “Should a Christian’s main burden be the conversion and sanctification of the elect or the transformation of society or both equally?” We will consider this in the next installment.
Share this:
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 22, 2024 20:34:03 GMT -5
Questioning the Kingdom? – Part 3: Gospel Centrality
This article is cross-posted on Founders Ministries.
The last two posts in this series wrestled with questions concerning the kingdom of God and the nature of Christian cultural engagement. But this conversation is fruitless if it stays locked in the realm of philosophical abstraction. We must put boot leather to our faith and consider the ordinary Christian man or woman’s day-to-day responsibilities before God.
Should a Christian’s main burden be the conversion and sanctification of the elect or the transformation of society or both equally?
Evangelism is core to the mission of the church and takes necessary precedence over social advocacy. This position is known as prioritism. Yet one of the great ills of our time is the way in which these two responsibilities of the believer have been pitted against each other. The social justice movement within evangelicalism is in some ways an understandable response to our tendency to falsely dichotomize word and deed.
Promotion of mercy and justice for the Christian are secondary to the gospel, but only in the sense that loving neighbor is “secondary” to loving God (Mt. 22:37-39). That is to say, these two duties are not so much numbers 1 and 2, respectively, but 1.1 and 1.2. There is a rank and order but not a separation. In Galatians 2, in the context of recounting his evangelistic calling, even Paul notes that he was “eager” to remember the poor (v. 10). In our own Reformed Baptist history, men like William Carey and his Serampore team are prime examples of such holistic, word-and-deed ministry—prioritizing evangelism, discipleship, and church planting while contributing to literature and science and engaging in public activism to ban the barbaric practice of sati.
When the atomic unity of the first and second greatest commandments is split, nuclear reactions are unleashed.
@ajkocman
We would fault a man in our church who excelled in evangelism but neglected his wife and family, employing pious excuses about the urgency of reaching the lost. Yet if we are not careful, evangelicals can commit the same error by disengaging from culture with the best of evangelistic motives. There are, of course, ditches on both sides. We are also witnessing a host of woke evangelicals sacrificing the gospel on the altar of contextualization, to their shame. When the atomic unity of the first and second greatest commandments is split, nuclear reactions are unleashed. What God has brought together in his law, let no man tear asunder.
Finally, we must appreciate the diversity of members in the body of Christ. There are evangelists, preachers, and teachers committed to gospel proclamation. There are deacons ordained to the role of mercy ministry. There are laypersons called to be salt and light in their places of employment, from the local waste plant to the halls of city government (the difference between these two vocations being increasingly scant). There are tired, young parents whose prime duty in their current season is to guard their marriage and evangelize their children; there are Christian government officials who are accountable before God to directly apply his moral law in the public sphere; there are pastors called primarily to administer the means of grace to God’s covenant people; there are shut-ins beset with illness and age simply watching and waiting to meet their Lord. To speak of a Christian’s “main duty” is not always a one-size-fits-all answer.
We must also consider not just the ordinary believer’s duties but also the duties of gospel ministers, if any, with regard to law and government. Pastoral rebuke of civil authorities is a part of “kingdom work,” broadly conceived. Kingdom work is any activity in word or deed that relates to proclaiming and applying the lordship of Christ over all of life. John the Baptist was doing the work of the kingdom when he called Herod to repentance (Mk. 6:18). When Paul was tried before various magistrates, he reasoned with them concerning repentance. Pastors, as shepherds, are called first and foremost to keep watch over their flocks, but one of the tragedies of our age is that few pastors have a vision for how their ministry of proclamation could (and should) spill out into the public sphere. This is doing the work of an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5).
Finally, to understand these questions of state and church, we must consider each sphere as unique and distinct under God’s sovereign, providential rule. We will consider this in the final installment.
Share this:
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 22, 2024 20:35:36 GMT -5
Questioning the Kingdom? – Part 4: Two Kingdoms Theology
This article is cross-posted on Founders Ministries.
In this series, we have considered the nature of the kingdom of Christ, the fruit produced by that spiritual kingdom, and the priority of evangelism in all Christian cultural endeavors. But it is possible that we have made it this far without truly answering the foundational questions of jurisdiction between the state and the church, much less between the kingdom of God and the realm of men. Are there two kingdoms or only one? Or more?
This question is getting at the “two kingdoms” tradition, which I understand to be drawing upon Luther’s distinction between the inward, spiritual kingdom (the realm of faith and salvation) and external society (the state and the sacral church).* I also understand Luther to have been relying largely on Augustine, although Augustine’s two kingdoms (as presented in City of God) had more to do with the spiritual kingdom of God as the kingdom of light versus the rebellious kingdom of man as the world of reprobate humanity arranged under human governments, the kingdom of darkness under Satanic influence (cf. Eph. 2:1-2, Col. 1:13).
The Lord does not employ unequal scales, and his transcendent moral code subjugates all realms of Christ’s dominion.
@ajkocman
It is crucial to distinguish the spiritual, invisible kingdom of God from the visible, external institutions of church and state. The new covenant—the covenant by virtue of which we as Christians are saved—is written upon the heart, and is not an external covenant controlled by objective means in the same sense as was the Mosaic covenant. And for the record, I also stoutly affirm the Augustinian categories as well.
Yet my concern with some radical Reformed two kingdoms rhetoric is that it tends to define the kingdom in exclusively soteriological and ecclesiastic terms. This shuts off the spigot of special revelation for the state, insisting magistrates are only accountable to general revelation and nothing more. Regarding church and state, I affirm there is positive law under the new covenant that applies only to the church and not directly to the world of the lost (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9-11). I also affirm the tripartite division of the law (though its categories are admittedly somewhat porous). But I believe we err if we consider God to have two shifting sets of standards for each “kingdom,” as though all biblical civil laws in Scripture were merely positive laws and had no connection to the moral law. The Lord does not employ unequal scales (Prov. 20:10), and his transcendent moral code subjugates all realms of Christ’s dominion.
What is the dynamic between the kingdoms of light and darkness? While the kingdom of Messiah has entered history, the domain of darkness, though disarmed (Col. 2:15), remains operative. God also continues to use evil for his own sovereign purposes, including the refinement of his people and the advance of the gospel. But we must take care lest we conclude that history is simply a duality of light and darkness circling the eschatological drain without either gaining the upper hand until the clouds roll back and the divine referee calls “time.” In the Parable of the Wheat and Tares (Mt. 13:24-30), the tares (unregenerate persons) grow alongside the wheat (regenerate persons), yet the field itself belongs to the sower (v. 24: “his field”).
Even when darkness appears to overtake the light, we serve the God who robbed the grave.
@ajkocman
God owns the field. There is one realm of authority, and that authority is Christ’s; Satan is an illegitimate challenger to the throne, not the rightful ruler of a neighboring realm. This means that, looking at history at a high altitude, the kingdom of light is progressive and ascendant; the kingdom of darkness is regressive and recedent. The lost and unbelieving go from bad to worse (2 Tim. 3:13, Rev. 22:11) while the church presses on mid toil and tribulation, growing up into her Head (Eph. 4:15). Satan is bound from stopping the progress of the gospel (Jn. 12:21-22, Rev. 20:1-3), though he attempts to advance his domain myriad other ways (1 Pet. 5:8, Eph. 6:12). And even when darkness appears to overtake the light, we serve the God who robbed the grave.
Lewis gets at this actual duality, which I believe to be an asymmetrical one, quite brilliantly in That Hideous Strength: “Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing.” The tares and the wheat are both growing. But the fate of one is entirely different from the fate of the other. The tares have no rightful place in the field; the sower did not scatter reprobate tare seeds with his left hand of general providence and elect wheat seeds with his right. This will be all sorted out at harvest, and the wheat will not be uprooted along with the tares (Mt. 12:29-30).
In conclusion, faithful believers can disagree over the nuances of biblical teaching concerning kingdom of Christ while also laboring to see more sinners enter it. Let us all affirm: Jesus wins, the gospel changes everything, and the church has a basic responsibility to advocate for the moral law of God in the power of the Spirit through gospel renewal. “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (Rev. 11:15). May he grant that our discussions of his reign never devolve into mere talk.
* Note: Since publishing this articles, multiple friends of mine have reached out to me and have noted that I failed to address Calvin’s two kingdom theology as represented in books 3 and 4 of the Institutes. This is a fair critique, and I may in the future take up this challenge.
Share this:
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 22, 2024 20:36:37 GMT -5
Great Commission Christianity Is Cosmic-Redemptive Christianity
Charles Spurgeon famously commented, “Of two evils, choose neither.” Well, to borrow from the prince of preachers, I’d like to argue: Given a choice in a false dichotomy, choose both.
Recently, an scholarly evangelical voice took to the web to denounce what he termed “Great Commission Christianity,” defined loosely as “a truncated view of the gospel, the kingdom, and redemption” marked by a “hyper-focus on saving individuals.” The author argues that evangelicalism since the modern missionary movement has been too focused on conversion-focused evangelism to the neglect of a broader biblical theology of the kingdom of God and its fruit in society.
Hence, the author contrasts Great Commission Christianity with “Cosmic Redemptive Christianity,” for which he appeals to a definition offered by Tim Keller: “Through the person and work of Jesus Christ, God fully accomplishes salvation for us, rescuing us from judgment for sin into fellowship with him, and then restores the creation in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever.”
One major flaw of the article is its straw-man argumentation. It is not difficult, frankly, to paint a caricature of a certain stream of the Christian church, assign it an arbitrary label (“Great Commission Christianity”), and then turn and extol the advantages of an alternative view (which, as defined by Keller, is quite robust. But my purpose here is not to dissect the logic of the article, nor correct its misapprehensions of the modern missionary movement. Foundationally, it is true that there is a breed of evangelicalism that focuses on individual conversion, revivalism, and pietism to the exclusion of an all-of-life Christianity soaked in the lordship of Christ.
Rather, my purpose is to show that with regard to cosmic redemption and the Great Commission—what God has brought together—such things we must not tear asunder. And further, since half of all churchgoers don’t even know Jesus’ final marching orders, I would contend that we need more Great Commission Christianity, not less.
Seed and Fruit
The relationship between the Great Commission’s gospel-preaching, disciple-making mandate and the New Testament kingdom promises is not one of dichotomy; rather, it is the relationship between seed and fruit.
The conversion experience implied in such words as “disciple” and “baptize” yield the harvest of “observing all” Jesus has commanded, from the privacy of the prayer closet to the public square. Preaching salvation in Christ is no more the enemy of cultural labor than planting apple seeds is the enemy of pie.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul delivers what some might call a “truncated” gospel—that is, one centering almost entirely on the death and resurrection of Christ to accomplish forgiveness of sins (vv. 1-4). But as the chapter unfolds, we realize that this redemptive work—with the salvation of individuals as its focal point—is the germ in the old creation that produces the defeat of all of Christ’s visible and invisible enemies (vv. 24-26) and the accomplishment of the final resurrection itself (vv. 50-55). The gospel that saves individual sinners from the wrath of God is the mustard seed that sprouts into all the fruits of the kingdom, the pebble that swells into a global mountain, the leaven that makes the whole loaf rise.
It’s no mistake that the Great Commission seems to echo the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28. The first Adam and his wife received rulership of creation and plunged it into ruin; the second Adam and his bride, the church, redeem the world by means of the gospel in anticipation of the final consummation.
This is not just a clever analogy or an abstract exercise in biblical theology; this is the literal outworking of the fact that all heavenly and earthly authority has been given to Christ (Matthew 28:18)—or, as the Apostle John phrases it, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” (Revelation 11:15).
An All-Encompassing Mandate
It should be noted that what we simply do not find in Christ’s mandate is anything like our stripped-bare, modern theology of decisional regeneration and all its accompanying sales tactics. Discipling panta ta ethnē means knees bowing, not just aisles walked. Baptizing in the name of the Triune God means swearing allegiance to King Jesus publicly—every head not down, every eye not closed, no hands raised, contra to the introspective revivalism the author associates with the Great Commission.
Matthew 28:18-20 is more than an evangelistic mandate, especially in the narrow sense in which contemporary Christians conceive evangelism. After asserting his cosmic, cultural, and kingly authority (v. 18), the risen Jesus commands the discipling of the nations—that is, the bringing about of total subjugation to the gospel and law of Christ in every place, among every people. And as all the nations repent and embrace Christ, forgiveness of sins is implied (cf. Luke 24:44-46) but isn’t the end. Conversion is the beginning, but Jesus also enjoins his apostles to baptize and teach total obedience.
All or Nothing
The problem is that the New Testament won’t allow us to aim for kingdom fruit while bypassing the gospel of the kingdom itself. Church history recent and modern bears out that those who exclusively emphasize a Christian social ethic inevitably to lose both those societal effects and the gospel which alone can produce them. Conversely, it is those who focus explicitly upon conversionary evangelism who often, even inadvertently, impact whole cultures. As evidence, we need look no further than the corpse of mainline Protestantism and its so-called social gospel. If we aim for the root, we’ll get both the root and the fruit; if we simply aim for fruit, we’ll get neither.
Dr. Robert Woodberry is one scholar who has documented the effects of conversionary protestant missions in shaping much of life itself in the West. Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi, whom Christianity Today dubbed India’s foremost Christian intellect, is another scholar drawing attention to the undeniable fruits of the gospel in society—including, notably, the effects of William Carey’s missionary efforts on modern India, which the aforementioned article sidesteps.
But the type of Christianity that bears this long-term fruit is not obsessed with slick contextualization, appealing to the prevailing cultural norms, and contorting every issue from criminal justice to community gardens into “gospel issues.” Rather, lasting fruit is achieved by those who keep the gospel pure, heralding the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and drawing out the implications not only salvation but also his rule over all of life—the very faith once for all delivered to the saints.
What gives the yeast of the kingdom its leavening power is not human sociocultural savvy but the fact that yeast is alive. The life in the gospel that brings about fruit in society is the power of the Spirit that transcends and subverts and political philosophy or critical theory. Paul reminds us: “For Christ did not send me to baptize”—or preach cultural transformation as a end in itself, we might add—“but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Corinthians 1:17).
Whether or not one holds to an optimistic, culture-redeeming eschatology, historically, the gospel that has in fact transformed societies is a “narrow” gospel of Christ, cross, empty grave, repentance, cross, justification, and reconciliation—not a gospel of social change. This is not to say that those who hold the evangelical gospel have never erred; rather, it is simply to hold that the gospel alone is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:6). Our problem is not that we are emphasizing the cross and its power to save sinners too much. If anything, our problem is drifting from this gospel.
The cosmos will be redeemed, but not through our scholarly snobbery which claims to have liberated its from the oppressive, individualistic hermeneutic of those old-time-religionists. “The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea” (Habakkuk 2:14) through the spread of the gospel and the planting of churches focused upon all-of-life discipleship, not through a politicized Christian intellectual class.
A full-orbed biblical theology of the gospel and of cosmic redemption leads us to the conclusion that we need more Great Commission Christianity, not less. What God has joined together, let no man separate.
Share this:
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 22, 2024 20:40:57 GMT -5
What Is Jesus Doing Right Now? (And Why It Matters for Missions)
Several months ago, I was leading a group discussion among some middle school-aged boys at my church and posed the question, “Where is Jesus right now?”
After what felt like several minutes of blank stares, one student chimed in, “He’s watching over the dinosaurs.”
I’m still not sure what his comment meant. But the implication was clear: they had no idea. Perhaps that’s because we tend to make much of Christ’s first coming, and we’ve all speculated about the timing of his return, but exactly what he’s up to in between eludes us.
What is Jesus doing right now, in heaven? The answer has surprising implications for everything we do as believers—especially when it comes to missions.
The Apostles’ Favorite Bible Verse
Outside of the New Testament, the Old Testament itself sheds considerable light on Christ’s current activity. Psalm 110:1, quoted by the New Testament writers and apostles more than any other Old Testament text, gives a clue. David writes, “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’” (ESV).
Two Lords? Who is talking to whom? The New Testament consistently interprets Psalm 110:1 as a conversation in heaven between God the Father and the Son, linked with Jesus’ victorious ascension. And “sit at my right hand” means more than, “Welcome home, Son, have a seat”—rather, it’s Jesus’ mandate to reign as king in heaven.
In shadowy, poetic form, the psalmist predicted that after Christ’s his death and resurrection, he would be inaugurated on his heavenly throne with all authority on heaven and earth (see Matthew 28:18).
Jesus is Lord already, reigning in heaven as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, President of Presidents. But for how long?
“…Until I make your enemies your footstool,” God tells his royal Son. Christ’s kingly rule has been growing like a seed since his first coming (Matthew 13:31-32). God has been steadily defeating Christ’s enemies for the last 2,000 years.
What does that look like? Sometimes Christ’s enemies are judged visibly—as in Herod’s sudden death in Acts 12 or Jerusalem’s convulsive fall in A.D. 70. At other times, those who oppose against Christ are simply forgotten in the sands of time. But most remarkably, it means that the gospel message transforms believers—formerly among God’s enemies—into joyful subjects (Romans 5:10).
According to Paul, the announcement and expansion of the kingdom must be complete before Christ will return. Drawing from Psalm 110, Paul writes that the end comes “when he (that is, Christ) delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Corinthians 15:24-25, emphasis added).
But if Jesus has all this power right now in heaven, why the delay?
Waiting for What Jesus is Waiting for
Much excitement and, at times, even hysteria dominate the current “last days” conversation in the church. More than a few American believers doubled-down on their prayers for the Lord’s return during the most recent election cycle. So why, we ask, has the Second Coming been delayed thus far?
Peter gives us a clue. He exhorts us to “count the patience of our Lord as salvation” (2 Peter 3:15a). “Be patient,” he says in essence, “because the reason Christ hasn’t returned yet is because he is still saving people.” As Christ’s kingship is heralded around the world, the kingdom of darkness is shaken and lost people are saved. That is what Jesus is waiting for. And every painful moment that he delays, though it may cost us dearly, he is overcoming his enemies and saving his people.
Jesus will sit on heaven’s throne until he has finished saving his people, teaching them to obey, overturning the spiritual forces and powers opposing his reign, and revealing his authority over every nation. Then, finally and visibly, all will see that “[t]he kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (Revelation 11:15).
This is not just a neat idea; it shapes everything we’re about in the present. In fact, Christ’s present rule demands missions.
The Implication for Missions
Although it is God who is putting Christ’s enemies under his feet, he doesn’t do so by the sword or by starry signs above. Instead, he uses means—everyday things like missions, prayer, and evangelism.
Evangelism takes the good news of Christ’s reign to lost souls. Prayer is the pleading of God’s people for the kingdom to come and for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. And missions, which is to cross cultures with the gospel and establish communities of believers to carry on the task, is simply how Christ’s spiritual kingdom breaks onto the scene in parts of the world that haven’t heard yet.
If Christ is reigning until all his people are saved and all his enemies are put into subjection, then as long as there are peoples and nations that haven’t heard the gospel, Christ isn’t done.
And we know that one day, God will finish putting everything under Christ’s feet. People from every nation, tribe, and tongue will ultimately become his (Revelation 5:9, 7:6). Until then, therefore, the church must necessarily be about the work of missions.
What is Jesus doing right now? He hasn’t become some ethereal force drifting around the universe filling our lives with good vibes. Isn’t off somewhere off watching over dinosaurs. He is the reigning Lord whose good news is causing knees to bend worldwide. Our preaching, praying, and going are what he uses to do it.
Let’s get to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 22, 2024 20:44:50 GMT -5
3 Reasons Complementarianism Is a Missions Issue
This article is cross-posted on ABWE.
Christian love across lines of differing convictions are essential to the missionary task of the church.
To make disciples of all nations invariably involves flexing, adapting, and bending to an innumerable number of circumstances in the name of Christlikeness. Culture and language acquisition are only the beginning; to reach the world, we must also learn how to cooperate in high-stress situations with brothers and sisters who aren’t exactly like us. We must humbly embrace that there is but one universal church and one kingdom of Christ advancing steadily, mid toil and tribulation, for the last two millennia. This is our banner.
At the same time, conflicts erupt when important questions of conviction are answered in a slipshod way in the name of preserving superficial unity. Disagreements will happen, and they cannot be dismissed as insignificant. Distinctions exist among traditions and denominations for a reason. When it comes to the missionary task, can two walk together except they be agreed (Amos 3:3)?
My thesis in this article is that complementarianism (for our purposes here, as defined broadly by the Danvers Statement) is not an issue about which missionary teammates can simply agree to disagree. To some, this claim may seem extreme. After all, cannot sincere Christian believers occupying various spaces across the spectrum—from feminism to patriarchalism—preach the same gospel presentation or affirm the Apostles’ Creed? Yet there are many arguments that militate against this laissez-faire approach, many of them rooted in preserving denominational and confessional standards. These arguments are important. It is my purpose here, however, to articulate the practical reasons—reasons relating to ministry in the trenches—that holding to complementarian distinctions is not only helpful but vital for missionary efforts.
Why the focus upon the missions community? There are two reasons. First, cooperative missionary effort is one of the driving factors behind church associationalism, especially among baptists.1 We work together with other local church bodies because we have a global task. And secondly, missions is often the greatest locus of urgency. If we are at all inclined to doctrinal reductionism, we certainly sense the temptation towards minimalism as we bring the gospel across cultures—and for good cause. So, it follows that any convictional lines that are drawn on the frontlines of missions would certainly extend into our own national and local contexts as well.
Consider the following three reasons missionary teams cannot afford to be agnostic with regard to biblically-prescribed gender roles.
1. CHURCH PLANTING REQUIRES LEADERSHIP
When everything is missions, nothing is.2 This maxim bears heavily upon the current state of affairs in modern missions. American churchgoers are frequently catechized to believe every Christian is a missionary. Every activity from poverty relief to marriage counseling is labeled as “missions” or “missional.” What is lost is the blazing center of the Great Commission: gospel proclamation that disciples all the nations under Christ’s lordship (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 24:46-48, John 20:21-23, Acts 1:8).
With this focus in mind, the work of mission takes a definite shape. That shape is modeled for us by the Apostle Paul, whose ministry consisted chiefly of gospel proclamation (cf. Acts 8:35, 9:20, 13:14, 17:2), church planting (Acts 18:11, 23; Romans 15:19-23), and training new church leaders (Acts 14:23, 2 Timothy 2:2, Titus 1:5). These interconnected, cyclical activities—all revolving around multiplication of healthy local churches—form the beating heart of the missionary task. There is, perhaps, more to that task, but there is never less. Implied in the command to disciple the nations by baptizing and teaching obedience to Christ (Matt. 28:19-20) is the propagation of New Testament assemblies of believers. The local church is thus both the means and the end of missions.
Local churches require leadership. The apostolic missionary model exhibited throughout the New Testament requires trained, godly men be set apart as elders in each church. If biblically-qualified leadership is not raised up within a church, the missionary church-planting task remains incomplete. Any missionary team that punts on the issue of male headship in the church disks dooming new churches and young believers to strife and division later on. Because healthy, biblical missions hinges on church planting, missionary teams must reach a settled conviction concerning God’s design for qualified men to lead in the local church.3
If biblically-qualified leadership is not raised up within a church, the missionary church-planting task remains incomplete.
Tweet
2. SEXUAL DESIGNS ARE DISCIPLESHIP ISSUES
The “burned-over district” of upstate New York earned its name because of its spiritual infertility, the product of half-baked evangelistic campaigns. The US northeast is not alone. We have all seen firsthand the negative effects of inch-deep evangelism with little to no emphasis on continued discipleship under the teachings of Scripture. Interestingly, the spiritual resistance that forms in response to superficial, pragmatic forms of evangelism is often deeper and more stiff-necked than the resistance that forms to more biblically-faithful forms of outreach.
All that to say: healthy missions does not only revolve around church planting (as seen in the previous point) but also emphasizes long-term, continuous discipleship under the teachings of Jesus. We are to instruct the nations to obey all that Christ commanded. And the scope of discipleship is nothing short of all of life.
The missionary must then ask: what has Christ commanded? The answer is not just all the words written in red. The same Lord who issued these marching orders on the mount of ascension also pointed the Pharisees back to the inspired words of Scripture: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female” (Matt. 19:4; cf. Gen. 1:27). To be discipled under Jesus, then, is to be discipled under all that the Triune God spoke in both testaments. This includes Scripture’s direct and indirect teaching concerning God’s design for men and women in the church, the home, and the world.
We would not fault a missionary who brought biblical teaching to bear on a pagan culture steeped in traditions of polygamy, cult prostitution, or oppressive misogyny. Yet oftentimes the missionary abroad, just as the pastor at home, may blush at such texts as Ephesians 5, which calls husbands to loving, self-sacrificial headship and wives to respectful submission. This must not be so. The missionary cannot make disciples without lovingly and boldly bringing to bear upon his hearers all that God has spoken in his word concerning male and female. In this way, God’s sexual designs are indeed missions issues and not domestic “culture war” issues purely.
3. SCRIPTURAL CLARITY UNDERLIES EFFECTIVE EVANGELISM
We have established that the missionary is responsible to teach all that Christ commanded—both red and black letters inspired by the Spirit of God in both testaments. This does not mean that modern believers remain under the old covenant nor that the historical context of Scripture is unimportant. It does mean that we must prize the clarity of Scripture.4
When Paul preached the gospel, he did so with constant reference to what the Holy Spirit had enshrined in holy writ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; note repetition of “according to the Scriptures”). Jesus constantly admonished the Jews of his day to refer to the Law and Prophets. Even post-resurrection, Jesus’ appeal to authority was not simply an appeal to the prima facie evidence of his glorified body but to Old Testament prophecies (Luke 24:27, 44-47). This is all to simply underscore the fact that the faithful evangelist cannot and must not leave his Bible at home. Gospel proclamation is to be done by the Book.
If our evangelism depends on our conviction that Scripture means what it says plainly, we must take this same affirmation of biblical clarity and hold it up as a mirror to our entire doctrinal system. Is any part of our belief system betraying a less-than-honest treatment of the biblical text? Have we erected elaborate, culture-accommodating schemes to get around our “problem” texts?
So too, what happens to our trans-cultural gospel witness when we treat the New Testament’s injunctions regarding God’s design for the sexes in a less-than-direct manner? What happens to our gospel witness if we bury the passages like 1 Timothy 2:11-14 beneath excessive layers of nuance and qualifying statements? Should we not instead model for our hearers what it means to live by every word that comes out of the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4; cf. Deut. 8:3), to delight in and “eat” all our Lord’s words (Jer. 15:16), and to savor his teaching more than honey (Ps. 119:103)?
Have we erected elaborate, culture-accommodating schemes to get around our “problem” texts?
Tweet
A FINAL WARNING
Few Christians must grapple with issues of controversy, truth in love, and compromise the way missionaries do. To embrace the missionary call is to embrace becoming “all things to all people” to save some (1 Cor. 9:22). Missions demands death to self. Those with an unhealthy appetite for controversy are not only unfit for pastoral office (2 Tim. 2:24) but are especially unfit for the unique, cruciform shape of cross-cultural ministry.
English minister John Newton (1725-1807), best known for penning the hymn “Amazing Grace,” once exhorted a fellow minister engaged doctrinal controversy:
If you account [your opponent] a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: “Deal gently with him for my sake.” The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever.5
Put simply, pursuing Christian love amidst disagreement matters.
At the same time, missionaries absolutely must not pursue unity and church growth at the cost of biblical doctrine. The Bible’s teaching on male and female roles, though not a part of the gospel message itself, is not an issue about which missionaries can be apathetic. It strikes directly at the root of what it means to be made in the imago Dei. As we plant healthy, elder-led churches, disciple the nations in Christ’s commands, and proclaim the plan teaching of Scripture, let us do so firmly convicted concerning the wisdom of the God who “made them male and female.”
1. A helpful theological rationale for cooperation among autonomous local church congregations is found in the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) Chapter 26, paragraphs 14 and 15.
2. This helpful maxim comes from Matthew Ellison and Denny Spitters, When Everything Is Missions (2018).
3. For more on the connection between missions and healthy ecclesiology, consider the insightful article “Biblical Eldership and Global Missions: A Vital and Necessary Union” by Phil Remmers, which includes case studies from multiple global contexts.
4. Ironically, the technical term for this doctrine is less clear: the perspicuity of Scripture. For a helpful summation, see the LBCF (1689) Chapter 1, paragraph 7: “[T]hose things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.”
5. See John Newton, quoted in Nathan W. Bingham, “On Controversy” (Ligonier Ministries, 2012).
Share this:
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 22, 2024 20:46:16 GMT -5
Missions by the Book
Why study theology if my goal is to go impact people overseas who don’t know Jesus at all?
Why do the missionaries I know sound so different from my pastor?
Which missionaries should our church support?
If you’ve ever had thoughts like these, it’s because across the church, there is a rift between the realm of theology and the world of missions.
There are around 78,000 evangelical Christians for every one unreached people group, yet a 2020 study found that nearly half of self-professed evangelicals in the US believe that God accepts all religions equally.
Bad theology produces bad missions, and bad missions fuels bad theology.
We wrongly think that we must choose between making a global impact and thinking deeply about the things of God. But the relationship between theology and missions is symbiotic—one cannot exist without the other. They walk hand-in-hand.
Because I believe all this, I was deeply grateful a while ago when my friend Chad Vegas, pastor of Sovereign Grace Church in Bakersfield, Calif., invited me to join him in co-writing a book on the symbiosis between doctrine and missions methodology. In light of the swarm of concerns surrounding disciple-making movements, obedience-based discipleship, insider movements, and other questionable trends in missions (about which I’ve written much more over on ABWE’s blog), we agreed that now was the right time to press into this space.
That project became a book called Missions by the Book, available now from Founders Ministries or on Amazon. (An audio version is also in the works.)
We’re deeply grateful to Founders Ministries for publishing it and to Carl Trueman for contributing the foreword. We are indebted the important feedback we received early on from such friends as Rich Barcellos, James Dolezal, Benjamin Vrbicek, Josiah Vencel, and more. We are also grateful for Brooks Buser, Ian Hamilton, Dustin Benge, and Joel Beeke, who kindly wrote some very humbling commendations.
Chad and I sat down with our friends Tom Ascol and Graham Gunden to talk about why we wrote the book. We also spent some time on The Missions Podcast explaining one of the core issues of the book: recovering a method of evangelism that takes seriously our responsibility to “proclaim” the gospel (rather than merely suggesting it). You can watch part one here and part two here when it premieres this Sunday night. I also gave a talk to a group of Westminster Theological Students recently unpacking chapter nine of the book.
If you read the book, we encourage you to leave a review on Amazon and share it with a friend—but we also want honest feedback, dialogue, and conversation. Some have said that they have yet to hear a positive articulation of the methods of missions we’re describing. We aim to change that. We’re also noticing that there’s a bit of a wave of books in this vein coming down the pike—so I would also commend to readers my friend E.D. Burns’ latest two volumes as well as Elliot Clark’s new treatment of Pauline motivations.
In closing: let me simply name the elephant in the room. I am not, nor have I ever been, a cross-cultural missionary. I struggle with boldness in evangelism, fervency in prayer, and attachment to worldly goods as much as (or more than) anyone else. But if God can speak through Balaam’s ass, then maybe I’m overqualified to write this book.
|
|
