 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Introduction:
The Church and the Kingdom of God
Derek Poole
Comment:
A Question of Belonging
Peter Wilson
From
the Director
David Porter
Colosse
Michael Whitley
Revisiting
the Kingdom of God and the Church
David McMillan
Faith
and Practice - Baroness May Blood
Ruth Hutchinson
Ephesus
Heather Morrow
Lead
us not into temptation
Alan Wilson
Galatia
Priscilla Reid
CEPU...a
personal testimony
Ken Irvine
Econimail
- Fancy Models or Straw Dolls?
Book
Review
Ethel White
REVISITING THE
KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE CHURCH
Dealing with the concept of the kingdom of God can be a bit like coping
with the soap in the bath. It’s sometimes hard to get hold of, hard to
keep hold of once you’ve got it, jolly difficult to recover if you let
it slip and inevitably - once you’ve decided to forget about it - it turns
up in the most awkward of places.
- help us get a sense of the concept of the kingdom of God
- help us think about some ways in which understanding the kingdom of God affects the way the Church thinks of itself in the world.
Some years ago Francis Fukuyama published an article - and later a book - on the theme of ‘The End of History’. Fukuyama argued that capitalism and liberal democracy had provided the climax of history. ‘Clearly history would go on in that ancient struggles had to be played out - as in the former Yugoslavia - but history, in the sense of a conflict between big ideas, was over.’ Fukuyama was responding to the unique situation of the late eighties when the fall of communism seemed to herald a whole new era. His thinking was bold and provocative and is, I suspect, shared by many in political life in the western world who have reached a similar conclusion by a different route, namely, the thoughtless arrogance of our time and culture. Fukuyama and those who harbour a similar view are wrong. The end of history was proclaimed by a Jew in the region of Galilee some 2,000 years ago when he announced the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy and called on his neighbours to repent, for the kingdom of God is near.2 Ancient struggles would continue to be prosecuted and new ones would arise out of our sinful nature but in the coming of Christ the conflict between big ideas was over. Here in His person, in his death, in his resurrection, in his ascension and in his elevation to the Father’s right hand is the reign of God for us to see, know and obey. Here is the rule and reign of God in the king who saves his people and who will judge the world. Here is the one whose kingship demands our allegiance, whose realm knows no boundary, whose territory extends throughout the universe, whose ‘kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and whose dominion will endure through all generations.’3 How are we to understand the kingdom of God? Look up a concordance and it becomes immediately apparent that the kingdom of God finds its most frequent expression and major focus in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (the Synoptic Gospels).4 Further investigation reveals that the concept of the kingdom of God is used interchangeably with the concept of the kingdom of Heaven (a term much more commonly used in Matthew’s Gospel)5 and that these terms appear exclusively in the context of Jesus’ ministry and preaching. Clearly this is the place to start any investigation of the kingdom of God. At the very outset we need to note that the Greek word translated as ‘kingdom’ carries a number of different meanings. This word basileia (basileia) can mean ‘rule’, ‘reign’, ‘kingship’, ‘realm’, ‘territory’ or ‘kingdom’. Some of these terms convey a sense of power, others a sense of locality. It is clear from the variety of uses of the term in Jesus’ ministry that there is a dynamic aspect to the kingdom of which he speaks and we should be careful about interpreting Jesus’ use of the term as referring merely to a locality - whether on earth or in heaven.6 Mark tells us that Jesus went into Galilee proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time has come’, he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’ (1.14-15). Would this have been the first time that the people of Galilee had ever heard of the kingdom of God? No. As Jews they were familiar with the concept of God’s sovereignty from the Scriptures. Passages such as Psalm 47.2 ‘How awesome is the Lord Most High, the great King over all the earth’, or Psalm 145.1, ‘I will exalt you, my God the King; I will praise your name for ever and ever’, would have been well known. They would have had a consciousness of God’s rule over all creation and all the nations of humanity: ‘The Lord has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all’ (Psalm 103.19). However, apart from the Scriptures, the concept of God establishing a kingdom was a vital issue in the political and social context of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. There was at the time a mixture of religious and nationalistic expectations. These ranged from the apocalyptic vision that God would act to draw history to a close and usher in a new era of his rule, to more nationalistic hopes that God would act on Israel’s behalf and raise up a Messiah who would shake off the Romans and re-establish Israel as a sovereign nation. Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God was not uttered in a vacuum but rather in the context of mixed and confused expectations that ‘God would do something’. Matthew and Mark (Mt.4: 17; Mk.1: 15) present a sharp summary of Jesus’ message as they record him proclaiming ‘good news’ that ‘the kingdom of God is near’. Luke sets the scene for the preaching recorded in Matthew and Mark by telling the story of Jesus’ preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth. Having read from Isaiah 61; 1-2 Jesus declared, ‘Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing’. It is clear that Jesus understood his ministry as ushering in the kingdom of God. In the person of Jesus the kingdom of God had arrived in all the power prophesied by the prophets and with all the attendant glory witnessed to by the Scriptures. Given that the kingdom is about the rule of God in and through Jesus, what is happening in ‘kingdom’ terms throughout the New Testament can be thought about in the following way: The Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus announcing and ushering in God’s kingdom in his life, death and resurrection. John, Paul7 and some of the other New Testament authors teach the Church the significance, values and terms of entry to the kingdom. Peter concentrates on teaching the Church what it means to live as ‘kingdom’ people scattered among the kingdoms of this world - hence his emphasis on the Christian calling to be aliens and strangers. John in Revelation gives us the overview of the historic struggle of the kingdom of darkness against the kingdom of God in Christ and paints for us an amazing picture of the climax of history in the fulfilment of the kingdom in Revelation 20. It is quite wrong to think of the kingdom of God as ‘absent’ from the rest of the New Testament. To think of the kingdom of God as assumed, underpinning, explained, worked out, applied, and portrayed is much more appropriate. The view I am proposing could be characterised as understanding the kingdom of God as the sovereign rule of God declared in Christ, witnessed to by the Church and coming in all consuming power and splendour. Theologically this is known as ‘inaugurated eschatology’. Those who see the kingdom as something yet to happen hold to a ‘futurist eschatology’ and those who see it as an expression for change and development of whatever kind (social or spiritual) in the here and now hold a ‘realised eschatology’. Neither of these extremes is satisfactory. The end has begun - inaugurated in Jesus’ incarnation, death and resurrection. The end is being played out and it is decision time for the peoples of the world - to whose kingdom do we belong: Christ’s or his enemy’s? It is the Church’s task to present the challenge, model the values and standards of the kingdom and remain loyal to Christ. The kingdom will come with power and fullness when Christ comes again.
The kingdom of God (the rule of God) is the big project of scripture and encompasses the renewal of creation, the salvation of God’s people, the judgement of all things. It is to this kingdom, through faith in Christ, in the fellowship of the Church, for the glory of God, that the Christian belongs. Membership of the kingdom of God identifies us in the world, defines our values and allegiance, determines our destiny.
Now that we have grabbed the soap firmly, we must apply it with effect and not let it slip through our fingers. This is easier said than done, I know, but let’s take a look at two areas where wrestling with the issues of kingdom loyalty affect the way the individual Christian and the fellowship of Christians relate to our society. PoliticsOne of the most obvious issues we have to deal with in Northern Ireland is the matter of political allegiance. While this is a blindingly obvious area of concern to us in Northern Ireland it is a matter of relevance to Christians of all times and cultures. Over the years the message that ECONI has sought to communicate is that the values of the kingdom are, for members of the kingdom, the non-negotiable terms of engagement in the politics of this country. If winning a political argument or maintaining political power necessitates ditching, or ever so slightly abrogating, our responsibility to love our neighbour as ourselves or our responsibility to model holiness and Christlikeness in our encounter with our fellow citizens then we would rather lose the argument and concede the power than break allegiance to the kingdom of God. One critic of ECONI, Patrick Roche, in his book The Appeasement of Terrorism & The Belfast Agreement8 attacks ECONI for issuing statements which, in his opinion, appeal to the ‘values of the kingdom’ as a ‘trick’ to:
implicitly …align a commitment to unionism with a subordination of the ‘values of the kingdom’ to the values of ‘politics’, ‘culture’, or ‘nation’.He continues:
The fact of the matter is that no such subordination is required by a commitment to unionism. Unionism involves nothing more than a commitment to the ‘cherished position of equal citizenship within the United Kingdom’. Unionism is therefore entirely compatible with authentic Christian allegiance to God. The ECONI statements on issues central to unionism …amount to a subtle use of theological rhetoric to attempt to immobilise unionist opposition to the accommodation of the political demands of Irish nationalism.9When one gets to the heart of his criticism it is evident that Roche perceives no greater threat to the pursuit of selfish, unaccommodating political goals than discussion or exposition of the ‘values of the kingdom’. To name the values of the kingdom, to use them as the touchstone for political engagement, threatens to undermine the vision of democracy he so cherishes. The attempt to caricature ECONI’s position as being anti unionist and pro nationalist is an essential characteristic of those who need to neutralise, for the sake of their own conscience, the rigorous demands of the kingdom of God as the defining terms on which they must deal with their nationalist neighbours. There is nothing incompatible between a Christian commitment and a unionist conviction. No one ever said or implied there was. What is unsustainable is a political commitment (unionist or nationalist) that is pursued outside of the terms of the Sermon on the Mount. Furthermore, just as the good news of the kingdom carries with it an implicit warning of judgement for the individual (the call to repentance being matched by a warning of judgement) so political systems or philosophies which fail to deal fairly with the alien or the stranger among them will, of necessity, find themselves under the judgement of the rule of God. In simple terms, those who present themselves as anxious about the health of democracy but who failed to promote the democratic rights of their nationalist neighbours four decades ago should not be surprised at the diminishing nature of their political power. We (unionist or nationalist) ignore kingdom values at our peril. Inclusiveness
It’s very much a PC term, a buzz word of the late nineties, a catch-all contemporary value echoing the spirit of relativism and tolerance which tyrannises the terms and nature of contemporary relationships. The one thing we must not do, it appears, is contemplate excluding anyone from anything – whether it be students from Oxbridge or Sinn Fein from the Executive. Inclusiveness at any price, inclusiveness for its own sake, seems to be the order of the day. Whatever the confused reasoning behind contemporary inclusive agendas may be, Jesus’ parable of the mustard seed presents both a model and a necessary challenge to the Church on this matter of ‘inclusiveness’ (Matt.13: 31-32). It is a model that applies the values of the kingdom of God to the life of the Church. This parable of the kingdom indicates that the apparently insignificant seed of Jesus’ death will be sown - at the cross10 - out of which will come a tree capable of providing a home for all who perch there. The ‘birds of the air’ who will find a home there is an inclusive idea – those that were previously considered ‘unclean’ will find space on the branches of this tree. In Acts 10:12-14 we meet exactly the same concept when Peter is confronted with the vision of ‘all kinds of four footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air’, and invited to ‘kill and eat’. Peter is appalled, declaring, ‘Surely not Lord! …I have never eaten anything impure or unclean’. As Peter then finds himself called to the home of Cornelius, understanding comes. ‘God has shown me,’ he declares, ‘that I should not call any man impure or unclean …so I came without raising any objection’ (28). This major cultural shift in Peter’s thinking had to be defended before the other Apostles. The association with the contaminated and unclean Roman centurion was compromising the Church. The fascinating aspect of Peter’s report to the Apostles (Acts 11:1-18) is that he discovered that God had already spoken to Cornelius before he had even heard the message of the gospel or repented and put his faith in Christ (Acts 10.11-14). It was at this stage in his life that Peter came to understand the parable of the mustard seed. Peter would have been wrong to refuse to associate with Cornelius. He could have chosen to live by the standards of the kingdom of Jewish culture and identity. He would not have been criticised for refusing to go. Indeed he would have been applauded for refusing to associate with, and give legitimacy to, those whose hands were stained with the blood of innocent Jews - not least that of Jesus. But Peter would have violated the standards of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is not concerned for the niceties or self-righteousness of the kingdoms of this world. The kingdom of God will be for the ‘birds of the air’ whether we like it or not! The challenge is clear - to what degree have we come to terms with this in our churches? Do our churches mirror the kingdom of God? Or have they become the servants of the kingdoms of this age, baptising and sanctifying the kingdoms of Protestant or Irish culture, middle class homogeneity or male supremacy? Conclusion
It is a great shame that the concept of the kingdom of God is so frequently absent from our thinking and vocabulary. It is an even greater tragedy that this radical concept has been tamed and neutered by evangelicalism. Membership of the kingdom of God identifies us in the world, defines our values and allegiance, determines our destiny. Many years ago I was present at a commemoration for the victims of one of the violent atrocities that are now part of our history and our shame in Northern Ireland. The congregation stood to sing and, as I opened my order of service, I encountered for the first time Cecil Spring-Rice’s hymn.
I vow to thee my country - all earthly things above -I listened as the congregation sang - staggered that the clergy who led the service could channel the pain and anguish of grieving relatives into blind patriotic allegiance; angry that what had been pure bloody murder stemming from the same kind of blind patriotic allegiance to a different flag was being rationalised using the same frame of reference as the killers; distraught that for this congregation the kingdom of God seemed no more than ‘another country’ of which they had heard instead of being the source of power and comfort which these good people needed in their sorrow. Never had the kingdom of God been more real to me than during those moments standing there. Never before had I perceived how spiritually dangerous is the elevation of loyalty to a flag or cause, nor how bankrupt its comfort, nor how vacuous its hope. The ‘other country’ and its King is more real than any state, more glorious than any earthly monarchy and no flag or country shall ever have my heart or share its praise. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1Tim.1: 17)
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love,
The love that asks no questions: the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best:
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice. And there’s another country, I’ve heard of long ago -
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know -
We may not count her armies: we may not see her King -
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering -
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.
David McMillan - is pastor of Windsor Baptist Church and a member of the ECONI Central Co-ordinating Group.
1 Bryan Appleyard,
‘Thinkers of the Nineties’, Independent 20/11/95
2 Mark 1:15
3 Psalm 145.13
4 The phrases Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven occur over 100 times
in the Synoptic Gospels, only twice in John’s Gospel and rarely elsewhere
in the New Testament.
5 See Matthew 13.11 // Mark 4.11 //Luke 8.10 and Matthew 4.17 // Mark
1.15. See also Matthew 19.23-24 where both terms are used in the same
context.
6 For example Matthew 4.17; 12.28; Luke 17.21.
7 It is not insignificant that Paul’s ministry is summarised as preaching
the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 28:23
& 31
8 Patrick J. Roche, The Appeasement of Terrorism and the Belfast Agreement
(Belfast: NIUP, 2000)
9 Roche, Appeasement 66 10 cf. John 12:24
 |
||
 |
 |
|