To begin some new discussions here at n•l, I thought I’d post the introduction to my recently complete thesis on the generational development of Kingdom grammar from Schleiermacher to McLaren. It should help start some conversations about some of what I learned and observed over the course of my research. Then on Thursday, I’ll post the conclusion, which outlines some observations and implications Emergent Kingdom grammar will have for evangelicalism. You can buy it HERE if you’re interested.
First though, how would you define the Kingdom of God? How have you come to understand this central teaching of Jesus Christ.
In recent years, use of Kingdom of God language has markedly increased within evangelicalism, influencing it along the way. Missions is now understood in Kingdom terms, where a new generation is signing up en masse to build wells and finance “missional” projects by lending microfinance loans. Evangelism now emphasizes living like Jesus, rather than telling people about Him. Even the gospel is understood simply as Jesus’ proclamation of the at-hand-Kingdom, often at the expense of Paul’s language of justification by faith in Christ. While the Kingdom of God is the heart of Jesus’ teachings, it hasn’t always been the heart of evangelicalism, not to mention the Church. In fact, there has been conflicting definitions throughout Church history about what exactly Kingdom of God means.
Augustine represents the typical manner in which the early church defined the Kingdom of God, equating it with the Church itself. While equating God’s Kingdom-rule with the Church largely continued with medieval theological discourse, Christian princes sought to promote an imperial-political view of the Kingdom in order to control their Feudal lands. In the Reformation, Luther individualized the concept for the purpose of emphasizing the Christian’s spiritual citizenship over against a citizenship of a secular kingdom. He also represented the Reformation tendency in general to view the Kingdom in entirely eschatological, even apocalyptic, terms that pointed toward heaven in the future. Eventually, the Kingdom played little role in Protestant theology, reflecting the general trajectory of the historic Church that seems to have had little interest in Jesus’ central teaching. That is until the nineteenth century.
In the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, historical, cultural, and intellectual forces coalesced to foster an environment that gave rise to and renewed interest in the Kingdom, giving it a place of theological prominence. The person most credited with such renewal is the German theologian Freidrich Schleiermacher. The Kingdom of God formed the basis of his teachings, governing his system of doctrine and ethics to such an extent that it rose to prominence within modern theology itself in a way it had not before; Schleiermacher is the one through whom Kingdom grammar arose within modern theological discourse. His voice echoed throughout much of nineteenth century Protestant thought through the likes of Bauer, Herrmann, and Harnack, finding a strong advocate in the theology of Albrect Ritschl.
While Ritschl praised Schleiermacher for employing the Kingdom of God as the telos of Christianity, he believed Schleiermacher did not go far enough in grasping its significance; though Ritschl believed Schleiermacher made an important contribution to Christian theology by restoring the Kingdom to a place of importance, Ritschl thought his Kingdom grammar was deficient. Building on the original work of Schleiermacher, Ritschl brought this grammar to bear on his entire theological enterprise, making Kingdom of God its controlling doctrine. Ritschl’s Kingdom-centric theology kindled a new generation of twentieth century liberal theologians, particularly Rauschenbusch and Tillich, who envisioned the Kingdom itself as humanity’s salvation.
Now, like the nineteenth century, there has been a resurgence in the use of Kingdom language at the start of the twenty-first century, especially and particularly within mainstream evangelicalism. In prior generations, Kingdom had not been part of the normal evangelical ecclesial repertoire. Instead, evangelicalism had primarily centered upon the language of gospel, which translated into salvation from sins through a personal experience and personal piety in living morally; rarely, had Kingdom language been employed or taught and considered within evangelicalism. Even when Kingdom has been utilized, its primary usage has usually been future oriented, centering on the return of Jesus Christ and reign on earth at the expense of its present activity. This definition of Kingdom, however, changed with the advent of what has become known as the Emergent Church movement, originally a progressive evangelical movement that sought to re-imagine traditional Christianity in light of postmodernity. In fact, the Kingdom of God is central to the Emergent Church’s protest against Traditionalism.
As Jim Belcher explains, “The emerging protest argues that the traditional church has focused too much attention on how an individual becomes saved and not enough on how he or she lives as a Christian…The critics say the good news is more than forgiveness from sins and a ticket to heaven; it is the appearance of the kingdom of God.” ((Jim Belcher, Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2009), 41.)) This argument, that not enough attention has been paid to Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom of God, has formed the beachhead of protest against Traditionalism, particularly mainstream evangelicalism, and is the central identifying doctrine of this movement. As two prominent Emergent researchers note, the Kingdom of God offers a “reference point for emerging churches” as they deconstruct Traditionalism and reconstruct church in a postmodern context. ((Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger. Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Culture (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2005), 46. This book provided one of the most exhaustive examinations of the Emerging Church movement. It especially provides an important look at the Emerging Church’s Kingdom grammar in 47-64.))
The Kingdom-way Jesus founded through His life provides a model for emerging churches and actually is their gospel; for them, the Kingdom saves. No greater thinker within this movement has sought to redirect the focus of twenty-first century evangelicalism than Brian McLaren, who helped found the national organization Emergent, is the author of several books that have set out to re-imagine the Christian faith, ((See A New Kind of Christian (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001); The Story We Find Ourselves In (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003); The Last Word and The Word After That (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005); The Secret Message of Jesus (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2006); Everything Must Change (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006); and A New Kind of Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2010).)) and was christened one of the top twenty-five most influential evangelicals in America. ((“25 Most Influential Evangelicals In America,” Time Magazine, February 7, 2005.)) He is a fitting contemporary theological dialogue partner, then, in our effort to understand the nature of the Kingdom grammar that has surfaced in the twenty-first century, much like it did in the nineteenth.
Over the past decade, Emergent generally and McLaren specifically have sought to reclaim what McLaren calls the secret, essential message of Jesus, which he says has been unintentionally misunderstood and intensionally distorted, missed and disregarded. ((Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2006), 3.)) According to McLaren and the rest of the Emergent Church, this message is Jesus’ message of the Kingdom of God. While many have lauded McLaren’s efforts to recapture Jesus’ secret Kingdom-message, others argue his and Emergent’s use and description of Kingdom is deficient. Belcher writes, “I worry about what is mission in the description [of the Kingdom of God]. It is curious to me that nowhere does he mention or link the kingdom of God to the doctrines of atonement, justification, union with Christ or our need to be forgiven.” ((Belcher, Deep Church, 118.)) Likewise, Scot McKnight believes what McLaren says about the Kingdom is not enough:
[They] believe that penal substitution theories have not led to a kingdom vision. What I have been pondering and writing about for a decade now is how to construct an ‘emerging’ gospel that remains faithful to the fulness of the biblical texts about the Atonement, and lands squarely on the word kingdom. Girard said something important about the Cross; so does McLaren. But they aren’t enough. ((Scot McKnight, “McLaren Emerging,” Christianity Today Online, September 26, 2008 <www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/september/38.59.html>))
The reason contemporary articulations of Kingdom by the Emergent Church are not enough is because those articulations are simply appropriations of liberal Kingdom grammar.
Rather than offering the Church a new kind of Christianity that somehow recaptures a long-lost concept central to Jesus and the Church, the Emergent Church’s use of the Kingdom of God as instantiated in the writings of McLaren is in fact fully entrenched in the Protestant liberal theological tradition. More precisely, this thesis will argue that the Kingdom grammar of the Emergent Church movement is continuous with four previous generations of Protestant liberalism, including how it defines the Kingdom of God, who is in, how one gets in, and how it solves for our human problem. In order to understand liberalism’s impact on contemporary evangelical Kingdom grammar, this examination will trace the generational development of liberal Kingdom grammar from Friedrich Schleiermacher to Albrect Ritschl, Walter Rauschenbusch, and Paul Tillich, showing how Emergent’s Kingdom grammar is simply repackaged liberal grammar.
While each of these theologians add their own unique contribution to liberalism’s use of Kingdom, there are several features common to this grammar: it rejects original sin in favor of a social, environmental view of our human problem; Jesus is the moral Son of God, not the metaphysical one; in founding the Kingdom of God, Jesus saves humanity through His life, rather than through His death; the Kingdom of God is concerned with humanistic progress; the Kingdom comes into the here-and-now through the power of loving human action; it is universalistic, in that every act counts as Kingdom acts—in the end everyone wins because love wins; the Kingdom centers on the words, deeds, and suffering of Jesus—His inspiring personality provides humanity the proper example of the universal human ideal; and ultimately, the Kingdom is concerned with bringing the universal human ideal to bear on human existence, empowering individuals and society to reach their fullest human potential and live their best life right now.
Understand, however, that in tracing the generational continuity and development of Kingdom grammar, this examination does not mean to suggest that each of these theologians are somehow mixed in together to produce one unified Kingdom porridge. Not at all. Each theologian provides a unique contribution to liberal Kingdom grammar by nature of their historical context and theological development. Yet, they are remarkably similar in their definitions of our human problem, the One who bore that problem’s solution, and the nature of that solution itself, the Kingdom of God. In so tracing, we will see how such grammar is impacting contemporary evangelicalism, particularly through its progressive Emergent form.
Roger Olson has said that the story of Christian theology is the story of Christian reflection on the nature of salvation, which is why this examination is important. In it, we will see that the theological reflection offered by progressive evangelicals on the nature of salvation is repetitive and cyclical. While the Emergent Church claims to be helping evangelicalism rediscover authentic Christianity by rediscovering the Kingdom, it isn’t. Instead, it has repackaged liberalism for a new day. Like liberal Kingdom grammar, the Emergent Church ultimately urges people to place their faith in the way of Jesus—i.e. the Kingdom of God—rather than the person and work of Jesus, a significant departure from authentic Christianity. Therefore, it is imperative that evangelicals understand the contours of liberal Kingdom grammar in order to understand how such grammar is affecting how some evangelicals are reflecting upon the nature of salvation, and consequently understand, show, and tell the gospel itself.
This was really helpful. Although, I wouldn't want people to throw out Kingdom language.
The problem with "liberal Kingdom grammar", as I see it, is not so much the grammar or the claims.
It's the denials that come with it.
For example,
Sin is not an either or choice between judicial judgement about naughty individual volitional behaviors OR social systemic sin…. We see in Pauline theology a clear deployment of sin as both. Evangelicalism is rightly critiqued for not embracing both AND emphasizing individualistic notions of sin over and against a theology of participation too.
Other things you cited:
Jesus is the moral Son of God, not the metaphysical one; (the problem is in the denial, not the affirmation)
in founding the Kingdom of God, Jesus saves humanity through His life, rather than through His death; (It's both, Paul also states that the resurrection is key to our salvation…not just the atoning death)
the Kingdom of God is concerned with humanistic progress (a casual reading of the OT prophets and Jesus' own appropriation of Kingdom ministry from Isaiah confirms this);
the Kingdom comes into the here-and-now through the power of loving human action; (maybe…but it's only a vanguard action of the Church Militant that bears witness to God's better way and better day that is coming. Loving action is anticipatory of the parousia)
There's strengths to the grammar…the problems are the same as evangelicalism (just the flip side). Saying the these things are "A and only A, and NEVER B" actually sets us up to not listen to valid points from others. Liberal grammar does this. Evangelical neglect does this.
Again, thanks for this article it was really good for me to start my day.
"the problems are the same as evangelicalism (just the flip side)" YES, Nathan. It is interesting how evangelicals emphasize the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ at the expense of His life, as you said Paul definitely emphasized, and don't forget the whole book of Hebrews! And yes sin is personal AND systemic, which again Paul and others reveal.
Glad you found it helpful. Obviously I unpack my points and thesis in the next 90 pages, so it's a little unfair to post the intro without the supporting research, but I think my points still stand and I'll make some more commentary on each of these in the coming weeks.
Hey Jeremy,
Its cool to see this coming out in blog form. Ever since our discussion at Baker I have been waiting for this to go public. Congratulations on getting the final edit out the door.
Though I understand your trajectory and why you would focus on the figures that you focus on, I am still a little hesitant on your final focus being on McLaren. I know he is influential on a popular level. But I see him dwarfed in comparison to the figures that precede him.
Considering this "liberal" strand of Kingdom language, do you see a more moderate strand of Kingdom language occurring also? Specifically I am thinking of figures like Barth and Multmann in systematic theology and maybe Wright and McKnight in biblical studies.
I am also curious of the need for and engagement of the emergent church in general. Again, thinking of the lineage you have proposed, the emergent church seems like such a "minor-league" player in the development. The reason I find very little fruit in the emergent church is not do to its inaccurate theology or unsound beliefs or practices. Rather, it is due to the complete substancelessness of the movement. The emergent church is like "light" Coolwhip, It took an already light and fluffy tradition (nondenominational evangelicalism) and made it less dense. It seems like there are more substantial encounters with postmodernism in Christian circles that are rooted in a specific tradition: Reformed, Anglican/Episcopal, Anglo-Catholic, even Roman Catholicism! These tend to be less "trendy" and more substantial, not just in defense but in rethinking and redefining.
Also, just because I have to defend my leadership, love wins doesn't translate to "everyone wins." "Love wins" functions the same as "God wins." I would love to dialogue more on our disagreement there.
Anyway, those are some thoughts I had as I read. This looks like a worthwhile study and am in anticipation of the forthcoming posts.
G + P
Jazz
Thanks for your congrats! And yes: it was great talking about some of the ideas at Baker.
I totally understand your concern with using McLaren in theological dialogue with the "heavy weights" of the preceding liberals. But because the focus of my work is interested in "doing theology for the Church," it's precisely the popular nature of McLaren and his populist influence that compelled me to use him as the voice of contemporary progressive evangelical Kingdom grammar. This is the same reason I'd give for engaging Emergent in general, given how influential it has been the past 10 years. And the fact that Bell can sell millions of books (I know, he says he's not Emergent…) behoves the Church to engage them and show the continuity between them and other aberrant forms of theology, i.e. theological liberalism.
Now, you make a great point in engaging McKnight and Wright, and Barth and Moltmann. Perhaps I should consider doing that here at n•l…especially considering Emergent has exited it's heyday!
Anyway, good thoughts and challenge. Look forward to engaging you and others in the coming weeks.
PS—Have you read Tillich at all? Or H Richard Niebuhr? Their brand of existential theology is Bell's. Almost to the 'T.' If you haven't read them, I'd think you'd find it fascinating to see the parallels between them and Bell. He even describes God in the same way: the ground of being. (uses this phrase in his companion guide and did in the original GRPress interview…)
Jeremy, you say: "This is the same reason I'd give for engaging Emergent in general, given how influential it has been the past 10 years. And the fact that Bell can sell millions of books (I know, he says he's not Emergent…) behoves the Church to engage them and show the continuity between them and other aberrant forms of theology, i.e. theological liberalism."
But, do you ever feel like you are aiming at a moving target? That's the way it seems to me.
I continue to identify myself with the "evangelical" strand of Christianity in part because this is the strand that is most capable of renewing itself by reference to the sources of the faith. Evangelicals are the ones that most believe that renewal comes through Scripture and through prayer, etc. They expect to hear the Word of God in Scripture. And, they believe that Word will renew the Church. So, ultimately it's not Wesley or Edwards or Calvin or Luther or Augustine who has the final word. We want to know what the Scriptures teach. If our ideas need to change, so be it.
So, the ultimate test of ideas that grow out of the Emergent CoolWhip will be whether they square with the Scriptures — whether they help us tell the story of God's Salvation in Christ for our day —and not whether they line up with Schleiermacher, Tillich or whoever.
One of my teachers in Seminary said this about Rudolf Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament: "it contains some very good insights and some very bad insights." The fact that a Liberal (however defined) says thus-and-so does not make it false. The fact that an Evangelical (however defined) says thus-and-so doesn't make it true. My guess would be that Schleiermacher falls into this category: "he had some very good insights and he had some very bad insights." The fact that he was the Father of Liberal Theology doesn't mean that all his ideas were false, or perverse. The question is always: What helps us to truthfully & authentically tell the story of Christ contained in the Scriptures?
Agreed, Craig. And my evaluation of Schleiermacher et al is not their liberalism, per se. My evaluation of them is their ideas—about sin, Jesus' person, Jesus' work, and salvation. Liberalism is a theological and historical category because there is continuity between their ideas in the same way that Evangelicalism is a theological and historical category. In my estimation what makes Schleiermacher (and his successors, including Emergents) bad isn't because he was the Founder of Liberalism or because he was liberal, but because of what he says about sin, Jesus, salvation, and Kingdom.
Yes it doesn't mean all his ideas were false or perverse. But what he says about sin, Jesus, salvation, and Kingdom are—in my estimation anyway!
" While each of these theologians add their own unique contribution to liberalism’s use of Kingdom, there are several features common to this grammar: it rejects original sin in favor of a social, environmental view of our human problem; Jesus is the moral Son of God, not the metaphysical one; in founding the Kingdom of God, Jesus saves humanity through His life, rather than through His death; the Kingdom of God is concerned with humanistic progress; the Kingdom comes into the here-and-now through the power of loving human action; it is universalistic, in that every act counts as Kingdom acts—in the end everyone wins because love wins; the Kingdom centers on the words, deeds, and suffering of Jesus—His inspiring personality provides humanity the proper example of the universal human ideal; and ultimately, the Kingdom is concerned with bringing the universal human ideal to bear on human existence, empowering individuals and society to reach their fullest human potential and live their best life right now."
I find your above quote interesting…more summed up fear mongering. If your going to talk about McLaren and Bell you should actually quote what they said rather than a half true paraphrase. Also, Bell and McLaren are not biblical scholars there are evangelicals such as Bishop NT Wright, Prof Scot McKnight that have written very recent books " Simply Jesus, How God became King, One:Life ". They write a far more rounded approach.
I suggest we re-think atonement and then look at the Kingdom through that lens. I just finished reading, " The Sacrifice of Jesus;Understanding Biblical Atonement " by Christian Eberhart. I find it interesting that many evangelicals lack the imagination to rethink theology, but will spend far more time digging deeper trenches because of fear. Brian McLaren at least makes us think, and I don't think he wields the influence that you think he does.
Hi Ron. Thanks for your comment. And please understand this is the intro of a 104 page examination with 441 footnotes of supporting research. This paragraph is a summation of that research, so I understand how it could come off as fear-mongering and unsupported half truth paraphrasing.
If I could push-back against your "Bell and McLaren are not biblical scholars": yes, granted, they are—or I guess, have been—pastors. But that doesn't get them off the hook for their ideas, and in fact heightens the necessity to respond given their pastoral influence at the populist level that McKnight and Wright could and will never have. Furthermore, both make theological claims and commentary on the Bible. So whether they are true-blue "biblical scholars" is irrelevant given what they are doing and who they are.
Thanks for the book recommendation! And for the record, I have a holistic view of atonement akin to Scot's which he articulated in A COMMUNITY OF ATONEMENT. Good book and appropriate method for understanding—as much as we can, because I mean, how can we really understand what happened—at the cross. Your recommendation of looking at the Kingdom through the cross is a good one for sure. And I'll tell you from my research that how one views the cross directly impacts how one views the Kingdom, so you're spot on!
Thanks again Ron.
" as much as we can, because I mean, how can we really understand what happened—at the cross. " Amen Jeremy. I think that is the challenge of forming a " Kingdom Theology." So much of Jesus Kingdom teachings and actions were so profoundly parabolic. It's like quantum physics…to analyze it. and freeze the moment…at that point you have lots the profound reality of the whole thing. I would hope we can develop a kingdom theology that is filled with the same passion and redemptive imagination as Jesus did. I have devoted the last ten years to the gospels…it is difficult to miss the gravitational force of the kingdom.
Jeremy,
Where does Ladd's Already/Not Yet Kingdom view come into play? Wouldn't most (non-dispensational) evangelicals (including some emergents) trace at least some of their beliefs and influences about the Kingdom from Ladd?