Yesterday I posted the preface to my newest book launching on Friday, which is my ThM thesis. It’s titled Reimagining the Kingdom: The Generational Development of Liberal Kingdom Grammar from Schleiermacher to McLaren. The book is a historical theological comparison of the major generational voices of theological liberalism and their entire Kingdom grammar, including: Frederick Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, Paul Rauschenbusch, Paul Tillich, and Brian McLaren.

The last time I posted this introduction, some chided me on my choice of McLaren as a current representative liberal voice. They said there are plenty of other actual, more significant theologians that I could have and should have chosen in dialogue with historical liberalism. Perhaps. But the point of my thesis was to show the continuity between one strong, albeit populist, contemporary iteration of theological liberalism, the Emergent Church, and historical theological liberalism á la Schleiermacher, et al. And McLaren is the most widely published and articulate Emergent theologian out there, hence my use of him as a theological dialogue partner with Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Rauschenbusch, and Tillich.

As you’ll see below, this is what I argue in my book: 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….By examining the most prominent Protestant liberals, I will demonstrate a direct link between them and show how they are contributing to the comeback of evangelical Kingdom grammar, as evidenced in Emergent’s Kingdom grammar.

What do I mean by Kingdom grammar? In the general sense, grammar, of course, is the whole system and structure of language. Grammar is also the basic elements of an area of knowledge, such as wine. In our case, Kingdom grammar refers to the basic elements and entire system that makes up our discussion of the Kingdom of God, mainly how we understand the problem for which the Kingdom solves, the One who bore our Kingdom solution, Jesus of Nazareth, and the salvation of the Kingdom itself. In many ways, then, every aspect of systematic theology—anthropology, hamartiology, christology, soteriology, eschatology—plays into our understanding of Kingdom.

Below you’ll find the introduction to this new book that traces the development of the liberal understanding of this grammar and explores the continuity between historical and contemporary understandings of the Kingdom of God. Tomorrow I will post the conclusion, which is a bit cruel because doing so leaves out all of my research and arguments that stem from the intro and are somewhat resolved in the conclusion. I guess that means you’ll just have to buy the book if you’re interested in finding out how Emergent is liberal and how even mainstream evangelicalism is reflecting liberal Kingdom grammar. It’ll be available in print shortly after May 4 and in ebook form for NOOK and Kindle this Friday.

In recent years evangelical Christians have rediscovered the biblical emphasis on the Kingdom of God. They have written books, such as The King Jesus Gospel, ((Scot McKnight, The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011).)) The Secret Message of Jesus, ((Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2006).)) and The Next Christians, ((Gabe Lyons, The Next Christians: The Good News About the End of Christian America (New York: Doubleday, 2010).)) which remind evangelicals that the Kingdom of God lies at the heart of Jesus’ mission. They lead mission trips which seek to do more than merely lead sinners to Jesus; they also want to bring the Kingdom of God to earth. In many ways this rediscovery of the Kingdom is right and beneficial, for its advent is the overarching plot line of the Bible. However, as this book will show, its current use often comes with deleterious baggage as many of its most popular proponents uncritically borrow its grammar from unorthodox historical sources.

The Kingdom of God has not always played such a prominent role in Christian theology, however. 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, especially evangelical 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 renewed interest in the Kingdom, giving it a place of theological prominence. The person most credited with such renewal is the German theologian Friedrich 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 theology in a way it had not before. Schleiermacher’s 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 Albrecht Ritschl. But 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. Ritschl believed Schleiermacher made an important contribution to Christian theology by restoring the Kingdom to a place of importance, but he 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, 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 conversion experience, personal piety, and moral living. Rarely had Kingdom language been employed within evangelicalism. Even when Kingdom was utilized, its primary usage was usually 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 livesas 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 p. 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 thinker within this movement has sought to redirect the focus of twenty-first century evangelicalism more 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); A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004); 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 as 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, as 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 intentionally distorted, missed and disregarded. ((McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus, 3.)) According to McLaren and the rest of the Emergent Church, this message is the Kingdom of God. While many have lauded McLaren’s efforts to recapture Jesus’ secret Kingdom-message, others argue that his and Emergent’s use and description of Kingdomis 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 fully entrenched in the Protestant liberal theological tradition, a link several people have already noted. In his book, Don’t Stop Believing, Michael Wittmer argues that a “postmodern turn toward liberalism is penetrating the evangelical church.” He goes on to say that “an increasing number of postmodern Christians are practicing a liberal method: accommodating the gospel to contemporary culture and expressing greater concern for Christian ethics than its traditional doctrines,” ((Michael E. Wittmer, Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus is Not Enough(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 18.)) including the Kingdom of God. ((See Wittmer, Don’t Stop Believing, 110-115.))

In reviewing one of McLaren’s latest books, A New Kind of Christianity, McKnight notes how this prominent Emergent Church voice “has fallen for an old school of thought,” rehashing the ideas of prominent classic Protestant liberals like Adolf Von Harnack and modern ones like Harvey Cox. ((Scot McKnight, “Review: Brian McLaren’s ‘A New Kind of Christianity,” Christianity Today Online, February 26, 2010, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/march/3.59.html.)) McKnight has registered such a concern in regards to McLaren’s Kingdom definition, as well. ((McKnight, “McLaren Emerging,” www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/september/38.59.html.)) Furthermore, Belcher voices worry over the Emergent Church’s potential pitfall of correlating the Christian faith to culture, which he notes Liberal theology has done for years. ((Belcher, Deep Church, 118.)) Likewise, Belcher worries about what is missing in McLaren’s description of the Kingdom, noting that his definition of the Kingdom reduces the gospel and arguing that if his gospel is nothing more than recycled theological liberalism it must be rejected. ((Belcher, Deep Church, 116.)) While these scholars have noted a connection between Protestant liberalism and the Emergent Church, this book will fully explore and demonstrate such a connection.

More precisely, this book 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 Albrecht Ritschl, Walter Rauschenbusch, and Paul Tillich, concluding that Emergent’s Kingdom grammar is more or less repackaged liberal grammar. By examining the most prominent Protestant liberals, I will demonstrate a direct link between them and show how they are contributing to the comeback of evangelical Kingdom grammar, as evidenced in Emergent’s Kingdom grammar.

While each of these theologians adds his own unique contribution to liberalism’s use of Kingdom, there are several features common to this grammar. This grammar teaches that sin is social and environmental, rather than an inherited nature and guilt; Jesus is the moral, rather than metaphysical, Son of God; in founding the Kingdom of God, it was necessary that Jesus lived but the grammar gives no compelling reason that His death was necessary; the Kingdom of God is concerned with humanity’s progress; the Kingdom comes into the here-and-now through the power of loving human action; it is inclusive, in that every act counts as Kingdom acts; it is universalistic, in that everyone will be saved; 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 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 is 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 his 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 is merely repackaging 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. This is a significant departure from authentic, historic 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 how they understand, show, and tell the gospel itself.

Copyright © 2012 Jeremy Bouma