Register

Log in

 

June 2008
S M T W T F S
    Jul »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

The Church vs. The Kingdom

by Tim Adams ~ June 18th, 2008

When I was in seminary I had a professor who asked this question – “If Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, how did we end up with the Church?”

Of course, there are several ways you could unpack that question – several points of view from which it could be asked and answered. There’s a whole sub-discipline within Historical Theology often referred to as Jesus Studies that deals with those kinds of questions.

Just to set the record straight, let me say that I am thoroughly orthodox in that regard. My Christology is best summed up in the words of Thomas when he saw the resurrected Jesus – “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus is “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”

I do not in any way sympathize with or subscribe to the notion that the Deity of Christ was an invention of the church that came after Jesus and that to understand the true message of Jesus we must peel back the Creeds of the Church in order to get to the “real Jesus.” I’ve read Crossan, Spong, Funk, Mack, Borg and others and have found that I much more prefer the company of John, Paul, Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa.

The issue for me is not one of orthodoxy (right belief); it’s one of orthopraxy (right practice). Which raises the stakes considerably.

If Jesus is who He said He is, if the writers of the New Testament got it right, if the later Creeds of the Church did not invent but rather testify to God’s revelation in Jesus, then we have been charged with a great responsibility in rightly applying, living and following that Truth.

But, when one looks at the history of the Church, in terms of how it has or has not been the Body of Christ, the hands and feet of Jesus in the world, the ongoing incarnation of Jesus for the past 2000 years, you have to admit that we’re not even hitting at the Mendoza Line in terms of the ways we’ve behaved relevant to the message that Jesus preached.

As I’ve tried to understand this dichotomy, I find myself going back to Luke 4:18-19, where Jesus begins his public ministry by reading from Isaiah 61 in the synagogue in Nazareth:

God’s Spirit is on me; he’s chosen me to preach the Message of good news to the poor, Sent me to announce pardon to prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, To set the burdened and battered free, to announce, “This is God’s year to act!” (The Message)

Think about it, Jesus chose as the starting point for His ministry this text from Isaiah, who is encouraging his fellow Jews who have been exiles but now are returning home to rebuild a city that had been destroyed. Isaiah proclaimed a message of spiritual renewal that would translate into bricks and mortar, because in Isaiah’s vision, a spiritually healthy community would be a community living in a secure and productive city.

But standing behind the Isaiah text is yet another one – Leviticus 25. Isaiah tells those returning from exile that this season of renewal the people are about to enter into is the “year when God will set his people free” (Isaiah 61:2 NIRV) – an allusion to the Year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25) when liberty would be proclaimed throughout the land, debts would be forgiven, slaves set free and the prisons emptied.

When Jesus stood before the people of his hometown and read Isaiah’s hope for the Jubilee to become reality, He announced that Isaiah’s hope was standing before them, that He was and is the flesh and blood fulfillment of God’s Jubilee Year.

That changes everything.

So, how did we get to where we are today? How did the tangible, culturally transforming, Spirit-filled Gospel of the Kingdom Jesus proclaimed become the individualized, compartmentalized very nearly Gnosticized concept of personal salvation that is so popular among Evangelicals?

Of course, salvation is personal. But it is also corporate. The Gospel of the Kingdom preached by Jesus is not in conflict the Gospel of Justification by Faith preached by Paul. The cross and resurrection were not events unforeseen by God that caused the Kingdom to be delayed and Jesus’ words to be relegated to some future age.

The Church was not an accident, something invented by Paul - it was simply meant to be the means through which the Kingdom that Jesus announced and over which he is Lord would reach from Jerusalem to Judea then to Samaria and ultimately to every nation and people group around the world.

So, how have we done? How has the Church kept up its responsibility to be the conduit of the Kingdom, to proclaim that the crucifixion has not disabled God’s purpose, that God raised Jesus from the dead, that He has “highly exalted him and given him a name that is above every name” (Philippians 2:9) and that through Jesus there is forgiveness, rebirth, redemption and liberation – for individuals and communities?

If, as my seminary professor suggested, there is a disconnect between the realized Jubilee of the Kingdom of God and the Church, what can be done to repair the breech?

How would the Church have to change in order to become Kingdom oriented?

How would that sort of change in the Church change the world?

Imagine the possibilities.

Dream out loud – at high volume.

2 Responses to The Church vs. The Kingdom

  1. Doug

    Most excellent. I’m going to post a link on a related blog I posted earlier today.

  2. Administrator

    Thanks, Doug - great to hear from you. I’ll be in Austin July 3 - I’ll email you.

Leave a Reply