
Well, what can I say all my papers for the semester are done and handed in, and somehow I am still alive! I am extremely happy, Rebecca and I along with a few friends are going to party tonight in Fallbrook, CA with some friends from church to celebrate everything.
Boy, my papers took an interesting turn. About two weeks ago I decided to drop writing on Friedrich Schliermacher and hermeneutics (because there was too little time to wade through all the scholarship), and instead I decided to write on Brian McLaren's new book Everything Must Change, his view of the kingdom of God and how it is a theological paradigm that has already been tried by a man named Walter Rauschenbusch in early 20th Century America. That's right, despite the claims of seeking to be "a new kind of christian," McLaren, I think largely unknowingly, is doing the very same thing the old social gospel theologians of the early 1900's were doing.
Both theologians, I believe, are more at fault not for what they affirm, but for what they deny. Indeed, both organize their theology around the kingdom of God, and affirm its centrality in Jesus' preaching, which is good and true. However, the question becomes, how do you define the kingdom of God? The Reformed quite simply say that the kingdom of God is the new heavens and the new earth, it is consummated existence, it is the renewed creation. My professor Dr. Steve Baugh drove home the point in my Gospels & Acts course that we must not define the kingdom by what it is today, but we must define it by what it is properly, namely, the consummation or climax of creation.
Where I believe Rauschenbusch and McLaren err, is that in rightly reacting to an "over-eschatologized" view of the kingdom that advocates withdrawal from and indifference towards the world (However, I believe McLaren really strawman's what he calls the "traditional" view of evangelicalism, and sometimes I find him to be less than charitable or accurate), because of the belief that God's kingdom is totally future, McLaren and Rauschenbusch swing to far and postulate a hyper-immanent view of the kingdom that makes it about a political, ethical, social, and economic transformation in this life. There is no "age to come" for the old social gospel nor the new Emergent Village, just a realizing of the kingdom within earthly society as we know it. Remarkably, I found an interesting parallel between Rauschenbusch's appropriation of Friedrich Schliermacher's dogmatics and Albrecht Ritschl's NT scholarship to be somewhat in parallel with Brian McLaren's appropriation of John Franke's theology and N. T. Wright's NT scholarship. What fascinated me (and saddened me) was that I could not find an OT scholar quoted in anything I read by the two! In attempts to get Jesus in his first century context to better understand the kingdom, they seem to ignore the OT background altogether.
Anyway, I just read an article by Tim Keller today that I believe states the problem and the solution quite well in correcting the Emergent view of the kingdom. Keller rightly notes the tension between the already aspect of the kingdom (administered through word and sacrament ministry of the church) and the not-yet of the kingdom. He then states how for the past 50 yrs. Evangelicalism has focused on the individual experience of salvation, the simple gospel that Jesus loves you, died for you, and you are saved by grace through faith. Fair enough, yet McLaren goes on to note the lack of the corporate aspect in this scheme which is what seems to be the Emergent concern. Keller advocates that one way forward is to point out the grand story-arc of scripture as being creation, fall, redemption, and the one that has been de-emphasized, restoration. In the last day, creation will be restored and all things will be reconciled to God (col 1:20). Does this mean universal salvation? NO, it means that every knee shall bow, some will bow in worship, others will bow with nashing of teeth. The point is however, that God is very much going to restore all that is wrong in the world, but contra-McLaren and contra-Rauschenbusch, this is a future reality.
What is the way forward for the Emergent Village? The more I read McLaren the more I pray that he might come to understand the doctrine of common grace. It seems to me that in this over-immanent scheme of the kingdom, the sacred and secular is collapsed, and thus because everything is now sacred, everything must change. Common grace however, holds the sacred and the secular (i.e. the common) as distinct realms. I believe McLaren would find this attractive in that common grace doesn't advocate a world abandonment, but rather a world engagement based on love of neighbor. In addition, it realizes that the kingdom has come really and truly, in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet the kingdom is administered solely in the church, through God's word being heralded and his sacraments being given. As I stated in my paper, if McLaren wants a social revolutionary, then he should write books about Barabbas but not Jesus. Christ made it clear that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), it is of a different kind, a spiritual, heavenly kind that will be consummated on the last day. Hallelujah! What a day it will be!
Happy Weekend,
Austin
P. S. Keller's article is titled "The Gospel in All Its Forms: Like God, the Gospel is both one and more than that," in the newest addition of the leadership journal at www.leadershipjournal.net. I found it very intriguing.