Everything Will Change, but Must Everything Change Now? February 7, 2008
Brian McLaren says that “everything must change,” and I agree with him. Jesus did come to change everything, and our hope is that Jesus by his Spirit is making everything new. But I have a major, fundamental disagreement with Brian McLaren and the kingdom theology of the emergent church.
I believe that everything will change when Jesus the King returns to consummate his kingdom in the new heavens and new earth. Until then, the Spirit is working to bring about kingdom change, but it will not be complete until the King returns. This is basic “now and not yet” eschatology that was taught by Jesus. On the one hand, the kingdom is here and we are called to participate in kingdom life. On the other hand, the kingdom is not here and our faith is anchored on the future hope of God’s kingdom to come.
What I hear from Brian McLaren and the emergent church, however, is that God’s kingdom is “God’s dreams coming true for this earth, of God’s justice and peace replacing earth’s injustice and harmony” (Everything Must Change, 21). The message of Jesus is not focused on the afterlife, the coming kingdom, but “on personal, social, and global transformation in this life” (Everything Must Change, 22). In short, McLaren focuses on the kingdom now rather than the kingdom to come, exhibiting an over-realized kingdom eschatology. Therefore, he claims that everything must change in this world, whether spiritual, physical, political, environment, or social.
What McLaren is reacting against, however, is an under-realized kingdom eschatology, a widespread belief in many evangelical churches that the kingdom is not yet here, that salvation is about getting into the future kingdom, while God’s present kingdom rule is ignored. The only change is spiritual, and until Jesus returns, not much change is required or expected in social spheres. Unfortunately, in seeking to correct this otherworldly theology, McLaren swung the pendulum to a this-worldly theology. The biblical dialectic is crucial: God’s kingdom is here but not yet here.
So if we believe Jesus came to renew all things, and one day everything will change completely, how much change should we expect and work for now? If war will disappear and peace will reign when the king returns, how much should we work for and expect peace now? If the people of God will be completely satisfied and have all they need when the King returns, how much should we work to satisfy the poor and needy now? These are crucial questions that we need to ask to identify the character of the church’s mission in this now-but-not-yet kingdom age. It is crucial to answer these questions to identify how we should follow the way of Jesus after believing in him, and in doing so, provide a biblical alternative to the over-realized eschatology of McLaren and other Emergents.
OK, I will be even-handed. I have been critical in the past of posts which did not seem to call folks like McClaren into question.
So, thanks for pointing out the errors in his thinking here. Good stand.
“What would things look like if Satan actually took over a city? The first frames in our imaginative slide show probably depict mayhem on a massive scale: Widespread violence, deviant sexualities, pornography in every vending machine, churches closed down and worshipers dragged off to City Hall. Over a half-century ago, Donald Grey Barnhouse, pastor of Philadelphia’s Tenth Presbyterian Church, gave his CBS radio audience a different picture of what it would look like if Satan took control of a town in America. He said that all of the bars and pool halls would be closed, pornography banished, pristine streets and sidewalks would be occupied by tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The kids would answer “Yes, sir,” “No, ma’am,” and the churches would be full on Sunday … where Christ is not preached.”
From Michael S. Horton’s excellent article
Christless Christianity:
Getting in Christ’s Way
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1&var3=main
Wow! What a big question! I bet that at least half of all disagreements among Christians can be traced to 1) a misunderstanding of the biblical teaching about this crucial dialectic, or 2) a misunderstanding of one another’s positions on this dialectic. How much internal dissension and outright conflict could be addressed by clear and regular discussions of this issue and lots of listening?! It seems to me that misunderstandings of one another over this issue is probably one of the primary reasons that so many denominations have been needlessly formed by Christians since the time of Christ’s first coming.
Paula, thanks for posting, and this is good stuff, but could you help me see how it connects to the question about how much and what kind of change we should expect now, fueled by the faith that one day everything will be changed? Thanks…
Wim, I agree that this issue is of utmost importance! I share your desire to have regular discussion and lots of listening in this area. You are also correct to pinpoint this issue as a dividing line for denominations and traditions, since emphasizing one aspect of kingdom eschatology (either now or not yet) has traditionally described either liberalism or evangelicalism. I think the emerging church is reacting to an under-realized kingdom eschatology found within evangelicalism, but in doing so, some branches of the emerging church (like McLaren and Emergent) have pitched their theological tents in the liberal camp. And so the pendulum swings…
I think we all agree that helping the poor and needy is a good thing to do. Where I have a problem is when the gospel message is sacrificed for a social or moral improvement. In many (not all) ministries I have observed where social improvements were key; Christ’s soul saving work on the cross takes a backstage role. I detest this trend. We are in no way furthering the kingdom (present or future) unless we are winning souls for Christ.
Would this be a bad scenario?: If for outreach we all just focused on the gospel message and only on winning souls, and the inreach programs focused on equipping saints to obey God and bear fruit (the greatest of these is love…) and the saints obeyed… wouldn’t we then have the desired result?
I realize this is a leading question and there are various implications which I haven’t addressed. More simply and directly: What are the problems with outreach programs that focus only on winning souls to Christ? … if the local church is fulfilling its responsibilities?
Becky, sacrificing the gospel message for social and moral improvement is actually what I’m worried about with McLaren’s over-realized kingdom theology. This is why I think we need to vigorously defend a “now and not yet” kingdom theology that underlies the holistic gospel message and holistic gospel action. In other words, according to the biblical kingdom dialectic, I do not think “winning souls for Christ” should be separated from “winning lives for Christ,” especially since the Hebrew and Greek word for “soul” is a holistic word that should be understood more like our English word “life.”
I think biblical outreach should be carried out in word and deed, and as I preached last Sunday, the deed aspect of our outreach has incredible missional potential, of displaying the truth, goodness, and beauty of Christ to unbelievers. Indeed, it is often the case that people will not even hear the gospel message if they do not see it lived out by the gospel messengers. I do think some people are called to evangelists, but I believe the church as a whole is required to join God’s mission by speaking and living the truth and way of Jesus.