A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life

A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life
___
I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, –that unless I believed, I should not understand.-- St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Church and Kingdom: A Thought Experiment

Understanding the kingdom of God as God's dynamic, redemptive reign has profound implications for our understanding of the nature of the church. The relationship of the concepts of the kingdom of God and the church is at the heart of unraveling many of the problems associated with church life today. It is also central to a proper understanding of a missiological ecclesiology-- Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 75.

For many years now I have regularly taught the basic theology courses at Ashland Theological Seminary. When I present my material on the church and its relationship to God's kingdom, I have basically affirmed the accepted theological party line-- the church and the kingdom are related, but they are not synonymous; the church is the glimpse, the foretaste of the kingdom.

But over the past couple of years I have begun to wonder if that related but not the same teaching is in fact true. The more I think about ecclesiology from a missional perspective, the more I am beginning to think that church and kingdom are two different ways of speaking of the same reality. And I am wondering if the related but not synonymous view can be sustained when reading the New Testament.

Consider the following (I only mention a few):

1. To speak of the church simply as a glimpse of the kingdom is to place the emphasis on the kingdom's significance in the future, which is not how Jesus speaks of the kingdom as a present reality. To be sure, there is more to come, but the kingdom is now here, which is why Jesus begins his kingdom parables with the words, "The kingdom of God (heaven) is like..." Indeed, for the writers of the New Testament, the last days have been pulled into the present (cf Acts 2:14-21).

What initially triggered my questions on this particular point was reading many treatments of constructive theology in which the primarily present nature of the kingdom was affirmed, but then in dealing with the kingdom's relationship to the church, the same theologians had to affirm the kingdom as primarily a future reality without even realizing the shift they had made.

2. In Jesus, the kingdom of God has introduced a new missional reality where God's redemptive work is on behalf of the whole world, which explains Jesus' ministry to Gentiles and Samaritans. It is that same mission that is realized in the church where there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female (Galatians 3:28; cf. Colossians 3:11). Moreover, while kingdom language is rare in the Pauline corpus, when it is employed it is used in missiological ecclesiological context (cf. Colossians 1:9-14).

3. In Matthew's Gospel the word "church" is employed in redemptive imagery as in Matthew's kingdom language (16:16; 18:17). While Matthew likely puts the word "church" on the lips of Jesus, the key point here is that Jesus' kingdom teachings on redemption and reconciliation are to be seen and embodied in the community of faith.

4. There is no place in the New Testament where kingdom and church are presented as two things that are essentially different, though one can find plenty of overlap as one analyzes the character of each. Christians are at one and the same time citizens of the kingdom and members of the church. I am having trouble finding evidence that the two are presented as fundamentally different realities.

5. Perhaps the most that can be said in reference to difference is that kingdom is primarily, though not exclusively, the language of the New Testament used in reference to Jesus' earthly presence and ministry, and church is the terminology employed of the same reality which experiences the risen Christ through the presence of the Holy Spirit, though not exclusively. Thus, if there is a difference it has to do with how Christ is present with his people, but from a missional ecclesiological point of view, the kingdom is the church and the church is the kingdom; and if the kingdom has yet to come in its fulness, then church has not yet arrived at perfection. Are these two ways of expressing the same reality?

This is a thought experiment and I would like your reflections on the matter? Am I right? Am I wrong? What am I missing?

35 comments:

Bruce said...

I think the things you notice in the scripture are accurate. The problem with seeing the Church as the Kingdom, which I think is the correct understanding, is that the Church is full of people who are not very kingdom like. In short, the church is full of sinners, malcontents and pharisees. If the Church were less human and more Godlike we could easily associate the kingdom with the church. As it is, there is a reluctance to equate the kingdom and the church with each other because of our shortcomings. Does the Roman Catholic Church endure this same seperation of church and kingdom?

PamBG said...

To me, the problem is not in identifying the Mystical Body of Christ (church) with The Kingdom.

The problem is identifying the "institutional church" with The Kingdom. I.e. The United Methodist Church is not the Kingdom. The Episcopal Church USA is not the Kingdom. The Roman Catholic Church (pace Catholic friends) is not the Kingdom. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is not The Kingdom.

I recently heard the idea preached that when people leave our congregation that they are lost to Christ. And when they join our congregation they are in relationship with Christ. No, no, no! And again I say No!

Vayhi said...

@Bruce - which brings us to the question of who exactly is in the kingdom, which leads to questions of free will, and eventually to a discussion on theodicy and predestination/eschatology.

@PamBG True, but, those who are apart from the church are essentially apart from ecclesia. I'm not sure I want to tackle that theologically in a blog post but there are implications to this.


@Allan -- didn't Augustine cover this stuff enough for ya? ;) Hahaha

PamBG said...

@Vayhi True, but, those who are apart from the church are essentially apart from ecclesia.

Is it actually so difficult to comprehend that whilst ecclesia is an important part of discipleship that being part of "my" church or "my" denomination isn't actually vital to God?

What I value about ecclesia is the push-and-pull of working out relationship. Is the learning how to love my neighbor rather than trying to "kill" him in a metaphorical sense (for some people, of course, this metaphor may become literal).

But, from where I sit, the institutional church looks too corrupt and too non-Christian to be an icon of the Kingdom. (I use the word "icon" deliberately, because I'm still trying to understand if this is what you the-church-is-the-kingdom types are talking about?)

Allan R. Bevere said...

Bruce, I think the problem here is the identification of the kingdom as some future state of perfection, but that is not how Jesus presents it. In fact, his parable of the mustard seed and the wheat and the weeds indicates a kingdom that is on the move in this world with the help of it fledgling citizens.

Pam, I agree that kingdom should not be identified solely with a particular denomination or tradition, but I do want to push back a little here because, while I am not about to defend the gross shortcomings of the church, I think to speak of it being too corrupt is going too far. For better or for worse, the church is the vehicle God has chosen to do his work in this world.

Your response?

Could you also define for me what you mean by mystical church, just so I am clear as to what you are saying?

Lara, the problem with Augustine's work on the kingdom is that he is doing it precisely in the shadow of the Constantinian shift trying to work out how the church is the church in the shadow of the empire. Once the church gave its loyalty over to the empire, the new question was how is God working in the church when we know he is working through the emperor.

I reject Augustine's notion of invisible church because it is fashioned in the context of the church's decision to "hop in the sack" with Ceaser-- which in my view was a grave mistake we are all still struggling with.

This may also get to Pam's point. The NT makes clear, I think, that the church on earth, the visible church, is the church. There is no invisible real church on earth that is somehow separate from the church we can see. (The church triumphant which is the church in heaven is something different.) In other words, the real church is the church of potluck dinners and soup kitchens and tense church council meetings. It's God people moving through this world in mustard seed fashion revealing his kingdom in this world. (Pam, what do you think?)

Having said that, the woefully imperfect church that Pam mentions is, I think, the direct result of what happened when the church gave its responsibilities over to the empire (e.g. feeding the poor, and yes, even promoting the gospel). We are a long way from the ancient pagan Pliny's report to the emperor that not only are the Christians feeding their poor, they are feeding the empire's poor as well.

I appreciate these insightful comments. I would enjoy reading more.

Ted M. Gossard said...

Interesting, Allan, and I'm inclined to agree. God's kingdom come in Jesus is now present "in Jesus," that is in his church, the community of God in him, I take it. And I agree that it is as human and down to earth as Jesus himself was, and in a true sense by the Spirit and his Body, still is. Already present, with the not yet tension of so much that is being worked out now, to be completed in the future.

Anonymous said...

NT Wright argues that heaven and earth interlock and overlap already. The kingdom is here right now even if it is not fully here yet.

I'm wary of identifying that kingdom intrusion into the worldly realm as solely the church - unless we start getting particular in our definition of "the church."

Here's a rough stab at a definition: The church is any place - and only places - where the Holy Spirit dwells and the grace of God pours forth.

So, there are lots of kingdom places - true church - that don't have any immediate connection to the institutions the world calls the church. There are also lots of places that are churches in both senses. Or sometimes they are and sometimes they are not.

I think of the letters to the churches in Revelation as an illustration and a contrast with the final chapters of Revelation when the kingdom is fully come.

Vayhi said...

I appreciate all of your comments! It pains me when people consider church corruption a reason to not be a part of a church. Pastorally I am sympathetic but the reality to me is that corruption is the action of a frail and fallen humanity, guilty of sin, not of the church (see how it can become a matter of free will? LOL).

I am curious to do a closer reading of Matthew 16:18+ and its implications in this context. A quick word study suggests that the word "church" (ekklesia) is found only here and in 18:17. It basically means "called out" and was used culturally for the local (Greek) political "assembly". The reference to ekklesia in this passage rests really with the covenant people of God. The power to "bind and loose" is essentially given to the communities of the chosen people, AKA, the church. (Thank you NIB and HCSB as sources.)

Further, if one is part of the wider "church" without worshiping and participating in some kind of church community, then how does one consider who to call "Christian"? Does a simple profession of faith constitute a living faith worthy of eternal life? Does communal worship and caring for and being cared for by a sister or brother in faith (etc) become irrelevant eschatologically?

By the way, I do feel the Lord's prayer, "Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" leaves us with the expectation that the kingdom is here and now, and yet is still coming.

Lastly, I appreciate the effort to define "church" and "kingdom" as we are all coming at this conversation with different expectations and understandings which makes it difficult to engage productively. Thank you all!

PS: Allan, well duh. Thus the winking smilie. LMAO

PamBG said...

I think to speak of it being too corrupt is going too far. For better or for worse, the church is the vehicle God has chosen to do his work in this world.

Your response?

Could you also define for me what you mean by mystical church, just so I am clear as to what you are saying?


To use your terms, the only way that I can describe it is to say that I think most of the institutional church is given over to supporting the values of "the Empire".

The institutional church by and large sees bigger is better, the last are last, the first are first, and good will come because the power of good will use force to smash the power of evil.

In other words, rather than using Jesus' "upside down values" it buys into the values of "the world".

In my book "the mystical church" is that which does not do that. The "mystical church" understands that the first will be last, that force cannot destroy force, and that s/he who holds on to his life will lose it.

"The mystical church", like the Kingdom, is now and not yet. The manifest church could be an icon and a harbinger of the Kingdom and we are called to be that. But by and large we fail.

I'm not advocating giving up on church. But I'm really not at all happy about our self-satisfaction. (You'll have to pardon me, I'm going through a stage. *grin*)

PamBG said...

the real church is the church of potluck dinners and soup kitchens and tense church council meetings. It's God people moving through this world in mustard seed fashion revealing his kingdom in this world. (Pam, what do you think?)

To be honest, I do see your point of view. But I'm bothered by the church's hypocrisy and arrogance.

I'm on board with the potlucks and the council meetings if their ultimate goal is more soup kitchens. But it often seems that church's ultimate goal is to build the numbers of our congregation, to define the walls so we can feel safe about who is outside the pale of God's redemption and to defend ourselves against our own fear.

That wouldn't bother me so much if we didn't also then act as if no one outside the church had anything to teach us about God.

PamBG said...

I appreciate all of your comments! It pains me when people consider church corruption a reason to not be a part of a church.

@Vayhi Let me be clear, I'm hardly advocating not being part of a church. But I've also been pretty tossed around by church.

I have been told things like I'm under the influence of Satan and leading others to hell for thinking that I'm called to preach and teach God's word as a woman. I've been told that I'm going to hell for not believing in six 24-hour day creation. Did I forgive? I think I can say a genuine "yes" even though a memory of the hurt remains. Did I stick with church and struggle with it even when folk made it clear that they didn't want me around? Yes. I went out and found other folk who were happy to have me journey with them.

So, I honestly think I've made allowances for the fact that we are all imperfect. And I really honestly get that these individuals were scared and they probably also had different personality types from me and a whole load of other things. I get that, I really do.

But then we have the audacity to claim that we are better than "the world". And we declare and lecture about how we are the Kingdom and we know better than other folk.

I'll tell you what. If, in the Kingdom, God really doesn't love women as much as men, if God really does discriminate between individuals on the basis of who has the most power, and if God really does intend to bring good through murdering those he does not like, then I genuinely don't want to be in the Kingdom.

But I feel quite certain that God is better than that and that he has given us the capacity to be better than that too.

Allan R. Bevere said...

John, you make some interesting observations I agree with Wright.

One question for you-- Where do you really see kingdom apart from church? It can't simply be where good things are happening. Kingdom has to do intrinsically with the work of the King who brings the kingdom. The vehicle for that work is the church.

What do you think?

Allan R. Bevere said...

Pam, I guess one of the problems I have is this distinction between church and institutional church as if there is a church different from the people who inhabit and embody the structures set up by the ecclesia. I agree that there is no one biblical church structure, and that at times the structure of the church gets in the way-- every UM knows that! :-). I am just not clear on how one disentangles what is referred to as the institution from something that is "real" church.

Even though I get resistance to my so-called "Duke ecclesiology" in which I am suggesting that the church give up the politics of power and coercion and instead embrace the politics of witness, it is discussions like this that solidify my views. If Christians in the West really look and act no different from anyone else, it is primarily because we have abdicated our responsibilities to the powers around us. Why act like a Christian when someone else will do it for you? That's what we pay taxes for, after all (yes, a little sarcasm).

As far as the nonsensical comments you have had to endure from some Christians, all I can say is that every group, even the church, has its loons and wackos, although here again, I want to make a distinction. I have Christian friends who oppose women's ordination on what they believe are biblical grounds, and even though I think they are wrong and we frequently debate it, I do not sense that somehow they are just sexist pigs. They really want to be biblically informed and they are also working within the tradition they find themselves. Of course, I tell them in response that if they truly want to be biblical they will come out in favor of women's ordination.

My point is that not everyone who takes such positions are loons and wackos, although I admit that they do exist. The problem is that its frequently the loons and wackos who have the "guts" (there's actually a better term I can't use) to say something to your face.

Let me say as well that I realize that as a male I do not face some of the issues that my female colleagues in ministry face. It's too bad that they have to spend any kind of time justifying their calling because some people think they have the wrong anatomy to be a pastor.

Unfortunate...

Chuck Tackett said...

excellent dialog - thank you all.

I want to go back to a prior post where you (Allan) were talking about how we in the west get things out of balance because of our reductionist mentality. This whole conversation about kingdom vs church is in my mind an extension of that trap.

Vayhi's point "Does a simple profession of faith constitute a living faith worthy of eternal life?" is, in the affirmative, correct; it is that simple - which I think goes a long way to Pam's frustration when we incorporate all of the Pharisaic dogma that Bruce alludes to. It is that simple but it is also about community.

John's definition "The church is any place - and only places - where the Holy Spirit dwells and the grace of God pours forth." is completely on point. When "Church" is in this spirit, like the community described in Acts, then we get the unworldly result Pam and Allan describe - the living acting church.

Pam's point about our worldly Church underscores the sense of us seeking to maintain control of the situation which is antithetical to kingdom. However, the frustration with this position can be equally worldly because it becomes an excuse to avoid submission of our will to His.

Sometimes we simply think too much and act too little. Jesus is the true action hero.

Thank you again to all.

Bruce said...

Thanks to all who have commented. You have sharpened my views, furthered my education and helped make me a bit more articulate on this subject. There is a struggle to be who we are called out to be. It is the work of spiritual formation.

PamBG said...

Even though I get resistance to my so-called "Duke ecclesiology"

I just want to interject right here that I honestly have no idea what “Duke ecclesiology” is and I still feel like no one has given me a straight answer to that question. Remember I was in the UK for 21 years. And you all seem to assume that this is the normal model of ecclesiology and it doesn’t sound anything I heard in theology college or in the British Methodist Church.

in which I am suggesting that the church give up the politics of power and coercion and instead embrace the politics of witness, it is discussions like this that solidify my views.

It’s funny. I think that we have the same theological views and completely different ideas about the out-working. What I’m calling “the institutional church” (UMC, ELCA, PCUSA, etc.) does not look to me like it’s given up the politics of power and coercion. And when people call them to give up the politics of power and coercion, they get labelled trouble-makers and, if clergy, risk being defrocked.

I agree with you that these institutions and all the people in them should be giving up the politics of power and coercion, but they are not doing that.

If Christians in the West really look and act no different from anyone else, it is primarily because we have abdicated our responsibilities to the powers around us. Why act like a Christian when someone else will do it for you? That's what we pay taxes for, after all (yes, a little sarcasm)

OK. That’s interesting. I’m hearing that “If only the government would back off and not help its citizens then the Christian church would finally become converted and step up into true discipleship”. Is that fair? If so, then my question is why should I believe that’s going to happen when it hasn’t happened yet and there hasn’t been anything to prevent it happening? And why will the lack of government support be a catalyst for conversion?

My point is that not everyone who takes such positions are loons and wackos, although I admit that they do exist.

I completely understand that. I don’t think that these people were loonies and wackos.

But if one is going to take the view that Church must be accepted as being in some ontological sense more on the road to God and righteousness than not-Church, then really ought I not to be taking their objections extremely seriously indeed? Why should I have my own opinions about biblical interpretation and theology when we all agree that they are Church and they say that I am not-Church? There is a point where I have to take my own road and live or die by my own conscience and I’m totally prepared to do that.

My own view of Church is that, as a people, we are as sinful and as fallible as everyone else. Through Scripture and Tradition, we have excellent ideals which we have not yet managed to live out very well. Our ideals are worth striving for and when we have progressed further toward them, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we may have something to teach others.

But we should also be humble and not always assume that those who we define as not-Church are necessarily lost and unrighteous. And we should look for our omnipresent and omnipotent God in “the world” as well as in Church. Otherwise, we are simply a self-congratulation society. (I would venture to say that this is probably well within the mainstream of ecclesiological assumptions in British Methodism.)

Vayhi said...

Thank you all for your thought provoking commentary! It's been a joy to read!

Something that continually pops out at me relates to our theology of conversion (or acceptance if you will) to Christianity. Acceptance and proclamation illustrated by the thief's witness on the cross as one's interpretation of belonging in ekklesia reflects well the Arminian model where God and the human cooperate - the human is elected by God because the human first elected Him. As such, believers must take the responsibility of "grace maintenance" upon themselves; those who fail to do so become lost.

The Calvinist approach would be most different arguing instead for (obviously) predestination, limited atonement and an irresistible grace.

Our conversation makes me ponder questions of evangelism. When someone "comes to Christ", when do they become "christian" and part of ekklesia? When do they become part of the kingdom? If we argue profession, then baptism is irrelevant. If we argue baptism then church becomes necessary. If we argue church participation, then those outside that participation are outside of ekklesia and possibly outside of the kingdom. If we argue "they already are because they are part of God's creation" then evangelism, mission, etc become unnecessary outside the confines of Christian community building. Etc.

Darn those theological ideas having consequences!

@Pam My heart breaks with you in your church experience. My negative experiences with church have at times greatly outweighed the good ones so you will find me deeply sympathetic to your experiences. But, like you, I find a means to place the blame (so to speak) on human frailty and not on the Church. Keep looking "up"!

Allan R. Bevere said...

Pam, "Duke ecclesiology" a name given by its detractors refers to those of us who have been greatly influenced by Stanley Hauerwas' account of the church. In a nutshell it says that the church has its own integrity and is it own community and we lost our way when we decided to become a prop for the state. Our primary polity then is the church and our way of life is the way of the cross. Christians lost the way of the cross when they ended up with a stake in the existence of the state.

So our primary political task is to be the church which bears witness to the world. We exchanged that witness for being in charge.

I am not suggesting that the government back off. I'm for people doing good no matter who they are or what they believe. I am instead suggesting that the church step it up and embody in its life and witness the sacriificial way of the cross and the suffering presence of this world. But our reliance on the power of the state and looking to the power of the state to enforce our views has in reality undermined our witness. This is not only true of the religious right, but the now religious left as well.

PamBG said...

I am instead suggesting that the church step it up and embody in its life and witness the sacriificial way of the cross and the suffering presence of this world.

I'm in complete agreement with you there.

What I thought I heard you saying, though, is that all would do well to assume that, for the most part, the Church has already done this.

Your theology is almost identical to what I recognize in British Methodism. But your outworking is also almost exactly 180 degrees opposite. The majority of British Methodists (I'd venture to say the majority of British Christians) take the view that since God has commanded us to love our neighbor that our civic efforts ought to be directed toward helping "the secular world" to act in a more loving way. (e.g. mutual responsibility for the good of other citizens)

I'm understanding your outworking as "Don't try to influence the government or other non-Christian citizens to love their neighbor. The outworking of loving one's neighbor should only be done by the church and insofar as this work is shared with not-Church, the church is impoverished."

If we argue church participation, then those outside that participation are outside of ekklesia and possibly outside of the kingdom.

Which was, I thought, the point that we were discussing and the point that I was disagreeing with.

@Pam My heart breaks with you in your church experience.

Thank you, and me yours. I was simply trying to illustrate why I'm not sure naive trust in Church as manifesting the Kingdom of God or the Voice of God is advisable.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Pam, I think where my perspective is different from most, is that I think that the way the church is primarily involved politically is bearing witness to the nations what God expects of them by embodying the gospel in our lives, by being the Body of Christ for the world.

That does not necessarily rule out Christians being in nation state politics (though I want Christians involved such a way to be aware such a vocation is a very tricky path to maneuver), but most Christians, at least in the US, think that what it means to be political is hopping into the fray of power and coercion typified in Washington. In my observations, Christians think that legislation (whether it be in reference to abortion or more taxes) is more politically effective than (in Barth's words) the church being the church. If indeed the former is more effective than the latter, then the church has failed and stands under God's judgment.

PamBG said...

IMO, the only way that the church will be a harbinger of the Kingdom is to keep trying to live out Christ's Gospel values.

But, in the meantime, I'm not willing to say - as an example - "Let the have-nots suffer in society because we over here in the Church are still trying to work out how to be holy Christians."

I think my counter example would be "If only Christians took Jesus' pacifism seriously, then there would be no war". To which I expect you'd be fairly likely to reply that this is a nice sentiment that is totally impractical in today's sinful world. :-)

Shalom

Allan R. Bevere said...

I would respond to the issue of war the way Yoder would-- Christians refusing to resort to war would not make war go away, but Christians refuse to resort to such violence because as church that's no longer their world.

PamBG said...

OK, fine.

Then I guess we say "Some of us believe in sharing but we're not actually going to do it. On the other hand, some of us Christians are pretty convinced that God doesn't ask us to share unless we want to. So, we're very sorry, but you're just going to have to keep suffering. But it would be really great if you could affirm our ideals."

????

Allan R. Bevere said...

Pam, I fail to follow the logic of how you are construing my position.

I believe in sharing... so much so that I want the church to be so generous that the nations get the message they are to be generous too.

Steve North said...

First, let me just say what fun it has been to read these posts today! There has been a lot posted that I would like to affirm and/or to which I would have liked to respond. At this point that is quite impractical, so I will just write a few things that have stuck in my mind during the last few hours.

I agree with the initial premise that church and Kingdom of God are different ways of expressing or trying to understand the same reality. Certainly, the idea of both now and not yet is important in the discussion. No one could claim with integrity that the church has been faithful, consistent, or usually very near to a good, accurate reflection of God's Kingdom ideal for us now, nor certainly it's current reality in God's life as community. However, I can say that in my current ministry context I feel like I am more exposed to those realities than I have ever previously been, and it's beautiful.

I think I might say that the Church is the equivalent to the Kingdom of God exactly to the degree that it experiences and reflects the reign of God in and upon it. This reign is not characterized as much by the kinds of images such language conjure up for those of us who have endured or witnessed the kinds of injustices and destruction mentioned in some earlier posts. Instead, it is characterized by the heart of a God who accepts people based upon his desire and mercy, who loves those who are his sworn enemies, who gives himself in unrelenting selflessness and sacrifice, whose resources he distributes with openhandedness and joy, whose own attributes he substitutes for ours which are such meager reflections, etc. And wherever and whenever the Church reflects this kind of Kingdom, the former equals the latter.

I get to see this more and more regularly. When the community (Church) embodies the Gospel (not the reductionist one, but the magnanimous, impossible to box up one)witnesses to the fact are drawn into the same reign of God, often from the shadows of skepticism, disillusionment and church-inflicted pain. And there is such joy there, and freedom, and healing, and redemption, and restoration of what seemed so lost.

I probably sound like a babbling idiot to some; as if I see only through rose-colored glasses that are deceiving me in some way. Make no mistake about it...I don't think it's all perfect, and I am most certainly not. But I know I'm seeing God's Kingdom more and more. It seems like more and more of it is now, and less and less not yet.

I can live with that.

PamBG said...

Pam, I fail to follow the logic of how you are construing my position.

I believe in sharing... so much so that I want the church to be so generous that the nations get the message they are to be generous too


I understand what you believe in and I also fail to see your logic.

You want me, right now this next election, to vote against the government providing a safety net.

And you want me to believe that the Church can and will step in to provide this safety net.

Even though there has been no impediment to doing so before.

Even though many Christians claim that they are under no compunction to help anyone other than those who they personally choose to help.

So you are asking me to vote for people to suffer in the here and now for - dare I say it - pie in the sky by and by.

(FWIW, I don't believe the math adds up on a lot of this. I heard it reported on NCR the other day that private donations account for 3% of the funding for cancer research and the rest comes from the government. That's part of the reason why I think that all citizens need to care for each other.)

Allan R. Bevere said...

"You want me, right now this next election, to vote against the government providing a safety net."

Not true...

PamBG said...

I think I might say that the Church is the equivalent to the Kingdom of God exactly to the degree that it experiences and reflects the reign of God in and upon it. This reign is not characterized as much by the kinds of images such language conjure up for those of us who have endured or witnessed the kinds of injustices and destruction mentioned in some earlier posts. Instead, it is characterized by the heart of a God who accepts people based upon his desire and mercy, who loves those who are his sworn enemies, who gives himself in unrelenting selflessness and sacrifice, whose resources he distributes with openhandedness and joy, whose own attributes he substitutes for ours which are such meager reflections, etc. And wherever and whenever the Church reflects this kind of Kingdom, the former equals the latter.

I LOVE all of this. Especially the openhanded God. That's how I see God: openhanded and extravagant, with resources, time, love, understanding, etc. And I want to give without expecting anything in return; expectations result in bitterness, openhanded giving in joy.

Not true...

OK, well that's what I get from the generic message of "socialism is bad".

If something is intrinsically bad and evil and anti-Christian, I'm gonna want to stop doing it as soon as possible.

My reasoning is that I can still work as a Christian to be generous even if there is a social safety net. But I don't want to leave people up the creek without a paddle.

Allan R. Bevere said...

"So you are asking me to vote for people to suffer in the here and now for - dare I say it - pie in the sky by and by."

Absolutely not true. Once again you are displaying the kind of either or thinking that continues to mischaracterize my position. It's almost as if the church is so incidental and beside the point that anyone who wants to recover the church's integrity as God's nation in this world, must be out of touch with the real world, which is exactly what Reinhold Niebuhr said. The politics and power of the nation state trumps the Sermon on the Mount because it cannot be followed by a church that now has a stake in empire who are no longer poor peasants not running the show. Now that we do run the show, the church has no other choice but to be a prop for the state. If it does not fulfill that subservient role it is irrelevant and sectarian. And the religious left has just as much of a stake in the state as the religious right.

Never mind that such a view of the church by necessity makes it irrelevant. I suppose the NT writers who actually believed that the church was something new and unique and actually founded by the direct intervention of God (Acts 2) were just idealists and naive. Niebuhr understands the church better than Paul and Peter did, which is why Niebuhr hardly talks about the church because his primary community is America.

So we Christians in the 21st century need to just get with the program and dive in to the politics of power and coercion all in the name of alleviating suffering, never mind that such politics causes suffering all its own.

By the way, socialism and capitalism are modern political and economic constructs which are in actuality simply two sides of the same coin.

Allan R. Bevere said...

"My reasoning is that I can still work as a Christian to be generous even if there is a social safety net. But I don't want to leave people up the creek without a paddle."

I agree with you, Pam... But when it comes to church and state, I want the former to be more significant in actuality for Christians than the latter. My issue is that since the fourth century the job descriptions have been reversed.

PamBG said...

Absolutely not true. Once again you are displaying the kind of either or thinking that continues to mischaracterize my position.

Honestly, I'm just trying to understand.

It's almost as if the church is so incidental and beside the point that anyone who wants to recover the church's integrity as God's nation in this world, must be out of touch with the real world, which is exactly what Reinhold Niebuhr said.

I think that the institutional church has made itself "incidental" by not following Christ and by aligning itself with the values of the Empire, yes.

That's not what the church should be.

But at a practical level, I want to know what we do for the "poor" among us besides spout beautiful ideals at them.

DO you think it's OK to keep social programs in place until the church starts acting like Christians? Or DO you think the social programs should be withdrawn? I have no idea because when I ask these practical questions you give me beautiful theoretical philosophy about what the church should be that I already agree with.

Allan R. Bevere said...

I am not against social programs at all. I would not, for example, favor getting rid of Social Security, although I think we need some creative solutions for its future because if we don't start implementing it in a different way, our children and grandchildren will have put money into it and will see little if anything in return. (One of my complaints against government is the almost nonexistent ability to think outside the box.)

I want health care reform. What I oppose is something that will create more problems because there are no cost controls in place, which was what was passed by the Democrats. And, by the way, I am not siding with the Republicans on this. Those clowns had six years (2000-2006) when they controlled both Congress and the White House and could have easily instituted some of the things they said they was important for reform (e.g. portability) but they did nothing. So their whining now finds no sympathy with me.

I also think that a big part of the problem is that many people do have an underlying unspoken utopian view of government. As much as we may find it frustrating, there is no such thing as unlimited resources. We have to be generous and implement our resources in a way that reflects good stewardship. My problem with government is that they do not act as good stewards. They waste resources.

By the way, let me take your point of keeping social programs in place until the church starts acting like Christians. For the sake of argument, if the church starts acting like Christians, I do not think that precludes government social programs. Indeed my point is that I want the church to be so stellar in this regard that the state looks at us and says, "We need to do what they're doing."

Am I dreaming? Many would say so. But I truly do believe that the church is the only nation in human history founded by the work of Christ and enlivened by the Holy Spirit. I do think Paul and Peter were right and Niebuhr was dead wrong.

And while I know I will die with most Christians disagreeing with me, I will continue to beat this drum because I think it is a faithful presentation of NT ecclesiology.

And I am indeed grateful for friends like you who keep pushing back forcing me to continue to work through my position and refine and work some more.

Thanks!

PamBG said...

Allan: Whew, now I finally think I understand and we're not so far off.

Thanks for that and I think I shall retire for the night!

Anonymous said...

I think Pam and Allan's back and forth shows one of the central issues around the Duke ecclesiology - a term I may have coined.

The Anabaptist spirit of it - drawing so strongly from Yoder - always raises questions about how it looks and what it means in a world in which the church is not its own polis set off against the world.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Precisely, John... And I want the church to be its own polis, which most feel is too idealistic.