KC (17) Socio-Political Church

This is my final comment on Kingdom Conspiracy by Scot McKnight.

Scot McKnight asks if the Kingdom is different from the church. He concludes that there is no kingdom outside the church.

When we compare present kingdom and present church, or future kingdom and future church, we come out with near-identical identities. This means it is reasonable to say that the kingdom is the church, and the church is the kingdom—that they are the same even if they are not identical. They are the same in that it is the same people under the same King Jesus even if each term— kingdom, church— gives off slightly different suggestions. In particular, “kingdom” emphasizes royalty while “church” emphasizes fellowship. Slight differences aside, the evidence I have presented in this book leads me to the conclusion that we should see the terms as synonyms.

Making the Kingdom synonymous with the Church allows Scot to show that political action for Christian purposes is not kingdom work, because it is an attempt to use the world system of power to achieve God’s purposes, which is impossible.

The danger of approaching the problem in this way is that it pushes the kingdom back into church, when we really need to be pushing the church into being a kingdom. The church needs to become more like a kingdom. A kingdom is a political entity. The Old Testament people of God was a society with a system government. Israel was a political entity.

The New Testament describes the church using political words, like kingdom and citizen. There has been a tendency to tone this down by translation. For example, the Greek word ekklesia is translated as church. This is wrong, because the English word church is a transliteration of the Greek work kuriakos, which means “of the Lord” This word is used for Lord’s supper (1 Cor 11:20) and Lord’s day (Rev 1:10) in the New Testament and later for the Lord’s House.. the word use for the church in the New Testament. Ekklesia is a political word. It is a “gathering of citizens of a town or city called out in a public place”. When Paul was arrested in Ephesus, the town clerk appeared before the ekklesia responsible for the city (Acts 19).

Toning down the political aspects the of word church, turns the church into an NGO (non-government organisation) that operates under the authority of the civil government. This prevents it from being a threat to the political powers.

This is wrong. The church is an alternative society with an alternative government flowing from an alternative political system. It is a threat to political elites, because it will eventually replace them.

Scot seems to gets this.

To say the church is a politic is not to say the church needs to be more political by becoming more active and aggressive in the political process. The kingdom is the people under King Jesus who fellowship with one another and form churches. These churches are the politic of Jesus in this world. That is, a local church embodies— or is designed by God to embody— the kingdom vision of Jesus in such a way that it tells the kingdom story. That is a politic, a witness to the world of a new worship, a new law, a new king, a new social order, a new peace, a new justice, a new economics, and a new way of life.... Christians have failed to embody the church as an alternative politic and have instead opted for influencing and improving Caesar or transforming culture or using the political process to accomplish their wishes.

The church is the politic of Jesus in the world. It must embody a new social order, a new social order a new justice and a new law. Unfortunately does not explain how the church can become an alternative poltic.

Both kingdom an church are socio-political terms. This leads to an important question. How can the church becomes a socio-political reality, without colluding with the existing political powers that are controlled by the spiritual powers of evil? How can the church become more like a kingdom?

KC (16) Creeping Liberation Theology

In the second appendix of Kingdom Conspiracy by Scot McKnight examines the influence of liberation theology on evangelicalism.

I see two major themes among those who want kingdom to be a living theology. Those two themes are, first, a culture-transformation kingdom vision and, second, a social and liberation kingdom vision.

This conversation must begin with the transformation understanding of the kingdom because this view is the heritage of North American (and European) Christian thinking.

The major problem in this approach— often the transformationalist can be found reframing and reducing and reforming the kingdom vision of the Bible to make it fit culture. In the second theme of social liberation, the kingdom gets quickly connected to activism for justice and peace, and therefore it often gets tightly webbed into economic theories that need to be implemented at the political level in order to institutionalize what is perceived to be the “kingdom” vision.

Liberation theology is now growing in corners of North American and European Christianity in unnoticed ways and with implications that are far-reaching, and it is revolutionizing as well what the word “kingdom” means.

Kingdom theology, shaped as it is now by these two major streams of thought— the transformation and liberation approaches— has become a combination of good people doing good things in the public sector and an activistic striving to undo injustices and establish justice against the oppressive systemic forces of, most especially, capitalism and colonialism.

This liberation theology approach to the kingdom focuses on social justice and peace through the liberation of the oppressed, in a variety of contexts. This stream, I think, has overflowed its banks and is flooding the church of the United States with a highly politicized framework for understanding the Christian life. More and more people today perceive the Christian calling to be fundamentally about relief of the poor and release of the oppressed, and this is largely enacted in the public sector where the primary energy is spent on political power and social activism. An increasing number of white evangelicals are in the grip of this vision...

I shall contend that this stream, if it stays within the banks, has much to offer the church and society. But if it runs loose, it floods the other streams, colonizes the kingdom into little more than political action devoid of the gospel of the kingdom itself, and thereby strips the church of its calling in this world.

Liberation theology’s kingdom theology has been embraced by the surging growth of progressive Christians, including blocs and blocs of (often young) evangelicals, and it is now the default definition of kingdom for the majority.

Contemporary kingdom theology tends mostly to be liberation theology articulated by white people on behalf of the oppressed and poor and marginalized, who (by the way) more often than not have themselves moved beyond anything whites have to offer.

Contemporary kingdom theology tends mostly to be liberation theology articulated by white people on behalf of the oppressed and poor and marginalized, who (by the way) more often than not have themselves moved beyond anything whites have to offer. The transformation approach pointed to a biblical reality: the cosmic reign of God. Walter Rauschenbusch represents those who expanded salvation to the social. Liberation theology has made salvation almost entirely social. This is not a slippery slope, nor is it a “give’em an inch and they’ll take a mile.” The social is profoundly important to the Bible’s sense of kingdom, but the social dimension of salvation has become a totalizing force in much kingdom thinking today. Progressive kingdom theology has become too often an emasculated kingdom of those whose theology is framed to make reparations for past injustices. As such it functions as little more than the puppeting echoes of progressive Western liberalism and politics with a thin veneer of soteriology slathered on top of what is little more than a feeble attempt to salve a guilty conscience over a sinful history. Many evangelicals and progressives today are steamed up about their opportunity to change the world and to be significant and to do something important. For all the “good” this movement can do and is doing, I contend that, far more important, it is largely a shame-based movement masking a shallow gospel and an inept grasp of what kingdom means in the Bible. One wonders at times if kingdom theology for many is religious language used to baptize what to most other observers is merely good actions done by decent people for the common good. Is kingdom language, then, the attempt to make something wholly secular somehow sacred?

KC (15) Constantinian Temptation

I thought the best part of Kingdom Conspiracy by Scot McKnight was Appendix 1, where he challenges the what he calls the Constantinian Temptation. Here are some pertinent quotes.

Kingdom theology today faces a Constantinian Temptation, which I call the Constantinian Temptation: the temptation to get the state to combine its powers with the church’s powers to accomplish, institutionalize, and legalize what is perceived to be divine purposes.

He began the process that eventually led to what we call the Holy Roman Empire. That empire, often called Christendom or Constantinianism, 1 combined the church’s beliefs with the state or the state with the church so much so that the state’s power was used to legalize, enforce, and coerce those who threatened the state or the church with disagreement.

The Puritans were a godly Constantinian and Christendom movement.

Let’s name names: both Jim Wallis and Ralph Reed operate on the basis of a Constantinian blending of church and state. Both want Washington, DC, to enact their brand of Christian virtue. Whenever church and state get connected, the word “kingdom” quickly takes on the sense that it is the sociopolitical and church government of a given city, state, or country.

The Christian Left and the Christian Right are doing the same thing— seeking to coerce the public or, more mildly, seeking to influence the public into their viewpoint through political agitation and majority rule.

Christians are advocating for Christian views on the basis of the Bible and Christian tradition and are making use of “secular” logic so it will appeal to the “common good.”

Winning in the Christian influence theory is getting the state to back up the Christian voice. Do we see what this means? It means we give the final authority to the state.

The neo-evangelical revival of the Christian influence theory has come at a severe cost, in part because it is yet another manifestation of Constantinianism.

I remember when it happened in the 1970s and 1980s. Active Christian leaders, like Francis Schaeffer and James Kennedy, joined hands with active Jewish leaders to form what some called a “Judeo-Christian ethic.” This combined ethic created religious, moral, and political power behind a common political aim.

There is no such thing as an ethic that is both “Judeo” and “Christian,” for one simple reason: the “Christian” part of the ethical equation adds Jesus as Messiah, the cross as the paradigm, the resurrection as the power, the Holy Spirit as the transforming agent, the necessity of the new birth, and the church as the place where God is at work. Hence, a “Judeo-Christian ethic” either strips the Christian elements or turns the “Judeo” part into a Christian ethic. What it usually does is secularize the ethic of all involved. Instead of letting each ethic stand in its own separable power, a common denominator is found, which both modifies each ethical system and creates a brand new one. Whether conservative or progressive, it is a political ethic with the veneer of a religious claim in order to create moral force and gather support from those with differing faiths. This, in other words, is a civil religion.

Civil religion works by denying everything unique and distinct to a religion and seeking the common ground of cooperation, all to accomplish a political goal. In the process, proponents and participants in this civil religion alienate the opposing political advocates and turn the Christian (or Jewish, or Mormon, or Catholic, or Baptist) set of beliefs into a political platform. Civil religion, then, surrenders faith to politics and turns the church into a tool of the state. Civil religion denies the cross, the resurrection, and the lordship of Christ over all, and therefore cannot be squared with the gospel.

This “civil religion” emerges in American history in another way, the way of baptizing the nation by using biblical language for our civil hopes, civil unrest, and civil activism.

A most remarkable turn of events accompanied liberation theology: the church was decentralized and the state was centralized. What began with common grace, and was pushed even further into the state by the social gospel, was slowly emerging in the Western world as a progressive belief in the capacity of the state to deliver redemption. Kingdom work became political work. Justice became social justice. Salvation became social and economic and racial and sexual liberation. In short, American liberal progressivism and kingdom were now wedded to one another. The kingdom is peace, justice, economic equality, and equal rights.

This vision of kingdom is essentially social gospel and liberation theology in an American context largely voiced by privileged whites. Its hallmark is benevolence, but benevolence is what the privileged and powerful and wealthy give as a donation to the poor and marginalized as a form of social redemption. One must ask if benevolence is not something more oriented to the privileged than to the actual transformation of society. Benevolence, then, is donation to the poor that promulgates the very injustices it seeks to ameliorate. One has to wonder if at times this kind of benevolence is not better called “reparations.”

The focus of energy in this theory of the kingdom is the political process. Instead of seeing the church as the central place of kingdom expression, public activism for the common good, especially through acquiring votes and establishing public policies, becomes the place where kingdom work gets done best.

KC (14) Doing Good in the World

In Kingdom Conspiracy, Scot McKnight extracts some good stuff about Doing Good from Peter’s first letter.

Peter uses words that by and large are missed by most today. I will quote the verses and italicize the words that reveal what he means by “good deeds.”

. . . or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (1 Pet. 2: 14)

For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. (2: 15)

But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. (2: 20)

. . . like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. (3: 6)
For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (3: 17)

So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good. (4: 19)

The word Peter is using is built on two words, “good” and “doing” (agathopoieo, agathapoios, agathapoiia), and it describes those who are marked by pleasing, good, and noble moral behaviors— kindness, generosity, compassion, obedience, and civic virtues. But there’s more: this term was often used to describe Roman and Greek citizens who acted benevolently in the public sector for the common good.

The final observation from 1 Peter 2: 11– 12 is that good deeds solicit, inherently and unavoidably, the praise of the powers of this world because good deeds are unimpeachable. Peter says they will see your “good deeds” and “glorify God,” and in this Peter sounds like Jesus, who said much the same about being salt and light (Matt. 5: 13– 16). These deeds aren’t done in order to solicit their praise; they are done out of obedience and love, and their inherent goodness is inherently praiseworthy.

Scot claims that doing good in the world is important, but this is not kingdom work.

Peter does not come close to describing benevolence as a kingdom work. Peter saw kingdom as the realm of redemption and the redeemed, not what followers of Jesus did in the public sector.

KC (13) World View of Power

In Kingdom Conspiracy, Scot McKnight writes some good stuff about what he calls a World View of Power.

Another worldview and idolatry (is) at work both in the world of Jesus and in our world: the worldview of power (Chapter 4).

Romans politics is about power and domination and might and force and coercion and sword. The politics of Jesus is about sacrificial love for the other, even if that means death from the sword (Chapter 4).

True power is with God, the three King and Emperor, and Jesus will submit only to that God (Chapter 4).

Power has always been a temptation, and I want to argue that majority rule in America carries with it an empire temptation for many Christian citizens (Chapter 4).

The political left takes one posture on issues, while the political right draws swords from another posture. If we step back we see that each side seeks to impose its view on the minority. This is ruling over the other.

I call this quest for power through the political process the “eschatology of politics”-that is, the belief that if we usher in the right political candidates and the right laws, then kingdom conditions will arrive.

I submit that our eschatology has becomes empire-shaped, Constantinian, and political. And it doesn’t matter to me if it is a right-wing evangelical wringing her fingers in hope that a Republican wins or a left-wing progressive wringer her fingers in hope that a democrat wins. Each has a misguided eschatology. The kingdom story counters the culture of politics as the solution to our problems (Chapter 4).

Politics is a colossal distraction from kingdom mission. Politics entails diminution of our kingdom message, because to speak well in the public forum means we have to turn our gospel-drenched message that focuses on Jesus, the cross, and the resurrection into acceptable, common-denominator language and vision. Instead of talking discipleship and a cruciform life, we talk about values and soak it in the pretentious “Judaeo-Christian ethic”. Politics means seeking to influence the state in the direction of the kingdom, but in so doing, it is asking the public and the state to put into law and policy the kingdom story.

We kingdom people don’t need the state, we don’t need the majority, and we must refrain from equating victory in the world with kingdom mission (Chapter 7).

Amen

KC (12) Back to the Church

In the last three theses of Kingdom Conspiracy, Scot McKnight hitches the kingdom tightly to the church.

Theses 13

Connecting kingdom to church does not “disengage” the Christian. It redefines engagement toward

• an alternative community in the local church;
• a loving community of good deeds, seen in Matthew 5: 13– 16 but especially in the “good works” in 1 Peter (public benevolence) out of love. Christian public actions are, then, the “spillover” of the church’s inner workings. A Christian not engaged in the world in “good works” has failed to live according to the kingdom vision.

Thesis 14

Kingdom mission, then, is local church mission.

• Evangelism
• Worship
• Catechesis: wisdom
• Fellowship: love
• Edification: advocacy
• Discipleship: nurture
• Gifts: Spirit unleashed

Thesis 15

The only place kingdom work is and can be done is in and through the local church when disciples (kingdom citizens, church people) are doing kingdom mission.

These ideas are expanded in the earlier chapters.

Kingdom is people; church is people. A people under King Jesus begins to live into an alternative society that witnesses both to and against the world system.

Kingdom mission cuts deep into our way of living. Instead of seeking to make the world a better place through the political process, kingdom citizens are called to live into the kingdom with one another
What shocked the Jews living in Jerusalem when the earliest kingdom communities formed was that the community became visible. The people became a family (Chapter 7).

Anyone who calls what they are doing “kingdom work” but who does not present Jesus to other or summon others to surrender themselves to King Jesus as Lord and Saviour is simply not doing kingdom mission or kingdom work. They are probably doing good work and doing social justice, but until Jesus is made know, it is not kingdom mission (Chapter 8).

This stuff is good, but it will need a radically transformed church.

KC (11) Moral Fellowship

Thesis 12 of Kingdom Conspiracy says,

Kingdom citizens are a moral fellowship marked by a cruciform life of righteousness and love, and this life permeates every dimension of life, including peace and possessions.

Scot explains the implications of this for politics.

Kingdom mission as church mission means the church is a kingdom fellowship, or a kingdom politic. Both the word “kingdom” and the word “church” come straight from the world of ancient politics (Chapter 7).

Christians have failed to embody the church as an alternative politic and have instead opted for influencing and improving Caesar or transforming culture or using the political process to accomplish their wishes. Americans love politics, as do people all over the world. America is made up of lots of Christians and this means many Christians get riled up in the political process. Many fall for what I called earlier the eschatology of politics, the belief that the next candidate or vote can bring in kingdom conditions…. To be blunt, many who have abandoned the church and opted for the political process are now calling it kingdom work.

People are groping for words that sanctify and justify and legitimate and, if I may use the term, spiritualize good work like building water wells because people want their efforts to have transcendent significance (Chapter 6).

KC (10) Judgment

The 11th thesis of Kingdom Conspiracy focuses on judgement.

Thesis 11

Since kingdom theology believes in a final reckoning and knows the future judgment is God’s, and because kingdom citizens know the reality of injustices, kingdom citizens ache for God’s judgment, the judgment that both ends sin and establishes the kingdom of God.

This is good, but needs greater explanation. I explain how judgment works in articles called Prophetic Events and Nature of Judgment.

KC (9) The World

The nature of the world is the subject of the 10th thesis of Scot McKnight in Kingdom Conspiracy.

Thesis 10

Kingdom and church don’t resolve their relationship until one forms a biblical understanding of the “world.” The New Testament use of this is almost entirely negative. It is what Yoder calls “structured unbelief.” Since Niebuhr, especially, “world” has become “culture,” and in the Reformed wing, then, “culture making” is a Christian activity of preeminent concern. The use of the term “culture” too often puts a mask over the summons of God to redeem people from the world into the kingdom/ church, rather than to improve the world for its own sake.

This is a real danger, so understanding how the scriptures use the word world is really important. Back I the 1970s when I first became a Christian, I read the a book by Watchman Nee called Love Not the World. I think he has fallen out of favour a bit these days, but he had some really good insights. He explains that the world is not just the physical world that can see. It is actually a system of authority that controls the world that we see. This system is controlled by the powers of evil. The world system opposes the Kingdom of God.

While it is true that these three definitions of ‘the world’, as (1) the material earth or universe, (2) the people of the earth, and (3) the things of the earth, each contribute something to the whole picture, it will already by apparent that behind them all is something more. Behind all that is tangible, we meet something intangible, we meet a planned system…

Concerning this system there are two things to be emphasized. First, since the day when Adam opened the door for evil to enter God’s creation, the world order has shown itself to be hostile to God. The world “knew not God” (1 Cor 1:21) “hated” Christ (John 15:18) and “cannot receive” the Spirit of truth (John 14:17) “Its works are evil” (John 7:7) and “friendship of the world is enmity with God” (James 4:4)…. God’s attitude to it is uncompromising.

This is because, secondly, there is a mind behind the system. John writes repeatedly of the “prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). In his Epistle he describes him as “he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4) and matches against him the Spirit of truth who indwells believers. “The whole world” John says, “lieth in the evil one” (1 John 5:19). He is the rebellious kosmogrator, world-ruler—a word which, however, appears only once, used in the plural of his lieutenants, the “world-rulers of the darkness” (Eph 6:12).

There is, then, an ordered system, “the world”, which is governed from behind the scenes by a ruler, Satan….
Scripture thus gives depth to our understanding of the world around us. Indeed, unless we look at the unseen powers behind material things we may readily be deceived (Love Not the World, p.12).

Much of the church has lost this understanding. This is why it slips so easily into culture-making, without understanding the nature of the world and the spiritual powers that control it.

KC (8) Redemption

The 9th thesis of Kingdom Conspiracy focuses on redemption.

Thesis 9

Kingdom citizens are Jesus-redeemed humans, people who have been saved from sin, liberated from cosmic powers, and who are conquering systemic evil through the power of the Spirit. Unredeemed persons are not kingdom citizens, and so only the redeemed can do kingdom work.

The only way to enter the Kingdom of God is to be born again of the Spirit by surrender to Jesus lordship.

When the kingdom is divorced from redemption, it ceases being kingdom and becomes social progressivism, social conservatism, progressive politics, and the betterment of the world and culture (Chapter 9).

Kingdom redemption is the work of God, in a world of cosmic forces that ink the sign of the doomed–to-death on everything, in which God through Jesus in the power of the Spirit liberates people by forgiving their sins from any kind of death-aimed captivity, whether that captivity is physical, spiritual, institutional, or systemic. The power of kingdom redemption is centred in Jesus, his life, his death-absorbing death, and his resurrection. This resurrected Jesus unleashes kingdom redemption in the here and now and through the Spirit (Chapter 9).

Kingdom mission redeems us from all that binds and shackles us to death. Thus, Kingdom redemption is holistic redemption (Chapter 9).

This is good stuff.

KC (7) Character of King

The 8th thesis of Kingdom Conspiracy links the character of the king to the nature of the kingdom.

Thesis 8

The character of a king determines the character of the kingdom. The “character” of Jesus can be seen in the titles used for him— Son of Man, Son of God, and Messiah— titles that evoke the story of one exalted to be King following suffering and death. Thus, the kingdom becomes cruciform by virtue of the character of King Jesus.

This is fairly obvious, so it is not surprising that I said something similar in Kingdom Authority.

The character of the king determines the quality of a kingdom. A good king rules a good kingdom. An evil king produces a bad kingdom. A good king will improve the lives of his people. Jesus preached the good news of a new king, and a new kingdom. A profoundly different king brings a radically better kingdom.

God is a good king, seeking a good kingdom. When he created the world, everything was good, so when his kingdom has been established on the earth, everything will be good again.

The devil is a liar and destroyer, so his kingdom is full of hatred, bitterness, destruction and darkness. He hates God, so he wants to see God’s authority on earth weakened.

The Bible never refers to the devil as a king. He is described as the prince of this world (John 12:31; 16:11), because he has never been a king in full control of a kingdom. He is just a prince seeking to usurp the authority of the true king.

We do not understand how challenging this truth is. Jesus kingdom is totally different from any any other kingdom that has ever existed. In Kingdom Authority, I explain how it will becomes a reality. In my next book called the Government of God, I will give a full description of a Kingdom that fully reflects the character of Jesus, and is not a human imitation.

KC (6) Common Good

Scot McKnights 7th these of Kingdom Conspiracy challenges the objective of making the world a better place.

Thesis 7

Christ came to build the church/ kingdom, not to make the world a better place and not for the “common good.”

This is an important point. A common tendency these days is to advocate political power to achieve the common good. Some link this loosely to Romans 13. Scot does not discuss the “common good” much, but it is a flawed concept. The common good does not exist, and it cannot exist. An action that must be imposed by political power cannot benefit everyone. It will always benefit some people, at the expense of the others, so it is not a common good. Political action is always good for some and bad for others, so it is never a common good. It is always a partial good.

If something were good for everyone, it would not need to be enforced by political power, because everyone would just do.

The concept of common good is used to put a gloss on political power by twisting words.

KC (5) Constantinian Temptation

In chapter 12, Scot McKnight summaries the themes of Kingdom Conspiracy in fifteen theses. Theses 5 and 6 expose the Constantinian Temptation, which is to use state power to impose Christian values.

Thesis 5

The church’s historical temptation is to make “kingdom” public by aligning itself with the state or the powers of culture, often called the Constantinian Temptation. In the United States, both the Moral Majority (or the Christian Coalition) and the Christian progressives have succumbed to Constantine; that is, they are tempted to use the state’s force (even if of the majority) to legalize the Bible’s teachings and its arena to carry out their battles.

Thesis 6

The historical context of much of Christian activism today is rooted in the social gospel, which turned Christians into public advocates for the poor and powerless, and this was often propped up by political or social progressivism’s theory of political action. The social gospel then morphed in the middle of the twentieth century into liberation theology, which turned the Christian toward economic systems at work in the world. In particular, Marxism (or neo-Marxism, or softer forms) shaped much of liberation theology. Then liberation expanded into a message liberating all who are oppressed (women, African Americans, etc.). Most notably, building somewhat on the social gospel, liberation theology decentered the church and made the church an arm of the government’s progressivist aims. It is not unfair to see conservative Christian politics as a conservative liberation theology rather than its opposite. Either way, each side of the culture war has succumbed to Constantine and operates with the mistaken belief that the most important arena of God’s mission in the world is the political sector.

These two theses are the most important in the book. This is the kingdom conspiracy that Scot McKnight is worried about.
I agree with his concern. Collusion between religious and political power is always dangerous. What Scot seems to miss is the destruction of political power is a key message of the Daniel and Revelation.

I explain how the collapse of political power changes the authority situation on earth in Chapter 14 of Kingdom Authority.

Towards the end of the Times of the Gentiles, political power will be expanded and centralised. This concentration of power will further empower the principalities and powers.

The kingdom of man will be unable to deliver on its promises and will eventually collapse.

When the time is right, Christian prophets will also announce God’s judgement of this political empire. Their prophetic words will release the power of the Holy Spirit to destroy human government and political empires throughout the world. Big powerful government will sink like a millstone thrown into the sea, never to be seen again (Rev 18:21). Its destruction will be so horrifying that the people of the world will never trust it again.

When human rulers and empires collapse, the principalities and powers that have amplified their power through them will be shattered. With no place to stand, they will become common evil spirits defeated by the cross. When political leaders lose their power, the spiritual forces will be fragmented and weak.

When human governments stop functioning, a power vacuum will exist. Those who have trusted in democratic government will be desperate for something different and better. With human government crushed by events it could not control, people will be desperate for a saviour who keeps his promises. They will welcome the Kingdom of God.

As human political powers are swept away, authority will return to families and local communities. Political power will be chopped up, pushed down and spread around to people who trust Jesus and walk in the Spirit. The kingdoms of the world will disappear and be replaced by the Kingdom of God (Rev 11:15).

KC (4) Comparing Church and Kingdom

In chapter 12, Scot McKnight summaries the themes of Kingdom Conspiracy in fifteen theses. In the second and third, he notes that many Christians compare the present church and the future kingdom, and concludes that the Kingdom is greater. This is an unfair comparison.

Thesis 3

Kingdom is “eschatological”: both present and future. The kingdom’s future entails a flourishing fellowship of people following final judgment and the establishment of righteousness, and that kingdom sets the tone for kingdom living now. Church is also eschatological: both present and future. The church’s future is also one of a flourishing fellowship forever according to the plan of God in history.

Thesis 4

When comparing kingdom to church, most people make fundamental logical errors. The most common is to compare future kingdom and present church. Kingdom is a both-and, a now and a not yet. The church also is a both-and, a now and not yet. The church, then, is an eschatological reality. To compare kingdom to church, one must compare now-kingdom with now-church and not-yet-kingdom with not-yet-church. When we compare present kingdom and present church, or future kingdom and future church, we come out with near-identical identities. This means it is reasonable to say that the kingdom is the church, and the church is the kingdom—that they are the same even if they are not identical. They are the same in that it is the same people under the same King Jesus even if each term— kingdom, church— gives off slightly different suggestions. In particular, “kingdom” emphasizes royalty while “church” emphasizes fellowship. Slight differences aside, the evidence I have presented in this book leads me to the conclusion that we should see the terms as synonyms.

Scot is right about this. The weakness is that he does not explain how the future church will change enough to make the future kingdom glorious. I describe how this will happen in Kingdom Authority.

KC (3) Geopolitical Kingdom

In chapter 12, Scot McKnight summaries the themes of Kingdom Conspiracy in fifteen theses. In the next few posts, I will list them, and comment on them.

Thesis 1

The word “kingdom” in Judaism (the Old Testament, Josephus, etc.) has a natural synonym in the words “nation” and “Israel,” not the words “redemption” or “salvation.” Thus, kingdom is front and center about a people and cannot be limited either to a social ethic or a redemptive moment.

I agree with this. A Kingdom is a geopolitical reality. It is an area of land and a group of people that is under the authority of a king. Making the Kingdom of God to a spiritual reality, limits it seriously.

Thesis 2

Kingdom is— almost always, with varying degrees of emphasis— a complex of king, rule, people, land, and law. Church is also a complex: a king (Christ), a rule (Christ rules over the body of Christ), a people (the church), a land (expanding Israel into the diaspora), and a law (the law of Christ, life in the Spirit).

I agree with Scot that a kingdom has a king and a law and involves a land and a people. His application of this to the church is a bit limited. Jesus is the King and the people is the Church, no argument about that. He suggests that the new law is summarised in the Sermon on the Mount.

What about the Torah? King Jesus gives the Sermon on the Mount as the Kingdom Torah for kingdom citizens(Chapter 6).

I think this is a weak. In his teachings about economic life, Jesus pointed back to the Torah and showed how it applies in the modern world. I have explained this in Principles for Economic Life.

Scot suggests that the land is the church.

We should see local churches as the land promise… (Chapter 6).

This does not really wash. The fulfilment of the land promise requires location-based churches that establish God’s authority over a neighbourhood or village or area of land. I explain how Churches can operate in a location-based way in the Being Church Where We Live, without imposing authority over other people.

KC (2) Back-Story

Scot McKnight, like many writers who are influenced by post-modernism, emphasises the back-story to the gospel in his new book called Kingdom Conspiracy. He argues that we cannot understand who Jesus is and what he has achieved, unless we understand the context in terms of the history of Israel.

Bible scholars today are searching for the best way to tell the bible’s story (Chapter 3).

He begins by describes the traditional gospel presentation as C-F-R-C. This is true, but not complete, so it creates a distortion.

The C-F-R-C is the story of salvation in the Bible. It goes like this:

• God is the author of Creation (the C) and made all things good…
• Adam and Eve chose to go their own way, sinned against God, did the very things God said not to, and this lead to the fall (the F) of humans into sin.
• Next comes R, which stands for redemption…. Jesus Christ and his redemptive work in his life, death, burial, resurrection, and exaltation on the cross establishes in the here and now a beachhead for the kingdom.
• Redemption will only be completed at the second coming when God will usher in the full kingdom of, called the new heaven and the new earth… This will be the consummation (the final C) of redemption (Chapter 3)...

Scot argues that this story is flawed, because it does not need Israel and the Old Testament

Those who read the Bible solely through the C-F-R-C plot have an annoying propensity to read Genesis 1-3 to get their C and their F in place, but then they skip all the way to Romans 3 or to the crucifixion scenes in the gospels to get their R (Chapter 3).
To make the story first about us, or first about me and my salvation, is to reduce the story and to rob Jesus of the glory of being the central actor (Chapter 3).

Scot proposes a new framing story that he labels A-B-A. It is outlined in the following quotes.

Plan A extends from Adam and Abraham to Samuel. The p period is marked by one major theme: God rules the world through his elected people, but God is the one and only King.

Adam and Eve decide they want to rule “like God” instead of ruling “under God”, which means Adam and Eve are usurpers.

Plan A has four characteristics.

• God alone is King.
• Humans, from Adam and Eve to Abraham, are to rule under God.
• Humans usurp God’s rule.
• God forgives the usurpers and forms a covenant with Abraham (Chapter 3).

Plan B comes in when the Israelites want a human King (1 Sam 8).

• God alone is still King.
• Israel is to rule God’s created world under God.
• Israel wants to usurp God’s rule.
• God accommodates Israel by granting it a human king.
• The story of the Old Testament becomes the story of David.
• God continues to forgive Israel of its sins through the temple system of sacrifice, purity, and forgiveness.

God’s rule was gone, and monarchy had arrived; treaties became vogue.

Plan A takes a divine detour in Plan B, where God accommodates Israel’s selfish desire. During Plan B arises the memory and a hope for the return to Plan A, to God’s rule in Israel with not human king (Chapter 3).

Plan A revised

Under Jesus, Plan A take on a new form. Here are the major elements

• God alone is King
• God is now ruling in King Jesus.
• Israel and the church live under the rule of Kind Jesus.
• Forgiveness is granted through King Jesus, the Saviour.
• The rule of Jesus will be complete in the final kingdom (Chapter 3).

We cannot enter into this story without surrendering. Why? Because if Jesus is the one and only King we must surrender to Jesus as the King. There is no kingdom mission apart from submitting to Jesus as King and calling other so surrender before Kind Jesus.
Kingdom mission means an ever-deepening discipleship (Chapter 3).

Although A-B-A is an improvement over C-F-R-C, I found it a bit clunky. I do not expect it to become popular. There are two main weaknesses.

1. A-B-A hardly mentions the powers of evil. Scot does not seem to understand the effect that evil had on and in the world after Adam and Eve rebelled. He ignores the big authority shift that occurred and how it limited God’s ability to restore the earth.

2. Scot just starts his story with Abraham out of the blue. I think this that he has to do this because he has an evolutionary view of human origins, so Abraham is the first “concrete” person he can hang his hat on, so has to begin with him. He does not have a back-story to explain why God needed Abraham. His story does not explain why God did not do anything for more than a thousand years, and then chose Abraham. He makes it seem like God gradually got tired of being grumpy and decided to forgive humans and have another go with Abraham. This does not really work as a back-story.

My book Kingdom Authority provides a much fuller and complete back-story (history) for the ministry and victory and Jesus. It uses the entire Old Testament and does not start with Abraham. I explain how the rebellion of Adam and Eve brought a huge authority shift that gave the power of evil immense authority on earth. This authority shift severely constrained God’s ability to work on earth.

The Old Testament is the history of how God gradually got back into a position where he could do what he wanted to do on earth. It took a long time because it was a difficult task and very human helped with it. God chose Israel because he needed a place to work and a people to give him authority to work in that place. When he had secured the authority he needed, and everything was in place, He sent Jesus to accomplish another big authority shift that destroyed the spiritual powers of evil. He is now constrained because his people do not understand what was achieved by this big authority shift. Kingdom Authority explains how that hindrance will be broken.

God’s strategy cannot be reduced to four letters. The best I can do is a brief summary.

• Kingdom Authority Gift
  

  Authority on earth given to humans.

• Bad Authority Shift
  

  Human sin gives authority to spiritual powers of evil bringing in a millennium of darkness. Evil gets a place in heaven and God shut out of earth.

• First Authority Shift Back
  

  Enoch, Lamech and Noah work with God to put a constrain on the powers of evil.

• Land and People Authority
  

  Abraham provides God with a people who can give him authority to work on earth. Moses provides a land in which he can work.

• Authority Setback
  

  Kingship perverts authority

• Big Authority Shift
  

  Jesus destroys the authority of the spiritual powers of evil. They lose place in heaven and his followers gain a place in heaven. He gives authority on earth back to humans.

• Last Authority Obstacles removed.
  

  Calling of the Jews and collapse of human government leads to fullness of the kingdom.

• Final Authority Shift
  

  Consummation of all things as Jesus hands all authority back to the Father.

Kingdom Conspiracy (1) Scot mcKnight

I have just read Kingdom Conspiracy by Scot McKnight. Having just published a book on the kingdom called Kingdom Authority, I am interested in what other writers are saying about the topic. I have studied the Kingdom for a long time, but I can always learn something from others.

When I first began writing thirty years ago, no one was interested in the Kingdom of God. Most Christians just saw it as another word for the Church. In the last ten years, all that has changed and “Kingdom” has becomes a favourite adjective among Christians. This is great, but there are dangers as well.

Scot McKnight has two concerns about the interest in the kingdom. He describes these in the first two chapters of the book.

The first has the view that the Kingdom of God is just another expression for heaven and that the gospel is about how sinful people get a ticket to heaven. Kingdom work is evangelism to get people saved and into heaven.

The kingdom has been boiled down to specific redemptive moments, moments when God’s redemptive reign breaks into to save, to restore to reconcile to heal (chapter 2).

Scot has already dealt with this issue in his book the King Jesus Gospel, so he does not focus on it in this book. I agree with his concerns. Jesus came to put right everything that sin and evil put wrong. An escapist gospel that is limited to rescuing Christians from the world is severely truncated.

The second approach that Scot McKnight challenges is the common view that everything done to make the world a better place is “kingdom Work”. He gives a couple of examples to illustrate this shift.

Another pastor told me that on any weekend he wants he can solicit large buckets of money and lots of volunteers if he needs them for “kingdom work” and social activism, for compassion for the poor, for AIDS, and for building water wells in Africa. But, he said to me, “If I ask for money for evangelism, I am lucky if anyone gives a dime”

A missionary wrote this to me recently: Religious work in Africa is very interesting. Almost no missionaries are doing bible teaching, evangelism, discipleship, or church planting. We’re all doing orphanages or trade schools or working with the deaf or HIV/AIDS education, etc. I am puzzled as to why that is our reality”. He did not say it, but I suspect that those missionaries who are doing these good deeds think they are doing “kingdom work” (Chapter 1).

This shift changes the gospel.

Kingdom means good deeds done by good people (Christian or not) in the public sector for the common good.

Boiled down to its central elements, kingdom mission in this approach is working for social justice and peace (Chapter 1).

I agree with Scot on this issue. He argues that in recent decades that a form of liberation theology has moved surreptitiously into mainstream evangelicalism. I presume this is why he writes about a “Kingdom Conspiracy”. The consequence of this shift is that the gospel becomes a political eschatology.

The location of God’s work is in the world. In essence, the church gets replaced by Washington, DC, and the ethic of Jesus is translated into Western liberalism’s noble ideals. Kingdom work, then, is when good people do good deeds in the public sector for the common good (Chapter 1).

This problem infects both the Christian Left and the Christian Right.

The Christian Left and the Christian Right are doing the same thing—seeking to coerce the public or, more mildly, seeking to influence the public into their viewpoint through political agitation and majority rule (Appendix 1).

Scot McKnight makes his point emphatically, by saying that there is no Kingdom outside the church. Many will disagree with him, because it is common to say these days that the kingdom is much bigger than the church. However, there is some truth in what he is saying. If the church consists of all Christians, and only Christians can do Kingdom work, then the Kingdom work must be done by church people. It cannot be done by those who do not belong to Jesus.

I go beyond this in one way. The kingdom is about authority (McKnight does not quite get this). When a person who is not a Christian submits freely to a Christian, either for pay or because the respect their wisdom, the activities that they submit are part of the kingdom, as they are under the authority of Jesus. The Kingdom extends beyond the church in this way, but not very far. I explain this in Kingdom Authority chapter 13.

I got frustrated with this book at times, because it does not seem to go far enough. It is better at identifying problems than providing solutions (I think my book Kingdom Authority is superior in this respect). There are some important spiritual issues that Scot seems to miss out. Nevertheless it is an important book. It challenges some really bad ideas that have taken hold in the Christian world. Many Christians will read it and be pushed into the right direction. I think my book is better, because it gives solutions that will work, but many people will not read it because they will find it a shift too far, so I will be glad if they read Scot’s book and begin the shift.