Photo credit: Eve Anderson
Despite the fact that I made a point out of the believers who had so confidently preached the message of a “Bible-guaranteed” (i.e. Harold Camping-guaranteed) rapture last week, they were on to something: the second coming of Christ is something Christians look forward to experiencing.
That is because the second coming of Christ, which is foretold in the New Testament, promises the full arrival of the kingdom of God. But wait! The Bible describes Jesus as saying:
Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:20-21)
This notion of “now, but not yet” (i.e. that the kingdom of God has come but is still coming) is a tension that, in his book Kingdom Come, Allen Wakabayashi analogizes to getting a pile of presents on Christmas morning as a kid but only being allowed to open two of them. The kingdom of God (“God’s dream society on earth” to borrow the words of Scot McKnight) came with the coming of Jesus (described in the gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) but won’t be fully realized until Jesus comes again – an event awaited eagerly by all Christians because it means restoration for all of God’s people.
So what does this “now, but not yet” tension have to do with Faith Line Protestants?
First, this tension is essential to understanding the message of the kingdom of God that Jesus was preaching. And, to restate my central thesis on FLP for the past several months: the message that Jesus was preaching is the message that we as Christians should be preaching.
Second, this tension confuses us as Christians. It seems like one must choose between (a) preaching to the world its sinfulness and it’s need for repentance or (b) trying to act out of concern for the earthly needs of others through acts of social justice. Rarely does one hear from Christian teachers that these two concepts can be brought together without contradiction. In my experience, it’s typically (a) a fixation with “winning souls” because judgment is coming or (b) a way of living out faith only by serving others without concern for eternity. Neither tells the full message of the gospel.
But the full message is apparent. Indeed, we see that the restoration of an individual soul and the restoration of a broken world are wrapped into a single man (who was both human and divine) through his life, death, and resurrection. In Christ, these two seemingly opposite notions eternal need and earthly need find harmony.
If you’re of the (a) type, you don’t see the benefit of interfaith work because it’s not an activity that embraces your desire to point out everyone’s sin, and if you’re of the (b) type, you might engage the interfaith movement passionately while missing the mission of communicating a message. (Actually, I think this exercise of categorization, although never perfect, can be really helpful in understanding Christian life in a religiously diverse world. It can also be dissected a bit further. That’s a teaser for my next series, where I’ll draw help from Gabe Lyons’ new book The Next Christians.)
If we, as Evangelicals, want to communicate the message of Jesus Christ to the world around us, we must speak – and live – the whole message. The tension of a kingdom that is being realized but is not fully here is the great paradox of the kingdom message. How do you understand the tension of the kingdom? How does it influence the way you live? I’ll wrap up this series the kingdom of God in my next post as I suggest some answers to these questions. In the meantime, we’d love to hear what our readers think.