This post is a response to some questions raised by Benjamin Burch on Naznet. His remarks are part of a discussion of Brian McLaren’s recommendation of The Coming of the Son of Man and of the general interest of the emerging church in Preterist, Transmillenialist, or in my case Historical-Contextualist-Realist eschatologies. The contributors are for the most part critical of both the emerging church and theologies that question the standard construal of the so-called ‘second coming’, but the tone is generally thoughtful and constructive. I have been trying to make a response on the Naznet board but so far I have not been authorized to do so and I’m getting bored of waiting. If they ever allow me, I’ll let them know that I’ve posted it here. The quotes are from Benjamin’s comment.

Another Xchange session at the Christian Associates Summer Connect (see also The kingdom of God as a means to an end) attempted to address the relevance (or otherwise) of Trinitarian theology for mission. This was a tough one. The different forms of Trinitarian theology that are available to us – from abstruse classical definitions through to more relational paradigms and the homely distortions of The Shack – are mostly the end-products of a long process of clarification, refinement, consolidation and conceptual translation. They are the outcome of a long-running attempt to resolve what the rational Western mind perceives as an enigma, if not as outright nonsense – that God can be both three and one. They have not been designed for the purpose of informing missional practice.

Some brief, non-analytical but very gratifying comments (let’s be honest) on The Future of the People of God from Joel Willitts at Euangelion, including the following:

Wow! Read that again. And again. Read it several times. Surely wiser words have rarely been spoken in contemporary Pauline studies.

Why is the ‘kingdom of God’ such a tricky theological notion? In a group discussion on ‘Kingdom Theology” at the Christian Associates Global Connect recently we managed to talk for some time about the topic – it’s the core of the gospel, it’s here but it’s still to come, it’s now and it’s not yet, it’s not the same as the church, and so on – before anyone thought to ask what this thing actually is. When Jesus said that the kingdom of God was at hand, what exactly was he referring to?

To be honest, even once the question was asked, people seemed reluctant to venture what might be called a ‘biblical’ answer – that is, an answer that precedes current practice and experience. The instinctive hermeneutic of an organization such as Christian Associates is a very pragmatic one: whatever looks or feels or smells like the work of God gets labelled the ‘kingdom of God’. It’s our missional banner, it’s a rallying cry, our cause, our campaign. Whatever it is exactly, it’s what gets us to our feet.

I gave Andrew Jones a copy of The Future of the People of God at the Christian Associates Global Connect last week and he’s read and reviewed it already. It’s a very fair and perceptive evaluation – the remarks about the brevity of the final chapter are duly noted.

Andrew also notes that Hal Lindsay, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, was an early leader in Christian Associates, and comments: ‘Amazing to see how the next generation approaches eschatological texts from such a different stance and finds it easier to admit that they are not the center of the universe.’ That’s very true, but I think I should point out that Christian Associates is no more committed to my ‘eschatology’ than it is to Hal Lindsay’s – though I’m very grateful that they tolerate my presence.

My friend Hilary has been reading The Future of the People of God and had a question about a paragraph on page 49. Since it has reference to one of the critical arguments of the book – that the parameters of Paul’s theology in the Letter are to be historically defined – I thought perhaps it would be worth responding at some length here rather than on Facebook. Here is Hilary’s question:

…you argue first that belief in the resurrection of Jesus ‘provoked a radical re-evaluation’ of the way in which the Jews understood their faith, but at the end of the same paragraph, you write: ‘Is the resurrection of Jesus a matter of such theological and metaphysical novelty that it rewrites the terms of the whole debate?’ – obviously expecting the answer ‘no’. Surely for Paul more than anyone, the resurrection of Jesus WAS such a novel way of God demonstrating his purposes that the whole debate did have to be rewritten – isn’t that what Romans is?

Brian LePort (Near Emmaus) suggests, not unreasonably, that the more pertinent question is not whether the emergent church has a problem with the doctrine of a final judgment (see previous post) but whether the emergent church still exists. I have to say, I did wonder whether I should add a qualification to the effect that the debate over emerging epistemology, eschatology, etc., now seems rather passé. There was a flurry of obituaries a few months back (eg., Michael Patton) lamenting the death of the emerging church – and my loss of interest or confidence in the Open Source Theology model had a lot to do with a subconscious realization that the spirit of postmodern enquiry driving it had rather fizzled out.

I have no idea really whether brand Emergent still has a viable market presence, and in any case, the perspective from Europe on the emerging phenomenon has always been rather different. In Europe the emerging movement was largely a reaction to the perceived failure and irrelevance of modern churches; in the US it was largely a reaction to the success (and accompanying hubris and complacency) of modern churches.