Comments on: Got him.

By: Jeff Slater

Jeff Slater — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:53:04 +0000

Patrick Mead has an excellent post about this.

Read it HERE.

By: Rex

Rex — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:52:45 +0000

Yes it is a lot to digest. If you want to read a tedious and deep book about the subject, pick up a copy of Jurgen Moltmann’s “Theology of Hope.” The book is very heavy but is wonderful. It does not deal with how realized eschatology should be applied though (i.e. like whether we should be for just-war or pacifism).

Another book which will be much easier to read is “Created for Community” by the late Stanley J. Grenz (who was a Canadian Baptist and taught at Regent College in Canada). The book is an introduction to systematic theology written for undergraduate students and it could easily be read by many people in a church congregation who are not enrolled in a seminary program. The book is an extension of his larger and more academic, one-volume systematic theology titled “Theology for the Community of God.” Though the book discusses all of the major areas of systematic theology, Grenz was thuroughly schooled in the idea of Realized Eschatology, as he studied un Pannenberg. Grenz was what I would describe as a progressive evangelical scholar.

Grenz was one of the first evagelicals to acknowledge that postmodernism, though not without some critical problems itself, offered a needed critique to modernisn which many evangelicals seemed way to confortable with even though modernism itself has some critical problems in light of the Christian faith.

By: A bit to the left

A bit to the left — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:35:35 +0000

Thanks, Rex. That’s a lot to digest, so I’ll have to read it over a few times.

By: Rex

Rex — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:28:43 +0000

You said a “few” sentenses. It all depends on how one defines a few — and you know I am a liberal so…

By: Rex

Rex — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:27:37 +0000

The word which your English Bible translates as “Kingdom” could also be translated as “Reign” or “Rule.” Then scripture speaks of the kingdom of God it is referring to the “Rule” of God. Jesus came preaching that the “Rule/Kingdom” of God had come near. In Jesus’s ministry he demonstrates what life looks like under the rule of God. Sickness is cured, non-discrimatory fellowship between God and man, and, man and man is restored, the powers of evil are overcome by the power of God, etc… The rule/kingdom of God is ultimately demonstrated by the crucifixion and resurrection. Thus the kingdom is “already” present.

However, the realm of the fallen world has not completely disappeared and will not disappear until Jesus comes again and innaugerates (sp?) the new world. Thus the kingdom of God is “not yet.”

This is what theologians refer to as Realized Eschatology. Since the kingdom is “already” present but “not yet” fully realized (and will only be fully realized in the second coming of Jesus), we speak of God’s kingdom/rule as breaking in.

Does that make sense? This “realized eschatology” dates back at least to the mid-20th century to German Theologians like Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg. I am not sure, but I think those who are Pre-Millenial would reject Realized Eschatology (but don’t quote me).

Any ways, because of my understanding of the Kingdom of God and the fact that I believe Christians are to be witnesses to what the inbreaking kingdom looks like… that is why I find the case for non-violent resistance (a form of pacifism) more convincing than just-war violence or nationalistic violence. Although, my systematic theology professor hold the same view as I do on the inbreaking kingdom and he follows the just-war violence ethic. So one can hold a realized eschatology position and fall on either side of the just-war vs. pacifism issue.

Any ways, that is more than a few sentenses but I hope that will help.

By: A bit to the left

A bit to the left — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 20:35:28 +0000

Rex - I’ve noticed “the breaking in of the Kingdom” is the new catch phrase going around in progressive and pacifist circles. But could you explain it in a few sentences? Thanks.

By: Rex

Rex — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 20:31:49 +0000

As Christians, one thing I think we need to keep in mind is a healthy doctrine of humanity and sin. That is to say, that evil is present in every corner of the world. Until the Kingdom of God, which is already breaking in, comes in consumation and bring the final defeat to all the powers of the kingdoms of this world, evil will be with us. With that in mind, whether by non-violent means or by violent coersion, we are fooling ourselves if we ever think our actions will end all the evil and oppression that one man can inflict on another man.

By: A bit to the left

A bit to the left — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:58:54 +0000

Frankly, I’m glad he is gone and good riddance. But I do not think that’s the end. I believe there are too many moving parts to the middle east issue for the demise of this one man or even his whole team to make a huge difference in the long run. I’m reading a book I got for my birthday “The Passionate Nomad” about explorer Freya Stark who was often the first European to travel and map many areas in Iraq, Arabia, Yemen and other places in the middle east in the 1920s and 1930s. Some of the issues as well as some of the British colonial solutions given in the book could be taken from articles about American/coalition policy today.

While I truly hope for a stable government in Iraq, that very thing has been an illusive dream for that region since the 900s. It’s only been under powerful dictators that any semblance or order is maintained and then one group or another (Kurds, Sunni, Shi’a) are persecuted. I don’t have the answer but I worry that the ones we are using have already been tried and failed. We’ll see…