Question: “Without the church there would be no kingdom, just as without the kingdom there would be no church.” Are both parts of this statement equally defensible?
The question here concerns the relationship between the church and the kingdom. Ecclesiology and eschatology. By no means could we say that articulating the nature of this relationship is an easy task (Dulles,2002,97), nevertheless for headway to be made in this area the conquering of such subjects is necessary. In order to answer the question one is required to investigate the nature of the kingdom, for the whole statement concerned hinges on its definition of ‘βασιλεια’. It is required then to develop a criteria which, if on further investigation is affirmed then both parts of the statement are equally defensible and if negated are not so. What criteria must be met to affirm equal defensibility? We might formulate the criteria as follows,
1. The church and the kingdom are synonymous (Which entails 2.)
Or,
2. The church and the kingdom are equally dependent on each other for their existence
For if the church and kingdom are neither synonymous nor equally dependent on each other, both parts of the statement cannot logically be equally defensible. By no means will it be possible to efficiently cover the wealth of ecclesiological material available to fully discern a precise definition of the church in this essay. For the purpose of this essay the church will be defined in a way that might be termed ‘mere ecclesiology’ and so only concerning a definition of church at its most basic level. The definition of church used in this essay will be that of ‘the community of believers’ or, perhaps more specifically “a communion of holy men and works, in that it submits to sole rule by Jesus Christ” (Barth,1958,141). Where is the best place to start our investigation? It seems logical to take the points of the criteria in turn, discussing the varying evidence in support of equal defensibility and against it.
Opening this discussion one is met with the proposition of synonymy of kingdom and church. This view has been put forward by a number of scholars (Chilton,1996,6-7). Indeed a number of parallels can be drawn between the concept of the church and the concept of the kingdom. The church is a growing entity, as is the kingdom (Lk.13:18-19). Christ is sovereign as he is also the head of the church (Eph.4:15). But this view, despite being a logical possibility encounters difficulty. Indeed, it seems as though the church and kingdom may not be the same entity, but separate. Chilton (1996,7) points out that an entirely ‘distinct vocabulary’ for both entities is used in the New Testament. In judging whether church and kingdom are synonymous we need to identify whether Jesus’ eschatology allows for this conception and what in his context would be the kingdom’s most natural definition.
Theologians like Schweitzer make it quite clear that there is an unmistakable eschatological aspect to the kingdom that transcends the church (Schweitzer,1954,356). This seems clearly implied in John 18:36. We are looking forward to the kingdom as a purely eschatological reality, not synonymous with our concept of the church (Bultmann,1974,37). If this eschatological theory is true, then the grounds for believing that the church and kingdom are synonymous are destroyed. This would be the case if we were to concede to Bultmann (1974,37) in saying that the coming of the kingdom is to occur at the end of this age. The church instead of being one and the same with the kingdom is its forerunner and the proclaimer of its proximity. Thus point one of the criteria cannot be met on this eschatological hypothesis. But is this eschatological view valid? Should we be concluding that the kingdom is futurist in its nature? It seems, on critical reflection of scripture that this view cannot be held. When studying Mt. 12:28, Lk. 17:20 and Lk. 11:20 the meaning of such passages shows that the coming of the kingdom is not a purely future eschatological event but somehow present in Jesus ministry. Indeed, despite numerous attempts to harmonize these passages with this ‘futurist’ eschatological viewpoint none appear convincing (Beasley-Murray,1986,75-80). It is as though in the attempt of harmonization the theologian is bound to push these passages into a mould that was not made for them. This standpoint on the role of the kingdom therefore cannot be a plausible hypothesis in light of scripture. But then is one justified in going too far in the opposite direction and declaring a ‘realised eschatology’ (Lundstrom,1963,105-106). Indeed as with a purely ‘futurist’ view of the kingdom this ‘realised eschatology’ also does away with synonymy as a plausible alternative. How can the church grow, if the kingdom is already fully realised? How is it that the full reign of God is present yet still there are those who do not consent to its presence and rebel against it? If the kingdom is already realised, then the church is under and within the kingdom of God and not the kingdom itself. This view is deficient when attempting to adequately explain the futurist aspects of Jesus’ teaching. We might now be justified in using both the ‘present’ and ‘future’ aspects of kingdom theology in conjunction with each other (Lundstrom,1963,233). If this eschatological tension is affirmed, it seems as though the synonymy of church and kingdom remains a possible option. Not only does the positing of eschatological tension take into account the varying passages of scripture, but it also allows for the idea of kingdom and church in question. This however does not lend much evidence by way of validating the proposition of equal defensibility. Indeed, in saying that the kingdom is synonymous with the church is a possible option we are not concluding that it is consequently a plausible option. If scholars on both sides of the eschatological spectrum agree, or at least imply that church and kingdom are not synonymous, then even if we adopt the eschatological middle ground we have to take into account their judgements on the matter. Judging on their reactions we should be sceptical.
When engaging further in trying to understand the kingdom as synonymous we are again met with difficulties, aside from those of eschatological chronology. In determining the definition of the kingdom in a Christian theology we must understand how Jesus defined it. How was the kingdom conceived in the society in which Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God? Of course, if we accept that Jesus meant church and kingdom were the same entity and that his idea of eschatology allowed for such definitions, synonymy remains a plausible option. But it is not immediately apparent, when placing Jesus in his ‘sitz im leben’ that this definition of kingdom would be natural. In dealing with this issue we have to place Jesus in his first century context. Indeed, in the predominantly Jewish culture in which Jesus worked and ministered, the kingdom was “a means of expressing God’s activity in the world” and “God intervening actively on behalf of his people” (Chilton,1996,10-11). This thoroughly Jewish understanding of the kingdom emphasises what is to be deemed the lordship of creator over creature (Barth,1960,369). If this definition of the kingdom of God is Jesus’ intended definition then it shows that it is more probable that the conception of the kingdom as synonymous with church is false. For how is it possible that God’s intervention on behalf of the people are the people? Perhaps it would be beneficial here to articulate the kingdom as a means of God’s intervention on behalf of his people. For it is clear when God is intervening for Israel in the old testament the kingdom has not come, but it is an event that is yet to occur (Joel.2). It is confusing, for if we define the kingdom purely as God’s intervention on behalf of his people then the kingdom has been active throughout history. But that cannot be the case if the Jews were looking forward to it as an eschatological event. Beasley- Murray (1986,11) clarifies this better than Chilton’s (1996,10-11) more general definition as, “God’s intervention in judgement upon the nations … an end to man’s rebellion… initiating the period of God’s saving sovereignty”. The church however is not to judge the nations and is not the entity that puts an end to man’s rebellion, and as it is understood neither did it initiate the period of God’s saving activity. These belong not to the church but to the person of Christ. The judgement of the world is assigned to Jesus (Acts.10:42) as is an end to man’s rebellion by salvation (Heb.3-4) and so is the initiation of the period of God’s dominion (Lundstrom,1963,233). This justifies us in being inclined to agree with Pannenberg’s theology on the matter, “If the sign and the thing signified are not distinguished … the future hope of Christian faith is compromised” (Karkkainen,2002,117). It is highly implausible therefore, that church and kingdom are one and the same entity and from this the first point in the criteria fails to be met.
Having assessed the evidence for and against point one of the criteria we are now obligated to move on to point two. Point one entails point two but not vice versa. The statement in point two is meant to treat both church and kingdom as separate articles and thus compel us to make a judgement on how they might be connected. In treating church and kingdom as two separate entities how are we to judge their relationship? If equally dependent on each other, we must conclude that equal defensibility of both parts of the statement should be affirmed.
No one would deny that the kingdom and the church are intimately linked. But the matter of being equally dependent on each other for their existence may be a step too far. The problem arises then in asking whether the church warrants the existence of the kingdom? For if the kingdom as an entity is only in existence so that people might inherit it, then if those due for inheritance did not exist the concept of kingdom would be made redundant. But God is king over all. “Lord of heaven and earth” (Acts.17:24). If God is king overall and the church disappeared, God’s kingship would remain intact and therefore so would his kingdom, minus the church. Is it permissible to say that the church is the commander of God’s saving activity in the world? Is God’s will subordinate to the will of the church? If as discussed we adopt the hypothesis that claims the kingdom is God’s saving activity in the world, it seems we would have to deny interdependence between kingdom and church. For the church did not arise by itself, but was dependent on God’s activity in the world for its origin and Christ in the initiation of the Kingdom (Barth,1976,155). The eschatological event and the coming of God’s reign on earth is to be conceived of as breaking through in the ministry of Jesus (Lundstrom,1963,233). The fact that there are temporal moments of God’s saving activity on earth as at conversion indicate that his reign is not fully consummated, but that humans now capable of having that reign bestowed upon them in Christ experience the kingdom in the present (Newbigin,1964,114). And so the church rather than being mutually dependent on the kingdom is subordinate to it. Is that to say that the kingdom and church are not intimately linked? No. For the gift of the spirit “is both a real possession and a foretaste” (Newbigin,1964,115) of the kingdom. The kingdom discloses itself upon the church and manifests itself through the church. The kingdom is given by God (Lundstrom,1963,235)(Moltmann,1978,107). Its existence is dependent on God and not on the church. For the kingdom, as we have seen, is a separate entity. The church inherits, or walks into it. Therefore point two of the criteria fails to be plausibly met. There is a hierarchy of dependence. The church is founded on the kingdom and its presence in the life of Christ.
The statement that, “Without the church there would be no kingdom, just as without the kingdom there would be no church.” must now be measured beside our criteria so as to achieve an accurate conclusion to the question. Are both parts of this statement equally defensible? The criteria, both points one and two, on critical reflection fail to be affirmed. It can be deduced then, that the kingdom is not equivalent to the church (as we have defined it) and neither are they equally dependent on one another, as has been seen so distinctively through their hierarchical relationship. With the negation of these criteria one is therefore not justified in concluding that both parts of the statement are equally defensible. In investigating the relationship of ecclesiology and eschatology the church’s existence is found to be dependent on the kingdom’s existence, which itself is dependent on God. And so, if the kingdom failed to be, then so also would the church fail to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment