Thread: Should we try to create the kingdom of God on earth ? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030085
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
In a discussion about the Fall, Curiosity Killed wrote "The problem with focusing on life after death and the resurrection of all things to come is that it can mean that we ignore any need to create the Kingdom on Earth now."

I flippantly wrote "You say that like it was a bad thing." But I didn't have time to expand on my remark before their discussion had moved in a different direction.

So should we be trying to create the kingdom of God on earth ? I would say no. Firstly because we can't agree about what it would look like. People may agree at the level of using words like justice, peace, love etc but as soon as you try to get to what that would mean in detail, there's no sort of agreement.

Secondly because I can't imagine what anyone thinks would be the mechanism for bringing it about. I assume something is meant more than just individual Christians trying to be good people, as that has always been happening without producing anything resembling the kingdom of God.

But I can't imagine many people in the UK voting for a kingdom of God party. Equally I can't see a justification for imposing it on people if they didn't vote for it. I guess that I am not getting what people mean when they talk about creating the kingdom.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Yes.
 
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :
 
This is what we pray for every time we utter The Lord's Prayer.

"Thy Kingdom come and Thy Will be done, here on earth as it is in Heaven."

ISTM we should at least give it a good faith effort. God's Grace doesn't just fall out of the sky. Nothing gets done except through us. WE are the agents of Grace.

AFF

[ 07. April 2016, 19:01: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
At one end, you have millenarians of various stripes who want to see the millenial future they foresee for the hereafter being implemented in the here and now, in full.

These range from Reconstructionism (a sort of Christian variation of Sharia law) to the Bethel types seeking to implement healing, miracles and so on, believing they form the literal body of Christ to which he will return as the Head once they have got their act together.

At the other end, you have realised millenialists who don't really think in terms of an afterlife at all.

These range from those who see the Kingdom of God in terms of progress in healthcare and social advances and the like, through to full-blown liberation theologians who see the Kingdom of God as a revolutionary political act.

I, of course, hold to the perfectly balanced middle view [Big Grin] which holds that the Kingdom is both now and not yet.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Is this the pre-millenialist/post-millenialist thing?

Is the world working towards the point where Christ can return in glory (because it's finally ready for him); or the point where he has to return in glory (because it's the only way to fix it)?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
It's difficult at the moment to add any comment apart from 'I agree with Moonlitdoor and Eutychus'.

People have done some horrible things to each other in the name of bringing in their version of the kingdom.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
moonlitdoor

Hmmm. You seem to be promoting inertia as the solution to disagreement among Christians...!

Individual Christians as well as groups of Christians who come together because they do share the same doctrines or sense of mission, etc., certainly can and should develop and act upon their own understanding of the Kingdom. Why shouldn't they? In a significant sense, our religion - above all in its Protestant incarnation - is about the individual following the promptings of the Holy Spirit in his or her heart.

Regarding party politics, our values no doubt influence how we vote, but in a liberal democracy there are committed Christians who vote for all parties, no doubt. And those few people in my country who see value in founding a specifically 'Christian' party are at liberty to do so. I presume that the Kingdom of God is not a numbers game.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I have the feeling that the people on both sides of this issue aren't even speaking the same language, so big are their conceptual differences.

[ 07. April 2016, 19:43: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That's probably why Jesus enjoined us to seek the Kingdom...
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
Loving your neighbour as yourself? (Not, BTW, do unto others etc.).

But I've just been told, elsewhere, there my views on this are misplaced here. Silence is golden.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
The Lord's Prayer calls for God's Kingdom to come, not for us to create it. Seeking to create it ourselves to me smacks of hubris, and just generally seems a really bad idea.

[ 07. April 2016, 20:15: Message edited by: Nicolemr ]
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:

So should we be trying to create the kingdom of God on earth ?
Sure we should. By conversion of heart. One soul at a time. When everyone has experienced such conversion, the kingdom will have arrived.

You're perhaps confusing that kingdom that is not of this world with the triumph of one's own political or religious views ?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Why keep Him waiting?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
This is what we pray for every time we utter The Lord's Prayer.

"Thy Kingdom come and Thy Will be done, here on earth as it is in Heaven."

ISTM we should at least give it a good faith effort. God's Grace doesn't just fall out of the sky. Nothing gets done except through us. WE are the agents of Grace.
Well, I have no need to try to formulate a response, since AFF has perfectly done so for me.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
So should we be trying to create the kingdom of God on earth ? I would say no. Firstly because we can't agree about what it would look like. People may agree at the level of using words like justice, peace, love etc but as soon as you try to get to what that would mean in detail, there's no sort of agreement.
Let's turn it the other way around. Should we be trying to make the world more just, more peaceful, and more loving?
Just because we don't agree on what the end goal should look like doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make a start. We might not be able to bring in perfect justice, but we can take on blatant injustices.
Also, just because we don't agree on what justice is in detail doesn't mean we can't debate it.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
(Yes, LeRoc - really talking past each other)

So the Lord's Prayer is irrelevant? Those inconvenient words from Jesus' mouth where he says:
quote:
So you should pray like this:
Our Father in heaven,
may your name be held holy,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven Matthew 6: 9-10
don't mean anything? We really shouldn't be praying for the kingdom of God and God's will be done on earth?
(There's another version in Luke 11: 2-4)

And Teresa of Avila got it wrong when she said:
quote:
“Christ has no body now but yours. No hands, no feet on earth but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses all the world. Yours are the hands, yours are the feet, yours are the eyes, you are his body. Christ has no body now on earth but yours.”
A few years ago, I heard the person who set up something called Nightstop describe how they did it. It's a stop gap system of housing teenagers when they become homeless because often it's a row that can be resolved. She then went on to set up two houses to home young people who were permanently homeless, with support to teach them how to look after themselves. She described praying to God about this need she perceived and God telling her it was her job to do it.

Is she wrong in thinking this is about Kingdom values? And that she should be doing this work?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've said this on these boards before, I think, but the late, great missiologist Lesslie Newbigin once wrote that to attempt to bring Heaven down from above invariably brings Hell up from below ...

He was referring, of course, to attempts to establish some form of Theocracy ... be it in Puritan New England or wherever else.

I would contend that 'thy Kingdom come' doesn't involve trying to enforce some form of 'godly government' of some kind - and for all my disagreements with a certain Anabaptist, I'd share that particular idea with him - but trying by various means and processes to create a more just, loving and considerate society ...

It's a tall order. But I can't see a kind of pietistic withdrawal from the public sphere as holding out any answers either. Not that I'm against monasticism or anything of that kind - base-communities or neo-monastic communities or whatever else ...

But I don't see that we have any option but to try to work towards the kinds of things that A Feminine Force has identified ...

I don't see any way around that.

None of these things operate in a vacuum. The Kingdom requires agents ... we should aspire to become those agents ... in however small a way.
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
AFF and G sum it up for me. It's similar to feeling so overwhelmed by all the pain and need in the world that it is all too easy to bury our heads in the sand or become paralysed with indecision, rather than just getting on with helping the one person you can or doing whatever small thing is possible in your circumstances.

[ 07. April 2016, 21:18: Message edited by: Doone ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The Lord's Prayer calls for God's Kingdom to come, not for us to create it. Seeking to create it ourselves to me smacks of hubris, and just generally seems a really bad idea.
Well, I don't think anyone thinks we can create it on our own. But those of us in the "inaugurated eschatology" camp think we're called to participate in it. NT Wright says we are "practicing in this life for the life that is to come". I think that's what we're saying when we say the Lord's prayer-- we aren't suggesting we have the power to do it, but we're not just passively sitting back and asking Jesus to zap it done either. We are submitting our wills to his, and entering into what he is doing. I think that's what Jesus' prayer in John 17 is all about-- sending us off to be "in the world but not of the world"-- to be proclaiming and demonstrating the coming Kingdom.
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
It's interesting that I was discussing this very subject with my best friend's son, a United Methodist (USA) minister, earlier today. In that e-conversation, I said that America cannot be both a theocracy and democracy. That was proved as soon as the first generation of New England Puritans and Pilgrims began dying off. The Half-Way Covenant of 1662 was the Massachusetts Bay Colony's first concession to the nascent secularization of American culture.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
It's interesting that I was discussing this very subject with my best friend's son, a United Methodist (USA) minister, earlier today. In that e-conversation, I said that America cannot be both a theocracy and democracy. That was proved as soon as the first generation of New England Puritans and Pilgrims began dying off. The Half-Way Covenant of 1662 was the Massachusetts Bay Colony's first concession to the nascent secularization of American culture.
I would agree, but don't think that's really what "participating in the Kingdom means"-- although I admit a bunch of my co-evangelicals have attempted to do precisely that. I would agree with Gamaliel:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've said this on these boards before, I think, but the late, great missiologist Lesslie Newbigin once wrote that to attempt to bring Heaven down from above invariably brings Hell up from below ...

He was referring, of course, to attempts to establish some form of Theocracy ... be it in Puritan New England or wherever else.

I would contend that 'thy Kingdom come' doesn't involve trying to enforce some form of 'godly government' of some kind - and for all my disagreements with a certain Anabaptist, I'd share that particular idea with him - but trying by various means and processes to create a more just, loving and considerate society ...

It's a tall order. But I can't see a kind of pietistic withdrawal from the public sphere as holding out any answers either. Not that I'm against monasticism or anything of that kind - base-communities or neo-monastic communities or whatever else ...

But I don't see that we have any option but to try to work towards the kinds of things that A Feminine Force has identified ...

I don't see any way around that.

None of these things operate in a vacuum. The Kingdom requires agents ... we should aspire to become those agents ... in however small a way.
The real problem with trying to enforce a theocracy in American or anywhere else is that it gets the "ways" of the Kingdom all wrong. The "weapons of the Spirit" are not coercion, manipulation, and force-- whether violent or legislative. The ways of the Kingdom are prayer, non-violence, demonstrating love and compassion. We cannot demonstrate the Kingdom by acting in a way that is contrary to the Kingdom-- something we've seen by (again, my co-evangelicals) insisting they "love gays" all the while doing some pretty unloving things. We can only demonstrate the Kingdom by acting like the Kingdom-- and trusting God's Spirit to work in and thru that even if it seems counter-intuitive.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The Lord's Prayer calls for God's Kingdom to come, not for us to create it. Seeking to create it ourselves to me smacks of hubris, and just generally seems a really bad idea.
This reminds me of a movie I saw in which a bunch of people are arguing about whether to evangelize/do missions. The basic idea was that it was hubris to do God's job for him. God is perfectly capable of calling the heathens to himself.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
quote:
This reminds me of a movie I saw in which a bunch of people are arguing about whether to evangelize/do missions. The basic idea was that it was hubris to do God's job for him. God is perfectly capable of calling the heathens to himself.
I would agree with this, personally.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The Lord's Prayer calls for God's Kingdom to come, not for us to create it. Seeking to create it ourselves to me smacks of hubris, and just generally seems a really bad idea.
This reminds me of a movie I saw in which a bunch of people are arguing about whether to evangelize/do missions. The basic idea was that it was hubris to do God's job for him. God is perfectly capable of calling the heathens to himself.
So Matt. 28:19, Acts 1:9-- just kidding?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
We are God's arms and legs and mouths and ears and eyes and stuff on earth. It's pretty blatant in the New Testament that we are limbs ("members" originally meant "body parts" not "participants in a group"). God is not in the habit of doing by magic things that we should be doing by the sweat of our brows or the coin of our realm. We are how God acts in the world.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I'd need to ask the Kerygmaniacs, but I don't think that "Thy will be done" means "Do Thy Thou will Thyself". To me, it very much carries the implication "Thy will be done … by us".
 
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The Lord's Prayer calls for God's Kingdom to come, not for us to create it. Seeking to create it ourselves to me smacks of hubris, and just generally seems a really bad idea.
Experiments in utopian theories of society have a history of ending badly for reasons you state here.

So what does it mean to try to create the Kingdom here on earth?

For the only answer that doesn't seek to impose on others my idea of the Kingdom, I refer to the sayings gospel of Thomas - (GTh 3) -

quote:

"If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."


For me personally, I take it to be true that the Kingdom is already here, but for the beam in my eye, I can't see it.

For me personally, to create the Kingdom here on earth means to remove every last obstacle within me (sin) that prevents me from experiencing what it feels like to be a child of the Living Father.

ISTM that there's not much point in inhabiting the Kingdom if I can't feel what that feels like. And I think it's a worthwhile endeavor to labour towards that every day - every hour a little closer to feeling that way of being within. "To see Thee more clearly, love Thee more dearly, follow Thee more nearly day by day".

I hope if I finally get there, then I will meet others in a similar place, and then I hope it will be a truly free association of individuals in full submission to the Christ.

AFF
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Curiosity killed ...: (Yes, LeRoc - really talking past each other)
It almost appears to me that when some people hear the phrase "create the Kingdom of God on Earth", they see people with red flags burning down cities. I'm exaggerating a bit here, but this came as a bit of a surprise to me. I think it will be difficult to have a conversation when there is such a large conceptual gap.

FWIW, I don't normally use the term "create the Kingdom of God on Earth"; I prefer to phrase it as "making God's Kingdom more visible on Earth." I'm not sure if that makes a difference.


(PS I'm still rooting for the guys with the red flags of course [Smile] )
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
FWIW, I don't normally use the term "create the Kingdom of God on Earth"; I prefer to phrase it as "making God's Kingdom more visible on Earth." I'm not sure if that makes a difference.
To me it does. While I largely agree with all that AFF, Gamaliel, mousethief and others have said, I'm not quite comfortable with the word "create." I'm not sure it even fits when we're talking about the kingdom (reign/realm/whatever) of God. But to the degree it does, God creates it, though we are indeed invited to participate.

I tend to think in terms of "heralding" or "announcing" the Kingdom, "exhibiting" the Kingdom, or as you say making the Kingdom more visible on Earth. I am reminded from a line from the liturgy that always resonates with me—"As this bread is Christ's body for us, send us out to be the body of Christ in the world." That, I think, is making the Kingdom of God more visible.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Secondly because I can't imagine what anyone thinks would be the mechanism for bringing it about. I assume something is meant more than just individual Christians trying to be good people, as that has always been happening without producing anything resembling the kingdom of God.
I do think that this is the issue. What would the mechanism be for bringing this about?

My view is that the mechanism is the most obvious and intuitive one, and that it is proceeding exactly as expected, despite the appearance.

Most people think that the solutions to the world's problems are to be found in long term world-wide advances in knowledge, technology, education, science, economics and understanding, and the resulting modifications of our behavior, interactions, and impact on the planet.

I think that this is it exactly.

The part that people miss, I think, is that whereas Christians often assume that this process involves abandoning religion, the opposite may actually be the case. Christians assume this because this is the way that things have gone in the West. But this is not necessarily the way that things will go world-wide. The evidence is actually that from a global perspective Christianity is growing faster than ever.

So the key to creating the kingdom of God on earth, or the key to the way that God is creating His kingdom on earth, is the explosive expansion of knowledge and understanding - and this includes an informed, literate, and sophisticated comprehension of Christianity.

The point is that nothing is of greater importance to society's long term development, and the creation of the kingdom of God on earth, than knowing what the truth is.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
How about, We ARE the Kingdom of God on earth. Let's act like it in how we treat each other, all people, and the planet.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How about, We ARE the Kingdom of God on earth. Let's act like it in how we treat each other, all people, and the planet.
That would never work. [Two face]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How about, We ARE the Kingdom of God on earth. Let's act like it in how we treat each other, all people, and the planet.
I think there's a bit more-- when we act like it (fwiw, I like the term "participate in") demonstrating the reality of the Kingdom, we are part of expanding the Kingdom-- taking back territory from the enemy-- i.e. abolishing slavery, child abuse, war, hatred, etc.

I think this is what Jesus is getting at in Matt. 16:18 when he says:
quote:
on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Secondly because I can't imagine what anyone thinks would be the mechanism for bringing it about. I assume something is meant more than just individual Christians trying to be good people, as that has always been happening without producing anything resembling the kingdom of God.
I do think that this is the issue. What would the mechanism be for bringing this about?
Loving God. Loving neighbor as self. Feeding the poor. Clothing the naked. Comforting the sick. Loving our enemies. Returning no one evil for evil.

Seems like that's a start.

I do think that's more simply than "trying to live as good people." It's being the Body of Christ in the world.

It seems to me that some are getting hung up on the idea that the Kingdom of God is some sort of political arrangement. That, I think, is a distortion of what Jesus was saying—in fact, I think it's the opposite of what he was saying.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How about, We ARE the Kingdom of God on earth. Let's act like it in how we treat each other, all people, and the planet.
Yes!
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How about, We ARE the Kingdom of God on earth. Let's act like it in how we treat each other, all people, and the planet.
Amen. Now what?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I think we can pray that we may be enabled to nudge the world in ther direction of kingdom values but we live in the in between times so the world will not be perfect until the eschaton.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Secondly because I can't imagine what anyone thinks would be the mechanism for bringing it about. I assume something is meant more than just individual Christians trying to be good people, as that has always been happening without producing anything resembling the kingdom of God.
I do think that this is the issue. What would the mechanism be for bringing this about?
Loving God. Loving neighbor as self. Feeding the poor. Clothing the naked. Comforting the sick. Loving our enemies. Returning no one evil for evil.

Seems like that's a start.

I do think that's more simply than "trying to live as good people." It's being the Body of Christ in the world.

It seems to me that some are getting hung up on the idea that the Kingdom of God is some sort of political arrangement. That, I think, is a distortion of what Jesus was saying—in fact, I think it's the opposite of what he was saying.
Agree with all of the above, with the exception of the last para-- I think the Kingdom of God is political. I think it is breaking down political systems of violence, oppression and marginalization (which of course are not limited to any single political party or system). But, again, the weapons of the Spirit are not the weapons of this world. So we don't demonstrate the Kingdom of God in the political realm through manipulation and coercion-- e.g. legislating morality. We demonstrate the Kingdom of God thru the means of the Kingdom. See para 1.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I am going to go with Tommy Douglas on this (editted by me, not actually a formal quotation, but preserves the meaning of what he said in an interview in the 1950s):

quote:
... when I moved a resolution along this line [about poverty], I was attacked by a minister of a very prominent city church, who said in all seriousness that the Bible told us that the poor we will always have with us and that God had made two classes of people, the rich and the poor. He made the rich so that they would learn the lesson of benevolence and charity. He made the poor so they would learn the lesson of gratitude, and that we were interfering with the will of God when we tried to abolish poverty. To me, this was sheer blasphemy.... my idea of the Kingdom is that there is righteousness and justice for every person in it. Every person in the Kingdom has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In this Kingdom we are members of one another, and the strong must help to carry the burdens of the weak. I'm not a fit member of the Kingdom if someone else is undergoing misery or carrying burdens and I don't attempt to help that person.
He was a Baptist minister who became the socialist premier of Saskatchewan (brought medicare modelled on the NHS, nationalized house and auto insurance, electric, phone, natural gas systems, various other industries). Very much social gospel. Something that is really lost today. -- I am also dismayed that his party lost the Saskatchewan election on April 4th, but also pleased that it won in Alberta a few months ago.

I hold that the loss of the social gospel and the rise of the greed gospel is the reason we could even have questions like that posed in this topic's title.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How about, We ARE the Kingdom of God on earth. Let's act like it in how we treat each other, all people, and the planet.
Amen. Now what?
Although I can't argue with urging Christians to act like it, I don't think that is how it will happen. That is, I don't have much of an expectation that Christians will finally wise up and act like Christians.

Instead, I think that there is a process going on. The wheels are grinding away, and nothing any of us do can stop it. It involves everyone on earth, and the long term, painstaking process of cultural change in response to the assimilation of information.

If we Christians change our ways and "be the change" that we wish for our planet, all the better. But I think the driver - which is the continuing explosion of knowledge, with all that this implies - will move forward regardless.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
(Not because of anything, but I just imagined standing in front of the mirror in the morning and saying: "I'm the socialist premier of Saskatchewan". Seriously, that must be cool.)
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The Lord's Prayer calls for God's Kingdom to come, not for us to create it. Seeking to create it ourselves to me smacks of hubris, and just generally seems a really bad idea.
I guess it's partly a question of whether to put a period or a comma between "Thy Kingdom come" and "Thy Will be done." The manuscripts aren't helpful in this regard.

Human attempts at theocracy having a pretty poor track record historically, my sense is that we should seek God's kingdom, look for signs of it in our world, and participate in bringing aspects of it into the world around us. But its absolute fulfillment is in the eschatological future. That's the most we can realistically hope for. In the meantime we seek to embody Kingdom values.

[ 08. April 2016, 17:32: Message edited by: Al Eluia ]
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

And Teresa of Avila got it wrong when she said:
quote:
“Christ has no body now but yours. No hands, no feet on earth but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses all the world. Yours are the hands, yours are the feet, yours are the eyes, you are his body. Christ has no body now on earth but yours.”
Just a pedantic point, but Teresa never actually said that (or at least there is no evidence that she said it).
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
quote:

It almost appears to me that when some people hear the phrase "create the Kingdom of God on Earth", they see people with red flags burning down cities.
Whatever our conceptual differences are, I certainly wasn't thinking about people burning down cities, with or without flags. I must be a bit slow on the uptake as I am not sure what the flags mean in this reference. Is it red communist flags ? If so, I wasn't thinking about people of any particular political persuasion either.

Let me start with the Lord's prayer as people wondered what I make of that. If I think about what it means for God's will to be done on earth as in heaven, I suppose that in heaven God's will is readily understood, and that it is acted on because it's God's will, not just coincidentally.

On earth we find it difficult to know God's will, we have other motivations which are often at least as strong, and many people don't believe in God so for them the question of doing his will is moot, though of course they would sometimes do it for other reasons.

So I find it hard to see how it could be on earth as it is in heaven except by a supernatural act. For that reason I always tentatively interpreted that part of the Lord's prayer as being about the second coming of Christ.

Of course though things on earth could be better than they are, so if the question is only whether we should try to make things better rather than worse, according to our own understanding of what would be better, then certainly I agree.

But I would not be likely to call that building the kingdom of God, both because I think it overstates what can be hoped for, and because it encourages us to overestimate the probability that God's will coincides with our own understanding of what would be better.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Clearly, if we could agree on what the Kingdom of God on earth would look like, we could work towards it. Christians, notoriously, do not agree on any such thing, except in the largest and loosest generalities. Peace on earth, yeah, but the moment we try to deal with, oh, Jerusalem, or immigrants, it all falls apart.
We cannot sing from the same page. And so harmony is impossible.
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Clearly, if we could agree on what the Kingdom of God on earth would look like, we could work towards it. Christians, notoriously, do not agree on any such thing, except in the largest and loosest generalities. Peace on earth, yeah, but the moment we try to deal with, oh, Jerusalem, or immigrants, it all falls apart.
We cannot sing from the same page. And so harmony is impossible.
Yes, the nub of the problem [Tear]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I think we can pray that we may be enabled to nudge the world in ther direction of kingdom values but we live in the in between times so the world will not be perfect until the eschaton.
leo. When will that be?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doone:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Clearly, if we could agree on what the Kingdom of God on earth would look like, we could work towards it. Christians, notoriously, do not agree on any such thing, except in the largest and loosest generalities. Peace on earth, yeah, but the moment we try to deal with, oh, Jerusalem, or immigrants, it all falls apart.
We cannot sing from the same page. And so harmony is impossible.
Yes, the nub of the problem [Tear]
Well CAN we bomb SCIS or NOT?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
So what does it mean to try to create the Kingdom here on earth?
I think the clue is in the Lord's Prayer itself where it say, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." We can only assist the coming of the kingdom by doing His will, which is to love one another. This also serves as a reminder of just how Jewish is the Lord's Prayer. The idea of personal salvation was quite meaningless in Jesus' culture. All we can ever do is seek to do God's will in the present moment. That is our part in bringing His kingdom to earth.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agree with all of the above, with the exception of the last para-- I think the Kingdom of God is political. I think it is breaking down political systems of violence, oppression and marginalization (which of course are not limited to any single political party or system). But, again, the weapons of the Spirit are not the weapons of this world. So we don't demonstrate the Kingdom of God in the political realm through manipulation and coercion-- e.g. legislating morality. We demonstrate the Kingdom of God thru the means of the Kingdom. See para 1.
Yes, that was what I was thinking when I said "political arrangement"—trying to create a political entity that seeks to impose a Kingdom of God through legislation, etc. A theocracy of some kind, in other words. But I definitely agree that participating in the Kingdom has political implications.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
Jesus is himself the basileia, come in the flesh.

We extend that kingdom to others through acts of disinterested love, when we do good for others without the expectation of getting something back. An act as small as going without a caramel frappucino from Starbucks in order to get an indigent person some food has profound consequences.

Working for social reform and the like is fine, but it doesn't bring the kingdom of God any nearer.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
moonlitdoor: On earth we find it difficult to know God's will, we have other motivations which are often at least as strong, and many people don't believe in God so for them the question of doing his will is moot, though of course they would sometimes do it for other reasons.
Is it difficult to know what God wants from us? I guess that in some ways it is, in some ways it isn't. Trying to figure out what He wants with the world as a whole leads us rather quickly into politics, and I agree that this is can be a minefield (this doesn't mean we should avoid it though).

And yes, what God wants from us as individuals may also often be opaque. On the other hand, it can also be quite simple. One way in which I've seen it summarised is: don't be a dick. That's a good start. Think about someone else instead of yourself sometimes. Difficult to put in practice perhaps, but not always that hard to figure out.

quote:
moonlitdoor: So I find it hard to see how it could be on earth as it is in heaven except by a supernatural act.
But it is hard. I don't see everyone on Earth putting suddenly their egoism aside. Heck, if I'm honest I don't even see myself doing it that often, except perhaps in some occasions.

And yet, I choose to believe that we humans can transcend ourselves sometimes. That in rare moments we can put ourselves aside a bit. And if you believe that this is supernatural, I'm happy to assume that in those occasions the Holy Spirit is involved somewhere.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
moonlitdoor: So I find it hard to see how it could be on earth as it is in heaven except by a supernatural act.
But it is hard. I don't see everyone on Earth putting suddenly their egoism aside.
I don't think there is anything sudden about it.

There are and always have been places on earth where people are peaceful, honest, cooperative and kind. I don't think that it is too much to expect that the secrets of that phenomenon will someday be widespread.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Is this the pre-millenialist/post-millenialist thing?

Is the world working towards the point where Christ can return in glory (because it's finally ready for him); or the point where he has to return in glory (because it's the only way to fix it)?
It really looks as if Garusu (and Eutychus, but Garusu was snappier) hit this one on the head right at the beginning. The differences between millennialism and premillennialism and the gulf of belief between those two positions seems to be why we are talking past each other now.

When I used that quotation of "creating the Kingdom of God on earth", I was suggesting that another logical outworking of a linear arc of narrative from creation, fall, prophets various, Jesus, restoration to the kingdom in the life to come was premillenialism.

I believe that we are mandated to care for the least of our brothers and that we should be working towards that Kingdom of God on earth now. This is probably more to do with being "an agnostic on life after death"†, leading to millennialism because there is no point waiting for a second coming after death to put things right. That really doesn't mean that I am envisaging a theocracy, but a slow outworking towards that kingdom.

(Eutychus, I did look at ideas for starting a thread on life after death, and got sidetracked into recent research.)
† Alan Cresswell phrased it this way first.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This is probably more to do with being "an agnostic on life after death"†, leading to millennialism because there is no point waiting for a second coming after death to put things right.
I think you're absolutely right that this is a watershed in belief and its outworkings, but not so sure of your terminology or the declensions.

"Premillenialism", popular among some evangelicals, refers to a belief in a literal or figurative thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, after his return but before a final confrontation and the eschaton.

You can believe in a hereafter without adhering to that particular brand of eschatology. Specifically, "amillenialists" (of which I am one) believe that the "thousand-year reign" of Christ is that of the entire church age, but that doesn't stop me also believing in a final end and a hereafter.

I understand "millenarianism" to refer to those, not necessarily pre-millenialists, who see the end-time reign of Christ being consummated in terrestrial form. This can express itself in various ways, but the end result is that the pursuit of Kingdom of God is seen as a withdrawal from the normal world around us, opposed to that Kingdom.

Firmly realised millenialists, on the other hand, would work not towards withdrawal, but engagement: seeking the "Kingdom of God on earth now", but expressed in purely human(istic?) terms (rights, health, social issues), not supernatural ones.

I (and I think quite a few evangelicals) take a middle path between these two views, the "now" and the "not yet", or as Jean Darnall called it, "life in the overlap".

In my case, this results in me seeking to extend what I see as Kingdom of God values in this life by engaging, not withdrawing ("Christianity as counter-culture"), but also looking forward to (rather than trying to instigate) a fuller expression of the Kingdom that I believe will only be possible when Christ makes all things new and there will be no more crying, mourning, pain, or death.

[ 09. April 2016, 08:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I am definitely not sure of my terminology [Big Grin] , (I have to read around in the background to participate on these threads, which is why I don't play much) but yes, that initial comment was trying to express the differences in belief.

There are definite mandates in the Bible that are telling us to work towards Kingdom values - caring for the least of our brothers being but just one. In addition there are enough ambiguous passages about the nature of heaven, the kingdom of God and the end of times to allow different interpretations. Death is not something we have people coming back from to tell us about*

I find it fascinating that something I understood as fairly mainstream and used as a shorthand for an outworking of faith is not as accepted as I thought it would be on the Ship.

* there's been some recent research in cardiac arrest departments that's fascinating on this one, but it's not definitive.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Freddy: There are and always have been places on earth where people are peaceful, honest, cooperative and kind. I don't think that it is too much to expect that the secrets of that phenomenon will someday be widespread.
I hope so.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
tangent/

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I find it fascinating that something I understood as fairly mainstream and used as a shorthand for an outworking of faith is not as accepted as I thought it would be on the Ship.
Finding out that the Ship as a whole doesn't see things the way I thought it would is a source of fascination surpassed only by the fascination of having one's assumptions constructively challenged here.

Long may it sail.

/tangent
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Death is not something we have people coming back from to tell us about*
* there's been some recent research in cardiac arrest departments that's fascinating on this one, but it's not definitive.
People have claimed to come back, so the question is whether there is any reason to see these claims as credible. In this context the word "definitive" has little meaning.

As one who believes that the Last Judgment and Second Coming have already occurred, I think that it is easy to misunderstand what is happening as far as the creation of the kingdom of God is concerned.

Swedenborg writes:
quote:
The inhabitants of heaven marvel that even though people in the church see so many numbers in the book of Revelation, which cannot but symbolize properties, still they cling to the conjectures of chiliasts and millenarians, and in so doing impress upon themselves vain ideas regarding the final period of the church. (Apocalypse Revealed 842)
According to this, the numbers in Revelation describe the properties of the kingdom of God, and the process of its creation. It is not, therefore, something that we wait for, but something that we can observe being developed around us. We can take part in that development or not as we choose.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I think we can pray that we may be enabled to nudge the world in ther direction of kingdom values but we live in the in between times so the world will not be perfect until the eschaton.
leo. When will that be?
Not even the Son of Man knows the time.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Freddy: There are and always have been places on earth where people are peaceful, honest, cooperative and kind. I don't think that it is too much to expect that the secrets of that phenomenon will someday be widespread.
I hope so.
And so say all of us.
If that doesn't define the creating of God's Kingdom on earth then it's difficult to know what does.

It also has to a be acknowledged that Secularism has probably done more to advance this cause than the unfortunate bigatory which invariably seems to arise from the world's major and established Religions.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It also has to a be acknowledged that Secularism has probably done more to advance this cause than the unfortunate bigatory which invariably seems to arise from the world's major and established Religions.
I love the explanation as to why this does seem to be the case that is given in the book "The Better Angels of our Nature" by Steven Pinker.

This same process is described by Max Weber as the "rationalization" of society.

The premise is that as knowledge and technology move forward, many things get better simply by virtue of the fact that societies become organized around something resembling rational principles. Enforced laws and accurate information increasingly replace lawlessness and unfounded speculation.

While this is a secularizing process, since it requires the primacy of secular government over religious government, it does not necessarily preclude religion.

So I agree that secularism has in many ways done more to advance the goals of the kingdom of God than religion has.

The catch is that secularism only advances these goals to the extent that they coincide with secular goals. Equity and justice are important to both secular and religious people. But the worship of God and sexual morality clearly have less value in a secular society than in a religious one.

In that respect secularism cannot create the kingdom of God in the long run. But in many ways it does seem to move the process forward. [Angel]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The catch is that secularism only advances these goals to the extent that they coincide with secular goals. Equity and justice are important to both secular and religious people. But the worship of God and sexual morality clearly have less value in a secular society than in a religious one.

In that respect secularism cannot create the kingdom of God in the long run.
Indeed. Nothing against equity and justice here, but high up on my "Kingdom of God" values list are:I don't see much call for any of those by secular society.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I feel that you're setting up a number of false dichotomies here.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Good post [Smile]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
(Among many other things the Bible says on the subject that may draw different pictures), the Bible says the kingdom of God is at hand. Where is your hand? Right here right now.

Maybe the problem is the K of G is right here right now but we are looking the wrong directions and don't see it. Which doesn't answer the question of how to see it and how to respond to it in the midst of this mixed up world.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't see much call for any of those by secular society.
I'm not sure whether there are false dichotomies there or not, but I think this is a great list.

I think that they are among a good number of important things that are missing in a secular society.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
If Jesus suggested some ways in which we could treat each other, I doubt it was His intent for us to use them to compare ourselves with 'seculars', concluding that we're better. In fact, that kind of defies Eutychus' second bullet point.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If Jesus suggested some ways in which we could treat each other, I doubt it was His intent for us to use them to compare ourselves with 'seculars', concluding that we're better. In fact, that kind of defies Eutychus' second bullet point.
I have no idea what false dichotomies you saw (hence my helpful response [Biased] ), but this I can attempt to answer.

I don't see these so much as comparisons, rather as indicators of something completely counter to human nature and instinct.

I don't see their outworkings as reserved for Christians, and in my own small way I do look to implement them around me as and when I can.

If this happens, I would see this implementation as "prophetic" "signs" of the Kingdom. "Signs" being just that, not full-orbed installation of the Kingdom.

Such signs might do some good (salt and light and all that) in the short to medium term, but I think their complete fulfilment is eschatalogical, i.e. not of this world.

*

I recall a memorable wedding we celebrated years ago between two very 'marginal' people. One of the witnesses was a bit late to the civil wedding at the town hall. "Did they just let you out [of jail]?", teased the doorman - which was just a little too close to the actual truth.

For the wedding breakfast, our warehouse church venue of that time was filled with, well, it looked like we had gone out into the highways and byways and compelled them to come in to our improvised wedding feast. Very biblically, we managed to keep all the dogs outside (locked in the back of a dodgy white van as I recall), along with the drug use.

It really did look and feel like a Kingdom parable come to life. Sadly the marriage did not survive, and looking back we were perhaps naive to encourage it, but years later both husband and wife - and that witness - still worship with us; and I think we did display something of the Kingdom to come that day.

[ 09. April 2016, 17:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
quote:
This reminds me of a movie I saw in which a bunch of people are arguing about whether to evangelize/do missions. The basic idea was that it was hubris to do God's job for him. God is perfectly capable of calling the heathens to himself.
I would agree with this, personally.
The problem, at least in a highly secular social environment, is that without intentional evangelism on the part of Christians, very few 'heathens' find themselves called to God. And without a constant supply of new believers, who is actually going to be available to create/built/seek the Kingdom of God?

Many moderate, mainstream British churches find that all the social assistance they want to provide eventually runs out of steam because they lack the necessary manpower and hence the resources. In the end, this work may come to be dominated by evangelicals, because they'll be better supplied with both.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Looking back over this thread it seem that:

a) some people think that the Kingdon is all about religion

and

b) about politics.

Scripture makes plain that the Kingdom is about the world - politics - freedom from slavery, hunger, no about sokme spiritual high.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Scripture makes plain that the Kingdom is about the world - politics - freedom from slavery, hunger, no about sokme spiritual high.
Any particular passage of scripture you had in mind? (Without getting too Kerygmanic)
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
quote:
...it was hubris to do God's job for him. God is perfectly capable of calling the heathens to himself.
I would agree with this, personally.
The problem, at least in a highly secular social environment, is that without intentional evangelism on the part of Christians, very few 'heathens' find themselves called to God. And without a constant supply of new believers, who is actually going to be available to create/built/seek the Kingdom of God?
I am intrigued by the passion of Paul and other early Christians to spread the word instead of comfortably staying home. As if they thought their work and life mattered.

I also keep thinking Jesus is wanting a mature bride, not an infant; a mature close companion delights to participate in the life and work of companion (in this case the companion being Jesus); the infant must have everything done for him.

If we are called to be mature ("bride" is an adult word) and not infants, that suggests while God can do everything -- what God wants is adult participants in Gods work, not people who behave like infants by demanding God do all the work while they do nothing. Spreading awareness of God is one of the projects God would like us to do with God, not insist God should do it all alone.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Scripture makes plain that the Kingdom is about the world - politics - freedom from slavery, hunger, no about sokme spiritual high.
Any particular passage of scripture you had in mind? (Without getting too Kerygmanic)
Isaiah 40;1-4 slavery
Micah 4;1-3 swords
Isaiah 11;6-9 the wolf
Isaiah 35;1-6 blind Isaiah 25;6 foretells a feast of rich fare
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Scripture makes plain that the Kingdom is about the world - politics - freedom from slavery, hunger, no about sokme spiritual high.
Any particular passage of scripture you had in mind? (Without getting too Kerygmanic)
Isaiah 40;1-4 slavery
Micah 4;1-3 swords
Isaiah 11;6-9 the wolf
Isaiah 35;1-6 blind Isaiah 25;6 foretells a feast of rich fare
The OT is indeed full of politics. The religion of the OT is the religion of the God of Israel. Israel's political successes and reverses interpreted in religious terms, as the bounty and the punishment of a God who chastises and forgives.

So an OT take on the Kingdom of God would be religious means - prayer, humility, keeping the customs of the tribe - to political ends. Our tribe doing better than the other tribes, being free of hunger and slavery, as a reward for religious observance to the God who is Our Tribe's God.

Nothing spiritual or even idealistic about it. No brotherhood of man there. Religious nationalism rules.

But some of us think Christianity has grown beyond that outlook.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But some of us think Christianity has grown beyond that outlook.
So why did Jesus say that the Torah wouldn't pass away? Why did Paul say that it was grafted into Judaism?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But some of us think Christianity has grown beyond that outlook.
So why did Jesus say that the Torah wouldn't pass away? Why did Paul say that it was grafted into Judaism?
Because all the Law and the Prophets hang on the Two Great Commandments, which are also the foundation of Christianity.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But some of us think Christianity has grown beyond that outlook.
So why did Jesus say that the Torah wouldn't pass away? Why did Paul say that it was grafted into Judaism?
Because all the Law and the Prophets hang on the Two Great Commandments, which are also the foundation of Christianity.
Those 2 commandments are Jewish and many rabbis singled them out before Jesus.

The substantive point was whether the Kingdom of God has a political dimension and, as someone else has already pointed out, we pray 'thy kingdom come on .... earth

[ 14. April 2016, 14:57: Message edited by: leo ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0