The PhD program at the School of Divinity hosted Scot McKnight this past week. Scot gave a lecture on Tuesday afternoon on "Kingdom Mission as Church Mission: Re-centering the Church in God’s Mission in this World." In it (and in his new book) he argues, controversially, that "the kingdom" is "the church." While they are not identical when used in Scripture, they are, paradoxically, the same, Scot claims. I was asked to provide the response to Scot's paper. A slightly edited version of my response is below:
First, we should be
grateful to Professor McKnight for bringing to the forefront an important
issue on which there is a wide range of views within the Christian community.
Kingdom mission; Kingdom work. When Christians use these terms, to what are they referring? What is “kingdom work”?
Is it implementing and advocating for social justice for the poor, the
oppressed, and the marginalized; serving their physical, emotional needs
(i.e. social action as advocated by what McKnight calls the "Skinny Jeans pastors")? Or is it more spiritual in nature: participating in the
redemptive work of God in the world, facilitating evangelism and the turning to
faith of people who were alienated from God (i.e. personal salvation as advocated by those whom McKnight labels the "Pleated Pants crowd")? Or is it some
combination of these views, a “third way” in which the Pleated Pants crowd
joins hands with the Skinny Jeans pastors to see ‘redemption’ in cultural and
political terms such that kingdom work describes public activism? These
are great questions, particularly for a context like Regent University with its
mission of “Christian leadership to change the world.” Are Christian leaders in
education, business, psychology, law, government, entertainment, and other
professions doing “kingdom work”? Or are they doing something else as they
embody the life of Christ within these various contexts?
Second, we should be
grateful to Professor McKnight that he has done so in such an engaging and
interesting way. This is not the kind of dry academic volume such as
someone like, oh, let’s say, “I” might write. It is replete with pop culture
references, literary references, provocative claims, and penetrating questions.
Quotations from Marilyn Robinson’s Gilead
are peppered throughout. And you know this must be a good book since our own Michael
Palmer is fond of quoting it from time to time. I recommend it to you all for the enjoyable read that it is, as well as the deep insights about ministry and tragedy that are found throughout. Here is a quote from Gilead that may be relevant to some of us in this setting:
“I've developed a great reputation for wisdom by ordering
more books than I ever had time to read, and reading more books, by far, than I
learned anything useful from, except, of course, that some very tedious
gentlemen have written books.” (this quote cited at goodreads.com)
Professor McKnight being not one of those very tedious
gentlemen, this is one way to “do
theology” that is engaging and compelling and that can reach a broader audience than just the kinds of people taking classes
at a university or a divinity school.
Third, we can thank
Professor McKnight for taking a truly novel approach to clarifying this issue: actually
going back to the Bible see what the Bible might have to say about it. And here is a model
not just for students but a reminder for all of us; if we wish to hear the
Bible on its own terms on a particular issue, we need to do the difficult and
diligent work of getting into the text, understanding its context, and hearing
it as it was first heard. While we did not get the benefit of all of the
exegetical work this afternoon, I can assure you that you can find evidence of
it within the book itself.
Fourth, we can
appreciate Professor McKnight’s attempt to engage with a wide range of biblical
texts as well as with a wide range of contemporary authors. As someone who
works in New Testament and early Jewish writings I was very pleased to see a
section on the Psalms of Solomon as a
text that illumines the similarities and differences among early Jewish views
of Kingdom right around the time of Jesus. I was also pleased to see Professor
McKnight’s engagement with contemporary theologians, practitioners, and writers
such as Stanely Hauerwas, Miroslav Volf, James K. A. Smith, Tim Keller, and
James Davison Hunter among others.
Well then, with all of that to be thankful for, it is time to ask: in consulting the biblical text as well as this wide
range of contemporary authors, what has he found? Well, I guess it is good news
and bad news at the same time. Whichever crowd you are in, pleated pants or skinny jeans, the good news is...that the other crowd has got it wrong. The bad news is, your crowd has it wrong
too.
Several questions occurred to me as I read through McKnight's volume and listened to him this afternoon. First, why does this matter? Second, what are the implications for
Christians at work in the world in a wide range of situations, occupations, and callings? If only a small slice of what Christians do in the world is "kingdom work," that is, only what is done in and through the church, then there is significant potential for devaluing work done by believers outside of
the church. McKnight does not intend for this to be an outcome of his study, and he hits this head on in the book:
“I am 100 percent in favor of Christian engagement in social
activism… What I am not in favor of is assigning the word “kingdom” to such
actions in order to render that action sacred or to justify that action as
supernatural or to give one the sense that what she or he is doing is
ultimately significant. When we assign the word ‘kingdom’ to good deeds in the
public sector for the common good, we take a word that belongs in one place
(the church) and apply it in another (the world). In so doing we run the risk
of diminishing church at the expense of the world” (115)
Third, beyond what we call our work, what are the implications for how Christians actually do social
action or pursue social justice?
Fourth, what to do with the term kingdom itself? One problem with the
term is that it strikes different tones depending on when and where you use it.
Professor McKnight is well aware of this and takes careful account of that. But in reading the first few chapter of the book, I began to
wonder if perhaps the term kingdom is in itself problematic. Psalms of Solomon,
for example, shows that the oppressive rule of the Hasmoneans, and then the
brutal invasion and rule of the Romans were extremely problematic for faithful Jews
hoping to experience the promises of the covenant. But they also show that for
some Jews the answer was, as we know, a simple and powerful act of complete reversal: a
militant messiah who would kick the Gentiles out of Jerusalem, destroy the oppressors, and
rule with justice. But it may be the case that this mode of messiahship adopts
too much of the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman approach to political order. I
don’t think the authors of the Pss Sol would see a problem with this, but
clearly the messiahship that Jesus brought about in proclaiming and
inaugurating the kingdom of God was a kingdom that was much, much different than what the authors of Pss Sol envisioned.
Perhaps the word kingdom is part of the problem since it surely means something
much different if you lived in the reign of King David than if you lived in the
Babylonian exile or in the days of Herod the Great. Must followers of Jesus today adopt a guiding motif that is
so influenced by anti-Christian values of power, domination, and oppression, as
it is experienced throughout much of history?
I would like to probe some of these conclusions and
questions with a look at one of the earliest portrayals of Jesus; not in a
narrative, like in the gospels; something earlier than that. Not in a
straightforward description or summary such as sometimes occurs in Paul;
something earlier than that. I am thinking of a passage like Philippians 2:6-11,
which may be something of an early Christian poem or hymn that Paul cites
within his letter. If it predates Paul's letter then it reflects a very early poetic meditation that remembers Jesus in a particular way. The passage is no doubt familiar to all of us, but I think
if we read it with an ear for “kingdom” dynamics, several things will jump out:
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though
he was in the form of God,
did
not regard equality with God
as
something to be exploited,
If we can pause here, just briefly, we may note that there
were folks in the ancient world grasping after divine honors, and even
exploiting those dynamics. Not the early Christians, not the Jews, but the
Roman emperors, and in particular, the provincial rulers who had everything
to gain and nothing to lose by emphasizing the divine honors they might bestow
on the emperor. Jesus is remembered in a way that contrasts sharply with the
shameless grasping for power and honor that was part of the Roman provincial
system. Reading on:
7 but emptied
himself,
taking
the form of a slave,
being
born in human likeness.
And here we read about both the incarnation as well as the
identification of Christ with the exploited, the oppressed, and the least,
taking the form of a slave.
And being
found in human form,
8 he
humbled himself
and
became obedient to the point of death—
even
death on a cross.
And here we have what I take to be the center point of the
passage, both visually and grammatically. The death on a cross. The instrument
of torture and death within the Roman empire is celebrated at the center point
and at the turning point of this poetic remembrance of Jesus. This king has
thrown off every marker of human kingship: honor, pride, position, and even
life.
9
Therefore God also highly exalted him
and
gave him the name
that
is above every name,
And here we are confronted with language that resonates with
that of the prophets of Israel.
10 so that at
the name of Jesus
every
knee should bend,
in
heaven and on earth and under the earth,
And this is language that now identifies Jesus as the
exalted ruler of all; the true king.
11 and every
tongue should confess
that
Jesus Christ is Lord,
to
the glory of God the Father. (NRSV)
And we find Jesus exalted as Lord, kyrios. And in this context in which divine honors have already been raised, it is surely significant that Jesus is identified with the title of kyrios in contrast to others to whom that title had been applied.
This lordship, kingship, of Christ is a very odd one indeed.
Professor McKnight reminds us that the king determines the nature of the
kingdom, and accordingly notes that kingdom mission is cruciform in nature.
Cruciform, incarnational, self giving. But if the notion of kingdom and
kingship is turned upside down by Jesus and becomes a counter-cultural
expression, perhaps there is another word to describe the work of God among his
people and the work of God’s people in the world.
For those Christians seeking to follow Christ the king, and to
submit their lives to the authority of this king, Professor McKnight gives us a
splendid set of ideas to think about and a way forward that should lead to some
very stimulating dialogue; particularly since some of us may find that we are doing kingdom work,
in his paradigm, while some of us may be surprised to learn that we are not.
Thank you, Professor McKnight, and we look forward to engaging in this conversation together with you.
