Bovine Theology

I’d never heard this song. I enjoyed the verses but the “refrain” hit my like a bat on the forehead. It shouldn’t have, but it did.

FIDE-O usually writes things I agree with, in content, but sometimes not in manner. They can tend to be caustic. So I was surprised today when reading the current post that it seemed so well-balanced, both in content and in candor. Then, as I finished the article I noticed a link to read the rest of it at modernreformation.org. It was an article by Michael Horton. (I’m not sure my link will work, but you can go to the archives, and then go to the Sept/Oct 2006 issue). I don’t mean this a knock to the FIDE-O guys. I’m glad they posted it. I just wish they wrote with as much grace more often.

And speaking of grace, I sure need an extra dose of it today. On Monday we found out my mother-in-law would no longer be able to keep our girls after preschool (and on the days they don’t go). The termination of services was immediate (due to a pinched nerve). So I am taking vacation the rest of the week to keep the girls. It’s been fun, some. But it’s also been unnerving. My “anger problem” has resurfaced. But let me focus on the positive. For example, how much fun is it to stick a doll up your shirt and announce, “I have a baby in my tummy!”? Evidently it is tons of fun. At least for 3 and 4 year old girls. It is also “fun” for the 3 year old (well almost, she’ll be 3 next month) to announce “I tee tee’d in my pull-up,” just mere minutes after putting a clean one on her. Then, not doing a very good job of containing my frustration, I find her sitting in a puddle in my chair. Yes, my chair. Evidently, the way she was sitting, the pull-up didn’t do it’s job. And so now, my chair is drying and I have to sit in a hard wooden chair as I type this. Do you feel my pain?

Now, I’ve just been told, we are at the hospital and we’re going to take my daughter’s baby out of her tummy (that’s the way they do it, you know). But the baby has to stay until she’s ready to go home. So Aggie is now getting and giving shots to everyone. Oh, the drama! But I can now announce that I’ve held her precious baby and that we must all be quiet now because she is resting.

Jerry Falwell died unexpectantly. It’s been interesting to read some of the responses, from Ralph Reed’s initial response just moments after the announcement, to Jason’s at FIDE-O, to Jolly Blogger’s, and maybe most especially Steve Camp’s. For the most part, many Christians seem in some way appreciative of Falwell and his ministry. It seems to me, from my reading, the closer that people were to him in relationship, the more committed they were to him as a person. May you’re saying, “no duh!” But my thought is that most want to admire from a distance those in Christendom who are controversial. It’s safe. I think that is what many have done and will do with Falwell. But the reality that has struck me is that those who knew him in some way, who have spent time around him, are unapologetically appreciative of him as a person and his ministry. That ought to teach us something of the importance of relationships. In our denomination, Frank Barker is in many ways a father of the PCA. Now in my short history, I’ve actually had people say to me things that were less than complimentary about Dr. Barker. But I’ve always defended him. Say what you want about Frank Barker, the man lives what he believes. I know this from working in the church he planted 40+ years ago, and from passing him in the halls, sitting under him in seminary classes, seeing him at church on Sunday, etc… He is the same man every where he goes. He’s authentic. He’s the real deal. I may not agree with everything he says (e.g. we differ on the creation account), but you can’t argue with his life. He doesn’t have “preacher mode” that I’ve ever witnessed. He speaks in the same voice wherever he is. And he acts the same way. He’s humble, and lives simply so that he can give generously. And the only way I know those things are from those around him. He doesn’t brag. So my guess is that those who knew Jerry Falwell best, and who spent any time around him, have the most right to speak about the man following his death. I may not agree with him that teletubbies are evil, but it sounds like he genuinely loved Christ and wanted to make Him known.

Okay, so to end on a lighter note, let me whole-heartedly endorse a new choice in breakfast cereals: Arrr-mini-ohs, with the tag line, “It’s all up to you maties!” And last but not least, my friend Van forwarded this to me: a disturbing, frustrating, yet humourous account of why people don’t like Christians (not for the easily offended…Mom!).

It was a good day for yardwork today, cool and wet. I spent the better part of the day digging holes and planting bushes, pulling weeds and laying mulch. It was a good reminder of the joy of manual labor. I wish I could do it more. I’m sure I’ll sleep well tonight. Now, it’s time to unwind and read a bit… 

I was surprised today to learn that Francis Beckwith, President of the Evangelical Theological Society (or former president), has returned to the Roman Catholic church (see the link for his blog). James White has blogged about this. James also wrote recently on Dave Hunt’s low view of God’s sovereignty.

The Jollyblogger has a good quote from Martin Luther that I find refreshing today.

Steve Camp is always writing thought-provoking things on his blog. I enjoyed this article on preaching. It is a good reminder for both preachers and hearers to rely on the Spirit of God rather than on the power or eloquence of the preacher. In this day we have access to the best of preachers through the Internet and CDs that are readily available. And so after a steady diet of the best it may be hard as a hearer to walk away from your weekly church service less than disappointed. But our disappointment ought to convict us. It’s not that our preachers fail (unless they fail to preach the Word) so much as it is our failure to hear God’s Word by the power of His Spirit. We ought to enter our churches with the mindset of hearing from God, not from man.

If Calvinism scares you, you’ll like this new software.

For those who have heard about John MacArthur’s recent address at the 2007 Shepherd’s Conference, but have not been able to listen to it, Sam Waldron has posted a transcript of it here.

It’s been a while since I could post due to a number of things, mostly a certain book. Actually, it’s a certain stack of books (albeit a small stack). I’m trying to finish a course in my seminary studies, an apologetics course, to graduate with a Masters of Biblical Studies. I’m not giving up on my Master of Divinity (which I’m about 70% through). But since it’s taken me so much longer than I had hoped, I decided I wanted to get something to show for what I have done. I’m doing this partly for my own motivation, but also to possibly open up some doors of opportunity. So, all that to say, I’ve had my nose buried in the first of four books, a rather enjoyable comparison of apologetical methods, edited by one of my seminary profs, (Dr. Steve Cowan). The book is Five Views on Apologetics. I won’t get much into the book here (I’ll save that for later), but I will say that as much as I have been in the classical camp for as long as I’ve studied apologetics, I am really enjoying the writing of John Frame. I haven’t finished and am not nailing down any stakes, but so far I really like what Frame is saying and the way he is saying it.

The special committee of the PCA’s General Assembly to study “Federal Vision” has released their report. And as far as I have scanned over it, I’m pleased. It’s available here. The heart of their work can be found in the nine declarations they made:

In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

Derek Webb has a new album coming out this week entitled The Ringing Bell. I always enjoy Derek’s music and his lyrics.

I’m too tired to write much tonight, so I’ll share some good reading with you.

John Piper has written a compelling article entitled “The Morning I Heard the Voice of God.” I read it with a great deal of discomfort. That was convicting! But I finished it in deep worship of God.

Anthony Carter shares his recent talk at a men’s retreat calling them to have “a bigger, better, more biblical picture of God.”

Van Edwards gives us a glimpse into his personal worship of God in reading through Exodus.

Dan Barber, a friend of mine studying at Covenant Theological Seminary, has done his homework in dealing with the recent “discovery” of Jesus’ tomb. Click here to read it. Dr. Steve Cowan of the Apologetics Resource Center has also written on this subject.

Steve Camp has written a two-part series (so far) entitled “There is none like Him: recovering a high view and reverence of God.” Part 1 | Part 2

J.W. Hendryx has written “Jesus Christ: The Interpretive Key to the Scripture.”

Finally, Glenn Lucke shares his tribute to Dustin Salter, a young RUF pastor who recently died. I did not know Dustin but I know several people who knew him and whose lives have been impacted by his ministry.

After writing a piece (again, not meant to be exhaustive or systematic, just anecdotal) on why I hold to Covenant Theology, a good friend of mine (Van Edwards) commented, “So when I read this, should I interpret it as a literal allegory or allegorically literal?” I’m sure it was tongue-in-cheek. But it prompted me in just as much fun to write a little prod back. However, I thought I’d write a bit more, mostly for myself, but if it can help to carry a dialogue along with anyone else, then good!

I think what Van is getting at in his comment is, if I consent that some Scripture should be understood allegorically, then how do I know what Scripture that is, and what Scripture that is not. However, my jab back to him and my thought now is, “Isn’t that a fair question for the Dispensationalist as well?” First, I have not found a Covenant Theologian (in my circles…namely, conservative) that would not hold to the view that Scripture should be interpreted literally where possible. That is to say, unless there is a reason to interpret it non-literally, then it should be understood literally. The Dispensationalists that I’ve been under and those whose books I’ve read say the same thing. The difference between both groups is what Scripture is to be understood literally.

From my Covenantal viewpoint, I come to prophecy not for a detailed roadmap, but for hope (Isa. 40:1; Luke 21:28; 1 Thess. 4:18, 5:11). When I consider many of the prophecies in the Old Testament that speak to the coming Messiah, I see some details revealed (that were literally fulfilled, although the readers didn’t get it any more than Jesus’ contemporaries…even after He pointed them out) that point to how Jesus came, lived and died. However, most of the prophecy was speaking to give God’s people hope, and to point them to the object of their faith. If we see through a glass dimly, they were looking through a really, really dim glass. We look back at OT prophecy about the Messiah, and say, “It’s so clear!” Now when we consider the return of Christ, we are in their shoes. But we don’t have a detailed roadmap (in my opinion). Rather we have an overview of the overall movement.

Other than prophecy, we (Covenant Theologians) and Dispensationalists share much in common. This is why our libraries look so similar and we often attend the same conferences. It really comes down to how we approach prophetical Scripture, and more specifically who is/are God’s people(s) and what will the end look like. Dispensationalists like to say it is hermeneutics. They accuse Covenantal folks of interpreting Scripture allegorically. But again, find a conservative CT who treats any/all Scripture allegorically. I haven’t found one. Rather, I’ve found only those who come to certain types of Biblical writing (literary types) with allegorical glasses (such as poetry).

So is it hermeneutics or the system of theology that triumphs the Dispensational cause? The ones who I’ve talked with over the years argued they, as Dispensationalists, don’t teach theology. They teach Scripture. And they do so literally. Consistently literally. But this never seemed right to me. First, what bothered me about this was logic. As I grew older I came to realize that no one comes to anything they study without predispositions toward a system of understanding. This same argument is one we use for those trying to prove evolution. They come to every “scientific” study they conduct with a predisposition toward their system of “evolutionism.” We all do this. The Dispensationalist argues that his system is simply the Bible, and the literal interpretation of that. Okay then, that’s your system. But then can your system triumph the actual meaning of the text? I say, from logic alone, “yes!” For example, when Christ said at the Last Supper, “This is my body,” was it literally body or literally bread? Now I’m not trying to stir up a debate here of Lutheran type. My point is, what did Christ literally mean and what does it literally mean for us? Most Dispensationalists say communion (the Lord’s Supper) is a memorial. It’s not literally Christ’s flesh. To use a prophetic example, what about Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones? What about when Jeremiah said he would remove their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh? (that was Jeremiah wasn’t it…it’s getting late!) Even Darby stated that John 14:18 spoke of an invisible coming of the Holy Spirit (not visible or “literal”).

Recently, I listened to a speech by John MacArthur (entitled, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist”). In this talk, he laid out the premise that if your hermeneutic is correct, they you’ll get Israel right, and if you get

The second issue that has bothered me about the Dispensationalists’ claim to interpret Scripture consistently literally (the first was logic) is from Scripture itself. As I have pointed out above, there are a number of passages that Dispensationalists do not interpret literally. I will cite only one (since I have pointed out others above and even more are readily available in writings by scholars who merit more attention than my own ramblings). I refer to Psalm 22. In this psalm, there are portions that were literally fulfilled. Christ did cry out, “my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Soldiers did cast lots for his clothing. But Christ is not a worm (v. 6), nor did bulls surround him (v. 12), nor dogs (v. 16), nor was He afraid of the mouth of an actual lion (v. 21). My point here is that the audience of that day would not have known what portion of that prophetic psalm was to be viewed literally and what was to be viewed allegorically. A point was simply that the Messiah would suffer and die. His death would be one in innocence. This passage doesn’t give a detailed roadmap (although we understand the details in hindsight, but those that were literally fulfilled and those that were allegorical).

So while the Dispensationalist is driven by a theological system of God working inconsistently through history, Covenant Theologians are driven by a system of one single unified movement of God unfolded in history. It is the latter that I hold to. I admit I am no less objective (nor more) than the Dispensationalist when it comes to hermeneutics. Rather, we are both influenced and sometimes driven by our theological system. And so to answer my friend Van, interpret what I am saying literally, unless you deem that it must be taken allegorically!

I’ve recently been questioned as to how I came to hold to Covenant Theology. It’s a good question for me to try and answer. I didn’t grow up in a Covenantal context. Rather, I grew up in a Dispensational Bible church. In that church I was given a healthy, weekly dose of biblical exposition. It was usually morning and evening, and often in Sunday School. I don’t remember learning the system of Dispensationalism, but I certainly heard from it consistently.

When I left home to join the Navy, my father gave me a copy of J.I. Packer’s Knowing God. I didn’t enjoy reading much, and really had no love for theology. But because of the stresses of leaving home and having my faith questioned regularly by others, I dove in head first into this book. There were some hard truths within those pages. I didn’t know it was written from a Covenantal perspective. I simply recognized the truths within the book that I had been taught from Scripture all my life. I spent nearly a year reading it, often rereading pages until I understood them.

Soon after that, I got plugged into a PCA church in Hawaii where I was stationed. There I began to interact with Reformed theology, from a Covenantal perspective. I didn’t recognize so much the hermeneutical system as I did the truths within Reformed theology. I soon was able to wholeheartedly agree with Calvinism and Reformed theology. But I still wrestled with the system of hermeneutics (although I couldn’t necessarily articulate it). Dispensational thought was engrained within me, even though I didn’t know it. So when it came to eschatology and my view of the Church, I still had Dispensational leanings.

After leaving the Navy I served in a Southern Baptist church. There, I continued to study authors like R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, and other Reformed guys. I really had to defend being Reformed and that caused me to be more convinced of my beliefs. But Dispensational thoughts were still there.

From there, I returned to serve in the church I grew up in. I was Associate Pastor there for three years. It was during this time that I really began to look at hermeneutical systems. As I considered Dispensationalism, and I was certainly being encouraged to adopt this system, I became more and more frustrated. I liked many things about it, such as the literal approach to Scripture and the seemingly convincing eschatology. This was of course due to the fact that I was taught there that Covenant Theology treated Scripture allegorically and that it was nearly heretical to consider the Church as the fulfillment of Old Testament Israel. But the system itself still did not gel for me. One of the significant factors was the fact that many, if not most, of the authors I respected (and even those within this church respected) came from a Covenantal perspective. Because I wasn’t convinced of Dispensationalism, I felt compelled to study Covenant Theology more deeply.

I went from that church to Birmingham Theological Seminary where I pursued my Master of Divinity. It was during these years that I saw clearly several things about Covenant Theology. First, the Covenantal view of one God, with one people, and one means of salvation seemed consistent not only with Scripture in particular but seemed more consistent to God’s very nature. Although I struggled to articulate it, it seemed strange that God would have two people. This distinction, as engrained as it was in my head from birth, seemed inconsistent as I read not only the New Testament, but also as I studied the Old Testament. The way I began to understand it, the nation of Israel was the infancy of God’s revelation of His people, just as the Law had been given as a tutor to this infant people. As Christ came and fulfilled all that the Old Testament prophesied, so the expansion of His people went from infant Israel, to the adult Church. It is one and the same people. Covenant Theology teaches not that the Church replaces Israel, but that the Church is the further revelation of God’s people. Secondly, I learned that the difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism wasn’t a literal hermeneutic versus an allegorical one, but rather what each system considers literal. Covenant Theology uses a literal hermeneutic. It treats Scripture that is to be understood literally, as literal. The difference is that Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism disagree over those portions which are to be understood allegorically. Certainly, Dispensationalists don’t treat every word of Scripture literally. They simply disagree with us as to what is to be understood literally and what is allegorical.

I’m not writing this to be an exhaustive treatise on Covenant Theology. It’s simply my story. And at this point of that story, Covenant Theology just makes sense to me. This doesn’t mean that I have it all sorted out. I don’t. Although I’m Covenantal, I’m still quite sympathetic to Historical Premillennialism, for example. I wouldn’t say that I hold to this view of eschatology, but I’m still open to it. And that is quite acceptable in my denomination, the PCA. In fact, a number of pastors and professors I have set under hold to Historical Premillennialism. I’m still studying Amillennialism, however, as well.

So, I can clearly say at this point that I am Reformed, a Calvinist, and that I hold to Covenant Theology. Each of these perspectives has caused my love and faith in God to grow to a deeper level, and I have a stronger desire to see His glory shine as a result. And so, until I am convinced from Scripture otherwise, I’ll stand here. To read a more “scholarly” (and I use that term very lightly) approach to Covenant Theology versus Dispensationalism, I have posted it here in three parts: Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Some time back I heard about John Piper bringing a Reformed rapper to “perform” during a Sunday morning service at Bethlehem Baptist Church. Thanks to my friend Van, I enjoyed viewing the video tonight and thought I’d put it here to share.

I’m not surprised that there has been an outcry over this. The church in America is such a great example of our lack of understanding as Christians. We have no problem accepting cultural adaptations of worship and using gifts in a missiological fashion, and even within some cultures in America (e.g. Southern gospel). But our racisim permeates our judgments. What a shame. I found the rap moving to say the least. See what you think…

The Reformed View
The Reformed view of the doctrine of the Kingdom is defined by Vos as, “the rule of God established through creation and extending through providence over the universe.” The Covenantal perspective understands a unity to exist between the Old and New Testaments. God’s Kingdom has always ruled all things. On earth, God revealed His kingdom first through the nation of Israel. However, this was not to be the end as if God’s highest aspirations were merely political. The Jewish monarchy was to point to something greater, namely, the messianic kingship that would one day come to save not the ethnic nation of Israel, but the True Israel, the people of God. The Messiah’s coming brought with it the ushering in of the Kingdom.

Jesus was the founder of no new religion; instead, he was to bring about the realization of what had previously been presented in ideal form. His (Vos’s) point is that there is a historic unity between Jesus’ teaching and the revelation of the Old Testament regarding the Kingdom. The essence of the Kingdom of God consists in the supremacy of God, in the sphere of saving power and in the state of human blessedness. There could be, for Jesus, no state of happiness for man without the prior reigning of God.

Yet the Reformed view does not claim that the Kingdom of God is fully manifested. The present time is in the progression of the Kingdom’s manifestation. In other words, today can be seen the very making of history, the history of the Kingdom. The Church is the manifestation of God’s Kingdom work here on earth. The Church is the New Israel that is prophesied in the Old Testament. In the book of Ezekiel we see that, “Eventually Ezekiel saw a new Israel with Messiah as its prince (34:23f.; 37:24). That new Israel would walk in the law of the Lord (11:20; 16:61; 20:43; 36:27) and dwell in the land of Canaan (36:33; 37:25). God would enter into a new covenant with that people (37:26–28), and he would walk in close fellowship with them (39:29; 46:9). Upon them the Lord would pour out his Holy Spirit (36:27; 39:27).” Unless one insists on a literal occupying of the land of Canaan, all of these things have been fulfilled in the Church. The only thing that would keep Israel and the Church separate is a system of interpretation that insisted on such. The Reformed view, particularly the Amillennial view, asserts that the Church is the New Israel completely and that the Kingdom of God has been taken from Israel and given to a new people, the Church (Matt. 21:43). Of interest is that the term “Kingdom of God” is used in Matthew 21:43, not “Kingdom of Heaven.” Is this not specifically speaking of the Messiah’s particular kingdom and not of God’s general rule over all? This supports the view of the Reformed who hold that both terms, “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven,” are synonymous (see also Matt. 19:23-24 where both terms are used synonymously).

And so it is that the Kingdom has not only come but it also is to come. As in much prophecy of the Old Testament, there was a present or near fulfillment, and a future fulfillment (e.g. the Messianic Psalms). J.I. Packer writes, “The kingdom is present in its beginnings though future in its fullness; in one sense it is here already, but in the richest sense it is still to come (Luke 11:20; 16:16; 17:21; 22:16, 18, 29-30).” After Jesus’ death and resurrection, he claimed to His disciples, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” The word “all” is exclusive. Jesus is King now.

Introduction
It is enjoyable to think back to one’s Sunday School days and the Bible stories of the kings of Israel when one hears the term “the Kingdom of God.” After all, isn’t that what God had in mind when He made the promise of an everlasting kingdom? Is not the nation of Israel due a reinstituted kingdom according to the promises of the Old Testament prophets? Although no evangelical Christian would deny Christ’s kingly office or the sovereignty of God, the meaning of the term “Kingdom of God” is certainly varied across Christianity.

There are three basic views of the Kingdom of God. The first shall be called the “liberal hope” view of the Kingdom. In this view, the Kingdom is yet to come but is providing social, economic, and political salvation throughout the world. Proponents of this view often reduce Christ to simply a teacher or a prophet and turn the eschatological teachings of the New Testament into imagery of a present social evolution and a coming social bliss. The second view, and certainly the most common, is the dispensational premillennial view. Dispensationalists hold that the terms “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” (the latter used only in Matthew) describe a present kingdom and a future kingdom, respectively. The focus, however, is on a future, literal, earthly kingdom in which Jesus will reign as an earthly king. The third view is the Reformed view which sees the Kingdom of God as both present and future. At present, “it designates the rule of God established through creation and extending through providence over the universe.” In the future, it will be a whole-hearted recognition of all creation to that sovereignty. These three views will be surveyed with attention being given to the light that Scripture sheds on each position.

The Liberal Hope View
The liberal hope view can certainly not be accepted by any serious student of the Bible, let alone anyone who would call themselves an evangelical. Its very premise denies the deity and perfection of Christ. Christ did not possess “Messianic consciousness,” because the order of events was not according to the “outlined plan,” say these proponents. Vos writes of this view, “it shifts the emphasis in His teaching from the present-spiritual to the external-eschatological, making the former no more than a mans to the latter…seeing that a man so absorbed by these radical other-worldly, fantastic speculations, could not have possessed a well-balanced psychical temper; He becomes a subject for psychiatric investigation.” Jesus is not only ludicrous, but He is quite an impotent king, if even considered a king by this view at all.

The kingdom, according to the liberal hope view, is not yet arrived. Some liberal theologians, like Albert Schweitzer, held that Jesus expected the Kingdom to arrive in the near future. Therefore, when it didn’t, Jesus died “a deluded first century apocalyptist.” This view also sees the Church, not as the Kingdom, since the Kingdom has yet to arrive. Therefore, everything is building, moving toward a future point (the consummation of the Kingdom). That point, however, is not realized now. In the early twentieth century this view was a tool of the Social Gospel in America. In order to accommodate the pressures of Academia, specifically the notion of evolution, liberals saw the movement toward the coming Kingdom as a bettering of mankind. This view of the Kingdom had all the answers to the social, political and economic woes of the day. Furthermore, this progression showed how man was getting better; he was evolving. The final fulfillment of all of this would be the consummation of the Kingdom.

It seems simple enough to identify the problems with this view. The rejection of Christ’s deity and perfection of His mission to earth seem reason enough to reject the notion. However, it is important that one understands why this view came into existence. The rationalism of the Enlightenment had grown tantamount in America, and theologians were not going to be left behind. Therefore, rationalism became the standard of liberalism. The supernatural teachings of Jesus had to be explained away or eliminated. Any notion of a spiritual kingdom was not rational and therefore eliminated. The Kingdom could be seen in the future, where it fit rather nicely. Only pragmatic elements of Christ’s teaching that could support the social and political agenda of the liberals were taught. The result was that Jesus became only an icon and that God’s work in this world was reduced to the occasional good phenomenon.