The kingdom and the common good
In one of the presentations at the Premier Digital Media Awards I attended last calendar month, the speaker used a phrase about his project which has stayed with me. A group of coders spent a weekend trying to design estimator and phone apps that could be used 'for the kingdom and the mutual expert.' I was familiar with each of the terms (of grade) but I don't call up I had ever heard them put together in this style before, and they struck me as a potent combination for thinking about ministry and discipleship.
The linguistic communication of the kingdom ultimately has its roots in the sovereignty of God, and the dominion that he exercises over creation and which he delegates to humanity made 'male person and female' in his image (Gen 1.27). Merely, because of human being sin and failing, information technology quickly becomes a term associated with the distinctiveness of God's people and God'southward ordering of them in contrast to the peoples around them. Where other nations have kings over them, Israel needs no king because God is their king. But fifty-fifty when they inquire for a king, this figure becomes symbolic of God'due south distinctive dominion, and ultimately becomes an anticipation of the perfect peace and justice that will come virtually when God himself visits his people, perchance past means of an anointed ruler.
Information technology shouldn't be a surprise, then, that the language of the kingdom of God marks Jesus proclamation of his good news (Marking ane.15). Nonetheless here the sense of contrast has been sharpened. Because God's rule is perfect, and humanity is far from perfect, participation in this kingdom can merely exist attained past a process of alter, or 'turning' or 'repentance'—thinking again virtually how life tin can and should and will be lived. Jesus' kingdom ministry in the synoptic gospels is marked past a clarity, power and authenticity in abrupt contrast to the dullness and conformity of the scribes and Pharisees. It has a radical sense of inclusion about it, but i which involves change and transformation, so that sinners are 'called to repentance' (Luke 5.32). It as well contrasts with the oppressive dominion of Rome—though non quite in a way which sets this kingdom over confronting empire in a direct way.
In John, these contrasts are non so much spiritualised equally made cosmic. Jesus' kingdom is contrasted with the 'ruler of this world' (John 12.13, fourteen.thirty) who is overthrown by the triumphant sacrifice of Jesus laying down his life on the cross, in his death pouring out the water of life (John 19.34). And this cosmic contrast is connected in Paul. Although the language of the kingdom is not the controlling metaphor for Paul, it forms part of the clear binary of those who are 'in Christ' and those who are not, those who are no longer 'what you once were' (1 Cor 6.eleven). The old creation, dead in sin (Eph ii.1), nether the control of 'the flesh', has now been raised to new life (Rom six.4), is part of the new creation (ii Cor 5.17), walking by the Spirit (Gal 5.22) in apprehension of the transformation of the whole cosmos (Rom viii.xix).
The language of 'the common good' has a quite unlike experience to information technology. Information technology belongs to Catholic social education, originally developed by Aquinas in his Aristotelian re-reading of Augustine. (It also has a philosophical sense, connected with utilitarianism, just I am not sure that has shaped Christian use of the term.) But information technology, too, is rooted in a theological theme within the biblical narrative.
Alongside the focus on the distinctiveness of God'south rule over his people is a contrasting focus on God's dominion over all people. Some of the psalms have a surprising sense of God's universal sovereignty; the 'whole earth is the Lord's and everything in it' (Ps 24.1) and it means he can even make use of a foreign, pagan ruler like Cyrus to deliver his people (Is 45.1). We therefore find some OT texts, like Nehemiah, which focus on the distinctiveness and purity, and others, similar Ruth, which focus on the inclusion of those from other tribes, peoples, nations and languages. Some focus on the uniqueness of God'south revelation of himself to his people, for example in the Ten Words ('commandments', Ex 20), whilst others focus on the universal availability of wisdom to all cultures, as we notice in Proverbs.
Curiously, this contrasting theme also finds a place in the wisdom teaching of Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount, which does focus on the kingdom of God and its priority, we as well observe an emphasis on the universality of God's goodness poured out on all—he makes the lord's day to shine on the wicked as well as the proficient (Matt v.45)—and this is to be the paradigm for our own ethic. We should treat all, good and bad, friend and foe, with equal charity since God does. This ethic appears to have been taken seriously past Jesus' kickoff followers too. Paul is concerned that we should exist 'at peace with all—as far as it lies with yous' (Romans 12.eighteen). And Luke is at pains to remind us that, alongside persecution, the earlyekklesia enjoyed the favour of all people (Acts 2.47). When he tells u.s. that appurtenances were distributed to all 'as they had demand', he does not authorize that to limit it to believers only. The grace of God poured out and overflowed the boundaries that marked this distinctive customs.
So these two terms contain contrasting and complementary ideas. Kingdom linguistic communication focusses on humanity as fallen and in need of repentance, whilst 'common good' language focusses on our shared humanity and creatureliness. Kingdom language highlights the distinctiveness of the people of God, whilst mutual adept lowers the barriers betwixt believer and unbeliever. Kingdom language looks to the eschatological time to come; common skilful looks at our creation origins. Kingdom language offers an invitation to transformation; mutual good linguistic communication offers affirmation.
Traditionally (and probably stereotypically), the evangelical tradition has tended to focus on the kingdom, on sin, repentance, discipleship and coming judgement. By dissimilarity, liberal theology has more focussed on commonality, shared humanity, appointment with civilisation, and our embeddedness in order. Both have their strengths, and both their weaknesses. Recently, there has been a growth in business concern amongst evangelicals and charismatics to 'bless our community', but this has looked more like a PR overture to evangelism than role of a theological vision. Language of 'the common proficient' might just provide that.
The ii terms, then, tin can form a theological wellness bank check for our corporate ministry and even our ain personal patterns of living. How much of our (my) fourth dimension and energy are we putting into questions of discipleship and maturity as followers of Jesus, and how much into simple human flourishing and good for you patterns of living and relating? How much attending are we (am I) giving to the Advent hope we have in Jesus, and how much attention to our ain creatureliness? In relations with 'outsiders', how often are nosotros affirming them as created in the image of God, and how often are nosotros calling them to the radical transformation of the good news in Jesus?
In each area we need to be doing both/and rather than either/or—and in fact I wonder if we can ever do ane half of these finer without doing the other half with equal enthusiasm.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you considerdonating £i.20 a month to back up the production of this blog?
If yous enjoyed this, practise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this postal service, yous tin make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful argue, can add real value. Seek first to understand, and then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; accost the statement rather than tackling the person.
mitchellwhady1951.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/the-kingdom-and-the-common-good/
0 Response to "The kingdom and the common good"
Postar um comentário