Been doing a bit of reading in anticipation of Re:source...
"The Kingdom of Jesus" (Roger Forster)
OK, I will admit this is a book I struggled with pretty much from the start, whilst I agree with the premise; that the message of Jesus was regnocentric; concerned primarily with the Kingdom, when the introduction "warns" you that the reflection is "quintessentially Roger" and goes on to say that it has no "buttress of an academic apparatus to support it" one may be lead to expect a book that says more about the author and his preoccupations than a rigorous reflection! To be honest this was just what I found, Forster begins by dismissing any and all other interpretations of the "Kingdom of God" from Augustinian to Liberationist in somewhat arrogant and superficial way. He may well have a new window on traditional (and contextual) understandings of Kingdom theology but I couldn't get to it, I found myself frustrated by the continuous retrospective exegesis... particularly the Christology he draws from Daniel and in the huge assumptions he makes about the contemporary understanding of Scripture and of the words of Christ (he seems to know just what they were thinking!). He also has a tendency to proof text so much that when he says something without a verse (or half!) to reinforce it, you become suspicious of its foundation! OK that is the stylistic critique over with...
Ultimately Forster seems to see the Kingdom as something placed upon/given to a nation by God... it was first given to Israel then taken from Israel and given to the Church... which is the tool by which Christ brings the Kingdom... presumably by expanding the Church? There seems to be a completely dualistic worldview, in particular in terms of the role of Israel/the Church in society... He at one point likens Israel to a surgeons knife cutting out the cancerous corruption of the world and being grafted on in place (though he admits this is pure speculation???) and the Church as agents of war bringing in (forcefully?) Gods "programme of reform"... by the Church covering the world like a net so will Gods will be done. Forster seems to fall into the trap of espousing an imperialistic Kingdom, framed in the philosophy of Greece (i.e. purely vertical)... there is no place for the missio Dei, imminence is through the Church.
The WCC at Willingen in 1952 declared that the church should neither be the starting point nor the goal of mission, but that "God's salvific work precedes both church and mission. We should not subordinate mission to the church nor the church to mission; both should rather be taken up into the missio Dei " [Bosch 1991]. Kramm [1979] says that Mission is God's turning to the world in respect of creation, care redemption and consummation. It takes place in ordinary human history, not exclusively in and through the church. So though the church may be "agents" of the Kingdom it/they are not the Kingdom nor the extent of the Kingdom. Indeed as Wieser [1966] said, "The church serves the missio Dei in the world... it points to God at work in world history and names him there."
Likewise Evangelism is described in three aspects; Proclamation, Power and Presence (spiritual/supernatural) [Three P's ;-) ] with no reference to compassion, justice or sharing life. Though Forster does lift (though edited down!) from Yoder's "The politics of Jesus" [1972] (he also owes much of his reflections on jubilee to Yoder) he does not engage with Yoder's perspective that the polis of Christ is one where "servanthood replaces dominion, forgiveness absorbs hostility". Forster seems unable to leave behind the perception that the purpose of the Kingdom is to hasten the 'eschaton' and focussed on the hereafter, not on being a living community "enlisted into his service of reconcilliation, peace, and justice on earth." [Bosch]
On a side issue...I was also surprised to read one so into the "spiritual battle" diminish the Shekinah - cloud of the presence of God to simply "Gods clothes"? So when Jesus is linked to the shekinah it is a symbolic "wearing" of the clothes of God, and not the very presence of God manifest in the Christ?!
Comments