Thy Kingdom Come…

In the last post, we discussed the transformationist view in the Christ and Culture debate.  We considered the arguments for such a position on the basis of works from the Christian philosopher and theologian, Dr. Richard Mouw.  The question I left us with was, If Christians are called to share with humanity in the work of culture, on what basis do we assert that such efforts are faithful or even possible?

I believe the answer to that question is what many simply refer to as “commonness.”  For the Christian, however, this is a theological issue that requires discernment.  As we have embarked upon the postmodern era, we have found human nature to be increasingly fragmented, often composed of multiple identities.  We find identity groups – whether they be African American, Latino, White, Jews, Muslims, Christians, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, etc. – to have their own unique narratives that shape the way people live in the world.

If this is indeed the case, the Christian must think theologically concerning how we might join God in his restoration of all creation when the meta-narrative of the kingdom of God is not only shared by few, but is often suppressed by the multiple identity narratives that make up our culture(s).  Some Christians might argue that commonness cannot be found unless grounded in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.  For example, Dutch Calvinist Cornelius Van Til argued vehemently against any notion that Christians could find a neutral middle ground with non-Christians.  However, a prominent theologian and apologist, E.J. Carnell, began questioning this thought and eventually proposed that if we are ever to advance the gospel in the world, the Christian must find common ground with the non-believer.

This thinking was deeply rooted in a Calvinist creational theology.  John Calvin had a strong sense of God’s creating work of human beings as image bearers of God.  And for Calvin, nothing – not even the effects of sin – could erase the imago dei.  Despite humanity’s depravity, many early reformers believed there to be a “common grace” given by God to all human beings.  Thus, the effects of the fall did not leave us with an inherent evil in our works of culture, but affirmed culture as that which God himself instituted and intended for good.  Regarding the fall, H. Richard Niebuhr helpfully noted, “The word that must be used to designate [its] consequences… is ‘corruption’.”  According to this view, culture is not “badness of being,” but “perverted good.”

If this is true – if God’s creation of human beings, along with the culture we create, begins with a creational theology rooted in Genesis 1 and 2 – the work of salvation and restoration is not limited to Christians, but is God’s work through all of humanity.  In other words, because God is in the restoration business, where restoration is on display – whether it be in politics, entertainment, art, education, science, business, etc. – the kingdom of God is at hand.

Hence, according to the transformationist, the Church’s mission in the world involves both creating God glorifying culture and participating with people from diverse ethnic, racial, ideological, and even religious backgrounds in the restoration of shalom in the world we live in.  The question is, will we take necessary steps to find commonness with fellow human beings created in the imago dei in order to join God in his cosmic plan of redemption?