What do you think?
Rate this book
Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church
According to Scot McKnight, "kingdom" is the biblical term most misused by Christians today. It has taken on meanings that are completely at odds with what the Bible says. "Kingdom" has become a buzzword for both social justice and redemption so that it has lost its connection with Israel and with the church as a local church.
McKnight defines the biblical concept of kingdom, offering a thorough corrective and vision for the contemporary church. The most important articulation of kingdom was that of Jesus, who contended that the kingdom was in some sense present and in some sense in the future. The apostles talked less about the kingdom and more about the church. McKnight explains that kingdom mission is local church mission and that the present-day fetish with influencing society, culture, and politics distracts us from the mission of God: to build the local church. He also shows how kingdom theology helps to reshape the contemporary missional conversation.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published October 10, 2014
90 people are currently reading
771 people want to read
About the author
Scot McKnight
216 books550 followersScot McKnight is a recognized authority on the New Testament, early Christianity, and the historical Jesus. McKnight, author or editor of forty books, is the Professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Lombard, IL. Dr. McKnight has given interviews on radios across the nation, has appeared on television, and is regularly speaks at local churches, conferences, colleges, and seminaries in the USA and abroad. Dr. McKnight obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Nottingham (1986).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
October 28, 2014
Scot Mcknight’s latest book,
Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church
, takes on contemporary understandings of the “kingdom of God” and offers his own. He initially sets up two straw men: 1) the social justice loving “Skinny Jeans” kingdom, full of millennial youngsters who (according to McKnight) simply focus on working toward the “common good,” and 2) the heavy thinking, not-so-pragmatic “Pleated Pants” kingdom, associated with scholarly theologians, typified (according to McKnight) by the kingdom interpretation of “God’s rule.” It is rightly pointed out that, at least in so far as they are generalized, these two exaggerations (they are exactly that) don’t learn from the other and have both, in fact, missed it altogether. McKnight offers his understanding of “kingdom” as a proper balance of “definition” and “doing” in its appropriate context. The problem here is that McKnight does not bridge the gap between the straw men, but, if we are to only consider these three perspectives, creates a third point on a triangle, in the middle of which the actual kingdom of God may be found.
The most hammered and significant point McKnight makes concerning the kingdom of God is that it is the church, noting no distinctions between the two and arguing a great deal against those who have differing perspectives about how the may indeed be referring to two distinct things, the most common being that the church is a part of the kingdom but is not the kingdom. He argues that anything done without the sole purpose of trying to convert someone to Jesus, and consequently coming to that end, is not “kingdom work,” rather it is only “good work.” It is also to be understood that anything outside of corporate, local church work is not kingdom work—individuals cannot do kingdom work; kingdom work is only the work of the church (because they are the same thing). McKnight attempts to work out a number of nuances, but never satisfactorily equates “kingdom” and “church,” but does continuously remind the reader of the equation to further his larger work.
Admitting that a kingdom needs a king, people, land, and law, McKnight offers the following: Jesus = King (sufficiently noted in Scripture); church = people (by definition); wherever a Christian is standing = land (no support offered, only a claim and never mentioned again); law/Torah = the Sermon on the Mount (no support offered, only a claim, though used later in the book). However, even after acknowledging all of this, even if in passing, he keeps coming back to “kingdom = people = church,” arguing throughout the book from this perspective.
Ironically, McKnight, through arguing against other perspectives, provides much support for perspectives contrary to his own. On a number of occasions he contradicts his own conclusions, yet fails to see it, even to the point of writing that “the kingdom is the church, and the church is the kingdom—that they are the same even if they are not identical” (206). I preordered book hoping to use it for a course I’ll be teaching, but even though there is a lot of good stuff here (I really appreciate his work on varying assumptions of the kingdom that was to come by those before and during Jesus’ life, especially by not shying away from apocryphal texts to illuminate the culture of a particular time in history), there’s just too much inconsistency and unhelpful material to include it in the required reading. However, if I were emphasizing an extended exercise in critical reading and wanted to increase the level of debate, I think this would be a great book to critique.
McKnight shows his hand at the end of “Appendix 2: Kingdom Today,” wherein he takes on liberation theology and notes the real intent of writing the book: to oppose the “social gospel.” Perhaps a shorter and better book could (should) have first been written to this end, but it likely would not have garnered the attention a book about “Kingdom Conspiracy” would have for marketing and sales. I recommend reading at least chapter 13 of Ken Wytsma’s book Pursuing Justice: The Call to Live & Die for Bigger Things for a well-articulated argument and explanation of the controversy between “social justice” and “social gospel,” which may be helpful in better understanding the positions of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ as it concerns “good work” and “kingdom work.” There ought not be an equating of “kingdom” and “social justice,” but there can also be no separation. (My review of Ken’s book may be found here.)
As a whole, I cannot recommend this book to just anyone, though I would certainly use parts of it. Just as McKnight, in support of his own arguments, often cites N. T. Wright and Christopher J. H. Wright, both theological giants and neither of whom would in my estimation concur with McKnight’s conclusion, I would cite McKnight in support of my own while knowing full well he would not agree. We both believe in our Lord, Jesus Christ, bringing his love to others through pacifism and peacemaking, and desire others to want the same. May all our efforts be for the glory of God and the furthering of his kingdom, even if we disagree on its definition.
The most hammered and significant point McKnight makes concerning the kingdom of God is that it is the church, noting no distinctions between the two and arguing a great deal against those who have differing perspectives about how the may indeed be referring to two distinct things, the most common being that the church is a part of the kingdom but is not the kingdom. He argues that anything done without the sole purpose of trying to convert someone to Jesus, and consequently coming to that end, is not “kingdom work,” rather it is only “good work.” It is also to be understood that anything outside of corporate, local church work is not kingdom work—individuals cannot do kingdom work; kingdom work is only the work of the church (because they are the same thing). McKnight attempts to work out a number of nuances, but never satisfactorily equates “kingdom” and “church,” but does continuously remind the reader of the equation to further his larger work.
Admitting that a kingdom needs a king, people, land, and law, McKnight offers the following: Jesus = King (sufficiently noted in Scripture); church = people (by definition); wherever a Christian is standing = land (no support offered, only a claim and never mentioned again); law/Torah = the Sermon on the Mount (no support offered, only a claim, though used later in the book). However, even after acknowledging all of this, even if in passing, he keeps coming back to “kingdom = people = church,” arguing throughout the book from this perspective.
Ironically, McKnight, through arguing against other perspectives, provides much support for perspectives contrary to his own. On a number of occasions he contradicts his own conclusions, yet fails to see it, even to the point of writing that “the kingdom is the church, and the church is the kingdom—that they are the same even if they are not identical” (206). I preordered book hoping to use it for a course I’ll be teaching, but even though there is a lot of good stuff here (I really appreciate his work on varying assumptions of the kingdom that was to come by those before and during Jesus’ life, especially by not shying away from apocryphal texts to illuminate the culture of a particular time in history), there’s just too much inconsistency and unhelpful material to include it in the required reading. However, if I were emphasizing an extended exercise in critical reading and wanted to increase the level of debate, I think this would be a great book to critique.
McKnight shows his hand at the end of “Appendix 2: Kingdom Today,” wherein he takes on liberation theology and notes the real intent of writing the book: to oppose the “social gospel.” Perhaps a shorter and better book could (should) have first been written to this end, but it likely would not have garnered the attention a book about “Kingdom Conspiracy” would have for marketing and sales. I recommend reading at least chapter 13 of Ken Wytsma’s book Pursuing Justice: The Call to Live & Die for Bigger Things for a well-articulated argument and explanation of the controversy between “social justice” and “social gospel,” which may be helpful in better understanding the positions of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ as it concerns “good work” and “kingdom work.” There ought not be an equating of “kingdom” and “social justice,” but there can also be no separation. (My review of Ken’s book may be found here.)
As a whole, I cannot recommend this book to just anyone, though I would certainly use parts of it. Just as McKnight, in support of his own arguments, often cites N. T. Wright and Christopher J. H. Wright, both theological giants and neither of whom would in my estimation concur with McKnight’s conclusion, I would cite McKnight in support of my own while knowing full well he would not agree. We both believe in our Lord, Jesus Christ, bringing his love to others through pacifism and peacemaking, and desire others to want the same. May all our efforts be for the glory of God and the furthering of his kingdom, even if we disagree on its definition.
February 16, 2017
I have read a lot of books by Scot McKnight and include a few of them (A Community Called Atonement, King Jesus Gospel) among my favorites. In this book McKnight tackles the relationship of the kingdom (what Jesus talks about throughout the gospels) and the church (what shows up in Acts and the epistles). His conclusion is that the kingdom is the church.
The context for his writing is the large amount of kingdom talk that goes on today. From McKnight's perspective, and I think he is right, people speak of "kingdom work" as pretty much any sort of good work happening outside the church. So if you are freeing slaves or feeding the poor, you are building the kingdom. McKnight sees in this negativity towards the church - the church is seen as messed up and negative while the kingdom is great. You can leave the church, so they say, and still build the kingdom. Against this McKnight argues that just as the kingdom is seen as partial now and to be completed, and perfected, in the future, so too is the church spoken of as broken now but to be perfected. The problem is people focus on the future of the kingdom and the present of the church and thus the church comes out looking negative.
Overall, I agree with this. And where I agree with McKnight, I find it incredibly helpful. At the same time, there were things in this book that bothered me and I am having trouble putting my finger on them. First off, his writing style is irritating sometimes - the whole "Skinny Jeans" an "pleated Pants" illustration of two views of the kingdom to his telling the reader to put down his cell phone were weird. More than that, some of the conclusions you can draw from his work are questionable. So church potlucks are great because fellowship, but Martin Luther King was not doing kingdom work because he wanted to change laws? It almost seems to make God too small. McKnight calls the work Christians do outside the church as simply good work for the common good, and while he values them they come across devalued. Maybe he needs another book on such work?
The bogeyman is Constantine, the threat that as Christians seek to build the kingdom in public we will be seduced by the temptation to force our way into politics and influence society from the top down. I get that temptation. I lean Anabaptist in my theology, so I should agree with McKnight. But, is some degree of Constantinianism inevitable? If we vote or speak, we are going to do so based on our faith. It seems McKnight would have us stop there. But that seems impossible. If a Christian runs for office, of course her Christian faith will influence her. Of course she will want aspects of that faith to be made law (for the common good). Of course Christians will end up banding together based on common ethics. It seems the only way to avoid this is simply not vote, to totally secede from society.
So while McKnight warns against Constantine, he seems open to the other temptation of being an Essenne - simply leaving society to create a separate community for God's people apart from the world.
I think as Christians, as far as we can, advocating for what we think are just policies is a good thing - from Wilberforce to King to many others. Of course we won't always agree, even as Christians, and our ultimate hope is not in changing laws, but simply seceding from society does not seem right. I don't think McKnight is saying we simply disappear from society either - I am saying I think such secession is the temptation on the flip side of his warning against being like Constantine.
Maybe it is a matter of semantics, or maybe a reason for McKnight to write what he thinks Christians ought to do in the public sphere.
Finally, I wonder if his view of the kingdom is too small for I can't recall him taking into account God's creation and ownership of the world. He sees kingdom as church and builds a strong case, but the story does not begin with Israel but with creation. He mentions Kuyper's quote of God taking back every square inch of creation, claiming it all. While I am not a Calvinist, I guess I am a bad Anabaptist because I kind of agree with Kuyper there. Whether it is kingdom work or not, I see God as reclaiming all of creation in Jesus and anywhere a slave is freed, a poor person is given dignity or someone comes to know Jesus, the original beauty of creation is being restored.
At least the book gave me a lot to think about.
The context for his writing is the large amount of kingdom talk that goes on today. From McKnight's perspective, and I think he is right, people speak of "kingdom work" as pretty much any sort of good work happening outside the church. So if you are freeing slaves or feeding the poor, you are building the kingdom. McKnight sees in this negativity towards the church - the church is seen as messed up and negative while the kingdom is great. You can leave the church, so they say, and still build the kingdom. Against this McKnight argues that just as the kingdom is seen as partial now and to be completed, and perfected, in the future, so too is the church spoken of as broken now but to be perfected. The problem is people focus on the future of the kingdom and the present of the church and thus the church comes out looking negative.
Overall, I agree with this. And where I agree with McKnight, I find it incredibly helpful. At the same time, there were things in this book that bothered me and I am having trouble putting my finger on them. First off, his writing style is irritating sometimes - the whole "Skinny Jeans" an "pleated Pants" illustration of two views of the kingdom to his telling the reader to put down his cell phone were weird. More than that, some of the conclusions you can draw from his work are questionable. So church potlucks are great because fellowship, but Martin Luther King was not doing kingdom work because he wanted to change laws? It almost seems to make God too small. McKnight calls the work Christians do outside the church as simply good work for the common good, and while he values them they come across devalued. Maybe he needs another book on such work?
The bogeyman is Constantine, the threat that as Christians seek to build the kingdom in public we will be seduced by the temptation to force our way into politics and influence society from the top down. I get that temptation. I lean Anabaptist in my theology, so I should agree with McKnight. But, is some degree of Constantinianism inevitable? If we vote or speak, we are going to do so based on our faith. It seems McKnight would have us stop there. But that seems impossible. If a Christian runs for office, of course her Christian faith will influence her. Of course she will want aspects of that faith to be made law (for the common good). Of course Christians will end up banding together based on common ethics. It seems the only way to avoid this is simply not vote, to totally secede from society.
So while McKnight warns against Constantine, he seems open to the other temptation of being an Essenne - simply leaving society to create a separate community for God's people apart from the world.
I think as Christians, as far as we can, advocating for what we think are just policies is a good thing - from Wilberforce to King to many others. Of course we won't always agree, even as Christians, and our ultimate hope is not in changing laws, but simply seceding from society does not seem right. I don't think McKnight is saying we simply disappear from society either - I am saying I think such secession is the temptation on the flip side of his warning against being like Constantine.
Maybe it is a matter of semantics, or maybe a reason for McKnight to write what he thinks Christians ought to do in the public sphere.
Finally, I wonder if his view of the kingdom is too small for I can't recall him taking into account God's creation and ownership of the world. He sees kingdom as church and builds a strong case, but the story does not begin with Israel but with creation. He mentions Kuyper's quote of God taking back every square inch of creation, claiming it all. While I am not a Calvinist, I guess I am a bad Anabaptist because I kind of agree with Kuyper there. Whether it is kingdom work or not, I see God as reclaiming all of creation in Jesus and anywhere a slave is freed, a poor person is given dignity or someone comes to know Jesus, the original beauty of creation is being restored.
At least the book gave me a lot to think about.
August 21, 2023
Very important viewpoint to help understand how the local church is the only method out of which God’s Kingdom works here in the world. Will definitely startle at some points but an open mind is paramount to see this book used for good!
October 10, 2014
What is the kingdom of God? Scot McKnight, and influential evangelical Bible scholar and blogger, attempts to take back the Kingdom from Liberationists, whom he fears have won the day among younger evangelicals. He begins the book by offering a third alternative to pleated pants evangelicals who see the kingdom as future and related to personal salvation only (thereby largely devaluing the church) and skinny pants evangelicals who have turned the kingdom into social justice in the political realm, thereby undermining the value of the church.
Scot's vision of the kingdom identifies it with the local church. The calling of Kingdom oriented Christians is to build the church. The purpose of the church is not to transform the world or pursue the commong good. Now he's not opposed to doing good works, but those are the overflow of what happens within the church. Our purpose, as Christians is to build an alternative community to the world. His vision is that of Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon, that we are "resident aliens," though he doesn't appeal to this book or image.
His great fear is that if the church as an entity enters the public square that it will fall victim to the Constantinian temptation. Any attempt to pursue justice in the public sector, even through attempts at influencing the public leadership to pursue justice on behalf of the poor and exploited is dangerous.
I respect Scot, but as I read the book I found myself wondering what the purpose of the kingdom was, and whether his vision is too confining. I too am concerned that the church is being abandoned. I too believe that the church is important to the work of God. But is God limited to the church? Remember that God uses Cyrus to liberate Judah.
While Scot takes passing glances at the Religious Right, his focus is on the "Religious Left." The problem, as I see it, is that there is a difference between working to end poverty and oppression and trying to make sure gay people can't get married or have Christian prayers at football games.
Most troubling, in my mind, is the closing words of the book, where he describes this new vision of the kingdom as being "largely a shame-based movement masking a shallow gospel and an inept grasp of what kingdom means in the Bible" (p. 254). I hear the voice of Martin Luther King (who is mentioned only once), calling out from the Birmingham Jail to moderate white pastors who didn't want to get involved because they needed to tend to church stuff. In other words, isn't the kingdom of God more than a good potluck dinner?
The book is tightly argued, but I am left wondering what this kingdom of the church is supposed to be doing in the world.
Scot's vision of the kingdom identifies it with the local church. The calling of Kingdom oriented Christians is to build the church. The purpose of the church is not to transform the world or pursue the commong good. Now he's not opposed to doing good works, but those are the overflow of what happens within the church. Our purpose, as Christians is to build an alternative community to the world. His vision is that of Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon, that we are "resident aliens," though he doesn't appeal to this book or image.
His great fear is that if the church as an entity enters the public square that it will fall victim to the Constantinian temptation. Any attempt to pursue justice in the public sector, even through attempts at influencing the public leadership to pursue justice on behalf of the poor and exploited is dangerous.
I respect Scot, but as I read the book I found myself wondering what the purpose of the kingdom was, and whether his vision is too confining. I too am concerned that the church is being abandoned. I too believe that the church is important to the work of God. But is God limited to the church? Remember that God uses Cyrus to liberate Judah.
While Scot takes passing glances at the Religious Right, his focus is on the "Religious Left." The problem, as I see it, is that there is a difference between working to end poverty and oppression and trying to make sure gay people can't get married or have Christian prayers at football games.
Most troubling, in my mind, is the closing words of the book, where he describes this new vision of the kingdom as being "largely a shame-based movement masking a shallow gospel and an inept grasp of what kingdom means in the Bible" (p. 254). I hear the voice of Martin Luther King (who is mentioned only once), calling out from the Birmingham Jail to moderate white pastors who didn't want to get involved because they needed to tend to church stuff. In other words, isn't the kingdom of God more than a good potluck dinner?
The book is tightly argued, but I am left wondering what this kingdom of the church is supposed to be doing in the world.
October 29, 2014
This book is worthwhile for anyone interested in the Biblical picture of the Kingdom of God. McKnight, in normal fashion, challenges contemporary assumptions and pushes the reader towards the text. If one spends time, ruminating upon these challenges the reader will become a more faithful reader of the scriptures.
The struggles I had with this book are the places where McKnight moved too quickly through some Biblical passages, leaving me wondering how he moved to the position he claims to hold. ie. "Both 'salt' and 'light' are 'good deeds' in this world. The fundamental mission of kingdom citizens is to glorify God by living a life of 'good deeds.' God is most glorified when kingdom citizens live under King Jesus as a faithful community." (164) I needed help figuring out how he got to this understanding of slat and light.
The other place I really didn't appreciate is when he would reference other works by himself. There are numerous other authors who he could have quoted to make the same point. Other than those two complaints, this is a great book.
The struggles I had with this book are the places where McKnight moved too quickly through some Biblical passages, leaving me wondering how he moved to the position he claims to hold. ie. "Both 'salt' and 'light' are 'good deeds' in this world. The fundamental mission of kingdom citizens is to glorify God by living a life of 'good deeds.' God is most glorified when kingdom citizens live under King Jesus as a faithful community." (164) I needed help figuring out how he got to this understanding of slat and light.
The other place I really didn't appreciate is when he would reference other works by himself. There are numerous other authors who he could have quoted to make the same point. Other than those two complaints, this is a great book.
November 6, 2014
A very interesting study of the concept of "Kingdom of God", which clearly does mean different things to different people. He gets a lot of things right, in my opinion, but I can't help but think he's misguided in his central claim with little argument behind it that the Kingdom is the same as the Church.
My main complaint is that it is a heavy read but also an unashamedly biased one. He doesn't give much if any credit to other perspectives, so while his view makes some sense in a vacuum, I wish I knew a few more of the counterpoints. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone who isn't also reading those other points, particularly liberation theology.
My main complaint is that it is a heavy read but also an unashamedly biased one. He doesn't give much if any credit to other perspectives, so while his view makes some sense in a vacuum, I wish I knew a few more of the counterpoints. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone who isn't also reading those other points, particularly liberation theology.
April 30, 2020
A book that challenged everything I've known about the local church for 50 years. Not in a destructive way, but in a way that asks the question "Is this all Jesus intended?"
Clearly, it is not.
What stuck with me the most was:
1. The church should model the Kingdom.
2. Both the American Right and Left, as aligned with the church, seeks to influence more by power and politics than the transformational power of the Holy Spirit.
3. God empowered the church to present his Kingdom. Not just church people, church people through the institution of the church.
4. God is returning us to Plan A. Plan B (in all of it's flavors) fails. There is no Plan B that does not fail (I'm looking at you U.S.A.)
5. The Kingdom doesn't look like any form of society I've every seen or experienced or studied in the history books.
Clearly, it is not.
What stuck with me the most was:
1. The church should model the Kingdom.
2. Both the American Right and Left, as aligned with the church, seeks to influence more by power and politics than the transformational power of the Holy Spirit.
3. God empowered the church to present his Kingdom. Not just church people, church people through the institution of the church.
4. God is returning us to Plan A. Plan B (in all of it's flavors) fails. There is no Plan B that does not fail (I'm looking at you U.S.A.)
5. The Kingdom doesn't look like any form of society I've every seen or experienced or studied in the history books.
November 13, 2018
Wow! This book was phenomenal. I’ve said it many times - the church in North America needs a vast emphasis on ecclesiology. Please, please, please do yourself a favor and read this.
October 29, 2021
This is a fantastic book about The Kingdom of God and it is one that all church leaders should read and consider. I can’t give 5 stars because I wrestle with McKnights conclusion that the Kingdom of God is only functioning within the context of the church. This idea is mentioned in a few places in the book and
while he takes a bit of time to explore this thesis, i wasn’t convinced. Don’t let that make you skip this one though. Lots of gold In here: an amazing mixture of theology and Biblical application with social commentary.
while he takes a bit of time to explore this thesis, i wasn’t convinced. Don’t let that make you skip this one though. Lots of gold In here: an amazing mixture of theology and Biblical application with social commentary.
July 3, 2021
I just finished "Kingdom Conspiracy," by Scot X. McKnight.
McKnight begins this book by pointing out the at least 100 year old divide between what I believe has become the fundamentalist and liberal Protestant vision for what "Kingdom" means. In my view, since the writing of "A Theology for a Social Gospel," and the writing of "The Fundamentals" (and this divide could have began much earlier) there has been the two sides pitted against each other with "salvation" almost as the only outward expression of the Church -- and by extension, the Kingdom -- on the one hand, the conservative, fundamentalist one, and the "social gospel" of helping people in need on the liberal Protestant one.
I appreciate how McKnight quotes Hauerwas from "Resident Aliens" in regards to the Kingdom: wherever you are "be the Church and thus help the world to understand itself as world." Resident Aliens was one of the most profound reads I've had all year, if not beyond. I'm glad to see it have an important place here.
McKnight begins surfing through the Old/New Testaments via narrative form looking at "Kingdom." He does so by placing a framework before us: "if Jesus is the answer, and the answer was that Jesus was [is] the Messiah/King, what is the question."
This is good. McKnight says that our common hermeneutic principle of CFRC (Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation) often misses seeing Jesus throughout scripture because 1. After Gn 1-3 (creation and fall) we skip to Rm or the Gospels to get redemption. This forms our questions into a personal salvation kind (what can Jesus do for me today?). Rather than seeing Jesus as Lord, King, Redeemer etc. and asking "what do you have to show me." "What you want me to see is more important than what I want to find."
Building off of N.T. Wright's work McKnight posits that the story of the Hebrew people would have been one of exile. Theirs is a history of exile and more exile. When Jesus shows up His is a message of "yall ready to get out of exile?" (Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand). So the Jew of Jesus day would not have heard about the Kingdom being at hand and thought about spiritual salvation. They would have pictured salvation from Roman rule at least and Caesar's head on a pike at best.
In place of CFRC McKnight purposes a ABA' scheme which included the CFRC under it. Ok, buy the book for more development of ABA' because this is really good stuff.
McKnight ends this chapter by saying that the Kingdom now (the not yet) will always have its flaws. His heartwrenching story of George Ladd was proof of a total who had his issues. I immediately thought of John Howard Yoder and his issues (very big ones) but McKnight says that he could have told Yoder's story too.
I spent some time reading without writing. I have really been drawn in to the book.
McKnight has covered that Kingdom is people and is now covering how we have to see that there is no Kingdom outside the church. Then he says that we should not draw such a hard line between the church and Kingdom. Rather--if I'm picking up what hes throwing down--we should better and more beautifully define "church." We need to get out of the German and architectural Kirch and see the church Jesus built. Then and only then will we have a Kingdom view with the Church and the Kingdom as synonymous. Maybe the better way to state the above is that our view of the Church has been shaped by our experiences in the Church which has been less than the Church should be. This left us seeking something greater--the Kingdom. Had our experiences in the Church been what the King wanted we would see how great and vibrant the Church is: the people of the King working for the penultimate and ultimate goals of the Church--Kingdom work. (I believe McKnight would agree with this way of stating it.)
He moves through the Gentiles being grafted into Israel, and also some historical comments about "church:" how this word was used, when it was appropriated by Paul. Very good stuff.
"We have, then, the makings in the church of a Kingdom--a king, a rule, a people, a land, and a law," p 91.
"The Kingdom is the people who are redeemed and ruled by King Jesus. That is, there is a King (Jesus), a rule (by Jesus as Lord), a people (the Church), a land (wherever Jesus' Kingdom people are present), and a law (following Jesus through the power of the Spirit). Kingdom mission is about creating and sustaining that Kingdom community, the Church," p 99.
That is a wonderful way to state how the Kingdom looks.
His comments on the kingdom and politics are refreshing. I believe they can be summed up by Hauerwas' "Be the Church" comment from Resident Aliens.
[A]n evangelical social gospel and an evangelical liberation theology are natural expressions of kingdom citizens," p 119. The emphasis here is that people who are in love with Jesus 1. Work in a community called the church and 2. Will naturally tend this way corporately and individually. There is no "ME" who works unethical deals Mon - Fri and then walks in for an hour of worship all sanctified on Sun. All seven days of the week are lived as and by the same me who worships on Sun; the week is baptized or I am not living my profession.
This past chapter, "kingdom mission as church mission" is by itself worth the price of the book. Excellent chapter.
Now on to the King of the Kingdom, King Jesus. In this discussion McKnight breaks it down by title: Son of Man, Son of God, and Messiah.
Further on he covers eschatology, or more precisely, a renewed creation. I am glad he placed this here because for a kingdom conversation to have any flesh it must take into account the consummated kingdom.
McKnight ends the book proper (sans appendices) very well and concisely summing up the books concepts: what does Kingdom mean?--how does it impact us now? I greatly appreciate how when speaking of the kingdom inaugurated inhabited by Jesus People (the Church) he speaks to the things that benefit and grow us while reflecting our future, the Kingdom consummated, such as sharing life as much as possible external of just Sundays in life groups, pot lucks, etc.
Appendix 1 was on the Constantinian Temptation. For many reasons this spoke loudly to me. It had to do with church bedding state (from left or right doesn't matter) to establish "kingdom" ends. I wish I had this appendix as a pamphlet I could just hand out. The fundamentalist/progressive history was great too.
Appendix 2 is on Kingdom today. McKnight goes down the path of Nazi Germany speaking of how Kittel and Bultmann sold out to the prevailing Nazis while Bonhoeffer and Barth maintained their proclamation that Christ is Lord and Caesar is not. In so doing both paid a price. Then asked is the question of where are we today being a Bultmann or Kittel? Are we selling our souls to politics or government in a way to force in our perception of the Kingdom?
His analysis of liberation theology is one I agree with. I love liberation theology when rightly seen, which I dont think has been articulated by a liberation theologian yet. For instance, if we are being the Church--Kingdom people--in every area we are then these penultimate issues of liberation will be our natural inclination with the goal--the ultimate--as a relationship with King Jesus. It is not one of gaining control of a party or a government or an economic system thus baptizing it. Be the Church.
This was a timely read for me. It was an excellent book about the Kingdom of God and one I wish I had found earlier and one I wish more would investigate and apply.
McKnight begins this book by pointing out the at least 100 year old divide between what I believe has become the fundamentalist and liberal Protestant vision for what "Kingdom" means. In my view, since the writing of "A Theology for a Social Gospel," and the writing of "The Fundamentals" (and this divide could have began much earlier) there has been the two sides pitted against each other with "salvation" almost as the only outward expression of the Church -- and by extension, the Kingdom -- on the one hand, the conservative, fundamentalist one, and the "social gospel" of helping people in need on the liberal Protestant one.
I appreciate how McKnight quotes Hauerwas from "Resident Aliens" in regards to the Kingdom: wherever you are "be the Church and thus help the world to understand itself as world." Resident Aliens was one of the most profound reads I've had all year, if not beyond. I'm glad to see it have an important place here.
McKnight begins surfing through the Old/New Testaments via narrative form looking at "Kingdom." He does so by placing a framework before us: "if Jesus is the answer, and the answer was that Jesus was [is] the Messiah/King, what is the question."
This is good. McKnight says that our common hermeneutic principle of CFRC (Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation) often misses seeing Jesus throughout scripture because 1. After Gn 1-3 (creation and fall) we skip to Rm or the Gospels to get redemption. This forms our questions into a personal salvation kind (what can Jesus do for me today?). Rather than seeing Jesus as Lord, King, Redeemer etc. and asking "what do you have to show me." "What you want me to see is more important than what I want to find."
Building off of N.T. Wright's work McKnight posits that the story of the Hebrew people would have been one of exile. Theirs is a history of exile and more exile. When Jesus shows up His is a message of "yall ready to get out of exile?" (Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand). So the Jew of Jesus day would not have heard about the Kingdom being at hand and thought about spiritual salvation. They would have pictured salvation from Roman rule at least and Caesar's head on a pike at best.
In place of CFRC McKnight purposes a ABA' scheme which included the CFRC under it. Ok, buy the book for more development of ABA' because this is really good stuff.
McKnight ends this chapter by saying that the Kingdom now (the not yet) will always have its flaws. His heartwrenching story of George Ladd was proof of a total who had his issues. I immediately thought of John Howard Yoder and his issues (very big ones) but McKnight says that he could have told Yoder's story too.
I spent some time reading without writing. I have really been drawn in to the book.
McKnight has covered that Kingdom is people and is now covering how we have to see that there is no Kingdom outside the church. Then he says that we should not draw such a hard line between the church and Kingdom. Rather--if I'm picking up what hes throwing down--we should better and more beautifully define "church." We need to get out of the German and architectural Kirch and see the church Jesus built. Then and only then will we have a Kingdom view with the Church and the Kingdom as synonymous. Maybe the better way to state the above is that our view of the Church has been shaped by our experiences in the Church which has been less than the Church should be. This left us seeking something greater--the Kingdom. Had our experiences in the Church been what the King wanted we would see how great and vibrant the Church is: the people of the King working for the penultimate and ultimate goals of the Church--Kingdom work. (I believe McKnight would agree with this way of stating it.)
He moves through the Gentiles being grafted into Israel, and also some historical comments about "church:" how this word was used, when it was appropriated by Paul. Very good stuff.
"We have, then, the makings in the church of a Kingdom--a king, a rule, a people, a land, and a law," p 91.
"The Kingdom is the people who are redeemed and ruled by King Jesus. That is, there is a King (Jesus), a rule (by Jesus as Lord), a people (the Church), a land (wherever Jesus' Kingdom people are present), and a law (following Jesus through the power of the Spirit). Kingdom mission is about creating and sustaining that Kingdom community, the Church," p 99.
That is a wonderful way to state how the Kingdom looks.
His comments on the kingdom and politics are refreshing. I believe they can be summed up by Hauerwas' "Be the Church" comment from Resident Aliens.
[A]n evangelical social gospel and an evangelical liberation theology are natural expressions of kingdom citizens," p 119. The emphasis here is that people who are in love with Jesus 1. Work in a community called the church and 2. Will naturally tend this way corporately and individually. There is no "ME" who works unethical deals Mon - Fri and then walks in for an hour of worship all sanctified on Sun. All seven days of the week are lived as and by the same me who worships on Sun; the week is baptized or I am not living my profession.
This past chapter, "kingdom mission as church mission" is by itself worth the price of the book. Excellent chapter.
Now on to the King of the Kingdom, King Jesus. In this discussion McKnight breaks it down by title: Son of Man, Son of God, and Messiah.
Further on he covers eschatology, or more precisely, a renewed creation. I am glad he placed this here because for a kingdom conversation to have any flesh it must take into account the consummated kingdom.
McKnight ends the book proper (sans appendices) very well and concisely summing up the books concepts: what does Kingdom mean?--how does it impact us now? I greatly appreciate how when speaking of the kingdom inaugurated inhabited by Jesus People (the Church) he speaks to the things that benefit and grow us while reflecting our future, the Kingdom consummated, such as sharing life as much as possible external of just Sundays in life groups, pot lucks, etc.
Appendix 1 was on the Constantinian Temptation. For many reasons this spoke loudly to me. It had to do with church bedding state (from left or right doesn't matter) to establish "kingdom" ends. I wish I had this appendix as a pamphlet I could just hand out. The fundamentalist/progressive history was great too.
Appendix 2 is on Kingdom today. McKnight goes down the path of Nazi Germany speaking of how Kittel and Bultmann sold out to the prevailing Nazis while Bonhoeffer and Barth maintained their proclamation that Christ is Lord and Caesar is not. In so doing both paid a price. Then asked is the question of where are we today being a Bultmann or Kittel? Are we selling our souls to politics or government in a way to force in our perception of the Kingdom?
His analysis of liberation theology is one I agree with. I love liberation theology when rightly seen, which I dont think has been articulated by a liberation theologian yet. For instance, if we are being the Church--Kingdom people--in every area we are then these penultimate issues of liberation will be our natural inclination with the goal--the ultimate--as a relationship with King Jesus. It is not one of gaining control of a party or a government or an economic system thus baptizing it. Be the Church.
This was a timely read for me. It was an excellent book about the Kingdom of God and one I wish I had found earlier and one I wish more would investigate and apply.
March 7, 2015
There's a lot of talk today about what it means to do Kingdom work. Is it personal evangelism? Is it digging wells in Africa? Is it racial reconciliation? Is it all of these? What is it we are supposed to do if we are to "build the Kingdom"? McKnight makes a strong case that Kingdom work is church work and that you cannot divorce the church from mission done in Christ's Name.
This may seem like semantics but it's not. He sketches out two opposing camps as the Pleated Pants crowd and the Skinny Jeans crowd. Pleated Pants folks have reduced Kingdom work down to personal evangelism and this is all. That is the most important thing we must be doing and that doesn't require us to act as a body in society. The Skinny Jeans folks are trying to leave the church behind and think that any work doing good for people, in Christ's Name or not, is all Kingdom work regardless of whether we bring Jesus up at all. McKnight opposes both and makes the case that the church is the Lord's plan for expanding His Kingdom. This is important for us both now and in the hereafter in helping us understand our mission. We together ARE to influence the world around us by being the saved and redeemed community of faith in this world. We should be making a difference. But we cannot do that WITHOUT the church. Why? Because it is the Lord's chosen vessel to accomplish His will. There's a lot of millennial Christians who want to simply do good things and hope people figure out that Jesus is involved. But linking to a messy and stodgy church is just too cumbersome and embarrassing so let's just leave it behind. No dice. This is not an option the Lord offers us.
This is the first book I've read by McKnight and it's easy to see him as a firebrand. He's got a bit of the iconoclast in him. But he's also very focused on the Scriptures and after a full reading it's hard not to side with Him. At the very least this is a book that should be read by Millenials who are questioning the role of the church in their mission or even their lives. It's a theology book and a thicker one at that. This is a book about methodology and missiology that will be most beneficial for pastors and people trying to figure out their mission in the world. It's not a devotional or spiritual living kind of book. But definitely one I would recommend.
This may seem like semantics but it's not. He sketches out two opposing camps as the Pleated Pants crowd and the Skinny Jeans crowd. Pleated Pants folks have reduced Kingdom work down to personal evangelism and this is all. That is the most important thing we must be doing and that doesn't require us to act as a body in society. The Skinny Jeans folks are trying to leave the church behind and think that any work doing good for people, in Christ's Name or not, is all Kingdom work regardless of whether we bring Jesus up at all. McKnight opposes both and makes the case that the church is the Lord's plan for expanding His Kingdom. This is important for us both now and in the hereafter in helping us understand our mission. We together ARE to influence the world around us by being the saved and redeemed community of faith in this world. We should be making a difference. But we cannot do that WITHOUT the church. Why? Because it is the Lord's chosen vessel to accomplish His will. There's a lot of millennial Christians who want to simply do good things and hope people figure out that Jesus is involved. But linking to a messy and stodgy church is just too cumbersome and embarrassing so let's just leave it behind. No dice. This is not an option the Lord offers us.
This is the first book I've read by McKnight and it's easy to see him as a firebrand. He's got a bit of the iconoclast in him. But he's also very focused on the Scriptures and after a full reading it's hard not to side with Him. At the very least this is a book that should be read by Millenials who are questioning the role of the church in their mission or even their lives. It's a theology book and a thicker one at that. This is a book about methodology and missiology that will be most beneficial for pastors and people trying to figure out their mission in the world. It's not a devotional or spiritual living kind of book. But definitely one I would recommend.
May 17, 2016
McKnight provides a well-reasoned and biblically sound argument that kingdom work is church work. He creatively explains the two predominant Christian views of kingdom with the terms Pleated Pants Christians, who focus on saving souls, and Skinny Jeans Christians focused on social justice. McKnight shows convincingly that the New Testament picture of the kingdom is neither, though it shares elements of both. Although what this might look like from a practical aspect is lacking, McKnight rightly reoriented the focus back into and onto the local church. Though this book focuses on kingdom, I can't recall a book I've read about the church that does a better job than this one at showing the absolute necessity of the local church (and our involvement in it) for achieving God's cosmic redemptive purposes.
June 22, 2015
I found this book to be very mixed. One half curmudgeonly attack on groups who see the kingdom of God as mostly social gospel and one part reminder that the local church needs to be the locus of what we're doing as followers of Jesus. I was much more attracted to the latter argument and found the former to be unconvincing and grumpy. I really do think we need to be reminded that it is the church that is working for and in the kingdom of God and that while it is broken it is still the place we practice all the virtues that are needed for the kingdom. I agree we're all too enamored with doing good all on our own and not living in community with others.
January 20, 2015
Very interesting, thought provoking, and well written perspective on the Kingdom of God. For me, the arguments are sharply undermined by almost a complete lack of reference to the Holy Spirit. A New Testament perspective without discussing the Spirit? A Binarian expression of the Kingdom leaves open a lot of questions and critiques.
February 8, 2015
A tremendously important and timely book. A much needed call for Protestants and Evangelicals to put the church back into the central place it belongs. Though much of it is an extended definition of the word "kingdom", it reframes and forces serious reflection upon how the word is currently being used. One is compelled to answer the question, "What do I REALLY mean by the word 'kingdom'?"
Read
October 31, 2016So far a great read!
October 16, 2014
Levis vs. Dockers. This is a tale of two pairs of pants. Or better yet two kinds of Christians who tend to wear two kinds of pants. In one corner you have the skinny jean wearing, tattoo flaunting, hipster eye-glassed, latte sipping Christians who think that “the Kingdom deeds good deeds done by good people in the public sector for the common good” (4). In other words the Kingdom mission means working for social justice and peace. In the other corner you have the pleated pants crew – the Docker wearing Christians who have focused all of their kingdom theorizing on two questions – “When does the Kingdom arrive?” and “Where is the Kingdom?”
A typical Christian hipster... This guy is probably a pastor too.A typical Christian hipster… This guy is probably a pastor too.
Their answer to these questions is generally “The kingdom is both present and future, and the kingdom is both a rule and a realm over which God governs” (9). We might summarize their position as “kingdom = God’s redemptive rule and power at work in the world.”
In Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church Scot McKnight offers an Anabaptist interpretation of what scripture means by Kingdom of God & how that will affect the mission of the church. He concludes that kingdom means “a people governed by a king.” (66) Kingdom does not refer to rule, or a redemptive dynamic, it specifically refers to a people governed by a king. This leads to the surprising conclusion that “kingdom is a people and the church is a people, then it follows that the church people are the kingdom people… there is no kingdom outside of the church.”
This claim goes up against the evangelical consensus which has in general followed George Ladd who claims that:
The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God, and derivatively the sphere in which the rule is experienced. In biblical idiom, the Kingdom is not identified with its subjects. They are the people of God’s rule who enter it, live in it, and are governed by it. The church is the community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom itself… the Kingdom is the rule of God; the church is a society of men and women.
The upshot of McKnight’s position is that kingdom mission is church mission, church mission is kingdom mission, and there is no kingdom mission that is not church mission. Or we might say that the criteria for deciding whether something is “mission” or not is whether it forms or enhances local churches. Something is only mission if it is about Jesus. This will certainly ruffle the feathers of the Skinny Jeans crowd.
Kingdom mission is church mission is gospeling about Jesus in the context of a church witness and loving life. Anyone who calls what they are doing “kingdom work” but does not present Jesus to others or summon others to surrender themselves to King Jesus as Lord and Savior is simply not doing kingdom mission or Kingdom work. They are probably doing good work and doing social justice, but until Jesus is made known, it is not kingdom mission. (142)
I believe that this last paragraph is the heart of this book – if its not pointing people to Jesus & if its not carried out by Jesus’ people then its not really kingdom work.
Just because you are a part of the dockers (i.e. pleated pants) crowd that doesn’t mean you can’t rock them with style!
Now.... on to my thoughts on the book:
There are so many great things about this book. I love the fact that he makes a case for why all social justice isn’t necessarily kingdom work. I love the fact that he centers mission around the proclamation of King Jesus. I love the fact that he grounds his arguments in thorough readings of scripture. However despite the fact that I agree with his vision for who King Jesus is and what mission is, I can’t buy into what he sees as the implications of the gospel and mission. Before I push back on a bunch of things, let me just say that I ate up this book, I loved McKnight’s heart for the church and for proclaiming Jesus as the one and only king. In fact, I agree with Publisher’s Weekly who said that “This is must reading for church leaders today.” I really believe that this is a book that many people in my own generation, those who are drawn to a Skinny Jeans gospel, need to read. Having said that, here is where I want to push back:
1) The Kingdom Story is All Mixed-Up: Most evangelicals hold to a Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation story of the bible. Some have ignored some key parts of this story (Abraham, Israel, Exile, etc) but in the last few years we have been improving our understanding of this big picture story. McKnight however suggests a different story. He suggests an A-B-A’ story. The Story goes: Plan A: God rules the world through is elected people but God is the one and only King. Plan B: God accommodates to Israel’s selfish desires and lets David or an Israelite king rule. Plan A’: Plan B failed, Plan A takes on a new form, with God ruling in the God-man Jesus. What is wrong with this Kingdom Story? It makes it seem as though God’s plan failed and he had to come up with a brand new plan. It makes it seem as though Jesus was not the point the whole time, as though Jesus was God’s backup. I just can’t go there.
2) McKnight’s Theology of Mission Needs to be Nuanced: McKnight is absolutely right, anyone who calls what they are doing “kingdom work” but does not present Jesus to others or summon others to surrender themselves to King Jesus as Lord and Savior is simply not doing kingdom mission or Kingdom work. However this position needs to be nuanced. He doesn’t do this, so I will try to offer a nuanced position for him ( I think he will agree). Here is my revision of his position: Kingdom work is work that proclaims King Jesus as Lord and Savior. Any work which proclaims the reality of Jesus’ universal reign as King – and is done by kingdom people is kingdom work. We need to remember though that proclamation need not be verbal at all times. Ultimately it will lead to verbal proclamation, but one can testify to the reality that Jesus is king without a verbal proclamation. Practically this means, that a Christian who works for an organization like Living Water International can do kingdom work because her work is done in the name of Jesus and proclaims the fact that under Jesus’ rule it is unthinkable that people would suffer from a lack of clean water. This means that a church who serves their community by opening their doors for recovery programs is doing Kingdom work because it is done in the name of Jesus by Christians. This means that the lone Christian who works in a secular non-profit that does public health education is doing Kingdom work because he is bringing God’s reign to bear (people’s health flourishing) and is doing so in an effort to proclaim “this is what life is like when Jesus reigns,” even though they might not be doing so explicitly with their words on a daily basis.
3)The Kingdom is Not the Church: In an effort to make his case that Kingdom = Church he quotes D.A. Carson who says that “In no instance is Kingdom to be identified with church, as if the two words can occasion become tight synonyms. Even when there is a referential overlap, the domain of ‘kingdom’ is reign, and the domain of ‘church’ is people.” I agree with Carson. McKnight believes that one day Christ will reign over all of creation, but right now Christ’s reign is only over the church. Again I have to disagree – for there is no square inch of creation over which Christ does not say “mine.” How is that reign expressed? And to what extent do we experience that reign? That is a question for another place and another day. Nevertheless we can say with Richard Mouw that:
The Kingdom is the broad range of reality over which Christ rules… Kingdom covers all those areas of reality where Christ’s rule is acknowledged by those who work to make that rule visible…The institutional church is certainly an important part of Christ’s kingdom, but the church is only one part of the Kingdom…You don’t have to go into a church to do something related to the kingdom…Wherever followers of Christ are attempting to glorify God in one or another sphere of cultural interaction, they are engaged in kingdom activity.” (Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Person Introduction)
McKnight’s Anabaptist theology will not allow him to buy into this Kuperian-Reformed view of Kingdom and culture. I believe that contrasting Mouw’s/Kuyper’s vision with McKnight’s vision of the Kingdom reveals the core of McKnight’s kingdom theology – ultimately McKnight’s kingdom theology is Anabaptist – it is one in which the Church is radically separate from the world. This means that the church does its own thing and can only stand against culture. The church and its mission cannot begin from within the system. This is exactly what McKnight sees happening with the Skinny Jeans Christians and the Pleated Pants Christians. And according to McKnight this is a big problem.
Even though I do have a few problems with this book – I certainly don’t want it to come off as though I don’t recommend this book. I highly recommend this book, I honestly believe that every person in ministry should read it, primarily because it will challenge your assumptions about what “Kingdom” means, and hopefully that will lead you to come to your own conclusions.
A typical Christian hipster... This guy is probably a pastor too.A typical Christian hipster… This guy is probably a pastor too.
Their answer to these questions is generally “The kingdom is both present and future, and the kingdom is both a rule and a realm over which God governs” (9). We might summarize their position as “kingdom = God’s redemptive rule and power at work in the world.”
In Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church Scot McKnight offers an Anabaptist interpretation of what scripture means by Kingdom of God & how that will affect the mission of the church. He concludes that kingdom means “a people governed by a king.” (66) Kingdom does not refer to rule, or a redemptive dynamic, it specifically refers to a people governed by a king. This leads to the surprising conclusion that “kingdom is a people and the church is a people, then it follows that the church people are the kingdom people… there is no kingdom outside of the church.”
This claim goes up against the evangelical consensus which has in general followed George Ladd who claims that:
The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God, and derivatively the sphere in which the rule is experienced. In biblical idiom, the Kingdom is not identified with its subjects. They are the people of God’s rule who enter it, live in it, and are governed by it. The church is the community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom itself… the Kingdom is the rule of God; the church is a society of men and women.
The upshot of McKnight’s position is that kingdom mission is church mission, church mission is kingdom mission, and there is no kingdom mission that is not church mission. Or we might say that the criteria for deciding whether something is “mission” or not is whether it forms or enhances local churches. Something is only mission if it is about Jesus. This will certainly ruffle the feathers of the Skinny Jeans crowd.
Kingdom mission is church mission is gospeling about Jesus in the context of a church witness and loving life. Anyone who calls what they are doing “kingdom work” but does not present Jesus to others or summon others to surrender themselves to King Jesus as Lord and Savior is simply not doing kingdom mission or Kingdom work. They are probably doing good work and doing social justice, but until Jesus is made known, it is not kingdom mission. (142)
I believe that this last paragraph is the heart of this book – if its not pointing people to Jesus & if its not carried out by Jesus’ people then its not really kingdom work.
Just because you are a part of the dockers (i.e. pleated pants) crowd that doesn’t mean you can’t rock them with style!
Now.... on to my thoughts on the book:
There are so many great things about this book. I love the fact that he makes a case for why all social justice isn’t necessarily kingdom work. I love the fact that he centers mission around the proclamation of King Jesus. I love the fact that he grounds his arguments in thorough readings of scripture. However despite the fact that I agree with his vision for who King Jesus is and what mission is, I can’t buy into what he sees as the implications of the gospel and mission. Before I push back on a bunch of things, let me just say that I ate up this book, I loved McKnight’s heart for the church and for proclaiming Jesus as the one and only king. In fact, I agree with Publisher’s Weekly who said that “This is must reading for church leaders today.” I really believe that this is a book that many people in my own generation, those who are drawn to a Skinny Jeans gospel, need to read. Having said that, here is where I want to push back:
1) The Kingdom Story is All Mixed-Up: Most evangelicals hold to a Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation story of the bible. Some have ignored some key parts of this story (Abraham, Israel, Exile, etc) but in the last few years we have been improving our understanding of this big picture story. McKnight however suggests a different story. He suggests an A-B-A’ story. The Story goes: Plan A: God rules the world through is elected people but God is the one and only King. Plan B: God accommodates to Israel’s selfish desires and lets David or an Israelite king rule. Plan A’: Plan B failed, Plan A takes on a new form, with God ruling in the God-man Jesus. What is wrong with this Kingdom Story? It makes it seem as though God’s plan failed and he had to come up with a brand new plan. It makes it seem as though Jesus was not the point the whole time, as though Jesus was God’s backup. I just can’t go there.
2) McKnight’s Theology of Mission Needs to be Nuanced: McKnight is absolutely right, anyone who calls what they are doing “kingdom work” but does not present Jesus to others or summon others to surrender themselves to King Jesus as Lord and Savior is simply not doing kingdom mission or Kingdom work. However this position needs to be nuanced. He doesn’t do this, so I will try to offer a nuanced position for him ( I think he will agree). Here is my revision of his position: Kingdom work is work that proclaims King Jesus as Lord and Savior. Any work which proclaims the reality of Jesus’ universal reign as King – and is done by kingdom people is kingdom work. We need to remember though that proclamation need not be verbal at all times. Ultimately it will lead to verbal proclamation, but one can testify to the reality that Jesus is king without a verbal proclamation. Practically this means, that a Christian who works for an organization like Living Water International can do kingdom work because her work is done in the name of Jesus and proclaims the fact that under Jesus’ rule it is unthinkable that people would suffer from a lack of clean water. This means that a church who serves their community by opening their doors for recovery programs is doing Kingdom work because it is done in the name of Jesus by Christians. This means that the lone Christian who works in a secular non-profit that does public health education is doing Kingdom work because he is bringing God’s reign to bear (people’s health flourishing) and is doing so in an effort to proclaim “this is what life is like when Jesus reigns,” even though they might not be doing so explicitly with their words on a daily basis.
3)The Kingdom is Not the Church: In an effort to make his case that Kingdom = Church he quotes D.A. Carson who says that “In no instance is Kingdom to be identified with church, as if the two words can occasion become tight synonyms. Even when there is a referential overlap, the domain of ‘kingdom’ is reign, and the domain of ‘church’ is people.” I agree with Carson. McKnight believes that one day Christ will reign over all of creation, but right now Christ’s reign is only over the church. Again I have to disagree – for there is no square inch of creation over which Christ does not say “mine.” How is that reign expressed? And to what extent do we experience that reign? That is a question for another place and another day. Nevertheless we can say with Richard Mouw that:
The Kingdom is the broad range of reality over which Christ rules… Kingdom covers all those areas of reality where Christ’s rule is acknowledged by those who work to make that rule visible…The institutional church is certainly an important part of Christ’s kingdom, but the church is only one part of the Kingdom…You don’t have to go into a church to do something related to the kingdom…Wherever followers of Christ are attempting to glorify God in one or another sphere of cultural interaction, they are engaged in kingdom activity.” (Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Person Introduction)
McKnight’s Anabaptist theology will not allow him to buy into this Kuperian-Reformed view of Kingdom and culture. I believe that contrasting Mouw’s/Kuyper’s vision with McKnight’s vision of the Kingdom reveals the core of McKnight’s kingdom theology – ultimately McKnight’s kingdom theology is Anabaptist – it is one in which the Church is radically separate from the world. This means that the church does its own thing and can only stand against culture. The church and its mission cannot begin from within the system. This is exactly what McKnight sees happening with the Skinny Jeans Christians and the Pleated Pants Christians. And according to McKnight this is a big problem.
Even though I do have a few problems with this book – I certainly don’t want it to come off as though I don’t recommend this book. I highly recommend this book, I honestly believe that every person in ministry should read it, primarily because it will challenge your assumptions about what “Kingdom” means, and hopefully that will lead you to come to your own conclusions.
July 30, 2015
Kigndom_conspiracy
Title: Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church
Author: Scot McKnight
Publisher: Brazos Press
Year: 2014
Pages: 289
Kingdom Conspiracy
I read a lot of books and I write reviews for most of the books I read. Most of the books I read are kind of popular level books written for the general Christian population among us and they are thus not too deep or theologically hefty. Mostly they are boring.
Every now and again I come across a book that radically alters the way I think about things or the way I believe or understand things. Sometimes a book utterly rebuilds the landscape. Kingdom Conspiracy is one such book. I say this without the slightest hint of hyperbole: this might be one of the most important and significant books written during my generation. That is how important this book is and that is why this book should be read by every Christian--pastor, preacher, and parishioner alike. I think the Pope should read this book--maybe he has. Seminary professors ought to read this book. In a world where words often mean nothing, it's important that we are also careful not to make words mean anything or everything. This, I think, is key to understanding McKnight's ideas in Kingdom Conspiracy.
Not everyone who reads this book is going to wholly agree with all of his ideas of what the kingdom of God is (sometimes I thought the hair he was splitting was a little too fine) or his understanding of certain passages of Scripture. But one thing I think everyone can and should agree upon is that whatever we think of the kingdom of God we need to be very careful not to define it too loosely or casually. That is to say: not everything people label as 'kingdom' work is, in fact, kingdom work. (To put a finer point on it: merely calling something 'kingdom' work does not necessarily make it kingdom work or sacred and when we call something kingdom work, even if it is, it is not ours to bypass the church in the process.) Definitions matter as much as articulation. Thus his opening salvo: "Precision begins with defining terms" he writes quoting Marilyn McEntyre. Yes. It does. He goes on: "I lay down an observation that alters the landscape if we embrace it--namely, that we need to learn to tell the story that makes sense to Jesus. Not a story that we ask Jesus to fit into. No, we to find the story that Jesus himself and the apostles told" (22).
Definitions and articulation matter. What I continue to see and hear--both from pulpits and in the books being published--is that we get it wrong on both marks most of the time. The Americanized gospel of 'join the club, go to church, and follow the rules so you can also go to heaven' is the result of unclear definitions and poor articulation. It's the result of thinking democracy=kingdom. That is decidedly not the kingdom articulated in the Scripture. Again, I see it in the books I read for review and in the sermons I hear and read. I am grateful for preachers like McKnight, N.T. Wright, and others who refuse to take shortcuts around the Bible to make a gospel that Jesus fits into. Frankly, I think if we asked a group of 100 Christians to articulate the Kingdom story, 99 would fail because it simply is not preached in the pulpits: "Until we can articulate the Bible's kingdom story, we can't do kingdom mission" (23). I agree.
I was in his grip after 3 chapters and he never let go.
What has most amazed me since I started (and finished) the book is how aware I have become of kingdom language in the Bible. Don't get me wrong: I think McKnight nails it most of the time when it comes to understanding what Kingdom is and is not. My point is that as I read through the Bible--I am currently teaching through the book of Daniel--I am amazed at the language that is used: kings and kingdoms, kingdom of God, kingdom of heaven, and so on. It's all over the place. It's amazing and it is there from front to back, Genesis to Revelation, and all places in between. Maybe someday some fine theologian will do a comprehensive study of the Kingdom of God from the beginning to the end of the Bible. I think it would be a fascinating study. (I'm currently reading a book called The Kingdom according to Luke and Acts by Karl Allen Kuhn which is exploring Kingdom in a small part of the Bible, but he is also nicely tying that story in with the meta-narrative of the entire Bible.)
I'd like to note what I think is probably the most significant aspect of the book for me insofar as giving readers something to practice. I belong to a generation of people who have by and large given up on the church. Let me be honest: I'm on the edge. I'm on the edge because of my experiences as a pastor with churches that have refused to move forward and who found that getting rid of me would make their lives easier. But I haven't given up entirely for two reasons. First, the church hasn't given up on me. If one church has gotten rid of me for their own convenience, another church has taken me in and bathed my wounds. I still love the church; the church still loves me. Second, because the McKnight solidified for me something I have already and always believed: the church and the kingdom are synonymous. Thus: "...kingdom mission is church mission and that kingdom mission is not working for the common good..." (115). Further,
What I am not in favor of is assigning the word 'kingdom' to such actions [as public action or social justice or compassion for the poor or feeding the homeless] 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, his emphasis.)
And he's correct. For the Christian, the church should be a significant priority. "Kingdom is the realm of redemption and the redeemed, not what followers of Jesus did in the public sector" (114). Yes. His argument is, admittedly, complex and being able to draw that line in minds that are already persuaded is difficult. Nevertheless, we must indeed have our minds open and our hearts rent so that we can clearly define and articulate bible things. In the tradition I have belonged to for most of my life, this has been a part of our 'doctrine'--that we should call bible things by bible names. This is good. Now my tradition just needs to start defining Kingdom with more accuracy and clarity and then begin articulating it from the pulpits of our churches with more frequency, more duration, and more intensity.
I am glad that McKnight takes up for the church. I am guilty, but I get tired of people running down the church, the body of Christ, the Bride for whom Jesus died. So often people are so busy running the church down that we might think christians can get along with it. We cannot. We need the church. All of us. Yet we struggle.
"It is more glamorous to do social activism because building a local church is hard. It involves people who struggle with one another, in involves persuading others of the desires of your heart to help the homeless, it means caring for people where they are and no where you want them to be, it involves daily routines, and it only rarely leads to the highs of 'short-term mission' experiences. But local church is what Jesus came to build, so the local church's mission shapes kingdom mission" (97).
We can do better.We need the church. We need one another. McKnight helped stoke the fires of affection in me for the church again. Maybe I have been too critical; perhaps unfair. With a prophet's insight and conviction, McKnight confronted my own church angst and now restoration has begun in me.
This book asks some difficult, soul-searching questions. It challenges time honored traditions concerning definitions. While I get the point of demarcating this book along lines of 'skinny-jeans christians' and 'pleated-pants christians', I think even McKnight would acknowledge there is a lot of room for frilly-dress and bonnet christians, overalls christians, sweat-pants christians, polyester slacks and silk shirts christians, and many more besides. In other words, his categories help us see the differences but all of us have this problem of definition. His clear point is this: be careful how you define words because your definition directly affects your articulation. I agree.
The book is heavily researched and, as per usual, given that it is written for a popular audience, notes have been relegated to the end of the book. It is deeply exegetical and contextual--in other words, he doesn't prooftext his readers but thoughtfully engages in exegesis of large swaths of scripture to give context and clarity to his ideas. It contains a substantial subject index which will be helpful for preachers and teachers alike. Sadly, there are no references except what is found in the end notes so following up with his research might prove to be a bit of a chore. This is a book that will not disappoint the thoughtful reader--the person wholly engaged in trying to understand what Scripture says about a particular theological subject.
I simply cannot say enough good about this book. Please read it.
5*/5
Title: Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church
Author: Scot McKnight
Publisher: Brazos Press
Year: 2014
Pages: 289
Kingdom Conspiracy
I read a lot of books and I write reviews for most of the books I read. Most of the books I read are kind of popular level books written for the general Christian population among us and they are thus not too deep or theologically hefty. Mostly they are boring.
Every now and again I come across a book that radically alters the way I think about things or the way I believe or understand things. Sometimes a book utterly rebuilds the landscape. Kingdom Conspiracy is one such book. I say this without the slightest hint of hyperbole: this might be one of the most important and significant books written during my generation. That is how important this book is and that is why this book should be read by every Christian--pastor, preacher, and parishioner alike. I think the Pope should read this book--maybe he has. Seminary professors ought to read this book. In a world where words often mean nothing, it's important that we are also careful not to make words mean anything or everything. This, I think, is key to understanding McKnight's ideas in Kingdom Conspiracy.
Not everyone who reads this book is going to wholly agree with all of his ideas of what the kingdom of God is (sometimes I thought the hair he was splitting was a little too fine) or his understanding of certain passages of Scripture. But one thing I think everyone can and should agree upon is that whatever we think of the kingdom of God we need to be very careful not to define it too loosely or casually. That is to say: not everything people label as 'kingdom' work is, in fact, kingdom work. (To put a finer point on it: merely calling something 'kingdom' work does not necessarily make it kingdom work or sacred and when we call something kingdom work, even if it is, it is not ours to bypass the church in the process.) Definitions matter as much as articulation. Thus his opening salvo: "Precision begins with defining terms" he writes quoting Marilyn McEntyre. Yes. It does. He goes on: "I lay down an observation that alters the landscape if we embrace it--namely, that we need to learn to tell the story that makes sense to Jesus. Not a story that we ask Jesus to fit into. No, we to find the story that Jesus himself and the apostles told" (22).
Definitions and articulation matter. What I continue to see and hear--both from pulpits and in the books being published--is that we get it wrong on both marks most of the time. The Americanized gospel of 'join the club, go to church, and follow the rules so you can also go to heaven' is the result of unclear definitions and poor articulation. It's the result of thinking democracy=kingdom. That is decidedly not the kingdom articulated in the Scripture. Again, I see it in the books I read for review and in the sermons I hear and read. I am grateful for preachers like McKnight, N.T. Wright, and others who refuse to take shortcuts around the Bible to make a gospel that Jesus fits into. Frankly, I think if we asked a group of 100 Christians to articulate the Kingdom story, 99 would fail because it simply is not preached in the pulpits: "Until we can articulate the Bible's kingdom story, we can't do kingdom mission" (23). I agree.
I was in his grip after 3 chapters and he never let go.
What has most amazed me since I started (and finished) the book is how aware I have become of kingdom language in the Bible. Don't get me wrong: I think McKnight nails it most of the time when it comes to understanding what Kingdom is and is not. My point is that as I read through the Bible--I am currently teaching through the book of Daniel--I am amazed at the language that is used: kings and kingdoms, kingdom of God, kingdom of heaven, and so on. It's all over the place. It's amazing and it is there from front to back, Genesis to Revelation, and all places in between. Maybe someday some fine theologian will do a comprehensive study of the Kingdom of God from the beginning to the end of the Bible. I think it would be a fascinating study. (I'm currently reading a book called The Kingdom according to Luke and Acts by Karl Allen Kuhn which is exploring Kingdom in a small part of the Bible, but he is also nicely tying that story in with the meta-narrative of the entire Bible.)
I'd like to note what I think is probably the most significant aspect of the book for me insofar as giving readers something to practice. I belong to a generation of people who have by and large given up on the church. Let me be honest: I'm on the edge. I'm on the edge because of my experiences as a pastor with churches that have refused to move forward and who found that getting rid of me would make their lives easier. But I haven't given up entirely for two reasons. First, the church hasn't given up on me. If one church has gotten rid of me for their own convenience, another church has taken me in and bathed my wounds. I still love the church; the church still loves me. Second, because the McKnight solidified for me something I have already and always believed: the church and the kingdom are synonymous. Thus: "...kingdom mission is church mission and that kingdom mission is not working for the common good..." (115). Further,
What I am not in favor of is assigning the word 'kingdom' to such actions [as public action or social justice or compassion for the poor or feeding the homeless] 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, his emphasis.)
And he's correct. For the Christian, the church should be a significant priority. "Kingdom is the realm of redemption and the redeemed, not what followers of Jesus did in the public sector" (114). Yes. His argument is, admittedly, complex and being able to draw that line in minds that are already persuaded is difficult. Nevertheless, we must indeed have our minds open and our hearts rent so that we can clearly define and articulate bible things. In the tradition I have belonged to for most of my life, this has been a part of our 'doctrine'--that we should call bible things by bible names. This is good. Now my tradition just needs to start defining Kingdom with more accuracy and clarity and then begin articulating it from the pulpits of our churches with more frequency, more duration, and more intensity.
I am glad that McKnight takes up for the church. I am guilty, but I get tired of people running down the church, the body of Christ, the Bride for whom Jesus died. So often people are so busy running the church down that we might think christians can get along with it. We cannot. We need the church. All of us. Yet we struggle.
"It is more glamorous to do social activism because building a local church is hard. It involves people who struggle with one another, in involves persuading others of the desires of your heart to help the homeless, it means caring for people where they are and no where you want them to be, it involves daily routines, and it only rarely leads to the highs of 'short-term mission' experiences. But local church is what Jesus came to build, so the local church's mission shapes kingdom mission" (97).
We can do better.We need the church. We need one another. McKnight helped stoke the fires of affection in me for the church again. Maybe I have been too critical; perhaps unfair. With a prophet's insight and conviction, McKnight confronted my own church angst and now restoration has begun in me.
This book asks some difficult, soul-searching questions. It challenges time honored traditions concerning definitions. While I get the point of demarcating this book along lines of 'skinny-jeans christians' and 'pleated-pants christians', I think even McKnight would acknowledge there is a lot of room for frilly-dress and bonnet christians, overalls christians, sweat-pants christians, polyester slacks and silk shirts christians, and many more besides. In other words, his categories help us see the differences but all of us have this problem of definition. His clear point is this: be careful how you define words because your definition directly affects your articulation. I agree.
The book is heavily researched and, as per usual, given that it is written for a popular audience, notes have been relegated to the end of the book. It is deeply exegetical and contextual--in other words, he doesn't prooftext his readers but thoughtfully engages in exegesis of large swaths of scripture to give context and clarity to his ideas. It contains a substantial subject index which will be helpful for preachers and teachers alike. Sadly, there are no references except what is found in the end notes so following up with his research might prove to be a bit of a chore. This is a book that will not disappoint the thoughtful reader--the person wholly engaged in trying to understand what Scripture says about a particular theological subject.
I simply cannot say enough good about this book. Please read it.
5*/5
October 6, 2018
What is the "Kingdom of God"? This is a question that many have tried to wrestle with and attempt to put forth a vision for what it means for those who follow Jesus. Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church is Scot McKnight's attempt to wrestle with the idea of God's Kingdom and put forth his thoughts.
Overall, I liked the picture of kingdom that McKnight presents. He sets up his presentation on the Kingdom of God by pointing out two extremes that he feels have it wrong and then attempts to build a system that incorporates elements of these two extremes, but is also different than these two extremes. The two extremes that McKnight plays off of are the idea of kingdom as seeking the common good for all people and kingdom as spiritual salvation. He mainly uses these two extremes as points to present where his views on kingdom are in comparison. McKnight seems more interested in presenting his view of kingdom than arguing against extreme views.
McKnight really wants to center the discussion of the Kingdom of God with the church. In fact he presents the kingdom as being Christians who are following King Jesus. A kingdom is a land with a ruler and a people and so it is with the Kingdom of God. Now McKnight believes that the church is the kingdom period. Anything outside of the church is not kingdom work. While I certainly agree that the church is part of the kingdom, I'm not sure if it is all that the kingdom is.
Even with things like this I found a lot of good things in his discussion of what Kingdom should look like. I liked his discussion on the church/kingdom as here, but not yet and that we can't fairly compare the future kingdom with the current because there are major differences. I liked his thoughts of the kingdom being a moral fellowship built around the cross, righteousness, and love, as well as the kingdom being a place of hope. While I liked a lot of these ideas I did have some problems with the book as well.
The first of these is how he starts his discussion about the two extreme views of kingdom. He labels the two groups in a fairly awkward kind of way by calling them the Skinny Jeans Kingdom (those who view the Kingdom as seeking the common good) and the Pleated Pants Kingdom (those who view the Kingdom mainly as means of spiritual salvation). While I'm sure these groups were attempts to be memorable, it just doesn't quite come off right. It can sound a little dismissive or like setting up straw men. I don't really think either of these are the case, but I wonder why he didn't simply present the views instead of creating groups labeled by what kind of pants they wear. It just winds up kind of awkward.
My second difficulty with this work is that McKnight doesn't really entirely make it clear to me what kingdom work is in a practical sense. He is not of a fan of kingdom being simply working for the common good, but he's also not a fan of the church just being about spiritual salvation divorced from the physical world. Combined with his idea that only the church is kingdom it makes it hard to figure out what this exactly looks like. How do we know when our good deeds are simply an overflow from the church or not? Does the end result look differently? If so what is the difference? While I understand and appreciate McKnight's reluctance to engage in the culture war and rely too much on political maneuvering or majority rule, but the idea of church as alternative community is one that isn't concrete enough for me. It sounds like one of those abstract ideas much easier to present in the abstract realm than to produce here.
So overall, I thought that there was plenty of good stuff to think about in Kingdom Conspiracy but when it comes to practical living out of our faith, particularly in our care for our neighbors, I felt it was somewhat murky. I would probably agree with a good amount of what McKnight says here, but when it comes to what his vision of kingdom really looks like on earth I'm not sure what he envisions.
Overall, I liked the picture of kingdom that McKnight presents. He sets up his presentation on the Kingdom of God by pointing out two extremes that he feels have it wrong and then attempts to build a system that incorporates elements of these two extremes, but is also different than these two extremes. The two extremes that McKnight plays off of are the idea of kingdom as seeking the common good for all people and kingdom as spiritual salvation. He mainly uses these two extremes as points to present where his views on kingdom are in comparison. McKnight seems more interested in presenting his view of kingdom than arguing against extreme views.
McKnight really wants to center the discussion of the Kingdom of God with the church. In fact he presents the kingdom as being Christians who are following King Jesus. A kingdom is a land with a ruler and a people and so it is with the Kingdom of God. Now McKnight believes that the church is the kingdom period. Anything outside of the church is not kingdom work. While I certainly agree that the church is part of the kingdom, I'm not sure if it is all that the kingdom is.
Even with things like this I found a lot of good things in his discussion of what Kingdom should look like. I liked his discussion on the church/kingdom as here, but not yet and that we can't fairly compare the future kingdom with the current because there are major differences. I liked his thoughts of the kingdom being a moral fellowship built around the cross, righteousness, and love, as well as the kingdom being a place of hope. While I liked a lot of these ideas I did have some problems with the book as well.
The first of these is how he starts his discussion about the two extreme views of kingdom. He labels the two groups in a fairly awkward kind of way by calling them the Skinny Jeans Kingdom (those who view the Kingdom as seeking the common good) and the Pleated Pants Kingdom (those who view the Kingdom mainly as means of spiritual salvation). While I'm sure these groups were attempts to be memorable, it just doesn't quite come off right. It can sound a little dismissive or like setting up straw men. I don't really think either of these are the case, but I wonder why he didn't simply present the views instead of creating groups labeled by what kind of pants they wear. It just winds up kind of awkward.
My second difficulty with this work is that McKnight doesn't really entirely make it clear to me what kingdom work is in a practical sense. He is not of a fan of kingdom being simply working for the common good, but he's also not a fan of the church just being about spiritual salvation divorced from the physical world. Combined with his idea that only the church is kingdom it makes it hard to figure out what this exactly looks like. How do we know when our good deeds are simply an overflow from the church or not? Does the end result look differently? If so what is the difference? While I understand and appreciate McKnight's reluctance to engage in the culture war and rely too much on political maneuvering or majority rule, but the idea of church as alternative community is one that isn't concrete enough for me. It sounds like one of those abstract ideas much easier to present in the abstract realm than to produce here.
So overall, I thought that there was plenty of good stuff to think about in Kingdom Conspiracy but when it comes to practical living out of our faith, particularly in our care for our neighbors, I felt it was somewhat murky. I would probably agree with a good amount of what McKnight says here, but when it comes to what his vision of kingdom really looks like on earth I'm not sure what he envisions.
June 27, 2021
Scot McKnight has done the Church a tremendous service in making the pain staking effort to explain to the Body of Christ what is meant by the Kingdom of God in Scripture. McKnight uses popular expressions of the Kingdom today as primarily redemption and theologically focused versus the Kingdom being primarily about good people doing good things in the public sector for the common good, and disagrees with both as both views ultimately fall short of what Scripture explains as the Kingdom of God.
I enjoy how McKnight gives a Plan A, Plan B, Plan A revisted model of explaining the Gospel, with all the emphasis being on the reign of God in the world and with the people of God, Israel, longing for the day when God would rule again, making things right with them and their God, and ultimately atoning for all of their sins. This is the Story that makes sense in light of the cultural context of 1st century Judaism when Christ announces, "The Kingdom of God is at hand" or as Karl Barth equates it with another Scripture, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
McKnight then examines the Bible to see how it describes Kingdom and comes to surprisingly easy conclusion that it is a people ruled by a King composed of 5 elements: a King who rules, a rule that has real power, a people in subection to the King, a law that governs the people of the Kingdom, and finally, land (physical territory) that the people occupy. McKnight then makes the minority conclusion, but makes the most sense Biblically to me, that the Church and Kingdom can then be used, at least in most every context, as synonymous terms because the Church: had a King named Jesus, is ruled by Him, is a people, follows the law of Christ, and occupies physical land and territory.
Kingdom mission then becomes Church mission and vice-versa. I could go on, but McKnight has explained very clearly the mission for the Kingdom is found in the vicinity of the local Church as it is follows the example of its King and Lord, being a faithful witness to the Good News of King of the Kingdom, striving to be as the Body of Christ the reality that God envisions for all of human kind.
I enjoy how McKnight gives a Plan A, Plan B, Plan A revisted model of explaining the Gospel, with all the emphasis being on the reign of God in the world and with the people of God, Israel, longing for the day when God would rule again, making things right with them and their God, and ultimately atoning for all of their sins. This is the Story that makes sense in light of the cultural context of 1st century Judaism when Christ announces, "The Kingdom of God is at hand" or as Karl Barth equates it with another Scripture, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
McKnight then examines the Bible to see how it describes Kingdom and comes to surprisingly easy conclusion that it is a people ruled by a King composed of 5 elements: a King who rules, a rule that has real power, a people in subection to the King, a law that governs the people of the Kingdom, and finally, land (physical territory) that the people occupy. McKnight then makes the minority conclusion, but makes the most sense Biblically to me, that the Church and Kingdom can then be used, at least in most every context, as synonymous terms because the Church: had a King named Jesus, is ruled by Him, is a people, follows the law of Christ, and occupies physical land and territory.
Kingdom mission then becomes Church mission and vice-versa. I could go on, but McKnight has explained very clearly the mission for the Kingdom is found in the vicinity of the local Church as it is follows the example of its King and Lord, being a faithful witness to the Good News of King of the Kingdom, striving to be as the Body of Christ the reality that God envisions for all of human kind.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 7, 2019
A fascinating book, looking at the place of the church in the kingdom of God. I am still reflecting on McKnight's conclusions, that the true definition of Kingdom work is church work. I agree with his thesis that Kingdom work outside of the church can lead people outside of the community of faith. That our ultimate goal is to build up the community of faith. And that the primary starting point is to live under the Kingship of Jesus in the church. What is the point of defeating evils if we are ignoring peace and justice in the church. That the church is called to be a faithful witness of what it means to live under the Kingship of Jesus. I do not entirely subscribe to his distinction between good works and Kingdom works. But I do agree that outside of the Kingship of Jesus good works cannot be called building the Kingdom. Perhaps the biggest unanswered question is the intersection between the kingdom and the church in this age. More reflection needed... I know Bright & Wright had differing views to McKnight, a d saw the kingdom as a far bigger sphere than the church, but perhaps a bigger view of the church as the hope of the nation is what is most needed.
May 16, 2022
Scot McKnight has written a rousing theology of the Kingdom of God. He argues that this is one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts in the church. And his argument is compelling mainly. His premise is that a kingdom has a King (Jesus) and a people (those who submit to the king; today, this is the church), law, land, etc. In the end, McKnight's argument that the church is a near-synonym of the kingdom is persuasive. And the ramifications of this cut across both the traditional and progressive expressions of Christianity, especially Western. There is no love allowed in this book for any form of Constantinian Christianity, which is always the result of the church trying to get the government to enforce its particular view of God's will. While not perfect, this is an important book that deserves close reading and engagement.
September 17, 2022
Scot McKnight is one of my favorite religious writers -- not because I always agree with him, but because he always makes me think! In this book, I like the work that he did in reconciling the church and the kingdom; because he affirmed what I had always been taught. I believe he would start by emphasizing the kingdom (and it's king), and then move to the church. Whereas I was taught that it all started with an emphasis on the church. The last 20% of the book was difficult for me, because I am not a student of theology -- and his discussion of liberation theology and theology of the kingdom left me in the dark. I do feel as if any "churchman" ought to read this book, and I believe that it will be a blessing to them.
March 1, 2020
Accomplishes well what it sets out to do - recognise that if Christ is a King then He is a political figure in His own right. Therefore, how does a Christian, who already has a King, engage in/disengage from politics today?
It seems that McKnight is saying we ought to be disengaging from politics, for politics cannot authentically achieve the mission of Christ. He argues this well and in today's highly politicized climate I think all Christians should hear him out.
In addition to this, the author sets forth a holistic gospel - one that takes both personal salvation and social justice seriously - worth a read.
It seems that McKnight is saying we ought to be disengaging from politics, for politics cannot authentically achieve the mission of Christ. He argues this well and in today's highly politicized climate I think all Christians should hear him out.
In addition to this, the author sets forth a holistic gospel - one that takes both personal salvation and social justice seriously - worth a read.
August 26, 2023
A restorative read for anyone jaded by church building funds being named “kingdom builders” or well meaning youth groups painting schools and calling it “kingdom work”.
Scots argument here must be reckoned with. Your instinct may be to disagree with his conclusions about kingdom but his exegesis is thorough and clear. The case is made that kingdom and church are synonyms. Both are eschatological, now and not yet. Both are constituted by a people who call Jesus king and governed by the rule of the messiah.
Scots argument here must be reckoned with. Your instinct may be to disagree with his conclusions about kingdom but his exegesis is thorough and clear. The case is made that kingdom and church are synonyms. Both are eschatological, now and not yet. Both are constituted by a people who call Jesus king and governed by the rule of the messiah.
October 11, 2017
Scot is a brilliant author and theologian. I think however he overshoots this idea. He alienates one side by a bias to the other, though he tries to critique them both, and I think ends up mangling his message by attempting to avoid extremes. This does help us understand the vital connection between church and kingdom, but in my opinion it is an argument that needs to be made more cautiously than he does it. A good book, but read with a mind on his purpose, not just his execution.
January 2, 2021
Scot McKnight wrote a wonderful book about the Kingdom, bringing us through an amazing journey between two extreme positions in Christianity of how to live it.
He did a great job about the question “What do you mean by kingdom?” Which is the purpose of the book.
It’s really practical, biblical, and easy to read! I recommend it!
The only “bad” point is that is from an American perspective (politics, denominations, etc...)
He did a great job about the question “What do you mean by kingdom?” Which is the purpose of the book.
It’s really practical, biblical, and easy to read! I recommend it!
The only “bad” point is that is from an American perspective (politics, denominations, etc...)
July 27, 2023
I read this for a class. This is a fantastic book that explains some recent-historical understandings of the kingdom and places them in comparison with what Jesus meant when he described the kingdom and what his earliest followers thought of when they discussed the kingdom.
The real point of the book is that the Kingdom of God and the local church are inseparable. McKnight calls these terms syllables. Highly recommend.
The real point of the book is that the Kingdom of God and the local church are inseparable. McKnight calls these terms syllables. Highly recommend.
May 5, 2026
This was a helpful exploration of what the kingdom of God actually is, how the church is central to kingdom, and how kingdom is bigger than personal salvation or social transformation. Some of McKnight’s argumentation seems to be merely semantics, and he goes farther than I would in critiquing liberation theology. But the beating heart of this book is the vision he writes of what the church can and should be as the kingdom of God.
January 4, 2023
Great book; I highly recommend it. Scot defines the "kingdom of God" well. It can be a term that everyone knows but can not define well. Scot not only gives a good look at the kingdom from a biblical perspective, but he also provides contemporary examples of churches living out the mission of God's kingdom.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews