I haven't read the book, but based on the two articles I don't understand how Challies can be reading the same scripture. Christ spoke frequently of the kingdom and that kingdom as being here now. He spoke of the coming of the kingdom as feeding the hunger, providing homes for the homeless, etc. Paul and Christ are not opposed.

Challies.

I think Tullian is making a philosophical leap that is unsupported by the Bible.

I agree with challies on this one i had the same problem when reading 'Heaven' by Randy Alcorn, where he deals with the continuity of the new world and new heaven. Even though I enjoyed the book, i couldn't swallow this one.

Giancarlo

Just based on this article, I'm with Tchividjian. I may be missing some Reformed nuance, but I find Challie's criticism unsupportable. Scripture clearly teaches a "now and not yet" reality of the kingdom of God. The kingdom has come, it is within us, and God is working out his sovereign rule and reign over his creation both in individuals' hearts and in the cultures where those hearts live, reach out, and apply God's kingdom principles. Cultures are changed and shaped by changed hearts and lives. I would argue that the gospel mandate is not to bring the kingdom to earth, but to change lives in order to be the kingdom on earth--to preach the gospel, change lives, and be transformed in order to show that God's will is good, acceptable, and perfect, not just for individuals but for cultures too. If cultures are not being changed, then I would argue that there is no new life being generated. If Challies argument is that the only purpose of the gospel in this world is to identify the elect so they can be set apart for salvation while God waits to destroy the world and those he has chosen not to elect, then I find his theology to be sad and distorted. And what of the future kingdom, the "new heavens and new earth"? I'm with Andy Crouch's views in Culture Making that what we do here for God's glory will be redeemed and used in the future new earthly kingdom. God will not waste what he declared was "good."

“I do not see Paul’s concern with culture except as a means to reach souls,” Challies writes.

With a reading of scripture like Tim Challies’ statement,(whom I often agree with) I wonder why I am spending so much time trying to end abortion. Certainly there must be a better way to use the churches resources. Take my statement and put in an endless variety of social justice issues.

I find Challies thinking to be reducing God to a pragmatic God set in our box. We decide God cares most about “reaching souls.” We then decide the means to do this is not to concentrate not on transforming culture but on direct efforts at "soul reaching”.

God is most jealous (concerned) for his name and his glory.(Ezek 39:25) God has blessed us with many ways and means to guard his name and magnify his glory. Let’s not reduce it to “soul reaching” alone.

I am absolutely with Tullian. God indeed called his creation very good, giving the creation mandate to Adam. When sin entered the world it affected all things. It seems clear in the Bible that God is on a rescue mission to restore ALL things (Col 1:20 seems exceedingly clear). Redemption must go wherever sin goes, and sin goes everywhere. Since Christ is King and reconciler of all, and we, in him, have been given the ministry of reconciliation (2 cor 5:18) we must carry out this vocation wherever our vocation takes us. I see no imaginary line dividing the application of basic biblical concepts such as reconciliation, redemption, salvation, sanctification, renewal etc. For Jesus' sake, distortion must be opposed everywhere- the living room, the bedroom, the boardroom, the city council, the classroom, the blogosphere, the pub, the street corner and more. Certainly the mission we join God on is no less than evangelism but is this ALL he cares about?

I have been thinking about this matter myself lately. I'm sure the answer is somewhere in the middle..realizing the already and the not yet are both true.

Yet, as Chris above writes, "With a reading of scripture like Tim Challies’ statement,(whom I often agree with) I wonder why I am spending so much time trying to end abortion", it makes me want to ask, how is that working out for you? I HATE abortion. I believe it is the murdering of innocent people. But, if we as the church spend our resources promoting the gospel, wouldn't the gospel (the Holy Spirit as well of course) change people's hearts?

So I am not opposed to culture changing but I think only the God the Holy Spirit can truly change hearts which will effectually change culture as people are changed.

After all, we are not seeking behavioral differences, we are after the whole soul.

I think in this debate we are at danger of personalising culture and nations, almost as if they are distinctive from the people that make up nations and cultures. This is where I find myself at odds with Tullian.

As far as I can tell from the Bible, the only part of the kingdom that exists here and now are its people, i.e. the church. But it is this people, living out the gospel, that creates kingdom culture. Culture is not some entity we contribute to but our lives collectively played out. In this way I think Wright's illustration does not fit with the Bible. He seems to suggest that we are building 'stones' for the kingdom; I think the biblical view is that we are the stones being fashioned for the kingdom, in which Christ will be the cornerstone.

Therefore if we wish to contribute to culture renewal, we have to start with people. And this is why I agree with Challies that evangelism is the main goal of the church. We are to get people into the kingdom. If they're not in the kingdom, they will continue to hate Christian culture in spite of all our efforts. However once they are in we are also to teach them how to continue working out their salvation (as God works in them). It is this working out of their salvation, living gospel lives, by which we create a culture that is consistent with the kingdom to come (and contrary to this world).

So we fight for social justice because as in the kingdom to come, we are people who ought to stand up for what is right in the eyes of God. But we should be even more concerned with getting people into the kingdom, for as Jesus says we'll always have the poor with us in this world. The most loving thing we can do for them is to tell them of the riches of God in the kingdom to come, even as we foreshadow the lives we'll be living in that kingdom.

Ted,

I think the way you pose the question illustrates the problem. Building the kingdom and reaching souls just cannot be separated. Anthropology and culture cannot be cut in two. For Challies to make the statement "I do not see Paul's concern with culture except as a means to reach souls" strikes me as the truncated theology that evangelicals survived on during the "we know better than the liberals" era. Certainly Ephesians and Colossians provide the church with a much broader vision than that. I refuse to shut my eyes and ears to phrases like "all things have been created through him and for him", and "through him God was pleased to reconcile all things, whether on earth or in heaven", and "he has put all things under his feet". Tchividjian, like NT Wright, gets it.

The first primary task of the church is to preach Christ and Him crucified. The gospel must be the first thing period.This idea of taking back the culture or renewing the culture is something that is better said as influencing the culture. As Christians work out their vocations in normal living this will happen . We are called to be forgiving,compassionate,giving,loving etc.. This will have a profound impact around us, but its naive to think that this will restore or totally renew a culture. Even secular rule is under God's providence and is under His influence to bring about what He desires . This idea seems to stream from a post-mil view, but as I look to scripture I do not ever see for the faithful a glorious era, but one of cross bearing and sharing in the sufferings of Christ for the faith , with joy! We should work towards showing mercy , standing for justice but we are called first to be faithful to God first ,even if our efforts bear no effect this side of heaven. Till Christ comes again we will live in two kingdoms. We can have great impact on the culture around us but I do not see from keeping scripture in its proper perspective ,this renewal that many talk about. The gospel must take prominence in all we do , the rest I will leave to God as I try to help and love my neighbor.

I think we should stop using the word "truncated."

To be honest I think God intends the church to have two hands not simply one. We must not leave a conversionist stance that understands the good news of Jesus death, burial and resurrection as rescuing people from sin, death and hell. These people are then grafted into the new community that represents a foretaste of the Kingdom now - this community, if it lives out Christian faith MUST shape culture. We need the hand of atonement/gospel and then hand of Kingdom inbreaking through God's new community.

Gospel proclamation demonstrated in and through the gospel community - this must be BOTH/AND. Otherwise our praise to the glory of God can end up like clapping with one hand.

I am a conservative evangelical and a home school mom of 10. I have been informally studying and writing about the topic of social justice and gospel outreach for some time now. I haven't read Unfashionable, but I did read Challies' review. I have mixed feelings. A Christian relative who would describe himself as on the liberal end of the political spectrum recently told me, "I guess we focus more on the Great Commandment than the Great Commission." That sparked something in me. I was just about to teach a home school co-op English class about the false dilemma fallacy, which is used to claim that something must either be EITHER this OR that, when in all actuality it could be both or neither. And so it hit me that many Christians, on both ends of the spectrum, succumb to this fallacy and think it has to be EITHER Great Commission (preaching the Gospel) OR the Great Commandment (showing love in practical ways). But it needs to be BOTH, integrated together for maximum effectiveness, even though in our particular callings or seasons of life we may lean more one way than the other. I assigned a persuasive essay on this topic, and they seemed to get it. We'll be revisiting this topic again in the future, I'm sure, especially as we continue to interact with our literature assignments. I don't know to what extent the church is called to transform culture (that's an endless job) but each of us can do our part to be engaged and active in our own spheres -- not just preaching the gospel, but living as Jesus lived with LOVE and GOOD DEEDS.

Way to live and work through what you are reading and studying Virginia. Keep it up!

I'm with Challies on this one.

First let me say that I, and I believe Challies would agree, am not saying that social justice is not important, that we should not fight to end abortion, that we should not have fought to end slavery. Instead, I am saying that social justice is not the gospel, social justice is fruit of the gospel. Jesus came to reconcile the elect to the Father. That is clear. What is unclear is whether Jesus came to meet physical needs, to renew culture, to end injustice in the present. There has yet to be any scriptural proof presented to show that this is the case.

And if one is to say that Jesus came to renew culture now, what do we do with all the war, famine, disease, death, torture, etc. that has gone on for 2000 years since the kingdom has come. Is God failing the world in renew culture? Is the church failing in renewing the culture?

I would agree with whoever it was that said that the kingdom is here in the church. In the New Testament I do not see a church that is going out into the world in order to renew it. I do see a church that preaches the gospel, that does good works as fruit of the gospel, that evangelizes within the messed up culture. Did Paul advocate his readers to go out and change the cultural understanding of marriage, or to how they, believers, should act within marriage? Did Peter write to the diaspora to encourage them to fight the injustice that was causing them to be persecuted? Did Paul tell those servants to work to change the system so that they would be free and equal, or did he tell them to serve their masters and to gain their individual freedom if they can?

In the end, if we try to change the culture by doing good works we are going to fail. If instead we try to change culture by making disciples, the culture will change because those who have been inclined to sin and would be against biblical "cultural renewal," would then be inclined to holiness.

Everyone needs to read CULTURE MAKING by Andy Crouch. I think he demonstrates that much of this debate over "cultural renewal" is based on confused categories and flawed notions of culture(s). I'm skeptical of the transformationalist project, but I like Tchividjian's emphasis on effecting change in society by the gospel transforming the church vs. effecting change by electing politicians who vote the way we want.

Ted,

I think you loaded the dice by framing it this way:

The debate may be an early signal of a coming backlash against the eschatology that has become very common and much promoted in evangelical circles over the last decade or so, in part (though far from exclusively) led by theologian N.T. Wright’s work on the meaning of the Resurrection.

You could have just as easily said:

The debate may be an early signal of a coming backlash against the Two Kingdoms theology that has become very common and much promoted in evangelical circles over the last decade or so, in part (though far from exclusively) led by theologian Michael S. Horton.

At least in the Reformed world, it is Horton's "Two Kingdoms" position that is the upstart, not Tchividjian's theme of cultural renewal.

I respect Tim Challies, but I’m going to have to disagree with him on this one.

A careful read through the gospels reveals that Jesus came to redeem all of creation, not just souls. He came to reverse the curse. His miracles and parables demonstrate that He cares about social redemption (e.g. placing his hand on and actually touching the leper, accepting obeisance from tainted women, the parable of the great banquet), physical redemption (e.g. raising Lazarus from the dead, granting sight to the blind), and spiritual redemption (e.g. forgiving sins, granting eternal life, the parable of the sower). His incarnation, death, and resurrection prove the Kingdom is already here, not in its fullness, but here nonetheless. Already, but Not Yet! We are already experiencing the first fruits of the reign of Christ, the Kingdom of God, inaugurated by Jesus' first coming, and those first fruits are not merely spiritual.

A servant is not greater than his master. If Jesus modeled "creational redemption" (not exempting the culture) to His disciples, doesn't that put us squarely on the hook of faithfully following suit until His return and thereby tending the whole of creation, not just souls?

In response to Ted's questions about this debate, I don't think that emphasis on “building for the kingdom” and cultural renewal has detracted from evangelism. Some of the key proponents of renewing culture have strong track records of evangelism. Personally, when I have had some of my best opportunities to evangelize while being involved in interacting with culture as a believer.

I do like Challies, but I think he missed this one. He cited the lack of biblical support for this emphasis, but it seems to permeate throughout Scripture. We even break down biblical sections as the poetry books or the wisdom literature. I am not sure how he reconciles this with the articles he put out on Ligonier's blog by R.C. Sproul on art within the past few weeks.

I do look forward to reading the book, and will read it with Challies' question in mind.

I'm inclined to agree with Challies. The fruit of conversion and the effect of sound churches should be a society that experiences a type of redemption by the sheer nature of changed people, but as Challies points out cultural transformationalism seems in conflict with the groaning creation is currently experiencing.

An immproper view of this could lead to a very disillusioned group of people.

I have read the book, and I didn't come away with the impression that Tchividjian advocates the church as an institution should try to "Christianize" the culture or baptize institutions (an impossible and wrongheaded task). Rather, he proposes that the Church, the body of Christ, Christians - you and me! - should live, to quote Harry Blamires, "Christianly" within the culture. Like yeast in dough, Christians will make a difference in the world and in the culture only if they refuse to huddle and hide in their Christian ghettos, elevating "Christian" callings over "secular" ones.

A business cannot be Christian, but a businessman can. A mop cannot be Christian, but a mopper can. A building cannot be Christian, but an architect can. We are commissioned to go out into the world and make disciples. That can be accomplished only if we go out into the world! Then, like salt and light, we will be part of God's restoration of the physical world and, even more exciting, of souls and of whole persons!

It's all evangelism. Jesus died and rose to redeem and restore the whole man, not just a part of him. And along with him the whole of His good creation.

Stephen Jones,

You are right in saying that social justice is not the gospel. However, we need to think long and hard through the book of Acts and how the apostles witness to and preach the gospel. Whenever something miraculous happens or mercy is shown to an individual it is pointing to the gospel reality that Jesus is the Messiah, that God has raised him from the dead, and that he is reigning now at the right hand of God as the true Lord of the world. Social Justice and the good that we do to others, through the Spirit, is a sign, a pointer, to the great reality that Jesus is Lord and that his reign has broken into the present (See Acts 3). So doing good works through the spirit is not a secondary issue. It is the tangible reality that Jesus is Lord. With that said, the Gospel must be preached otherwise people can interpret the good works anyway they like.

You say that it is unclear whether or not Jesus came to meet physical needs. I don't mean to be rude but what gospels are you reading? When Jesus heals a leper it is not 'spiritual leprosy' he is healing. He is actually healing the disease. This points to fact that God's Kingdom has broken into the present, as Jesus points out to John the Baptist (a phrase I like to use is: this is what it looks like when Jesus becomes King). To live out the gospel, the truth that Jesus reigns, we must meet the physical needs of people.

When we speak of changing culture we are not advocating the liberal idea that we can bring in the kingdom. No, God brings the Kingdom and we are his fellow-workers. But when we, as servants of the true Lord, try to change the world for good (as Paul says, "Do good to EVERYONE especially to those who belong to the household of faith)we are in effect saying, "Hey look at this! This is what things look like when Jesus becomes King, come and join in his Kingdom".

Stephen Jones,

You are right in saying that social justice is not the gospel. However, we need to think long and hard through the book of Acts and how the apostles witness to and preach the gospel. Whenever something miraculous happens or mercy is shown to an individual it is pointing to the gospel reality that Jesus is the Messiah, that God has raised him from the dead, and that he is reigning now at the right hand of God as the true Lord of the world. Social Justice and the good that we do to others, through the Spirit, is a sign, a pointer, to the great reality that Jesus is Lord and that his reign has broken into the present (See Acts 3). So doing good works through the spirit is not a secondary issue. It is the tangible reality that Jesus is Lord. With that said, the Gospel must be preached otherwise people can interpret the good works anyway they like.

You say that it is unclear whether or not Jesus came to meet physical needs. I don't mean to be rude but what gospels are you reading? When Jesus heals a leper it is not 'spiritual leprosy' he is healing. He is actually healing the disease. This points to fact that God's Kingdom has broken into the present, as Jesus points out to John the Baptist (a phrase I like to use is: this is what it looks like when Jesus becomes King). To live out the gospel, the truth that Jesus reigns, we must meet the physical needs of people.

When we speak of changing culture we are not advocating the liberal idea that we can bring in the kingdom. No, God brings the Kingdom and we are his fellow-workers. But when we, as servants of the true Lord, try to change the world for good (as Paul says, "Do good to EVERYONE especially to those who belong to the household of faith)we are in effect saying, "Hey look at this! This is what things look like when Jesus becomes King, come and join in his Kingdom".

Great question Ted, great comments brothers, great blog Tim, even greater truth Tullian. May the spirit of our Father set us free indeed to restore our world both peoples and culture(peoples externalized) in preparation for His Son's second coming. So we may be identified as faithful and thorough stewards.

Nick,
We have to be careful when we say,
"To live out the gospel, the truth that Jesus reigns, we must meet the physical needs of people."
First, I don't think we (Christians) live out the gospel. In other words, we don't "do" the Gospel. We preach, herald, and proclaim the gospel and we live out the IMPLICATIONS of the gospel, but we don't live out the gospel. The gospel is something that has been done for us, not something we do. I agree with you, phyiscal needs and social justice need to be pursued by us, but doing those is not doing the gospel. We have to try to be careful when we think we can live out the gospel. The gospel is something to be believed in, not done (Rom. 4:15). Loving others is not the gospel, it is the second commandment for sure, and done in the Holy Spirit it is great, but it's still not the gospel. The First and Second Commandments are not the gospel, they are for sure do be done and done in the power of the Holy Spirit, but still they are not the gospel. The Law says "do" while the gospel says "done." The gospel says, "you have been loved and are being loved by God, undeserving you are." D.A. Carson wrote a piece about this in the magazine the Gospel Coalition puts out, "Themolios?" I encourage you and all of us to read it and ponder it. I hope what I have said has not offended you or caused harm, but only for the building up of peace (Rom. 14:19).
I think there has been a widening of the gospel in our day and its very dangerous.
To Him be the praise and honor, now and forever, amen.
Ryan

Yesterday before I had my quiet time, I made the huge mistake of logging on to Pastor Tullian's blog. His latest entry began,

"Over at the Christianity Today blog there is a discussion taking place regarding my book Unfashionable and a rather critical review of it by my friend Tim Challies."

I am almost legalistic in beginning each day in God's word. This practice has been reinforced by Tullian and other Pastors with whom I have been priveleged to be yoked (notably Mike Braun). However, given my recalcitrance toward accepting some of their other strong recommendations, I attribute my commitment to "Seeking God in His Word first," to pragmatism. It works, and I have much more strength and ability to face the day's trials when I do it.

I wrote all that to say this. By the time I finished digesting the discussion, I was primed to respond, but out of time and had to rush off to work. Now that I have some time, the context of what I wanted to write yesterday is gone, and my post will seem totally out of the ebb and flow of the valuable discussion taking place here.

I do want to say, that to the extent that we as the Church refuse to allow the truth of our great God and his glorious plan of redemption to be marginalized by an unbelieving world, our culture will be transformed. God will accomplish this through our testimony both when we prosper as His Church and when we suffer persecution as His Church.

Ps 145:10-13, and
"10 All Your works shall praise You, O LORD,
And Your saints shall bless You.
11 They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom,
And talk of Your power,
12 To make known to the sons of men His mighty acts,
And the glorious majesty of His kingdom.
13 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And Your dominion endures throughout all generations."
NKJV

Ryan,

Just for clarification I do not think that meeting the physical needs of people is preaching the gospel. The gospel is an objective message about Jesus Christ that must be proclaimed. With that said, one of the truths that the gospel proclaims is the central truth that Jesus is Lord. By meeting the physical needs we are in effect 'living out the gospel' truth that Jesus is reigning. Those deeds are not the preaching of the gospel. We need to preach the gospel and 'live out' the truths that it sets forth. Read the actions of the apostles in Acts and how they relate to the gospel message. I have read D.A. Carson and heartily agree with him.

I guess I dislike "choosing" for and against. One of the best books I have read about this is "The Puritan Hope" by Iain Murray.

I think Tullian is making an excellent point.

The Kingdom was inaugurated by Jesus in His first coming and will be fully consumated when He comes again.

We live in the in between; that wonderful "Already" and "Not Yet". And sure, I want the world to see the gospel in action, by being agents of change.

We are sent, to the world. To play our part in God's sovereign plan to gather in the elect and to make a difference in the world by being different to the world.

Christians are great at being able to pick a fight, even when there is no one else in the room. I sometimes wish we would spend less time debating about our newly perceived differences and spend that time instead talking about Jesus with someone who doesnt know Him. To spend that time helping the poor, visiting someone in hospital who wouldnt otherwise get a visitor.

Nick,

Again, there was no scripture presented. You say that Jesus came to meet physical needs, and sure he did meet physical needs, but was that his mission? Was it a part of his mission? And if he did come to meet physical needs, does that mean all who are saved never hunger again on earth, or have diseases, or die an early death? Because I know quite a few people who are suffering physically as believers and Jesus has met their spiritual needs and in many ways is meeting their physical needs, but not completely. What would you say to them?

"To live out the gospel, the truth that Jesus reigns, we must meet the physical needs of people."

Give me some scripture to back this up. I don't disagree with you but I do believe such statements should be followed with verses.

"But when we, as servants of the true Lord, try to change the world for good (as Paul says, "Do good to EVERYONE especially to those who belong to the household of faith)we are in effect saying, "Hey look at this! This is what things look like when Jesus becomes King, come and join in his Kingdom"."

Are you saying we must go and make disciples, living out our faith for the glory of God and bringing hope to the lost, or are you saying we must go and change the world for good?

Phrasing the question the way it is illustrates the problem: "have you found the recent Christian emphasis on “building for the kingdom” and cultural renewal to detract from evangelism? Or is it actually helping to “reach souls”?"

That's the unbilibcal dichotomy the church (particularly the American church) has nurtured for far too long. We are more dichotomists than Scripture is. Jesus did not merely come to save "souls." If that's the extent of our gospel, then it is much smaller than the bibilical gospel.

What Jesus accomplished through his death and his resurrection has immense global and very earthy implications. Wright, Plantinga, Tchividjian and others are expressing it well.

Thank you, Will. You nailed it!

In the Western church, the Platonic dualism that separates man into distinct parts needs to go. Others have been saying this for a long time (e.g. Jerram Barrs and Ranald Macaulay in their excellent 1978 book, Being Human).

Stephen,

Jesus came as the Messiah who was promised in Israel's Scriptures (John 20:31, Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:46-56). Part of the mission of the Messiah, as far as the OT is concerned, was to bring physical healing (Matt 1:2-6; Luke 7:22; Is. 35: 4-7). When the promised one would come to bring restoration to Israel these are the things he would bring with him. So yes this was part of the mission of the Messiah.

All I am saying is that when we as Christians meet the physical needs of people in the present (see the story of the lame man in Acts 3) we are pointing to the great reality that the Messiah has come and that he is sitting at the right hand of God. I am not saying this physical healing will last for eternity. Even though Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead he still died again. Nevertheless, as we meet people's physical needs it points to a great reality. Ultimate physical restoration comes when Jesus ushers in the New Creation for all those who are united to him by faith.

To live out the gospel, the truth that Jesus reigns, we must meet the physical needs of people.

"Give me some scripture to back this up. I don't disagree with you but I do believe such statements should be followed with verses."

All I will point you to is the actions of the early church in the book of Acts. Read the entire book. Pay close attention to the reasoning the apostles give for the miracles that are happening.

What would I say to a person who is suffering?

Well I would try to relieve their suffering as much as I could (I do not have the gift of healing) and I would preach Christ to them. I would tell them that we live in a sinful world, that they themselves are sinful and need to trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins, that Christ will return and bring 'times of refreshing', and that Jesus is the King who will set all things right.

I would go with Tim Challies. We don't see Jesus redeeming the culture he lived in. He very clearly called people to God, but he was not surely changing culture.

That was a legit answer Nick and I for one cannot disagree with it. The problem I have with restoration theology is that it can takes the emphasis off Christ, and by doing so it dooms people both in this life, by offering food/shelter/etc. that cannot satisfy the soul, nor the true brokenness within a person, and in the next. That is why I go on the defensive. But I do not believe you fall into that category and I pray that those in your camp view it as you do.

When people are changed by God, culture will follow. When Jesus called people to himself those people, now changed, went back into society and changed the culture. When 5k believed you better believe the town they came from was greatly impacted and society was altered. When Christ broke down the barrier between Jew and Gentile, it was first and foremost an image and reality of God reconciling us to himself. That is, people no longer being separated from God. After we are reconciled to him we can then live a life within the church being reconciled to each other because of Christ's work. Throughout this process culture is changing. This was the "mystery" Paul talked about in Ephesians. The reality is we are exhibiting God to ourselves(Christians), to culture outside the church and to the heavenly realms. We are teaching this world currently and forever how God loves his covenant people and is renewing the world. Through living this "unity" given to us by God through Christ in the church we are actively showing God's love to the culture which will inevitable change culture and transform it. This is of course initially orchestrated by God fulfilling his eternal plan, through Christ, and by his Spirit working in us.

Excellent post and discussion. Thanks!

Is postmillenialism making a comeback? Are we tired of evangelicals being associated with dispensational premillenialism? If so it should make for a lively and healthy debate. I personally have enjoyed both Tullian's and Michael Horton's books as being correctives to much that is coming from the television ministries theology.

As far as I can tell from the Bible, the only part of the kingdom that exists here and now are its people, i.e. the church. But it is this people, living out the gospel, that creates kingdom culture. Culture is not some entity we contribute to but our lives collectively played out. In this way I think Wright's illustration does not fit with the Bible. He seems to suggest that we are building 'stones' for the kingdom; I think the biblical view is that we are the stones being fashioned for the kingdom, in which Christ will be the cornerstone.

Yes, the "stones" that are being built for the kingdom are indeed His people, just as the previous post indicates. A consequence is that this will positively influence those areas and aspects of this world now where His people have a direct influence.

At the same time, however, there are aspects of this world under the influence of those who remain in rebellion. To switch to another illustration, the wheat and the tares are both maturing, side by side. Both are developing into a fully mature expression of their distinct natures.

So all thoughts of creating the fulfilled kingdom before the arrival of the King are just as misguided as those views that suppose that His people have no effect at all.

Or in another metaphor, there are both the children of the light and the children of he darkness. The world is not becoming a uniformly brighter place. This is not the gradual victory of light over darkness. Rather, the world is becoming more distinct and differentiated. As the light becomes brighter, the darkness will also become darker.

p.s. Or to compare to New Testament times, the coming of the kingdom (so far as it is here now) did mean the healing of the sick, the helping of the poor, the casting out of demons, both by the Lord and His disciples.

But at the very same time, it also meant the persecution of the Lord and His disciples by those who were opposed to the coming of this kingdom and this King.

We should not disdain the fact that we are called to good works that share God's multifaceted grace in this world for the benefit of others (1 Peter 4:10,11), even to the changing of the culture (e.g. the ending of the British slave trade through Wilberforce).

However, at the very same time, and in the next breath, Peter has no illusions about the fact that this influence will not be received with uniform acceptance. See 1 Peter 4:12-19.