language...it's all semantics...yet it matters a lot!
Language is huge for communication. You might think that is a stupid, empty statement with which to begin a blog post. But if you begin thinking about the connotations, the implied meanings, of the language you use on an every day basis, then you might realize the importance of grasping that first sentence. Language is huge for communication. Allow me to provide an example:
Today after my Christian Ethics class, I went to a small discussion with my professor and some other students from class. We sat in the Refectory (a crazy name at Fuller for our cafeteria), and discussed what the kingdom of God means for ethics in relation to our hope in the eschaton, the end or culmination of the world. Erin, my professor, was arguing that our hope in the eschaton should positively influence our actions in the present—sounds a lot like my ontological priority of the future blog. Erin's language of our responsibility within this kingdom of God on earth got me to thinking (especially since I asked her a question about this and she told me I was using incorrect language).
ASIDE: In case you are out of the loop, much of New Testament scholarship in the past twenty or so years has focused on what Jesus meant by the kingdom of God, and what that means for us. Basically, they concur that the kingdom of God has been established on earth by God, and Jesus came proclaiming that this kingdom "is at hand"—the kingdom was established in the past but has present effects. This kingdom of God concept focuses on redeeming all things on the earth. Thus, Jesus took practices of his culture and turned them towards God noting the presence of the kingdoestablisheded in it. As creations in the image of God, we are to be the imitations of God on earth. With Jesus being THE model for what this imitation looks like, we are to point to the kingdom of God that has been established, and invite others to participate in this kingdom.
Erin said that we do not establish the kingdom of God on earth because the kingdom is; it has been established; it is at hand. Rather, we participate in this kingdom and point to this kingdom.
Notice the stressed words in that last sentence: "point to" and "participate." Here comes the semantics and importance of language. Before today, you would have caught me talking about establishing the kingdom of God in places that it is not established or not fully established. Read my other blog posts here or at culture transformed and you will find this language used. The implications of saying that we establish the kingdom in places it has not been are huge. Ultimately, by using this language we are saying that the reign or presence of God could not be established on earth by God alone, as if God were not powerful enough to do this. That is ludicrous.
Instead of saying we establish it, we can begin saying we point to it and invite others to participate in it. With this language we are admitting, as Jesus did, that the kingdom of God is at hand, it is all around us already established, and we need to rediscover this kingdom in parts of our culture where it has been forgotten. We no longer establish the kingdom because the kingdom is already all around us. Instead, we invite others to participate in this kingdom in areas of life that have been viewed as impossible for participating in this kingdom.
Participation and pointing to rather than establishing. Sure this might be a small matter, but I think the implications of it are big enough that this needs to be talked about. Feedback? peace
Today after my Christian Ethics class, I went to a small discussion with my professor and some other students from class. We sat in the Refectory (a crazy name at Fuller for our cafeteria), and discussed what the kingdom of God means for ethics in relation to our hope in the eschaton, the end or culmination of the world. Erin, my professor, was arguing that our hope in the eschaton should positively influence our actions in the present—sounds a lot like my ontological priority of the future blog. Erin's language of our responsibility within this kingdom of God on earth got me to thinking (especially since I asked her a question about this and she told me I was using incorrect language).
ASIDE: In case you are out of the loop, much of New Testament scholarship in the past twenty or so years has focused on what Jesus meant by the kingdom of God, and what that means for us. Basically, they concur that the kingdom of God has been established on earth by God, and Jesus came proclaiming that this kingdom "is at hand"—the kingdom was established in the past but has present effects. This kingdom of God concept focuses on redeeming all things on the earth. Thus, Jesus took practices of his culture and turned them towards God noting the presence of the kingdoestablisheded in it. As creations in the image of God, we are to be the imitations of God on earth. With Jesus being THE model for what this imitation looks like, we are to point to the kingdom of God that has been established, and invite others to participate in this kingdom.
Erin said that we do not establish the kingdom of God on earth because the kingdom is; it has been established; it is at hand. Rather, we participate in this kingdom and point to this kingdom.
Notice the stressed words in that last sentence: "point to" and "participate." Here comes the semantics and importance of language. Before today, you would have caught me talking about establishing the kingdom of God in places that it is not established or not fully established. Read my other blog posts here or at culture transformed and you will find this language used. The implications of saying that we establish the kingdom in places it has not been are huge. Ultimately, by using this language we are saying that the reign or presence of God could not be established on earth by God alone, as if God were not powerful enough to do this. That is ludicrous.
Instead of saying we establish it, we can begin saying we point to it and invite others to participate in it. With this language we are admitting, as Jesus did, that the kingdom of God is at hand, it is all around us already established, and we need to rediscover this kingdom in parts of our culture where it has been forgotten. We no longer establish the kingdom because the kingdom is already all around us. Instead, we invite others to participate in this kingdom in areas of life that have been viewed as impossible for participating in this kingdom.
Participation and pointing to rather than establishing. Sure this might be a small matter, but I think the implications of it are big enough that this needs to be talked about. Feedback? peace
Comments
You know Glenn Stassen yet? I think he's pretty bright. Ethics guy I think. Good post.
Carney
P.s. had a good ride yesterday and thought of you through much of it.