Millennialism

This post is about the downside of millennialism.  Not that I'm intending to promote some bland, unexciting, pessimistic "amillennial" world-view.  Actually, as an optimistic amil learning about postmil, I too want excitement and success for the Kingdom of God.  But, it's still the case that the upside and downside of millennialism must be weighed.

A scholarly article on this subject may be found in a Richard Gaffin "festschrift" called Resurrection and Eschatology, edited by Tipton and Waddington.  The chapter I'm referring to is entitled "A Millennial Genealogy: Joseph Mede, Jonathan Edwards, and Old Princeton," by Jeffrey K. Jue.

This article is worth reading (borrow the book if you have to).  Jue details an instance of close connection between historic premillennialism and postmillennialism by showing a genealogical relationship in the writings of Mede (premil), Edwards (postmil), and Hodge.

The interesting thing about the article is that it can portray the two (pre- and post-) millennialisms to be siblings in their nature and effects on theology and the church.  This is distinct from the usual taxonomy which places premillennialism off to itself, and juxtaposes postmillennialism and "amillennialism."

On the last page of the chapter Jue writes:

The similarities between premillennialism and traditional postmillennialism have been observed and analyzed by others such as Richard B. Gaffin Jr.  Gaffin writes, "like premillennialism, postmillennialism -- distinguished from amillennialism -- 'de-eschatologizes' the present (and past) existence of the church." 

footnote: Richard B. Gaffin Jr., "Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism," in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. Barker and Godfrey, 202.

What Gaffin is pointing out is that the assertion, made by pre- and postmillennialists, that another finite age (the millennium) will precede the eternal eschaton reduces the eschatological character of the present age.  How so?  If the present church age will be followed by another intermediate state, then the church's final eschatological hope is weakened and delayed.

In other words, 'Come Lord Jesus! Come in glory!' falls into the background, the "blessed hope" is deferred to the indefinite future (or reinterpreted to refer to the millennium), and the church goes on with her business participating in the creation of a Kingdom which may be more at home in this age and this world than it ought to be.

My advice for now:  Amils, don't denigrate the progress of God's Kingdom in this age.  Postmils, don't misperceive or overglorify (in worldly terms) the look and feel of God's Kingdom in this age.

The theological regulation of the New Testament scripture is normative here.  Jesus' description of the mysteries of the Kingdom must rule. The motif of 'glory hidden in suffering' does not pass away as the millennium comes in this age.  The children of God do "shine forth as the sun" -- when He Comes to raise them from the dead!  Only then does the "last enemy," which is also the first enemy and the cause of all our tribulations, get swallowed up in victory!

Meanwhile, we may leaven the whole lump -- very quietly -- and inexorably.  We're just not the whole lump.  We share the field with the fruiting tares until the last day.