The Gospel and Cultural Transformation

A magazine article on this subject ends with the statement:

"In both testaments, believers extend God's kingdom both to spiritual and earthly realms.  We are to teach the gospel of Christ to all nations so that people may be transformed spiritually, but this spiritual renewal is for the sake of extending the lordship of Christ to every facet of culture around the world."

I'm sorry to say it, but this has the cart before the horse.

It is true that the impact of Christ on culture is the consequence of the transformation brought about by the gospel.  But, the gospel, and spiritual conversion by the gospel, is the truly great thing.  Souls by this are brought into the family of God, the new, redeemed race, and this way they experience the life of Christ in fellowship with each other and with the Holy Trinity.  The impact on culture is a wonderful consequence.  But, we dare not make the cultural impact the higher purpose, and the gospel merely an instrument to that end.

Putting cultural impact as the purpose (the "telos") is a lower vision.

The Paradoxical Exchange of Glory and The Cross

Here is more on Luther's contrast between the Theology of Glory and the Theology of the Cross (all bracketed text or underlines are mine).

Luther's railing against good works is to be taken as referring to the self-glorifying and self-justifying attitudes about good works that were promoted in the theological environment in 1518:

21)  A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil.
       A theology of the cross calls the thing
       what it actually is.

This is clear: He who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and in general, good to evil. These are the people whom the apostle calls "enemies of the cross of Christ" (Phil. 3:18), for they hate the cross and suffering and love works and the glory of works. Thus they call the good of the cross evil and the evil of a deed good.

God can be found only in suffering and the cross, as has already been said. Therefore the friends of the cross say that the cross is good, and works [for glory or justication] are evil, for through the cross works are dethroned and the "old Adam," who is especially edified by works, is crucified.

It is impossible for a person not to be puffed up by his "good works" unless he has first been deflated and destroyed by suffering and evil, until he knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God's.

Luther's definition of the Theology of Glory is a way of defining Legalism.  And how often isn't it the case, even as believers in grace, that we feel good about ourselves when we do well (as we see it), and feel bad about ourselves when we do poorly (we were surprised by it, and hate looking bad in the eyes of other men).

Legalists!  How can we be sanctified, when all our ways of understanding what sanctification really is are wrong!

----------------------------------------------------

There is a revolution here which comes from minds and hearts being refreshed by the Theology of the Cross, but this revolution keeps getting lost. We should pray for this vision to be renewed in our generation.  It was at the root of the greatest revival in the church since the Day of Pentecost.

Preterism, Conquest and the Theology of Glory?

 

Part 1 of this question is found here:
http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2010/04/church-life-and-eschatology.html

Martin Luther got the ball rolling, as he synthesized the contrasting conceptions of The Theology of Glory and The Theology of the Cross.  His most famous theses about this are numbers 19 and 20 from the record of the Heidelberg Disputation.  They need explaining more than can be done in this post.  But, to start your thinking, late me transcribe them here (follow the links for more information):

19)  That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25),

20)  He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The effect of these theses is to turn the usual vision of the world and the flesh upside down. What appears "great" to the world is small to God.  What is great with God is "small" to the world.  For God is determined that the world only know him through the foolishness of what is preached, and not by any wisdom of its own whatsoever.  Therefore, the true divine assessment of greatness is often the inverse of what the world sees.  It is the weak, powerless, unranking, who receive the gospel, not usually the powerful and mighty (in worldly terms).  The meek shall inherit the earth.

In personal terms, the way up (closer to God), is down, through repentance, the cross, and peace with God.  The way down (away from God) is up, through human wisdom, power and greatness.

So, in the relationship between eschatology and church life, or eschatology and personal spirituality, can an undigested "preterism," or a naively actuated vision of cultural conquest, lead toward a "theology of glory," with the consequent negative effects on visions of individual calling and of church life?