The Caveman Cometh

As I've re-entered academia, I've discovered that there are a whole lot of people who don't think like I do, and hold to beliefs not found in my theological circles. Before, I just ignored them (***burn, heretics, burn*** ) and studied "safe" stuff.

Well, as it turns out, people in the Latin American evangelical community read some of that junk. And believe it! As I start to interact with it, my first reaction is "I'm right and they are wrong" But that's pretty narrow of me, and doesn't give me the option of learning. So maybe "They are right and I'm wrong". Again, an all or nothing option probably isn't the best option (Especially since I really doubt that I'm TOTALLY wrong. :) So, it becomes, what's right and what's wrong with each position??

Case in point: An article in Evangelical Missions Quarterly, January 1984 "Key Issues in Missiology: An Evangelical View" byJohn Gration. Now, this is an article that from a journal that by an large would be accepted even in our circles. Yet, it's from 1984 and I'm just now reading it!

I really feel like I'm a cave man coming out into the light and being blinded. There is so much out there that I have never been exposed to, even though I've been on the field for over 13 years!

Anyhow, here is a quotation from said article:

The relationship between the church and the kingdom and the significance of this relationship to missions should receive increasing attention on the part of evangelicals. The answers to a number of questions depend upon the nature of this relationship. First, what is the primary aim of evangelism? Is it to preach Christ and the kingdom, or to plant churches? If this is not the best way to put it, we might ask whether the task of missions is based on the nature of the church or the nature of the kingdom. Is God's work in this age primarily "calling out a people for his name" (Acts 15:14), or extending and building Christ's kingdom on earth (Acts 15:16)? (This entire Acts 15 passage merits careful exegetical study.)

To put the question still another way, is the growth (expansion and extension) of churches the ultimate goal of mission, or is the church simply a result of the gospel proclamation, the "first fruits" of the manifestation and reality of the kingdom?

Hmmm, the relationship between the church and the kingdom. I vaguely recall talking about the Kingdom in seminary. It was generally relegated to the millennium. There was the "already, not yet" discussion, but that left me a little less than satisfied. Already how?

Yes, I had a course "The Kingdom and the Church" but that was basically two courses in one, not much of a discussion of the relationship between the two. I've skimmed that syllabus a couple times in recent days without finding much in it to help me know what the significance is of the kingdom for today, in relation to the church. Maybe if I studied it a bit more, I'd find what I'm looking for, but I kind of doubt it.

Most Latin-American theologians seem to understand the relationship. Are they right? Wrong? I'm not even sure I understand what they think it is. But I do know that when I read them I react by saying, but that's Post-millennialism! (A term they don't seem to employ!).

So, alas, I feel like a caveman. Blinded by a whole knew world I never knew existed. Pray for me. And I invite your comments! If I don't figure this one out, I'm in for a VERY long course of study.