Practicing Postmillennialism, Part 2
by Jeffery J. Ventrella, JD
Plain Text/Printer Friendly Version
The Word, Volume 13, Issue 5 (June 2002)
A fundamental nexus exists between eschatology and ethics. Stated differently, eschatology implies ethical imperatives. Theonomic postmillennial-ism demands several ethical responses as outlined previously: (1) promoting the primacy of the Gospel; and, (2) demonstrating evangelistic and missiological zeal. There is more, however.
A Christendomic Consciousness
Theonomic postmillennialism also demands that one cultivate a Christendomic consciousness. God has promised to redeem "a people" consecrated for His purposes. This coming reality will progress in history ("living stones" fitted together to form a "New Temple") and will climax as an eschatological collective (the Bride, the New Jerusalem, etc.). Accordingly, to live consistently with these coming eschatological realities requires Christians to intentionally develop an awareness for God's present Christendomic work in, among, with, and through His people.
While it is true that God elects particular sinners for redemption, it is also true that the promise of the New Covenant (like the Old) is explicitly couched in terms of God's gathering of a collective people, loved by God and unified in thought and deed. It is this redeemed collective which grows intergenerationally under the Lord's ruling hand:
They shall be My people, and I will be their God: then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. And, I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not run away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me. Yes, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will assuredly plant them in the land, with all My heart and with all My soul. (Jer. 32:38-41, NKJV)
As God in history gathers his eschatological people, postmillennialism (like the Bible) teaches that this gathering will be incrementally, yet unmistakably, manifested tangibly over time, just as Jesus taught in the parables of the leaven and the mustard seed in Matthew 13. Critically, however, this manifestation occurs along the lines of the antithesis - that judicially-instituted hostility and enmity existing between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). This concept demarcates the battle between God's people and the "darkness," the "tares," the "goats," and the "dogs," or, put theologically, the covenant-breakers, as God graciously gathers His people to Himself through the preaching of the gospel.
This enmity plays out in history and does so with communal dimensions as recognized early by the Church Fathers: Jerusalem versus Athens (Tertullian), the City of God versus the City of Man (Augustine). And this communal expression of antithesis reoccurs throughout redemptive history as the Lord divides, delivers, and then destroys all for the sake of His expanding Kingdom - the Garden, Noah and the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Lot and Sodom, the lives of the Patriarchs, the Exodus. In each case, the Lord divides along the line of the antithesis, delivers His people, and then destroys the covenant-breakers. The Lord God is an active God whose work continues eschatologically, but does so along antithetical Christendomic lines.
Sadly, however, much of the American church has lost its Christendomic consciousness, that is, the confident vision of God's certain eschatological purpose to save a people, dwell with them, do good to them, and rejoice over them - all for His own glory. Instead, God's people, having lost Christendomic consciousness, do not really engage the culture antithetically, but rather spawn conflicts of light v. light; wheat v. wheat; and sheep v. sheep. Christians, including many Reformed Christians, endlessly debate the footnotes in the City of God's zoning and building codes while the City of Man is quickly and incessantly stealing and/or poisoning the Christians' water, power, and homesteads. Christ's living waters have been converted into a stagnant evangelical slough. This should not be, and yet this occurs regularly because Christians fail to conduct their affairs in terms of Jeremiah's eschatological promise: God is gathering one people and He purposes to rejoice in them and do good to them. Christians must therefore recover a Christendomic consciousness - an eschatological understanding of God's purpose to sanctify His people, imperfect as they now are. A Christendomic consciousness must be recovered, and a postmillennial confession supplies the motive and the mandate for doing so.
Recovering a Christendomic consciousness means, among other things, keeping the main thing the main thing. The Scriptures' priorities must be recaptured in both word and deed, faith and works, doctrine and duty. Many obstacles or constraints impair Christendomic consciousness, even (especially?) among those professing an optimistic eschatology. Here are some suggestions for remedying this situation:
Being long-suffering with our brothers: 2 Timothy 2:22-25 requires servants of the Lord to be gentle, patient, and humble. And the reality is that, according to Christ, love is the mark of the visible church (John 13:34,35). While differences among brothers are important and ought to be resolved, they are differences among brothers, and should be considered accordingly.
Negating the cult of personality: The Reformed often (and rightly) critique Rome's Papacy, and yet splintered Protestantism, including the Reformed, seems to nevertheless function in terms of many popes or other pied pipers. "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, or Calvin, or Augustine, or Machen, or Clark, or Van Til, or Rushdoony, or..." The reality is, however, that neither Calvin (nor any other great or not-so-great leader) died for anyone's sins, and though Christians do and ought to learn with gratitude from those whom God has illumined, a divisive party-spirit has no place in the Kingdom. One solution to the party-spirit is to intentionally foster Christendomic consciousness. After all, loyalty is owed exclusively to Christ alone.
Pursuing biblical peacemaking: Where schism exists, reconciliation in the gospel should be actively pursued. Jesus makes this point with utmost clarity and urgency - worship itself is secondary where brothers are estranged by personal offense (Matt. 5:23,24). To be conscious of the covenant requires reality in relationships, especially where conflict exists.
Postmillennialism provides a biblically tenable basis for hope in God's future grace. But what must not be forgotten is that God's decree ordains both the telos as well as the means. Christians must "work out their own salvation," and this means ethical living by God's holy standard, that is, theonomically. But note, Paul's command to do so (Phil. 2:12) is a conclusion he draws after admonishing Christians to embrace a Christendomic consciousness:
Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 2:3-5, ESV).
Theonomic postmillennialism demands no less.
Practice Courageous, Strategic, and Principled Cultural Engagement
It is certainly true that God works "all things according to the counsel of His will," but it is also true that the Lord "works in you, both to will and to do His good pleasure" (Eph. 1:11; Phil. 2:13, ESV). The Creator of the universe has ordained that men, and especially redeemed men, should be agents for accomplishing His eschatological purpose. As morally responsible agents, men make critical decisions. A postmillennial eschatology demands that, when choosing, men consciously practice courageous, strategic, and principled cultural engagement.
The year was 480 BC. The Persian army was advancing, one million troops strong. Xerxes purposed to invade Greece. As the foreign threat mounted crucial decisions faced the Greeks. On the one hand, they could simply acquiesce to foreign rule like so many other nations had done in the face of the overwhelming military odds. On the other hand, they could resist - and perhaps provide hope for future generations. The character of tomorrow's culture stood in the balance.
The gateway to Greece was Thermopylae. Everyone knew it. After taking counsel together, the Greek city-states resolved to resist Xerxes' army, and to do so at the point of entry - the "Gates of Fire." There, 300 Spartans, knowing that death was certain, prepared for battle in order to defend their homeland from the Persian "million man march." As anticipation grew, Sparta's advance scouts reported that when the Persian archers launched their volleys, the multitude of their arrows darkened the sky by eclipsing the sun. Faced with this reality, the Spartan captain, Dienekes commented, "Good, today we shall battle in the shade."
As the initial battle line formed, the Persian emissaries exhorted the plainly outnumbered Spartans to surrender their weapons; resistance would be futile. Sparta's 300 would certainly die. "Lay down your weapons." Sparta's King Leonidas responded laconically, Molon labe, "come and get them." And so, the battle was joined.
The 300 Spartans fought fiercely for seven days; each of them died as everyone expected; there would be no fairy tail ending, and certainly no rapture. Astonishingly, however, 20,000 Persians died. This battle, and more importantly, Sparta's decision to resist, proved crucial to the development of Western Civilization because on the very day that the last Spartan died, the Greek navy soundly defeated that of the invading Persians at the Straits of Salamis, thereby turning back the Byzantine threat. The Spartans strategically counted the cost - enduring short term suffering in order to gain long term cultural victory.
Christians know that all history serves God and His sovereign purposes, and that therefore, much can be gleaned from the past. The Battle of Thermopylae illustrates principles valuable to those engaged in the spiritual warfare which is history. Why would 300 obviously outnumbered men leave family and life in order to exert themselves, even unto a certain death?
One answer lies in their eschatology - they understood very well that their culture, if it would survive, could not be melded into another, particularly by force. Accordingly, they rejected pragmatism - saving their skin today only to thereby forfeit their children's tomorrow. Instead, they knew, as a matter of principle, what was ultimately at stake, the telos or eschaton of the historic moment facing them, the very extinction of their culture. As a result, they confronted the event strategically and courageously. As a wise friend of mine observed, "Courage is the flower of conviction."
The courage to stand and battle in the face of certain short-term failure derives from the conviction of long-term success. For the Christian, however, especially the postmillennial Christian, this orientation should be more than psychological. The victory contemplated is not simply probable or highly probable - it is certain. A firm grasp and conviction of God's certain triumph over all His enemies, progressively in history, will spawn the necessary courage for Christians to resist pragmatic cultural compromise, and instead will motivate Christians from all callings to engage the culture strategically.
What does it mean to engage the culture strategically? Postmillennialism holds that God's advancement of the Kingdom is principled, that is, according to His standards. It is ethical, not metaphysical. It is incremental, not revolutionary. One must be intentional, and yet patient. Thus, to act strategically is to embrace a willingness and intention to swing a sharp well-placed sword for 10 years rather than carelessly wield a dull blunt one for 30. Action for action's sake can create more problems than originally anticipated.
Merely making the public square more conservative or pluralistic does not necessarily promote the Kingdom. What is needed is a confidence in the future, as crafted and ordained by God Almighty, in order to resist the temptation to be simply pragmatic, or so idealistic as to be devoid of meaningful cultural tactics. Here are two examples.
School vouchers: Many engaged in the cultural battle hold convictions that the State lacks any justifiable interest funding education, the obvious exception being the State's discharge of legitimate military training and related education. Does this conviction necessarily mean that a Christian should categorically oppose all efforts designed to promote the establishment of a voucher system? To answer affirmatively betrays a decontextualized idealism, devoid of strategic and tactical considerations.
A more principled approach should consider whether any tactical benefit can occur if vouchers are established. A Christian can, consistent with his convictions, still support a voucher system, if (and this is key) he is also at liberty (and sufficiently disciplined) to refuse to use vouchers once the system is in place. This approach fosters cultural renewal because it (1) breaks the public education monopoly; and (2) promotes parental authority over children. Gracious strategic thinking advances the Kingdom.
The homosexual legal agenda in corporate America: No right thinking Christian can support "gay rights" (as distinct from uniformly applicable civil rights). But the tactical question centers on how to respond in action to corporate America's rapidly advancing adoption of sexual orientation-based non-discrimination policies, domestic partnership benefits, and "safe zones." Often, for those Christians who are no longer content with silence, "boycotts" are encouraged. While this may personally placate the consciences of some, the effectiveness of this tactic long term is dubious. In reality, a better strategic approach may be to infiltrate publicly held companies (by stock purchases) and then tactically exercise voting rights and other ownership privileges, in an effort to bring pressure to bear upon corporate policy and practice (e.g., Gary DeMar's frank editorial regarding the announced policies of Home Depot in Biblical Worldview, July 2001).
Many more examples of strategic choices, both positive and negative, could be cited - how the failure to oppose in-vitro fertilization experimentation has spawned (no pun intended) today's stem cell controversy; how the uncritical acceptance of contraception as a "privacy right" fostered the removal of reproduction, and thus sexuality, from the marital context, furthering the justification for abortion on demand; and (on the other hand) how strategic, principled progress is being made in First Amendment jurisprudence through a number of important cases.
If the Spartans possessed eschatological clarity, understanding the long term significance of their present actions, how much more should Christians ponder their own courses of action. The ethics of optimistic eschatology demand that Christians live and choose courses of action that reflect courageous, strategic, and principled cultural engagement. What we do now indeed will echo in eternity. We must choose today consistently with what God has purposed for tomorrow. We must choose ethically, and therefore, we must choose eschatologically. Any other result would be, in a word, antinomian.
'