| Highlights of Dawn | October 1954 |
The Kingdom Gospel
“This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” —Matthew 24:14
THESE words were spoken by Jesus just a few days before he was crucified, the “legal” charge under the Roman law which led to his death being that he aspired to be a king. And, indeed, Jesus did affirm before Pilate: “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world.” (John 18:37) But even though they hung the King upon a cross to die, he still had faith in his Heavenly Father’s kingdom promises and in response to the request of the thief, who was dying with him, to be remembered in his kingdom, Jesus triumphantly said, “Thou shalt be with me in paradise.”—Luke 23:43
Jesus knew, and thus expressed his belief, that he would be the supreme ruler in the kingdom promised by his Heavenly Father. He knew, too, that the establishment of that kingdom would result in world-wide paradise conditions far surpassing the utopia of which men and women throughout the ages have dreamed, and for which many of the noble-minded have struggled and died. But Jesus died, being slain by his enemies. His followers were but few in number, and even these became confused with the turn of events and wondered whether or not their Lord and Master truly was the King whom the God of Israel had promised to send to establish a world government.—Isa. 9:6,7
More than nineteen centuries have passed since Jesus died, and today hundreds of millions of people profess to be his followers. In fact, the whole western world is at times referred to as “Christendom,” meaning “Christ’s kingdom.” This title was descriptive, largely, of the church-state governments of Europe which claimed to be Christ’s kingdom; but, in a more general way, it has been used to describe the entire non-heathen world. But is “Christendom” the foretold kingdom promised in the Bible?
After Jesus was raised from the dead, he commissioned his disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. In doing this, they were to be his witnesses; witnesses, that is, to the fact that he would return and be the King supreme in the messianic kingdom. (Acts 1:8) The Early Church served valiantly as Christ’s ambassadors, suffering persecution, many of them even unto death, for their faithfulness.
A very vital part of their message, the “Gospel of the kingdom,” was the fact that the King would return, that then he would set up the long-promised kingdom, and that his kingdom reign would continue until all “enemies” would be destroyed, including death itself. (I Cor. 15:25,26) However, Paul wrote to the Thessalonian brethren that “that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”—II Thess. 2:3
Much was involved in this foretold “falling away,” including the gradual loss of the true kingdom hope; and with this loss, the “Gospel of the kingdom” was no longer preached by the increasing numbers of professed Christians. This was inevitable; for as the church grew in numbers and influence it courted favor with the world, and when Emperor Constantine professed acceptance of Christ he made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. To those who accepted this arrangement as being of God, there was no point in preaching the return of Christ and a coming kingdom, for to them the kingdom had come; the enthroned bishop of Rome, as the pope, being the vicegerent of Christ, the King.
But this arrangement did not result in a utopia of blessing for those who came under its rulership. The centuries of its totalitarian rulership are now, by common consent, called the Dark Ages. Out of the “darkness” of those centuries came the Protestant movement. The protesters, however, did not challenge the validity of the church-state system of government as being Christ’s kingdom, for, when separated from Rome, their followers joined hands with the civil governments in their own respective countries, forming additional church-state governments.
It was not until after the discovery of America, and more particularly, after the establishment of a republican form of government in the new world, that Protestant leaders began to see the evils of church-state governments. There are still Protestant churches in Europe which are united with civil governments.
Protestantism has never been united. Generally speaking, each reformer established a church of his own and these were hostile to one another. Thus Christendom became divided, not only between Catholics and Protestants; but the Catholic Church itself is now divided between the Roman and Greek sections, and Protestantism is divided into hundreds of separate groups.
Nevertheless, even under these circumstances, practically all the various church groups have made strenuous efforts to “convert the world.” Regardless of what other truths may have been lost to them, they have taken seriously the Master’s instructions to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. However, their message has not been the “Gospel of the kingdom.” The church-state ideology effectively destroyed in their minds the hope of the real kingdom; and even though there are millions today who discern the evils of church-state government, they do not recognize that a genuine kingdom of Christ is indeed to be established.
The “falling away” foretold by Paul has thus resulted in a loss of faith in God’s true kingdom plan, and the substitution in its place of the idea that man must be his own blesser. The “kingdom” of the Bible, they believe, is a state of tranquility and joy to be entered into after death, but meanwhile man should do the best he can to bring about a peaceful condition on the earth, that it might be a more pleasant place to live while he is awaiting death and the promised kingdom beyond.
There are variations of this viewpoint, but the majority of Protestant groups are coming to believe that their differences are not vital, so there is the disposition to work together, and in many cases to unite. The first world effort of this nature was represented in what was called the “Parliament of Religions,” which was held in Chicago in 1896. This conference included representatives of all the various heathen religions of the earth as well as the professed Christian faith.
The next world effort that compared in magnitude to the Parliament of Religions occurred when the World Council of Churches was organized in Holland six years ago. However, representatives of heathen religions were not admitted into this organization. The second general conference of the World Council of Churches was held in Evanston, Illinois, in August of this year. It was an imposing conference. Delegates from forty-eight nations were present, including some from behind the Iron Curtain. One hundred and sixty-one denominations were represented, the membership of which, it is claimed, is 168,000,000.
The main theme for discussion by delegates at the conference was, “Christ, the Hope of the World.” In the evening of the opening day of the conference this theme was depicted in pageantry, music, and drama, arranged and sponsored by the Church Federation of Greater Chicago. The first of these colorful scenes set forth the creation of the world and the creation of man. According to the report, as the fall of man was related by a narrator, the vast audience joined in the general confession of sin.
In the second scene of this drama, the proclamation of the coming of the Savior was told, and the third scene foretold the promise of God to make all things new. Properly interpreted, this drama was a comprehensive setting forth of the manner in which Christ is the hope of the world, and an outline of the Gospel of the kingdom. However, there was little said by the delegates throughout the seventeen days of the conference to indicate a genuine appreciation of this kingdom theme, or a firm belief in it.
The General Secretary of the conference, Dr. Visser ‘t Hooft, a Pastor of the Dutch Reformed Church, together with other delegates from Europe, seemed to believe more seriously than others the implications of the conference theme, “Christ, the Hope of the World.” In a statement to the delegates he endeavored to quell the fears of some as to the purpose of the conference. It is “completely erroneous” he said, to suggest that the World Council “has any ambition to become a super-church.” He explained also that it was not the work of the World Council to negotiate union between churches, but added, “We must work to create a situation in which there is so much in common between the churches that there is no adequate reason for them to remain separate from each other.”
Dr. Hooft speaks of “so much in common between the churches.” This is doubtless true with respect to certain groups within the World Council, but when it comes to all 161 denominations represented, about the only things which they all hold in common are the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus, and there would be degrees of acceptance with respect to some of these. Many would not go all the way with Jesus’ injunction that when smitten on one cheek, one should turn the other cheek rather than to render evil for evil.
The Modernist churches of America, which are a part of the World Council, would not be in harmony, for example, with the truths of the Bible set forth in drama on the opening day of the conference. They do not believe the Bible’s account of creation. They do not believe in the fall of man. They do not believe in original sin. They brand as bloody and revolting the Bible’s teaching of atonement for sin through the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ. They do not believe that Christ returns to establish a government of peace and righteousness in the earth.
The only extent to which these Modernist delegates could agree that Christ is the hope of the world is that by the world-wide adherence to his righteous example and teachings further global wars would be averted. It is because the Modernists comprise such a large segment of the World Council that the strictly Fundamentalist groups of America are not a part of it, and were therefore not represented at the conference.
The two largest of these are the Southern Baptists, and the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. The Southern Baptists alone have a membership of more than seven million. These groups would be more in harmony with the European churches which participate in the World Council, although they are even more “Fundamentalist” in the sense that they are more energetic in their preaching of the doctrine of eternal torture than are their European brethren.
The Catholic Church, of course, is not a part of the World Council, and therefore did not have delegates at the Evanston Conference. At the conference in Holland six years ago, the Catholic Church did permit “observers” to attend, but even this was banned at the latest conference. It is understandable why the Catholic Church did not participate. As the “mother” church, she could not consistently confer with her wayward children. Cardinal Stritch, of Chicago, in a letter forbidding Catholics to attend the conference, said:
“We wish it to be clearly understood that the faithful of the Church are not permitted to attend the assemblies or conventions of non-Catholic organizations or councils. We ask you, however, to pray for our separated brothers and to beg God to give them the gift of Catholic faith.”
But despite the fact that the Evanston Conference of church representatives was ignored by millions of Protestants, and snubbed by the Catholic Church, with its millions of adherents throughout the earth, it was a spectacular and imposing assembly. Its widespread representation gave it an air of importance and in the minds of many, great authority.
From this standpoint, statements by its delegates are of greater significance than those made merely to their local congregations at home. We were interested particularly in a speech delivered to the conference by Canon Theodore O. Wedel, of the Washington Cathedral (Protestant Episcopal), Washington, D.C., in which he said:
“The church is an evangelizing army on the march, and a haven of rest only between campaigns when it returns to home base to renew its strength and to receive fresh orders. We have no right to our Sabbath ease and our promised end before the Gospel will have been preached throughout the world.”
There is evidence here that the Canon recognizes the mission of the church to be the preaching of the Gospel, rather than ruling the world through civil governments. But what did he mean by the “Gospel”? Was he referring to the “Gospel of the kingdom” which Jesus said would be preached in all the world before the “end” came? And what did he mean by the “promised end”? Was this a reference to the end of earthly life, or to the hoped-for time when the world will be converted through the preaching of the Gospel?
It seems clear that the Canon did not refer to the “Gospel of the kingdom” within the meaning of that expression as used by Jesus. Despite the fact that the theme of the conference was “Christ, the Hope of the World” there was no clear statement on the part of any delegate affirming this fact from the scriptural standpoint; nothing to indicate that those at the conference really expected Christ to establish a kingdom which would truly save the human race from the result of its own sin and selfishness.
“Scandalous”
While a great deal of surface unity was displayed at the conference, some did not hesitate to dig beneath the surface and call attention to what a delegate from the African Gold Coast described as the “scandalous” divisions of the church. Rev. Peter Kwei Dagadu, General Secretary of the Christian Council of the Gold Coast, said:
“In some quarters Christianity is being called the servant of the policy of divide and rule, imported by the West for political ends, and is regarded as having small value for Africa’s new spiritual life. This unfortunate division does not foster the spirit of co-operation and love on a basis equal to what is provided by the African communal life.”
That the hundreds of divisions of churchianity present a serious barrier to successful evangelism is not a new thought. The Apostle Paul, in his day asked, “Is Christ divided?” (I Cor. 1:13) The obvious answer is, No, Christ cannot be divided. His professed people may be divided, and to the extent that this is true, it reveals a lack of the true spirit of Christianity. How discouraging the hundreds of divisions in churchianity must be to those who mistakenly believe that the Lord will use these systems to fulfill his kingdom promises.
President Eisenhower’s Speech
One of the highlights of the conference was an address by President Eisenhower. Although he was not a delegate to the convention, he seemed to sense the general viewpoint held by those who were, and in two short paragraphs of his speech summed up their outlook, and that also of the vast majority of professed Christian people and nations the world over concerning Christ being the hope of the world. We quote:
“It is true that in today’s world of risks and alarms we must, and we will, remain strong, and seek to make our good friends strong in all those scientific, material, and military means that insure or enhance our safety, and discourage aggression against us or our friends.
“But we know that there is no true and lasting cure for world tensions in guns and bombs. We know that only the spirit and mind of man, dedicated to justice and right, can in the long term enable us to live in the confident tranquility that should be every man’s heritage.”
The all-powerful Creator and God of the universe, by the mouth of all his holy prophets, promised to send a King who would establish a powerful government that would assure peace and happiness to all mankind, but the President says that “only the spirit and mind of man, dedicated to justice and right” can accomplish this desirable objective; and that meanwhile the nations must be kept armed with all the latest scientific missiles of destruction in order to discourage one another from aggression.
And, aside from those few delegates at the conference who vaguely endeavored to set Christ forth in a more definite way as being the hope of the world, the President’s statement found ready acceptance. But he went further. He suggested a method by which he hoped that the “spirit and mind of man” might be stirred up actually to establish peace without the use of guns and bombs. He said:
“I believe that you, members of this convocation, spiritual leaders of a great world organization, together with your brethren of other faiths, can lead the way. The goal should be nothing short of inviting every single person in every single country in the world, who believes in the power of a Supreme Being, to join in a mighty, simultaneous, intense act of faith.
“That act of faith might take the form of a personal prayer by the hundreds upon hundreds of millions—delivered simultaneously and fervently for the devotion, wisdom, and stamina to work unceasingly for a just and lasting peace. If this mass dedication launched an unending campaign for peace, supported consequently by prayer, I am certain wondrous results would ensue.”
This is a noble suggestion, stemming from the depths of a sincere heart made sad by the plight of suffering humanity, and discouraged by the endless failure of human efforts to find a solution for the problems posed by human selfishness. But, while stated succinctly, and somewhat differently than a man of the cloth might express it, after all it is the viewpoint that has always governed human efforts to establish peace.
“If” this should be done, the President is confident of good results. This little word “if” has been the weakness of all humanly conceived efforts. And despite the naming of what the President suggests as an “act of faith,” which would be a simultaneous prayer on the part of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people the world over, it is still a human plan upon which God is asked merely to give his blessing.
Yet the fact that the President of the United States suggests that God-fearing people the world over should pray and work for peace is, we believe, significant. A suggestion of this kind, coming from such a source, and on such an auspicious occasion, is certain to engender in the minds of millions, perhaps some of the world’s rulers, the idea that there is a Higher Power to whom they should look. As human efforts continue to fail, this thought will develop and clarify to the point where they will realize that God will not use human efforts at all, and that they should go to him and ask for the establishment of his government in the earth. It will be then that they will say, “Let us go up to the mountain [kingdom] of the Lord, … and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths.” It will be as a result of this that the nations will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks, and learn war no more.—Micah 4:1-4
Kingdom Gospel Preached
Meanwhile, as Jesus said, “This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” This spells out the work of the true disciples of Christ—the kingdom Gospel was to be “preached.” The kingdom was not to be established by them, but the “good news” of the coming kingdom was to be preached—preached everywhere, the world over, as divine providence directed and made it possible.
The word “Gospel” itself does not appear in the Old Testament, but in one way or another all God’s holy prophets foretold the coming of a great Deliverer and King who, empowered by Jehovah, would establish governmental control over all nations. These Old Testament promises of God are freighted with good news pertaining to the blessings which would flow to the people through the agencies of the messianic kingdom. Assurances are given of universal and everlasting peace; of deliverance for the poor and needy; and of the destruction of disease, old age, and death.—Isa. 2:2-4; Ps. 72:4,11-13; Isa. 25:8,9; 65:17-25
The “Gospel of the kingdom,” therefore, is the good news pertaining to God’s promises and plan to establish this wonderful kingdom which is so beautifully portrayed by the Old Testament prophets; and also by the New Testament writers, for they continued with the same glorious theme song of God’s loving purpose to “bless all the families of the earth.”—Gen. 12:3
The main purpose of God in commissioning his people to preach this Gospel throughout the world has been the calling and preparation of a small company of people who, through loyalty to this glorious truth, would qualify to live and reign with Christ in his kingdom when established in power and great glory. The preaching of the “Gospel of the kingdom” was also to serve as a “witness” that despite the continuance of human failure, the time would come when divine power would set up governmental control throughout the earth, when the Lord would say to the raging nations, “Be still, and know that I am God.”—Ps. 46:10
But the work of selecting those who will be joint-heirs with Jesus, as well as the task of witnessing to all nations, will one day be finished, and then, as Jesus said, the “end” will come. This does not mean that there will be an end of preaching because the world has been converted. The reference is, rather, to the end of the age. The disciples had learned that Jesus was going away, and would later return to establish his kingdom, so they inquired of him, “What shall be the sign of thy coming [Greek, parousia, meaning ‘presence’], and of the end of the world [Greek, aion, meaning ‘age’]?” (Matt. 24:3) Jesus answered these questions when he said that the “end” would come after the “Gospel of the kingdom” had been preached in all the world.
It is, therefore, the Gospel age that comes to an end. It has been an age of Gospel preaching, and an age of faith. While the name of Christ has been taken upon the lips of countless millions, the true Gospel of the kingdom has been understood and believed only by a few, a “little flock” to whom Jesus made the promise, “Fear not, … it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”—Luke 12:32
What Paul calls the “foolishness of preaching” having accomplished the divine purpose, the age of faith comes to an “end.” Because this: age will be superseded by the kingdom age, its ending will also mean the end of war, the end of fear, the end of sickness, and ultimately the end of death. The prospect is glorious, and while there is every reason to believe that the “end” is near, even at the door, it is still necessary to walk by faith, and still the will of God that his people should preach “the Gospel of the kingdom.”