I just don't get restoration theology

I'm not sure that's the official name for it. But it's this 'newish' gospel that people have been preaching, it says that Jesus' death on the cross not only restores those elected, but also begins the restoration of the Earth itself and we as believers must assist Christ in that restorative act. Usually this manifests in efforts by the local church to improve the socio-economic status of those around them and even improvements to the environment around them.

Now of course I'm not against caring for the poor and needy, nor am I against taking care of the Earth. I'm an out-doors guy and understand the value of caring for what we were entrusted with. Gen 1:28-30;  2:15. And more importantly I'm very happy to serve the poor and needy as Christ did and the early church did. Mark 6:53-56; Acts 2:45. But in this case, Jesus healed the sick as an opportunity to get their attention to preach the truth to them. It wasn't merely to make them better, though He of course cared and valued that. His actions were clearly to create a venue to teach. Mark 1:21-28; 2:1- 12; 3:1-6; 5:1-20; 6:30-43 (esp vs 34); etc...  Jesus in fact said He came to preach and teach. Mark 1:35-39. He sent the apostles out to teach: Mark 6:7-12. I can't find any scriptures where He said: "I come to restore the earth and make this world better." If someone can point me to scriptures where He says this, I would like to learn about them.

I'm not trying to lose the kindness and love that Christ shows to people, and that we are to show to people as models of Him. If we don't love them, how can they hear our message? But that's the point, we should have the goal of them hearing our message and our service to them should be for them to hear. If we are merely serving, just to raise up their socio-economic status, then I don't see how Christians are any different from secular organizations who do community service projects. My favorite example are men's fraternities in college. Most frat houses do lots and lots of community service. They feed the poor, they raise money for cancer, and they build shelters for the needy. But their ultimate goal is to party hard on the weekend. They are not trying to preach a message of faith and repentance in the slightest. Service without message makes the church no different.

To get back to this restoration theology, I don't see any scripture supporting mankind's efforts to restore the earth. In fact the scriptures I see show Christ coming back and creating the new heavens and new earth after throughly destroying the old one.

• Rev. 3:12 -- "... the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God, out of heaven."
• Rev. 6:12-17 -- "... the stars of the sky fell on the earth, ... the sky vanished like a scroll, ...and every mountain and island removed from its place..."
• Rev. 8:6-13 -- ... hail and fire... third of trees and grass burned up...; third of the sea becomes blood, third of living creatures in the sea are killed; third of the rivers and springs ruined and people die; third of sun, moon, and stars are struck;
• Rev. 9:13-19 -- a third of mankind is killed by plague
• Rev. 16:17-21 -- final plague is brought destroying many things & people with hailstones
• Rev. 21:1-2; 5,6 -- new heavens and a new earth, the first earth had passed away; Jesus makes all things new

If Jesus is going to destroy the old one and replace it with a new one, why should we work so hard to maintain it? Again, not saying we shouldn't help the poor and needy. Nor am I saying we shouldn't be involved in government and social structures as individuals. Of course we need to let our light shine in the darkness. (For instance I'm kind of against home schooling my kids b/c it removes an opportunity to shine into the darkness.) But the whole point of letting that light shine is to bring people to Christ. Not to merely make the current structures better.  This new restoration theology seems to have a goal to improve the socio-economic status as a means to its own end. And that's my problem with it.

Let's just leave the gospel alone, the way it has been understood for 2000 years. The penal substitution of Christ on the cross to redeem us from our sins and restore us to a right relationship with the Father. (Romans 3:23-26, 6:23, 5:6-11, 10:9-13). Let's not try to reform and add to it with this restoration concept if it's not supported by scripture.



A little post script. I don't want to be an arrogant jerk. If there is some scriptures supporting restoration theology, please someone post them so I can learn. Maybe I'm missing some major component and theme in the New Testament. In the end, my goal in life is to magnify Christ. If my theology is short-changing His glory, then I am very open to correction.

Generous Orthodoxy Leads to Loss of Mission

Read this article tonight:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/tim-suttle/will-evangelicalism-last_b_2727883.html

Two troubling paragraphs:

"Mission fosters the capacious orthodoxy necessary for us to stick together. Mission allows for the generous diversity of thought which is essential to a healthy evangelical gene pool. Biologists teach us the less diverse the gene pool, the more at-risk the species. The more homogeneous our beliefs become the less likely evangelicals are to survive. We need a rich, diverse orthodoxy. As the evangelical truth-police work to silence all minority reports, they are actually working against the overall health of the tribe.

Those who wish to functionally excommunicate Rob Bell and others like him are alienating the very Christians who promise to provide the kind of theological diversity essential to our healthy future. We should be welcoming Bell's voice, not silencing it. If evangelicals have a future together, it will not be the way of those who cry "heresy" and let slip the dogs of war. It will be with those who unite around mission and prefer a rich theological landscape."

The Bible and orthodoxy are not something that needs a diversity. It is not acceptable or compatible to say that 'everyone gets into heaven' as Bell does, and what Jesus says in John 6:37-40: "³⁷ All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. ³⁸ ForI have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. ³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. ⁴⁰ For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” Jesus is quite exclusive. He only permits into heaven, those He has called.

His biodiversity argument doesn't make any sense at all. God spent the entire Old Testament calling out his people to separate them from the diverse orthodoxy around them. Jesus carried that torch further in His ministry showing how the religious elite had perverted God's message of grace.

The second paragraph doesn't make any sense compared to Jesus and Paul's in the New Testament. Both of them fought for orthodoxy continuously. Jesus didn't 'generously diversify' His message to include the religious elite's view of works and hereditary based salvation. Paul opposed Peter in front of a group of church leaders in Galatia when Peter tried to act like a Judizer and put salvific value in circumcision. 

Both of these paragraphs highlight what my own church so often promotes: "Let's spend our energies helping God restore the earth. This is our most important goal." I would argue, the Bible describe's God's most important goal as giving Him glory and enjoying Him forever. We do this best when we do as His Son called us to do, and that's to make disciples from here to the nations. Disciples who individually dedicate themselves to Christ as Lord of their life, and then influence the area around them with His light to draw others to saving faith.