There is a growing trend within Christian circles of people distancing themselves from the church. Many are "spiritual but not religious," but some who understand themselves to be Christians engaged in the work of God's kingdom, but see little use for the church. John Nugent, on the other hand, not only believes in the necessity of the church, but insists that it is the church alone that does kingdom work. Rather than engage in making the world better, Christians should be what he calls the "better place."

I know John and I like him. He's a serious scholar who loves Jesus. However, I struggled mightily with this book. In many ways the critique I have of Endangered Gospel is the same critique I had of Scot McKnight's [b:Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church|20673641|Kingdom Conspiracy Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church|Scot McKnight|https://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/books/1406505017s/20673641.jpg|39971422]. Scot, it should come as no surprise, loves the book and endorsed it. Like him, John connects church and kingdom in such a way that engagement in work outside the church as the church is not kingdom work. We can't change the world, but according to John we can, as Christians, become outposts and beacons of God's realm. To do otherwise endangers the Gospel.

Nugent lays out four ways of understanding our role in the world. There are "heaven-centered" Christians who envision their calling as converting people so they can go to heaven. To use the title of an old gospel song, they are "rescuing the perishing." Nugent doesn't embrace this vision, largely because it has little use for the church. There is the "human-centered" vision, which also has little use for the church and really has little need for Jesus. That leaves us with two other possibilities -- "world-centered" and "kingdom-centered." "World-centered" Christians believe that it is our mandate to make the world a better place. Social justice stands at the heart of this vision. Nugent understands it's attraction, but he believes that it is not biblical, and thus endangers the gospel. In contrast, he offers "kingdom-centered" Christianity, which he believes is more biblical and faithful to God's vision.

How one chooses between the two visions may depend on your reading of scripture. John believes he's correct in his reading. I'm not so sure. Even if John is correct in his reading of scripture, I'm wondering if he's evading context. More than that there is a vision of God present here that is troubling to me. I'm not sure I can buy the idea that God doesn't want me to be concerned with the welfare of creation or my non-believing neighbor. I do agree that the way we live together as Christians is central to the impact of the gospel. If we, in the community, do not love one another and care for one another, then it will be difficult to over-flow onto the rest of the world the love of God. But, at times there's a callousness with regard to the "non-believer." They're God's concern not ours, or so it seems.

I agree that our ultimate allegiance is due to God and not country, but John's insistence of reading our mission solely in terms of scripture seems to forget that living in the United States is different from living in the Roman Empire. So Jesus' advice and Paul's advice about living in relationship to the state and culture might reflect that difference.

Let me quickly layout the form of John's book. He starts in Part One building case "for a Better Place." He recognizes our desire for something better, and notes incomplete visions of that place, and then points us toward his kingdom vision. Then in Part Two, in the course of ten chapters, he lays out his reading of the biblical story and his interpretation of the biblical vision of this better place, with an emphasis on the role of the church in God's vision. God will, he believes, make the world a better place, but God will do so without us. The church should be a community that exhibits what it means to be the kingdom. There is much value in the way emphasizes community, but I'm not sure it's feasible. John gives few real examples as to how this works -- the one exception is the Englewood Church in Indianapolis.

Then in Part Three, he offers up his vision of a "Better Place in Action." In his vision, the better place is something we create or rule. It's something we receive. As Christians we should attend to this gift, while the powers and principalities do their thing in trying to keep order. So, our focus should be, rightly so, on discipleship, developing leaders, sharing fellowship (life together), family, friendship. He makes clear that the church is central, even more central than family. From there he moves to vocation, missions, and finally witness to the powers. As for witnessing, that's largely in the form of example, not engagement.

That's where I simply can't go along with John. He leaves little room for serious engagement with the world. I don't think we're called to rule, but I do think we're called to serve. Without Christian involvement where would the abolitionist movement have been, and we know that the civil rights movement has it's roots in the religious community. John commends Martin Luther King, but doesn't believe this is central to the work of the kingdom.

I would say that Scot's portrayal of this church-centered kingdom vision is a bit more sophisticated than John's, but John gives a good effort to root his vision of the church in scripture. As with my critique of Scot's vision, John's vision falls flat in my estimation. I'm not sure it makes sense of the world in which we live. So, instead I'll hitch my wagon to William Barber and Jim Wallis.