A practical example would be praying for the sick. Sometimes God heals the person – which is a mark of the future age – and sometimes He doesn’t – a mark of the present evil age.

Another example would be the Holy Spirit. The prophets said that when the End comes, God would pour out His Spirit upon the people (Joel). Acts 2 details this “end time” event where the Age to Come has broken into the present age.

I could go on…but I don’t have room.

BTW – other eschatology views include:

a) “realized eschatology” – everything in the Age to Come has come into the present age. There is no more waiting – we just have to “live it” and have “faith”. Variations of this can be found in Pentecostalism and the Prosperity churches.

b) “delayed eschatology” – I would say that this is the most common among churches today (even though most scholars would agree with inaugurated eschatology). This view states that we are waiting for the Kingdom to come. All the church can do today is bunker down, try to save souls and wait for the end to come.

Note, of course, there are different levels of beliefs within each of these categories – but those are the main ones.

oh – btw, you might be interested in knowing that the term “inaugurated eschatology” was coined by N.T. Wright, an Anglican Bishop and theologian. =)

I would agree with you that there will be a future event that will bring about the redemption of creation. Right now, we can work to be closer to that ideal, instead of farther, but it can’t fully happen now.

BTW – in theological terminology, you are describing a type of “inaugurated amillenial/historical-premillenial eschatology”. Or, in other words, humanity is to live on earth as if the “new” heavens and earth were already here (inaugurated). Since it is God who is bring about this change and not humanity, it would not be a postmillennial eschatology, but amillenial or historical-premillenial eschatology (dispensational-premillenial eschatology by definition does not promote the inaugurated nature of the Kingdom of God).

In addition, I would argue that not are we to join God in redeeming His Creation now, but in the future there will be an event that will culminate in the redemption of all of creation, allowing God to walk among His people as promised (i.e. apocalyptic eschatology).

Or, if you want a one liner: “inaugurated apocalyptic amillenial/historical-premillenial eschatology”

=P

It does seem like some extreme forms of environmentalism do become like a religion for people. I thought some of the things the article was saying can be true – there is almost a religious fervor in environmentalism for some people. I was thinking about what differentiates that extreme form from a good, healthy form. I think it is when our entire hope is placed on us bringing about that paradise through our efforts. There is the idea that we can create a perfect world through recycling, etc. But even if we were all to do all those things, the world would still be broken, and we would still be sinful, and we couldn’t achieve the paradise we long for.

Not that we shouldn’t still work toward that paradise – but with the recognition that only God can fully bring it about. I was thinking about Paul asking if we should keep on sinning since we are saved by grace (Rom. 6:1). Likewise, just because we can’t bring about paradise on earth, should we not be doing what we can to work toward it? But the motivation is different – it’s not that through trying hard enough we can bring it about, but that we are responding in hope to his promise of a future new earth and desiring to participate in his work.

The writer of the article seemed to see religion just through the lens of guilt – that we have to work harder to save ourselves. Whereas the real message is that God is doing the saving and we are responding.