This term, in the fundamental, distinguishes, and is very much the same with, Christian Zionism (q.v.) and its branches, for example, Sensationalism (q.v.), Hyper-sensationalism (q.v.) and Incrementalism (q.v.). Dr. Alva J. McClain, author of Grace biblical theological seminary, in his book entitled The Greatness of the Kingdom, endeavored to excuse the judgment of the Orthodox name Materialistic Theology by referring to the occasion of a youthful, boisterous mouthed, over-took care of evangelist who declared roughly,
“The Kingdom of God is a profound issue; the Kingdom of God has just been built up inside you. Don’t you men of honor realize that the Kingdom of God isn’t eating and drinking yet righteousness and harmony and happiness in the Holy Ghost?’ And then the speaker arrived eagerly over the table and skewered another huge bit of seared chicken.”
“Well,” said Dr. McClain, “if the Kingdom of God can exist now in a 200 pound minister brimming with seared chicken with no unpardonable materialistic implication, maybe it could likewise exist similarly among men on earth who will on occasion be eating and drinking under more ideal conditions in a future millennial realm” (Greatness of the Kingdom, p. 520, Alva J. McClain, Moody Press Edition, 1968, BMH Books Edition, 1974, fifth printing, BMH Books, Dec. 1983).
One doesn’t have the foggiest idea whether Dr. McClain was attempting to drag a distraction over the way with this misrepresentation routine or in the event that he truly didn’t comprehend the significance of the term Materialistic Theology. Give no consideration to the inquiries, “Who might have eaten the ‘colossal’ bit of seared chicken if the noisy mouthed minister who couldn’t help contradicting Dr. McClain’s convention had not?” or, “What was such a vulgar bit of singed chicken doing on the table of a lot of religious philosophy understudies in any case?” The fact is missed in this story. The issue of Materialistic Theology has nothing to do with the case of something that is otherworldly and can likewise be physical and material. The issue is tied up with the progressions welcomed by the Enlightenment and the attack of the Age of Reason into the field Conservative Theology. With the change from confidence to reason as the trial of truth, scholars started to lose the capacity to imagine the advancement of the Kingdom in this world as having to do with the heart and the soul, the Jerusalem which is above, and that domain distinguished by Jesus as “no longer of this world.”
The Church is the Kingdom of God on Earth in the New Testament
This had been no issue at all for the Orthodox Fathers. In The City of God, St. Augustine clarifies that the Church is the Kingdom of God on this planet. Yet, with the coming of Evangelical Conservative philosophy and rational theology, sensible, coherently faultless, experimentally concrete explanations that could be perceived by the regular psyche and explained in mortal ideas started to move in.
Not many individuals in the initial eighteen-hundred years of the Church believed that the Jews were as yet the picked individuals of God and that a Jewish Dispensation and Kingdom would return toward the finish of the age. It was not until after the Enlightenment that this view got adequate in any theological circles. In trying to arrange, recognize, and denounce this view Orthodoxy marked it materialistic. By this, Orthodoxy intended to state this was a religious endeavor to clarify things of the new creation not just in wording having a place with the old creation, yet in teachings that had a place with the old creation, since this was the main understanding accessible to the Enlightenment scholars who were advancing these rationalistic perspectives. Strict grant may have been scholarly, educated and basic, however it needed spiritual understanding. St. Paul stated, in II Corinthians 5:17, “If any man is in Christ he is of the new creation. The old creation has died and everything is currently understood in, and comprise in the new creation.”