Origin and Usage of “Flat Eschatology”
The phrase “flat eschatology” does appear in modern theological discussion, though it is not a widely established technical term. Its usage seems to have emerged in the early 21st century, primarily as a critical descriptor of certain eschatological approaches. For example, theologian Gary Waldecker titled a 2005 article “Against ‘flat eschatology.’” , indicating the term was in circulation by then. Likewise, a review of Robert Jewett’s Romans commentary (published in the journal Kerux) explicitly criticizes Jewett’s “overall flat eschatology, oriented towards the present world” . In that review, Scott Sanborn observes that Jewett “focuses on the horizontal” dimension of eschatology (i.e. the present, earthly context) “to the relative neglect” of a future, transcendent dimension . This captures the essence of how “flat eschatology” is defined by its critics: it is an eschatological outlook flattened onto a single plane, usually the plane of present history, lacking the “vertical” or future-oriented depth.
In these contexts, calling an approach “flat” is pejorative – it implies the eschatology has been stripped of nuance or multi-dimensionality. The Kerux reviewer, for instance, argues Jewett’s reading of Paul follows “a very contemporary cultural agenda” by emphasizing present social concerns at the expense of traditional future hope . In other words, Jewett’s eschatology is “flat” because it dwells on this-worldly ethics and progress without a robust expectation of divine intervention or consummation to come. Similarly, Waldecker’s choice of title “Against ‘flat eschatology’” suggests he was cautioning against a one-dimensional view of the kingdom of God (though his article was unpublished, its title implies a critique of reducing eschatology to a single level).
The term also pops up in less formal theological conversations, underscoring that its meaning is generally intuitive: “flat” = lacking peaks, contours, or additional layers. For instance, pastor Mike Bowling used the phrase in a 2012 interview, saying “We are not wrapped up in a flat eschatology. God is winning the battle inside human history, bringing about a heavenly city right in our midst” . Here, Bowling contrasts “flat eschatology” (which they avoid) with an understanding that God is actively at work now. Although he doesn’t fully define the term, the implication is that a “flat” end-times view would be static or disengaged – perhaps an eschatology that is only future-focused with no present realization, or otherwise “flat” in failing to see God’s dynamic kingdom unfolding in history. Even online forums use the term in this intuitive way. One commenter quipped that first-century Pharisees “had flat eschatology” – meaning they expected a single-stage fulfillment (e.g. one coming of Messiah) without the multi-phase understanding that later Christian theology introduced. In each case, “flat” implies an undifferentiated, one-level perspective on God’s “last things.”
Definition and Characteristics in Context
Though not formally codified, “flat eschatology” is generally defined by those who use it as an eschatological perspective that flattens the timeline or dimensions of biblical hope. It can take a couple of forms, which are actually opposite sides of the same coin:
(1) Completely Horizontal/Present-Focused: Many use “flat eschatology” to mean an approach that only looks at the here-and-now (the “horizontal” dimension) and largely ignores a future divine climax. The critique of Jewett’s theology fits this definition – his interpretation is described as flat because it stays on the level of present “worldly” concerns and fails to point upwards to a coming final judgment or resurrection glory . In this sense, “flat eschatology” overlaps with what theologians call an over-realized eschatology, where one acts as if the Kingdom of God is fully realized in present history. The future is collapsed into the present, leaving no “not yet” tension. The result is an eschatology that is intramundane (within this world only) and lacks transcendence. As one reviewer humorously put it, such an approach “bulldoze[s] the mountains and valleys of New Testament prophecy” – smoothing out the dramatic peaks of judgment and consummation into one level plain . The “contours” of biblical eschatology (various distinct events and ages) get leveled off . In short, everything is treated as if it happens on a single flat timeline (often, now), which “fails to do justice to the contours” that Scripture itself presents.
(2) Entirely Future/Transcendence-Focused: Conversely, the term has also been used (less formally) to imply an eschatology that is flat in the sense of disengaged from the present, i.e. entirely pushed off to a single future event with no implications for now. This seems to be what Mike Bowling was rejecting – a “flat” view that might imagine God will only act at the very end, so there is nothing happening in the interim. In that scenario, the present Christian life lies on a flat line awaiting a future spike at the end. Bowling’s positive statement that “God is winning the battle inside human history” suggests he contrasts that with an eschatology that would have no such present “battle” or victory (hence, “flat” and static until the end). While the scholarly usage of “flat eschatology” typically refers to the presentist type above, Bowling’s comment shows that the core idea – lacking a dynamic tension between present and future – can describe an overly future-only outlook as well. In academic terms, this latter would be an under-realized eschatology (everything important deferred to the future, leaving the church with little to do now).
In both senses, the defining trait of a “flat eschatology” is that it collapses the two-dimensional Biblical eschaton (the “already” and the “not yet”) into a single dimension. Classic Christian theology holds a balance between what is already inaugurated (e.g. Christ’s reign begun in the church) and what is not yet fulfilled (e.g. the Second Coming, final resurrection). A flat eschatology loses that balance – whether by making everything “already” (flat on the earthly plane) or everything “not yet” (flat line until a sudden ending). As the Kerux reviewer noted, the New Testament has a “consistent orientation…towards future outcomes,” and to ignore that is flattening the hope . On the other hand, others point out that biblical prophecy often envisions multiple stages or horizons (e.g. a first and second coming of Christ), and to flatten them into one is equally problematic.
Parallel Concepts in Eschatological Studies
Though “flat eschatology” itself is a colloquial or critical term, it aligns with several well-known concepts in eschatological theology. These related ideas either support a multi-dimensional eschatology (countering “flatness”) or describe similar one-sided approaches that theologians have named differently:
“Already/Not Yet” Inaugurated Eschatology: This is the mainstream Christian view that the kingdom of God has broken into the present age (already), but its fulfillment remains future (not yet). It inherently resists “flat” thinking by maintaining two levels of expectation. George Eldon Ladd and others popularized this framework to avoid the errors of both extreme futurism and extreme presentism. A flat eschatology, by contrast, emphasizes only one side of this tension. Thus, inaugurated eschatology stands as a corrective to any flattening – insisting that we live in between the times.
Realized vs. Futurist Eschatology: In the 20th century, scholars discussed how much of Jesus’ teaching was “realized” (fulfilled in his first coming and the church) versus how much was still future. C.H. Dodd championed “realized eschatology” – the idea that the kingdom has fully come in the ministry of Jesus – which others felt went too far. Critics of Dodd essentially accused him of a “flat” eschatology: everything was spiritualized into the present with no future climax. On the flip side, Albert Schweitzer’s “consistent eschatology” emphasized an imminent end that didn’t materialize, which led to later theologians like Rudolf Bultmann reinterpreting eschatology in existential terms. In both debates, we see the struggle to avoid flattening the rich Biblical vision into either a purely present or purely future schema. The term “flat eschatology” wasn’t used by those earlier scholars, but the concern is the same – a one-dimensional reading of eschatological hope.
Over-Realized vs. Under-Realized: These terms are commonly used in theology to critique views that overestimate or underestimate the degree to which end-time blessings are available now. An over-realized eschatology (often seen in some charismatic or social-gospel circles) claims virtually all aspects of salvation and kingdom life are available immediately in the present age. This closely parallels what Sanborn called Jewett’s “present-world oriented” flat eschatology . By contrast, an under-realized eschatology pushes everything to the future, sometimes leading to passivity or pessimism about the present. While the nomenclature differs, both extremes can be seen as “flat” in that they flatten God’s timeline to a single mode (all now, or all later) rather than the layered biblical view.
“Immanentizing the Eschaton”: This phrase (coined by political philosopher Eric Voegelin and popularized in theological contexts) refers to attempts to bring ultimate redemption entirely into worldly reality. It’s essentially a fancy way to describe a “flat” eschatology on the present plane. For example, secular utopian movements or even some religious ideologies can exhibit what one Catholic commentator called “intramundane eschatology”, meaning a belief that ultimate salvation or utopia will be achieved within this world . Such an outlook has no transcendent or other-worldly fulfillment – the “end” is flattened into human history. This concept stands in contrast to traditional Christian eschatology, which expects a divine consummation breaking into history (a new creation, final judgment, etc.). Thus, intramundane or immanentized eschatology is a parallel idea highlighting the same lack of a vertical dimension that “flat eschatology” denotes.
Prophetic Telescoping vs. Flattening: Biblical theologians often note that Old Testament prophecies have a “telescoping” quality – they can jump from a near-term event to a far future event in one vision, which later revelation clarifies. A related error is to “flatten out eschatology so that the whole can be seen in any part.” In other words, some interpreters assume all prophecy speaks of one single end-time scenario, reading every prediction as if it’s on the same horizon. An essay on progressive revelation notes that both premillennialists and amillennialists can fall into this trap, each “flattening” eschatology in different ways . Premillennialists might read every Old Testament promise as if referring to a single future millennial kingdom (ignoring partial fulfillments), while amillennialists might read all of Revelation in light of earlier scriptures (ignoring any new future details) . In either case, the nuance of stages or progressive unfolding is lost. This “flattening” is essentially what is meant by adopting a flat eschatology: it erases the development or multiple layers of fulfillment in the biblical narrative. A healthy approach, by contrast, recognizes complexity – that some prophecies have a “now and not-yet” fulfillment or multiple fulfillments across the span of redemptive history.
Conclusion
In summary, “flat eschatology” is a descriptive term that has been used in theological discourse to call out an eschatological view lacking dimension – whether that means ignoring the future in favor of the present, or ignoring the present in favor of a distant future. The origin of the term is relatively recent (circulating in the 2000s among theologians and pastors), and it functions more as a critical label than a formal category. Those who employ it (such as Sanborn reviewing Jewett , or Waldecker, or Perriman by concept ) define a “flat” approach as one that flattens biblical hope into a single layer, failing to account for the rich “peaks and valleys” of biblical prophecy and promise. In contexts where it’s been used, it almost always warns against a theology that is too one-note – for instance, reducing Christ’s kingdom to social activism now or deferring all kingdom reality to the afterlife, instead of living in the tension of both.
In summary, “flat eschatology” is a descriptive term that has been used in theological discourse to call out an eschatological view lacking dimension – whether that means ignoring the future in favor of the present, or ignoring the present in favor of a distant future. The origin of the term is relatively recent (circulating in the 2000s among theologians and pastors), and it functions more as a critical label than a formal category. Those who employ it (such as Sanborn reviewing Jewett , or Waldecker, or Perriman by concept ) define a “flat” approach as one that flattens biblical hope into a single layer, failing to account for the rich “peaks and valleys” of biblical prophecy and promise. In contexts where it’s been used, it almost always warns against a theology that is too one-note – for instance, reducing Christ’s kingdom to social activism now or deferring all kingdom reality to the afterlife, instead of living in the tension of both.
Parallel concepts in eschatology reinforce this understanding. The antidote to a flat eschatology is an integrated eschatology – one that is both horizontal and vertical, already and not yet. Whether discussed in terms of over-vs-under realized eschatology, the dangers of immanentizing the eschaton, or the need to avoid flattening out prophetic revelation, theologians across traditions recognize the importance of preserving the full scope of Christian eschatology. In contrast to a “flat” view, a robust eschatology will maintain the depth (the divine transcendent hope) and the breadth (the here-and-now implications) of the biblical vision of the end. As one commentator wryly noted, simplifying the complex biblical storyline may “greatly simplify things” but “fails to do justice to the contours of New Testament eschatology.”
In short, the term “flat eschatology” serves as a reminder (and a warning) to keep our eschatological thinking as multi-dimensional as the Bible’s own hope – spanning present and future, earth and heaven, without flattening one into the other.
Sources
• Sanborn, Scott F. Review of Robert Jewett on Romans (Part 3). Kerux: The Journal of Northwest Theological Seminary 32/1. (Critiques Jewett’s “flat eschatology” focused on the present world) .
• Sanborn, Scott F. Review of Robert Jewett on Romans (Part 3). Kerux: The Journal of Northwest Theological Seminary 32/1. (Critiques Jewett’s “flat eschatology” focused on the present world) .
• Perriman, Andrew. “Review of Matthew Bates, Gospel Allegiance…”. P.OST Blog, Nov. 2019. (Discusses how theologians sometimes flatten New Testament prophecy, making “uneven ground” a flat plain and missing the contours of eschatology) .
• Bible.org Essay (anonymous). “New Testament Eschatology in Light of Progressive Revelation.” (Notes that interpreters on different sides can “flatten out eschatology” so the whole picture is seen in each part, instead of recognizing a progression) .
• Waldecker, Gary. “Against ‘flat eschatology.’” Unpublished article (2005). (Title suggests an early use of the term as something to be argued against in theological/missiological context) .
• Mike Bowling interview, Christian Standard (April 2012). (Bowling uses “flat eschatology” in a popular context, implying an eschatology with no present transformative hope, which his ministry intentionally avoids) .
• TheologyOnline forum (Nov 2016). User remark: “The Pharisees… had flat eschatology.” (Example of informal usage meaning an undifferentiated view of the end times with no concept of multiple stages)
• Discussion of Intramundane Eschatology – e.g., National Catholic Register commentary (2020) referring to “‘intramundane eschatology,’ a fancy way of saying” people expect utopia within this world . (Illustrates a concept parallel to “flat eschatology” in secular/religious sociology – expecting the “eschaton” entirely in immanent terms).
