In any case, I find the emphasis on predestination as communitarian rather than individualistic resonates with Stanley Grenz’s vision to rediscover in God’s redemptive purpose “the establishment of the eschatological community – a redeemed people dwelling in a renewed earth, enjoying reconciliation with their God, fellowship with each other and harmony with all creation. Consequently, the goal of community lies at the heart of God’s actions in history”.
Of course, corporate election does not preclude individual persons. But if we lose sight of the centrality of the church in God’s plan, then it exists merely as a collection of disparate, autonomous individuals who by social contract agreed to come together for pragmatic reasons like personal growth or a means for evangelism . Is it any wonder then that the model of a pastor today more closely resembles a therapist or a C.E.O.? There is nothing inherently wrong with self development or efficiency, but something is terribly amiss when the church exists for my wants and operates on mere pragmatic basis. The church is not a soteriologically irrelevant option, but the embodiment of the gospel signifying the reign of God has dawned.
The notion of ‘invisible church’ has been stressed at the expense of the institutional church, but it need not be so. Also, we should caution against swinging to the other extreme of being overconfident judges of others’ spiritual standing before God on the basis of what we could empirically discover. The solution is not found in reversing the focus on the church as the locus of authority. Vanhoozer proposed to keep both the theological/spiritual aspects and the sociological/visible aspects of the church in mind at all times. This is done with ‘eschatological imagination’, which he explained to be ‘the ability to see creation as it is being transformed and brought into conformity with Christ… to see the visible church in terms of the already-not yet tension.”
For example, present reality of schisms between churches does not define us for our true identity is the eschatological community as sign of the age to come. Hence, we must also become what we are as an embodied foreshadow of God’s universal purpose in the gospel to reconcile a diverse people and renew them in a gathered community. This is especially relevant in a pluralistic society in Malaysia where racial, economic and religious fault-lines create societal tensions. Could the gospel provide a more complete vision of the nature of community that all human religious traditions aspire to achieve since it embodies the highest understanding of who God actually is? The remnant church urgently needs to visibly mirror the Triune nature of the eternal God Himself as “plurality-in-unity” before a watching world.
Of course, corporate election does not preclude individual persons. But if we lose sight of the centrality of the church in God’s plan, then it exists merely as a collection of disparate, autonomous individuals who by social contract agreed to come together for pragmatic reasons like personal growth or a means for evangelism . Is it any wonder then that the model of a pastor today more closely resembles a therapist or a C.E.O.? There is nothing inherently wrong with self development or efficiency, but something is terribly amiss when the church exists for my wants and operates on mere pragmatic basis. The church is not a soteriologically irrelevant option, but the embodiment of the gospel signifying the reign of God has dawned. The notion of ‘invisible church’ has been stressed at the expense of the institutional church, but it need not be so. Also, we should caution against swinging to the other extreme of being overconfident judges of others’ spiritual standing before God on the basis of what we could empirically discover. The solution is not found in reversing the focus on the church as the locus of authority. Vanhoozer proposed to keep both the theological/spiritual aspects and the sociological/visible aspects of the church in mind at all times. This is done with ‘eschatological imagination’, which he explained to be ‘the ability to see creation as it is being transformed and brought into conformity with Christ… to see the visible church in terms of the already-not yet tension.”
For example, present reality of schisms between churches does not define us for our true identity is the eschatological community as sign of the age to come. Hence, we must also become what we are as an embodied foreshadow of God’s universal purpose in the gospel to reconcile a diverse people and renew them in a gathered community. This is especially relevant in a pluralistic society in Malaysia where racial, economic and religious fault-lines create societal tensions. Could the gospel provide a more complete vision of the nature of community that all human religious traditions aspire to achieve since it embodies the highest understanding of who God actually is? The remnant church urgently needs to visibly mirror the Triune nature of the eternal God Himself as “plurality-in-unity” before a watching world.
Comments