This post is a response to comments made by Chris regarding the mission of the church. I’m afraid I haven’t got time to answer this properly and may not be able to continue the conversation in the next couple of weeks, but I’ll attempt a brief summary of my argument.
The language of Abraham’s calling, repeated throughout Genesis, strongly suggests that he is conceived as the progenitor of a renewed creation, of a people for God’s own possession, multiplying and prospering in the land that God has given them, obedient to his law, with YHWH himself dwelling in their midst. This is a settled ideal - it is an approximation or reiteration of what creation was originally intended to be.
The failure of Israel to fulfil this calling resulted, first, in the loss of the land and then in a continuing state of ‘exile’ under pagan rule.
Jesus’ ‘mission’ was to save this covenant people from their sins, from the consequences of their persistent rebellion against YHWH. He did so by gathering around himself as the Son of man a community of disciples willing to travel the same narrow path of suffering that he would walk, which would bring them into the new age of the people of God, shaped by the Spirit and not by law, under the lordship of Christ rather than corrupt and pagan oppressors, dispersed throughout the world rather than confined to a contested corner of the Middle East.
My argument would be, therefore, that once the people of God has passed through the ordeal, the birthpangs, that mark the end of second temple Judaism under pagan oppression and the emergence of the ‘church’, we return to the overarching narrative about the renewal of creation. This is especially clear, I think, at the end of Revelation.
Of course, we never become settled and prosperous - we are a symbolic community that through its struggle to be new humanity, to cast off the old man and put on the new, always points ahead to a final hope of new heavens and new earth. But this is not quite the same as the hope of vindication in the face of suffering that was held out to the early church in the parousia motif. There is, to use your terminology, an ‘otherworldly existence’ for the disciples who suffer in Christ, as he suffered during that transitional period - to be lifted up, raised, vindicated at the parousia and reign with him throughout the age which has come. But what we now wait for is not heaven but resurrection from the dead as part of the remaking of the heavens and the earth.
So yes, I would argue that fellowship with God is normally and properly within the context of ‘creation’ - not in heaven. The resurrection of Jesus and of the suffering community that endured with him the birthpangs of the new age is, if you like, exceptional in that respect - it is the ‘reward’ or ‘crown’ offered to those who remain faithful to YHWH up to the point of death for the sake of the future of the people of God.
The wrong platform
This sets out the position well, but I would come to it through a rather more conventional eschatological route - though still placing the key eschatological events in the 1st century.
I have a suspicion that when it is explained more carefully how we are to be identified and what we are to be doing in this liminal phase of the new creation, the eschatological underpinnings provide quite divergent views - at least between my own understanding and Andrew’s. Exoteric rather than esoteric.
Liminal? Subliminal? Preliminary?
continuity
Many threads of covenant and eschatological teaching come together rather well in Andrew’s interpretation. I am however concerned that there may be an implication that the “suffering community” does not (or should not) continue to be the path for those who are chosen and who wish now to follow Jesus.
I’m not sure that that is implied anywhere in the NT. The teaching of the early church (who may have been experiencing the parousia) is that the suffering is a necessary part of being perfected in Christ. Just because we may be “post parousia” does that mean that the experience of the risen Lord of the NT church community is not normative in some way for the continuing church? Is discipleship now a new paradigm that has to be built from scratch?
One of the basic assumptions that I make when I read the gospels is that Jesus ethic/teaching on the kingdom of God is normative for the believer in Christ. It has been argued that there may be two levels of ethic, one (more rigorous) for the ‘disciple’ and one for the ‘ordinary follower’ but there seems to be no question but that ‘the way’ of the NT church was the way of the Kindom.
Given such a strong continuity and given that we are not specifically provided with a “post parousia” ethic that is notably different to what we have in the Gospels - Acts - Epistles, it should follow that our experience of Christ now is the same as it was for the earliest believers, and that our ethic - hence missiology, ecclesiology etc. are also to be similarly based in the NT experience, teaching and practice.
What N.T. Wright and Andrew have done for me is to add a terrific connection between what Jesus did/taught and what is the covenantal intent of “the Law and the Prophets”. If we try instead to leave the N.T. out of the postmodern formulae (as not neceassarily normative), we may face odd problems like not being able to decide the content of such ideas as “being saved” or “being missional”.
Live to serve : Serve to live
eschatology and "heaven"
In light of the discussion in this thread I would suggest two principles that need to be heeded:
1. eschatology may finally mean more than creation (or protology) but it does not mean less (e.g. Jesus’ resurrection or “spiritual” body in I Cor.15) - thus the empasis on “new” creation and “new Jerusalem” with the consequent need to reinterpret “heaven” (or at least our reigning popular conception of “heaven”).
2. ultimately there can be no dualism in Christian theology or eschatology. Even the Creator-Creation divide has been “non-dualized” by the incarnation. Thus the promise of God “I will be your God and you will be my people” can be fulfilled within the context of a “new” creation” or “new Jerusalem.” So at least it seems to me.
Peace,
Lee Wyatt
This train is bound for new creation
I guess everybody has their own opion of Revelations. In my teens I can remember Jesus People holding signs saying, “The End is Near”.
Since 1Thes ch 5 states that the day of the Lord will come to you like a theif in the night. We all must be prepared at all times. Revelations states that even the dead will be invited again to accept Christ’s invitation. (I’m sure they weren’t missional in your sense).
Our local emergent church doesn’t practice 1st century theology, but 2nd and 3rd. Talk about old men! They pretend to be monks, have a room full of candles, flowing robes, icons, etc. Where does missional fit here? All I see are a bunch on young white kids playing early Catholism. At the same time they beg money off the Lutheran churches and Synod. Go figure.
Settled creativity in Abraham
Genesis 12: Go forth from your country, and I will make you a great nation. Go forth from your family, and in you all families will be blessed. I will make your name great, says He whose Name is above all names. He whom Yahweh creates — doesn’t he too become a creator?
Children who feel most comfortable exploring new environments are those who feel most securely attached to their parents. Perhaps the same is true of a settled people — they feel at home everywhere, and through them all nations are blessed. And perhaps those who most comfortably share the image and likeness of the Creator are themselves the most creative of humans.