Over here, on JJ Stellman's Blog there is a discussion of whether or not the church is created to be a transformational instrument in the world. (I'm sure JJ will clarify my assessment of his ongoing discussion.) Should there be a strict "two kingdom" separation between the cultic (church) and the culture (society and government)?
My question in all of this is what are we talking about? I think the idea is that JJ sees churches today seeking to be "missional" as the means to reach people. Perhaps he is arguing that our means are the means of grace, not the ministry of mercy, deed, etc.
OK. Maybe that is the case. But, shouldn't the ends (as opposed to means) of our lives as the church be transformational. I am not talking about how we are transformed, but how our culture is transformed by strong churches. Shouldn't people in a community be impacted by our presence, what we do and how we personally transform? Some should hate us. Others should love us. Some should come to Christ. Again, not because we see our kingdom work as a means to say, "Hey, look at us!" Instead, because we do intrude the Kingdom into their midst, the end of that should be a transformed world. Didn't Pliny say something about that?
While I have no use for churches that are "missional" because that is the cool thing to be, I see that all churches are called to be light. When it shines, things happen. We don't shine as a means to make things happen. The ends, as a result of our shining is that things happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Cap'n,
In your opinion, is it fair to say that this all amounts to a discussion about eschatology?
In a transformationist paradigm, the culture is becoming more and more Christian through the Church's witness, mercy, and involvement (postmill).
But in a two kingdoms model, the Church expresses her kingdom identity as a pilgrim community by suffering and placing her trust both in the foolish means of grace and the hope that the world WILL one day be transformed when Christ returns (amill).
I just can't get away from the notion that "the Redeemer model" is postmillennial.
Is it just me?
Yeah, I think it is just you. I am amill and I think we have been left here for more than evangelism. Eschatologically, we won't transform the world into the new heavens and the new earth, or even get this one ready so it is fit to be transformed. Yet, if our presence here doesn't mean a different world, than we have failed.
To use Kline talk, we ARE an intrusion into this world.
Cap'n & Jason,
Since we are being transformed into the image of Christ, since our life is hidden in Christ, and since we are branches on his vine, then all our words and actions should proclaim him in his relation to other people, to society at large, and to the whole world. This proclamation will be by deed as well as word, and any transformation will occur as a result of the work of the Spirit.
In that proclamation we will still be pilgrims suffering as Christ suffered, yet with the hope that our Lord will indeed work through us. Our being in Christ means loving the world as he loved it, suffering as he suffered, and trusting in his Father's work as he did to bring about the transformation, healing, and cleansing of the beloved.
It seems to me that postmill, amill, and premill views must all absorb that to be credible.
T&T
Post a Comment