Ecclesiology: Chapter 14
Chapter 14: Election and History
Pannenberg is now
ready to explore the doctrine of election. While Jesus preached the future rule
of God, the future is present by anticipation in the person of Jesus. People
participate now in the future of divine rule by being in fellowship with Jesus.
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are signs of that future rule, giving advance
notice of the whole course of life of those to whom they apply. Participation
is important here in order for us to bear the image of God and allow God to
fashion us into the likeness of God. He proposes thinking of religion as the
divine education of the human race. This education occurs in the context of
cultural history. Important for inner formation is the medium of spontaneity,
within which the image of the Son and his free relation to the Father take
shape in human life. He refers at the natural level to the self-organization of
the living creature. This natural occurrence also occurs at the level of the
human race and its history. The struggle for existence continues in the rivalry
of cultures as they reflect the struggle between alternative ideals of life.
The common end of this striving is the unity of the race as a species and the
achieving of what is common to humanity in the lives of individuals and in the
forms of their association. The divine origin of ideals of life declares itself
in a sense of election and calling that sets the lives of individuals or
particular societies in relation to the rest of humanity and to all peoples.
Applied to the theological discussion, the people of Israel had a sense of
election in the free historical action of God. The existence of the church
rests on the historical work of God in the history of Jesus of Nazareth. The
Christian sense of election has an eschatological basis in terms of the living
eschatological reality of the risen Christ, who is the new humanity. Election
as it meets individuals in baptism and the Lord’s Supper sets us on the way to
fulfill our destiny. Confident in our election, we perceive the way and the
goal dimly. The fellowship of the church has its basis in calling, election,
and the accompanying sending all of which has an eschatological goal. He admits
that the hints he has offered of election and calling are not congruent with
the classical formulation of the doctrine of election. He will part company
with Origen and Augustine. The mistakes they made show up in Aquinas, Luther,
and Calvin. Karl Barth acknowledged his departure from the Reformed tradition.
Pannenberg will depart further from that tradition. He will criticize the
Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577) for its discussion of this doctrine. The
placement of this discussion is important. He has not discussed the doctrine
under the doctrine of God. Even Barth followed that rule. Instead, by placing
the discussion of election as part of his consideration of the church, he is able
to connect it with the election of Israel and the entire notion of the
particularity of a people chosen to witness to the world.
First,
Pannenberg will discuss the election of individuals. He needs to justify and
clarify his view of election by a critical discussion of the traditional form
of the doctrine that relates it primarily to individuals and their
participation in eternal salvation. One, he discusses the classical doctrine of
election. The discussion by Paul in Romans 9-11 and 8:28-30 focus on the plan
of God for salvation. The plan involves the divine acts in history, especially
relating to Jesus Christ. Later theology shifted the focus to elect
individuals. Determinism arose through Gnostic influence. Origen and Augustine
treat election as an act of God that takes place in eternity before time. They
also see eternal election relating directly to individuals with restriction to
the theme of their participation in eschatological salvation. These
presuppositions guide the discussion in scholastic theology of the Middle Ages,
Aquinas, and Calvin. He views this as an abstract view of election in contrast
to the biblical statements of the electing activity of God in history. Such an
abstract view of election makes the divine decision timeless, detaches
individuals from all relations to society, and restricts the purpose of
election to participation in future salvation. Such an abstraction moves
against the historical nature of election in the Bible to a people who have a
role in history. He acknowledges the Bible refers to God choosing individuals,
such as kings and patriarchs, but the election serves the historical purposes
of God. The early church realized God had called them into a new divine act of
historical election by founding the church and its mission of offering
salvation to the nations. The idea that God first foresees and then determines
that we find in Origen rightly has the suspicion of Pelagianism. This view
dominated in the Middle Ages. The determinism of Augustine rightly makes God
seem unjust and cruel. This view dominated among the Reformers. Luther
developed the insight that the eternal election of God is in Jesus Christ and
is thus in the historical turning toward us in Jesus Christ. His goal, then, is
to chart a different course than this classical formulation and its attending
problems.
Two,
he discusses election and calling. If salvation occurs already in the timeless
nature of election, it would seem to devalue the preaching of the gospel and
the present call to salvation. However, the aim of the counsel of the love of
God is to have creatures who participate in the fellowship of the Son with the
Father and the sending of the Son into the world. Interestingly, both
Schleiermacher and Barth saw the problems with the classical formulation of
election and its focus upon individuals. While election relates to the eternal
in Ephesians 1:4, it also relates to the future consummation of the divine plan
in 1:10. As among those “in Christ,” the elect are proleptically what they
shall be.
Three,
he discusses the election of individuals and the fellowship. The biblical
emphasis is upon the election of people. This was true of Israel. It was also
true of the Christian community, in which belonging to Jesus Christ was the
basis of election. The electing will of God relates to the community and beyond
it at all humanity. Election of individuals serves the saving will of God for
humanity. The eschatological destiny of humanity shows itself in Christ, in
individuals, and in the community. The elect serve the greater goal of the
saving action of God. The saving action of God is that of reconciliation with
God and with each other. Election has a fellowship as the primary target. This
means others are not elect. If God elected Israel, this meant the exclusion of
other peoples. Yet, even that community remained open to new members. The
chosen stand in for a future definitive human fellowship under the rule of God.
It therefore remains an open question which individuals will or will not belong
to this eschatological fellowship. Election to a fellowship does not exempt the
elect from divine judgment. We must bear the consequences of what we do. He
does not think one can guarantee an ultimate universal reconciliation. However,
in a history that is still open the possibility of forgiveness, the promise is
still present for those who repent.
Second, Pannenberg
will discuss election and the people of God. He will focus specifically on the
relation of election to the church, especially through the theme of the church
as the people of God. The eternal election of God aims at the human society
that will find definitive form in the eschatological fellowship of the rule of
God. The work of election in history has an orientation to those on the way to
this goal. The community anticipates the final rule of God and the destiny of
humanity. The elect community is a sign of that end. As a sign, the community
is a witness to the will of God to save. The church is a provisional
representation of the fellowship that will be under the rule of God.
Participation comes through faith, hope, and love.
One, he discusses
the concept of the people of God in ecclesiology. Historically, the notion of
the people of God dropped out of use until the reformation period picked it up
again in order to oppose the hierarchical and juridical concept of the church
as a clerical dominion that contrasted with the secular powers that had
developed during the Middle Ages. However, in the Bible, the concept of the
people of God is broader than church. Vatican II tried to do justice to this. From
among Jew and Gentile, Jesus called a people to grow together in the Spirit and
to form the new people of God. It sees the church as the core of this humanity
of the future. It sees the church in Christ as a sign and instrument for the
inward union with God and for the unity of all humanity. In its light, a
theology of election underlies this function of the church for all humanity, a
function that has a close link to the church as the people of God. The whole church
can welcome the emphasis in Vatican II as encouraging us to consider the
function of the church relative to the divine economy of salvation. The view of
the church in terms of election as the people of God relates its description as
the fellowship of believers to its function with respect to the ordaining of
humanity for fellowship with God in the consummation of the kingdom of God.
Two,
he discusses the church and Israel. We cannot biblically reflect on the church
without also reflecting on Israel. With all that I have just written, is the
church the new people of God? Does Israel continue alongside the church as the
old people of God? Note, also, that the term “people of God” is not plural. In
spite of their painful history, do they in some way belong together in our
notion of the people of God? What I want to urge is that the churches be clear
that when they think of themselves as the people of God, it has an implication
regarding our relationship with the Jewish people. Moltmann can say that Israel
is the original, enduring, and final partner of Christianity in history.[1]
As we move through
these difficult waters, I should stress that the New Testament does not refer
to the church as the “new” people of God. We see the term from in the Epistle
of Barnabas 5:7, 7:5, and 14:1ff. The unfortunate verdict is that Israel never
was the people of God, since it rejected such a designation in building the
golden calf, and only the church is the people of God that the Old Testament
promised. Melito of Sardis and Hippolytus differed in that they thought of
Israel as the people of God for its time, but the church has replaced it. Such
thinking, if not in accord with the New Testament, is understandable. As Robert
L. Wilken presents it, the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the
end of the temple worship, and the demise of the priesthood, the subjugation of
the Israel by Romans, all seemed permanent.
Christians did none of this, by the way. Christians in the second and
third centuries continued the prophetic interpretation of world events they
found in the Bible. Therefore, for them, the involvement of Jews in the
crucifixion and its expulsion of the first Christians from the synagogue led
the judgment on Jerusalem and its Temple. Historical reality led Christians to
think that Christianity had replaced the Jewish way of life and that the Jews
would no longer continue to exist as a people. Of course, history would show
that the Jewish way of life did not end. It appears that it took the horror of
the holocaust to force the church to face this reality. The theological theme
of supersessionism, that the church succeeds Israel in such a fashion as to
displace Judaism from the status of the people of God, never became a dogma of
the church of the Middle Ages. Such reflections may help us understand why
early theologians reasoned the way they did, to a point where it sounds
anti-Jewish to us, even if at the time it may not have been intended that way.[2]
Paul offers a vision of the
people of God, Israel, and church in Romans 9-11 that I think is worth our
reflection. In 11:1, he raises the question of whether the rejection of the
gospel of Jesus Christ by the majority of the Jewish people means that God has
rejected them. He answers emphatically in the negative. Christians would
themselves become anxious of their comparatively new elect status if that were
the case. He makes the point by advocating the inviolability of the election of
the Jewish people in 11:29 (for the gifts and the calling of God are
irrevocable) and 9:6 (It is
not as though the word of God had failed.) Therefore, God has not
annulled the covenant with the Jewish people. Their overwhelming rejection of
the gospel was obviously painful to Paul, but he found some comfort in the Old
Testament view of the remnant. “What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was
seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.” (Romans 11:7) As
the people of God, Israel is for the time this remnant. At the same time, the
people of God are expanding as the apostolic mission to the Gentiles is
bringing in believers from the nations.
24 including us whom he has called, not from
the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
"Those who were not my people I will call "my people,' and her who
was not beloved I will call "beloved.' " 26 "And in the very
place where it was said to them, "You are not my people,' there they shall
be called children of the living God." (Romans 9:24-26)
Therefore, a link already exists
between church and Israel, which he describes in terms of the root of the olive
tree that carries the wild branches that contrary to normal rues God has
grafted into it.
17 But if some of the branches were
broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the
rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not boast over the branches. If you do
boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that
supports you. (Romans 11:17-18)
Paul regards the majority Jewish
reaction as the expression of a hardening by God based on the divine plan of
salvation, but not forever.
7 What then? Israel failed to obtain
what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it
is written, "God gave them a sluggish spirit, eyes that would not see and
ears that would not hear, down to this very day." (Romans 11:7-8)
25 So that you may not claim to be
wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery:
a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles
has come in. (Romans 11:25)
His point is that the hardening
does not finally exclude them from God or from sharing in divine salvation.
In a similar
theme, the death of Jesus brings peace between Jew and Gentile.
12 remember that you
were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,
and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in
the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been
brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he
has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is,
the hostility between us. 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and
ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the
two, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body
through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. 17 So he came
and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near;
18 for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So
then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the
saints and also members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation
of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.
(Ephesians 2:12-20)
Paul does not seem
to argue for a special path for Jew and Christian. Rather, the returning Christ
will show himself to be identical with the Messiah whom the Jews await and will
renew the covenant of God with the Jewish people by remission of their sins.
Paul could appeal to the Old Testament prophets, who wrote of a new covenant
that did not mean God had abandoned the earlier covenant.
20 And he will come to
Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the Lord.
21 And as for me, this is my covenant with them, says the Lord: my spirit that
is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out
of your mouth, or out of the mouths of your children, or out of the mouths of
your children's children, says the Lord, from now on and forever. (Isaiah
59:20-21)
9 Therefore by this
the guilt of Jacob will be expiated, and this will be the full fruit of the
removal of his sin: when he makes all the stones of the altars like chalkstones
crushed to pieces, no sacred poles or incense altars will remain standing.
(Isaiah 27:9)
33 But this is the
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the
Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I
will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 No longer shall they teach
one another, or say to each other, "Know the Lord," for they shall
all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will
forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:33-34)
Interestingly,
Judaism has a counter-thesis at this point. Some have argued that Jesus was not
the Jewish Messiah, but that he has become the Savior of the Gentiles. The
problem with this, of course, is that Jesus was Jewish and that the first
believers were Jewish he had come to believe Jesus was the promised Jewish
Messiah. Any Christian mission to the Jewish people must witness to this belief
that Jesus is the promised Jewish Messiah. Yet, the mission to the Jewish
people is of a different nature than to others, for the New Testament itself
stresses that Christians believe in the same God, as do the Jewish people. For
Christian witness, the focus has to be on the fact that the God of Israel has
definitively revealed who God is in Jesus of Nazareth, and has done so first to
the Jews. At the same time, such a Jewish approach may well answer the question
of whether synagogue can recognize the church as belonging to the same people
with it.
To complete the
New Testament picture at this point, in a less nuanced way we find a similar
discussion of the church as the people of God.
7 To you then who
believe, he is precious; but for those who do not believe, "The stone that
the builders rejected has become the very head of the corner," 8 and
"A stone that makes them stumble, and a rock that makes them fall."
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 9 But
you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in
order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of
darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you
are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received
mercy. (I Peter 2:7-10)
Once again, we
must return to the notion of the church as the new people of God or as the
replacement people of God. Paul had already warned the church of arrogance in
relation to Israel.
17 But if some of the
branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their
place to share the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not boast over the
branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root,
but the root that supports you. 19 You will say, "Branches were broken off
so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off
because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become
proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches,
perhaps he will not spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of
God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness toward you,
provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23
And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted
in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you have been cut
from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into
a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted
back into their own olive tree. (Romans 11:17-24)
Sadly, the church in its history
ignored this warning. In essence, the church decided that it was the place of
the initially actualized eschatological consummation, and thus could think of
itself as the “new” or replacement people of God. This choice was dangerous and
destructive for the history of the church well beyond its relation to Jews. It
took the form of dogmatic intolerance, resulting in a history of division and
dogmatic exclusiveness. Such a painful history began with the mistake it made
regarding the Jewish people. It took the horrors of the holocaust under Nazi
Germany to prepare the church to confess that it has this fellowship of destiny
and solidarity with the Jewish people. Christians today, as individuals and as
churches, need to handle their relation to the Jewish people with the type of
openness that we find in Paul.
Here
is the point, as Pannenberg sees it. We can think of a single people of God
that constitutes the object and goal of what God does in election. The term
“people of God” leaves room for all humanity transformed and renewed for
participation in the lordship of God. The Christian church is not exclusively
identical with the eschatological people of God. Rather, the church is a
provisional form of this people, a sign of its future consummation that will
embrace Jew and Gentile, whether the “righteous” of all nations who stream in
from every culture to the banquet of the reign of God.
Three,
he discusses the people of God and the official church. The actual and
historical church can never be anything more than a provisional sign of the
destiny of itself as well as humanity. The eschatological fellowship of
Christians can take adequate shape in no political order. Without going to
lengthy discussion here, the historical separation of church and state, which
we find in Romans 13, Augustine, during the Middle Ages, and in the modern era,
is a reflection of the notion that the political order will never reflect the
destiny of humanity in fellowship with God or with each other. The increasing
secularism of this era makes it seem impossible, but the notion of the people
of God as expressed here opens the possibility of a newly formulated relation
between church and society. Christians cannot identify themselves with any one
model of political order. In the past, separation of church and state occurred
within a society that had a Christian basis. Today, secular society emphasizes
its separation from religion in order to give religion a marginal role in its
social life. The point here, with Pannenberg, is that the secular order needs a
religious or quasi-religious basis and justification in the faith of its
citizens that will precede all manipulation by rulers. Christian awareness is
now on the point of outgrowing the antagonisms of the denomination age and thus
the historical reasons for making religion a private matter. A recovery of the
social sense of Christians as the people of God could initiate a new epoch in
shaping the relation between Christianity and the public order, especially since
many people in North America and Europe no longer are sure where they stand in
regard to the Christian tradition.
Third,
Pannenberg will discuss the election of the people of God and the experience of
history. He wants to deal with the relation between the theological doctrine of
election and the history of Christianity, including secularized forms of the
belief of the belief in election. Divine election is an act of historical
calling. Yet, it also forms the starting point of a history of the elect, for
election orients itself toward a future goal. Election assigns to the elect
community a function in relation to this goal. We can see this in the Old
Testament with the election of the Patriarchs. Deuteronomy understood the
history of Israel in light of this election. The link of election to keeping
the covenant is clear in the Deuteronomic history we find in Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings. What he will want to do is link this sense of election in
the history of a particular people to the universal history of culture.
One,
he will explore the thought of election as a religious category for the
historical constitution of the cultural order. The political system of an
ancient culture, Israel being one, linked to a religious basis. The difference
was that while surrounding cultures grounded this religious basis in cosmology,
Israel grounded it in its historical election. The grounding of its political
and legal system in the historical acts of God gave Israel uniqueness in its
context. This meant focusing on the election of a people instead of the royal
connection to the divine. This meant that election is not for Israel alone.
Amos 9:7 is a powerful example of comparing Israel with other nations in a way
that attacks its sense of uniqueness. Amos is re-reading the cosmological
self-understanding of other cultures in light of their historical experience.
This observation will lead him to explore a theology of history that closely
links to the concept of the election of the people of God.
Two,
he explores aspects of historical self-understanding related to the thought of
election. Election refers to the historical origin of a people. Yet, this
initial act is a historical process that moves toward the rule of the electing
God in relation to the goal implied in election. The elect community will need
to correspond to the destiny the electing God has marked out for them.
Therefore, election connects to the revelation of God to a people. Election
presupposes knowledge of God that revelation provides. The irrevocable nature
of election rests upon the self-identity of the electing God and on the
faithfulness of God. This also means that the elect community has an obligation
that by their conduct they should correspond to the fellowship with the
electing God. We see this in the Old Testament in its emphasis upon the
covenant. We also see it in the declaration that Israel is the possession of
God and a holy people. In the New Testament, the theme of the sanctification of
the people of God is the focus. The separation of the people of God
distinguishes it from the ways of the world. For Pannenberg, modern
Christianity has largely forgotten this point. Its members think they must
adjust to the world instead of consciously and concertedly differentiate
themselves from its rules and form of life. Of course, in this separation, it
can every only be an anticipatory sign of the destiny of humanity. The other
side of this separation from the world, however, is that election involves the
elect community in witness and mission to the world. This witness is to
humanity as a whole. Insight into the general connection between election as
separation from the nations and the sending of the elect to bear witness to the
nations forms the framework for an understanding of the distinctive nature of
the task of Christian mission. Matthew 28:19 makes it clear that the risen Lord
have the mission proclaiming the gospel to the nations and making disciples
from among them by baptism in the triune God. In this way, the church serves
our humanity destiny for reconciliation with God and with each other. Jesus
seemed to live with the Jewish vision of the nations making pilgrimage to
Jerusalem. The community of believers also lives with that vision, and witness
to it. They are the city on the hill that one cannot hide, as Jesus put it in
Matthew 5:14. The mission of the church means setting aside the Law of the old
covenant and proclaiming a gospel for all people. The final theme of election
is divine judgment. This means that the elect community can fall under divine
judgment. It also means that the nations can fall under that judgment. His
concern here is that if the church is silent concerning historical acts, people
will have a weaker sense of the reality of God. We have no protection from making
mistakes in this regard. An affirmation of the divine governance of the world
is empty and meaningless without taking this risk.
Fourth,
Pannenberg will discuss the task of interpreting theologically the history of
the church and Christianity in the light of the doctrine of election. He will
offer some observations on election and the world government by God as they
lead him again to the theme of eschatology. Most presentations of church
history detach its history from any connection with the reality of God. The
result is fatal, not only for theology, but also for faith. Biblical writings
speak of the acts of God in history. When church accounts of its own history
leave the impression that God has withdrawn from human history, it creates an
ambiguity in terms of how the church itself experiences the reality of God. He
objects to the approach of Oscar Cullman, who detaches from world history the
concept of salvation history.[3]
Rahner seems to move down the same path.[4]
Pannenberg thinks that the links to logos theology as we see in John 1,
theology of creation, and especially a theology of history in keeping with the
testimony of the Bible, are important in this regard. Such a theological
interpretation of history will include the doctrinal discussions, the divisions
of the church arise from them, and the missionary expansion of the church. He
refers to Protestant theologians like E. C Rust, Reinhold Niebuhr, and
Hendrikus Berkoff as among the few who have developed approaches to a
theological interpretation of the history of the church. He likes E. Muhlenberg
as well. As Pannenberg sees it, one does not have to see the activity of God in
both natural events and human history as in competition with the operation of
finite and temporal factors. He refers to F. C. Bauer in his 1842 work, Die Epochen der kirchlichen
Geschichtsschreilbung as an imposing presentation of the notion of the
unfolding of the idea of the church, especially as he focused on the
incarnation. If God was flesh in Jesus, the church as the body of Christ is an
incarnation as well. John Macquarie will say that the church is the community
in which the raising of humanity to God-humanity, which we see in Christ,
continues. He connects this notion with the church as the body of Christ. The
church has the purpose of forming a new creation after Christ. The church is an
extension of the incarnation, although he stresses that the church is still in
process.[5]
Pannenberg thinks, in contrast, that the notion of election as the people of
God is a more fitting way of viewing church history. On its historical paths
the church is subject to the providence of God as to a reality that differs
from it in nature and that is transcendent to it and to world. This reality
manifests itself in the sending and preservation of church by God and in divine
acts of judgment on it. Although he respects what Muhlenberg has accomplished,
he thinks the focus is far too much on the opportunities in history for God to
act for our salvation, and not enough on God acting in judgment on the church.
As he sees it, then, only the category of judgment enables us to trace back
historical disasters to God. Such a history cannot overlook the truth claim of
Christian belief in God. Such a presentation cannot simply presuppose it
dogmatically. In other words, as is typical with Pannenberg, such a
presentation will be quite aware of the debatable character of the reality of
God in history. Now, as he sees it, a theology of church history, when it comes
to the theme of the missionary church, focuses on the church as an
eschatological community and as the end-time people of God. The church and its
members know that Jesus Christ has chosen them for participation in the
eschatological fellowship of salvation with God. Yet, Christ also calls and
sends them to bear witness to all peoples concerning their eschatological
destiny and the way that in Jesus Christ it has already broken in. His point is
that Christian mission presupposes the sense of election of church as the
eschatological people of God. As an
example, he rejects the notion of a fall of the church due to the Constantine
era. It has led to a spiritualizing concept of the church that does not
recognize that had the church not accepted responsibility for renewing of the
political order it would have fallen under the judgment of God. In any case,
the history of the church also consists in its formation of doctrine. The
schisms that resulted opened the door for the victory of Islam in the East, and
thus came under the category of judgment. In fact, as he sees it, the inner
decay of Western Christianity because of the swollen claims of the papacy is an
expression of the judgment of God. The alienation of the modern world of
Western culture from Christianity, inasmuch as its secularism derives from the
divisions of the 1500’s and the Wars of Religion express divine judgment. The
shattering of social peace by the intolerance associated with confessional
difference are surely expressions of divine judgment. John Wesley will trace
the “mystery of iniquity” from the early church and through the history of the
church, concluding that the grand objection of those who do not believe against
Christianity is the lives of Christians.[6]
However, Pannenberg also agrees with Danielou, who thinks that along with
judgment, we need a focus on repentance and new beginning. The rise of the
ecumenical movement, for example, ought to give all traditions an opportunity
to look self-critically at its history. He thinks this attempt is hardest
within the Roman Catholic tradition. Within the Protestant tradition, however,
as this self-criticism continues among them, they need to realize the central
importance of Rome for the Christian world and the beneficial role it can for
Christianity as a whole. Rome could well find itself in the situation of Peter.
31 "Simon, Simon, listen! Satan
has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that
your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back,
strengthen your brothers." (Luke 22:31-32)
Pannenberg
concludes with a brief consideration of secular belief in election and
nationalism in the history of Christianity. He refers to European nationalism,
Moscow as the “third Rome,” the mission of the new American nation, and Zionism
as examples. As a rule, these secular interpretations have not been beneficial.
It has led to a sense of superiority over other peoples.
Fifth, Pannenberg
will discuss the goal of election and the government of the world by God in the
process of history. He will want to
discuss the theme of eschatology. To conclude, the ultimate aim of the election
by God is the fellowship of a renewed humanity in the kingdom of God. We can
think of this renewed humanity as the fulfillment of the purpose of God in
creation. It was the aim God had of all creation living in the divine presence.
The aim of God will find fulfillment in overcoming sin and death, the yearning
for fellowship with the Creator, the witness to all people of fellowship with
God and each other, and settling the issues related to justice and peace. Amid
the strife of world history, the people of God offer a model of the rule of
God, which took place in Israel and the church. In this regard, as we have
already suggested, the conduct of the church and individual Christians will
obscure that which the church celebrates in baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The
church entangles itself in the conflicts of the world. Christians have
contributed to the disasters that have taken place in the history of
Christianity. True, the church suffers rejection repeatedly in its history, and
thus, shows a difference between elect and non-elect that seems like no one can
bridge. However, this would not be so if with full clarity the church always
and everywhere discharged its function as a sign and representation of the
consummation of humanity in the rule of God that has dawned already in Jesus
Christ. In fact, the life of the church often distorts the sign of the divine
rule to the point of unrecognizability. His point is that a person may remain,
on justifiable grounds, aloof from the church. This means that some of those
who do so act of disenchanted longing for the rule of God that they can no
longer see in the church’s life. One might think of the analogy of Romans 9-11
here, that the hardening of Israel led to a new mission among Gentiles. The
perversions of the fellowship of the body of Christ may well open new doors for
reaching this world. He refers to “the supreme art of God’s world government”
reflected in causing good to come from evil. To take one example of judgment
upon the church, the divisions between East and West, and later the divisions
within Protestant world, opened the way for the thought of tolerance in civil
life and in the life of and faith of the church. The church has become
increasingly aware of the provisional nature of its assessments, remaining open
to the future of God and divine judgment.
Pannenberg
concludes with a parable that may suggest the church of today is applying
wisdom it could have long ago applied to itself in far better than it did in
the past as it invited schism and war.
"The kingdom of
heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but
while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and
then went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds
appeared as well. 27 And the slaves of the householder came and said to him,
"Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these
weeds come from?' 28 He answered, "An enemy has done this.' The slaves
said to him, "Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he
replied, "No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along
with them. 30 Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest
time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles
to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.' " (Matthew 13:24-30)
[1] The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 135.
[2] “The
Jews as the Christians Saw Them,” First
Things, 73:28. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/03/003-the-jews-as-the-christians-saw-them-20.
[3] Cullman,
Salvation in History, p. 153ff.
[4] Rahner, Theological Investigations, V. 97ff,
104ff.
[5] Principles of Christian Theology, Charles
Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1966, 348.
[6] John
Wesley, Sermon 61, “The Mystery of Iniquity.”
Comments
Post a Comment