Enacting Kingdom Mercy: Imitating God for The Epistle to Diognetus & Excelling in “Grace” for Paul in 2 Corinthians 8

Yesterday I posted on The Epistle to Diognetus and the striking passage within it articulating the significance of what God did in/as Christ—especially in terms of the “…sweet exchange…that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous man, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners!”

 

 Today I thought I would post part of the following passage from the same writing, one discussing what it means to be an imitator of God.

 

…By loving him you will be an imitator of his goodness. And do not be surprised that a person can become an imitator of God; he can, if God is willing. For happiness is not a matter of lording it over one’s neighbors, or desiring to have more than weaker man, or possessing wealth and using force against one’s inferiors. No one is able to imitate God in these matters; on the contrary, these things are alien to his greatness. But whoever takes upon himself his neighbor’s burden, whoever wishes to benefit another who is worse off in something in which he himself is better off, whoever provides to those in need things that he has received from God, and thus becomes a god to those who receive them, this one is an imitator of God. Then you will see that though your lot is on earth, God lives in heaven, then you will begin to declare the mysteries of God, then you will both love and admire those who are punished because they refuse to deny God, then you will condemn the deceit and the error of the world, when you realize what the true life in heaven is… (Epistle to Diognetus 10.4-7a)

 

Kingdom Compassion: Should Christians Somehow Serve at Planned-Parenthood?

Recently I heard a presentation from someone who works at a Christian organization that seeks to help pregnant women—especially to help deter them from seeking an abortion and to help them through pregnancy. During this presentation Planned Parenthood was presented in almost satanic colors. There was nothing good this person could say about Planned Parenthood. Everything seemingly good that Planned Parenthood does is clearly motivated by a lust to aid in committing murder and also by greed—so says this person.

 

Even if I am against the seemingly wide-spread abortion culture of the United States, such polarizing, sensationalist, and black-and-white discourse, about Planned Parenthood rubbed me the wrong way. Setting abortion aside (which for many is a big thing to set aside for the moment), Planned Parenthood offers many important health and counseling services—many of them for free that most of the Christian counterpart organizations do not offer. Also, is it really helpful to portray someone with whom one deeply disagrees in such polarizing and polemical ways—only evil always?

 

Enough of the above ramblings. This experience brought me to a set of questions…

 

The challenge to live redemptively

Foolish Sage and Tony:

I appreciated both your comments on Hedges. The “brass on the sinking ship” analogy communicates, and I recognize that the attitude is out there. That said, words and deeds are often at odds. Even in the most “circle the wagons and hunker down until the rapture” church communities, people demonstrate caring and generosity in their spheres. They volunteer at soup kitchens, help hurricane victims, support missions/Christian charities, take stand in their public schools, share their faith, and so on. Each of those efforts is a redemptive action in the world – small or large – nudging it in a God-ward direction. Those brothers and sisters may be reading or hearing teaching that preaches sinking shipology, but it’s very difficult to implement that kind of doctrine and live an authentic Christian life.

Where the Conn/Kuyper approach can be most helpful is in effectively articulating redemptive living, and showing people how to be intentionally Christian in their “secular” lives. Movements from within the church reminding us of the creation mandate that – for example – we care for the earth (without worshipping it) are steps in the right direction. Hedges has challenged us, and we should be thinking hard about how to translate our distinctives in such a way as to be influencers both in broader evangelicalism and the secular world. When we sit back quietly, we are effectively ceding that space to others, and as we have seen, they waste no time filling it.

Theological Mom

 

Ecclesial Triumph, Not Triumphalism

Mark,

I think you pretty much got what I was saying the only difference I would add if you included it, then harp on it a bit more here is that the gospel doesn’t only address us as individuals, but as communities and it calls forth action, life commitments, and heart decisions that we as a community are to pursue as we partner with the King in his Kingdom labor. But not only does it address as a community it also leads us to address others as communities. I think that was Conn’s point when he said, “The task of the church, until that glorious day [of consummation], is to be co-workers with God in the formation of the new creation. This is why the church is not content merely to change individuals: God is not so content.” I see the Church’s (the Church Militant – as Turretin described the Church before glory) present faithful obedience as part of Christ’s inaugurated triumph, hence ‘Ecclesial Truimph’.

Because I wasn’t writting with Theonomy in mind my choice of language was not informed by the need to avoid leaving that connection clear. Thanks for clarifying that for me and other guest readers here brother, blessings Sage

 

Ecclesial Triumph over Re-creation or Reformation

For clarity I’m going to put Jason’s quote up again here;

“The task of the church, until that glorious day [of consummation], is to be co-workers with God in the formation of the new creation. This is why the church is not content merely to change individuals: God is not so content. One day soon He will create a wholly new environment in which the righteousness of His people will shine.” – A Clarified Vision for Urban Mission, p. 147.

To Sage and Theological Mom,

Sage, I think TheoMom’s larger point was a wordsmithing issue with greater ramifications on the idea that God creates, and we only reform in a derivative sense – but toward the end of TheoMom’s post when she says she’s more about the internal creation focus I can understand why you read her this way. I’m happy you replied because I got a lot out of Gaffin and I imagine McCartney’s influence of actions being signs of recreation.

TheoMom, I really liked your bringing in of Wolters…I’m thinking the author quoted was Conn by Jason, Jason is this right? One question I had as I was listening to you TheoMom was what the nature of recreation is in relation to original creation. I agree we cannot be co-workers with God in original creation, but in recreation sense its a work of his Son and we are mystically in union with him, living now in this aeon as His body, with his keys I’m wondering if the language of co-workers really isn’t that in appropriate after all. I’m less comfortable with reformation but I think that language could be used.

My own contribution,

Perhaps the best sense of envisioning a new creation is in terms of Ecclesial Triumph. The Church as a community, in union with Christ, sanctified by the Spirit, obeying the Father’s will is living out an imitation of the Trinity that has internal and external effects for the ‘eschatolgical now’. The Church is triumphing over the Kingdom of Darkness with the Light of Christ. The Church’s call in Kingdom building is to co-labor/work as Christ’s body to recreate those elements that will remain in the New Creation from the original creation but not merely recreate, to redeem it as well unto another more ultimate goal by its Author. This work has individual implications but largely its focus is on the corporate witness of the Church becuase it is an expression of a Triune God. That is why the Church as the above author notes cannot imagine its labors end or goal in the salvation of individuals, but must encompass a New People of God reaching a People Without God, and as New People of God they are New Creations demonstrating what the Ultimate Creation of God was intended to look like – is already looking like – and will look like in the consumation. In my mind its a Trinity issue, its an eschatology issue, and its a covenant-community issue.

Tossing this out there, what do you think TheoMom, Sage, Jason?

 

New creation or redemption? Semantics

Foolish Sage said: “Theological Mom, do you really think that our salvation produces no effects through us into the creation? “

Sage, that’s not my point at all. I’m taking issue with word choice. I cited the inbreaking kingdom passage (Mt 11:4-6) in my post to illustrate that the concept – hands-on work and change in the culture – is precisely right. I’m more concerned about how we talk about what we’re doing there. Conn’s language is that of “co-workers with God in the formation of the new creation.” That strikes me as too bold. I think it is more accurate and makes more sense to convey that very same concept as acting redemptively in the creation. It’s already here, and we work within it as imitators of God to restore it toward his original intention for it. I’m more comfortable with those words to describe what’s going on. (As I indicated previously, I’m drawing from Wolters here.)

Thus, I’m fine with Dr. Gaffin’s point about anarthrous “new creation” in 2 Cor 5. We are new creation, and that absolutely has implications for what we do. We are charged with acting redemptively in the broken creation to move it forward. This is – I think – Conn’s point, as it was Kuyper’s. So I agree with the action, but I’d prefer to see the description of the action wordsmithed.

Theological Mom

 

Reformation vs. new creation

Jason, intriguing question. With a Kuyperian, all of life orientation in the background, I want to agree with the author. However, I think serious nuancing is in order. Rather than seeing the call on the church as co-worker with God in the formation of new creation, it strikes me as more accurate to understand us as operating derivatively and redemptively in the world. Wolters prefers reformation, to indicate renewal and cleansing. I think that is a more accurate way to talk about it. Your author’s language sounds more explicity “not yet” eschatological to me than cultural mandate “already.”

As for NT references . . . the longest direct creation treatise is Romans 8:19-22, and it hardly goes in the direction of your quote other than to note the problem – creation is broken and itself groaning. So, to get at what reformation means, we have to rely more on passages like Mt. 11:2-6 (“go and report to John . . . “) – which address the inbreaking of the kingdom of heaven in the “already.” But again, this is redemptive language more than new creation.

New creation language is appropriate to new person salvation along the lines of 2 Cor 5:17.

So, when all is said and done, I suppose I’ve nuanced myself into “someone who argues that until consummation the new creation is only internal, and only God can make new creation external, both on the individual and cosmic level.”

What are other thoughts?

Theological Mom