Calvin taught a doctrine of the Church “continuously actualised within history”2 - the Body of Christ is not invisible, or concealed, but rather, although humbled in condition by suffering, actually glorious. Calvin’s eschatology has three socially-oriented consequences for the Church: to gather its members (i.e. mission), to discipline itself continuously, and to unite:3
What is the purpose of the coming of Christ but to gather us all together in one from this dispersion in which now we are wandering? Therefore the nearer His coming the more we must bend our efforts that the scattered may be brought together and united and that there may be one fold and one Shepherd.4
Calvin is not so hopeful about society outside the Church: the only remade society is the fellowship of believers. Yet the state (or prince) could play a positive role in the advancement of the Kingdom. In Book 4 of the Institutes he describes the work of governments which may indeed be called “Christian”.5 In the seventeeth and eigthteenth centuries it was Puritanism and Pietism that extended this optimism to the coming of the millennium within history. This was “post-millennialism”, as espoused by John Owen, Jonathan Edwards and later, James Orr,6 for example.7 Secular versions of post-millennialism have been foundational to the national identities of many modern states. Dutch theologian Hendrikus Berkhof goes so far as to propose that world has been sanctified by the rise of “Christian” culture.8
But Jurgen Moltmann is right to critique this “historical millennialism” on the grounds that it has been used to legitimate ecclesiastical or political power.9 Biblically speaking, post-millennialism rightly emphasises the binding of Satan (Luke 10:17, 18, John 12:20-32) and urges the Church to mission to the whole world (cf. Rev 7:9). There is a present reality to the reconstitution of society in the Church. We ought to believe in the present rule of the Ascended Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit in the world. However, post-millennialism can not withstand its own historical failure; nor does it properly account for the inevitability of suffering and persecution. It is also a doctrine which in the end emphasises the power of human works to achieve a social utopia in the here-and-now; it is little wonder that this theology is a parent to secular industrial modernism. God is too easy to removed from the post-millennial picture.
1 H.R. Niebuhr, op.cit., p.218
2 T.F.Torrance, op.cit, p.60
3 ibid., p.62
4 Comm. on Heb 10:25, tr W.B. Johnston, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963)
5 J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. Battles, F.L., (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), IV.20.3-4. See R. Doyle, op.cit., p. 45
6 J. Orr, The Progress of Dogma, London, (J.Clarke & Co, 1901)
7 D.Bloesch, op.cit., p.193
8 H. Berkhof, Christ The Meaning of History, tr. L. Buurman, (Grand Rapids: Baker. 1966); a position he modifed in Christian Faith - An Introduction to the Study of the Faith, tr. S.Woudstra, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1979), pp.511-21
9 J.Moltmann, The Coming of God - Christian Eschatology, tr. M. Kohl, (London: SCM Press, 1994), p.192
6 comments:
Nice one :-)
Hi Michael,
After reading your post, I'm wondering whether I'm actually a postmillenialist. It certainly looks that way, considering my understanding of the Kingdom of God. I always considered it "partially realised eschatology", although somewhat more realised than most Christians I know.
I'd have to question whether it is necessary to esteem "human works" it a postmillenialist framework. Couldn't one say that human works of their own accord are nothing, but it is God who works through these actions that promote the Kingdom of God? Of course, these "works" cannot be produced from displays of human strengths or political power, lest they perpetuate Constantianism.
Well, I haven't got a problem with Constantinianism or political power! It seems that to oppose political power per se, though a popularly anabaptist position, is neither reasonable nor scriptural... But to call them 'the building of the kingdom'? That confuses the work of the church with the work of the state...
Isn't Constantinianism essentially a confusion of the work of the church and the work of the state?
We may have to clarify our terms (or I might)... but, it certainly can be. All I am saying is that, for example, becoming a democracy is a good thing, even a God thing, but it is not to be confused with mission.
Yes, I do wonder whether we are talking at cross-purposes, primarily through my own (albeit unintentional) doing. Perhaps one's understanding of "mission" will be primarily determined by one's understanding of the Kingdom of God?
Post a Comment