"If we allow our doctrine of election to become merely a secret calculus that determines who gets saved and who does not, we have lost touch with the original biblical intention. God's calling and election of Abraham was not merely so that he should be saved and become the spiritual father of those who will finally be among the redeemed in the new creation (the elect, in another sense). It was rather, and more explicitly, that he and his people should be the instrument through whom God would gather that multinational multitude that no man or woman can number. Election is of course, in the light of the whole Bible, election unto salvation. But is first of all election into mission."-Dr. Christopher Wright, The Mission of God, p. 263, 264
3 comments:
Hmmm... Zach, I have to say that the wording here, especially of the last two sentences, is confusing. I think that I get the author's point-- that election isn't only about personal salvation, but is also a call into a larger mission for God and the Kingdom in this world.
However, to even imply (as the author does) that election is *primarily* a call into a mission, and that personal salvation is somehow a secondary matter-- isn't that putting the cart before the horse?
One must be *personally* saved by God (chosen and elected by Him) before one can be called to a mission *by and for* Him.
To say that election is "first" (meaning, primarily?) unto a mission, and that personal salvation is not the main Biblical point about election, is at best confusing, and worst, it sounds dangerously works-oriented.
We are saved and justified personally by God, adopted into His family, and *then* called by Him to a mission. If we emphasize the mission before (or more than) we emphasize personal salvation, we run the risk of making it seem that the point is "the mission and what we do in it"-- rather than God and what *He* does in personal salvation, adoption into His family, and calling to a mission as a member of that family.
There is nothing "mere" about personal salvation. That wording, in the second sentence of this excerpt, is profoundly disturbing to me. Personal salvation definitely isn't the only point about God's plan of redemption and consummation. However, we dare not emphasize "the mission" more than personal salvation. That's the (unwitting?) result of Social Gospel (minus the Gospel) preaching. We will end up with a lot of unsaved people in churches "on a mission from God."
Upon further reflection, I see that I misread and misunderstood part of this excerpt. Wright seems to be specifically talking here about "mission" in terms of our role, within God's sovereignty, in bringing His Gospel to the world, to those who do not yet know Him in a saving way. I had misinterpreted Wright's call to "mission" as more of a "Social Gospel" call.
I agree with him that we are not *only* personally saved as Christians, but also called to mission in terms of sharing the Gospel with non-Christians everywhere. I also agree that the we, the "called-out ones," also have a mission in everyday life, to which we are called by God, to be "salt and light" in the culture (with Biblical wisdom and discernment in our choices as we do so).
I am still concerned by Wright's call to "mission first," (actually, he implies that in *God's* election, He calls us to mission first), while seeming to treat personal salvation as a secondary matter. Many people in evangelical churches (even healthier churches) *do not* have a clear understanding of justification and personal salvation. They haven't had these truths taught to them carefully and clearly, and they haven't studied them themselves.
To call these people to a mission first, even in terms of sharing the Gospel, when they don't understand the Gospel well themselves, is dangerous. May none of us, no matter how "healthy" a church we may be in, or how well taught we may be, assume the Gospel on the part of our audience when calling them to a mission for God! (I'm not saying that Wright *does* this here in this excerpt. His treatment of personal salvation here may unwittingly lead to an assuming of the Gospel in churches though.)
But Chris, I think you're missing the point.
Why did God call/choose Abraham? Why did God call/choose Samuel, David, Mary, Paul? It was not to save them, at least not primarily. It was for a task.
And so we ask, why did God call/choose us? To save us? Sure, but not primarily. He calls us for a task.
Post a Comment