CHAPTER FIVE
RESTORATIVE ESCHATOLOGY PRINCIPLE, PART TWO

Preview and Introduction

This dissertation adds to the creation restoration (recapitulatio) theme, a modified form of the classic Puritan hope (see Murray 1971). An optimistic eschatology has been much nuanced and refined since the time when postmillennialism was the consensus of most denominations (see De Jong 1970; Kik 1971; Murray 1971; Bahnsen 1976-77; Schirrmacher 1996; WLC, 191; see implicit optimism of HC, 48). This dissertation adopts the term, Eschatology of Victory (see Kik 1971) or Optimillennialism to describe this restorative, optimistic eschatology.

The Eschaton Recapitulates and Restores a Fallen Creation

Redemptive history is not static but moves. It began with a "very good" creatio ex nihilo. Next, God worked both directly and through human agents to develop this creation resulting in growing differentiation. In the process of this growth came the Fall. Next, to prepare for the coming comprehensive restoration of the fallen creation, He chose Abraham’s family, sent the Law and the prophets, and promised a final Davidic monarch. When He came, the final stage arrived. To the present, His people are involved in the progressive application of Christ’s finished work until the Consummation (see Dooyeweerd 1979; Wolters 1985; Spykman 1992).

The Restorative, Eschatology of Victory Principle accepts a protological, creationist perspective yet is progressive. It looks forward to the recapitulation of a matured protology. Neo-Puritanism thus is a dynamic and restorative faith. As the only restorative, recapitulative faith, it looks to creation for its norms (e.g., Mt 19:4). Christians fulfill the first Adam’s Mandate by means of the Second Adam’s Great Commission.

The antidote to anti-creational worldviews is the "comprehensive and balanced trinitarian approach" (Spykman 1992, 142), constructed around the work of the Father (creation, world), the Son (His humanity, historical redemption, kingdom), and the Spirit (the formation of the church and its bodily resurrection) (see Wingren 1971, 1979, 1981). This approach follows Calvin’s "order of right teaching," (Institutes 1.2.1; 1.61; 2.1.1; 2.6.1): the basic redemptive-historical order the Institutes follow: creation, fall, redemption, consummation.

Trinitarian Approach Protects Against Imbalance

A reduction of the work of any one of the three Person’s "inevitably results in a one-sided gospel and a sectarian church" (Braaten 1974, 79). As Braaten shows, throughout church history the consequences of such doctrinal reduction is quite evident. Thus, ironically, Second Article based Roman Church, neo-orthodoxy and pietism all tend to reduce Christianity to the church as a sectarian, culture bound institution. First Article founded classic Liberalism has tended to reduce the church to a vanguard group espousing the divisive, secular humanist agenda. Third Article grounded, Enthusiasm or Schwärmerei causes schismatic group’s to withdraw either into an inner-worldly utopia, as found in the radical communalist groups, or into cells of believers with an other-worldly future vision of Rapture escape.

The twentieth century church has had a share in all three areas of imbalance. First, modernism had an unbalance emphasis on the Fatherhood of God, "a first-article theology." Neo-orthodoxy over-reacted with Christomonism, a "second-article theology." Pentecostalism and modern Theologies of Hope "drift . . . toward third-article theology" (Spykman 1992, 146).

Among ecumenical theology, at present, the "gravitational center" of doctrine is indeed shifting steadily towards futurist, Third Article emphases especially under the influence of Moltmann and his disciples. In this imbalance, "creation gets absorbed into the process of salvation history" with already evident ramifications in the social theology (Spykman 1992, 60).

Brunner and Moltmann Absorb the First Article into the Third

Brunner’s and Moltmann’s views on creation, eschaton, and ethics, reveal this absorption process (see Schuurman 1991). These prototypical, future-oriented theologians cut culture and truth off from any normative design framework in a radical discontinuity between the proton and eschaton. They reject creation norms as "the conservative ethics of creation" (Schuurman 1991, 139, n. 1), which are "closed to the future" (Moltmann 1979, 55). Future orientations lead to "an open future and a revolutionary social ethic" (Schuurman 1991, 139, nt. 1).

Thus social norms and structures, seen "primarily in light of eschatology" of hope, will leap over the social forms of this age which is built on the protos, the "created" beginning. Assuming that this protological creation actually was not good, therefore, Futurists teach that protological-creational social forms are inherently evil and inevitably declining "forces of history [which] bear the names of law, sin and death" (Moltmann 1979, 53).

Only the good, "desirable and hoped for future" is normative. This new thing cannot "be extrapolated from the entrails of present [evil] history" (Moltmann 1979, 55). The future social forms are totally different than the oppressive present Orders of Creation. Extrapolation from the present "kills the very future character of the future" (Moltmann 1979, 43

Thus, "the only people who have any interest in prolonging this rule of the present over the future are those who possess and dominate the present." Those victimized by the present structures, that is "the have-nots, the suffering and the guilty, however, ask for a different future; they ask for change and liberation" (Moltmann 1979, 43).

Only in "the Christ who was condemned according to the law and crucified by the state," do we find the desirable "anticipation of God’s future," breaking into this evil age. The place, thus, in the "social order" where future hope and love "ought to be found" is the people with whom Christ identified. The church should be a radical church not allied to the "progressive leaders of society, the spearheads of economic development," those on top of the social order. Christ identified himself with the "victims" of the powerful spearheads of development (Moltmann 1979, 53-54).

The motivation for at least Moltmann’s radically futurist perspective, thus, seems to be a socio-political option for the poor and oppressed.

Throughout church history there have been three chief options for the relationship of protology (creation) to eschatology (creation consummated): (1) Annihilation of the world (annihiliatio mundi) with a completely new creatio ex nihilo in the eschaton (nova creatio). (2) A simple return to the first creation, a restitutio ad integrum or repristination. (3) A transformation of creation (transformatio mundi) by restoring, in a matured form, that which was lost through sin (recapitulatio) (see Schuurman 1991, 147-152).

Recapitulatio: Not a Nova Creatio

Futurist, Third Article based, theologians believe in a radical discontinuity between the proton and the eschaton, the first creation and the new creation (Schuurman 1991). The new creation is a virtual nova creatio. Futurist oriented dialectical theologies thus conceal a utopian vision, in the original sense of the word utopia, meaning, "no-place." For them, Redemptive history is moving to a future form never seen or imagined by man in this creation-place.

Moltmann realistically modifies the revolutionary implications of this by accepting the already-but-not-yet tension of contemporary eschatology. Even so, the utopian future principle introduced into the present, acts now as a sign-post of a hoped-for future (Moltmann 1979). The church, as the sphere of the nova creatio, must be the model for the future world to come.

The rejection of protological design-norms and design-forms for eschatological, "hoped-for" structures, thus, does not always have to erupt into rapid, structure overturning violence. Such revolutionary violence is the methodology of classic Marxism-Leninism and many forms of Liberation Theology.

Nova creationists, exemplified by Moltmann, seem to prefer the slow, but steady incremental overturning of the "backward looking" social structures through the ballot box. This is the methodology of European social democracy and can be a substitute for revolutionary violence (see critique in Novak 1991).

Conclusion. Theologies of hope, as well as other related theologies, all reject "reactionary" creational theologies. The result is that they are sympathetic with structure overturning ideologies seeking social forms never before realized in human history. Therefore, these theologies tend to favor the ordination of women and homosexuals, and reject any form of church built upon ethno-cultural solidarity.

Theologies teaching a future nova creatio tend strongly to social radicalism. Often, however, their revolutionary, structure over-turning rhetoric is greatly moderated because an incremental approach to change is advocated.

This concept of a future nova creatio proleptively worked out in the present time is similar to the position of several of the adherents of the Radical Reformation. Exclusivist theologian, F. J. M. Potgieter correctly cites Herman Bavinck to warn that the doctrine of nova creatio is "not Reformed but Anabaptistic" (Potgieter 1990, 45; see also Balke 1981). In contrast to this, the biblically orthodox position has always been that "grace does not destroy but perfects nature" thus the "goal of grace [is not] . . . a creatio ex nihilo" (Schuurman 1991, 157).

Recapitulation: Not Repristination

The second alternative, that of repristination, has always had a small minority following throughout church history. This view is based on a cyclical view of history which inevitably returns to a mythical golden age. It normally manifests itself in libertine-communalist sects which imagine the first Creation as a paradise without law, social class, marriage and work (see Cohn 1970, chapter 10: "The equalitarian state of nature;" Eliade 1965; Dahl 1964). In the end, these movements advocate a society similar to that envisioned by nova creationist.

Ironically, Moltmann accuses the orthodox recapitulatio or renovation (reparatio) view of being based on the cyclical return myth. Orthodox, time orientation, however, has never been cyclical but always linear. Creation moves inexorably on until the Final Day. This is the true basis for a doctrine of progressive dynamism (see Nisbet 1980, Eliade 1965). To be socially dynamic, the orthodox church does not need a perspective looking at a utopia either in the past or future.

Recapitulatio, the word Ireneaus used against the Gnostics, does not, therefore, imply a simple repristination of the creation in Christ because Eden is gone forever. Recapitulatio, "is rather the present and future restoration of the fallen creation to all it was meant to be" (Spykman 1992, 143).

Recapitulatio: Transformation of the World

The last alternative, therefore, of transformatio mundi has historically been the orthodox position. It found its culmination in Calvin and his followers. The renewed, transformed creation has arrived in Christ but is not yet perfected. There are several characteristics differentiating the Reformed and neo-Puritan position from other worldviews.

First of all, recapitulatio does not add something to nor "supplement" an always imperfect nature as in dualist worldviews. In Roman Catholic dualism, for example, "grace" adds something to "nature," so that "salvation is something basically ‘non-creational,’ supercreational, or even anticreational." These dualists believe that what Christ adds to creation is a holy, ecclesiatical realm, the holy Roman Church, while the creation itself belongs to a worldly or secular realm (Wolters 1985, 11). Such dualism is shared by many pietistic evangelicals and by dialectical theology (see Dooyeweerd 1979).

Secondly, recapitulatio does not leave creation Ordnungen virtually intact under natural law as in Luther’s view. Sin has corrupted and polluted "every structure of humanity and the world." However, "God’s abundant grace in Christ triumph[s] . . . even more" than sin. The Gospel is good news of the transforming renewal of "humanity, [it is] for the family, for society, for the state, for art and science, for the entire cosmos" groaning under the curse (Bavinck 1988/1992, 224).

Thirdly, the future in Reformed and neo-Puritan worldviews follows historic orthodoxy. Both see continuity with the past in the concept of creation design-norms, and extrapolation of the originally good creation into a future progressively partaking of redemption. Neo-Puritanism, with orthodoxy, thus, organizes history "around the central insight that ‘grace restores nature’" Salvation thus is "to salvage a sin-disrupted creation" (Wolters 1985, 11).

The end is thus a maturation of the beginning. "The Bible begins and ends with creation terms!" (König 1988, 108). Dahl ascribes this "positive correlation of ‘eschatology’ and ‘protology’" as holding "a very firm position within the ancient Church" (Dahl 1964, 423). Not only the anti-Gnostic fathers, but the

Meaning of Recapitulatio

First, all things including all men are to be summed up under Christ’s Headship (see Eph 1:10, Ireneaus’ key text). The protological sin never effected Him. In Him, all of mankind returns to his proper Head as the only source of life. From this flows "the renewal of life in men’s public and private lives" (Wingren 1959, 174). Irenaeus clearly saw redemptive history as the growth of the church in every people and tongue.

Secondly, the word recapitulatio implies restoration to a matured form of the original creation. Paul in Romans (8:18-39) clearly states that the first creation will "not be abolished. . . . [I]t will be delivered" (House 1992, 13). The future thus brings the maturity of the original creation. Just as a flower is the outworking of the created potential of the bud, or just as a child grow up into adulthood, so is the City of New Jerusalem is the outworking of Edenic potentials. Recapitulatio implies, therefore, a backward and forward look. Grace, in Christ, restores and reforms the original creation but brings with it a growing maturity which wars against and overcomes sin.

Recapitulatio implies thirdly repetition. The Second Adam repeats the first Adam’s history with opposite results. However, man in Christ, has been growing and differentiating. Hence the word, in Ireneaus, does not imply mere reversion to mankind’s original pristine immaturity. Recapitulatio, "contains the idea of perfection or consummation" because "man’s growth is resumed and renewed" in Christ (Wingren 1959, 174).

Christ, then, is the Recapitulator, the "pattern of the new humanity," in orthodox, anti-Gnostic theology (House 1992, 13). He repeated Adamic history in His sinless birth as the Second Adam. In his life, resurrection, ascension He repeats, restores and consummates all things lost by Adam until His Second coming when he sums up all things in Himself in actuality. "There is an unbroken unity in the whole of Christ’s work right up to the events of the last time — everything is recapitulatio" (Wingren 1959, 194; Acts 3:21ff). Ireneaus saw this clearly: "From beginning to end recapitualtio involves a continuum which stage by stage is realised in time" (Wingren 1959, 193).

As "an expression of recapitulation," (Wingren 1959, 171), the Body of Christ, as the people of God militant in culture, act as leaven, salt, and light in all institutions of society. Christ as the Recapitulator is now working recapitualtio in His Body until the Last Day (Ps 110). "Christ’s work in itself is finished and complete, but it has not yet extended to every part of human life" (Wingren 1959, 171). Christ thus is the Proton and the Eschaton, the First and Last (König 1989a).

In conclusion, neo-Puritanism, follows biblical orthodoxy in eschatology. Thus, the last things are "squarely based upon biblical protology, the ending of history could only be comprehensible within categories by which the beginning of history is described" (Gage 1984, 8). Mankind-in-Christ is restored in Christ already, but also looks forward to being restored both as individuals and communities. A recapitulated Christian man and a restored Christian society is fully and healthily human, as he was designed to be, not eccentric or out-of-step with the development of history. The effect is that the church as God’s steward "is turned outwards towards the world. Its function is to protect whatever has been created from the forces that destroy life" (Wingren 1971, 8). Only in this sense is Christianity conservative.

Recapitulatio Does Not End Creation Covenant’s Law-Order

The recapitulatio principle does not accept a radical perspective followed by Luther that "puts an end to the law by announcing its fulfillment" (Braaten 1974, 119). Man was created in covenant with the Creator as Sovereign King and Lord of the Universe: "in creation God covenanted his kingdom into existence" (Spykman 1992, 11). Part of His kingdom’s rule was an implicit covenant with an ethical standard, a law. The law of God was revealed in the heart of man and in the explicit Words of the Creator (see e.g., Ge 1:26, 29; 2:16-17, 24). That law-order, since it is based on the character of the Creator who is unchanging, is itself absolute and unchanging (Ps 19, 119).

Mankind has broken the Royal law and God has sent a covenantal curse upon Adam, his seed through history, and the creation (see Ge 3; Ro 8:19ff). However, the Suzerain has graciously consented to restore man and cursed creation through the redemptive renewal of the original covenant of creation.

Recapitulation assumes the continuity of the "historical covenants of Jahweh with his people" (Braaten 1974, 119). Those covenants begin in the Garden and are progressively renewed until Christ completes their intention in His [Re]-newed Covenant (see Robertson 1980, Dumbrell 1984, Sutton 1987, Van der Waal 1990). Christ the King, restores the broken covenantal law by obeying it completely as it was originally designed to be (Ge 3:15; Ro 5:12ff; 16:20; Rev 12:7-9; Ro 5:20ff). Each renewal of the covenant of the King reaffirmed the originally revealed design-norms of Eden in a progressively more specific manner.

Grace thus neither abolishes the created covenantal design nor does it abolish the King’s law which is the norm of that design. Instead, Christ, the King’s Anointed Son (Ps 2, Acts 2), affirms and restores the correct use of the creation as He does the King’s covenant law (Mt 5:19ff). The King commands dominion oriented, covenant keeping families to transform their various cultures on the basis of the comprehensive rule of the covenantal law-ethic first given in the Garden. "Covenant and kingdom are like two sides of a single coin" (Spykman 1992, 11).

The message of the covenant of redemption is kingdom oriented from the beginning. The "original covenant stands forever as the abiding foundation and norm for life in God’s world" (Spykman 1992, 12).

Christ Recapitulates Moses

The recapitulatio principle rejects the dialectical view of the law, followed by Luther, Anabaptists, most Pietists, and neo-Orthodoxy. These teachers and movements, do not understand that the covenant law of Moses was essentially the original covenant law of creation, which, in turn, find’s true restoration in the new covenant in Christ. The dialectical worldviews tend to teach instead that Jesus introduces a neo-nomos which "presuppos[es] [radically new] eschatological provisions of the [future] kingdom" (Braaten 1974, 119).

Especially futurist oriented, dialectical theologians teach that the "rule of justice through the law" is inherent in the fallen order of this Age (e.g., Moltmann 1979). The old law is not part of the perfections of Christ. In Christ, a "new law of love is at work in the same contexts of life" dealt with by the old law (Braaten 1974, 119). The consequence, in effect similar to the view of the Radical Reformation, is two differing norms for the secular and spiritual kingdoms.

The recapitulatio principle is the opposite because of its continuity principle. Instead of two norms, it teaches that there is only one normative order for all spheres of life and for all cultures. The Mosaic-Prophetic law is a model for all peoples (see e.g., Lev 18:1-23, esp. 24-30; Dt 4:5-8; Ps 9:5-12; Jer 50:14-15,29; Eze 5:5-6, 14:12-23). Jesus, the Davidic King, is also a "second Moses," delivering from the Mount the correct interpretation of the law (see Ridderbos 1982) as the Great Prophet foreseen by Moses (Dt 18:18; Ac 3:22-23, 7:37).

Christ’s kingdom and His law, as understood in orthodoxy, is therefore not merely future looking. In a real sense it is also backward looking. The principle of recapitulation is both conservative, if that which is to be conserved is indeed built on created design-norms, and dynamically transformative. There is continuity between creation and eschaton, not conflictual, dialectical dualism. As a result, there is no theological necessity to give "hermeneutical priority" to either the beginning or the end (see Schuurman 1991, 151-153).

The Second Moses Restores All of Culture

Secondly, recapitulation in Christ, the Second Moses, does not imply that the institutional church is the only part of the creation which partakes of restoration. All things have come under His sovereignty as an inheritance from His Father (Ps 2). All things are being brought under His headship, His grace and His law. This includes all kings, families and peoples of earth. The last things to be totally conquered by Him is death itself (see Ps 2, 47 [NIV], 96, 110; Ac 2, Eph 1:20; 1Co 15; Heb 2). That occurs in the Resurrection. In the meantime, He is putting all His enemies progressively under His feet (Ps 110).

Optimillennialism and Neo-Puritan Eschatology

Of the three eschatological schools normally associated with Reformed churches (pre-, post-, and a-, millennialism), all have exegetically derived validity at certain points. This dissertation seeks to incorporate these biblical insights into a restorative and victorious eschatology.

Both Reconstructionist, David Chilton, and Presbyterian theologian, Richard Gaffin (Chilton 1987, 498, n. 8; Gaffin 1990) have characterized the modern movement with an optimistic eschatology as not fitting the classic postmillennial pattern. Actually it is best characterized as an optimistic amillennialism or an optimistic, realized millennialism. This dissertation adopts the term, Eschatology of Victory (see Kik 1971) or Optimillennialism to describe this restorative eschatological position.

In contrast to classic Postmillennialism, Optimillennialism agrees with Realized Millennialism that "the millennium is the interadvental period in its entirety, not just an era towards its close" (Gaffin 1990, 200). Christ’s kingly reign started at the resurrection, ascension and enthronement of Christ. Optimillennialism teaches that Satan is bound now (Jn 12:31, 14:30; Col 2:15), possibly literally since the fall of Jerusalem, not sometime in the future as both dispensational and classic postmillennialism teach. However, clearly his demonic hoards are still very active (Eph 6:12ff). To combat their activity, Christ has seated his body with him. Hence, they now reign with Christ in the heavenly places over these demonic powers (Eph 1:19-2:10).

Second, in contrast to pessimistic forms of Realized Millennialism, Optimillennialism teaches that Christ’s reign has earthly effects in culture (Isa 42:1-4; Mt 12:18-21). That reign is progressively actualized upon earth by the collective, faith-filled works of God’s people as the Lord’s prayer teaches (Mt 6:9-13; Col 3:1ff; see WLC, 191; HC, 48). This is similar to classic post-reformation eschatologies later termed postmillennialism.

Third, Optimillennialism accepts preterist insights as a biblical means to satisfy the alleged contradiction between Christ’s apocalyptic imminency teaching and his long-term vision that all peoples and their cultures will come under the Lordship of the Son (Ps(s) 2, 22, 86:9, 110; Mt 12:15-21, 28:19ff; Ro 11, 15).

Although rejecting consistent Preterism, this dissertation’s neo-Puritan perspective nonetheless accepts its insight that imminency passages in the Synoptics and Revelation do not speak about an imminent "coming of Christ" to end history. They teach instead an imminent judgment upon Jerusalem in 68-70 A. D. (Mt 23:33-24:34; Mk 13:1-30; Lk 21:5-32; Kik 1971; Van der Waal 1971; Terry 1988; Chilton 1985a, 1987; Gentry 1989). It takes literally the words of Christ that decisive judgment "will come upon this generation," meaning the generation then present (Mt 23:23:32, 33-36; 24:1-34). All the signs of the end in that passage were written in prophetic-symbolic language that refers to the end of Jerusalem one generation from that time (30-70 A.D.).

These passages thus are not proof texts of an apostolic, apocalyptic pessimism. Instead, they teach a realistic eschatological hope in harmony with the Old Testament. After the fall of Jerusalem, the Great Tribulation and the old covenant era have forever ended. The next major discontinuity in time is the Second Coming with the resurrection. In the meantime, Christians are commanded to occupy until he comes while appropriating his victory in history. That occupation, however, is clearly interspersed with temporal persecutions and judgments until the final release of Satan who leads rebel humanity’s final revolt on the last evil day.

Fourth, Optimillennialism accepts the modern theological consensus of the "already-but-not-yet" schema (see Vos 1930/1979; Ridderbos 1962; Ladd 1974) which was taught in incipient form by the Reformed fathers. However, Optimillennialism does not see the kingdom as being totally future yet now paradoxically present, as does much of dialectical theology. The Kingdom has always been present as the reign of Yahweh over the whole earth (Ps(s) 47, 103:19ff; Dan 4:3, 17, 25, 34, 47, 5:21, 6:26).

The already has arrived, not in paradox as Barthians teach, but in its Messianic form (Ps(s) 2, 110; Ac 2). The kingdom arrived in the person of Christ (Lk 11:20) and continues in his present reign from heaven over all the peoples of earth by the Spirit (Isa 9:6-7, 11:1-5; Dan 7:14; Eph 2:19ff; Col 1:15ff; Heb 2:5ff).

That eternal kingdom now operates by means of the Spirit of Christ working through his people on earth (Ps 149; Dan 7:27; Col 1:13). By the Spirit, his body applies Christ’s royal law and finished work in transforming all areas of life.

No Triumphalism

Optimillennialism as a realistic alternative to both classic postmillennialism and standard forms of amillennialism (e.g., Hoekema 1979) teaches that the covenantal kingdom is already growing inexorably on the earth (Mt 13:31-32; Mk 4:26-29; Dan 2:31-45). Kingdom growth includes individuals, but also the structures of society that become conformed to the law of the King (see Servant Songs of Isaiah; Mt 12:15-21).

The Spirit works now already, through obedient men, to bring comprehensive kingdom growth (North 1990). The Sovereign’s Covenant of Grace, culminated in the new covenant, includes (1) promises (i.e., gospel), (2) total-life ethics, and (3) sanctions, that is blessings for obedience and discipline for unbelief (Mt 7:24-27; Mk 10:29-31; Eph 6:2; Jas 1:21-25; 1Pe 3:9-12, 5:5). In other words, God blesses and judges cultures as well as individuals in the new covenant like he did in the Old. The building of a long-term Christian culture is not possible when "historical pessimism is coupled with a studied resistance to historical divine [covenantal-legal] sanctions" (Gentry 1991, 207).

This means that mankind does not "bring in the kingdom" by his efforts, it is already here by the Spirit of Christ working justice in society, personal righteousness, joy and a comprehensive shalom-peace (Ro 14:17). Therefore, through the prayers and faith-filled works of men (1Ti 2:1-3; Eph 1:10) who are co-gerents of the Sovereign, God builds his kingdom. When man disobeys, the kingdom of Satan temporarily gains the upper hand, but not for long. In the long term, the righteous humble (meek) inherit the land (Ps 37; Pr 2:1-11, 20-22; Mt 5:5).

Optimillennialism with its preterist insights teaches, thus, that there is always a not-yet now, because there is never perfection in this age. Although Christ is already progressively bringing all his enemies under his control, demons, death and sin will not yet be totally conquered until the End (Ps 110; 1Co 15). There is no utopian triumphialism in Optimillennialism (1Co 4:6-13; see Gentry 1991).

An Upward, Saw-Tooth Shaped Growth Curve

The Restorative Eschatology Principle is thus convinced that the church of Christ will undergo a saw-tooth shaped, yet still upward curve of growth until the end (North 1990). History is not the story of a slow inevitable deflation of hope for culture transformation but is the story of an increase of the visible victory of faith (1Jn 5:2-5) and a substantial healing or restoration of the effects of the fall into sin (e.g., Isa 9:6-7, 11:1-9, 19:22-25, 42:1-4, 65:17-23). The last days upon the earth before the final apostasy will be like a resurrection from the dead because the nations and the Jewish people have turned to the Lord (Ro 11). Isaiah 65 and 66 tell of "a preliminary manifestation of the new heavens and new earth, prior to the day of judgment, for in these promised days of earthly peace, there shall be sinners still alive (Isa. 65:20)" (North 1982, 447).

The upward growth curve will always be interrupted many times by a series of persecutions and judgments from the remaining sinners (see Mk 10:29-31). In this world-age there is always tribulation in the midst of growing victory (Jn 16:33; Ac 14:22; 1Th 3:3). This will last until the end. Yet still we must ever continue work to disciple all the peoples and their cultures, expecting substantial healing before the end.

The Church as an Proleptic

"Sign" of the Future Kingdom

Optimillennialism gives a biblical futurist orientation to mankind’s dominion efforts. However, a key reason for much of the futurist orientation of much of contemporary theology seems to be the modern theological consensus which accepts the church as an exclusively "eschatological event."

This consensus describes the church as not founded upon the past Edenic Dominion Covenant (Ge 1:26ff) and the covenant promises of the patriarchs and prophets. It is thus not modeled upon the design of Abraham’s created extended family, a national unity in sub-ethnic diversity. In contrast to these Reformed continuity perspectives, the modern consensus instead seems to teach that the church is founded exclusively upon an individually applied work of Christ’s kerygma.

The Church thus is the preliminary and anticipatory form of the future kingdom that Christ brought. This view seems more similar to the various forms of dispensationalism found in the Radical Reformation and revivalism, than reformed covenantalism.

Most contemporary theology, furthermore, sees the exclusively future kingdom as proleptively present now "in the person of Christ first, and then in those incorporated into his love, into his freedom, his peace and the fullness of his life" (Braaten 1974, 82). Prolepsis means "anticipation." The opposite of prolepsis is anachronism: "Just as anachronism limps after time, so prolepsis hurries ahead of it, already realizing today what is to be tomorrow" (Moltmann 1979, 47).

This has definite ethical implications. "Just as the coming God already antedates his future, giving it in advance in history," Moltmann states, "men and women can and should anticipate this future in knowledge and in deed" (Moltmann 1979, 47). The church and its ministry of word and sacrament are therefore "spearhead of the kingdom of God, which moves through both the church and the world." The result is that the inbreaking Kingdom sets up "signs of the kingdom not only in the church’s sacraments but also in the world’s struggles for brotherhood, equality and freedom" (Braaten 1974, 83). Such proleptic anticipation creates hope for those who have identified with the poor, and "who with the poor hope for the new, liberating future of God." Proleptic eschatology then "is not content with the present, but does not take the place of consummation either. It is the ‘now already’ in the midst of the ‘not yet’ (Moltmann 1979, 47).

In other words, the signs of God’s kingdom for which people must now unite to work, anticipating the final eschaton, are the three slogans of the French Revolution. Thus eschatology must work backward from an equalitarian future to the oppressive present. Prolepsis teaches that there "cannot be an extrapolation of the future from history" (Moltmann 1979, 48).

The WCC’s has published a comprehensive survey of the growing consensus in the world church (Roman Catholic, WCC, and Orthodox) concerning this theme. Günther Gassmann, then Director of the WCC’s Faith and Order Commission, surveys the adoption of the "newly adopted ecclesiological terminology" which describes the unity of the church using the "terms sacrament, sign and instrument" (Gassmann 1985, 13; see also Dulles 1976).

In this growing ecumenical consensus, the unity of the church is never seen as an end it itself. It is a sign, that is a "pointer, symbol, example and model," and a sacrament, in the sense of "anticipation" in itself of the coming unity of humanity in the kingdom. It is also an "effective means or tool" in itself to help bring that coming unity into effect. "The church is sign, sacrament and instrument of God’s love, of his rule, his universal plan of salvation for all humankind in Jesus Christ" (Gassmann 1986, 14). Thus the church in itself is the "sign of the coming union of all human beings in God’s kingdom, the redemption of creation and the fulfilment [sic] of all things" (Gassmann 1986, 14).

Gassmann further explains that the unity of humankind that is to come was initially understood in realized eschatological terms (Cullman and Dodd) but has been shifting to an "eschatological perspective" (likely under influence of various futurist eschatologies spawned by J. Moltmann, and W. Pannenberg). The totally new future is now proleptively present in the church. The church, thus, is the vanguard of the coming unified and just world. It is an "anticipatory sign" of a future perfected reconciliation and hope for the world and for humanity (Gassmann 1986, 14).

Thus, logically, the church in its institutional structures must model the future kingdom’s unity, liberty, justice and brotherhood to the world. The church models to the world an encouraging example of how they should dismantle and replace unjust, divisive, and oppressive relationships and social structures.

There is some truth in this. In orthodox theology, the church must indeed model or be a "sign" now of perfected kingdom relationships: "The Church is summoned to be the militant vanguard of God’s Kingdom in an ecclesiastical way" (Heyns 1980, 28). However, since WCC theology does not accept the classic recapitulative eschatological perspective explained above, it’s perspective departs significantly from orthodoxy. First of all, it must be socially antinomian (the subject of a later chapter) and secondly it must be at least moderately utopian.

In other words, the defining norm for justice, liberty, unity and brotherhood is a never-before-seen future vision of the kingdom cut off from creational norms summarized in the Decalogue. For example, using Moltmann’s theology as a base, J. M. Lochman writes for a recent WCC colloquium stating that the Spirit combats all "obstacles and rifts between human beings which are barriers to the achievement of unity." He list "cultural, social and religious" barriers as examples. Thus the Spirit, he says, is "determined to overcome obstacles and to tear down barriers which keep human beings apart . . . so as to renew human community." He concludes, "every form of ‘apartheid’ is sin — indeed, in this concrete sense, the sin against the Holy Spirit" (Lochman 1986, 71).

Since the norms are not derived from a careful exegetical understanding of the law-order of revelation, they must be derived from the surrounding humanist culture. Biblical norms, whose content is classically defined within the context of the one continuously present, covenant of grace, are now redefined by the standards of humanist culture.

Implications

Gassmann spells out some of the implications of this new understanding of the relationship of the Church, the future Kingdom and its norms, to the world’s society. "The sign-character of the church is not purely `spiritual' but, according to an incarnational understanding of the church, needs to be set in relationship to the conflicts, needs and hopes of our world" (Gassmann 1986, 14). For the WCC, the unity of the Church is closely connected to the unity of humankind.

Putting its teaching into practice, the WCC has spend many millions of its parishioners money to help build a unified, just, and more equal world. The Program to Combat Racism (PCR) in Southern Africa, with its millions given to Southern African revolutionary liberation movements, is an example. This type of social activism is a logical outworking of the futurist, equalitarian eschatology adopted by the WCC.

The working for the unity of the church as a model pointing to the future of the world globalizes not just international politics but also national and local politics. For example, the WCC’s "World Conference on Church and Society" in 1966, has a definite bias against decentralization of power. The conference clearly states that the implication of the fact that God "created and redeemed the whole world" was that national sovereignty must be diminished in the search for a global "just distribution not only of wealth but also of health, education, security, housing and opportunity" (WCC 1967, 89). The WCC was urged to study global taxation and certain "regional and world-wide institutions" to coordinate redistributionary social justice (WCC 1967, 92).

Thus the WCC interprets "protection or advancement of sectional interests," which the WCC defines as particular nations, classes, industries, or individuals, "at the expense of the good of humanity," as morally repugnant and inconsistent with the love of God for the "whole of his creation" (WCC 1967, 89). To this end, centralized structures are best because de-centralized units of even a federal state can "preserve local injustices that the federal government seeks to remove" (WCC 1967, 99).

Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is acknowledged gratefully as a standard for social justice and it is greeting as already having achieved a "significant impact" in that regard though not yet sufficient (WCC 1967, 103). National unity with such human rights in multi-ethnic countries should be the goal because this best serve the "effective mobilization of the economic resources of the state in order to achieve social justice" (WCC 1967, 107, see C&S, 184-205, 267).

(1) A good creation implies that the universe is not in danger of falling into chaotic division destroying primal unity.

(2) The structures of created reality are revelatory, not mere givens, even when polluted by death and sin.

(3) Redemptive history is not a movement away from an always impinging human division. Redemptive history thus is not a movement toward social-equalitarian unity in a centralized-unified institutions. History restores the covenant fidelity to the Creator’s original design, in matured form for all spheres.

(4) Gender, class, or lingual-culture group divisions are not evil in themselves.

(5) Neo-Puritanism’s restorative principle rejects Schöpfungsordungen, that is static and non-developing creation orders designed to protect against an ever-impinging human social chaos-division.

(6) God gave man stewardship to cultivate, protect and advance God’s providential design. This includes God-created languages and culture groups.

(7) Both indigenous church planting and the transformation of ethno-culture are top priority (see Gentry 1990).

(8) To preserve a people’s Christianized culture and language is right if truly directed by Biblical norms. In South Africa, this applies as much to the Afrikaner as to the Xhosa, Zulu and Sotho.