Does a Corporate View of the Doctrine of Election lead to a more missional worldview?

*For Part 1, "Does a Wesleyan view of grace lead to a more missional worldview?" click here.

“Divine election has mission in view.”

                              -Dr Clark H Pinnock

I recently re-read Dr Pinnock’s contribution to the book Perspectives on Election (Find in a Library) and I found myself highlighting completely different areas from the first time I read it. His chapter is titled “Divine Election as Corporate, Open and Vocational”.[1] 

I wonder how anyone could read this chapter and afterwards not be convinced that the corporate view is a more missional; more Jesus-centred; more gospel-saturated—a more Biblical—understanding of election. 

As Dr Pinnock points out regarding the traditional view, “Everyone (I think) knows that election is not much preached about these days, and understandably so, because the traditional version contains little gospel.” (p 277)

But when we examine the Biblical idea of “election” we find just the opposite: “There is no hidden decree here but only good news through and through” (302). Dr Pinnock explains, "Election in the Bible has to do with God’s strategy for the salvation of the nations. The calling of a new people with its new way of being together in the world, this is God’s plan to turn the world right-side up.” (p 283) And: 

Election is not about the destiny of individual persons for salvation or damnation but about God’s calling a people who in the New Testament setting live according to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ and proclaim good news to the world. [...] The focus is not on the salvation of the elect body itself (though this is assumed) but on the hoped-for consummated new humanity. (276-277)

How is the idea of “election” used in the Bible?

First, we see it used throughout the Old Testament, where election was corporate and included all those connected to the covenant head (Abraham, then Jacob/Israel). Dr Pinnock writes:

God established a special relationship with Abram with world transforming potential. ... God committed himself to this covenant with Israel, a lowly tribe, and established a relationship which will eventually include all peoples.

...

God declares: “You shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5). The election is of a people (it is corporate); Israel is God’s holy people and treasured possession. ... God gave Israel a most-favored-nations status and for a reason. ... Israel was not called to an exclusive salvation but to a priestly vocation intended to bring the whole world to God.

...

They have been blessed, but with favor come expectations. God loves the people in Israel but has a ministry in mind for her, namely, a mediating role in the salvation of the world. Isaiah expresses the heart of it. Most succinctly God says, “I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth” (Isa 49:6). The idea of a priestly kingdom is that Israel is going to serve as a representative people and will have a mediating role within the wider world. (p 284-285)

Does this same understanding of “election” follow into the New Testament?

Dr Pinnock continues, “The point and meaning of the election of Israel is now to be found in Jesus of Nazareth. ... In the New Testament the election is narrowed down to Jesus Christ himself.” (293)

We hear God’s voice at the baptism of Jesus: “You are my Son, the beloved; with you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11). God says at the transfiguration: “This is my Son, My Chosen; listen to him” (Luke 9:35). This was no election to salvation (Jesus did not need be saved) but to service. In particular, he is the one through whom God brings salvation. Dying on the cross, he was taunted in these terms: “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!” (Luke 23:35). (292)

...

Election is now seen as relative to the Son, to his mission, death, and resurrection. Jesus is “the elect” par excellence and God has chosen to elect us “in him.” We become part of the corporate “us” in the body of Christ. (294)

...

[I]t needs also to be understood as participation in Jesus Christ. By faith we share in his death and resurrection. ... In Christ, with Christ, into Christ, and through Christ--all such expressions speak of a new corporate reality. It is the presence of the risen Lord with us in the community which is his body and the realm of the Holy Spirit. ... It makes us all part of the process of world transformation. (294)

Notice how Gospel-centred this is! Further connecting the goal of election to the mission of God, Dr Pinnock writes:

This is how I see it: God's mercy is freely available and the elect body open to any and all who hear God's call. .... When a person believes in Jesus, he or she is incorporated in the body of Christ, and all that had been predestined for the group now applies to that person as well. God is sharing his life with the world and does so through the instrumentality of Jesus Christ and his church. (287- 288)

...

He has predestined the church to be conformed to the image of his Son and uses it to bear witness to the rest of humankind. The election of Israel, too, did not have in view only salvation; it also had in mind a priestly vocation, intended to bring the whole world to God. The love by which God loves the church is meant to spread into the whole world. The church is not a community intended for a salvation exclusively its own. It comes with a calling to reconcile the world to God through its praise and ministry.(288)

...

Those who know God are meant to make him known. Divine election is a wonderful gospel doctrine. God has unconditionally elected a people to serve as the vehicle of salvation for the whole of humanity.

...

God has chosen a people for the sake of all the nations. This interpretation of it upholds the perfect love and goodness of God. God's ways are fair; he saves all he possibly can. He does not leave anyone out arbitrarily. (313)

And finally, “God's desire to save all sinners is clear, and election does not contest it. Indeed, election is an instrument and means to make salvation happen.” (297)

Our calling is to be partners in God’s work of salvation. Mission and outreach, not salvation as our private possession, is the goal of election. Too often we have taken our own salvation to be the goal and assigned mission to paid emissaries. Too often we can be so busy edifying ourselves that we have little time for our neighbour. (287)

“The church is not an end in itself; it has been given the power of the Spirit in order to take the gospel to the world and to make disciples of every nation.” (285)

Endnote:

[1] In footnote 3 he recommends William W Klein’s excellent book The New Chosen People: A corporate view of Election, and in footnote 4 adds, “If my favorite exegetical source is WIlliam Klein, my favorite systematic authority is Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. III (Grand Rapids: Eardmans, 1993).”  As I’ve mentioned before, Dr Klein’s book was the single biggest influence in my own adoption of the corporate election view.  

Related Posts:

• Clark H Pinnock, "From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology";
• Does a Wesleyan view of grace lead to a more missional worldview?;
• Lesslie Newbigin, "The Logic of Election", plus a free ebook;
• Lesslie Newbigin, “The Spirit and Our Election in Christ”;
• On Corporate Election.

Dr Chad Thornhill and Dr Ben Witherington discuss Romans 8-11, foreknowledge and election

Dr Ben Witherington has been interviewing Dr Chad Thornhill about his new book, The Chosen People: Election, Paul & Second Temple Judaism in an 8-part series.  In Part 7, they discuss Romans 8-11, foreknowledge and election; here is an excerpt:

BEN: One of the confusions of Tom Schreiner and other committed Calvinists is the assumption that when Paul talks about individuals like Jacob and Esau in Rom. 9, he is referring to them NOT as representative heads of a people, but as isolated individuals, and so Paul must be talking about the double predestination of particular individuals. As you point out even when Paul uses the singular pronoun it can refer to the representative head of a group of people. I find this whole Calvinistic line of argument: 1) far too modern considering the dyadic personality of ancient peoples and how they viewed themselves as primarily parts of collectives; and 2) more to the point it completely ignores for example Gal. 4 where Hagar and Sarah very clearly represent two groups of people—namely they are the prefigurements of the Judaizers and of Paul and those who agree with him. Paul lines up those who represent Arabia, Sinai, and the ‘now’ Jerusalem and slavery in one camp, and those who represent the Jerusalem which is from above and those who are free in another. In some ways I find this just as individualistic and wrong as Mr. Warren’s whole discussion of God having a ‘will’ for your individual ‘purpose driven life’ which is somehow custom tailored to the individual and much more particular than what the NT says about the will of God for believers in general— namely their sanctification, their exercising of God’s gifts in their lives etc. We seem to insist on reading the Bible through highly individualistic late Western eyes, and the reading of Paul especially suffers from this malady. Would you agree? 

CHAD: As I developed in earlier chapters, the concept of corporate representation was alive and well in Jewish literature, and at times was specifically connected with the concept of election and the language surrounding it. Jacob and Esau themselves in Jubilees serve as representatives of two groups. Jacob serves such a function throughout the Old Testament as well. Paul is working with this existing framework of Jacob and Esau as representatives, but he reorients what this entails. There is a sense here too that God’s choosings are counter-intuitive. It is not the older, but the younger. I think this is significant because Paul completes his argument by stating explicitly that God’s people are not just made up of Jews, but also Gentiles. This would have been counter-intuitive to many Jews, so Jacob and Esau both serve as corporate representatives and as illustrations of the fact that God is the one who gets to make the rules. I think the bigger problem with the individualistic interpretation is that Paul is not answer the question here of how God decides who to save. He is rather answering the question of why we should think Gentiles can be included as full members in God’s people without submitting fully to Torah and that many Jews are being left out. This is not, then, about God’s “fairness,” as some translate adikia in 9:14, but about his rightness, or faithfulness, if you will. Paul gives the explicit download of the argument from 9:1-23 in 9:24: Jews and Gentiles are both in God’s people, and this is not based on ethnicity or Torah-observance, but their identification with and commitment to God’s Messiah. 

You can read the rest of Part 7 here, begin at Part 1 here, or see the full list here.

The Chosen People: Election, Paul and Second Temple Judaism is based on the author’s 2013 doctoral dissertation, “To the Jew First: A Socio-Historical and Biblical-Theological Analysis of the Pauline Teaching of ‘Election’ in Light of Second Temple Jewish Patterns of Thought” which is available from SEA here.

Further Reading:

This book is not to be confused with similarly titled The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election, by William Klein, which is an excellent introduction to Corporate Election, now available in a revised and expanded edition.

Related Posts:

• On Corporate Election
• Questions to ask as you approach Romans 9
• Dr Thomas Schreiner reviews Dr Abasciano's book on Romans 9.

Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd Explain the Corporate View of Election

In the video Q&A below, Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd (Woodland Hills Church) answer the question, “Can you speak to scripture that implies some are chosen to be saved and some are not chosen?” (HT: Kurt Willems)

More from Greg Boyd:

Sermon

• Twisted Scripture: Romans 9.

Blog posts

• "Predestination: What Does It Mean?", and "Predestination Part 2: Seeing Destiny Rightly";
• "How do you Respond to Romans 9?".

Related posts:

• Derwin Gray (Transformation Church) Teaching on Romans 9;
• On Corporate Election;
• NT Wright on Predestination, Election and Romans 9;
• Dr Thomas Schreiner reviews Dr Abasciano's book on Romans 9

NT Wright on Predestination, Election and Romans 9

In this video, NT Wright answers the question, “What do you think Paul means when he uses language like ‘election’, ‘chosen’, ‘predestination’?” (HT: @DerwinLGray)

Also see Michael F Bird, N.T. Wright on Election in PFG, where Dr Bird includes two excerpts from NT Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God.  My own understanding of Romans 9 is very close to the view Dr Wright presents.

Related posts:

• NT Wright, "How do you answer someone who says...that there is no point trying to bring justice to the world?";
• On Corporate Election;
• Dr Thomas Schreiner reviews Dr Abasciano's book on Romans 9;
• Questions to ask as you approach Romans 9 (with a little help from recording artist Flame).

On Corporate Election

The most convincing alternative to the Calvinist position of unconditional election, I believe, is corporate election. Though the perception is often to the contrary, Leighton Flowers (adjunct Professor of Theology at Dallas Baptist University) has noted that this is also the most popular view among biblical scholars of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the USA (Link).

For those unfamiliar with this perspective, the Society of Evangelical Arminians has posted A Concise Summary of the Corporate View of Election and Predestination which is excerpted from Zondervan’s NIV Life in the Spirit Study Bible.

At the bottom of the summary the SEA has included a number of articles for further reading. In particular, you may be interested in Brian J Abasciano, "Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner".  Most of us within New Calvinist circles have read Tom Schreiner's "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections" either online or in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Fore­knowledge, and Grace.  Brian Abasciano, who is an adjunct professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, provides an excellent response.  To convince you, here is his closing paragraph:

Schreiner’s critique of corporate election does not succeed at upholding the Calvinist view of individual election in Romans 9. The OT and Judaism’s view of election was corporate, Paul himself only spoke explicitly of election unto salvation in corporate terms, and Paul’s socio-historical context was solidly collectivist. Moreover, Paul, who deals with Scripture extensively in Romans 9–11 and attempts to show that his views are in accord with it, refers to a number of passages that evince a corporate view of election. Furthermore, the OT concept of corporate election embraces individual separation and entrance into the elect community without shifting the locus of election to the individual. The burden of proof must lie on those who would claim that Paul departed from this standard biblical and Jewish conception of election. If it be claimed that the shift of the locus of election from Abraham or Jacob/ Israel to Christ demands such a departure, I would point out that election in Christ is only the fulfillment of Israel’s election and that this election fits perfectly into the OT pattern. Again, if it be objected that this sets up an impossible standard because Paul nowhere directly argues for individual election in such a way that does not fit into a corporate perspective, I would respond that that is exactly the point. We would have to assume the corporate view unless there was some good reason to the contrary. Neither Paul nor the rest of the NT gives us any reason to make this leap. Quite the opposite, they, not least Romans 9, support the corporate view through corporate language, socio-historical context, and recourse to the OT. In response to Schreiner’s question, “Does Romans 9 teach individual election unto salvation?” we must answer, no, it does not. It contains a corporate view of election unto salvation that grants elect status to all who are in Christ.

More resources on Corporate Election:

  Online:

• Arminian Perspectives, Corporate Election Quotes.
• Arminian Perspectives, Corporate Election (Resources).

  Books:

• William Klein, The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election ; and
• Robert Shank, Elect in the Son.

   On Romans 9 in particular:

• Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis (available online);
• Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.10–18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis; and
• Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.19-33: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis.

Related posts:

• VIDEO: NT Wright on Predestination, Election and Romans 9;
• VIDEO: Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd Explain the Corporate View of Election;
• VIDEO: Dr William Lane Craig, "If We Are Dead In Sins, How Can We Respond to God?";

• Derwin Gray (Transformation Church) Teaching on Romans 9;
• Derwin Gray, "ROMANS 9 is a Part of a Larger Story";
• Dr Thomas Schreiner reviews Dr Abasciano's book on Romans 9