If Christ Is Preparing a Place, What Are Transformationalists Doing?

Published on by D. G. Hart

It is an odd thought if you partake of the neo-Calvinist w-w, the thought being that Christ has ascended and is now preparing a place for his people (John 14:2-3). Neo-Calvinists are trying to take every square inch captive here while their Lord, the one who says, “mine!” is preparing a place there where all Christians will dwell. Doesn’t the idea of transforming this world conflict with the place that Christ is preparing for his children?

Does Calvin help?

By these words Christ intimates that the design of his departure is, to prepare a place for his disciples. In a word, Christ did not ascend to heaven in a private capacity, to dwell there alone, but rather that it might be the common inheritance of all the godly, and that in this way the Head might be united to his members.

But a question arises, What was the condition of the fathers after death, before Christ ascended to heaven? For the conclusion usually drawn is, that believing souls were shut up in an intermediate state or prison, because Christ says that, by his ascension into heaven, the place will be prepared. But the answer is easy. This place is said to be prepared for the day of the resurrection; for by nature mankind are banished from the kingdom of God, but the Son, who is the only heir of heaven, took possession of it in their name, that through him we may be permitted to enter; for in his person we already possess heaven by hope, as Paul informs us, (Ephesians 1:3.) Still we will not enjoy this great blessing, until he come from heaven the second time. The condition of the fathers after death, therefore, is not here distinguished from ours; because Christ has prepared both for them and for us a place, into which he will receive us all at the last day. Before reconciliation had been made, believing souls were, as it were, placed on a watch-tower, looking for the promised redemption, and now they enjoy a blessed rest, until the redemption be finished.

Wouldn’t the truth that Christ is going to receive us at the place he is preparing also encourage us not to be too deeply attached to this world, no matter how much the transformers transform it?

Postscript: And for those inclined to regard the relation between this world and the world to come as one of continuity (read postmillennialism), does the sort of preparation in which Christ is now engaged resemble at all the kind of carpentry he practiced here on planet earth?

28 thoughts on “If Christ Is Preparing a Place, What Are Transformationalists Doing?”

  1. Donald Macleod, Christ Crucified, IVP, 2014, p103—-“It is our human priesthood which is metaphorical, not Christ’s priesthood. To say this is simply to reflect on the priority of the invisible over the visible and of what is lasting over what does not last.”

    Like

  2. Psalm 17: 15 As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness; when I awake, I shall be satisfied with your likeness.

    Romans 8: 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

    II Corinthians 5: we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

    “Christ’s Kingdom needs not the spears of Roman legionaries to prop it, not even the clubs of Galilean peasants. Whenever Christianity shows an inclination to use constraint in its own defense or support, it thereby furnishes presumptive evidence that it has become a thing of this world.”
    Walter Rauschenbusch, The Righteousness of the Kingdom , p 92

    hey, if it’s ok to quote Barth….

    Like

  3. NT Wright would say we’ve just completely misunderstood what Christ’s return means. There’s not some place there that will come here or to which we’ll go eventually. There’s simply another dimension that will become visible to us at some point. So then the work transformationalists are doing will then meld with whatever Christ is doing, if He’s actually building us a place. Since, according to Wright, Jesus never talked about his second coming during his ministry. All verses that would seem to contradict that statement have again been misunderstood. Thank goodness we have the secret NTW decoder ring to know what all these passages really meant.

    “Of course, when he “appears” he will be “present.” But the point of stressing “appearing” here [in Colossians] is that, though in one sense it will seem to us that he is “coming,” he will in fact be “appearing” right where he presently is — not a long way away within our own space-time world, but in his own world, God’s world, the world we call heaven. This world is different from ours (earth) but intersects with it in countless ways, not the least in the inner lives of Christians themselves. One day the two worlds will be integrated completely and will be fully visible to one another, producing the transformation of which both Paul and John speak.” Surprised by Hope (you can find the page via google search)

    “Third, following directly from this, the task of the church between ascension and parousia is therefore set free from both the self-driven energy that imagines it has to build God’s kingdom all by itself and from the despair that supposes it can’t do anything until Jesus comes again. We do not “build the kingdom” all by ourselves, but we do build for the kingdom. All that we do in faith, hope, and love in the present, in obedience to our ascended Lord and in the power of the Spirit, will be enhanced and transformed at his appearance.” Surprised by Hope

    *** the theological drivel above by NTW does NOT represent the views of the author of this comment. Please use a sarcasm filter

    Like

  5. While I tend to agree with gist of this post and the critique it makes about certain forms of transformationalism, I don’t think we can disregard the notion entirely (at least without living up to the stereotype of ‘frozen chosen’.

    I also wonder if taking too staunch a position against “transformationalism” requires you to ignore the plain teaching of Ephesians 2:4-7: “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus”
    It seems to me that if our only purpose is to wait for Christ to come again to transform us and grant us the place that He is preparing for us, then what is the purpose for our continued existence in our present bodies? Do we not have good works to be walked in, in which He has prepared in advance for us? Are we not called as His ambassadors and representatives here on earth of Him as He is presently — the ascended, ruling, and reigning God-man.
    Certainly there is an aspect of transformationalism which cannot be denied if we are true to God, even if it is not what most neo-Calvinists understand.

    Like

  6. DL, older Protestantism had a category for that–vocation. When that category is swallowed up by a hyper form of evangelism, transformationalism can make some sense since there is still a provisional life to be led in the inter-advental age. But even then, what about a more modest take on just what believers are doing to created life? How about preserving instead of transforming?

    Like

  7. Pingback: If Christ Is Preparing a Place, What Are Transformationalists Doing?

  8. Zrim, I most certainly appreciate the traditional understanding of vocation and can see how it addresses to a certain extent the good works prepared for us in advance that we are called to walk in. However, I do not agree that our primary reason for being left on earth as simply preserving fallen creation/ fallen creatures. I tend to agree more with Paul in that until the Lord calls us home, we have a mission – to Glorify the Lord, to make Him known “panto to ethna” in both word and in deed.

    Christ does not return until the full measure of the elect are brought into the fold, and until then Christ has foreordained to use His body of believers as the instruments, vessels, ambassadors, and representatives thru which He accomplishes His goal. As His servants, we “toil and struggle with all his energy that he powerfully works within (us)” in our various callings, just as Paul does (col. 1) — so that the manifest richness of His glory will be made known to all creation/creatures. Our work is not in vain. It’s an already, but not yet deal. But it is what we’re called to be as His workmanship.

    I do think that the younger, new to the reformed faith folks have taken the call to transformation to unbiblical proportions, but I don’t see how we can throw the whole concept away without committing an equally grave error.

    Like

  9. I have never understand the need for triumphalists to divide the parents in a visible congregation into those who are “believing parents” and those parents without a profession or experience. Would not a true theology of the cross simply stipulate that every covenant has two sides, with ultimate salvation conditioned on the invisible inward “union” found in the hearts of parents?

    As long as all the parents have been outwardly identified with the water ordeal, why go beyond that to make a distinction between believing parents and those parents who are not? Since we cannot be certain, why would we want to make discipline another mark of the visible church, especially when we know that the real reality is inward and invisible?

    The visible covenant does not save everybody in the covenant. The invisible merit of Christ’s obedience is what saves some of those in the covenant. . It’s possible for children to be outwardly identified with parents who profess faith and and still be lost. It is possible for parents to be outwardly identified with a visible church and still be lost.

    So who really cares about stuff we can see? Does the sacramental stuff that we can see and touch really give us anything extra MORE than what is given by the inward “union” alone? Are there to be extra curses for those in the visible church?

    Who started the sarcasm on this thread?

    Like

  10. DL, maybe the purpose of this life is to wait for Christ’s return. Have the Tranformers read Calvin (instead of Kuyper)?

    Let this be our principle, that we err not in the use of the gifts of Providence when we refer them to the end for which their author made and destined them, since he created them for our good, and not for our destruction. No man will keep the true path better than he who shall have this end carefully in view. Now then, if we consider for what end he created food, we shall find that he consulted not only for our necessity, but also for our enjoyment and delight. Thus, in clothing, the end was, in addition to necessity, comeliness and honour; and in herbs, fruits, and trees, besides their various uses, gracefulness of appearance and sweetness of smell. Were it not so, the Prophet would not enumerate among the mercies of God “wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine,” (Ps. 104:15). The Scriptures would not everywhere mention, in commendation of his benignity, that he had given such things to men. The natural qualities of things themselves demonstrate to what end, and how far, they may be lawfully enjoyed. Has the Lord adorned flowers with all the beauty which spontaneously presents itself to the eye, and the sweet odour which delights the sense of smell, and shall it be unlawful for us to enjoy that beauty and this odour? What? Has he not so distinguished colours as to make some more agreeable than others? Has he not given qualities to gold and silver, ivory and marble, thereby rendering them precious above other metals or stones? In short, has he not given many things a value without having any necessary use?
    3. Have done, then, with that inhuman philosophy which, in allowing no use of the creatures but for necessity, not only maliciously deprives us of the lawful fruit of the divine beneficence, but cannot be realised without depriving man of all his senses, and reducing him
    2033
    to a block. But, on the other hand, let us with no less care guard against the lusts of the flesh, which, if not kept in order, break through all bounds, and are, as I have said, advocated by those who, under pretence of liberty, allow themselves every sort of license. First one restraint is imposed when we hold that the object of creating all things was to teach us to know their author, and feel grateful for his indulgence. Where is the gratitude if you so gorge or stupify yourself with feasting and wine as to be unfit for offices of piety, or the duties of your calling? Where the recognition of God, if the flesh, boiling forth in lust through excessive indulgences infects the mind with its impurity, so as to lose the discernment of honour and rectitude? Where thankfulness to God for clothing, if on account of sumptuous raiment we both admire ourselves and disdain others? if, from a love of show and splendour, we pave the way for immodesty? Where our recognition of God, if the glare of these things captivates our minds? For many are so devoted to luxury in all their senses that their mind lies buried: many are so delighted with marble, gold, and pictures, that they become marble-hearted—are changed as it were into metal, and made like painted figures. The kitchen, with its savoury smells, so engrosses them that they have no spiritual savour. The same thing may be seen in other matters. Wherefore, it is plain that there is here great necessity for curbing licentious abuse, and conforming to the rule of Paul, “make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof,” (Rom. 13:14). Where too much liberty is given to them, they break forth without measure or restraint.
    4. There is no surer or quicker way of accomplishing this than by despising the present life and aspiring to celestial immortality. For hence two rules arise: First, “it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;” “and they that use this world, as not abusing it,” (1 Cor. 7:29, 31). Secondly, we must learn to be no less placid and patient in enduring penury, than moderate in enjoying abundance. He who makes it his rule to use this world as if he used it not, not only cuts off all gluttony in regard to meat and drink, and all effeminacy, ambition, pride, excessive shows and austerity, in regard to his table, his house, and his clothes, but removes every care and affection which might withdraw or hinder him from aspiring to the heavenly life, and cultivating the interest of his soul.401 It was well said by Cato: Luxury causes great care, and produces great carelessness as to virtue; and it is an old proverb,—Those who are much occupied with the care of the body, usually give little care to the soul. Therefore while the liberty of the Christian in external matters is not to be tied down to a strict rule, it is, however, subject to this law—he must indulge as little as possible; on the other hand,
    it must be his constant aims not only to curb luxury, but to cut off all show of superfluous abundance, and carefully beware of converting a help into an hinderance.

    Like

  11. DL, but how does glorifying God in all we do translate into transforming the world? After all, Paul also told us to mind our own business, work with our hands, provide for our families, etc. That doesn’t sound like the sort of ethos that has in mind to “change the world.” But my point isn’t so much to toss the concept of transform as it is to suggest that to preserve is superior. In other words, there is a life to be lived on earth while we wait, but the virtues of limits and modesty inherent in the notion to preserve are better than those of improvement and progress.

    Like

  12. The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion in Puritanism to 1638, by Theodore Dwight Bozeman, p 20:

    “Penitential teaching expressly bolstered moral priorities. In contrast, again, to Luther, whose penitential teaching stressed the rueful sinner’s attainment of peace through acknowledgment of fault and trust in unconditional pardon, many puritans stressed moral transformation In unmistakable continuity with historic Catholic doctrine that tied ‘contrition, by definition, to the intention to amend,’ they required an actual change in the penitent. For them, a renewal of moral resolve was integral to the penitential experience, and included the manifest alteration of behavior.”

    Stoever, A Faire and Easy Way, explains that “John Cotton professed himself unable to believe it possible for a person to maintain that grace works a transformation in that person and that person then not trust also in that transformation. Even if a person did not trust in the merit of the work, he still probably would not dare to trust a promise unless he could SEE a work…”

    Like

  13. Darryl,

    “DL, maybe the purpose of this life is to wait for Christ’s return.”

    And is included as part of that loving one’s neighbor? And is much of what is driven by transformationalist thinking revolving around that very principle?

    You say above “And for those inclined to regard the relation between this world and the world to come as one of continuity (read postmillennialism), does the sort of preparation in which Christ is now engaged resemble at all the kind of carpentry he practiced here on planet earth?” – why not just die and get it over with? Too extreme? Then perhaps the broad-swathed generalized criticism of transformationalism is equally extreme.

    Like

  15. Darryl,

    “I’m not God”

    True dat yo. Anything else you’d like to offer? In your scheme (and nuking crusade of any inklings of transformationalism), it seems God created earth and society for no real reason/purpose; in transformationalist schemes it would make sense why we just don’t die and get it over with (the reasons varying amongst the different trans camps). In yours, it seems to be just a shrug and mystery.

    Like

  16. foxy lady, what’s your answer? We’re here to build the New Rome?

    You keep asking questions but don’t put much on the table.

    I am truly mystified why God would create a universe in which it took billions of years before homo sapiens arrives on the scene and the cosmic drama of redemption is a blip on the screen of universal history. Can you explain it? If not, then tip off yo.

    Like

  19. Mark,

    Whole of creation? History? Renewal in the church working outside of it? Didn’t you read Darryl’s postscript? This whole creation stuff we live in is irrelevant and ultimately a waste of time – we’re just waiting for the good stuff – who cares what goes on in the meantime?

    Like

  20. I report neo-Calvinism, I do not endorse it.

    -I Corinthians 15: 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then AT HIS COMING as many as who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the END when the Son delivers the kingdom to God the Father AFTER DESTROYING EVERY RULE AND AUTHORITY AND POWER. 25 For the Son must reign UNTIL he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last ENEMY to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” ….When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to HIM who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

    Like

  21. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Last June Weekend Edition | Patriactionary

  22. foxy lady, and how relevant is building all those basilicas with all those paintings and sculptures only to wind up in purgatory for a couple hundred years? If you followed your church’s teaching before Vat 2, you’d value the cloistered life and see the world as a waste of time.

    When did you become so relevant?

    Like

  23. Darryl,

    “foxy lady, and how relevant is building all those basilicas with all those paintings and sculptures”

    Oh, I dunno something about honoring and glorifying God (you know, part of what’s included in the whole “maybe the purpose of this life is to wait for Christ’s return.” business). I know, the anti-trans nuking scheme mandates we should just sit in a bathroom. It’s all just useless chaff to be burned up anyways.

    “If you followed your church’s teaching before Vat 2, you’d value the cloistered life and see the world and a waste of time.”

    Yep there was no popular/classic spiritual writing before vat2 extolling piety amongst the common laity and mundane – that brother lawrence and therese of lisieux and de sales and the like were outliers. Anyways, I don’t see why you’re against the cloistered life in principle – seems like it would fit like a glove into the anti-trans nuking mentality – this earth/society stuff is just so yesterday’s news.

    Like

  24. foxy old life lady, the question is why you are against the cloistered life. It’s part of your tradition and now you’ve gone all new Calvinist — “we can change the world.” And prior to the Counter Reformation’s rejoinder to Protestantism, the main advice coming to the laity from the ones building the basilicas and commissioning the paintings (and siring illegitimate children) was go to the cloistered life. Vocation? Heck, that’s for the religious.

    Like

  25. Darryl,

    I’m not against the cloistered or contemplative life – it is part of the RC tradition as you say – I’m also not against the more trans/active life. That whole Mary vs Martha thing. I don’t go around nuking either side – that’s the difference.

    “we can change the world.”

    Not everyone likes to fiddle while Rome burns. Eh, but who cares anyways right? Need to get to the good stuff; life, people/society, earth – ugh what a pointless nuisance.

    “And prior to the Counter Reformation’s”

    So first it was prior to Vat2. Now it’s prior to the CR. Look, it’s certainly true that clericalism was an issue even after CR leading up to Vat2 (see Msgr Talbot’s writing against Newman concerning the role of the laity) but that does not mean opposition to/moderation of such positions as well as lay spirituality movements were also not growing in parallel. Vat2 just helped to enshrine it.

    Like

  26. foxy lady, and that’s why I say Counter Reformation. Before Trent no Jesuits. After Trent — Jesuits, except for that period when they got canned.

    Even so, Rome’s older piety pre-Vat II was hardly a big smooch to the ordinary life. So your embrace of activism and transformationalism for the laity is late and (as usual) lame.

    Like

  27. Pingback: Comments Are Open
  28. Pingback: Flattening Will Get You Nowhere

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.