Hyper-Eschatologized Ecclesiology and its symptom or
fruit...Ecclesiastical Apathy-
These are high sounding terms for a concept that's
really not too difficult. This phenomenon occurs in several different
traditions and factions and yet it certainly is not enshrined in any
confession.
Basically, there are those who look at Ecclesiology
(the doctrine of the Church) only through the lens of eschatology. They only
see the Church as it is in the Eternal State...the ultimate finished Church
after the Second Coming. Since that is all that really matters...the temporal
manifestation of the Church (right now) can't really be said to be terribly
important. Sure it's good to be with other Christians, have fellowship etc...,
but you can't say that it's necessary, that it has any bearing on our status.
The hyper-Calvinist says...if I'm Elect, then I can't
really 'benefit' from preaching or the Supper or Baptism. These are good
things, but that don't 'change' anything, they can't REALLY matter. This is
Rationalism applied to theology. It's not about the text anymore...it's about
the logical outworking (system speculation) of the foundational premise. In
this case, Election. If Election is true, then preaching can't make a
difference, baptism cannot be effective or said to mean anything. Logically
that would contradict the reality of Election.
It's logically coherent, but un-Biblical. They would
say if it is logically coherent, then it is Biblical. Revelation is subjugated
to their fallen, temporally bound, human reason. I find it to be outrageous.
We're back to basic questions about theology, it's method, and the role of
logic in our pursuit of knowing and understanding Divine Revelation.
Likewise you can find the same tendency among certain
Arminians (another Rationalist commitment)...if I'm saved by faith, then Church
can't really matter. If it's about my decision then these outward forms and
symbols cannot possibly contain any substantive meaning.
So whether it's hyper-Calvinism, or a hyper-ized
version of Sola Fide, the result is the same. These folks often will
essentially shrug their shoulders at the thought of Church (congregating) being
mandatory...or at least assumed by the entire context of the New Testament.
Now, I will run into people who are not assembling with
a Church. The question is why? If there are no viable groups in their area that
meet the Biblical criteria of a Church. That is, they don't preach the Gospel,
or they teach heresy or syncretism....then that's one thing. That simply is a
sign of the times in which we live and at that point a different discussion can
be had....what to do about it. These people are staying home on Sunday morning
because of concern for Biblical faithfulness. Maybe they're right or wrong,
maybe they're too narrow, or not. But it's a separate issue.
But if people are staying home because...it's really
not that big of a deal, it's not that important, then this is symptomatic of
either a lack of familiarity with the Bible (perhaps they're babes in Christ)
or, they have a hyper-eschatologized understanding of the Church. They've
allowed their logic to trump the plain imperatives as well as the teachings of
the text of the New Testament. The Epistles assume we're part of a
congregation. Indeed if we're believers we are part of the True Church which
will become manifest at the End of all things and exists now but only in
manifestation visible from the Eternal Throne.
The Covenant is administered in space and time. In the
Old Covenant the sacrifices didn't 'actually' save. We know that, but did that
give an Israelite the right to ignore the command? What if they said...'oh, I
don't need to sacrifice or keep Passover because I'm saved by faith.'
On one level, yes, it's true we're saved by faith and
nothing on earth changes that. But does the Israelite of the Old Covenant or the
New Covenant Israelite (Ephesians 2.12) have the right to set aside what God
commands because they have grasped but one of many Revealed Truths?
So what if the Old Covenant Jew skipped the sacrifice?
Does that mean he's lost? That's not how I would frame it. I would simply
say....he's in sin.
Because God administers salvation in space and time
through the Covenant which has forms and symbols. The New Testament is
abundantly more simple. The 'yoke' has been removed. We now have the
substance...we who inhabit both the present and eschatological realms at the
same time. In Christ we're in eternity and yet we're also here. Since we're
also here in space and time...some kind of form-administration is necessitated.
It's very simple in the New era. We have various congregations who have some
very simple forms and symbols.
Like the person in the Old Covenant, sometimes
circumstances prevented them from complying with covenant obligations. That's
different than disregarding them. The same is true today. Some people live in
places or have circumstances in their lives (like being an invalid) that
prevent them from assembling, but that's different than saying...it doesn't
matter. The latter is a theological outworking rooted in a flawed understanding
of ecclesiology and eschatology.