Re-Imaging Election: Divine Election as Representing God to Others and Others to God

McDonald seeks to dialogue with both Owen and Barth's thoughts on election, taking their doctrines on this issue past some of the difficulties she perceives their thoughts have created.The doctrine of individual double predestination (IDP), adhered to within Reformed orthodox theology, in general, and John Owen, in particular, is intertwined with the understanding of the Spirit, imagio dei, and election. Here, election is unto salvation and history is about the Perichoretic Trinity1 bringing the eternally elect to salvation; the Spirit's primary role in election is to separate the predetermined elect from the predetermined reprobate;2 neither Christ nor the Church represent the non-elect to God, as they have no mediator. Though IDP is thoroughly Trinitarian, understandable, and cohesive, it is, for me, nonetheless, deplorable, unthinkable, and far wide of God's heart! Within this camp, the mystery is, "Why God has determined to save some but not others." (193)Karl Barth's3 "incisive deviation" allows him to lead away from IDP (35, 72). He, instead allows for a moment-by-moment divine deciding either for or against an individual, which he calls the "living eternity" and "eternal act of predestining" (36). Christ, "the only Rejected One", takes upon himself our rejection, and we are ontologically all elect "in Christ". That is, those who live "without the Spirit" are ontologically but not functionally "in Christ" (contra Owen and McDonald, cf. 62, 190). Our `full' election, however, happens functionally by the work of the Holy Spirit. Here, God has an open arm extension to whomsoever. If there is "ultimate rejection, this will be as a result of the perverse obstinacy of human choice against God in the the face of God's choice for us." (73) Here the mystery is, "If election signifies the bearing of rejection for the sake of God's intention to bless, how then is it possible for any to fall outside God's purpose of blessing?" (193)Suzanne McDonald's Re-Imaging Election seeks a way forward from both an `embarrassing' IDP and, also in her mind, a non-perichoretic Barth, who among other things downplays the role of the Holy Spirit. She posits, "How can one be "in Christ" minus the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9; cf. 59-84, passim)? In addition, she wants us to see election as also representing others to God.Her work is more a compilation and amplification of worthwhile thoughts from the likes of Barth, Brueggemann, Grenz, Seitz, Volf, Wright, Fee, Dunn, et al. The later three dealing primarily with Pauline thoughts on the topic. The benefit, however, is that these thoughts on election are all combined into one book. Though her propensity to dialogue with modern scholarship helps immerse one in the current thought of the day on this topic, doing so at the expense of working primarily from Scripture apparently was not the aim of her dissertation. Case in point, within her book there is only a `name and subject' index not an index to scripture references, which are paltry. She has inspired me to read both Wright and Barth's thoughts on election found respectively in Paul: Fresh Perspectives and Church Dogmatics II and III.Chapter five's thoughts on "ecclesial `perichoretic' personhood", as representing the imagio dei, are very necessary for McDonald to establish her election to representation thoughts and to link the imagio dei from the Trinity to ecclesia. Here, the Church as a body of Christ functions much like the Trinity in a unity and oneness that represents God to the world and vis-a-versa. Though she rightfully (?) crosses swords with Barth's ontological "in Christ" perspective (193), I am uncomfortable with her desire to take Barth's thoughts of the elect community existing to be a channel of God's reconciling activity for the world (188b) to also include an understanding that this same community, in like fashion, represents others to God. Here, representation, for McDonald (186f), is fundamentally part of election rather than merely an outcome of it (Barth), and representation is the "same pattern [though ontologically not the same kind] that is revealed in Christ" (189): equally representing God to others and others to God. This, in my opinion, is the major emphasis of the book and is contra Barth, who sees Christ's priestly role "finished", "once for all" but his prophetic role (representing God to others) as continuing. What is prayer for Barth? "Our modest participation in the work of Jesus Christ." (CD III/4 p 104)Thankfully, McDonald leans away from Owen's IDP and towards Barth's thoughts on election (193; albeit with the differences noted above); she also leaves a "`field of tension' that the doctrine of election is required to inhabit". (192)

I read this work a while back and have purchased a copy for a friend who is studying for a doctorate in Biblical Exegesis at a local catholic university because she and I have had a number of talks about what she is learning about historical Christianity and I really want to see what she thinks of this work, I am slightly more familiar with John Owen and have read some of his works on this subject and others but have been very much intrigued by some of the arguments in this book the "Worthy of a read" review details the two arguments in this book better than I could, and this book has kind of been a spring board for me as I very much want to read a few items by Karl Barth as he is a new study for me coming from a Theological perspective growing up that any one outside the camp of thought of what "we belive" the Bible teaches should be avoided. My friend is of many different theological positions than me and I am excited to hear her perspective.Without knowing the historical accuracy of McDonald's rendition I have very much benefited from seeing Owen Contrasted with someone from a totally different stream of theological thought like Barth and will use this book to expand my reading on the subject. I purchased the book the first time hoping for more of a primer on 2 positions on election and discovered I was slightly over classed in thought in this book, but I feel the author has done a clear job or portraying and engaging the argument she set out to do.