Understanding the doctrine of election has been such a big, big question of mine lately. Could someone please explain #5 “Election is instrumental, not an end in itself.

2. Talyor #1
I think Wright is saying that the mission of God is for Him be known throughout the world and to have a world filled with his eikons. We are not merely “saved” from some terrible fate. We are saved to someone and to mission.
We over individualize election and salvation, making it purely about our personal fate and the personal fate of others. While our personal fate is important God, it is not the ultimate mission of God. We are elected so that we may become instruments of God’s mission to be known throughout the world.

I think election has a lot to do with being chosen in Christ…. like Christ is the elect one and we through union with him become elect. (ephesians 1-2) That union is more than being saved and going to heaven but uniting with Christ and his purposes in the earth.
I agree with Wright that we are elect for a kingdom and missional purpose to be Christ’s arms and legs and feet and hands in the world as God intended all along from the beginning. It all culminates in Christ’s return and the fulfillment of his kingdom.
I also agree with the above writer who speaks about over indidividualizing election. A common mistake.

I read this chapter last summer and Wright’s analysis of God’s mission and the meaning of election really reoriented my view of the OT and helped and confirmed some the things that I had already been thinking on.
What he means by instrumental is that God “elects” or selects certain individuals or groups for the broader benefit of blessing the nations. Thus, election is not “me instead of you” but “he chose me to be a blessing to you all.”
This understanding of election is far more biblical than the systematic theology understanding. It also supplies a theological basis for the social justice and benevolence impulse that is (re)emerging in the present generation of evangelical Christians.
P.S. I do wonder how the Reformed crowd justify the previously stated impulses.

#5 Josh
“Thus, election is not ?me instead of you? but ?he chose me to be a blessing to you all.?”
Good point. One of the big things Wright emphasizes is that the election of Israel was not the rejection of other nations. Israel was elected for the mission of making God known to the world. Same for the Church.

Okay, so to follow up to Michael’s posts…if the point of election is to make God known to the world, and if people decide to follow God based on that, are they “elect” then as well, or is their status different than “elect”? I’m kinda confused. The elect make God known to who…the world….which are “not” the elect?

?Thus, election is not ?me instead of you? but ?he chose me to be a blessing to you all.?
Would Brad Cooper disagree? Where are the reformos today?

Assuming Wright is onto something good about election, that it is narrative-based rather than systematics-based, how can we ignore Romans 9:12? I don’t think Esau would agree that election is not individual-oriented.

John,
These points convince me that Wright doesn’t deny individual election:
5. Election is instrumental, not an end in itself (where too much of some theology ends).
6. Election is part of the logic of how God is at work in history.
7. Election is fundamentally missional, not just soteriological.
It is this last word “just” that shows that to me.

John,
Protest commentary on Romans (especially ch. 9) has been dominated by the Calvinistic systematic type who presume their view of election upon the text. However, if one carefully reads Romans 9 a different foci is definitely apparent. Paul is responding to the question (a very important one) as to why so many Jews (God’s select people to fulfill Abraham’s promise to be a blessing to the nations), esp. those in the land of Israel, have rejected their Messiah, the very one who could bring concrete fulfillment to the promise made to Abraham.
So, what about them? They are being set aside for God’s purposes in history because of their unbelief. But isn’t the promise made to Abraham’s children. Paul’s response: Not all physical descendants are Abraham’s descendants, only those who follow in the example of Abraham (a common NT arguement).
There are a numbers of complex issues in ch.9 that revolve around the Greek text (i.e. “prepared for destruction” is a partaciple in the middle voice and should actually be trans. as preparing themselves), rhetoric, and sociological issues. However, it is clear that an overly deterministic view does not fit in with Paul’s clear assertion that unbelieving Jews are accountable for their unbelief. They are “on the sidelines” of God’s redemptive work in history. How this issue is related to soteriological concerns is more complex. What is clear is that Paul was willing to give anything up to see his physical brethren come to know the joy of our Savior.

Scot #9 and Josh #10,
I am not arguing for an individualistic view of election. I am wondering how Romans 9:12 (in context) fits with Wright’s views. I deeply appreciate your responses.
John