Three ways to fit the story of salvation into history

Great stuff, thanks for clarifying the distinctions. Here's a thought: part of what might be difficult of thinking along your "consistent historical paradigm" is the fact that the history the biblical narrative itself tells only goes into the first-century, though it likely projects certain likely historical events into the next couple of centuries as you argue. But all of subsequent historical events of the church and societies in which the church exists are not only not a part of our controlling narrative, but also these events are myriad, spinning into difficult places, peoples, and cultures not told in our standard history books. I realize you're not arguing for a continuing authoritative narrative, but I wonder then what the practical difference would be between option 2 and 3, for folks represented by option 2, I would think, definitely affirm the Spirit's continued work in and through the historical events of the church subsequent to the first few centuries. Am I making any sense? What am I missing?

Some very odd things happen with the third paradigm though. The focus of the narrative becomes "identity and purpose in the calling of Abraham to be the father of a new creation", rather than Jesus as the fulfilment of that narrative, which is where the focus of the NT clearly lies on every page (not least in what it says about Abraham).

From this perspective, what is the purpose of history now? A continuation in each generation of the worldwide spread of the kingdom of God (Matthew 13:1-52 in its broader historical context), in which the activity of the kingdom challenges the values and activity of the 'old creation' in all its aspects, and provides transformed alternatives, albeit in part.

Here, 'kingdom' means the dynamic and continuing interaction between the kingdom's executive power, the Spirit, and the world in which God expresses his redeeming intentions and authority through his delegate, Jesus.

The decline of pagan Rome was one such transformation; the challenge to its successor was more complex, but just as necessary. The challenge to modernity, which spawned secular rationalism, the rebellious off-spring of the church, is also just as important, as is now the challenge to post-modernity.

The challenges are complex, in that each development of culture brings characteristics that can be affirmed as well as those that need to be confronted. The church will always, to some extent, reflect the culture, as well as needing to challenge culture. In that rather difficult balancing act, it will always, inevitably, to some extent adopt too much of the culture, or contrarily challenge culture unnecessarily and pointlessly.

This is the historical process, in which church and faith continue to respond to history, existing between the world of the transcendent and the world of the immanent. This is our calling and mandate - to continually bring the values and life of the kingdom to bear on a world which will continue to need it, in measure receiving or rejecting it. A-historical in this sense means existing between the two worlds, where one world is a-historical. We can no more dismiss the a-historical than be without a God who lives and is active in and between both heaven and earth.

I'm on board with the third illustration. I would just have a large spike at the cross (and include the empty tomb).

Shalom

I think the effort to understand the intent of the trajectory of Christianity through what happened in European Christianity in the last 2,000 years misses not only the trajectories of other churches (specifically, the Church of the East until their destruction by Islam) but tends to imply that 2,000 years represent a relatively important benchmark.  The Church of the East (per Broadbent) was geographically larger and probably had more converts than any combination of western churches in its era.  Most of the original Disciples are said to have died in the region represented by that church.  It was essentially destroyed (though there is a remnant) by Islam as it grew.  So, if you lived east of Damascus in 800AD, as that church was being slaughtered, do you think you'd have been speculating about how to re-image the church in that region?  And, would you be wondering what the point of Christianity was since your church was being extinguished?



I try to think of what is going on in Western Christianity from the notional point of view of 10,000AD (or maybe 100,000AD).  Looking back, we were a significant but temporary blossoming of the message of Christ.  I have no doubt that the kingdom itself will increase with no end (per Ezekiel 47 and other passages), but that doesn't mean a given geographical (or civilizational) church will increase if it becomes apostate.  What's important is that the remaining churches stay faithful to the basics as they add complexities.



I think that a better explanation would be one that splits the difference between the half-historical and the historical paradigm.  Under the half-historical paradigm you have Israel's history stopping.  Per Isaiah 60ff, Israel's history didn't stop.  Israel defined under the Mosaic Law was put to the sword, but the faithful remnant and the Gentiles were defined as a new people under the New Covenant.  In that sense, Israel continued, though as only faithful followers.  Starting from Deut.32 the Bible presents a clear before and after theme to the storyline, and "after" is the new people called by a new name who take advantage of the New Covenant.  You might call this a-historical in as much as there is no Biblical narrative describing the events that will take place.  But, I think this goes too far since there are all sorts of descriptions of the characteristics of these people.