One of the differences between those associated with “Federal Vision” theology and those opposed to it is a difference of theological imagination. The opponents operate with a theological imagination that distinguishes and clarifies; ontology is distinguished from relationality, nature from supernature, ecclesiology from soteriology.
On the other side are theologians and pastors who operate with what might be called a perichoretic imagination. Relationality is embedded in ontology, and vice versa; supernature infuses nature, and supernature always comes through nature; scratch ecclesiology, and we find soteriology dwelling within, and soteriology envelops ecclesiology even while it is enveloped by ecclesiology.
Frame would call this perspectival. I like the sound of perichoretic better. But we’re talking about the same kind of imagination.
