Simply Jesus
Tom Wright
SPCK, London 2011
I can't help but thinking that N. T. Wright is getting distracted from finishing the long-awaited massive volume on Paul in his Christian Origins and the Question of God series as writes more and more popular level books. So far we've had Simply Christian, Surprised by Hope, Virtue Reborn and several volumes to complete the New Testament for Everyone series. Now in that same vein comes Simply Jesus.
The book aims to answer three simple, yet central and profound questions for the Christian faith: who was Jesus, what did he do, and why does it matter?
There is little new here for those who have read some of Wright's previous work, but it was still gripping reading to see the arguments laid out in such a straightforward manner in this book.
For Wright, Jesus is very much the Jewish Messiah who "embodied Israel's God" (I think that's a direct quote - if not, Wright certainly says something very similar). He came to do for Israel what Israel could not do for itself - namely be God's light for the Gentiles and the rightful Lord and King of the whole world. Through this, he is able to bring salvation to everyone who has faith in him.
As we might expect, Wright takes the historical background to Jesus' life and ministry very seriously. He talks about a "perfect storm" in the form of a combination of Jewish expectations of deliverance by the Messiah, the power of imperial Rome, and God's strange and powerful purposes for history all coming together at the time of Jesus' life and shaping Christ's life, death and resurrection.
One thing I noted in this book is how firmly Wright seems to have moved towards the Christus Victor view of the atonement as the primary view, although not denying that penal substitution is also a motif in the New Testament, though a secondary one. I would perhaps take issue with this. I do not think Christ could be victorious without penal substitution.
Though most of the book explores who Jesus is and what he came to do, I actually found the short third section on what it means for us to say that Jesus is the king of the world in practical terms to be the most challenging and interesting part. Perhaps this is because I was already familiar with most of what Wright says in the earlier sections from his other books. But this third section where Wright begins to apply his views to normal life was new to me and fascinating. I was certainly excited by Wright's invitation to join in and play our part in God's work of building his kingdom.
In the end, it still seems to me that Wright says the very same things that thoughtful evangelical Christians have always said, but it's as if the thoughts are translated into a different language, using different words at times. This explains how he can both be lambasted by conservatives as a closet liberal and by liberals as a closet fundamentalist! Truth is he is neither, but in good Anglican tradition, he occupies middle ground, yet middle ground much more familiar to evangelicals than liberals I would say as he always seeks to honour what the Bible teaches over all traditions. This is very evident in the extended metaphor of the perfect storm he uses in the first part of the book, where he seeks to show that neither the liberal Jesus of social action, nor the conservative Jesus of deity and salvation in heaven do justice to the New Testament's full-orbed doctrine of Christ and his work.
Showing posts with label Tom Wright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Wright. Show all posts
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Anti-Abortion and Pro Death Penalty
According to an online article by N. T. Wright: "You can't reconcile being pro-life on abortion and pro-death on the death penalty."
This is in many ways a typically pithy Tom Wright remark. Unfortunately, it is absurd. Maybe Wright cannot reconcile it in his mind, but I can't see anything inherently illogical about affirming both. What he seems to leave out of the equation is justice. He puts an absolute value on life so that it is wrong to take life no matter what the circumstances. Presumably Wright is a pacifist who would also oppose all military action or war no matter what the reason for it? Otherwise I would say: "Wright can't reconcile being pro-life on abortion and the death penalty and pro-death on just war."
The Bible takes a different view and I would argue a more realistic view. The biblical teaching, it seems to me, can fully reconcile opposing abortion (with exceptions such as where the mother's life is physically in danger or where the pregnancy has been caused by rape) and supporting the death penalty for murder. The first opposes the deliberate taking of a baby's life that does not deserve to die; the latter supports the judicial taking of life in just punishment for having taken another person's life.
Now, that's not to say I would support re-introduction of the death penalty in the UK at this time. In our current system I wouldn't. We would need far greater safeguards than we have before I think the death penalty could be sanctioned (such as the death penalty for perjury where the false evidence results in someone being executed and the need for two witnesses before the death penalty would be justified).
I know many Christians and others take different views on these matters. That's okay. But it does no good to overreach ourselves in argument as Wright does from time to time. It's quite possible to argue against abortion and against the death penalty - that's fine. But it's not illogical to argue differently in the two different cases. On this one, Wright is simply wrong.
This is in many ways a typically pithy Tom Wright remark. Unfortunately, it is absurd. Maybe Wright cannot reconcile it in his mind, but I can't see anything inherently illogical about affirming both. What he seems to leave out of the equation is justice. He puts an absolute value on life so that it is wrong to take life no matter what the circumstances. Presumably Wright is a pacifist who would also oppose all military action or war no matter what the reason for it? Otherwise I would say: "Wright can't reconcile being pro-life on abortion and the death penalty and pro-death on just war."
The Bible takes a different view and I would argue a more realistic view. The biblical teaching, it seems to me, can fully reconcile opposing abortion (with exceptions such as where the mother's life is physically in danger or where the pregnancy has been caused by rape) and supporting the death penalty for murder. The first opposes the deliberate taking of a baby's life that does not deserve to die; the latter supports the judicial taking of life in just punishment for having taken another person's life.
Now, that's not to say I would support re-introduction of the death penalty in the UK at this time. In our current system I wouldn't. We would need far greater safeguards than we have before I think the death penalty could be sanctioned (such as the death penalty for perjury where the false evidence results in someone being executed and the need for two witnesses before the death penalty would be justified).
I know many Christians and others take different views on these matters. That's okay. But it does no good to overreach ourselves in argument as Wright does from time to time. It's quite possible to argue against abortion and against the death penalty - that's fine. But it's not illogical to argue differently in the two different cases. On this one, Wright is simply wrong.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Paul: Fresh Perspectives
Paul: Fresh Perspectives
N. T. Wright
SPCK 2005
Paul: Fresh Perspectives (hereafter "PFP") builds on and updates Wright's earlier work in What St Paul Really Said and the more technical The Climax of the Covenant by focusing on various aspects of the New Perspective on Paul (or "Fresh" Perspective as Wright prefers). However, PFP is very much an "interim report" as we still wait for volume four in his massive series Christian Origins and the Question of God which will deal with a lot of the same material in much greater detail and has the proposed title Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Each of the main chapters in PFP, which are around 20-30 pages, will, so I've heard, be expanded to up to 200 pages in Wrght's much anticipated yet delayed big book on Paul.
This earlier book from 2005 was based on a several series of lectures Wright gave and particularly on the Hulsean Lectures at Cambridge University.
Wright's is a grand theological vision in many ways which takes in God creating the world and then recreating or renewing the world through Christ and his people who are in him (en Christo = in Christ = "in the Messiah"). Wright deals with this in his chapters on "Creation and Covenant" and "Messiah and Apocalyptic". He then also argues that the Christian gospel is about much more than "fitting us for heaven, to live with thee there" as the children's carol puts it. It is about bringing the new creation to bear on this world as it is. For Wright, as I think for Jesus and Paul, the Gospel has a hard political edge to it. Wright deals with some of this in the chapter "Gospel and Empire".
In the second part of the book, Wright then turns to an analysis of how Paul built on Old Testament ideas to forge Christian theology and a Christian worldview. These three chapters are entitled "Reworking God" which is about how Paul incorporates a high Christology into the Jewish monotheism he grew up with , "Reworking God's People," about how God's covenant people Israel are redefined and rebuilt around Jesus the Messiah as the one faithful Israelite, and "Reimagining God's Future" concerning eschatology and Paul's doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The final chapter "Jesus, Paul and the Task of the Church" explores Paul's mission as an apostle to the Gentiles and tries to draw all the threads Wright has spun together in a conclusion.
This overview clearly demonstrates that Wright's project is much bigger than redefining "justification" though it is about that. Wright believes that justification is primarily about ecclesiology and only secondarily about soteriology (whereas traditional evangelical theology has seen justification as the other way round and perhaps hardly about ecclesiology at all).
This is such an interesting area of theological debate just now. It seems to me that there is no question that the implications of the doctrine of justification by faith alone are writ large in the New Testament. Almost every time justification is mentioned in the New Testament, it is mentioned in the context of Jew and Gentile Christians coming together to form one body, one church. On this I think Wright is largely correct. And it is an implication that much of the church has forgotten for too long.
In a similar way, Wright teaches that justification is first about covenant membership and then - because the covenant's purpose is to bring salvation to people - about individual salvation and the forgiveness of sins. Traditionally, it has been the other way round, that justification is first about salvation - right standing before a holy God - and then about covenant membership as an implication of having a new status of righteousness.
I wonder sometimes if it matters much which way round we view things as long as we teach that both exist and both are important and both have implications for how we "do church". My heart is still with the Old Perspective, but a renewed Old Perspective that takes a lot of New Perspective concerns on board.
That's to get away from this being a book review though. This book is worth reading, and stimulating in many ways. However it may fall between two stools between Wright's earlier work and the big book to come and so may have a limited readership for those reasons.
N. T. Wright
SPCK 2005
Paul: Fresh Perspectives (hereafter "PFP") builds on and updates Wright's earlier work in What St Paul Really Said and the more technical The Climax of the Covenant by focusing on various aspects of the New Perspective on Paul (or "Fresh" Perspective as Wright prefers). However, PFP is very much an "interim report" as we still wait for volume four in his massive series Christian Origins and the Question of God which will deal with a lot of the same material in much greater detail and has the proposed title Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Each of the main chapters in PFP, which are around 20-30 pages, will, so I've heard, be expanded to up to 200 pages in Wrght's much anticipated yet delayed big book on Paul.
This earlier book from 2005 was based on a several series of lectures Wright gave and particularly on the Hulsean Lectures at Cambridge University.
Wright's is a grand theological vision in many ways which takes in God creating the world and then recreating or renewing the world through Christ and his people who are in him (en Christo = in Christ = "in the Messiah"). Wright deals with this in his chapters on "Creation and Covenant" and "Messiah and Apocalyptic". He then also argues that the Christian gospel is about much more than "fitting us for heaven, to live with thee there" as the children's carol puts it. It is about bringing the new creation to bear on this world as it is. For Wright, as I think for Jesus and Paul, the Gospel has a hard political edge to it. Wright deals with some of this in the chapter "Gospel and Empire".
In the second part of the book, Wright then turns to an analysis of how Paul built on Old Testament ideas to forge Christian theology and a Christian worldview. These three chapters are entitled "Reworking God" which is about how Paul incorporates a high Christology into the Jewish monotheism he grew up with , "Reworking God's People," about how God's covenant people Israel are redefined and rebuilt around Jesus the Messiah as the one faithful Israelite, and "Reimagining God's Future" concerning eschatology and Paul's doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The final chapter "Jesus, Paul and the Task of the Church" explores Paul's mission as an apostle to the Gentiles and tries to draw all the threads Wright has spun together in a conclusion.
This overview clearly demonstrates that Wright's project is much bigger than redefining "justification" though it is about that. Wright believes that justification is primarily about ecclesiology and only secondarily about soteriology (whereas traditional evangelical theology has seen justification as the other way round and perhaps hardly about ecclesiology at all).
This is such an interesting area of theological debate just now. It seems to me that there is no question that the implications of the doctrine of justification by faith alone are writ large in the New Testament. Almost every time justification is mentioned in the New Testament, it is mentioned in the context of Jew and Gentile Christians coming together to form one body, one church. On this I think Wright is largely correct. And it is an implication that much of the church has forgotten for too long.
In a similar way, Wright teaches that justification is first about covenant membership and then - because the covenant's purpose is to bring salvation to people - about individual salvation and the forgiveness of sins. Traditionally, it has been the other way round, that justification is first about salvation - right standing before a holy God - and then about covenant membership as an implication of having a new status of righteousness.
I wonder sometimes if it matters much which way round we view things as long as we teach that both exist and both are important and both have implications for how we "do church". My heart is still with the Old Perspective, but a renewed Old Perspective that takes a lot of New Perspective concerns on board.
That's to get away from this being a book review though. This book is worth reading, and stimulating in many ways. However it may fall between two stools between Wright's earlier work and the big book to come and so may have a limited readership for those reasons.
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Tom Wright for Everyone
Tom Wright for Everyone
Stephen Kuhrt
SPCK 2011
This is a short but readable book on the theology of N. T. Wright and how it might influence the local church for the better, written by a Church of England vicar, Stephen Kuhrt. The chapters run as follows:
Chapter one outlines Tom Wright's career both as a New Testament scholar and as a churchman (Wright is an ordained Anglican minister and was until recently the Bishop of Durham).
Chapter two discusses a number of issues and problems facing the 21st century church that Kuhrt obviously sees Wright's theology as a possible way of addressing.
Chapter three is an excellent and accurate summary of Wright's theological distinctives. For anyone who is unfamiliar with Wright's work, this chapter should be required reading.
In chapters four, five and six, Kuhrt explores how Wright's theological approach might reinvigorate and renew the church's work in the fields of pastoral issues, mission and the church's life of fellowship and worship. The final chapter is a challenge to the church to engage with Wright and accept at least some of what he is teaching.
My own view of Tom Wright has always been, and remains, mixed. Much of his focus is different from what I would call mainstream evangelicalism which can tend towards pietism and individualism. Wright's insistence on the gospel's social, political and corporate demands would be a shot in the arm for many such churches. On the other hand, there are times where I feel strongly that although Wright is usually correct in his affirmations - for example that Paul's doctrine of justification by faith must have an impact on how we handle church membership and Christian unity and equality, he is sometimes wrong in his denials - that justification is not about a sinner's righteous standing before a holy God.
If we read Wright with this twofold approach - being slow to reject his affirmations and even slower to accept his denials - there is much in Wright's theology I agree with Kuhrt that we need to engage with and accept for the benefit of our churches.
For the record, I welcome Wright's emphasis on the covenant and the Jewish roots of Christianity, his insistence that the gospel has important social and political implications alongside teaching about personal salvation, his recognition that the resurrection is as important a doctrine in its own right as Christ's atoning death, his analysis that the Christus Victor theme is more important to the biblical authors than evangelicals have traditionally recognised, that eschatology is central to the apostles' message, and that the Christian hope is not "to die and go to heaven" but to have everlasting life in a new renewed creation on earth, and that the Gospel's message of the Kingdom and the Epistles' message of salvation are closely linked, and that justification was used by Paul as a doctrine to explain the breaking down of barriers between Jew and Gentile.
Kuhrt's book is a useful tool in this ongoing dialogue. I feel that Kuhrt is overly gushing in his praise of Wright and his acceptance of virtually every substantial point, hook, line and sinker. The few things where Kuhrt registers disagreement with his hero are few and very minor. My disagreements with Wright are much larger, but since there are also many points that Wright emphasises that I haven't found from any other source, and so I continue to think that Wright is well worth reading and learning from. I only wish he was better informed about Reformed theology. If he was, I think he would realise that the differences between him and us is neither as great as he thinks, nor as great as we tend to think.
Stephen Kuhrt
SPCK 2011
This is a short but readable book on the theology of N. T. Wright and how it might influence the local church for the better, written by a Church of England vicar, Stephen Kuhrt. The chapters run as follows:
Chapter one outlines Tom Wright's career both as a New Testament scholar and as a churchman (Wright is an ordained Anglican minister and was until recently the Bishop of Durham).
Chapter two discusses a number of issues and problems facing the 21st century church that Kuhrt obviously sees Wright's theology as a possible way of addressing.
Chapter three is an excellent and accurate summary of Wright's theological distinctives. For anyone who is unfamiliar with Wright's work, this chapter should be required reading.
In chapters four, five and six, Kuhrt explores how Wright's theological approach might reinvigorate and renew the church's work in the fields of pastoral issues, mission and the church's life of fellowship and worship. The final chapter is a challenge to the church to engage with Wright and accept at least some of what he is teaching.
My own view of Tom Wright has always been, and remains, mixed. Much of his focus is different from what I would call mainstream evangelicalism which can tend towards pietism and individualism. Wright's insistence on the gospel's social, political and corporate demands would be a shot in the arm for many such churches. On the other hand, there are times where I feel strongly that although Wright is usually correct in his affirmations - for example that Paul's doctrine of justification by faith must have an impact on how we handle church membership and Christian unity and equality, he is sometimes wrong in his denials - that justification is not about a sinner's righteous standing before a holy God.
If we read Wright with this twofold approach - being slow to reject his affirmations and even slower to accept his denials - there is much in Wright's theology I agree with Kuhrt that we need to engage with and accept for the benefit of our churches.
For the record, I welcome Wright's emphasis on the covenant and the Jewish roots of Christianity, his insistence that the gospel has important social and political implications alongside teaching about personal salvation, his recognition that the resurrection is as important a doctrine in its own right as Christ's atoning death, his analysis that the Christus Victor theme is more important to the biblical authors than evangelicals have traditionally recognised, that eschatology is central to the apostles' message, and that the Christian hope is not "to die and go to heaven" but to have everlasting life in a new renewed creation on earth, and that the Gospel's message of the Kingdom and the Epistles' message of salvation are closely linked, and that justification was used by Paul as a doctrine to explain the breaking down of barriers between Jew and Gentile.
Kuhrt's book is a useful tool in this ongoing dialogue. I feel that Kuhrt is overly gushing in his praise of Wright and his acceptance of virtually every substantial point, hook, line and sinker. The few things where Kuhrt registers disagreement with his hero are few and very minor. My disagreements with Wright are much larger, but since there are also many points that Wright emphasises that I haven't found from any other source, and so I continue to think that Wright is well worth reading and learning from. I only wish he was better informed about Reformed theology. If he was, I think he would realise that the differences between him and us is neither as great as he thinks, nor as great as we tend to think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)