Saturday, 25 December 2010
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas everyone. May you have a blessed and joyful day as we celebrate the Saviour's birth once again.
Friday, 24 December 2010
Christmas Eve
Having been out for some last minute Christmas shopping last night at Braehead Shopping Centre it struck me how sad it is if the only thing we take away from Christmas is a pile of presents received and an overdraft for the presents given.
Great though the festivities are, they are worthless compared to knowing Jesus Christ.
Christmas Eve is a strange day. The last day of advent. The final day of anticipation. And yet it is strange. Strange to be anticipating the birth of a child that already happened two thousand years ago. Yet in a sense isn't that what we do each year? Really we're only anticipating the day of celebration of it, but as we do that in some way we do go back to Bethlehem and imagine the events we read about every year in the Gospels.
And aren't we filled with that sense of awe and wonder and thankfulness that "He came down to earth from heaven / who is God and Lord of all." What greater love could God show for us? "Sacred infant, all divine / what a tender love was thine / thus to come from highest bliss / down to such a world as this."
Tonight, in the freezing cold and the darkness, all over the country, all over the world, his followers will gather once again to mark the start of his birthday celebrations. If you can manage, why not go along yourself to a church near you and join in later today?
Great though the festivities are, they are worthless compared to knowing Jesus Christ.
Christmas Eve is a strange day. The last day of advent. The final day of anticipation. And yet it is strange. Strange to be anticipating the birth of a child that already happened two thousand years ago. Yet in a sense isn't that what we do each year? Really we're only anticipating the day of celebration of it, but as we do that in some way we do go back to Bethlehem and imagine the events we read about every year in the Gospels.
And aren't we filled with that sense of awe and wonder and thankfulness that "He came down to earth from heaven / who is God and Lord of all." What greater love could God show for us? "Sacred infant, all divine / what a tender love was thine / thus to come from highest bliss / down to such a world as this."
Tonight, in the freezing cold and the darkness, all over the country, all over the world, his followers will gather once again to mark the start of his birthday celebrations. If you can manage, why not go along yourself to a church near you and join in later today?
Thursday, 23 December 2010
Lectio Divina
An interesting piece about the Lectio Divina method of reading Scripture (though this is from a Roman Catholic perspective): http://ow.ly/3tEmx
Monday, 13 December 2010
Saturday, 11 December 2010
The Story of the Church
The Story of the Church
A. M. Renwick
IVP
I recently read this very old edition of this book, which is a whistle-stop tour of Church history from apostolic times through to the 1950s. I understand that a later edition with a co-author is now in print that takes in later years of church history, but this was an old secondhand copy I picked up dating from the 1960s.
I have to admit I haven't read a lot of church history, except for the Reformation period, and I found it very interesting to learn more about the period from the first century through to the middle ages. There was much that I really didn't know about this period. For example, I hadn't realised that for centuries the Celtic Church regarded itself as quite separate from the Roman Catholic Church and not under papal authority.
As a summary of nearly two thousand years of church history in under 200 pages, this book was really excellent.
The author, A. M. Renwick, was a professor of church history at Free Church College in Edinburgh.
A. M. Renwick
IVP
I recently read this very old edition of this book, which is a whistle-stop tour of Church history from apostolic times through to the 1950s. I understand that a later edition with a co-author is now in print that takes in later years of church history, but this was an old secondhand copy I picked up dating from the 1960s.
I have to admit I haven't read a lot of church history, except for the Reformation period, and I found it very interesting to learn more about the period from the first century through to the middle ages. There was much that I really didn't know about this period. For example, I hadn't realised that for centuries the Celtic Church regarded itself as quite separate from the Roman Catholic Church and not under papal authority.
As a summary of nearly two thousand years of church history in under 200 pages, this book was really excellent.
The author, A. M. Renwick, was a professor of church history at Free Church College in Edinburgh.
Monday, 6 December 2010
Paul for Everyone: Romans
Paul for Everyone: Romans (2 Vols)
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006
Tom Wright's For Everyone series fills a necessary gap that is very difficult to fill. The books are neither simply devotional reading nor are they commentaries (technical or otherwise). Instead they attempt to be readable by any Christian and get to the heart of the message of the book or letter it deals with. They are the kind of books that are easy to read as they have Wright's own New Testament translation printed at the beginning of each chapter.
Paul's Letter to the Romans is one of the most important sections of the New Testament, for there Paul gives the richest and fullest treatment of his gospel. Tom Wright is an acknowledged expert on Paul and Romans in particular. As well as this popular-level work he has written a major commentary on Romans in the New Interpreter's Bible series.
That's all positives about the book. The negative for many will be the fact that Wright is a proponent of the still-controversial New Perspective on Paul, and NPP and some of Wright's other more idiosyncratic views dominate his interpretation of Romans. This is not to say his insights have no validity, but rather than the reader needs to be aware of where Wright is coming from.
His treatment of Romans comes in two volumes dealing with chapters 1-8 and then 9-16 respectively. This alone lets the reader know that this is a much fuller treatment of Paul's extended argument in this letter than Wright has devoted to almost any other New Testament letter.
I found Wright's treatment of the letter to be very readable and understandable for the most part. There are times I think he raises more questions than he answers. I suppose for readers who feel like that, there is always the big commentary.
Much of what Wright says here helped allay my fears about some of his doctrines. For example, in this book Wright makes it quite clear that though he believes in present justification by faith alone and in final justification on the basis of the whole life lived in the Spirit, he is very clear that the present verdict always anticipates the same final verdict. In other words, Wright's doctrine does not undermine assurance in tender Christian believers. For Wright it is impossible for someone to be justified now but finally lost. It was interesting that I read these books at the same time as Wright was clarifying his position at the ETS meeting where he clarified that final justification on the basis of works really means "in accordance with works". This brings Wright much closer to the evangelical mainstream as reformed theology has always affirmed the final judgment is in accordance with our works. The Westminster Confession of Faith xxxiii.1 says as much:
Similarly in the second volume, I enjoyed most of Wright's treatment, however I think he was very weak in his handling of divine election in Romans 9. Wright fails to see that though it describes God's choosing of the elect within Israel (and the elect have responsibility and not just blessings), this doesn't mean the chapter does not have a more general application to how God chooses any of his people.
At times, these books seemed much more technical than Wright's handling of the gospel narratives in other books in the series. It is not a simplistic treatment of the letter, but then Romans is not really a book that can be handled with simple devotional sentiments. Paul's argument is so tightly constructed that it won't really lend itself to that.
I enjoyed the books very much. Few preachers would fail to benefit from reading this. In this series, the "hooks" that Wright uses to draw the reader into his argument are a masterclass in gaining the reader's or hearer's attention. The ones used in Romans are no exception.
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006
Tom Wright's For Everyone series fills a necessary gap that is very difficult to fill. The books are neither simply devotional reading nor are they commentaries (technical or otherwise). Instead they attempt to be readable by any Christian and get to the heart of the message of the book or letter it deals with. They are the kind of books that are easy to read as they have Wright's own New Testament translation printed at the beginning of each chapter.
Paul's Letter to the Romans is one of the most important sections of the New Testament, for there Paul gives the richest and fullest treatment of his gospel. Tom Wright is an acknowledged expert on Paul and Romans in particular. As well as this popular-level work he has written a major commentary on Romans in the New Interpreter's Bible series.
That's all positives about the book. The negative for many will be the fact that Wright is a proponent of the still-controversial New Perspective on Paul, and NPP and some of Wright's other more idiosyncratic views dominate his interpretation of Romans. This is not to say his insights have no validity, but rather than the reader needs to be aware of where Wright is coming from.
His treatment of Romans comes in two volumes dealing with chapters 1-8 and then 9-16 respectively. This alone lets the reader know that this is a much fuller treatment of Paul's extended argument in this letter than Wright has devoted to almost any other New Testament letter.
I found Wright's treatment of the letter to be very readable and understandable for the most part. There are times I think he raises more questions than he answers. I suppose for readers who feel like that, there is always the big commentary.
Much of what Wright says here helped allay my fears about some of his doctrines. For example, in this book Wright makes it quite clear that though he believes in present justification by faith alone and in final justification on the basis of the whole life lived in the Spirit, he is very clear that the present verdict always anticipates the same final verdict. In other words, Wright's doctrine does not undermine assurance in tender Christian believers. For Wright it is impossible for someone to be justified now but finally lost. It was interesting that I read these books at the same time as Wright was clarifying his position at the ETS meeting where he clarified that final justification on the basis of works really means "in accordance with works". This brings Wright much closer to the evangelical mainstream as reformed theology has always affirmed the final judgment is in accordance with our works. The Westminster Confession of Faith xxxiii.1 says as much:
"God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil."I thought Wright's treatment of chapters 1-6 and chapter 8 were excellent. I was glad to see he argues for 'propitiation' in Romans 3:25 and his handling of Abraham in Romans 4 is excellent too. However, I remain unsure about his interpretation of Romans 7. My own view has always been that it represents the 'normal' Christian life and our battle with sin. Wright takes a very different view and sees the "I" of chapter 7 not as the apostle Paul describing his experience either pre-conversion or post-conversion (my view) or post-conversion but pre-baptism of the spirit. In fact it is not Paul at all, but a rhetorical device to describe Israel's history under the law. I didn't find this convincing to be honest. But I will read the big commentary and see more of his arguments there.
Similarly in the second volume, I enjoyed most of Wright's treatment, however I think he was very weak in his handling of divine election in Romans 9. Wright fails to see that though it describes God's choosing of the elect within Israel (and the elect have responsibility and not just blessings), this doesn't mean the chapter does not have a more general application to how God chooses any of his people.
At times, these books seemed much more technical than Wright's handling of the gospel narratives in other books in the series. It is not a simplistic treatment of the letter, but then Romans is not really a book that can be handled with simple devotional sentiments. Paul's argument is so tightly constructed that it won't really lend itself to that.
I enjoyed the books very much. Few preachers would fail to benefit from reading this. In this series, the "hooks" that Wright uses to draw the reader into his argument are a masterclass in gaining the reader's or hearer's attention. The ones used in Romans are no exception.
Monday, 29 November 2010
Three Reasons to Keep First-Past-the-Post for General Elections
I don't usually do politics on this blog, but I've decided to start doing so when I feel like doing so. The reason being that faith and politics shouldn't be separated in the Christian's life. The one should flow out of the other.
In May 2011 the people of the United Kingdom will vote in a referendum on whether to keep the present First-Past-The-Post voting system or to change to a system called "The Alternative Vote" which is a form of proportional representation.
Many people will no doubt be in favour of the change on the basis that the current system is unfair and many people's votes "don't count" under the present system as there are so many "safe" seats.
There are a number of points that could be made in response to this. The first thing is that it's simply not true that many people's votes don't count. Essentially that is the argument of the losers in any election. Fact is that more people wanted another candidate. All votes count. But not everyone wins. Secondly, there's a skewed way of looking at things going around as if so-called "safe seats" are predetermined to go to one party or another. That is not true either. A seat is only safe because a large number of real people exercise their democratic right to vote for the party that usually wins that particular seat. But there is nothing predetermined about who will win in a "safe seat". There is no reason a new political party could not make an impact under the first-past-the-post system. In 1900 there were hundreds of "safe" Conservative and Liberal seats and there were only two Labour MPs elected. By 1929 Labour were largest party in the Commons with 287 seats.
There's a lot of pro-PR propaganda around. To counter that, here's three good reasons why we should not vote for PR in this country, shown by three countries that have PR (all beginning with "I" as it happens):
1. Italy - It is almost inevitable under a PR system that we will have permanent coalition government. Italy has had over 60 governments in the 65 years since the end of the Second World War. PR has a tendency to produce unstable governments because they are always coalitions. By contrast, first-past-the-post tends to produce clear election results and a government with a clear mandate to implement its programme. A hung parliament under FPTP like happened in 2010 happens once in a generation; under PR it would be the result of EVERY election.
2. Israel - PR gives seats in parliament to small, extremist parties. Under PR we have already seen extreme left wing parties such as the Scottish Socialist Party elected to the Scottish Parliament. At the other extreme, PR for the House of Commons would almost certainly see a few BNP MPs elected. That's not all. Under PR, small parties thus elected achieve an unproportional amount of power. There are some countries where the third party (in the UK that would be the Liberal Democrats) with maybe 15-20% of the vote are permanently in government, alternately supporting whichever of the big two parties come first in an election.
3. Ireland - PR systems can be incredibly complicated. In Ireland they use the Single Transferable Vote. Most people cannot understand the intricate mathematical formulas that are required to work out exactly how votes are distributed and who is elected. The election result takes days to work out under STV. FPTP is easy to understand and usually delivers a clear result on election night itself.
I'll be voting "No" in the referedum next year.
In May 2011 the people of the United Kingdom will vote in a referendum on whether to keep the present First-Past-The-Post voting system or to change to a system called "The Alternative Vote" which is a form of proportional representation.
Many people will no doubt be in favour of the change on the basis that the current system is unfair and many people's votes "don't count" under the present system as there are so many "safe" seats.
There are a number of points that could be made in response to this. The first thing is that it's simply not true that many people's votes don't count. Essentially that is the argument of the losers in any election. Fact is that more people wanted another candidate. All votes count. But not everyone wins. Secondly, there's a skewed way of looking at things going around as if so-called "safe seats" are predetermined to go to one party or another. That is not true either. A seat is only safe because a large number of real people exercise their democratic right to vote for the party that usually wins that particular seat. But there is nothing predetermined about who will win in a "safe seat". There is no reason a new political party could not make an impact under the first-past-the-post system. In 1900 there were hundreds of "safe" Conservative and Liberal seats and there were only two Labour MPs elected. By 1929 Labour were largest party in the Commons with 287 seats.
There's a lot of pro-PR propaganda around. To counter that, here's three good reasons why we should not vote for PR in this country, shown by three countries that have PR (all beginning with "I" as it happens):
1. Italy - It is almost inevitable under a PR system that we will have permanent coalition government. Italy has had over 60 governments in the 65 years since the end of the Second World War. PR has a tendency to produce unstable governments because they are always coalitions. By contrast, first-past-the-post tends to produce clear election results and a government with a clear mandate to implement its programme. A hung parliament under FPTP like happened in 2010 happens once in a generation; under PR it would be the result of EVERY election.
2. Israel - PR gives seats in parliament to small, extremist parties. Under PR we have already seen extreme left wing parties such as the Scottish Socialist Party elected to the Scottish Parliament. At the other extreme, PR for the House of Commons would almost certainly see a few BNP MPs elected. That's not all. Under PR, small parties thus elected achieve an unproportional amount of power. There are some countries where the third party (in the UK that would be the Liberal Democrats) with maybe 15-20% of the vote are permanently in government, alternately supporting whichever of the big two parties come first in an election.
3. Ireland - PR systems can be incredibly complicated. In Ireland they use the Single Transferable Vote. Most people cannot understand the intricate mathematical formulas that are required to work out exactly how votes are distributed and who is elected. The election result takes days to work out under STV. FPTP is easy to understand and usually delivers a clear result on election night itself.
I'll be voting "No" in the referedum next year.
Friday, 26 November 2010
The New Perspective on Paul
I'm becoming more attracted to the NPP (New Perspective on Paul).
Seems to me as if we view "union with Christ" as the centrepiece of Paul's soteriology this is a simpler and more biblical scheme than the classic Lutheran or Reformed one (though it is very close to Calvin's view).
N. T. Wright has taught me a lot in this area.
"In Christ" (en christo) is a key idea in Pauline theology. It is through our union with Christ, through our being in the Messiah that his death and resurrection become ours, so that "what is true of the Messiah is true of his people" as Wright might say.
If "righteous" becomes not regarding someone as having a moral status they don't really deserve, but rather simply as regarding someone who is "in the right" - someone who has received the divine verdict of innocent and hence "made righteous" then imputation starts to be unnecessary.
As Michael Bird and Kevin Vanhoozer have argued (and it looks as if Wright agrees) it is not that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, but rather than we are righteous because we are incorporated into the faithful Messiah, Jesus.
This subject is so interesting and deserves much more thought. I never thought I'd say this, but could it be that Wright is actually right??
Seems to me as if we view "union with Christ" as the centrepiece of Paul's soteriology this is a simpler and more biblical scheme than the classic Lutheran or Reformed one (though it is very close to Calvin's view).
N. T. Wright has taught me a lot in this area.
"In Christ" (en christo) is a key idea in Pauline theology. It is through our union with Christ, through our being in the Messiah that his death and resurrection become ours, so that "what is true of the Messiah is true of his people" as Wright might say.
If "righteous" becomes not regarding someone as having a moral status they don't really deserve, but rather simply as regarding someone who is "in the right" - someone who has received the divine verdict of innocent and hence "made righteous" then imputation starts to be unnecessary.
As Michael Bird and Kevin Vanhoozer have argued (and it looks as if Wright agrees) it is not that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, but rather than we are righteous because we are incorporated into the faithful Messiah, Jesus.
This subject is so interesting and deserves much more thought. I never thought I'd say this, but could it be that Wright is actually right??
A Clarification from N. T. Wright
The ETS meeting was important. N. T. Wright clarified his position that future justication is "in accordance with the whole life lived" rather than "on the basis of the whole life lived."
The difference between the two is huge. Wright's view is now much closer to the historic Protestant position - we are justified by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone. Saving faith is evidenced by good works.
The Ugley Vicar agrees: A Clarification from Tom Wright http://ow.ly/3h7zF
The difference between the two is huge. Wright's view is now much closer to the historic Protestant position - we are justified by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone. Saving faith is evidenced by good works.
The Ugley Vicar agrees: A Clarification from Tom Wright http://ow.ly/3h7zF
Monday, 22 November 2010
Simply Christian
Simply Christian
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006
Simply Christian is Tom Wright's straightforward and simple introduction to the Christian faith. As such it is designed to be read by people who have little or no prior knowledge of Christianity and though, as with most Wright books I would have issues with how he treats some subjects, overall I think this book is an excellent introduction and I would not have a problem recommending it to any of my non-Christian friends. The comparison with C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity are obvious and I think self-consciously so in Wright's choice of title and approach to his subject. But whereas Lewis, writing in the 1940s, spends part of his classic book in apologetics territory - arguing for God's existence and so forth - Wright does not really engage in apologetics at all.
Instead, Wright does what I think is quite a clever thing though it leaves him open to some fair criticism. He starts with a treatment about mankind's sinfulness, yet he does it without calling it sin. Now straight away some will object to this as Wright soft peddling on sin. I think that's a bit unfair. Looking on Wright's book more charitably, I think he has decided to not mention 'sin' as such because he did not want to alienate or confuse his 21st century audience before getting an opportunity to explain what sin is actually like. Although he may not use the word, he certainly writes powerfully about the subject. In the first part of the book called "Echoes of a Voice" Wright points out four areas of life where things have gone wrong. They are: (1) our longing for justice and our anger at injustice in the world (that is just isn't right the way things are), (2) our longing for a spiritual element in our lives, (3) our longing for good and loving relationships with other people and (4) our longing and appreciation of beauty in a world marred by so much ugliness.
The problem I would have is not with what he says, but with what he doesn't say. It would have been good I think to have added a final section in the first part dealing with the God-ward aspect of sin - that we have rebelled against and insulted a holy God. This in turn would have naturally led to greater balance later in the book.
Part Two is entitled "Staring at the Sun" and is a well-written and clear presentation of a number of key ideas in biblical theology including God, Israel, Jesus, the Cross and Resurrection and the Holy Spirit. Here Wright outlines what he considers to be "the gospel" according to the New Testament. As Wright has often said "the gospel" in biblical terms is not an ABC guide to "How I get saved and go to heaven" although it has often been reduced to this in evangelical circles. Rather, although Wright recognises individual salvation is one of the key things to flow from the gospel, it is not itself the gospel. The gospel, according to Wright, is that Christ is the true Jewish Messiah and through his resurrection has revealed himself as the King and Lord of all the world. It is here that I think Wright misses out on some of the New Testament's emphasis. Although Wright focuses on Christ as King and the resurrection, this is only half of the Bible's emphasis. The Bible also focuses on Christ as Saviour and the cross. Wright sometimes seems to miss out on this emphasis - and it is here that his downplaying of sin may also be a legitimate criticism. Downplayed sin results in a downplayed Saviour perhaps?
Part Three is called "Reflecting the Image" and in a series of interesting chapters, Wright discusses worship, prayer, Bible reading, the gospel, the Church and the Future. Each of these reflect Wright's distinctive views to some extent, but also contain much that would be uncontroversial. One point of disagreement I have is when he says that it doesn't matter whether we call it the Lord's Supper, Communion, the Eucharist or the Mass. Wright lumps all together. But the fact is that there are significant differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics on this point and we certainly do not all believe the same thing!
Like most of Tom Wright's books, Simply Christian is a mixed bag. Although it is wonderfully written and easy to read, and although he deals with many things in a winsome and accurate way, there are those characteristic issues at the same time. For this reason, no doubt some would question using this book to reach out to non-Christians. I wouldn't go as far as that, but I probably would want to supplement this with something that is not quite so idiosyncratic. It might just be worth pointing out to non-Christians that this is simply Wrightian Christianity (from the New Perspective on Paul viewpoint) and not necessarily what Christians have always believed or all believe now. If there had been more mention of the God-ward aspect of sin and personal guilt as a result and if there had been more said about the cross and Christ as Saviour, I think the book would have been far stronger and Wright would have lost nothing in doing so.
Once again, this is a case of agreeing with Wright in what he affirms, but questioning a lot of what he omits from the book.
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006
Simply Christian is Tom Wright's straightforward and simple introduction to the Christian faith. As such it is designed to be read by people who have little or no prior knowledge of Christianity and though, as with most Wright books I would have issues with how he treats some subjects, overall I think this book is an excellent introduction and I would not have a problem recommending it to any of my non-Christian friends. The comparison with C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity are obvious and I think self-consciously so in Wright's choice of title and approach to his subject. But whereas Lewis, writing in the 1940s, spends part of his classic book in apologetics territory - arguing for God's existence and so forth - Wright does not really engage in apologetics at all.
Instead, Wright does what I think is quite a clever thing though it leaves him open to some fair criticism. He starts with a treatment about mankind's sinfulness, yet he does it without calling it sin. Now straight away some will object to this as Wright soft peddling on sin. I think that's a bit unfair. Looking on Wright's book more charitably, I think he has decided to not mention 'sin' as such because he did not want to alienate or confuse his 21st century audience before getting an opportunity to explain what sin is actually like. Although he may not use the word, he certainly writes powerfully about the subject. In the first part of the book called "Echoes of a Voice" Wright points out four areas of life where things have gone wrong. They are: (1) our longing for justice and our anger at injustice in the world (that is just isn't right the way things are), (2) our longing for a spiritual element in our lives, (3) our longing for good and loving relationships with other people and (4) our longing and appreciation of beauty in a world marred by so much ugliness.
The problem I would have is not with what he says, but with what he doesn't say. It would have been good I think to have added a final section in the first part dealing with the God-ward aspect of sin - that we have rebelled against and insulted a holy God. This in turn would have naturally led to greater balance later in the book.
Part Two is entitled "Staring at the Sun" and is a well-written and clear presentation of a number of key ideas in biblical theology including God, Israel, Jesus, the Cross and Resurrection and the Holy Spirit. Here Wright outlines what he considers to be "the gospel" according to the New Testament. As Wright has often said "the gospel" in biblical terms is not an ABC guide to "How I get saved and go to heaven" although it has often been reduced to this in evangelical circles. Rather, although Wright recognises individual salvation is one of the key things to flow from the gospel, it is not itself the gospel. The gospel, according to Wright, is that Christ is the true Jewish Messiah and through his resurrection has revealed himself as the King and Lord of all the world. It is here that I think Wright misses out on some of the New Testament's emphasis. Although Wright focuses on Christ as King and the resurrection, this is only half of the Bible's emphasis. The Bible also focuses on Christ as Saviour and the cross. Wright sometimes seems to miss out on this emphasis - and it is here that his downplaying of sin may also be a legitimate criticism. Downplayed sin results in a downplayed Saviour perhaps?
Part Three is called "Reflecting the Image" and in a series of interesting chapters, Wright discusses worship, prayer, Bible reading, the gospel, the Church and the Future. Each of these reflect Wright's distinctive views to some extent, but also contain much that would be uncontroversial. One point of disagreement I have is when he says that it doesn't matter whether we call it the Lord's Supper, Communion, the Eucharist or the Mass. Wright lumps all together. But the fact is that there are significant differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics on this point and we certainly do not all believe the same thing!
Like most of Tom Wright's books, Simply Christian is a mixed bag. Although it is wonderfully written and easy to read, and although he deals with many things in a winsome and accurate way, there are those characteristic issues at the same time. For this reason, no doubt some would question using this book to reach out to non-Christians. I wouldn't go as far as that, but I probably would want to supplement this with something that is not quite so idiosyncratic. It might just be worth pointing out to non-Christians that this is simply Wrightian Christianity (from the New Perspective on Paul viewpoint) and not necessarily what Christians have always believed or all believe now. If there had been more mention of the God-ward aspect of sin and personal guilt as a result and if there had been more said about the cross and Christ as Saviour, I think the book would have been far stronger and Wright would have lost nothing in doing so.
Once again, this is a case of agreeing with Wright in what he affirms, but questioning a lot of what he omits from the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)