I’ve been reading N. T. Wright’s, Surprised by Hope and I’ve found myself frustrated by N. T. Wright. As one example, in part 13. Building for the Kingdom, Wright engages rhetoric that is overly reactionary and (I think) diminishes the points he wants to make. Under redemption, Jesus’ resurrection and the new creation of salvation, Wright places the work of garden keeping in the world of space, time and matter. Fair enough (as carefully understood), yet, I am not sure how the case for ”garden keeping” can be built on God’s ultimate intention to redeem creation itself (something that God will do in the end). Because of God’s ultimate intention, he insists that we cannot picture God looking at the fallen world (and we might add, groaning world, Romans eight) and saying, “Oh, well, nice try, good while it lasted but obviously gone bad, so let’s drop it and go for a non-spatiotemporal, nonmaterial world instead.” He then argues that since God intends to redeem rather than reject His created world (would ”rejecting” be the wrong word for what the apostle describes God doing in II Peter 3), we should celebrate that redemption (what he calls healing and transformation) in the present as a means of anticipating what is to come. Along these lines, he pictures the Church as called to “implementing Jesus resurrection and thereby anticipating the final new creation.”
At this point, I am not entirely sure if he’s referring to some brand of Christian care for the earth or something more. He then anticipates what he calls “obvious objections” to his suggestion. 1. Turning mother earth into an idol. 2. Giving up on the earth until the Lord returns (the attitude that says, “Oh well, no sense shining the brass if the ships going under!”). At this point, Wright makes an interesting leap from Jesus’ resurrection as breaking into the present– to work for justice in ongoing campaigns for debt remission (something Wright is passionate about to say the least). All of this work Wright refers to as “implementing” God’s intended future in the here and now.
He also sets up what I would view as a bit of a straw man view of ministry by picturing people who view it as merely saving souls for the future while letting the world go to its corruption. I am sure there are some who irresponsibly hold such extreme views but using these examples to make a point loses me. Similarly, he groans over “rampant belief in the rapture” as a strong support for the attitude that says “who cares what the state of the planet is.” I know lots of people who believe in the rapture (and, I assume Wright also believes I Thessalonians 4:16-17 means something about believers being raptured) but I do not know any who hold to this extreme view of the earth. Certainly, as II Peter 3 notes, “…the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.” But, the apostle also wrote, “Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.”
The narrow visions for God’s work Wright mentions are from an older brand of fundamentalism that has been changing in encouraging ways over the past several decades (see: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/05/07/history-fundamentalism-and-holistic-ministry/).
Although Wright pauses to recognize that “the final putting to rights of everything does indeed wait for the last day” and although he rightly rejects the defeatist attitude that puts off the work of doing works of justice in the here and now, I wish he would engage more seriously how the final act of God relates to the present. I firmly believe that redemption sets off powerful horizontal effects in the here and now that are both healing and transforming. But where do those effects primarily demonstrate themselves? In relations to Wright’s call to ministries of justice, I am not sure he is asking for much more than the call to holistic ministry advocated in Scripture (see: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/human-dignity-and-depravity-a-holistic-biblical-understanding/). Yet I believe Wright uses some odd (and potentially misleading) terminology and associations to call for such ministry (like implementing Jesus’ resurrection). I also think that deeper consideration should be given to the already/not yet tension of the kingdom, see: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/category/kingdom/
More later,
Steve Cornell
One factor might be that NTW speaks English, while many of us speak American. Some of the cultural references are lost on us.
I also find the definition of “justice,” i.e., the particular instances of justice we should work toward, to be much less clear than NTW seems to assume. Christians, for the most part, all argue for justice. They simply don’t mean the same thing, or picture the same outcomes as instantiating that justice. That was my frustration with the book.
Hi
I completely agree with you…
I have just finished Suprised by Hope and I guess I found it inspiring and frustrating in equal parts. I have been reading Wright’s stuff for some time and was impressed once again by his grasp of the big picture and his work has definitely shaped my theology and preaching for many years. I particularly find how his way of linking the ‘kingdom of God’ theme of Jesus with the ‘Jesus is Lord’ theme of Paul makes the whole NT come alive and fit together.
The frustration, however, comes right at the end and slightly dampens my complete and wholehearted endorsement… His last but one sentence of the book is pertinent… and indeed you pick up on this in your second quote (the first one is fantastic though)… As you note his final words to us are a call to ‘implement’ the resurrection and this idea which he repeats whenever he can in interviews and blogs, runs through most of the final chapters and now seems to be the driving motivation for his life and work.
Now, I completely agree that the church is a foretaste of the future kingdom, that the church is called to stand up for the poor etc, but I can’t find any place where the phrase ‘implement the resurrection’ (or any like it) comes in the NT. Can you?
Even when we change the wording and talk instead of the ‘Builidng for Kingdom of God’ it is important to note that (as Guder has told us) that Jesus never once encouraged any one to build or extend the kingdom. The words Jesus uses are ‘receive’ and ‘enter’. Wright talks about ‘building for the kingdom’, but I think this is not our calling. Rather we are called to be salt and light. This is not to say that we are to be passive however in the face of injustice, ugliness or violence, but just that Jesus told us to proclaim the kingdom not extend it, ot embody it and not force it into being. The church is the church when it recklessly gives away its life like Jesus did for the sake of the world trusting in the reality and power of the resurrection, and of the reconciliation of all things to God when Jesus returns. I think Wright thinks that a ‘credit union’ or a play gorup is a sign of the kingdom. It might be, but it might not be too… God’s kingdom is only present (logically) over the parts of the world that he is king over. God’s kingdom is definitely expressed by individuals and communities who live under the rule of God, love the poor, proclaim good news, set free the captives, and heal the sick… but it is not ‘extended’ or ‘built’. It is expressed, embodied, preached, proclaimed, demonstrated. Wright is very keen that we get involved in politics like him (sitting in the house of Lords), but I think this is not the primary calling of the Church, nor one that necessarily comes out of the resurrection of Jesus. Greg Boyd’s reflection on this seems pertinent to this…
I think so much of Wright’s book is fantastic though and only feel
frustrated by the conclusions… I am just keen to be part of a church that does the basic things well – loving neighbour and enemy, forgiving others, proclaiming the good news, etc, before we feel the need to sort out the politics of this world…
Do you have any other thoughts about this idea of ‘implementing’ the resurrection or ‘building for the kingdom’?