Frustrated by N. T. Wright

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

Human dignity and depravity: A holistic biblical understanding

Viktor Frankl endured three years in the Auschwitz concentration camp. After his rescue, he became professor of Psychiatry and Neurology in the University of Vienna. He also authored a heart wrenching book titled, “Man’s Search for Meaning.” In it he recounts experiences and lessons from his nightmare experience under the Nazis. Among many observations, he noted that inmates at the concentration camp are most likely to survive if they “knew that there was a task waiting for them to fulfill.” 

 Frankl suggested that “the striving to find a meaning in one’s life is the primary motivational force in man.” Writing in the late 1950’s, he suggested that “The mass neurosis of the present time is the existential vacuum” (i.e. a loss of meaning in life).  

What Frankl observed almost five decades ago became a pervasive philosophy of despair known as nihilism. The word “nihilism” was first widely popularized by German Philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. German Theologian, Helmut Thielicke wrote that “Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless” (Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature, with a Christian Answer, 1969).

“From the nihilist’s perspective, one can conclude that life is completely amoral, a conclusion, Thielicke believes, that motivates such monstrosities as the Nazi reign of terror. Gloomy predictions of nihilism’s impact are also charted in Eugene Rose’s Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age (1994). If nihilism proves victorious–and it’s well on its way, he argues–our world will become ‘a cold, inhuman world’ where ‘nothingness, incoherence, and absurdity’ will triumph.” (IEP).

More recently, apologist Ravi Zacharius noted that, “One by one the generation that refused to be bound by the Pope, and refused to be bound by the Church, decided in an ecstasy of freedom that they would not be bound by anything–not by the Bible, not by conscience, not by God himself. From believing too much that never did have to be believed, they took to believing so little that for countless thousands human existence and the world itself no longer seemed to make any sense. Poets began talking about the ‘wasteland’ with ‘ghostly lives’ as Stephen Spender put it, ‘moving from fragmentary ruins which have lost their significance.’ Nothingness became a subject of conversation, nihilism a motive, frustration and despair a theme for novelists and dramatists…yet all is not lost.” 

In 1992, John R. W. Stott also wrote about the pervasive sweep of nihilism, “Millions of people do not know who they are, nor that they have any significance or worth. Hence the urgent challenge to us to tell them who they are, to enlighten them about their identity, that is, to teach without compromise the full biblical doctrine of our human being–its depravity, yes, but also its dignity.” (The Contemporary Christian).

The basis for Stott’s urgent challenge is that, “Christians believe in the intrinsic worth of human beings, because of our doctrines of creation and redemption. God made man male and female in his own image and gave them a responsible stewardship of the earth and its creatures. He has endowed us with rational, moral, social, creative and spiritual faculties which make us like him and unlike the animals. Human beings are Godlike beings. As a result of the fall our Godlikeness has indeed been distorted, but it has not been destroyed. Further, ‘God so loved the world’ that he gave his only Son for our redemption. The cross is the chief public evidence of the value which God places on us.”

I picked up a copy of Stott’s book in 1993. When I read his balanced treatment of human dignity and depravity it helped me tremendously (He also outlined it in the early chapters of Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today). In my background and training, emphasis was placed on human depravity and anti-self image talk. Although thankful for much of my training, this was clearly an area lacking biblical balance. It narrowly focused on certain theological emphases without placing them in a larger biblical framework. No doubt this emphasis was forged in reaction to erroneous thinking in the other directions. Contemporary thinkers outside of and within the Church began to promote views of humanity that downplayed depravity and almost deified humans. The self-esteem movement also ignored large and important portions of biblical truth. This prompted reactions in the opposite direction. God used the teaching of Stott to help me learn the way of God more clearly. For more about this: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/05/07/history-fundamentalism-and-holistic-ministry/

Stott believes that “Christian teaching on the dignity and worth of human beings is of utmost importance today… for the welfare of society.” Stott observed that, ”When human beings are devalued, everything in society turns sour. Women are humiliated and children despised. The sick are regarded as a nuisance and the elderly as a burden. Ethnic minorities as discriminated against. The poor are oppressed and denied social justice. Capitalism displays its ugliest face. Labor is exploited in the mines and factories. Criminals are brutalized in the prisons.”

“But when human beings are valued as persons because of their intrinsic worth, everything changes. Men, women and Children are all honored. The sick are cared for, and the elderly enabled to live and die with dignity. Dissidents are listened to, prisoners rehabilitated, minorities protected, and the oppressed set free. Workers are given fair wages, decent working conditions, and a measure of participation in both the management and the profit of the enterprise. And the gospel is taken to the ends of the earth. Why? Because people matter. Because every man, woman and child has worth and significance as a human being made in God’s image and likeness.”

The balance in Stott’s emphasis between the reality of human dignity and human depravity is often missing in ministry emphasis in the Church. We too easily become one dimensional. We focus on the spiritual needs and overlook the physical and social. Or, we reverse this pattern by deemphasizing the spiritual needs. Clearly the priority must be placed on the gospel and the human need to be reconciled to God. But we should not do this at the expense of a biblically holistic view of humanity.

In Auschwitz, Victor Frankl painfully discovered that darkest side of human depravity. He also observed the deepest reserve of human dignity. Sadly, we live in a world where we will continue to face both sides of our humanity. But we must not reduce or minimize the sweep of the gospel. It is God’s power to address the whole reality of human being and human need.

Steve Cornell 

History, fundamentalism and holistic ministry

by Steve Cornell 

In the early part of the twentieth century, the movement known today as  fundamentalism began– partially due to the theological shift within mainline denominations. As these denominations moved away from essential doctrines of historic Christianity (e.g. the inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Jesus Christ, salvation through Christ alone, and eternal judgment of all who reject Christ), many of their clergy were conscience bound to remove their associations — some at great loss in terms of retirement benefits. A good number of these men began to unite, finding common fellowship in adherence to the fundamental or essential beliefs of the Christian faith.

Meanwhile, in the denominational churches, the shift in belief led to a change in ministry emphasis. The physical and social needs of people took priority over spiritual needs. In the mainline churches, works of relief and community development took precedence over evangelism. Eternal needs (if they believed in them) took a backseat to the physical and temporal needs.

But among those who withdrew, this change became known as the “social gospel.” In this sense, fundamentalism began as a reactionary response to an abandonment of the spiritual priority of the gospel. Yet the primary goal of the original adherents of this concern was not as much revolutionary as restorative — a desire and effort to get back to the basics of historic Christianity.  

Unfortunately, however, in every reaction there is the temptation to overreact or to add too much to the “concern” list. And, in this case, the reaction didn’t limit itself to erroneous beliefs; it included emphasis of ministry. Out of a desire to avoid all appearances of identification with the so-called social gospel, fundamentalists sometimes embraced an non-biblical view of social action — a view that itself departs from historic Christianity.            

Throughout history, Christians took the lead in helping solve the social problems of their communities: medical care, trade unions, prison reform, abolition of slavery, establishment of orphanages, etc. … This wholesome approach to ministry grew out of the awareness that God made man a physical being with bodily needs, a social being with community needs, and a spiritual being in need of salvation. Therefore, a biblical approach to ministry will involve works of relief, development, and evangelism.           

Yet according to the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, the primary need of humanity is salvation — the need to be made right with God (Luke 12:4-5). Salvation, as one has said, “bind’s man’s will afresh to the Creator and Lord of life.” According to the biblical model, the gospel changes people, and changed people have a beneficial influence on society (as salt and light, Matthew 5:13-16).  

In this order, it could be said that the regeneration of individuals within society proceeds and gives way to reformation of society. Any ministry that fails to respect this priority departs from historic Christianity. Yet, to ignore the physical and social needs of our neighbors is less than consistent with the love of God. The Apostle John wrote: “If anyone has material possessions, and sees his brother in need, but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?  Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” (I John 3:17-18).

           

 In the later part of the twentieth century and onset of the twenty-first, those who adhere to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity have become much more aggressive in social concern. Works of relief and development are much more emphasized among adherents of the essential teachings of historic Christianity. All of this serves to warn against the dangers of a reactionary posture. Sometimes in our desire for purity, we narrow ourselves more than necessary. We overly separate and we renounce more than required. We need minds and hearts saturated in God’s Word and full of godly wisdom. May God mercifully grant this great need to His people! 

Steve Cornell 

The body–does it matter?

How important is the body to God? Sometimes the focus of ministry in our churches is only on the spiritual. The body is viewed as temporal and perishing. Is it possible that we have missed a major emphasis of Scripture on the importance of the body? In most cultures, diet, exercise and overall physical health are primary concerns. Should the Church tap into this and lead the way? I am not advocating the old liberal approach to the gospel but a more comprehensive, biblically holistic approach to ministry. What do you think? I welcome thoughtful dialogue. I see six major points of biblical history that support the importance of the body.

1. Creation: God fashions the body from the dust of the earth

2. Incarnation: God became man

3. Resurrection (Christ’s and ours)

4. Ascension: Jesus retained bodily existence at the Father’s right hand

5. Salvation: The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit

6. Glorification: Final redemption of the body (Romans 8 )

Should we have a division of ministry focused on bodily needs? In the USA, we have overwhelming problems with obesity. People belong to fitness centers, weight watchers, athletic teams… Perhaps the Church should lead the way in this. What do you think?

Steve Cornell