Frustrated by N. T. Wright

 N. T. Wright’s, Surprised by Hope, was an enjoyable read interrupted by notable moments of frustration.

On one level, I appreciated the way Wright explored long standing themes — ever willing to challenge traditional perspectives with deeper reflection. Pursuits of this kind, however, are easily vulnerable to questionable novelty. This is where I occasionally became frustrated with N. T. His use of terms and associations sent some strange and mixed messages that invited justifiable concern among his critics.

In a review of Wright’s book Evil and the Justice of God, D. A. Carson acknowledged a similar concern. 

“He (Wright) says some things so wonderfully well one cannot but be grateful for his contribution. And, as usual, he reserves a place for a few things that are doubtful, mistaken or (at best) out of proportion, or just plain annoying” (D. A. Carson). See: Review).

In Surprised By Hope, part 13, Building for the Kingdom, Wright used reactionary language that (I think) diminished his line of thought and felt like some of the knee-jerkish response he seemed to be opposing. When discussing Redemption, Jesus’ resurrection and the new creation of salvation, for example, Wright placed the work of “garden keeping” (earth care) and argued that because of God’s ultimate intention to redeem creation, we cannot picture God looking at the fallen world (and I might add, “groaning” world, see: Romans 8 ) 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.” 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 after He undoes the present world). If Wright aims to correct Christian neglect of earth keeping, why frame the concern this way? 

Wright then argued that since God intends to redeem rather than reject His created world, we should celebrate that redemption (what he calls healing and transformation) in the present as a means of anticipating what is to come. But by choosing the word “rejecting,” he seems to present a straw man to make it reasonable and easy to argue against. The apostle admonished believers to “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” (II Peter 3:12)?

But “looking to this day” does not require one to “go ahead and trash the world because the whole things going up in flames some day anyway.” There may be a few fringe groups that take this approach but most see it as irresponsible and disrespectful of creation Exactly who does Wright have in mind. This way of arguing follows the kind of weak logic found often in the writings of Brian McLaren. It also leaves the impression that someone just has some kind of personal ax to grind. 

Along these lines, Wright associates the Church with a call to “implementing Jesus resurrection and thereby anticipating the final new creation.” I am not entirely sure if he’s referring to some brand of Christian earth-care or something else but he anticipates what he calls “obvious objections” with more straw men to argue against — those who accuse him of “turning mother earth into an idol” or those who “think we should give up on the earth until the Lord returns” (the attitude, “Oh well, no sense shining the brass if the ships going under!”). Where are these perspectives being promoted (beyond some odd little fringe groups)?

At this point, Wright took an interesting leap from Jesus’ resurrection as breaking into the present — to doing work for justice in ongoing campaigns for debt remission (something Wright is passionate about to say the least). All of this, Wright considered to be forms of “implementing” God’s intended future in the here and now. Again, I found myself feeling kinship for many of his concerns but frustrated by his theological associations and choice of terms for validating them. 

He stayed with this emphasis by picturing people who view ministry as merely saving souls for the future while letting the world go to its corruption. I am sure there are some irresponsible Christians who hold these extreme views but using them as an example weakens his point.

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 that I Thessalonians 4:16-17 means something about believers being raptured) but I do not know any who hold to this extreme view of neglecting the earth.

The apostle Peter wrote that, “…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.” (II Peter 3)

This narrow vision of God’s work seems more characteristic of an older brand of fundamentalism (see: History and Fundamentalism).

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 doing works of justice in the here and now, I wish he would engage more seriously how this final act of God relates to the present. I too 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 relation to Wright’s call to ministries of justice, I am not sure he is asking for much more than a call to holistic ministry advocated in Scripture (see: Holistic Ministry). Yet I believe that Wright uses some odd (and potentially misleading) terminology and associations in calling for such ministry (like talk of implementing Jesus’ resurrection). I also think that deeper consideration should be given to the already/not yet tensions of the kingdom, see: Kingdom Theme in Scripture.

Steve Cornell