My Name is UrL
About Us
RSS Feed
Subscribe to Newsletter
LeadershipJournal.net

If you like our blog,
check out the journal!

Save 21%

• Subscribe today & save $5!
• Give a gift subscription

twitter updates

Follow Out of Ur on Twitter

blogs we're watching

Jesus Creed
Skye Jethani
Joe McKeever
Church Marketing Stinks
Real Live Preacher
Purgatorio
GalliBlog
Gifted for Leadership
Preaching Today
Andy Rowell
A Place for the God Hungry
Vintage Faith
Off the Agenda
Soul Care
David Fitch
David Swanson

books we're reading

Jesus and the Victory of God
by N.T. Wright
Not Ashamed of the Gospel
by Fleming Rutledge
The Shack
by William P. Young
Original Sin: A Cultural History
by Alan Jacobs

Seminary &
Grad School Guide

Search by Name

Or use Advanced Search to search by major, region, cost, affiliation, enrollment, more!

Other Searches

Location & Setting
Majors & Degrees
Enrollment
Affiliation
Athletics
Costs, Scholarships & Grants
List All Schools

« Great is Thy Effectiveness? | Main | The Hansen Report: Warren, Obama, and McCain »

August 15, 2008

The Wright Brothers (in Christ)

Scot McKnight says N.T. Wright and Christopher Wright show the future of theology.

Recently I was asked where theology was headed. I assured my reader that I wasn’t “in the know” but that I would hazard a guess or two. First I thought we were likely to see a more robust Trinitarian theology, one deeply anchored in the great Cappadocian theologians like Gregory of Nyssa. But in some ways all the main lines of Trinitarian thought have already been sketched by great theologians like Karl Barth, James B. Torrance and others. With this first idea now set aside, I had a second idea of where theology is going: “The Wright Brothers.”

No, not those Wright Brothers, but another set of Wrights (who aren’t even brothers, except in Christ): Tom and Chris. Even if they don’t map where all of theology is headed, these two scholars and devoted churchmen, both Anglican, do set before us two words that have become increasingly fruitful and I think will be the subject of serious theological reflection in the future. The two words are “earth” and “mission.” Each scholar discusses both, but I will focus in this post on Tom Wright’s focus on “earth” and Chris Wright’s focus on “mission.”

Increasingly we are seeing more and more Christians own up to the earthly focus of biblical revelation—the claim God makes upon this earth through his Eikons (humans made in his image). We are seeing a deeper reflection on what it means to participate in the historical flow, in government and politics and society and culture, and we are seeing a renewed interest in vocation and work. One of the more striking elements of this new surge is that theologians who are deeply anchored in the Bible also see our eternal destiny having an earthly shape.

And not only are we seeing the increasing presence of “earthly,” but we are seeing a reshaping of theology itself so that God’s mission in this world becomes central. Everyone knows that the latest buzz word is missional but not enough are thinking carefully about what mission means in the Bible and what it means to speak about “God’s mission” (missio Dei). But there is a surge of thinking now about this topic and it will continue to spark interest both for pastors and professional theologians.

Now to the Wright brothers.

Tom Wright, in his book Surprised by Hope, relentlessly critiques the gnostic-like preoccupation so many have with heaven as a place for our spirits and souls—the place where we really belong, and the sooner we get there the better. It is not that Tom Wright denies heaven; no, he affirms it robustly but he argues that the eternal home for the Christian is not that old-fashioned view of heaven but the new heavens and the new earth. And he argues the new heavens and new earth are something brought down from heaven to earth. (Read Revelation 20—22.)

I think some have made far too much of this, as if it is a revolutionary insight. What it is, in my judgment, is a strong critique of how dualistic we’ve become. And it is a welcome call for us to see that what we do now prepares us for what we will do in the new heavens and the new earth. I think Tom Wright’s emphasis here is spot-on: we need to grapple more directly with the connection of what God calls us to do now as continuous with what we shall be called to do for eternity. I hope many will see their way to read Tolkien’s Leaf by Niggle, for it addresses similar themes.

This emphasis of Tom Wright’s actually forms a foundation for Chris Wright’s exceptional study The Mission of God. Here we find yet another theme that is reshaping so much of where theology is going: mission. I wish people asked this one simple question: What is the mission of God in this world? Chris Wright, taking his cues from the Old Testament—he’s an Old Testament scholar—says the mission of God is to make his glorious Name known throughout the whole world. This mission, found so often in the prophets, shapes how we not only read the Bible but how we live out the Bible in our world.

God makes his Name known through God’s people, first Israel and then the Church. Most centrally, God’s mission with a Name becomes fully visible in Jesus Christ—in his life, death, resurrection, and the gift of the Spirit. This Story, this grand narrative of God’s mission, is reshaping how theology is being done.

There is a converging hook here: Chris Wright ends his book on the theme of God’s mission involving the earth—the whole earth. Tom Wright ends his book about earth on mission—the mission of God in this world. I think they are both right.

I can’t see into the future, but I can see down the road a bit, and what I see is an increasing emphasis on earth and mission. Those two themes are likely to take us into the next two decades.

Scot McKnight is the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University, author, and blogger.

Posted by UrL on August 15, 2008

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1468

Comments

I agree that we have tried to use human ideas to mold both “heaven” and “mission” into things which are radically different than the way the Bible shows them, and that getting back to those biblically based ideas will lead to a great change in people’s devotion and worship.

I do have one initial concern with the "new heavens and new earth" destiny though, that being the fact that some teachers lose sight of what it is that institutes the new heavenly city in the first place. There is an idea that we can bring "heaven to earth" by doing good things; that the talk of heaven and hell in the Bible is more about attitudes and what we cause upon this earth through our lives. I don't think this is either true or helpful. There certainly needs to be a "grappl[ing] more directly with the connection of what God calls us to do now as continuous with what we shall be called to do for eternity," but we must not miss that it is through Christ’s return as conquerer in Revelation 19 that we are led into the bringing of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21.

Of course, those same teachers will argue from a preterist view of Revelation, but I still don't think this can support their claim. Hebrews 11.16 says that there is a city prepared for us by God and 13.14 says that we seek it and it is to come. Nowhere does it say that we build it or that we draw it to earth. Just that it is to come. Like Christ. And until that time we are "sojourners and exiles" with a "citizenship . . . in heaven" from where "we await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2.11, Philippians 3.20). If we get a right view of heaven but lose Christ as the ultimate conquering King then I think we have actually moved backwards some.

Kudos to McKnight for a thought provoking post.

Posted by: Todd Burus at August 15, 2008

Okay, first off, I can get on board with NT Wrights thinking, namely because I've come to the same conclusion with my studies, but Todd also has a valid point
"Nowhere does it say that we build it or that we draw it to earth."
I think that when we look theologically "forward" it behooves us to be cautious about our visions of the church's direction, and keep them biblically grounded lest we get to full of ourselves.

Posted by: sheerahkahn at August 15, 2008

Tom Wright is someone I admire so much, I have to remind myself he's human like the rest of us. And what he says makes so much sense. Here's my interpretation:

God cares about what we do today. Our daily lives matters to God and to the kingdom of God--not in some abstract way that makes a distant God smile in some distant future when we'll receive distant crowns in a distant heaven. No.

What we do matters now. Our actions please God now (or don't). Our actions glorify God now (or don't). In some sense, we participate in building the kingdom now.

And that's what mission is about, right?

Posted by: Mark Goodyear at August 15, 2008

Also, I have to brag. I once drove Tom Wright and his wife to the airport after a retreat at Laity Lodge. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven.

But of course, heaven and mission and earth and life were just all connected in my car for an hour or so while we talked about Harry Potter, the wizard, and Jesus, the tekton.

Posted by: Mark Goodyear at August 15, 2008

Todd wrote "There is an idea that we can bring "heaven to earth" by doing good things.."

While I agree that good works will not save us we also pray "Let thy kingdom come let thy will be done ON earth as it is IN Heaven". That strongly suggests to me that while we are not the authors of the new heaven and earth that is to come, we are nonetheless to work for those principles that will be part of that new creation while here in this present one. Justice, peace, love for one's neighbor, serving the least of these, etc etc. When thinking about the preoccupation that many have with the hereafter I remember the old saying "you can be so heavenly minded as to be of no earthly use".

Posted by: Heather at August 15, 2008

I've definitely become an N.T. Wright fanboy lately.

Posted by: bryonm at August 15, 2008

So, I actually have a somewhat different set of inquiries, distinct from much of the theological musings that can happen from discussions like these.

I read Mission of God, blogged about it, and believe, like McKnight, that the "Wright brothers" are exegeting well the proper theologies and ideas that the grand narrative of the Bible is attempting to convey. I'm really on board.

However, what are the practical implications of this theology in our ministry practices in churches and ministries across the world?

I, much like the vast majority of us, "believed Christ as my personal Lord and Savior" and was baptized in that kind of a "personal faith comittment" confession. Do we return to a more "Biblical" practice, confessing instead, "I repent of my selfish and individualistic behaviors as a believer to now conforming my life to God's Mission in the world"? Do we begin to move away from "topical" teachings that deal with very personal and individualistic problems (such as addictions, heartache, personal spiritual disciplines, etc.) and drive home more the Mission of God? How do we deal with the abstract nature of this kind of theology in a concrete and practical kind of a world? And, do we do damage to Christianity (and God's Mission) when we try to give people "easy" and "practical" steps towards living a better life in accordance to "Christian principles," as opposed to being an "agent" of God's Mission in the world?

While theology may be heading towards grasping a stronger "mission/earth" paradigm, I question (with hope and anticipation) whether or not ecclesial and para-ecclesial ministries will be captivated by this kind of thinking. And, would we be willing to transform our teachings and our ministry practices so that we raise a different kind of a generation of "believers" or "Christians" ... perhaps, that they would actually be "disciples?"

Posted by: VIA at August 15, 2008

I once drove Tom Wright and his wife to the airport ... I thought I'd died and gone to heaven.

let's see ... we've talked about celebrity pastors. now we've got celebrity theologians.

what's next? celebrity ... messiahs? perhaps mccain's obama-is-the-antichrist ad is more timely than i thought...

but anyway, here's an admission from me that i'm not sure i've ever revealed to the Urbanites before:

i was a huge david cassidy fan growing up.

wait - that's not what i wanted to say... here's the real revelation:

i don't believe there will be a second coming.

here's why i'm admitting that: i think a lot of our present-day theologians harbor some views like this, too, and they just aren't admitting it. they are caught on the razor's edge between what they believe and the knowledge that the bible really doesn't support them. and they have to work within the confines of a 'biblical view' and shade (twist?) meanings to remain 'faithful' to the faith while at the same time trying to get across a more progressive (rational?) view of who Jesus was and what His life, death and resurrection (yes, i believe in that, though i probably differ from you in what i think it means) meant.

so there. next time, cross yourselves when you see my signature...

m.r. - fairburn, ga, usa

Posted by: mike rucker at August 15, 2008

Heather, I don't disagree with you on the idea of working for "justice, peace, love for one's neighbor, serving the least of these, etc." while in this present age. I believe that is right on and is something we need to be actively engaged in.

The idea that I take issue with, which is not something you said but what other popular teachers promote, is that doing these works is how we bring about the new earth. That the new heaven and new earth are somehow a result of our good deeds and not a result of Christ return as conquerer, finally destroying over the powers of sin and death. That is what I mean to caution against.

Posted by: Todd Burus at August 15, 2008

what I appreciate most about these guys (and Scot McKnight too) is that they call us back to the text and the CONtext as well. they call us, such as in Philippians, to an understanding of citizenship that is more imperial than our American understanding.

grace and peace

Posted by: C.K. Tygrett at August 15, 2008

Todd said: " There is an idea that we can bring "heaven to earth" by doing good things."

I'm not clear if you think he is, Todd, but I think its worth noting that this is emphatically NOT what Wright says in "Surprised by Hope." Wright argues, like Heather noted above, that what we do now matters in the future because as Christians we help to manifest, in a partial way, the Kingdom of God that will be manifested completely when Jesus returns. Nothing we do "makes" Jesus come back or the Kingdom manifest in an ultimate way - but every time we work for justice or share the gospel message, we are spreading the Kingdom.

While I acknowledge that the perspective you're referring to does exist, it seems to me that people advocating Christian involvement in social justice are often unfairly accused of believing it, when typically it is not the case. It certainly isn't when it comes to Wright.

Posted by: Jake at August 15, 2008

There are two aspects of N.T. Wright's thinking/writing/interpreting that I find so compelling.

1.) I find his interpretations to be very much in line with biblical teaching when taken in its proper, original context.

2.) I find the implications of those theoligical positions to be extremely exciting, liberating, and challenging. It is the kind of teaching one would expect from the God of the Cosmos.

Posted by: Darren King at August 15, 2008

I hope McKnight is right. It seems like there are plenty of others who think the future is the Jonathan brothers (Piper and Edwards) and the words "penal" + "substitution."

Posted by: toddh at August 17, 2008

toddh, I think it's a scary future if it doesn't carry the words "penal" and substitution." Now, I know Wright and many other British theologians have just decided to abandon penal substitutionary atonement, but they do so to their own peril. I'm not going to argue for it here myself, but I suggest readng The Cross of Christ by John Stott and The Future of Justification by John Piper (which is actually a response to Wright's teachings) to see why we can't deny PSA.

Jake, I am aware that that is not what Wright believes about the second coming. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier. The main teacher I am thinking of with this comment is Rob Bell.

Posted by: Todd Burus at August 18, 2008

toddh - amen. even the humble magazine that is the umbrella of this site opined during the past year or so about the rise of calvinism.

i doubt 'penal substitution' will go quietly into any good night.

of course, the reason it won't is because all those guys just like saying 'penal'...

m.r.

Posted by: mike rucker at August 18, 2008

Todd,

That's quite a reductionist view of both Jonathons (Piper and Edwards) as well as the young, restless reformed people who read their stuff. The other day I blogged about Piper's view of piety (coming from his Desiring God blogsite), which he claims should produce a passion for social justice and practical mercy. So I guess there is much more to the Jonathons and some of their readers than the substitutional-atonement box than you have created for them.

By the way, C.H. Wright's book "Mission of God" is the simply the best mission theology book that I've read, hands down. In my opinion, it supersedes such celebrated books on mission theology such as John Piper's "Let the Nations be Glad," David Bosch's "Transforming Mission," Lesslie Newbigin's "The Open Secret."

Posted by: Joel Shaffer at August 18, 2008

Here's a plug for a great book on Gregory of Nyssa - Passion and Paradise by J. Warren Smith. If you want to be "robustly trinitarian," the Fathers are a good place to start!

The Trinity: Global Perspectives by Veli-Matti Karkkainen is also a great introduction to contemporary theologians on the Trinity.

Posted by: Casey at August 18, 2008

Joel,
That wasn't at me, right? Cause I completely agree with you on the views of the 1, 2, and 3 John (Piper, MacArthur, and Edwards) and the rest of the new Reformed crowd. (Dang extra Todd's confusing things up in here . . . )

I heard Piper's sermon which corresponded with that blogpost you mentioned and I remember thinking to myself that he spoke to exactly what Emergent wants, but backed it up with a theology that they reject, showing that the real difference between emergent and non isn't in the goal, it's in the justification (double-word play intended).

Posted by: Todd Burus at August 19, 2008

What about the word "kingdom" even if it coincides with Tom's "earth"?

Posted by: kelvin at August 19, 2008

The Catholic Church has been talking about the Christian message in terms of 'earth' and 'mission' for 2000 years now. In fact, the Church has always believed and proclaimed that the gospel is not just about the individual believer and his salvation, but about the reshaping of society as a whole, as Christians proclaim the salvific message of Jesus, (which does not simply include justification, but renewal and restoration through Christ's resurrection and new creation). This has always been the gospel: to renew man to his original image- the image of God - in Christ, the Second Adam. It is therefore very comforting to see the work of the "Wright" brothers as they reemphasize this message with the evangelical world. During my evangelical days I so much longed for this message - but now, my heart is filled with so much joy - all of creation groans for the Son of Man- and through Him, God has reconciled the whole world back to Himself. Christ has truly reversed the fall of man! This will not happen just when Christ comes back again. Instead, it began at His Resurrection!

Posted by: Clinton at August 21, 2008

I think one of the exciting things about N.T. Wright's work, personally, is that his work and arguments have implications that, when taken to their full conclusion, challenge even some of his own self-identified beliefs. For example, if taken to their conclusion, his writings in "Jesus and the Victory of God" and "Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire" lead to an assertion of Christian nonviolence, but N.T. Wright declares himself to be a "just war" Christian. To me the fact that the obvious conclusions of the scholarship make the scholar uncomfortable is a good indicator of their quality.

Posted by: dcrowe at August 22, 2008

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember Me?YesNo

Comments: (1500 characters max; you may use HTML tags for style)

search

recent posts

The Hansen Report: Where Are You From?
Out of Context: Efrem Smith
"Have to" or "Want to" Sermons?
Cartoon: Am I Called to Preach?
The Dark Blight
The Church & Politics Quiz
Olympic Shifts
Out of Context: Shane Claiborne
The Hansen Report: Warren, Obama, and McCain
The Wright Brothers (in Christ)

newsletters

Out of Ur (weekly)
Leadership Weekly
Preaching Connection
(weekly)

categories

Calling
Culture
Doctrine
Emerging
Formation
Leadership
Mission
Obedience
Out of Context
Preaching
Sacrifice
Worship

archives

September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005

September 2008

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27
28 | 29 | 30 | | | |