N.T. Wright
165 pages
If you’re looking for a book that tackles this issues of evil and God’s justice, then this isn’t the book for you. Wright does a brilliant job of wrestling with the issue—surrounding a good portion of the issue, but never attacking as he leaves it dangling for you to figure out on your own with more resources than when you began. This was something that I very much appreciated, yet found maddening at the same time.
Wright does a good job of broadening our understanding of evil, and making sure that we keep it in front of us at all times realizing that it’s not something that goes away and when it occurs/happens to us we should not see it as something out of the ordinary. I think this in and of itself is a simple reminder for us that we live in a fallen world, that we are surrounded by evil—and that we must be proactively engaged in doing something about it. This is where he brings in his interpretation of New Creation.
The goal for us as Christians is not to “escape” the world, but rather to be actively engaged in taking on the evil that we are surrounded by. Wright never fully answers the question of “why there is evil in the world” he only diminishes that question in order to focus us on the task at hand—pushing and prodding us for a response in how we will live, and how we will handle the evil that surrounds. He paints a picture for us with two choices, shrink back and allow evil to run rampant as we wait for escape (rapture—which by the way I believe is never coming) or stand up to evil and overcome the darkness with the light of Christ (something that sounds a whole lot more biblical).
There are points in this book that are fairly confusing and hard to tie together as it seems he’s jumping around from thought to thought, and quite possibly only the most studious can follow (I’m not claiming to be the most studious out there as I myself got lost from time to time). But as you grab on to the main theme of the book it must be stated this is not a book that solves the problem of evil, rather it points to how we can partner with God in solving this problem together because of what Christ did on the cross.
Related posts:
- overheard (favorite quote of the week)
- axis of evil.
- the irresistable revolution (a review)
- the art of mentoring: letters to a young evangelical (a review)
- through painted deserts
You DON’T believe in the rapture, Monts? Bizarre — I would have figured you were quite in-line with the mainstream Evangelical/Dispensationalist doctrines. Interesting — and I’m quite impressed that you’d say that here.
For me, my life has been dedicated to two areas: labor for others in a loving manner, and help others to realize/understand what aspects of “normal” life might be considered evil — what I call the use of force.
For most Christians, it boils down to a liberal/conservative political view of what is evil, but from my perspective they are both “evil” in terms of the Gospel of Love.
From my perspective, God has solved the problem BECAUSE He sent Christ to die on the cross. I’m not one of those “Christ died for my sins” guys, I’m one of those “Christ died to reconcile us to God.” Sin is a non-issue — reconcilement with God is the most important part. This opens the door for us to serve others without judging their lives or actions — it also opens the door for us to work beyond our own failings because we are not required to reach perfection. God designed us to nurture His World, and we can do that perfectly within the confines of our bodies, minds and hearts. Even the non-believer does it, sometimes better than the believer. That’s proof to me of a loving God.
Thanks for the book review. I just recently “discovered” N.T. Wright through some CD lectures a friend loaned me. One set is on Jesus and the Victory of God, and the other is on the New Creation. Both sets have turned my perspective on its ear, and I’m still working through what this will mean for my teaching and ministry in general. I share your disbelief in the Rapture and the biblical belief in the victory of light over darkness. God bless.
For clarification…N.T. Wright has a group of writer/slaves/scholars living in his basement whose sole purpose in life is to crank out a new book every month. There is no way one human being could write as much as he does. Also dispensationalism is in no way mainstream evangelical. Just because they are so media savvy does not make them the mainstream. Further, sin is a non-issue? Please Dada. Why need reconciliation without sin?
I think people in and out of the church are finding that the whole “rapture” thing was a multi-million dollar marketing campaign from the Left Behind folks…to me the end is simply restoration of what God originally created. And via Jesus that is the only way possible. Heaven crashes into earth mentality. A new heaven and new earth simply means restoration to what it once was.
Dada, have you ever investigated I Thessalonians 4? Rob had a really interesting interpretation of this passage which a lot of the “left behind” theory is based on.
I thought it intriguing that Wright finally extrapolated his satanology in this volume. He’s dropped some embryonic hints in other works, but gives a good chunk here. However, the thoughts I’ve been turning over were his comments vis-a-vis atonement theology, (a red rag to several Anti-Wright bulls).
From page 114 (US Version):
“…I am inclined to see the theme of Christus Victor, the victory of Jesus Christ over all the powers of evil and darkness, as the central theme in atonement theology, around which all the other varied meanings of the cross find their particular niche.”
As you all are probably well aware, Wright has been accused many times over for “scorning” atonement theology. Not surprisingly, he denies this but wants to re-contextualize atonement theology within its proper political place. How did you react with this section of the book, Monts?
dada, i’ve wrestled for a long time with the idea of “rapture” probably since i read the first left behind book—it just didn’t sit very well with me. i didn’t have much to back up my “uncomfortableness” but have studied it and learned more and more about the idea of rapture and the idea behind why it cannot possibly be true. however, i will say this—if the rapture occurs, then the rapture occurs. i’m not going to argue about that.
i’m with rags and i don’t believe/think that the rapture is actually a mainstream doctrine or theology. i do think it is a highly regarded believe in the pentecostal realm, and in some other highly charismatic groups (and i’m not saying that it rests solely in those camps because it is in others as well).
i’m also with rags that wright has “people in the basement!”
jason, i’m not sure i’d go so far as to say that the rapture was a marketing campaign for the left-behind folks. however, they certainly did capitalize on it and used the same fear-mongering that is prevalent within that theological realm to push their agenda theologically as well as politically.
jacob… yeah, i think i missed that section. that might have been one of those “brain dead moments”!
i’ll re-read that section tonight and mull it over a bit!
Rags said:
What is sin? Sin is the falling from God’s desire for us (this is my opinion on the definition, please let me know if I err per your doctrine or Bible-reading). Jesus did not come to get us to Heaven, Jesus came to revoke God’s impossible requirements for the Kingdom. If I made a law that said you can not use vowels on my property, and you use vowels, you’d be guilty. But if someone came and found a way to please me so that I revoked that rule, you could use vowels, and it wouldn’t be wrong. Jesus reconciled us with God’s Love so that we did not have the rules that we used to. God’s happiness with us is irrelevant in terms of His Love — but we can still please God through living a Jesus-like life.
That being said, it is not required. The wages of sin was eternal death, but there is no eternal death any longer since sin was vanquished not through war but through love. Justice is unnecessary, judgement has no consequence or wrath, and the Kingdom has come.
Monts said:
Haha. When I took on the amateur blogger perspective, I was writing between 10 and 20 articles per day across a network of sites (some mine, some not mine). People had made that same comment about me. Some people are just born with a gift of conversation — book writing is that ultimate form of conversation because you have to answer questions that are never made to you.
I’m not a huge fan of N.T., but I do appreciate his (their?) insight into a variety of topics. I definitely would like to sit down and browse through his (their?) wares.
So according to your view of the atonement then, Jesus essentially convinced God to revoke his outrageous expectations? Atonement isn’t a removal of guilt so much as a removal of his law?
So much to say…so little energy to say it.
rags said
Not quite but that is a common Evangelical response to what I say
I’ve had some really awesome conversations with leaders in the congregations I serve about it, actually.
Jesus didn’t come to destroy the Law, He came to fulfill it. No individual mortal would have the grace or divinity to fulfill the law even for themselves, but Jesus had both so He fulfilled it for everyone. Rather than end the law as we would see it, Jesus’ perfect Love (God is Love) fulfilled the Law for all so God would not be concerned with those who fall from the law.
That leaves room for the knowledge that our good deeds do please God, but our bad deeds don’t displease God because Jesus’ actions mask our bad ones — cover them, if you will.
For me, I do believe that sin is vanquished because the penalty for sin today bears no resemblence to the various penalties for sin before Jesus and while He lived (and also, right after His Resurrection, before He promised to come back quickly). Sin in the OT and NT and post-Resurrection is very different from what we call sin today — so different that it isn’t even the same thing, not even close. Where is God striking down nations and countries and individuals? God doesn’t have to — Jesus fulfilled the Law completely.
No Law, no Judgement, no sin. It is fairly basic, even if it is considered heretical by many Christians. Coercive Christians today are honestly no different than the Pharisees and religious teachers of yesterday — but the difference is that God doesn’t judge those deeds any longer, which is why I don’t cry foul to those preaching different.
My approach to those who don’t know Christ is to always ask if they’ve heard the Gospel, know anything about the Bible, etc. More often than not I meet intellectual, artistic and stable people. I rarely meet people on the margins. I don’t “work” for a congregation, so I have little interaction with the average person who comes because their life sucks due to bad decisions — and most of those who I do meet in a congregation have been coming on and off since childhood. Going to “church” is what they’ve been taught. Yet the world is billions of people, and the vast majority of people I meet on my travels (all over the world) have heard the Gospel and dismissed it because for most people, the world doesn’t work that way. They see no reality of a God who loves them because it seems that Christians are preaching a worldly mindset. They see no sin or spiritual warfare.
When I offer my interpretation of the story, I’ve met many people that want to hear more. They want to hear about why a Christian really has nothing to do with war, government, judgement, trials, punishment, fear, hell or heaven. They want to hear about why Jesus mattered 2000 years ago, and how those actions still have an effect today. They want to hear about how different life was back then, and why we really do have a Kingodm here on earth.
They don’t want to hear about decision making, they don’t want to be moved by an emotional response by a really, really good speaker. They don’t want to be clonked on the head, judged for their actions, or told what to do and what not to do. Jesus didn’t want any of these things either, and that’s why Jesus is important. The all-knowing Father is described as a terrible horrific and unbenevolent being. God knows man can not be perfect, so why do we have the Bible? We have it to prove how much God loved us — and it has nothing to do with Jesus or sin or the Devil. It has to do with that perfect understanding what what we need, and what we don’t need. And God didn’t do it for us. He did it for Himself. And I am glad He did.
Last week I went to a concert in Chicago, and a few kids (21-23) who have heard me talk about the Bible came up to me at the concert hall and asked me to discuss my view of the Bible with some of their friends. I did. It was a great 15 minutes spent with people nodding their heads. Yes, the Bible is for free-thinkers. It is too bad that most people who love the Book are closed-off to thinking because they’ve been taught that it is evil/heretical/hell-calling.