Tags
bankrupt Christian traditions, biblical authority, C. S. Lewis, N. T. Wright, Redemption of Creation, the Christian story, the story of God, World-flight
The Religious News Service wants $190 from me to re-publish their post by this name. Pity. Still, it is free to link you to it.
This is a great post, with some excellent comments, especially by “David” who thinks Wright is ‘off his rocker’ and “skylarking” who succinctly answers him. David hears something outside his left vs. right understanding and assumes Wright is “on the other side.”
Wright has spent the second half of his career, ever since he began to seriously publish, being accused of “rank liberalism” by theological conservatives and of leading “a fundamentalist backlash” by theological “progressives.”
Although he was a conservative young man, trained by England’s theological liberal establishment, Wright is neither a liberal nor a conservative. It is hard for people who have always seen the Christian discussion of our day in a left/right frame to imagine that a few people, here and there, working by various means, have found their way back behind the modernist left/right battle to a biblical Christianity which breaks out of traditional molds of both kinds and moves us toward a genuinely bible-based, God-breathed, creation affirming future and hope.
Let’s face it; neither liberals nor conservatives want an actual lord of creation who is right now judging the nations for failing to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly before God. Conservatives want a personal savior who cares about swearing (NO!) and quiet times (YES!). Liberals want a savior who by his words and life taught us to be good to others and accept everyone. The tiny liberal and conservative versions of Christianity with which we deal are each good as far as they go: we should not swear (usually), times of personal reflection and communion with God are wonderful, we should be good to others and we should accept every person we meet, as C. S. Lewis said, as a potential eternal splendor.
All true, but so far short of the message and declaration that King Jesus reigns now in a not-far-off heaven, with incredible power and all possible resources at his present disposal. So far short, our little personal liberal and conservative saviors, of the king who never gives up on what he has made, who claims all creation as his own, who brings heaven down to transform earth!
If you would care to read the post at the News Service and comment here, I would be glad to engage with you. At some point I will pick up Wright’s How God Became King; The Forgotten Story of the Gospels and then I will comment on it myself. And if you want to repost my posts on that book somewhere else, it will be for free.
Trace’s Studies in Grace Blog 
Thank you for writing about this! Feel rather vindicated in a way…love Wright! As so with you, glad others have the time to really study this as I am immersed in the messiness and getting by of God’s Love 24-7.
I forgot to ask you, SFriant, why you “feel vindicated in a way”?
Thanks, S.Friant!
There was a fracas recently on Rachel Held Evans’ blog about whether or not Wright is a Calvinist. Knowing a thing or two about his background, I was able to weigh in. Wright and I are both working from a major stream within Dutch Calvinist philosophy which does not necessarily mean either of us subscribes to Calvinist theology. I am a poor theological Calvinist at best; they probably would not want to claim me.
I think the point is one that Wright makes in chapter 4 of his Scripture and the Authority of God: the Reformation took us part of the way back from a medieval worldview and theology toward a biblical understanding but fell short in that it did not break with the rationalism of Thomistic theology. The Reformation’s Sola Scriptura always had an out-of-context biblicistic use of the text lurking behind it. The reformers did not fully embrace “the story” of God, nor did they understand the value of historical context. These were theoretical gifts we have received during the Enlightenment and since.
Yet for all that, the reformers did seem to understand something of the restoration of creation as the outcome of the story. Luther was once asked what he would do today if he knew for certain the “world would end tomorrow.” He answered, “I would plant a tree!”
I too love Wright, S.F. I have been reading biblical studies and theology for years with my mental force-field/filters up, never sure when an author would go south and try to take me along! With Wright I need almost no filters at all. I have never before read a leading scholar who was writing from the same view as my own.
Blessings as you fight through the messiness. You know God is with you, 24-7! And so am I!
Hmmmm. I find it rather vindicating. Coming from a Catholic background, understanding the importance of “good works” for transforming our world, plant a tree, indeed.
I think the scewed heavenly view has a lot to do with strange christian/human behavior over the centuries. “What do I care about building strong communities and fostering peace if at the end of my life I’m just gonna be sayin’ ‘see ya later, suckers!'”
If God’s holy city coming down to Earth is a frightening thought for you….you might want to start planting those trees now!
As you know, DRice2, my understanding of the pattern of redemption begins with “rescue” but it concludes with “marching orders!”
Protestantism overstated its case. (When we get our backs up we step outside of grace and then we tend to overstate our case; it happens to us all.) Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Farel, etc., were protesting the Catholic error that one could initiate, earn or otherwise contribute to the rescue, the first phase of redemption/salvation. They correctly saw that God alone must rescue those who are helpless. That is the core of the old meaning of the term Calvinist term, “Total Depravity.” (Sure, today we are better off calling it “Total Inability” because that is what the reformers meant.) Luther referred to it as “The Bondage of the Will.” On that point the reformers were spot-on. No one can save him or herself by any means.
However, to suggest that one who claims to have been rescued by God but who does not then eagerly seek instruction, does not remain in fellowship when tested, does not begin to show evidence of the work of the indwelling Spirit and does not finally, eventually, seek direction for God’s calling for his or her life, well… James correctly observed, such faith, giving evidence of no “works,” is dead.
Salvation is not a hell-fire insurance policy. It is the process by which each believer ceases to belong to himself or herself, ceases to be an autonomous rebel, at war with the designs and purposes of God.
The sad legacy of modern Protestantism is cheap grace, the idea that a religious experience, followed by no discernible growth toward the life of God, should be considered a salvation event. This is exacerbated in the Lutheran and Episcopal churches which imagine that a child, legitimately received into the community of faith through infant baptism, is from that moment a redeemed saint. Baptism may, in fact be the very beginning of a life of faith but if no flowers bloom where the seeds were planted, then either the seeds were dead or they were not seeds at all.
The story of God is so clear on this; God was not ever interested in saving discrete souls for heaven; God is raising up a redemption army on the earth. I write this knowing that I must submit what I believe to be true to the mysterious and inscrutable will of God which will most certainly prove me wrong in the details. However, I am not wrong about the story; it has always been about a host which conquers, at first with swords and spears but now through grace, truth and love on the earth; not atomic spark/particles which were made to shine in heaven.
Salvation begins in rescue from helplessness; it continues with equipping, testing and the indwelling presence of the spirit of God. But in the end, God calls upon those whom he has blessed to “be fruitful, to multiply, …,” etc., or to “cause the nations to bless themselves” or to “go take the land,” or to “become a light to the nations,” or finally, to “cause the nations to become my disciplined followers!” All of these marching orders from different eras amount to the same message: “work out your salvation by participating in the redemption of creation in what you do all day when you are alone and when you are together!”
What an utter difference is the scope and direction and purpose of salvation when we know that the One who created us and loves us and rescued us, did so for a purpose in which we play some small but loving part. It makes all the difference in the world.
What a paradox! It is no wonder why the christian faith is fractured to the point that it is today. One of the greatest concepts I got from attending “A Year in the Bible” was the difference between the “heart” of the law and the “letter” of the law. It is this basic concept that imho has caused so much turmoil and infighting. Will we continue to fight over details? Or will we begin to understand that it is the intent that matters?
Works of faith? Yes we should. It reminds me of a scene in the movie “the Break-up” where Jeniffer Aniston’s character tells Vince Vaughn’s character that she wants him to do things without being asked, but more than that, she wants him to “want to do the dishes.” To which he replies, “Why would I WANT to do the dishes?” In the end he begins to understand that he if he wants her to be happy, if he truly loves her, then he will want to do the dishes out of that love for her.
God wants you to WANT to do the dishes…figuratively speaking 😉