New tasks for a renewed church
I highly recommend NT Wright’s 1992 book New tasks for a renewed church. Despite it’s garish cover, it is very good. Explosively good even. The book is divided in half. The first part — ‘The Modern World and the Christian Message’ — includes one amazing chapter paraphrasing the entire Old Testament. The second — ‘On Being the Church for the World’ — is where it all gets legs. It’s a plea for the Church to get its nose back to the grindstone, and a cross-shaped methodology for doing so. Of course I’d like to quote the whole book, but these two paragraphs will do for the meantime:
In particular, we can now see how it makes sense to say that, on the cross, Jesus took the weight of the world’s evil on to himself. This has often been asserted as an abstract statement of dogma, and equally often challanged by people who are not unnaturally puzzled as to why this man’s death should be credited with such an odd accomplishment. But, once we grant the initial Jewish assumptions, these questions become reasonably straightforward, albeit infinitely profound.
Israel, we must repeat, believed herself called to be God’s agent in the healing of the world. This involved being God’s agent in confronting the paganism that was at the heart of the world’s problem. We have suggested that Jesus believed this vocation to have devolved on to himself, and acted accordingly. There were two natural reactions to such a ministry. On the one hand, Jews of all sorts were angry at his radical redefinition of their varied ideas of what the kingdom would mean. On the other hand, the pagan Romans themselves were worried lest a potential rival to Caesar should be allowed to escape the normal fate. Together these reactions symbolise and focus the reaction of the whole world, explicitly and implicitly pagan, to Jesus and his dramatic claim. This is simply the climax of the pagan reaction to the whole divine plan, from Abraham to Jesus. To say that the evil of the whole world was heaped on to Jesus on the cross is not simply to deal in theological abstractions. It is to speak of actual historical events.
Hurray for Tom Wright!
Matt, you are a lovely fellow and Tom Wright may be a good guy as well. I am ……. puzzled by your rapturous enthusiasm for the particular piece of Wright that you have posted. I am not sure who Wright is addressing when he says “Jesus took the weight of the world’s evil on to himself. This has often been asserted as an abstract statement of dogma”. I have never heard Jesus’ sin-bearing as an abstract statement of doctrine; it has always been stated as the highest evidence of divine love and the most extreme evidence of his suffering. Furthermore, I do not know any church member who can be described as; “not unnaturally puzzled as to why this man’s death should be credited with such an odd accomplishment”
The “Jewish assumptions”, whatever they are and however they have been established, are not in the least necessary to understand Jesus and His sin-bearing. To read the gospels is enough to make the whole glorious story clear. How do I know? Mainly because NT Wright’s conclusions are the same as those of orthodox christianity. Orthodox conclusions drawn from orthodox understandings of the scripture have taught for millenia that Jesus was the sin bearer for the God-hating world. This is a great and world shattering truth and we can always hear it again and again. But why the excitement about Wright’s reformulation? Where he is correct he is orthodox, where vague and novel he seems……..vague. Take this sentence; “We have SUGGESTED that Jesus BELIEVED this vocation to have devolved on to himself, and acted accordingly” Why does Wright choose to write in such a prissy manner? The Gospel is that Jesus IS Lord, not merely that he believed he was the Messiah. We PROCLAIM the good news, we do not suggest that Jesus has acted in accordance with a reluctant conclusion that it all devolved on him.
Wright states that Israel “believed herself called to be God’s agent in the healing of the world. This involved being God’s agent in confronting the paganism that was at the heart of the world’s problem.”
Ummmmmm, so where is the scriptural evidence for that? No argument that Israel should have been a light to the world; where in the NT do we read that Israel, or at least remnant Judah saw herself this way? Even if true, how can Wright then go on, in the same breath, to suggest that the Jews had varied ideas of the kingdom? How can he suggest that the Romans were scared of Jesus? Pilate had to be bullied into crucifying Him. By these somewhat abstruse ways, Wright ends by stating that; “To say that the evil of the whole world was heaped on to Jesus on the cross is not simply to deal in theological abstractions. It is to speak of actual historical events.”
Quite right, quite right, how is this new or different from what we already believe? If not new or different, why the excitement? If he concludes the established truths of scripture as reflected in the orthodox christian faith, amen, hallelujah. Why does he have to introduce questions of jewish assumptions and Jesus’ beliefs? Why are we to get excited about Tom Wright?
Matt, you seem to me to be a thoughtful chap with a keen intellect and a thirst for Truth. What am I missing in Wright? I have read a bit of what he has written and am puzzled, both by the praise of his adherents and the odium of his detractors. His critics often parody rather than interact, his disciples too often just go; WOW rather than explain how Wright has helped the church or her work. I am, of course, delighted that so orthodox a man is well thought of in the Anglican church; he and another legion are needed to return this large chunk of western christianity back to…….well….christianity really. All power to the bishop of Durham for that. I am just not at all sure what he has to say to us. Please, and I mean this quite sincerely, enlighten me. If he is good for the gospel I want to know how.
Vrede
Evening Hans
Crickey, that’s a comment and a half!
The ‘hurray for Tom Wright’ comment is referring to the entire book. That quote was just one neat short bit that was easily pull-out-able. That quote struck me because it mirrors my experience exactly — Jesus as taught to me had been a theological construct, a term in some very wonderful (but distant) equations. I’m overstating it. NTW says each doctrine is a shorthand for a hi/story.
The quote doesn’t really illustrate the thrust of the book. I understand the main point of the book to be ‘the Church should be for the world what Jesus was to Israel’. I think that idea has the potential to really wake sleeping churches up.
Wright does back up the claims of that paragraph in the book. Off the top of my head, I would think of things like Ezekiel’s vision — water from the temple to the nations, the promise to Abraham (a blessing for all nations of the earth), Daniel’s mountain filling the earth, Deuteronomy:
If we’re not to try and understand Jesus’ self-understanding and contemporary Jewish assumptions, where are we to get our knowledge of Jesus?
I am frustrated by your comments. Let’s fight it out in person some time.
Sorry to frustrate, trying to be conciliatory etc. I am not looking for a fight, I had thought my peaceful intent was clear enough, would welcome personal contact though.
Just to clarify, I KNOW that Israel was CALLED to be the light of the world. What I want to know is; why does Wright use the elliptical ” Israel…..BELIEVED herself called to be… ”
If not elliptical, does he mean that Israel was AWARE of this role? How does he know? The Bible appears to be the story of how Israel failed, repeatedly, to carry out its function to save the world. So Israel was functionally unaware, seemed, from the biblical data to be content to revel in its special status, had no interest in the world outside.
What do you mean by Jesus’ self understanding? Is that the same as His revelation of Himself? If not, what? We get our knowledge of Jesus from scripture…… Do we need more? If Wright’s conclusions, based on “more”, add up to “more”, then perhaps we might need more. As I said, his conclusions appear congruent with accepted orthodoxy. What function then this emphasis of Jewish presuppositions? I have not said that we are NOT to understand Jesus. I have not said that knowledge of Jesus’ time is somehow wrong. Just struggling to see the point. I must say that I am sad that you were taught about Jesus as a distant construct.
Pax vobiscum
Morning Hans
I think he uses language like that because he talks to people who have widely differing ideas of the role of the Bible. Many Christians (and many outside Christianity) see the Old Testament less God talking to people, more as an expression from Israel of aspirations, yearnings, hopes etc. So when NTW talks like that, he gets those kinds of Christians thinking, as well as more orthodox Christians.
Jesus’ self-understanding is not a simple topic. It seems he wasn’t striding around the place being God everywhere from the day he was born.
And also with you!
Hans,
I was as alive to and as excited by theology as anyone I knew (or know), when coming to learn the Reformed faith. And yet Tom Wright is a gale of fresh air blowing through musty corridors.
I always had the rather uncomfortable idea that the gospels were a collection of fairly randomly connected stories and strange sayings; the real subsbtance of the NT was in the Pauline epistles. I had only the vaguest idea of how Jesus fitted with Israel – to me he was there to preach the real gospel of grace against the semi-pelagian works of Israel.
Theology was much like maths: if this goes here, if we change that variable, then what happens? ‘The Truth’ was therefore having all your variables in the right place – avoiding all the errors of sub-Reformed systems. Just listen to the word: “system”. What does that imply about our theology?
Perhaps, Hans, you are the last of your generation who understands things the way they were meant to be understood. If so, then it is a good thing, at least for you: but your generation and those above you have, in my view, failed to pass that understanding on.
What can anyone say about how and why Tom Wright is a breath of fresh air? Should we recount all the things we used to think (or not think), all the subtle ways in which he provides – not so much new content, but a fresh way of looking at that content? Such a task is not a short one, and what good would it do? I think you simply have to accept that these things are indeed new to us.
Let’s put it another way. I do not believe for one moment that, if the Reformed way of doing and thinking things in NZ truly reflected what Tom Wright is currently saying, we would be the sort of churches we now are. For instance, where is our social activism? Where is our gospel, apart from in theologically correct sermons from the pulpit every sunday, and in parliamentary submissions on either sexual sin or when when our coffers are threatened (the Charities Bill)?
We might know – in the abstract – that we are to be the light to the world, but like Israel, I hardly think we are functionally competant at being it. At whose feet will we lay the blame for this?
What does ‘social activism’ mean?
Tim
It means voting for either the Green Party or the Labour Party in national elections.
Hans
Good posts, sums up lots of my inchoate ideas on Wright, although I have not yet had the impetus to become real familiar with his writings, but what I have read strikes in me the same chords as you have expressed. I found him confusing, opaque and vague rather than revolutionary, but I thought it was my lack of applying myself to read more than a few pages of his writing. But, I did find him refreshingly more orthodox than I would expect from a mainstream english anglican which was a good thing.
Aaron, you also puzzle me a bit. I have made a fairly gentle enquiry about NT Wright and his pre-eminence among christian writers in some circles. I am not asking much and my tone appears mild, even if I say so myself. I have made no claims about the Reformed Church at all, especially no claims that the Reformed Church is the epitome of God’s hope for His kingdom.
The Reformed Church is not above reproach, this I freely admit. It is precisely because I would that we were better that I seek to understand the attractions that NT Wright has. Is his way better? What is his way? How does this work out in practical christianity? Does following Wright lead to irenic, industrious believers?
You have made some quite……harsh statements about our churches, this was perhaps not the best forum for those, especially if directed at specific individuals. John Goris tries to do a lot more than preach; “theologically correct sermons from the pulpit every sunday”. I accept that I, as one of your elders, have not set the world alight with my faithful stewardship or shining examples. I have made no claims to personal superiority though, so I am a little puzzled that you are in such an enthusiastic blame mode. You say that our church is a musty corridor that needs a refreshing gale blowing down it. You then go on to say that it would be pointless for you to explain to me how Wright could be this gale. Is it pointless because I am so dull? Is it pointless because the church has no desire for scriptural truth? Do you see it as a “pearls before swine” issue?
You may be correct with your implication that my generation has failed to pass on to you the important truths of the gospel although I am somewhat hurt that you would choose this way to tell me so. We are functionally exactly like Israel, we are Israel of course so we fail and fail and fail. We have failed for millenia but God in His Grace and Wisdom has used the “earthen vessels” and the “foolishness of preaching” to establish the church, the “pillar and ground of the truth” . Please have some of His grace in your view of the church. Also have some of His grace in your view of your fellow believers, “frail children of dust, feeble as frail, in Thee do we trust, nor find Thee to fail”.
In Coram Deo
John, your mockery of ‘social activism’ is very disappointing.
Tim, it means being concerned for the situation of those who are maginalised, displaced, or otherwise afflicted by whatever in this world does not conform to Christ’s kingship, including political and economic structures (all the result of religious fundamentals). It means doing things like Samaritans. It is in fact the central concern of most of the prophetic writings, and is often linked to the worship of idols. Thus, to preach Christ is both to deny the idols their rule and to dismantle the effects of it, in real life, in real situations.
Hans, every time I try and reply I’m overwhelmed with a feeling of “what’s the point?”. This isn’t your fault; it’s the medium. Once again, in person will be better.
By the hammer of Thor! I should elaborate. I only mock social activism to the extent that it is treated as an inherent good in and of itself – if you are in to that kind of social activism, you generally vote for Labour or the Greens or some such caring party. I think Christian social activism must always be accompanied by a Christian witness – Jesus feeds the 5000 with the loaves and fishes as he teaches them about the Kingdom. Without the Christian witness, you might as well let the government do it for you- more money and legislative powers will do a better job every time (haha).
Incidentally Aaron, if you are keen on some Christian social activism, talk to me about Christian Lovelink. We need a willing church with willing people in the Wellington City area to help those in need and bring the gospel at the same time. We have a good network of churches in the Hutt Valley, but it seems, no-one in the city area. I warn you that it might reduce the time that you have available to blog about social activism.
RE Comment #5: some of your best writing, Aaron; appreciated.
John, I trust we will hear you mocking theology, then, and that right quickly: since I know you are even-handed when it comes to treating all cases by the same standard.
I think ‘Christian witness’ (whatever that is) should always be accompanied by social activism, or else it is just more hot air.
I am also pleased, John, that your mockery so clearly applies to the context in which I was speaking of social activism. Clearly my usage desrved to be treated as if I was de-coupling social work from the gospel.
Or, perhaps you should simply admit that you are part of that most regrettable conservative NZ reformed propensity (shall I narrow it down more?) to mock social concerns while elevating abstract notions of ‘the truth’. In doing so, you (but not only you) contribute to an environment in which we are almost systemically incapable of understanding our role as church in other other way than as the guardians of confessional standards and creators of disciples made after our own image.
I say this aware that you are involved in Lovelink, and so I don’t mean that you have no sense of the social and creational aspect of the gospel. But I hope you see that it is fashionable in our circles – not least in order to establish one’s own ‘orthodox’ credentials – to mock, as you and others have done and frequently do, just about any spoken reference to such things.
It is therefore no surprise that the RCNZ has no developed institutional way of enacting social justice, has no position papers on the matter, no learned discussion, no way of even carrying out the conversation among ourselves – and certainly no record of speaking out about it to the civil magistrate or the community. And thus, our sense of ‘evangelism’ is tied almost exclusively to words and preaching of ‘the truth’; we have no real sense that ‘the truth’ might be a display of God’s reliablity and power in effecting renewal; that it might actually be most easily and potently demonstrated in the subversion and conversion of political, economic, social and – above and behind them all – religious structures to the Lordship of Christ, such that people may say “so THIS is what salvation looks like”.
If you really consider words important, John, I ask you to consider what weight others give this atmosphere of mockery, as opposed to what you personally enact, relatively unseen.
…..
Thank you for your Lovelink comments. I am surprised that there is such a lack in Wellington, given that churches like City Church are self-avowedly community churches with a concern (I thought) for just such things. I shall talk to you more about it – and perhaps there are those in Wellington Reformed who may be interetsed in participating.
…..
There is a small sliver of life and culture in the RCNZ to which I am reacting here. It is more than possible that I have become myopic and one-eyed about this, and that in reality the picture is nowhere near so grim. I say this because I wish to register a note of humility in all this. I’m neither a shining example of social actuivism not in a position to truly evaluate what our churches are like. Though I get continually pissed off by what I do see from my small corner, I am more than willing to acknowledge that I may have painted myself into it.
And that’s about the best I can do: say it the way I think it is, and then say “but I don’t really know”.
Perhaps a good way to go forward is to reply with your sense of where the churches (if that is not too broad) are at in terms of ‘mission’: actually bringing (or showing or enacting) the gospel, in all the various ways in which that may happen.
John, Hans and Aaron:
Aware that you are all of a very high intellectual calibre, and therefore capable of writing high quality comments rapidly, I have made the following calculation-
There is a total of 12 comments in this post. If each comment takes, on average, 10 minutes to write, that means you three have spent a total of 120 minutes arguing about, among other things, ‘social activism’. Do I detect a hint of irony? May I be so bold as to suggest perhaps those hours could be spent being ‘socially active’? It seems slightly ironic to spend that much time in an arguement that has clearly harmed the already tense blogging relationship you three share, when you could be displaying what you mean with actions. As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words…and boy do we have a lot of words here. I will take a moment here to draw attention to the proprietor of this blog, MHJB, who spends more than 120 minutes per week working voluntarily for [name of charity deleted to protect the guilty -Matthew]. Social activism?
Tim, appreciate your comments. I am most naturally an academic scholar and wordsmith; my strength is not in “doing”.
But over time – and with increasing strength – I am tending to agree with you. I’ve seen where academic Christianity leads (not least in myself) and it ain’t pretty. On that basis I’m often tempted to forget theological words altogether.
This is not to say, though, that I shouldn’t use the gifts God has given me (nor throw the baby out with the bathwater) – as I’m sure you’ll agree. The point, I suppose, is to my gifts wisely, and I confess I seldom appear to get that right.
I also suppose that I see a battle worth fighting: to get our church (by which I mean the RCNZ but include Wellington) to be able to speak about social action positively. We must speak with the conviction that it isn’t just a cover for liberalism, or a replacement for orthodoxy. (The phrase “Give me strength” comes to mind.) Social action or justice is required for orthodoxy. But first, we must at least be able to speak of it!
This conversation began with Tom Wright and the task of the church; it is my conviction that if we truly understood what he is on about (for which more than a few pages or quotes are required), we would be moved and motivated to become the church that really is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
That’s worth spilling words for.
But this is not a rebuttal, so much as an attempt to say that these are, so far as I can tell, my gifts – to do this. It’s hard to put that aside.
But I am trying – quite hard – to understand what I should do. All this testy talk does seem rather useless and rather discouraging. Perhaps your words will point me in a better direction.
Aaron, I agree with your last paragraph (without expressing a view on any other paragraph). I think that the question of the direction and function of the Church is one better dealt with “face to face”. It is not a straightforward question, and I do not intend to engage in it with this post, particularly as I have no real background on Wright and his views. I am all for robust discussion, but it must be with an attitude of love, and I would encourage all of us to do that – I note your reference to “testy talk” and am reminded of Paul’s warning not to engage in arguments about words.
It is easy to treat “theology” as maths, particularly as it does have an intellectual appeal, but it is so much more than that.
Notwithstanding my comments about not engaging in the substance of this debate, I will make one point. You alleged that our church has no mechanism for delivering “social justice”. We do have such a mechanism – Deacons. Scripturally instituted to show the love of God in the world in a practical sense. Again, I don’t want to debate whether or not the church uses them appropriately (or as well as it might), but simply note that the Church does have at least one institution for the practical outworking of God’s love.