Monday, March 26, 2007

N.T. says...

N.T. Wright writes,
For generations the church has been polarized between those who see the main task being the saving of souls for heaven and the nurturing of those souls through the valley of this dark world, on the one hand, and on the other hand those who see the task of improving the lot of human beings and the world, rescuing the poor from their misery.

The longer that I've gone on as a New Testament scholar and wrestled with what the early Christians were actually talking about, the more it's been borne in on me that that distinction is one that we modern Westerners bring to the text rather than finding in the text. Because the great emphasis in the New Testament is that the gospel is not how to escape the world; the gospel is that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. And that his death and Resurrection transform the world, and that transformation can happen to you. You, in turn, can be part of the transforming work. That draws together what we traditionally called evangelism, bringing people to the point where they come to know God in Christ for themselves, with working for God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. That has always been at the heart of the Lord's Prayer, and how we've managed for years to say the Lord's Prayer without realizing that Jesus really meant it is very curious. Our Western culture since the 18th century has made a virtue of separating out religion from real life, or faith from politics.When I lecture about this, people will pop up and say, "Surely Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world." And the answer is no, what Jesus said in John 18 is, "My kingdom is not from this world." That's ek tou kosmoutoutou. It's quite clear in the text that Jesus' kingdom doesn't start with this world. It isn't a worldly kingdom, but it is for this world. It's from somewhere else, but it's for this world.


(HT: Evangelical Outpost)

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Zach,

I can't tell from your post if your quoting NT Wright meant you agreed or disagreed with his teaching.

Has Desert Springs adopted the NPP theology of NT Wright?

Vitamin Z said...

We would not agree with the NPP but I personally think he has some other things to say that are great. As with most writers we need read critically and evaluate everything like the Bereans did. I am not a fan of writing a guy off completely just because he might have some things to say that are wack. That would be like me saying something that is unintentially incorrect and that disqualifying me from any post at the church. To be sure this has to be seen in the degree. If I denied the gospel then I would hope I would get fired, but if I have a somewhat weird view of the eschatology (which I don't really know that I have) that would be different I think. I hope this is making sense. I am rambling...

Vitamin Z said...

Oh yeah, In terms of this quote... I think I like it, but that is not always the case with stuff I put up here. Sometimes it's just for conversation and thinking.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your response. I concur with you that one ought not to dismiss a particular writer based on peripherals they may not have gotten right (and who has their orthodoxy nailed down 100%? No one can lay claim to such a thing.) One of my favorite authors also happens to be a full preterist -- I just extract the good from his writings and spit out the bones, as it were. :)

It's just that with NT Wright, I see his teachings as, for the most part, terribly inaccurate and having the potential to shipwreck a believer's understanding of the faith -- especially his "redefining" of justification and his denial of the need for Christ's righteousness imputed on the sinner's behalf. In my perspective, when a Bible teacher has such a core aspect of the faith so badly mangled, I find it hard to respect anything else they may have to say. Your mileage may vary. ;)

Thank you for the clarification.

Anonymous said...

OOPS! In my comment above, I meant to write "partial preterist," not (GASP!) "full preterist." Full preterism is heterodox to the core and WAY outside the bounds of historic Christianity.

One ought not to converse with one's children and try to type on the computer at the same time. :)

Rachel Starr Thomson said...

Hi... found you while Web surfing.

I wrote a book about the Lord's Prayer a while back. The kindgom chapter was actually the hardest one to write: I find that Christianity is infested with vague and confusing notions of the kingdom, and I certainly wasn't any better.

I did eventually come to an understanding that has really affected my life. If you don't mind, I'll just quote my book ;).

"In a sense, we who have repented and believed the gospel are outposts of heaven. We are a new and living world within an old and dying one. It is ours to walk in the light, to live as children of the day, to worship the True King and oppose the rebellious stewards who have tried to claim this realm for their own. To the darkness, we are the worst sort of traitors, because we dare to live eternal lives while the world tumbles ever nearer its ultimate destruction. The Bible speaks truly when it says that we are at enmity with the world. But at the same time, we are the world's hope: because we have not just been left here to wile away the hours until Christ returns. Rather, we have been left here as colonists with a mission: to preach, as Jesus and His disciples did, that the kingdom of God has come, and that if we will surrender ourselves to the King, God has promised to 'deliver us from the power of darkness, and translate us into the kingdom of his dear Son.'"