Pages Menu
TwitterRss
Categories Menu

Posted by on May 16, 2013 in Missiology | 0 comments

Responding to Millar’s Critique of Wright’s “The Mission of God” Part 2: Millar’s Minor Concerns

Responding to Millar’s Critique of Wright’s “The Mission of God” Part 2: Millar’s Minor Concerns

In Part One, I summarized Gary Millar’s talk that he gave at the 2013 Gospel Coalition Conference. I had intended to write one more post analyzing it, but I believe that it will take two more posts to do so. In this one I plan on looking at Millar’s summary of Wright as well as his four minor concerns, to be followed in the third post by a consideration of his six deeper concerns.

Why I’m Interested in Wright

Some might be wondering why I am interested enough in Chris Wright’s work to type out all of this regarding Millar’s critique. Besides the obvious point that I like to read and write both academically and as a hobby, I feel like in some ways that Chris Wright’s thought has been with me on my own theological journey for a number of years.

I was first exposed to his book in college, and I greatly enjoyed The Mission of God. At the time, I found it to be an eye-opening look at biblical theology. That is, the way he showed how God’s mission to reach not only my suburban upbringing, but also the nations, was present throughout the Bible—New and Old Testaments—was powerful in my understanding of Scripture and the church’s task. I was also thinking through some of the things I had seen within a context of cultural fundamentalism (as opposed to simply being committed to the fundamentals of the faith), in which the proclamation of the gospel seemed to be the only thing that mattered. Works of justice and mercy—whether specifically run by the church or not—didn’t seem to get a lot of airtime.

So when I read Chris Wright, and he sought to demonstrate how God’s concern for the physical extended throughout all of Scripture alongside of his concern for men’s souls, I could not help but be interested in his approach. This was happening at the same time that I was beginning to travel more and have my eyes opened to the situation of the poor in many places around the world.

Several years later, after finishing seminary and heading towards ordination in the PCA, I found myself interacting with Kevin DeYoung’s work, particularly What is the Mission of the Church? as well other Reformed approaches to some of the same questions that Wright had raised. I could sense doubts about Wright’s approach beginning to arise, though I still saw great benefit in parts of his missional survey of Scripture. I later blogged my way through The Mission of God’s People, and then read through The Mission of God again. I was once again impressed by many aspects of it (many of the same ones that Millar highlights), though I was unsatisfied by other aspects.

So with that background in mind, I want to take a look at Millar’s critique and consider whether or not his criticisms hold water.

Millar’s Summary of Wright: Fair or Not?

On the whole, it seems to me that Millar’s summary of Wright represented his approach fairly. My concern is that Millar seemed to take quite a few jabs at Wright’s work during the summary. While obviously he was anticipating the critiques he would bring later, it seemed to hinder getting a fair presentation of exactly what Wright had written. In particular, his jab at the end of his summary that Wright’s book was not very clear was a bit odd. I found the book quite clear at most points. Even if there are serious issues of disagreement, that doesn’t mean it isn’t clear, only that it may be in error.

Assessing Millar’s Four Questions/Observations

Though not Millar’s deepest concerns, they clearly are important to him, as they resurface at the end in his scathing summary critique of Wright. Of these four concerns, in my admittedly not as well-informed opinion, only one of them rings completely true.

On Overstating the Case: Millar suggests that Wright at times overstates his case. I agree. To argue that the Exodus and the Jubilee are the major paradigms for mission in Scripture seems overstated. At the very least, if Wright is going to make that case more strongly, he would need to show how the NT writers relied on those two paradigms in their own understanding of their mission. I am not saying, of course, that for something from the OT to be valid, it must be repeated in the NT (I agree strongly with the covenant theology expressed in the Westminster Standards). But at the same time, Wright isn’t just saying that the Jubilee and Exodus are paradigms or helpful windows into mission in the OT. He is saying they are primary paradigms. Such a claim needs further evidence from within Scripture itself so far as I can see.

On the Missional Hermeneutic: Millar strongly criticizes Wright’s use of the term “missional hermeneutic.” He thinks it is unclear, and therefore not helpful. As I have read Wright, he is saying this: there is not so much a biblical basis for mission as there is a missional basis for the Bible. That is, as God’s revelation to his people, the Bible exists because God has a mission to redeem and renew all things.

Therefore, when we read Scripture, we need to view it, and all its contents from that perspective. Even the most common of stories in the Old Testament was written for the purpose of advancing God’s mission, and so we need to be aware of that and make that clear when we preach and teach it.

I understand that Millar’s problem lies more with the term “hermeneutic” than with “missional.” We can talk about a “grammatical-historical” hermeneutic and know that we need to read Scripture using the tools of grammar and history in order to do our exegesis, putting Scripture in its proper context. Millar doesn’t see how “missional hermeneutic” can be considered a method in any clear manner. But in the sense that I described above, I don’t find it unclear, though obviously it must still work in concert with proper principles of biblical interpretation.

On Having an Aversion to Going Anywhere: I found this critique a bit puzzling. Millar cited no statements from The Mission of God that explicitly illustrated such an idea from Wright. If I understood Millar correctly, his flow of thought seemed to go like this:

(1) Wright deemphasizes texts such as the Great Commission in favor of seeing mission from the whole Bible. (2) Wright sees everything as mission. (3) Accordingly, Wright must not think relocating for the sake of gospel ministry is important.

I’m not sure that is a fair reading of Wright’s work. As I will explore more later, I do think he needs to spend more time on the NT and how it discusses mission. But nonetheless, as I read Wright’s focus on the nations initially, I couldn’t help but be encouraged all the more to go to the nations. It is possible that I misread him, but I never got that sense.

That’s not to say that I don’t have deep concerns about his “everything is mission” paradigm, as that does seem to undercut gospel proclamation (more on this later). But to say that he has a “deep aversion” to going anywhere doesn’t seem to flow from what Wright himself has written.

On Using Straw Man Arguments: I do see Millar’s point here. But I’m not sure that is exactly what Wright was doing in some of the examples Millar provided, for one main reason.

While there may not be one single person who holds to all of the various extremes that Millar cited (only using Matthew 28, seeing no implications for politics or daily life from the resurrection, et al), there are certainly people who have advocated one or another of them in some way. Growing up, I certainly heard plenty of sermons on mission from Matthew 28, but very few from the Old Testament. Now scholarly circles may have done better in this area, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Dispensationalists could very well be said to cancel out much OT teaching (not just on mission) with NT teaching, seeing radical discontinuity there. So I’m not sure that these arguments are truly straw-men arguments. They might not be the best arguments, but that doesn’t mean they are straw-men arguments.

Now I would imagine that at some points Wright uses arguments that don’t perfectly describe the positions of his opponents. We all fail in being completely clear, so I don’t know that it’s particularly helpful in a 535-page book to bring out a few small examples of such things.

So thus far, while Millar, as far as I’m concerned, has not proven his case very well. But in the last post, I’ll look at his deeper concerns, which is really where the primary discussion will come.

In terms of previewing my perspective, I do think Millar’s six larger concerns are both more serious and generally more accurate. I’m not convinced however, that they truly advance the conversation or hit at some of the things that might ultimately help Wright’s project to be refined biblically.

Read More

Posted by on May 14, 2013 in Missiology | 2 comments

Responding to Millar’s Critique of Wright’s “The Mission of God” Part 1: Summary

Responding to Millar’s Critique of Wright’s “The Mission of God” Part 1: Summary

At The Gospel Coalition national conference in April, Gary Millar gave a talk in which he critiqued Chris Wright’s massive tome, The Mission of God. I have read The Mission of God twice (in addition to others of Chris Wright’s works), and while I greatly appreciate much of what Wright has done in his books, I too have concerns about his approach to biblical theology. Obviously, I was quite curious to see what Millar would have to say about Wright’s book.

The audio was briefly put up on the Conference Media page, but it seems to in process again at this point. However, somehow I was able to get the audio when it was up briefly, and so I want to write two posts about the talk. In this first one, I will simply summarize Millar’s talk based on the notes I took on it. In the second post, I hope to examine Millar’s critiques and see if they hold water or not.

Millar’s Summary of The Mission of God

Millar begins his talk by summarizing the argument and flow of The Mission of God. He also notes that he has great appreciation for Chris Wright both academically and personally, but that obviously he believes there are things that need critique in his book. He gives three reasons for critiquing the book:

  1. The book is becoming a common textbook in “missio dei” classes and discussion.
  2. His approach (missoi dei–>mission of God’s people) is taken for granted.
  3. He believes Wright’s approach to be deeply flawed.

Four Key Conclusions from Wright

Millar summarizes what he sees as the four main conclusions that Wright presents in his work:

  1. Mission is the mission of God. As Wright puts it on page 22, “Fundamentally, our mission, if it is biblically informed and validated, means our committed participation as God’s people at God’s invitation and command in God’s own mission within the history of God’s world for the redemption of God’s creation.”
  2. Everything is mission.
  3. The Great Commandment is as important as the Great Commission.
  4. The Jubilee and the Exodus are primary paradigms for mission.

Walking through The Mission of God

Millar then goes on to walk through the four parts of the book, though obviously, this is only a brief summary of the book, given it is 535 pages in total.

Part 1: The Bible and Mission

Here Wright summarizes his key terms and his approach, which he describes as a “missional hermeneutic.” Millar suggests that Wright is not merely saying that the Bible is a product of God’s mission (though it is certainly that), but that he is also saying that a “missional hermeneutic” is a certain method for reading the Scriptures also.

From that, Wright argues that we should not base our understanding of mission only on texts like the Great Commission in Matthew 28, but that we we must take the whole Bible into account. The overarching category of story–the story of the Bible as the story of God on mission–is the source for authority.

Part 2: The God of Mission

Millar highlights in this section how Wright sees the exodus and the return from exile as the main events that give shape to God’s mission in the OT. He also builds on his previous work on monotheism, idolatry, and critique of religious pluralism, all of which Millar finds helpful.

Part 3: The People of Mission

Millar notes some quibbles and some things he appreciates (such as the brilliant connection between the tower of Babel and the call of Abraham), but he hones in on three aspects of Wright’s approach in this section.

First, he notes that Wright makes the mission of Israel a controlling idea in the NT. Anticipating his coming critiques, he suggests that this idea is without sufficient exegetical warrant.

Secondly, he focuses on how Wright views the Exodus as paradigmatic for mission. The key point here is that Wright, unlike Millar, sees the Exodus as paradigmatic in all its aspects: political, social, and spiritual. That is, he sees it presenting a model which carries into the NT period, a model which says that God cares about redeeming his people from slavery, oppression, the effects of the curse, etc, not simply slavery to their own sin. Again anticipating his critique, Millar suggests this is lacking exegetically, particularly from the NT, as the NT makes the connection with the Exodus primarily in terms of Christ’s death on the cross in order to reconcile us to God.

Thirdly, he notes that Wright also sees the Jubilee as paradigmatic for mission, though again Millar suggests that this is thin exegetically, as the Jubilee gets very little airtime in the rest of Scripture, that is, outside of the original context in which it was given.

From these three points, Millar is showing that Wright thinks that mission is on every page of the OT, from Israel’s missional calling to the priesthood as symbolic of mission, to the Exodus and Jubilee, and so on.

Part 4: The Arena of Mission

Millar admits that he sees this section as the most problematic. In it, Wright makes his case that because the effects of sin extend to the relationship between God, humanity, and the earth, so also the extent of mission must deal with all of those relationships. And so Wright suggests (as he does in his later book, The Mission of God’s People), that mission extends to even working with the non-human.

Wright also argues that sin spreads horizontally in people and institutions and vertically through generations, and thus sin can be institutional, structural, endemic, and embedded in history. Millar doubts that these formulations have significant exegetical warrant. He also suggests that while Wright’s survey of the biblical teaching on the nations is helpful at many points, he gives far little space to the theme of the judgment of the nations, which is part of the biblical record.

A 7-Point Summary of The Mission of God

  1. Mission is God’s mission.
  2. Mission is central to the Bible.
  3. The Bible is written on mission and is the product of God’s people on their mission
  4. We need to read Bible through a missional lens and hermeneutic
  5. The whole Bible should shape our mission
  6. Sin is all-pervasive, between individuals, countries, structures, etc
  7. The primary paradigms for mission are the Exodus and the Jubilee
  8. God’s mission is all-embracing, setting all nations free from the all-encompassing problems of sin

In light of this summary, Millar says that he doesn’t believe this book is the clearest that has ever been written, despite his appreciation for others of Wright’s works. He then moves on to his affirmations and critiques.

Six Things Millar Loves about the Book

  1. The God-centeredness of Wright’s approach
  2. His brilliant defense of the uniqueness of Christ
  3. His insights into key OT texts like Genesis 11-12, and 18-19
  4. His discussion and exegesis of key OT missiological texts, despite his overly positive view of the nations in the OT
  5. His clear articulation of what what God asks of us: to be involved in what God is doing in the world, and to speak in a way that commends God to the nations
  6. His affirmation that evangelism is at the heart of mission

Four Things Millar Noticed and Questioned

  1. Some things are unclear, such as his use of the term “missional hermeneutic.” Millar suggests that it’s unclear what exactly this method is, whether it’s just the awareness of mission’s importance as we read it, or something more.
  2. Wright has a tendency to overstate his case, such as the missional role of Israel being everywhere, or the Jubilee and Exodus as paradigms for mission.
  3. Wright has an aversion to going anywhere. That is, Millar thinks he underplays the importance of the Great Commission and relocating for the sake of gospel ministry. Millar goes so far as to say that Wright relativizes Matthew 28.
  4. Wright has an annoying habit of using straw man arguments. Millar references several caricatures: that those who don’t agree with Wright only talk about Matthew 28:19-20 with reference to mission, that Jesus’ claims were misunderstood by Romans and Jews and that his death and resurrection have no impact on the real world, including politics, and that we can’t cancel out OT teaching on mission with NT teaching on mission. Along with others, Millar suggests that this is not an accurate picture of those who disagree with Wright, and so his arguments fall flat.

Millar’s Six Deep Concerns

  1. There is an absence of the Bible at key points. Millar specifically references the paradigmatic status given to the Exodus and Jubilee and the relationship of the OT and NT. He suggests that Wright assumes too much continuity without proving such, particularly in relation to the Exodus, without giving attention to how the NT interprets the exodus event through Christ.
  2. Millar says that there is a persisten exegetical carelessness in the book, which is uncharacteristic of Wright. He cites a number of examples: Wright’s skipping over how the verbs in Gen. 1:27 and 2:15 are later used for priestly activity, his replacing of “righteousness” with “justice” in Matt. 6:33 without exegetical defense, his use of Acts 6 to affirm the importance of social action, ignoring that the passage actually highlights the centrality of the ministry of word and prayer, and others.
  3. Wright is unwilling to allow the NT to shape how we read the OT. He again notes that Wright does not examine the NT passages on the Exodus to see how they shape our view of that event for the current age. He doesn’t look at how the experience of a Israelite slave freed from Egypt would differ from that of a Roman slave freed from the bondage of sin in the first century. He also notes that he doesn’t interact with other biblical theology very much.
  4. Wright contends that evangelism is ultimate, but not primary. Millar’s basic concern here is that evangelism, while not rejected, is simply put alongside a list of other things that we also must do as part of mission. That is, there is no hierarchy in terms of mission, and so ecological work can be put alongside of evangelism. Millar finds this particularly weak, given no sustained examination of Acts 1:8 (or the rest of Acts), the Great Commission, or the theme of witness in Revelation.
  5. Millar argues that there is a weak doctrine of sin and judgment in the book. Millar argues that Wright’s view of sin seems to primarily be horizontal in terms of its effects on our environment (speaking more broadly than, though including, the natural world). He notes that original sin does not seem to have much place in the book, nor substitutionary atonement. The positive evaluation of the nations and lack of discussion of the theme of judgment lead Millar to conclude that while Wright is not a universalistic himself, it opens the door wide for that view.
  6. Millar notes that the word “gospel” is not present in the index, nor is it featured in the book itself. He admits that Wright would likely say it’s the driving force behind all of mission, but Millar argues that it must be explicitly defined, discussed, and cited as the driving force behind mission.

Summary of Millar’s Concerns

Millar asks the following question: if this book dominates evangelical and Reformed missions for the next 30 years, where will we be?

There will be no hell, no judgment, not really any hope from the cross, no one will go anywhere, no one will preach to anyone, because we’re not sure that God cares that much, because everything is mission, and being is more important than going. Thus Millar says that it would be disastrous to take theology from TMoG.

Millar says that it’s not so much what’s in the book as it is what’s left out of it. His fear is that if we leave out what’s left out of The Mission of God, there will be no going, no preaching, because who would stand up and preach a gospel that will get us persecuted. There would be no evangelism, hell, judgment, and ultimately, no need for a cross. And therefore, ultimately, no mission.

Clearly, Millar’s critique, despite his expressed admiration for Chris Wright’s other work, is fairly scathing. I hope in Part 2 to look at some of his critiques and consider whether or not they are fair or not. Though I have not read Wright’s book in about a year, I have read it twice and spent quite a bit of time in his works, so I hope to offer some of my thoughts as I’m wrestling through some of these very issues.

I obviously would recommend actually listening to Millar’s critique and not relying on my notes on it. That will give better context for my interaction with his thoughts in the coming post.

Read More

Posted by on Dec 7, 2011 in Missiology | 2 comments

Wright on Reading the Whole Bible for Mission

Given the recent discussions on the mission of the church, I was interested to watch a lecture given by Christopher Wright on Reading the Whole Bible for Mission. I’m planning on reading back through The Mission of God soon to aid me as I think through the differences in view between it and DeYoung and Gilbert’s What is the Mission of the Church? But if you’re interested in the discussion and Wright’s viewpoint, yet are not quite willing to invest the time it takes to get through the 535-page beast, this video gives a nice introduction to his thought. Below the video I’ve compiled a brief outline of his talk along with a few thoughts.

Christopher Wright – Reading The Whole Bible For Mission: What Happens When We Do? from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.

Outline of Wright’s Lecture

  • God with a Mission
    • God’s intentionality and purpose
    • The four dimensions of God’s mission
    • The teleological narrative of Scripture
    • The biblical worldview is a missional worldview
  • Humanity with a Mission
    • Man’s purpose and intention from God’s purpose and intention
    • All dimensions of being human are dimensions of mission.
  • Old Testament Israel with a Mission
    • Old Testament vision of God: Missional Monotheism
    • Old Testament vision of God’s people and why they exist: Missional Election
    • Old Testament vision of God’s people and how they should live: Missional Ethics
    • Old Testament vision of God’s future for all nations: missional eschatology
  • Jesus with a Mission
    • Jesus’ conviction of being sent in his birth and baptism
    • The Great Commission: comprehensive, beginning with an indicative
  • The Church with a Mission
    • Key words rooted in the Old Testament show us that we must come to the NT theology of mission by means of the story from the beginning
      • Witnesses (Acts 1:8; Isaiah 43)
      • Servanthood (Acts 13:47; Isaiah 49:6)
      • Priesthood (1 Peter 2; Rom 15:16)
  • What does it mean to read the whole Bible from the perspective of mission?
    • We have a Genesis to Revelation Bible. We can’t just go from sin to the day of judgment, thereby ignoring the cosmic realities of creation and new creation.
    • We read the Bible in light of God’s purpose for humanity.
    • We read the whole Bible in light of God’s historical election of Israel and promise to Abraham for the sake of the nations.
    • We read the whole Bible in the light of the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth, his messianic identity and his missional thrust for the church. We read the whole Bible as the missional community called by God.
A Few Thoughts
There is much to love about Wright’s approach. I think his basic movement from the mission of God to the mission of man, to Israel, to Jesus, to the church makes a lot of sense. When your eyes are opened to the missional basis of Scripture, you really do start to see it everywhere in Scripture. But that does not leave me without some questions, ones that I will continue to have to dig into:
(1) My consistent question about Wright’s approach is whether he accounts for the distinction between individual Christians and the institutional church. Of course, as he says in this lecture, God holds us accountable for our humanity as well as our Christianity. But does the institutional church not have a more specific role than that of individual human Christians? I constantly wish he would tackle that question directly, as to me it is the crucial issue.
(2) Can we so directly move from God’s mission to our mission? From Jesus’ mission to the church’s mission? DeYoung and Gilbert raised this question in their book, and while I’m hardly convinced of either perspective fully, it seems to me that he makes the jump a bit too quickly at times, though as I say, I’m going to re-read The Mission of God to see more clearly how he moves along that line.
Read More

Posted by on Mar 6, 2011 in Missiology |

The Mission of God’s People (15)

After many months, this post will conclude my walk through Christopher Wright’s The Mission of God’s People. Chapter 15, “The Journey So Far and the Journey Ahead,” condenses much of what Wright has argued to this point, but then asks the all-important question, “So what?” Given the missional nature of the Scriptures, and given unswerving loyalty we must have to our Lord, how then ought we to live? Wright looks at the question in three sections: (1) the world, (2) the gospel, and (3) the church.

The World

Early in the book, Wright looked at a biblical theology of creation, arguing that care of creation was essential to the mission of God’s people. At the end of the book, he gets more practical, arguing specifically that “God calls some Christians to ecological ‘missions’ as their primary field of ministry in God’s world” (267). After listing many of the difficulties affecting the world earth today (pollution, destruction of rainforests, desertification, the loss of species, etc), he argues that “holistic mission, then, is not truly holistic if it includes only human beings (even if it includes them holistically!) and excludes the rest of the creation for whose reconciliation Christ shed his blood (Col. 1:20)” (269). His argument in this section troubles me for a couple of reasons:

(1) As I’ve repeatedly noted, it seems to make no distinction between how Christians are to live in the world and what the redeemed community is supposed to see as its mission in the world.

(2) It does not seem to fit well with apostolic pattern that we have in Scripture. While certainly I agree that Christians ought to treat animals well, ought to be careful about not polluting the world, and so on, the apostles seem to illustrate well for us what the mission is. And that mission seems to be making disciples (obviously drawing on what Jesus told them in the Great Commission). Creation care, while a good thing, does not seem to fit in that mission.

Wright follows his discussion of creation with some helpful thoughts on how the church ought to equip its people to engage the world and live ought their identity in Christ in society.

The Gospel

Wright is very concerned to deal with the question of word and deed ministry. He argues that we too often emphasize either the individual or the cosmic redemption accomplished by Christ when they rightly go together, and he suggests that therefore word and deed ministry must go together. “Social action with no evangelistic interest is as nonholistic as is evangelism with no social concern. To be concerned for the poor and hungry but not concerned for people hearing the good news of Jesus is not even to follow the example of Jesus, let alone ‘holistic mission’” (275).

that question is a matter of great interest to me, one that I will need to spend considerable time wrestling with, but I will say that his basic argument seems to follow, as it seems best to fit both Jesus’ and the apostles’ example.

The Church

As I’ve said so often, if there is one thing that is glaringly absent in Wright’s book it is that there is no discussion of the church as institution, that is, whether or not the gathered people of God have a more focused mission than Christian individuals do in the world. But nonetheless, Wright gives us great things to think about. In particular, he argues that the contemporary church needs to repent of several things in order to be faithful to her mission:

  • The scandal of great wealth in Christians in some areas compared with the great poverty of Christians in other areas.
  • The scandal of divisions in the body of Christ–ethnic, socio-economic, and so on.
  • The scandal of “obsession with status, greed, and power.”
  • The scandal of the church’s captivity to the ideology of culture and nation.
  • The scandal of false teaching. (283)

Surely the church does need to repent of those things. Surely we do need people to repent of all the things that dishonor our Lord so that we can turn and be further committed to his mission in the world.

Read More

Posted by on Jan 27, 2011 in Missiology |

The Mission of God’s People (13): People Who Live and Work in the Public Square

Christopher Wright

Chapter 13 of The Mission of God’s People is certainly one of the more intriguing, given that in it, Christopher Wright deals with many of the themes that I recently discussed in my thoughts on Living in God’s Two Kingdoms by David VanDrunen. In light of that, my discussion of this chapter will be more extended than that of some others. There are numerous elements that warrant careful consideration, one of which I will devote some time to working through in a series of posts. But for now, let me summarize Wright’s presentation in this chapter before moving on to some of the elements that need further discussion.

People Who Live and Work in the Public Square

Coming immediately off of a chapter in which Wright discussed those who send and are sent–that is, primarily those who are engaged in full-time proclamation of God’s good news–Wright asks a number of questions: what about those who aren’t sent out? Certainly they aid in the sending, but what about the rest of their lives? Is their work–in jobs not directly connected to the proclamation of the gospel–worthwhile, important, and good? Is the only purpose of ordinary jobs to provide an opportunity for witnessing to the events of redemptive history? What should we think about jobs in the public square–the world of human social engagement and activity (222)?

In answer to that question, Wright argues that God does indeed care about the public square, even apart from evangelism (223). The first half of the chapter lays out a framework for understanding the public square, and by way of exposition of his point, he makes four claims about God’s care for the public square:

A Framework for God and the Public Square

First, God created it, and so it is therefore good, though obviously corrupted by sin (223). Secondly, God is the auditor of what happens in the public square (224), that is, he judges whether what happens there is right and just. Thirdly, God governs the public square (226). Lastly, God redeems the public square (226).

Wright devotes considerable space to examining that fourth point.  He advances several arguments in favor of his view of God’s redemption of the public square (which is, remember, in his terminology, the world of human social engagement and activity):

(1) He argues that Scripture does not present the elements of current human life as purely transitory, for in his view, God will not vaporize all creation because of corruption, but will, as he did in the Flood, purge creation of its sin (226). It is in that sense that he takes 2 Peter 3:10-13, contrary to the view of those who argue that the earth will be destroyed entirely at Christ’s return (227).

(2) He argues that God’s redemption and restoration plan encompasses all things (a point for which he cites Colossians 1:16-20 and Romans 8:22-25), including human cultural achievements (227).

(3) Closely related to this last point, Wright argues that in the new creation, people will bring the fruit of human civilization to God (227), basing this (at least explicitly in this chapter) on Revelation 21:24-27, which draws upon Isaiah 60.

Applying the Framework

Having laid out that framework, how then does Wright suggest God’s people ought to actually approach working and living in the public square? He suggests two operative concepts: missional engagement and missional confrontation. He devotes the remainder of the chapter to fleshing out what those two terms entail.

First, Wright uses missional engagement to refer to a believer’s participation in the public square. In other words, believers can (and should) work in the arena of human social activity (business, politics, and so on). Drawing heavily on the examples of Joseph, Daniel, and Esther, as well as a few New Testament examples, he argues that missional engagement includes working in and/or for the state (230), accepting the realities of it, being a model citizen, and working constructively for the good of the city (Jer. 29:7), without feeling the need to make such a position only a side door by which to hold Bible studies or some other explicitly religious activity. Additionally, he argues that mission engagement in the public square primarily includes simply earning a living by ordinary work (234). All of this is built on his previously laid foundation–that Christians do this because work, as part of creation, is inherently good, and because God will at the last day take these endeavors and redeem and transform them to be part of his new creation.

Secondly, by missional confrontation, Wright means that Christians–who are still participating in the public square–are also called to be different (235-236), to resist idolatry (236-237), and to suffer (239). He calls Christians to not allow there to be a separation between the holiness we practice in church (in terms of ethical living) and the lives we lead in the public square (236). The call to resist idolatry is one that he urges is profoundly necessary even in a society that doesn’t have a literal, physical equivalent to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, for there are other idols–career, status, success, et al–that are less easily identified perhaps, but just as dangerous to allegiance to Christ (237). Resisting those idols leads–as it did with Daniel and his friends–to bearing witness to the unequivocal claims to Lordship of Jesus. And witness-bearing will sometimes lead to suffering, as, once again, with Joseph, Daniel, and countless others.

Evaluating Wright’s Approach to the Public Square

Wright’s perspective on the public square involves several interesting features–particularly in light of David VanDrunen’s quite different approach in Living in God’s Two Kingdoms. I’ll pose my thoughts under two headings: (1) New Creation, (2) Redemption: Now or Then?

New Creation

Wright argues that God reconciled all things to himself in Christ, and that therefore the cultural, public-square achievements of humanity will be part of the new creation after Christ’s return, though stripped of the corruption that always accompanies our endeavors here on earth.

In strict contrast to that, VanDrunen–among many others–argues that humans are the only aspect of creation that will inhabit the new creation, our cultural achievements being transitory and temporary. Accordingly, all of our cultural endeavors, though good (in a common, not sacred way), will be melted away and consumed before the new creation.

What are we to make of these two competing perspectives? At this point, I’m not entirely sure, as it is clearly a point of serious debate among the Reformed today, as Mathison’s review of Living in God’s Two Kingdoms emphasized (and this is the point that I intend to research and discuss in a future series). But let me explain briefly the arguments that Wright rehearses for his view.

First, he argues that the model for the purging of the earth in 2 Peter 3 is given in verses 5-6, namely, that of Noah’s flood. Verse 6 notes that “the world of that day was deluged and destroyed” by the flood. Did the earth cease to exist? No, it was the same earth, but purged of its sin and corruption. That, Wright argues, is the same situation coming at the day of judgment. The earth will be purged, and all sin and corruption will be destroyed. But the destruction of sin does not entail, in Wright’s view, the decimation of all “earthly” products and achievements, but rather their continuation in glorified form (a form which we don’t fully understand, obviously).

I’m not entirely sure that this explanation holds (though that doesn’t mean that VanDrunen’s does either by necessity). In the flood, the achievements of the men who were put to death for sin were also lost. Their buildings, civilizations, cultures, and so on, seem to have been completely lost, and it is because of this that Noah was given a renewed cultural mandate to fill the earth (Genesis 9).

Secondly, he argues that in the biblical descriptions of the new creation, we see the presentation of human cultural achievements to God by men. He states this view rather than defending it, but he does cite two passages in favor of it: Revelation 21:24-27, and Isaiah 60, on which Revelation 21 draws. These passages speak of the rulers of the earth bringing their splendor to the new Jerusalem for God’s glory.

Revelation 21, however, does not mention explicitly what this “splendor” and “honor” is. Isaiah 60 does mention specific items that the rulers bring: silver, gold, wealth, juniper, fir, and cypress (of Lebanon). Revelation 21 is clearly drawing on Isaiah 60, as one can’t help but notice if you read both of them next to each other. The question is, however, whether or not one is supposed to take these descriptions as taking place literally in the new creation. Wright says yes while VanDrunen argues that the “splendor” of Revelation 21 is actually the praise to God of the kings of the earth.

My intention here is not to fully evaluate Wright’s position, only to note that this part of his foundation presentation of the way in which God’s people ought to relate to the public square, and that he hasn’t really defended his view of the new creation. Granted, that wasn’t the purpose of the book, but given the practical implications of one’s view here, it warrants further attention.

Redemption: Now or Then?

As noted above, Wright repeatedly emphasizes that all creation will be redeemed, including humanity’s cultural achievements. If one rejects this–as VanDrunen does–then clearly all talk of “redeeming” business, politics, or society may be misguided. But even if one accepts Wright’s basic point, there is a still a further question, one that I felt he left somewhat ambiguous.

The question is this: is God’s redemption of human achievements purely something future, a new-creation hope? Or do we, if we operate according to God’s word in society now, “redeem” society, culture, and civilization? Wright does not exactly answer this, but his entire presentation of the new creation seems to suggest that the redemption of all creation–including the public square–is a still-to-come reality. However, in his chapter on the Exodus he suggests a broader scope to redemption, one that would imply that after the cross and resurrection we do indeed redeem our political systems, society, and businesses.

I’ll explore this further in some later posts, but I wonder if perhaps integration is possible. In other words, can we not simultaneously affirm (1) that when God finally redeems creation, he will transform even our cultural achievements into a glorified state on a glorified earth, (2) that our current cultural achievements do not achieve or bring the new creation (that being accomplished only by the work of Christ), (3) that our current cultural achievements have value not because we redeem them, but because they are part of the creational order established by God, and therefore (4) that we ought to participate in the public square, but the reality that only the pronouncement of the gospel brings new-creation reality into the lives of people? This obviously needs further consideration and refinement, but it seems to be a possible way between the two alternatives.

The big question, though, is what this means practically for those who are living and working in the public square. I will return to that theme when I discuss the new creation further, but for now, I will leave my thoughts on Wright where they are.

Read More
%d bloggers like this: