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.