University Sermon by Tom Wright

June 6, 2008

Does ‘Thou shalt not covet’ apply to ministers’ studies?

Click HERE for possibly the most exhilarating sermon I’ve heard this year, preached by the Rt Rev Dr Tom Wright in Oxford on June 1st.

Posted in Sermons (others) |

53 Responses to “University Sermon by Tom Wright”

Tuppy Says:
June 7, 2008 at 3:13 am
So it’s off to a small urban parish in the North country with you!
rjs1 Says:
June 7, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I attended a small urban parish in the North country and it was great!
Liam Beadle Says:
June 7, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Small urban parishes in the north country are a good thing. Come and work in some tat-show in a back street! The Spirit blows where he will….
Daniel Newman Says:
June 7, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I’ve preached a few times in “proud former mining communities who still bear the scars of the 1980s” - they’re great people; ministry there is tough. It would be marvellous if more evangelicals “hear the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and don’t just keep it to themselves, but go to the places that need it most and bear fruit with patient endurance” rather than having “the word choked by the cares of this world and the need to live within sixty miles of London”. And I think that applies to Christians in general, not just presbyters.
Tuppy Says:
June 8, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Yes. However, having fallen rightwards from our horse in neglecting them, don’t let us fall leftwards of it by forgetting the needy - the poor, the downtrodden, the hopeless, the damned - that do happen to exist down south as well.
Sam Allberry Says:
June 8, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Do you s’pose those books behind him are ones he’s read, or just the ones he’s written?
Greg Says:
June 9, 2008 at 12:08 am
I’m liking the wireless keyboard. And what’s that newspaper he’s reading? Looks like the Times.
Tom Says:
June 9, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Thanks for your post Daniel. I stumbled across your blog from a David Field post, and I think I recall that we have a mutual friend in Oxford… if so I’ll get him to confirm it with you.

Not wanting to generalize based on hearsay, and without having heard Tom Wright’s sermon yet (quite a couple of qualifications!), it seems a little unfair of him to accuse evangelicals of neglecting the North when he himself is reputedly the main obstacle that prevents conservative evangelicals from consideration for his diocese. Thoughts?
Daniel Newman Says:
June 9, 2008 at 11:06 pm
He was having a go at everyone for neglecting the North. And I’m not sure how true it is that conservative evangelicals don’t get a look in in Durham.
Rob Says:
June 10, 2008 at 1:28 am
Since you haven’t been there, it is unsurprising that you aren’t sure.

Having also heard it first-hand, although it was a perfectly decent sermon, my feeling is that one would be less overawed if one had chance to discuss the thinking behind it in depth, both theological and political. Also, I think it was ill-conceived for that particular congregation: it is not productive for him to criticise evangelicals of any variety before a basically liberal audience.

In spite of making every effort to approve of TW, he doesn’t make it easy for me. I think the “conservatives” of his sermon are straw men. I could only call it “exhilarating” relative to what else I’ve heard recently - otherwise, I was uneasy and disappointed. I think this constitutes a less star-struck assessment.
Daniel Newman Says:
June 10, 2008 at 9:51 am
What do you consider the thinking behind it to be, both theological and political?

I’m not convinced it was ill-conceived for that particular congregation. It was the University sermon, which can be expected to draw professing Christians from a number of traditions. Notably, there were conservative evangelicals present - and we were rightly criticised. We mustn’t ever think we’re beyond correction. He had a pretty fair go at the liberals, as you’ll remember. We don’t want people being rescued from Scylla, only to fall upon Charybdis.

And do remember what he said in his sermon:

“Now no doubt, as preachers have to do, I have generalized dangerously, caricatured unnecessarily, and screened out many noble exceptions.”
Samuel Lago Says:
June 10, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Could some one explain more clearly these suggestions that he has blocked evangelicals from going to Durham? I’ve heard it all before, but it all comes to my ears in the form of rumours, which makes me a tad uneasy.

Can anyone actually demonstrate this? Because it is quite serious if true, but seems to fly in the face of what he has written before about mission, particularily in “The Challenge of Jesus” which I am currently reading.
Greg Says:
June 10, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I would suggest that the problem is less geographical than it is sociological. People desire to minister to intelligent, well-thought-through and likely-to-be-influential people.
Tom Says:
June 10, 2008 at 6:31 pm
As regards his practice in Durham, if you ask conservative evangelicals within the C of E in his diocese, the current understanding up there is that he will reject both members of Reform and Oak Hill grads pretty much as a matter of policy. I have no idea how accurate that is, but it represents what people on the ground up there seem to have found.
theoriginaljohnnyfantastic Says:
June 10, 2008 at 8:08 pm
But then when you think how he gets treated by a fair whack of the Reform/Oak Hill boys, is it really suprising?
Pete Says:
June 10, 2008 at 10:44 pm
theoriginaljohhnyfantastic,

I can’t speak for the Reform boys, but as regards those ‘Oak Hill boys’ your comment is inaccurate and less than helpful. There is a real spectrum of views over his theology at oak hill, and even those who would criticise elements of, say, his doctrine of justification, readily express praise of other aspects of his work. Amongst both students and faculty there is a desire to treat Bishop Wright as a serious scholar and as a brother in Christ, this despite clear differences in theology and (at times major) differences in ‘politics’ between Wright and the conservative evangelical constituency.

Tom Wright preached in oak hill chapel at a communion service just earlier on this year. The service was led by the principal, with whom the Bishop has had public disagreement and discussion re. ‘Pierced for our transgressions’.

Sorry to rant, but these generalisations do find their way into the popular perception and can make complex situations worse.
Pete Says:
June 10, 2008 at 10:46 pm
btw, I’m a student at oak hill, so don’t speak with any authority other than that which comes from having studied there for three years (i.e. I’m not faculty, nor privy to their private conversations and opinions etc.).
Tom Says:
June 10, 2008 at 11:18 pm
And like Rob above, many from a more conservative stable have really tried to be sympathetic to him and his writings - more so than he has often been to them. For example, whatever his theological disagreements with ‘Pierced for our Transgressions’, his initial review of it was so irascible that it masked completely any useful analysis he had to give.
Daniel Newman Says:
June 10, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Johnny Fantastic,

You do have to be a little careful. I don’t know so much about the Reform people, but the chaps at Oak Hill do appear to be trying to give him a hearing, and it wasn’t particularly helpful of him to be frankly nasty towards Mike Ovey, Steve Jeffrey and Andrew Sach about their excellent book (which is sad, because his stuff on the New Creation is simply superb).
Greg Says:
June 11, 2008 at 10:19 am
What is the problem with his politics, exactly?
Pete Says:
June 11, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Greg,

Re. Wright’s politics. Lots of people who really really like plenty of the things he writes disagree with Wright’s

a. Ecclesiastical politics: Either because they’re not anglican (and have basic questions about bishops etc.), or because they’re not open evangelicals. Some feel Wright’s open evangelicalism politically speaking leads him to be harsher upon those who are closer to him theologically speaking than he is upon liberals within the CofE. This appears to me to sometimes the case. His review of PFOT is perhaps a case in point here - note the difference in tone between his dealing with Jeffrey John and his delaing with Ovey, Sach, etc. Others point to issues in his diocese and argue that he could/ should be stronger in his leadership there, but for political reasons is not. How much this is true, I do not know, and we mustn’t go on hearsay.

b) Socio-economic politics: Many people simply disagree with Wright’s views on debt relief and the like. Thus, those who wholeheartedly agree with him on new creation, on Christianity as inherently political, on the application of the gospel to all of life, on the necessary involvement of the church in transforming culture, nevertheless disagree with Wright on how he sees that being put into practice.

So, personally speaking, I agree with him on the new creation, disagree with him on debt relief, and disagree with him on how to reform the church of england. That Christians should be involved in economic and social concerns, that this flows from the new creation established by Christ and proclaimed in the gospel, and that we really should be trying to reform the church of england, I agree wholeheartedly.

My fear is that there are those who disagree with him at the level of a. and b. who will not listen to him on anything else as a result. That is a lamentable state of affairs. While we can’t separate his theology from his politics, disagreements at one level by no means prevented considerable agreement at other levels.
Pete Says:
June 11, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Apologies to Steve Jeffrey for turning him into an ‘etc.’
Tom Says:
June 11, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Others who appreciate that he is a thinking man who has many useful insights might also take strong issue with his eschatology. It might be argued that his ecclesiology and his socio-economics are simply consistent with his views about the new creation. I personally think that he is more consistent than evangelicals who want his eschatology without the ramifications in other areas.

But I’m being naughty, that’s a whole other discussion! And it doesn’t undermine the point above, because I would point to other things like his work on the historicity of the resurrection that all evangelicals can appreciate and be very thankful for.
Pete Says:
June 11, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Tom

Are you assuming that Wright is a postmill? I guess he may well be, though I rather more suspect he rejects the categories and the need to be so precise. And his views are largely compatible with amillenialism, are they not?

Most of the postmills I know of (not many, but a few) agree with Wright that Christians must be involved in politics etc., that the gospel inherently includes political and economic and social ramifications, and so on, and yet at the same time disagree with his reading of the situation with regard to third world debt (for example). It’s a disagreement over the economics and politics that the gospel produces, not the fact that it produces them.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your point? But as I see it, I fail to see how, for e.g., Wright’s views on how to solve third world debt are a necessary consequence of his eschatology, such that to have one consistently entails the other.
Tom Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:48 am
Likewise, I rather suspect he would reject the categories, and I don’t know where he would stand if you pushed him into a corner and made him choose! I’ve been challenged (not least by this discussion) to read his little book Surprised by Hope, so I hope I’ll know more when I’ve done that.

From what I have read from him, it’s the general feel of his eschatology that I don’t like. In the most general terms he ends up with: ‘this world matters a lot’, because his emphasis is on the continuity between the new creation and the present world, and on the new creation as what God is making by the redemption of this world. This seems to me to fit best with postmill ideas (although you can have it with amill, I think it naturally flows from postmill). If you think that this world matters a lot (I’m generalising hugely to make the point), you want to place more emphasis on the social, political and economic ramifications of the gospel.

If, on the other hand, you think that ‘this world doesn’t matter that much’, because from your perspective you see the emphasis in the Bible as being on God saving his people out of this world (which is destined for the fire) for a new world that is yet to come, then you will put less emphasis on the social, political and economic ramifications of the gospel (not denying that the gospel has those ramifications), and more emphasis on the salvation of individuals and the building of the church. (Please believe that I would put it more subtly than that if time and space permitted, I’m being deliberately over-simplistic to make the comparison)

So I guess I should have expressed this more clearly before: it’s not that I think his eschatology logically demands his position on these other issues, but I think his way of thinking about eschatology (the emphases that he is committed to) makes him more likely to take the positions that he does on other things. It may be mostly a matter of emphasis, but practically it will have big implications for where the church commits her resources.

[PS. I guess that might cause a reaction (if anyone's still reading these comments) - if I go silent it's only because I'm away for the weekend!]
Daniel Newman Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:37 pm
‘I guess that might cause a reaction’. Indeed. One confesses to a certain amount of jaw-drop on reading the last comment.

However much the ‘this world doesn’t matter that much’ position which you articulate is an over-simplification, it is precisely that attitude of which Wright is critical and I am with him one hundred percent on this. The fire is the fire of purification, the new heavens and the new earth are this creation renewed, which is the implication of Christ’s resurrection body being the same body he laid down, only transformed. It is because of the resurrection our labour in the Lord is not in vain because it will survive and last into the world to come (1 Corinthians 3.14, 15.58). Christ taught us to pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” which is more than just about praying for the second coming. It is therefore most natural to emphasise the social, political and economic ramifications of the gospel, in this world, without neglecting the preaching of the gospel, which is the means by which this world is redeemed.

I warmly recommend “Surprised by Hope” to you. A couple of extracts:

“‘Salvation’, then, is not ‘going to heaven’, but being raised to life in God’s new heaven and earth’. But as soon as we put it like this we realize that the New Testament is full of hints, indications and downright assertions that this ’salvation’ isn’t just something we have to wait for in the long-distance future. We can enjoy it here and now (always partially, of course, since we all still have to die), genuinely anticipating in the present what is to come in the future.”

“For the first Christians, the ultimate ’salvation’ was all about God’s new world; and the point of what Jesus and the apostles were doing when they were healing people, or being rescued from shipwreck, or whatever, was that this was a proper anticipation of that ultimate ’salvation’, that healing transformation of space, time and matter. The future rescue which God had planned and promised as starting to come true in the present. We are saved, not as souls, but as wholes.”

“When a human being is ’saved’, in the past as a single coming-to-faith event, in the present through acts of healing and rescue, including answers to the prayer ‘lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil’, and in the future when they are finally raised from the dead, this is always so that they can be genuine human beings in a fuller sense than they otherwise would have been. And genuine human beings, from Genesis 1 onwards, are given the mandate of looking after creation, of bringing order to God’s world, of establishing and maintaining communities.”

“[The story of the gospels] is the story of God’s kingdom being launched on earth as in heaven, generating a new state of affairs in which the power of evil has been decisively defeated, the new creation has been decisively launched, and Jesus’ followers have been commissioned and equipped to put that victory, and that inaugurated new world, into practice. ‘Atonement’, ‘redemption’ and ’salvation’ are what happens on the way, because for people to engage in this work demands that they themselves be rescued from the powers that enslave the world, in order that they can in turn be rescuers.”

Much more could be written, but I’ve written a lot already.
Pete Says:
June 12, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Thanks Tom, for clarifying, and engaging in this discussion.

Anyway, I’d still want to clarify further. The specifics of his views on, e.g. debt relief, are not specially appropriate given his ‘this earth matters’ eschatology. Many of the postmills I know (myself included) fully agree with the ‘this earth matters’ stuff, but just don’t agree with what he thinks should be done about third world debt. The issue is not that the gospel has socio-economic ramifications, the issue is the specific ramifications in specific situations.

have a look at
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5302

over on Doug Wilson’s blog, I think that is an example of the kind of thing I’m on about.
Pete Says:
June 12, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Tom,

Can i suggest a via media between the two positions you outline?

How about a church-centred vision for the transformation of society? The church should be, must be, involved in economics, politics, etc. because the gospel is political, social, economic.

But, alongside prophetically announcing the way God thinks about various socio-economic and political practices, and working for whatever good we can within whatever calling we serve God, the primary way the church is to change the world (socially, economically and politically) is by discipling the nations through aggressive gospel proclamation, evangelism, church-planting, and holistic nurture of believers. After all, Jesus is Lord of all. He really is the one in whom all the treasures of wisdom can be found.

This is the vision of the bible imho. And, likewise, it is the vision postmillenialists think will be realised within history.
theoriginaljohnnyfantastic Says:
June 12, 2008 at 11:33 pm
was a bit naughty there…sorry chaps.
Tom Says:
June 15, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Pete and Daniel, thanks for your replies. Daniel, I confess that you’ve said pretty much what I thought you would say in reply. I was deliberately provocative, mostly because I don’t think eschatology along those kind of lines gets much of a hearing in the blogosphere (happy to be contradicted on that). I think that has more to do with the people who are currently writing blogs (no disrespect to them) than the defensibility of the position. Postmillenialism and similar eschatological positions are, lets face it, all the rage at the moment - within certain circles which extrude into cyberspace more than others. That has no bearing on whether they are biblical or not. But it does have a bearing on whether alternative or opposing views get the kind of consideration that they merit. I would enjoy discussing it further having read the book…

Pete, thank you for your clarification. I think it is helpful - and I take your point that Wright’s eschatology doesn’t determine his specific views on debt relief etc. Nonetheless, I’m not happy with the whole ‘this world matters a lot’ stuff (still speaking very broadly). I think that route leads down a road which ends up focusing on this world and changing society now (even if the gospel transforming individuals is recognised as the primary means of so doing). While I want to be fully behind ‘prophetically announcing the way God thinks about various socio-economic and political practices, and working for whatever good we can’, as you put it, I would theologically ground that in other Bible themes (primarily the duty of love for neighbour). And eschatology, rather than being the primary motivation for these things, would be rather the caveat - do good in this world but realise that it’s all really about the next one. Eschatologically, the priorities are evangelism and discipleship.

Well, that’ll probably get me lynched. It’s not a point-by-point thought through response (I don’t think I’ve ever seen that done properly on a blog anyway), what I’m trying to do is throw out another perspective (which I honestly do think is the Bible’s), to show that it is conceivable…
Daniel Newman Says:
June 16, 2008 at 12:22 am
Hmm… lynching. Perhaps one implication of the gospel transforming society so that its laws reflect Biblical laws ought to be the introduction of the death penalty for an inadequate eschatology. I should think more about that one…

Perhaps you’re right that the kind of eschatology you’re articulating doesn’t feature much the blogosphere. Perhaps not. But I would suggest that it is preached from evangelical pulpits up and down the country and people have ample opportunity to hear and consider it (and little exposure to postmillennial teaching).

Is anyone denying that evangelism and discipleship are Christian priorities? Yet what are the implications of faithful evangelism and discipleship. Some very helpful words from former Archbishop of Canterbury, the late Michael Ramsey. He puts it better than I can. He caricatures (and openly acknowledges that he is so doing) ‘a priest who is blithely unaware that anything is amiss, as long as souls are “converted” and “saved”. “You see, the gospel must always come first.” … Men ask “Converted to what?”, “Saved for what?”‘

He goes on:

“First, let us agree that the first priority is to preach the gospel to men and women so that they may be converted to our Lord. But if a person is to be truly converted the conversion must embrace all his personal and social relationships. He does not exist in a vacuum. He is a man, a creature in God’s own image; he is a husband, a father, an uncle, a neighbour, an employer or a manager or a workman, a citizen [more correctly, subject]; he has amusements, hobbies, leisure, money, income, savings, health or sickness, power or impotence, wealth or poverty. Convert him you say. So be it, but the Christ to whom you convert him whants the whole of him.”

From The Priest and Politics in “The Christian Priest Today”.

Faithful evangelism and discipleship will rightly entail a focusing on this present world and the changes that ought to occur in society, as evangelism and discipleship are worked out. Discipleship is something that doesn’t just happen to individuals in isolation. The Great Commission is a command to disciple the nations.

Unless you think discipleship is something different to that, perhaps more limited?

This world does matter a lot: God made it, sent his Son to die to redeem it, and is renewing it.
Daniel Says:
June 16, 2008 at 9:09 am
“This world does matter a lot: God made it, sent his Son to die to redeem it, and is renewing it.”

Well, that gets you an ‘amen’ from this amillenialist.
Tom Says:
June 16, 2008 at 11:09 pm
I one hundred percent agree that discipleship is all that Ramsey calls it in that quote - and that the gospel must affect a person within every sphere (and every aspect of every sphere) of a person’s life.

But this does not extend automatically out to the transformation of society. Your eschatology (which may, of course, be the Bible’s eschatology) may demand that it does. But the former does not inherently imply the latter. I agree totally that ‘God wants the whole of’ a converted person, but see no logical implication that this must involve the transformation of society. After all, Ramsey is talking about the individual.

Now clearly this kind of ‘whole being’ transformation will affect the people around someone who is converted. But that’s a far cry from wanting to Christianise culture, apart from as a happy by product of people being saved (holistically!). I would argue that the way the Bible speaks of corporate transformation of people is the church. The community of the redeemed does begin to be transformed to be like the perfect community that will be in the new creation. And they are to be a counter-cultural, anti-’this present age’ group that looks radically different from the world around them - not to change the world around them, but to call them into the rescue boat and off the sinking ship… (I like being provocative

As far as the Great Commission goes, is it not loading rather too much into the words to pull in theology about the transformation of cultures or societies? I don’t know Matthew very well as a book, but that would seem to be a theme alien to the rest of the gospel. Better to think that Jesus means ‘go and make disciples of people from all nations’ (I think the greek is flexible enough for that to be the meaning). [There may be a focus on the fact that the gospel is for all the nations rather than just for the Jews (nations = ethne - also translated 'Gentiles' in other bits of the NT). But that's speculative - if there are any Matthew experts out there who want to shoot that down, go right ahead!]

Where would you go in Scripture to support your last sentence?
Pete Says:
June 17, 2008 at 12:03 am
Tom,

Thanks for continuing this discussion. Helpful all round I’m sure.

I must admit to being slightly confused as to just how you understand the holistic and corporate elements of discipleship. At times you seem to think that salvation is almost exclusively individual and internal (’whole being’ with some handy social/ corporate by-products. But then you go ahead and say;

‘I would argue that the way the Bible speaks of corporate transformation of people is the church. The community of the redeemed does begin to be transformed to be like the perfect community that will be in the new creation.’

And I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with you. And whether it’s what Wright thinks or not, that’s what I think. That’s the kind of transformation of society I believe in.

I guess where we disagree then is here;

‘…not to change the world around them, but to call them into the rescue boat and off the sinking ship…’

Postmillenialists aim not at a transformed but unregenerate world prior to the return of Christ. That’s not the sort of cultural/ social/ economic transformation they ultimately seek. yes, of course, as the church explores more and more what it means to be faithful to christ in all the spheres of life, over time, then there’ll be plenty of transformation going on that stops way short of regeneration - plenty of ‘common grace’ will spill like crumbs from the table to be devoured by the dogs, so to speak. But that’s not the aim. Whether this is the case for Wright or not, I don’t know. But that is postmillenialism.

Therefore, since

a. you believe the gospel ought to permeate every area of life

b. including the corporate, relational, social spheres

then I guess the root disagreement between us lies in how much we think the church will be successful in completing the great commission.
Pete Says:
June 17, 2008 at 12:37 am
Tom,

I’m not sure the previous comment made things any clearer. Let me try again.

When I (and other post-mills) say we want to see the gospel produce a transformed society, we are not envisaging anything less than mass conversion. We are, however, envisaging more than that. The ‘more’ involves

a. some serving, loving of neighbour, ‘common grace overspill’-type cultural good-doing along the way

and

b. a holistic vision for what discipleship means for the converted masses.

What we mean by a christianised society is a majority-christian society where increasingly every area of life is being brought under the reign of Christ. We do not mean a society that is christian in name only, or legislation only, or outwardly only. Of course, the process of heading towards a christianised society will involve lots of blessing and serving of people outside the covenant community, of course, but an unregenerate but ‘christian’ised society is not the aim.

Also, aiming at this requires that evangelism and discipleship be the eschatological priority. The difference is, we don’t see this as heading into a big nowhere historically speaking until Christ returns and saves his church from it’s failure to complete the great commission. In other words, we believe that our evangelism and discipleship matters within the process of history as well as at the consummation.
Tuppy Says:
June 17, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Can anyone tell me how Dan et al’s view of the world having to be brought under the quasi-governmental rule of Christ before his return in any way differs from the monster of Christian Socialism?

Surely his sovereignty and power is less worldly and bureacratic than that. The gospel is first for men’s hearts, not for Civil Servant’s red boxes.

Convert the nation, and in many ways you will find lots of the problems solved through their new Christ-propelled charity and industry. (After all the irreligious 20th century state merely cack-handedly took most of that over; hospitals and schools used to be outside government, and founded privately by Christians and the church).

Equally, the plagues of hooliganism, teenage pregnancy, abortion, and whatnot, would fall under the blade of the Bible rightly preached - and the nation’s old nature being crucified with Christ - than some boffo policy prescription from St Whitehall.

Preach, preach; make disciples of all men; do not erect enormous post-war super-states, nor rewire such machines for Christ.

I can’t abide the idea of the church pronouncing on practical matters of government. Its aim and spirit should be its only concern, lest it establish new stumbling blocks and heavy burdens for the brethren. The gospel is good news, not a proclamation on child benefits or tax credits.

Christ’s rule over all means so much more than a pre-19th century Roman Catholic European state, with churchmen everywhere is bureaucrats, priests everywhere its princes and politicians.
Tuppy Says:
June 17, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I should clarify I was responding more to the kind of thing Pete wrote than some of Dan’s posts (e.g. that Michael chap’s quote is utterly on the money):

Like:

“How about a church-centred vision for the transformation of society? The church should be, must be, involved in economics, politics, etc. because the gospel is political, social, economic.

But, alongside prophetically announcing the way God thinks about various socio-economic and political practices…”

Bonkers. Almost as bonkers as the idea that the destruction of Earth in the fire will merely be a purification in the fire, and the new earth is actually the old earth cleansed. I assume the lake of fire whence satan is lobbed will merely purify him and we’ll have him back? Importation of one’s own ideas into texts is fairly disreputable and a dangerous precedent.

And again, if I wanted Roman-style day-to-day official interference in the business of the state and private life - instead of Biblical preaching which converts the heart on such matters - I would be a Roman Catholic.
Pete Says:
June 18, 2008 at 12:24 am
Tuppy, if I might respond to your comments;

Perhaps you haven’t come across the many reformed alternatives to both some kind of roman erastianism and the social gospel? Might I suggest taking a look at something like Rutherford’s Lex, Rex?

I assure you, I’m not envisaging super-states (I believe in a pretty small state), nor a confusion between the institutions (or indeed the officers) of the church and the state. A church-based vision for the transformation of society does not involve the church becoming the state. It involves seeing the gospel, and conversion of people, communities, and nations, as the key to any real worthwhile change.

‘Biblical preaching which converts the heart on such matters..’

That’s exactly what I am talking about. That’s exactly what I mean by a church centred vision for transformation. That’s what I’m on about with ‘prophetically announcing’ the will of God. I just think that gospel preaching extends to preaching to the government, about their governing, as well as preaching to (for e.g.) doctors and teachers in their sphere of life and work.

I must admit to being pretty confused. You claim to be disagreeing with me, but then your comments in response suggest perhaps you’ve not understood me in the first place. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you?

‘Surely his sovereignty and power is less worldly and bureacratic than that. The gospel is first for men’s hearts, not for Civil Servant’s red boxes.’

Yes, first for men’s hearts sure. But surely you agree that this then has an impact on bureacracy, red boxes etc. (it might even entail the significant reduction of bureacracy to begin with, I certainly think so)? Or are bureacracy, government, matters of child benefit etc. all areas where Jesus has nothing to say? Are they the only areas where the Lord should keep quiet? Is the fear of the Lord the beginning of wisdom or not?
Pete Says:
June 18, 2008 at 12:37 am
Tuppy, you said;

‘Almost as bonkers as the idea that the destruction of Earth in the fire will merely be a purification in the fire, and the new earth is actually the old earth cleansed. I assume the lake of fire whence satan is lobbed will merely purify him and we’ll have him back?’

No, of course we won’t have Satan and the other damned back. Surely that’s what it means to be damned, no? However,

a. I don’t believe the damned are anihilated. Hence, language of fire and destruction doesn’t have to mean ceasing to exist.

b. The bible talks of the creation being liberated from it’s bondage to decay (rom 8). The creation is redeemed, saved, not damned. Here then your analogy with Satan and the lake of fire falls down. Satan is not going to be saved. The earth is.

c. Hence, we cannot read from the eternality of Satan’s damnation to the anihilation and replacement of the earth, since eternality does not mean anihilation and the earth and Satan are explicitly said to have different fates.
Tuppy Says:
June 18, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Ah, I see I have probably been undone by hasty reading and the prejudice of past encounters with other people more of the opinions I (wrongly) imputed to you.

We are, it seems, utterly sympatico!

Except on the old earth/new earth… I think the language of all old things being past, all things being made new, leaves either option open. I had always thought the church believed it would be a genuinely new earth, though, and Revelation 21 certainly leads to that doesn’t it? (I mean you basically have to substitute everything ‘new’/'destroyed’ to mean the specific thing you wish it to mean; it requires an amount of double-thought).
Tom Says:
June 18, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Thank you very much Pete for your posts - I found them both extremely helpful in correcting my understanding of your position.

In one sense it does seem that the disagreement comes in the extent to which we think ‘the church will be successful in completing the great commission’. But I think that will have bigger implications than simply leaving us at ‘we’re doing exactly the same thing but I’m pessimistic about whether we’ll get there in this world, and you’re optimistic’.

The way that I look at the church and the world would be to see the church as a persecuted minority, battening down the hatches and weathering the storm of a world opposed to God and his gospel, who will always have the ascendancy. Hence why Hebrews 3 compares the Christian life to that of Israel in the desert before reaching the Promised Land. This world is not our home; we are called to endure in it until it is instantly, pervasively, exhaustively purged and purified (to the extent that it can be said to have ‘passed away’), and the new creation arrives.

And so the focus of the church is on bringing non-Christians into the church and helping Christians to persevere through to the end (while and by growing them in maturity). This gives us a healthy under-siege mentality (though not a desperation one; God is sovereign and will save his people).
The world is a dangerous place, not a place that will become more and more friendly.

So while I’m totally behind…

…’some serving, loving of neighbour, ‘common grace overspill’-type cultural good-doing along the way’…

I’m less keen on the church’s attitude being

…’the process of heading towards a christianised society will involve lots of blessing and serving of people outside the covenant community’…

There is a difference between incidental, ‘along the way’ overflow into society (mostly at the individual level i.e. neighbours of Christians experiencing the Christian society by being on the fringes, or small communities experiencing the benefits of a redeemed community within their midst), and deliberate, ‘lets go out there and bless the people of a society which is going to be redeemed’. That society won’t be redeemed - the church has been redeemed, and will be called out of the nations to be in the new creation.

And in terms of a ‘holistic vision of what discipleship means for the converted masses’, apart from wanting holiness to permeate every area and thought of a person’s life, I think you mean ‘what a throughly Christian society should look like’. (Is that right?) Now if my pessimistic (though I wouldn’t call it that) view of the fate of the world is right, God may well not have given us the information required to work out how society will work in the new creation. This is not the concern yet. Maybe we’ll have to work it out when we get there. Maybe he’ll tell us. Things certainly seem like they will be different enough (no marriage etc) that it will require some new instructions. But does the Bible mandate us to be sorting that out now? Or are we exhorted to just proclaim the gospel and get on with being a godly Christian counter-culture using the information about being church that the NT provides us?
Tom Says:
June 18, 2008 at 11:17 pm
PS> Surprised by Hope is now winging it’s way to me by Royal Mail…
rjs1 Says:
June 19, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Could I suggest a read of Derrick Olliff’s “The Gospel: The Return of the King”? It is great!!
Pete Says:
June 19, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Tuppy, thanks for your reply.

You said

‘Except on the old earth/new earth… I think the language of all old things being past, all things being made new, leaves either option open. I had always thought the church believed it would be a genuinely new earth, though, and Revelation 21 certainly leads to that doesn’t it? (I mean you basically have to substitute everything ‘new’/’destroyed’ to mean the specific thing you wish it to mean; it requires an amount of double-thought).’

I think the church has pretty much always been divided on this one. Turretin, Abraham Kuyper, are two names that come to mind as believing in a renewed earth. I’m not sure which option wins out historically speaking. I think turretin acknowledges that the orthodox disagree on it, and that it ought not to be a point of division. I agree with him.

The bible is full of new things being made out of old things. Think of the resurrection for one highly significant example. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the words for new often mean renewed, or new in quality, or new from our perceptions (a ‘new moon’ anyone?).

The same with destruction/ perishing.

I have to say I think the biblical evidence for a continuation/ renewal position is persuasive, and Romans 8 is perhaps decisive for me. But we may have to simply agree to disagree on this one.
Pete Says:
June 19, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Tom, thanks for your comments, and your patience in trying to understand.

You said

‘In one sense it does seem that the disagreement comes in the extent to which we think ‘the church will be successful in completing the great commission’. But I think that will have bigger implications than simply leaving us at ‘we’re doing exactly the same thing but I’m pessimistic about whether we’ll get there in this world, and you’re optimistic’.’

Yes, I agree, there will be implications of a ’successful in the long term’ view. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that fact that for the postmill, it is still all about evangelism and discipleship. We just disagree over what some aspects of discipleship look like/ mean/ are. Likewise, I’d want to stress that the postmill position doesn’t massively change the role of the church’s Pastors and teaching elders. They should devote themselves to the preaching of the word and prayer. And that will always be the case, throughout church history.

Again,

‘There is a difference between incidental, ‘along the way’ overflow into society…and deliberate, ‘lets go out there and bless the people of a society which is going to be redeemed’.’

I agree there is a difference. Again though, I’d just want to be uber-clear that the postmill position is about long-term, multi-generational progress of the gospel. The main reasons for serving others is christ-likeness, not that fact that the blessings will last, either within history or into the consummated creation. Who knows the course of the history our country will take en route to being conquered by Christ? That christian school you set up, that legal system you help to reform, may well not last longer than the next generation which overthrows it all and returns to pagan gods. The progress of the gospel is not linear.

‘And in terms of a ‘holistic vision of what discipleship means for the converted masses’, apart from wanting holiness to permeate every area and thought of a person’s life, I think you mean ‘what a throughly Christian society should look like’. (Is that right?)’

Yes, you’re right, that’s what I meant, in part. Again, timing is key. What this will look like at various points within history will look really different of course. The point is, the church is the redeemed society, the new humanity, the city of God etc. and we’ve got to be aiming in the direction of bringing everything in our lives under the lordship of Christ, whether we’re an architect or a green grocer or a school-teacher. We can’t do that sort of christianising for things we have no influence over or involvement in of course. The Church is Christian society and should live as such in absolutely everything as much as is possible, and not just on a sunday, and not just when together in congregational gatherings.

‘…God may well not have given us the information required to work out how society will work in the new creation.’

I must admit to being surprised at this. I agree he hasn’t told us how things will be in the consummation, apart from a few hints and details (it’s gonna be really good). But he has, surely, told us how to live in this creation in preparation for the next, hasn’t he? Isn’t the bible sufficient for every good work? Didn’t God make this world and everything in it by his wisdom (Proverbs 8), the same wisdom we see embodied in Christ? Isn’t the fear of the LORD the beginning of all wisdom and understanding?

I’d be interested to know - where does the cultural mandate fit in with your views? As I see it, the cultural mandate dovetails with the great commission. In Genesis 1, God wants a world full of human beings made in his image, ruling the world as such and giving him glory. Put crudely - the fall mucks that up, whereas redemption restores it. The gospel restores the marred image of God in man, and enables the fulfilment of the original mandate. The call to make disciples of all nations in the GC is a call to go and fill the world with God’s image-bearers again, and being taught to obey everything Jesus commands is the equipping needed to exercise dominion over the earth.

Finally, on the church always being a persecuted minority - I simply don’t think the bible teaches that, and church history doesn’t back that up. The exegetical discussion needed is probably outside the remit of this comments column. Obviously, I’m persuaded that various texts predict that the Kingdom of Christ will grow within history to cover the whole earth (e.g. for starters - parable of the sower, mustard seed, Daniel 2, Daniel 4, 1 Corinthians 15, psalm 110, 2, 72).

I guess I just don’t see the great commission as a mandate to go forth and fail to multiply (I exaggerate for effect, you understand), but rather as a mandate to go and make disciples of all nations.
Pete Says:
June 19, 2008 at 10:32 pm
btw, Daniel, if I’ve managed to hijack your blog and take us totally off course, please feel free to tell me to call it a day.
Tuppy Says:
June 20, 2008 at 12:33 am
Vaguely off-topic - but also on topic in another way. I see St Aldates in Oxford have just updated their sermons online, and Bishop Wright appears to have given one there too:

http://tinyurl.com/49dw99

I don’t know what Daniel makes of St Aldates, but given the pleasure his University sermon gave I thought it worth flagging up. I haven’t had the time to listen to it yet.
Daniel Newman Says:
June 20, 2008 at 12:55 am
Pete, this is an important subject, I agree with all you’re saying and I don’t regard this as hijacking or taking us off course. I’ve been rather busy with other things these past few days, so I haven’t had time to contribute much.

Tuppy, here perhaps isn’t the place for me to share my views on St Aldate’s, but thanks for the link - I look forward to listening to it.
Tom Says:
June 20, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Thanks again Pete. I think we’re getting to the point I’m reaching the boundaries of my current understanding on the subject - meaning I need to go and think through more! Can make a few quick comments though…

As far as renewal language goes with regard to the new creation, I think the debate shouldn’t really be ‘is the new creation this creation remade or not?’, but rather ‘will the recreation of this creation be instant and total (leading to something similar but also radically different and much better); or will it be gradually accomplished over centuries and very similar, but better (with the effects of the fall reversed)’. You might take issue with that dichotomy - do let me know if that’s an unhelpful distinction.

Secondly, I think the cultural mandate has been notoriously overworked by lots of people. I would have lots of questions about how they use it. Firstly, exactly how much significance can we load into ’subdue the earth’? From whence have we decided this means ‘go and be a really sophisticated culture and make art and music’? A lot to bring from the word ’subdue’. I’ve not read anything convincing on that yet - most articles seem to use pick up their understanding of the verse and run with it. Perhaps you can suggest something? Anyway, even if we grant that the creation mandate meant all that cultural stuff before the fall, how can we be sure that it still remains in force after the fall (which does change everything else)? Especially when, when the mandate is actually repeated within Genesis after the fall (to Noah, Gen 9v1-7), the subdue bit is all gone. You see the creation mandate and the Great Commission dovetailing. I think I see more the Great Commission replacing the creation mandate. We probably will get a ‘new creation mandate’ after the last day. I’m not convinced that this is the same as the great commission.

‘But he has, surely, told us how to live in this creation in preparation for the next, hasn’t he? Isn’t the bible sufficient for every good work?’

Indeed he has and it is. So if he doesn’t tell me how to be a ‘new creation society’, am I not supposed to conclude that he doesn’t want me to be thinking about that yet? He has told me everything I need to be getting on with the job now - which doesn’t mean that the job now is the same as the job will be after everything changes on the last day. (Looking at that paragraph it is not wonderfully clear - I will strive to think about how to express it better).

Church as a persecuted minority discussion - I’m with you that it comes down to exegesis of the kind of passages that you mention, and also that I have neither the time nor the expertise to do all that here!

‘it is still all about evangelism and discipleship. We just disagree over what some aspects of discipleship look like/ mean/ are.’

Agreed - and so we remain totally united in the gospel! Do you think that most postmils in evangelicalism share the view that the transformation of society only comes about by mass conversion? And how do you guard against losing that distinctive (which makes a big difference)? How about the crit that postmil blunts the NT’s apparent use of Jesus’ imminent return as a spur to authentic discipleship?
Daniel Newman Says:
June 21, 2008 at 7:02 am
Thanks very much for those comments, Tom. I can only respond briefly as it’s my turn to go away this weekend. I think the dichotomy you introduce in your second paragraph is a false one. Yes, when Christ returns, there will, I believe, be an instantaneous renewal of all things. But at the same time, things are being renewed now - those who are in Christ are a new creation, for example. In the church the new creation is breaking into the present age.

Regarding the creation mandate, I think you need to look for some kind of statement that says it has been rescinded, otherwise, as long as this creation endures, I would suggest that the mandate attached to it endures. I agree that it might be pushing it to get all the cultural stuff from the commands in Genesis 1. I think the command to work the ground and keep it might be more helpful there. And I wonder if that’s what the author of Genesis is getting at in 4.17-21, a pointing out where this working of the ground is leading - culture. Of course, because of the fall, that’s all messed up. It requires Christ to come as the God-man for the situation to be restored where all things are in subjection under the feet of man (Hebrews 2). The Great Commission doesn’t so much replace the creation mandate, as brings people to Christ in whom that creation mandate has been restored, and is the process by which those who have been brought to Christ are renewed in his likeness that they might live according to God’s ways, including obedience to that first creation mandate.

Also on the new creation thing, isn’t the word for “new” in “new heavens and new earth”, the word that means “new in regard to quality” rather than “new from scratch”?

I don’t think the NT does speak of Jesus’ imminent return: I can’t say any more now as I don’t have time, but I’ve got a post prepared on Matthew 24 which I’ll try to get out when I return. The disciples could be spurred to authentic discipleship without thinking that Jesus could return at any moment. There is of course the prospect of death which achieves the same thing.
Pete Says:
June 21, 2008 at 10:11 am
Tom, great comments. This may well have to be my last contribution to the discussion for a few days at least as i’m going away too.

I basically agree with Daniel’s comments in 50. On top of which I’d want to add;

Please don’t take my ‘renew’ things now language to remove all need for a disjunction at the return of Christ. From many perspectives that will be a massive disjunction, of cosmic proportions. I don’t see how else to take the language of the creation being liberated from its bondage to decay. Death, much suffering, sin, etc. all remain until the great resurrection day. And let’s face it, if our hope for the progress of the gospel in history replaces our affection and longing for resurrection day, then there’s something wrong. It certainly doesn’t in this postmill’s heart, nor does it in the other postmills I know.

So, ‘renewal now’ is along limited lines. But it’s a heck of a lot less limited than most of us evangelicals think, and that because of the progress of the gospel. Renewal now is analagous to the doctrine of personal sanctification. Moral, relational, social (and therefore political, economic) transformation and progress is possible now. This will always be impeded by sin and death, but nevertheless progress is real and very very possible, indeed necessary. Just as with personal sanctification (indeed, inextricably linked to it).

On cultural mandate. Yes, a vexed term, and used as a ‘catch all.’ I’m aware of the need to be tight about it. I think there’s lots to be said for looking at what it means to be in God’s image, since presumably that qualifies the ’subduing.’ We note that God is creative, he brings order out of chaos, light out of darkness, he forms and fills, he speaks and assesses (and it was good), he names and he categorises, he distinguishes and separates.

On GC replacing the CM, yes, maybe, but then I reckon ‘obey everything I command’ in the GC is pretty broad. The GC is more than, but not less than the CM.

Here’s a crucial theological question that I think helps in these discussions: Does grace renew or replace nature? I reckon it renews, and I think the bible is on my side (resurrection!). Many evangelicals act as if grace replaces nature, and so it’s almost as if gospel concerns abolish the significance of creational things like family, cultural mandate, etc. rather than using and transforming them. I find this a tad (to be provocative) ‘gnostic.’
Pete Says:
June 21, 2008 at 10:34 am
Further;

I agree that the job now isn’t the same as the job will be when it comes to resurrection day. But I fail to see how the original creation/cultural mandate could be something for the new creation, since it involves marriage and children. It’s part of the job now, though we hacve no hope, nor right, of pursuing its fulfilment apart from the gospel, which alone restores the marred image of God in humanity.

I think God does tell me how to be a new creation society now, albeit one that copes with the fact that the new creation isn’t consummated (it exists legally and covenantally of course, since Jesus is risen, inaugurated eschatology etc.) and death, sin etc. still goes on, and albeit one that has to play the long game in a sinful God-hating world in order to see real change brought about. What are all the ethical instructions in the bible all about if not that, what is the wisdom literature for if not that? I really think you need to ponder whether you’re not reading the scriptures reductionistically.

‘Do you think that most postmils in evangelicalism share the view that the transformation of society only comes about by mass conversion?’

The ones I know do, yes, emphatically so. This is of course a separate question as to whether or not they think we can and should do some practical good in the meantime, but then people of every eschatological shade have been involved in ’social action’ type stuff throughout church history as far as I’m aware. But as for the real transformation we’re aiming at, yeah, of course. It’s all about the gospel.

‘And how do you guard against losing that distinctive (which makes a big difference)?’

Prioritise evangelism and discipleship. Know your own heart. Read the bible, pray, fight sin. Go to an evangelical church. Don’t let frustration at the minimalism of your evangelical brethren drive you into the arms of those who believe in transformation but without the gospel. Same as you guard against losing anything. What isn’t a correct means though is running to the opposite extreme just to avoid one extreme - even though (as Dr MLJ noted) that’s our tendency as evangelicals.

On imminent return stuff - I agree basically with Daniel. Plus, all those christians living before AD70 couldn’t have been expected to believe Jesus was returning any day, since they knew AD70 was coming. Plus, the apostle Peter couldn’t have been expected to think this way either, since he was told what kind of death he’d have (and therefore all those that heard that prophecy and knew that Peter wasn’t yet dead were in a similar boat too).

Plus, if you’re an a-mill who believes the gospel’s gonna get to at least some of every tribe, tongue etc. then you pretty much know Jesus ain’t coming back today.

If you read around, even in non-post’mills like Spurgeon, you find many many of our forbears denying that Jesus could come back any minute. It’s only really with the ascendency of pre-mill dispensational thought that this has changed - the dispensationalists have dominated the ‘feel’ of evangelicalism in the US for so long that even a-mills ‘breathe in the air’ of that system and incorporate elements of it into their system. The dispy’s haven’t succeeded in making the UK and US church dispensational, but we have all imbibed their imminent return rhetoric in our theology and practical piety. We can thank people like Moody for that I guess. Historical sstuff proves nothing, the bible rules of course, but it should make us pause when we’re so out of sync with many of our older brothers and sisters in generations gone past.
Tom Says:
June 27, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Hmm, as much as I’m provoked to respond by some of those last comments things have been pretty busy on my end, just got round to reading them today - and there’s a lot there! If you guys are still reading, I’ll get back when I’ve got time to do your thoughts justice.

	Liam Beadle on Review: Heaven Misplaced
	Neil Jeffers on Review: Heaven Misplaced
	Richard on Review: Heaven Misplaced
	Tuppy on Review: Heaven Misplaced
	Daniel Newman on Review: Heaven Misplaced

Ad Trinitatem

University Sermon by Tom Wright

June 6, 2008

53 Responses to “University Sermon by Tom Wright”

Leave a Reply

Recent Comments

Biblical Language Helps

Useful Websites

Weblogs

Categories

Archives