It's really hard to set aside my preconceptions

Reader(s), I've been trying to read the book fairly. I stated early on in the process that I'm reading this book because I have long had a hunch that part of its legacy is unhelpful in our understanding and practice of mission. So I'm inherently biased - I can't pretend otherwise! - but I am trying to read it fairly. 

One of the components of my hunch has been to do with the problem of continuity and discontinuity, and the contribution of Old Testament theology to the whole Bible picture of mission. I need to state clearly that I am a staunch supporter of reading the Old Testament, and I'm often frustrated when it's routinely ignored in preaching programmes or in an individual's reading. The New doesn't trump the Old, but fulfils it.

One reason why I've been concerned about Wright's treatment of things is that the Old seems to be co-opted to make a case that the New doesn't. Here's the most recent instance (forgive me if I'm just misunderstanding him):

'The new creation will preserve the rich diversity of the original creation, but purged of the sin-laden effects of the Fall. [Amen!] Or, the mission of God is not merely the salvation of innumerable souls but specifically the healing of the nations.' (p 456)

It seems to me this language is slightly pejorative, and another way in which he's reacting against an over-individualised, western evangelical subculture. 

And yet, is it not clearly the case, in the unfolding story of the church in the New Testament, that God does deal entirely with individuals? (Or at the largest scale with families - this isn't the place to argue about paedobaptism!!!) Where do we see nations as whole nations being approached, in the way that many of the prophets of Old declared God's verdicts or promises to whole nations (think Ezekiel, Jonah, Obadiah, Jeremiah etc)

Now this is a minor point in some ways - Chris Wright isn't resting a huge weight on this one plank. However, on page 462 we see the following summary:

• If it were not the case that all nations stand under the impending judgement of God, there would be no need to proclaim the gospel.
• But if it were not for the fact that God deals in mercy and forgiveness with all who repent, there would be no gospel to proclaim.

Isn't that exactly right? I raise this because if I was to be constructing a theology of mission, it would most certainly revolve around the proclamation of the gospel (why, how, when, what it is, what it isn't, where it comes from, why it's necessary and so on). And yet the previous 400 pages have to an extent been about deconstructing this (in my view) fundamental issue. I've come away with the impression that to centralise the proclamation of the gospel as a unique or primary or exclusive or foundational (pick your adjective) task is to truncate the gospel and to be reductionistic about mission. But here in chapter 14 (God and the Nations in Old Testament Vision), we have exactly this summary suggesting that the gospel and its proclamation is central. Somehow. 

It's more than possible I've just read the book badly, or that my limited ability to hold it together in overview means that I've misunderstood points he's making or I've read my own bias too easily into it.

I suppose one conclusion from all this is that we are largely on the same page. But it's those little bits on other pages that I think are proving troublesome and about which I'm increasingly concerned. We're almost at the end and I'll nail my colours to the mast soon!