Some broad conclusions

I've finished reading the book, and I said I'd write some broad conclusions in this post. 

I want to start with one, taken from the epilogue on page 535:

'It was the rise Jesus...who opened the eyes of the disciples to understand the Scriptures, by reading them in the double light of his own identity as the Messiah and of their ongoing mission to all nations in the power of the Spirit. "This is what is written,... and you will be my witnesses...to the ends of the earth," he said, in that richly missional account which spans the ending of Luke's Gospel and the beginning of Acts.'

'...Christ crucified and risen is the key to all history, for he is the one who accomplished the mission of God for all creation.'

'If, then, it is in Christ crucified and risen that we find the focal point of the whole Bible's grand narrative, and therein also the focal point of the whole mission of God...'

I totally agree. 

And again I raise the question: the way that the many, many different things that are touched on in this book fit together under the heading 'The Mission of God' surely - surely - can't be flattened out in the way that Chris Wright's commitment to holistic mission seems to do so. That is not to say there is only one thing to do - evangelism. I agree with his critique of certain streams of Protestant mission thinking that reduces everything to merely winning souls for heaven. That is truncated and reductionistic.

But what if there is a clearer, simpler, more fundamental answer to the question 'what is God's mission?' that makes the answer to the second question: 'and how do I participate in it?' more accessible and more faithful?

I am convinced there is a better answer. I doubt if Chris Wright would really disagree with it, but I don't think this book has uncovered it.

The last chapter - and the big questions

I'm thinking of writing two more posts after this one:

This one - briefly, some big questions
The next one - some broad conclusions
The final one - my main point.

How's that for succinct?

Today then: if the New Testament deals with God's mission (seemingly exclusively) in terms of the gospel of the messiah being proclaimed to the ends of the earth, of God's salvation being offered to all, then surely that is God's mission? And if so, why has so much of this book seemingly been about how God's mission is so much more than this?

Is it just semantics? Is it unnecessary for me to be seeing distinctions between God's overall mission, his big plan for the world, and the execution of that plan in time, such as the apostles and the early church? In other words, is it possible that the New Testament's clear focus and emphasis on a verbal proclamation of good news about the crucified and risen Jesus just happens to be a New Testament thing, and really only one element or one dimension of a much broader mission?

I think that's unlikely... 

Furthermore, questions remain, not really as a result of what Wright says, but because of the implications of what he says:

What is the gospel? What is the good explicit, and what is the bad implicitly, in the 'good' of good news?
What is salvation? 

These are such fundamental questions...

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!

The Mission of God and my own hobby horses!

Dawn often ribs me gently (joining in a long line of others who rib me...) about how I have a Bible that only really has three or four books in it. While not quite on the level or in the style of the heretic Marcion, who dispensed deliberately with most of the Old Testament, it is true that I return disproportionately often to certain books. Generously, my Bible consists of Ezra and Malachi and the Old, and Mark, Ephesians, 2 Timothy and Titus in the New. The Ezra inclusion is the legacy of my friend Andy in Beeston, with whom I read it properly for the first time in the gloriously sunny spring of 2000 on the grassy banks outside Nottingham University's Portland Building. Titus makes it in because it's a short little letter, ideal for reading 1-2-1 with students when you want to complete a series and it's difficult to plan months of meetings. I must have read it with dozens of students, individually and in small groups.

Why this reminiscence?

My Biblical hermeneutic has been shaped over the years mostly by influences from UCCF and the Proclamation Trust, and Andy Gemmill, our former pastor at Beeston Free Church. It's therefore unsurprising that the main questions in my mind with Biblical texts, large or small, are these three:
1. Where does this book fit into the whole Bible?
2. What did the author want me take from it? (i.e. why is it in the Bible?)
3. How is it about Jesus?

(This is just a very quick thought off the top of my head by the way.)

So anyway, I've been wondering a couple of things about this comprehensive book of Wright's that I've almost finished, and poor old Ezra doesn't make it in to the scripture index. This isn't surprising, but I do feel sorry for the guy. When I get to the New Jerusalem I'm definitely going to search him out for a chat because his queue might be shorter. But what does his little, odd, obscure-ish book contribute to our thinking about mission? About the mission of God?

Well, at the very least it puts a very strong emphasis on God's priority for his people to be his people. End of story. The Hebrews exiled in Babylon are brought back to Jerusalem and reconstituted as his people in his land under his rule. That is God's purpose. I'll suggest that it's his mission. (Something that I think is seriously lacking in Wright's book: an emphasis on God's mission being to seek, save and keep his people, now and for eternity).

Put it this way: in the book of Ezra, I'm thinking that really all we see in terms of what God wants to see happening, is that his people live as his people. They do not seem to have a long list of concerns, a wide variety of tasks to accomplish. Just the one. Be the people of God.

And then my other hobby horse - Titus. Titus gets three mentions in the index - chapter 2:9-14 ish - but interestingly none of them pick up on the purpose part of those verses, which I think is both clear and crucial: that God sent Jesus to redeem a people to be his own. That's a purpose statement. It's a mission statement. The contribution of these verses to Wright's argument is to do with the living out good lives to adorn the gospel, which is of course vitally important. But there's a more fundamental purpose behind that adorning, which is so that the gospel goes out faithfully in order to actually do the redeeming work in the first place, in order that God's people be found, called, saved and so on. What that people do follows on from what God does first, and they are distinct movements.

I am convinced that a theology of mission that doesn't have a controlling, central place for the gospel word and the proclamation (teaching/speaking/gossiping/discussing etc - this isn't an apologetic for the primacy of the pulpit) but at least moves in the direction of evangelism and teaching being one amongst many activities that make up God's mission is problematic. And I just don't believe we see that in the New Testament at all.

Sin and mission

God's mission in the world has something to do with sin. Only the most ardent liberal could deny that. One of the questions therefore is 'what is sin?'. Another would be 'how exactly does God's mission tackle sin?' Our perception of sin is clearly going to affect our view of mission, and our understanding of God's solution to sin is going to shape our practice of mission from the roots up. 

Personally, I need to learn to think more deeply about basic things and not be satisfied with primary school level answers, but at the same time if something is simple, we need to not over-complicate it.

I'm wondering if that's the case with Chris Wright's treatment of sin, where in chapter 13 he explains his thoughts on structural or societal sin. I really do not want to fall into the over-atomistic trap of many and simply say we should be talking about getting individuals to pray the sinner's prayer, as if that is the be all and end all of mission. But what shall we make of this quote?

'So if our mission is bringing good news into every area of human life, then it calls for some research and analysis as to what exactly constitutes the bad news, horizontally in the structures of a given society and vertically in its history. Many factors will be uncovered in the process. But only as they are uncovered can the cleansing, healing and reconciling power of the gospel undo their dismal effects.' (p. 432)

The thing is, do we see anything like this approach anywhere in the Bible? Not that the careful thinking about the breadth and depth of sin isn't a good idea. I'm sure it is. But as an approach to mission - well, I need some more help to see that approach in the way the apostles took the full revelation of the good news around the Jewish and Roman Mediterranean lands. 

Do we know what the good news is? Yes I think so. Do we know what the bad news is? Again, yes. And the bringing of that good news to bear against the bad news is, I think, less complex than this chapter suggests. 

Creation care

I've been waiting for this subject to turn up at some point in the book.

Is creation care an essential part of mission?

I'll quote a couple of sentences, which come off the back of some simple points made about the value of creation, the love of God for creation, the continuity (qualified rightly I think) between this creation and the new, renewed one to come, the distinction between creator and his creation, and more. I'm with Chris Wright on those issues, to begin with, but then it becomes a little muddled, I think.

'I would like to make just a few more points articulating how and why it seems to me that a biblical theology of mission... must include the ecological sphere within its scope and see practical environmental action as a legitimate part of Christian mission.'

'In the past, Christians have instinctively been concerned about great and urgent issues in every generation, and rightly included them in their overall concept of mission calling and practice.'
(p 413)

'Being Christian does not release us from being human. Nor does a distinctively Christian mission negate our human mission, for God holds us accountable as much for our humanity as for our Christianity. As Christian human beings, therefore, we are doubly bound to see active care for creation as a fundamental part of what it means to love and obey God.' (p 414)

I want to suggest at this point that part of the nagging concern I've had with the book, as with the wider issue of mission in the circles we move in, is that there is possibly a very basic confusion of categories going on here, which ends up leading us down a wrong track.

To say that Christians - as all humans - are charged with being stewards of God's creation is one thing. And surely we all agree with that. As he says, we are not released from being human. We live in a creation that has value and should be valued.

But to place that at the centre of our mission - along with other tasks such as teaching humans from all of creation to obey what Jesus commands - seems problematic. The charge to all God's human creatures to be stewards holds, but I am sure that it sits in a different place to the command to God's chosen people to be his people with all the concomitant responsibilities that entails. It doesn't sit alongside that command, as if of equal significance. God commands many things, but they do not all sit alongside each other. I think there is an order - I don't think the word hierarchy is right so I won't say that - that we need to have clear when we think about mission, and right throughout the book I do not believe Chris Wright has made this clear, which ends us up in a muddle about what we are supposed to be doing, as the church and as individuals.

Apart from anything else, I'm struggling to think of a single instance in the New Testament where the apostles take us in this direction, explicitly or implicitly. If anyone reading this can help me out, please do so. It seems to me that some significant conclusions are being read back into the Old Testament framework that Wright has constructed, before those conclusions are really warranted.

I'll be more constructive when I write my own conclusions - for the time being however, what is the place of creation care in thinking about and doing mission?

Mission and Ethics

Chris Wright has long been known as a writer and speaker on Old Testament ethics. I've just finished a chapter which he summarises as follows:

'In short, as God's covenant people, Christians are meant to be

• a people who are light to the world by their good lives (1 Peter)
• a people who are learning obedience and teaching it to the nations (Matthew)
• a people who love one another in order to show who they belong to (John)

It would be hard to find a more concise articulation of the integration of Christian ethics and Christian mission.' The Mission of God, page 392

Amen. The way we live as the people of God must be good and be seen to be good.

But here I think we see a significant issue with the theology of this book, and with the wider issue of mission, holistic mission, what is evangelism, what is the gospel, what is the heart of God's mission... I don't think he has satisfactorily argued the case here. And what is really missing is the issue of how God's people are built. How does the people of God come into being? Because the ethical outworking is clear - as summarised in those three bullets above. But ethics is the outworking of the identity of the people of God, and that identity is formed by something else - something that precedes ethics. And I believe that clarity on what that precedence is, is foundational to what God's - and our - mission is.

Read on!