I have been asked to write a review article for Anvil on Christopher Wright's magisterial new book The Mission of God. So as always, a few notes here first.
The scope of this book is truly impressive, as is its aim: to give an account of all of the Bible ordered to the concept of God's mission. In one sense it feels like old hat, because this is the kind of thing that Moore College has been serving up for years via Dumbrell, Robinson and Goldsworthy.
I notice, however, from looking at the index and the bibliography that hardly any of the authors cited are theologians. They are almost entirely contemporary biblical scholars of one kind or another. He reference precisely no patristic sources; no Augustine; no medieval writers; no Reformation greats (oh, I think Calvin gets a mention); no evangelical revival era or Protestant scholastic thinkers; no Puritans; no Karl Barth (no Karl Barth!). No Moltmann, no Guttierez, no Gunton, no Webster, no John Frame. Vanhoozer gets a couple of passing references.
And so far, no mention of martyrdom!
Brueggemann, Wright, N.T., Bauckham, etc: they are all there. Lots of contemporary missiologists, of course.
Is this another example of the mutual deafness between the disciplines?
9 comments:
What I learned studying theology:
If it's not at least 500 hundred years, it's probably crap.
so, Luther and Calvin are included, right?
;-)
I really like Chris Wright (I did a mission subject under him).
However, even though I haven't read this book, I do totally get what you mean.
It would be interesting to think more deeply as to the root reason(s) for this in contemporary evangelicalism.
You know about the topic I am researching, and when it all came about I knew (as hard as it would be time wise etc etc) that I needed to span the centuries on the topic. Choosing Augustine, Maximus, and C18th theologians etc was no accident. I knew that if I want to really look into what I was proposing and arguing, and comment on our own contemporary situation (where my questions began) than it would be important to do this.
Choosing Maximus (labelled as an eastern theologian and hardly known by contemporary west) was also very important to what I am answering and arguing. Theology never occurs in a vacuum and it wasn't as if theologians in the past were not faithfuless to Scripture, or didn't think through Scripture so as to apply it etc etc etc.
This is my long winded way of saying, I totally hear you and I see this in my own thinking. I know that what you are saying is very important.You have touched on something of great importance indeed!
BTW...I just listened to your sermon. (I listened whilst working) I have never listed to one of your sermons before. It was good...the application on clergy was good, however if it is okay for me to say this, it would have been even better of you really hit out the application more specifically on how we Christians can be guilty of not being humble in the 'everyday' and especially how we treat one another in the church. Specific examples that will hit at the heart.
Fair cop, Irene... sheesh. We do really need to be more specific.
Hi Michael,
Luther and Calvin...well. Calvin is worthless IMHO. Luther had some good things to say. But that was what, mostly in the 1520's and later? So yes, applying my rule (which I stand by) means we have to wait another 15 years or so before we start really evaluating what he said.
But by all means, let's get out the Aquinas and Abelard :-)
Calvin worthless?
It is pretty hard to be an Anglican and really think that now, isn't it?!
Sorry
Michael, by "disciplines" do you mean theology and missiology?
YEs, though Wright is an OT expert as well as missiologist, so there is a nice bit of cross-fertilization from that point of view.
Post a Comment