Anvil

Please pardon the blatant self-promotion, but - what is a blog for if not that?

In the latest issue of Anvil, I have an article on Chris Wright's The Mission of God - much of which was trialed here on this blog. Chris also adds his response to the four reviews that appear, and there admits to having read the debate as it developed here!

In the same issue, I have smaller reviews of Mark Thompson's A Clear and Present Word , Bernd Wannenwetsch's Political Worship, and Sam Well's God's Companions.

I also note that Wannenwetsch has edited a collection of essays, Who Am I? Bonhoeffer's Theology Through His Poetry. Alas, T&T Clark are offering it at the mighty price of £55!! That's 140 AUD!! (or 110 USD). Ouch - looks like a trip to the library to read that one...

The Mission of God X

In his zeal to show the continuity between the testaments, Wright has not (to my mind) sufficiently accounted for the difference between them. Marcionitism was attractive precisely because it has a point: in Christ, something new comes to pass. Or at least, the themes and concerns of the Old Testament are presented in a surprising new way. This is true of Wright’s particular emphasis on mission. It is precisely because of the revelation of Christ that it becomes possible to read the Old Testament in the light of mission. That this is an emphasis of the Old Testament becomes apparent on a re-reading of this text after the fact of the encounter with the New Testament. If reading the New Testament must be a canonical business, then so also must reading of the Old.[1] It simply will not do to read off a concept or theme found in the Old Testament, and apply it to the church without careful theological qualification. The church is not Israel. Wright is of course well aware of the danger of this kind of application. He insists: ‘[W]e are not Old Testament Israelites living within a theocratic covenant bound by Old Testament law’ (see p. 304-5). He rightly complains about the tendency of liberation theologians to do this with the exodus. But I am not convinced that he himself has completely evaded it. Especially, this comes into play in his discussion of the jubilee, one of his favourite biblical themes (p. 290ff). Wright says: ‘Mission belongs to God - the biblical God. The message of mission is to be drawn from the whole of God's biblical revelation. So we cannot simply relegate the powerful message of events such as the exodus or institutions like the jubilee to a bygone era. They are an integral part of the biblical definition of God's idea of redemption and of God's requirement on his redeemed people’. (p. 306) Certainly, Wright is right: relegation is not an option for a full-orbed biblical theology. But how are we to handle the transition between the social legislation directed to Israel and the era of the Church? Wright’s response to that question would be that the New Testament explicitly declares some Old Testament material to have been provisional – the food laws, for example, and the sacrificial system. There is an explicit rationale for our nonobservance of these ‘matters’ (p. 305). In other words, for Wright, ritual requirements are made particular to Israel’s own identity in time and space; whereas, the ethical principles gleaned from the Old Testament are universalised. But can this distinction be so easily sustained from reading the Old Testament itself? Wright seems to overlook the fact that the Jubilee itself was not merely an ethical teaching or principle, but precisely a ritual practice with an ethical and theological meaning that Israel was to engage in on regular occassions. Which is to say: the line between ceremonial and ethical command is not so easily drawn as Wright imagines. The critique of the latter prophets was not against ritual practice per se but against ritual practice set against a context of injustice and idolatry. Isn’t the charge that is frequently made against Calvin’s division of the law into moral, ceremonial and civil law – that it is an arbitrary division not found in the text, which for its part simply speaks of the whole as torah – also a charge that can be made to Wright’s proposed reading of the Old Testament ethical material? Certainly, many theologians in the history of the church have made proposals for criterion by which the Old Testament material ought to be received by Christians A further query I have along these lines is as to what Wright makes of holy war in the Old Testament. The relationship of Israel to the other nations surrounding her was frequently marked by armed struggle at the command of Yhwh. If there was an international perspective on view it was that that the defeat of the nations and their submission to the Lord’s anointed one was to be the way in which Israel would carry her mission to the nations. There was then a definite negative side to Israel’s mission: she was not merely the bearer of divine blessing to the nations, but also the bringer of divine curses. This too had been promised in the Abrahamic covenant of course. How is this negative aspect of the mission translated into the era of the church?

The Unity of the Bible?

All this talk in Chris Wright and Graeme Goldsworthy about 'overarching frameworks' and such makes me want to ask: in what does the coherence of the Bible lie? How can it be properly described?

Narratives cohere (often) around a central character or set of characters. Or, as in a saga, like D.H. Lawrence's The Rainbow, several generations of people living in the same place provide the threads of interconnection between the succesive stages of the novel. One novel I read, Annie Proulx's Accordian Crimes, coheres around an inanimate object (an accordian) as its finds itself in successive sets of hands. In Anna Karenina two plots are interwoven though there is little connection between them - they are connected in that the characters share in family relations of a somewhat distance kind.

Ultimately, it is the collecting of the elements together in the single work that unifies them, though usually there are more elements of formal coherence than that. Think of a painting in an art gallery: it is the framing and placing of the elements within the frame and on the wall that invites us to consider them as a unity, even if the elements of the painting are quite discordant. If they are discordant, we tend to ask why they have been juxtaposed and wrestle to discover what relation there might be or that we might find between them.

These formal coherences - often unimportant in themselves - invite the reader to consider and discover thematic coherences as suggested by the stories. Sometimes these are quite surprising, granted. Sometimes the formal coherences do not account for all the elements in the work, at least not obviously. But the human love of comparing and contrasting, and of finding patterns, makes for the most enjoyable part of engaging with narrative art forms.

The other aspect of our apprehension of coherence when it comes to narratives is of course time. We experience time in narratives through emplotment. No matter how many post-modern novels cut and paste their narratives, the narrative form relies heavily on a succession of events and invites us to consider (or tells us) what the relation between the events consists in. EM Forster famously wrote: 'The king died and then the queen died is a story. The king died, and then the queen died of grief is a plot.'

The canonical Bible has a coherence in a formal sense in the first instance in that it traces the history of Israel with its God in a roughly chronological order. The New Testament claim is that it continues and indeed completes this history. However, there are things that are collected within the lists of Law, Writings and Prophets that are not obviously part of the main succession of events. Very few clues are given as to why Job, for example, has been placed within the canon: which is for us readers an invitation to consider what it does contribute. It is almost as if it has been placed there by intuition: (from the human side) by an editor not quite knowing what he was yet looking at but sure that what he had was of inestimable value, and recognising in it the divine voice.

I suppose what I am leaning towards saying is this: the formal unity of the Bible consists of the collecting of these books together as Scripture; and its relation to salvation-history. The Bible describes a series of events that were connected to one another over time, in place, and by a people connected intergenerationally. This formal unity allows then for multiple strands of thematic coherence to be discerned, some of which are more prominent and others less so, and which have complex relations to one another. Of course, some of these coherence is quite obvious, as the authors of scripture deliberately cite each other, and play with and develop - even critique - the themes and other content of other scriptural books. This is also why it is inadequate to read any passage of scripture without due consideration to its relationship to salvation-history and without relation to how the particular themes within it are treated and developed within the canon.

Kostenberger and O'Brien on Mission

I found this comment from Kostenberger and O'Brien to be a helpful clarification (Wright's book suffers from conceptual confusions):

The mission of the exalted Jesus is accomplished through the witness of the apostles in the power of the Holy Spirit. The one who is himself sent by God sends his representatives to bear testimony to his salvation, to announce the forgiveness of sins and to make disciples of all nations. In other words, his witnesses continue the mission of Jesus by declaring to men and women everywhere the glorious gospel of the grace of God. As the Father has sent him, so Jesus sends them. Moreover, this testimony to Jesus and his saving work involves a wide-ranging series of activities that result in believers being built up in Christ and formed into Christian congregations. It is not limited to primary evangelism and its immediate results...

And so: good works of all kinds, that flow from the impact of Christ in the power of the Spirit, are rightly ordered to mission (and to ecclesiology, too).

K and O'B do a much better job at a 'Biblical Theology of Mission' I find, partly because they don't overplay the OT to the extent that Wright does.

The Mission of God IX

How big is our gospel? Chris Wright asks, in his chapter on God's model of redemption. (I am curious about this language of 'models'... I think there is a problem here, not sure what yet).

He goes on:

The scope of our mission must reflect the scope of God's mission, [Granted] which is turn will match the scale of God's redemptive work. [well i think I get what he is trying to say...] Where do we turn in the Bible for our understanding of redemption? Already it will be clear enough that in my view it will simply not do to turn first to the New Testament. ...

What!??

The Mission of God VIII

An important issue to settle for me is 'what IS mission'? That is: does mission include any good work that Christians may do? Is fighting for 'social justice' (whatever that means!) found theologically speaking under the heading of 'mission', and if so, why? What about taking care of the environment?

There are two ways of arguing. One (my preference) is to say that we participate in the mission of God as we call people from darkness into his marvellous light, making disciples of all nations. Paul's mission to the Gentiles, for example, did not seem to have a lot to do directly with 'social justice' - though it certainly had the effect of changing society remarkably in lots of ways as people heard the gospel and responded to it. Neighbour love is, then, an imperative outworking of mission, but it isn't mission in and of itself. Having said this, it is true that the loving actions of Christians may indeed result in others giving glory to God, and that the NT has a lot to say about the coupling of actions to words in mission. Fair enough: but mission refers to the work of God in reconciling the world to himself in Christ. We do 'mission' insofar as we work to this end. Commending the gospel in word and deed is our mission. Question is I guess: does me secretly reducing my carbon footprint (for example) contribute to the mission of God? Has a Christian agency whose aim is alleviating poverty without any other evangelistic consideration have the right to call itself a 'mission' agency? (Note: I am not for a second questioning the importance of such agencies; merely wondering whether 'mission' is the right theological heading for them. Nor am I saying that one ought to preach the gospel without alleviating suffering where it is found. On the contrary).

The alternative position is that almost anything given to Christians to do can be called 'mission' if it seen to be fitting in the purposes of God . So, yes, caring for animals: mission. Alms-giving: mission. Lobbying for fairer laws: mission. Campaigning for fair-trade: mission. In fact almost anything we do having been sent out at 11:00am Sunday until we meet at 10:am the next send can be labelled mission, if it is doing what God wants done.

The Mission of God VII

Chris Wright says:

How then can it be suggested that evangelistic proclamation is the only essential mission of the church? It seems impossible to eme to justify such reductionism if we intend to sustain any claim to be taking the whole Bible seriously as our authority for mission and as that which defines the content and scope of our mission. Mission belongs to God - the biblical God. The message of mission is to be drawn from the whole of God's biblical revelation. So we cannot simply relegate the powerful message of events such as the exodus or institutions like the jubilee to a bygone era. They are an integral part of the biblical definition of God's idea of redemption and of God's requirement on his redeemed people... p. 306

This is typical Wright, and it is problematic in a typical way. I would never dispute that we need the whole Bible for our understanding of mission. This is what Wright has got so wonderfully right. However, Wright does not sufficiently account for the difference between the Old and New Testaments. He has over-reacted to a contemporary Marcionitism by going to the opposite extreme, it seems to me. We cannot relegate the exodus and the jubilee to a bygone era, sure: but also we cannot simply take them on board in an undifferentiated way. We are not Israel. We are the church. This basic observation cannot be overstated! Things are different: even the most ardent advocate of a third use of the law knows this. Wright gives (as far as I can see) an insufficient account of the difference.

Wright is of course highly selective in his reading of what aspects of the OT are still operative, though he keeps banging the 'holistic' drum. His version does not highlight the moral law, as forms of Calvinism do; rather, he pulls out some aspects of social justice and concerns of a vaguely left-wing nature. But it is just as arbitrary. This particularly obvious with the year of Jubilee, which is given a quite questionable amount of emphasis in this book considering its lack of prominence in the Scriptures. And I keep searching for an enunciated principle of differentiation that would account for his selectivity.

Evangelistic mission, I would argue, is deserving of particular emphasis and priority, also. But more of that later.

The Mission of God VI - 'Frameworks'

At Stowe Gardens. Simon pretends to be a tree. No-one else takes any notice.

Wright has a couple of guiding metaphors. He offers his reading of the Bible as the 'key to unlock' the Bible's narrative (is the Bible a safe that needs cracking? a door that needs opening? is it somehow closed without the key?). This sounds uncomfortably reminiscent of George Eliot's scholar Casuabon and his never-ending project to find the 'key to all mythologies'. He also repeatedly speaks of the theme of God's mission as a 'framework', or an 'overarching framework'. (Goldsworthy uses the same vocabulary). Though it isn't a framework, really (which is a structural metaphor), but, in the way Wright uses it, an organising motif. But: why do we need a 'framework'? Why do we need such intensive exploration to uncover the 'framework'? Why are there competing 'frameworks' of equal plausibility? Are we saying that without the framework, the Bible's unity and coherence is in question somehow? (Interestingly, Wright does not discuss at any length other suggestions for an organising principle, though there are many). Isn't Jesus the Christ the organising principle (at least for Christians) and all the framework that is needed? Part of the problem here is the Wright wants to make more of the OT ethically speaking than a properly Christological reading of the OT will let him.

Interestingly, Wright starts by offering his theme 'the mission of God' as one possible hermeneutical key among many. By the end, it has become THE right and correct way to make sense of the Bible. So, he is saying more than: this theme is a neglected theme and look how much of the Bible is related to it. Now he is saying 'this is what the Bible is about, and it isn't about something else'. It becomes less a book about mission, and more a book about how to read the Bible.

Publishing Clangers

I received a copy of my old teacher Graeme Goldsworthy's newish book Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics today.

Imagine my surprise when on closer examination, instead of Goldie's friendly visage (as per left) on the dust-jacket, some strange middle-aged professorial-looking face stared back!!

IVP Academic have printed the WRONG PHOTO on the book!! How embarassing is that!! What a clanger!

Mind you, IVP UK have published Chris Wright's The Mission of God without putting page-numbers in the table of contents. This is a real inconvenience in such a massive tome. It is amazing to see such sloppiness from the people who reep the bulk of the profits.

The Mission of God IV

[Caveat: I am responding to the book as I go rather than producing a well-thought response. Things may annoy me now that won't when I see the whole vision of the book.]

Mission that claims the high spiritual ground of preaching only [sic!] a gospel of personal forgiveness and salvation without the radical challenge of the full biblical demands of God's justices and compassion, without a hunger and thirst for justice, may well expose those who respond to its partial truths to the same dangerous verdict....if faith without works is dead, mission without social compassion and justice is biblically deficient. p. 288

Yes, yes, yes: but it is the conceptual looseness that confuses me here. Is social action part of 'mission'? (Actually, I have a problem with the term 'social action' anyway). Or is social action the result of mission? Or is social action mission? The false dichotomies and straw men don't help. He is attacking nameless opponents: do they exist? Who knows? As he says:

There may be an element of caricature in the way I have sketched this view, but it is not unrepresentative of a certain brand of popular mission rhetoric. p. 280

This is frankly annoying. We are in the middle of what purports to be a scholarly work and what we get is hearsay and gossip! Come on, Chris! I am not interested in whether you can show up a 'certain brand of popular etc.' Who cares? Find a serious thinker who would oppose you and show where THEY are wrong and that your argument is stronger.

In this section, where Wright starts to use the OT to draw ethical implications for Christians today, I start to scratch my head, as I did with his OT Ethics book. It just seems so arbitrarily done, or done with so little reference to the distinctive character of the Church qua Church and Israel qua Israel. Unless you are quite ruthlessly and unbiblically supercessionist, you can't just say that the Church adopts the habits and marks of Israel except in a carefully qualified way. I remain to be convinced as to whether the qualifications have been made here. But I have a long way to read!
Is the Jubilee such a prominent theme that it warrants a whole chapter? Also: I will be very interested to see what he does with the wars of conquest. Mission in OT perspective was carried out by means of the sword! (no index entries under 'Conquest' or 'War' I note)...

The Mission of God III

Wright asks:

‘I would ask that the missional framework I propose in this volume be exaluated for its heuristic fruitfulness. Does it in fact do justice to the overall thrust of the biblical canon? Does it illuminate and clarify? Does it offer a way of articulating the coherence of the Bible’s overarching message?'

Help me here: isn't this last sentence a tautology? I mean isn't he saying 'does it offer a way of articularting the coherence of the Bible's coherence?'?

Is it the coherence that needs articulating? Or is it the message itself?

The Mission of God II

The Mission of God opens with the bold claim that 'Mission is what the Bible is all about'. He wants to ask 'can we take mission as a hermeneutical matrix for our understanding of the Bible as a whole?' p. 32

But mission is a rather rubbery word. Has Wright succeeded in taming it? A little further on we read:

Down through the centuries it would probably be fair to say that Christians have been good at their messianic reading of the OT but inadequate ... at their missional reading of it. We read the OT messianically or christologically in the light of Jesus; that is, we find in it a whole messianic theology and eschatology that we see as fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. In foing so we follow his own example, of course, and that of his first followers and the authors of the Gospels. But what we have so often faikled to do is to go beyond the mere satisfaction of ticking off so-called messianic predcitions that have 'been fulfilled'. And we have failed to go further because we have not grasped the missional significance of the Messiah. p. 30

It seems by 'mission' Wright means something like 'purpose'... so, the missional perspective is always asking 'what is God doing here' 'what is his purpose or his plan?'

The Mission of God I

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?