Welcome to this conversation between four friends over N. T. Wright’s latest book, Simply Christian. Each of us is a pastor in four different churches in Tehachapi, California. We four come from different traditions but share a common love of Christ, reverence for the Word, concern for the lost, and regard for the church which is bigger than any of our individual fellowships or denominational connections.
Each one, in succession, will take the lead in writing a reflection on a chapter in Wright’s book.
The other three will then “reflect upon the reflection,” adding insights, questions, or concerns that surface in the conversation. In sharing together we hope to gain from the wisdom and experience of one another. We invite you to read along and share your thoughts as well.
To begin:
In his introduction, N. T. Wright lets us know that he divides Simply Christian into three parts. Part One is an inductive exploration of common human experiences which Wright suggests points the human heart beyond itself to One Who Is There. Part Two discusses what believers believe about “the one true and living God” revealed in Jesus. Part Three explores what it means to follow Jesus.
It is evident in his style and tone that Wright seeks a conversation with thoughtful readers. He wants to include the honest, “postmodern,” secularist in an exploration of common life experiences. He is unapologetic in his Christian perspective and trusts the reader to grant him a little bit of time to draw him into an appreciation of the Christian witness to Truth.
Part One of the conversation engages us in a reflection upon common incongruities of life. He calls this section, “Echoes of a Voice,” as if the Creator has shouted an invitation into the fallen world that continues to reverberate through successive generations.
The first chapter encourages the reader to listen to that voice in the strains of the human longing for justice. He connects the broad tragedy of the 2004 tsunami with its vast carnage and devastation with the common moral problem of knowing the good, and yet lacking the power to do the good we know.
The ancient philosophers, not least Aristotle, saw this as a wrinkle in the
system, a puzzle at several levels. We all know what we ought to do (give or
take a few details); but we all manage, at least some of the time, not to
do it. (p. 6)
He uses a bit of understatement to good effect: “Isn’t this odd?” (p. 6) And then gets crystal clear, “…there is something badly wrong.” (p. 8)
This first chapter brings to light our common moral plight. I certainly track with him and easily bring Paul’s letter to the Romans into Wright’s reflection. Romans 1:22 points out how God is revealed in what He has made, even as an “echo” in the midst of human experience. Romans 3:23 is clear that all share in the moral problem the Bible calls sin. Romans 8:22 identifies the reality of a creation in turmoil. Truly, “there is something badly wrong.”
While Wright engages the thoughtful reader with this first echo, I can’t help but think that the deeper crisis of our time is the vast number of lost souls who never seem to reflect about their condition. The incongruities wrapped up in our longing for things to be set right I fear are beyond the grasp of most folks. People just don’t sit around thinking about those kinds of things.
Of course, the deeper problem is that many people just don’t sit around and think at all. Our culture has done a thorough job of focusing attention away from what might be true to an excessive concern for satiating endless desire. Like the botanical monster The Little Shop of Horrors we cry, “Feed me!” Like the voracious plant, the more we consume the more we demand. In my experience most people are simply scurrying. Too many try to grab life in stuff, the material commodities that our consumer society constantly presses into our consciousness. In light of the disparities all around us, I fear most don’t say, “It isn’t fair!”, but rather, “I want some, too!”
Wright suggests three options when faced with the question of justice delayed or denied: “that’s just the way it is” (the nihilist), “I’m out of here,” (the escapist), or “God is up to something” (the theist). These seem to be the options available for those in touch with the issue, but what about the clueless? I think a lot more people say, “There’s a problem?” Or worse, “Don’t bother me with reality; I’m too busy trying to fill my bottomless pit”
The question that gets stirred up in me is, “How do we get contemporary, driven consumers to slow down and see the craziness. The incongruities Wright touches upon with this first “echo” of a longing for justice is, I fear, lost on most people. I hope the thoughtful, reflective secularist gets hooked with this echo of justice. If only the pedal-to-the-metal consumer would pause long enough to hear anything other than the clamoring of his own need for more.
I resonate with the suggestion Wright makes that Christianity really is about living out justice, seeking real righteousness in the world as we pray the Lord’s prayer, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Maybe this commitment to live justly in the Kingdom and to seek the King’s justice in the world (linked with the kind of prayer that makes such living possible) is a way to awaken those who slumber in our land of ease and abundance. There is a right way to live. Those endlessly scrambling for more need to see it in real life.
N. T. Wright strikes close to home when he writes,
When Christians use their belief in Jesus as a way of escaping from that
demand and challenge, they are abandoning a central element in their own
faith. That way danger lies. (p. 13)
How can we as believers live more purely the righteous way, the way that affirms the cry for justice even as we extend the Lord’s mercy? In my experience moral courage continues to be the brightest beacon to the truth of Christ. How in Tehachapi can we live to bear witness to the rightness, the justice, implicit in the life of Christian discipleship?
Kyle Phillips
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
This is our first outing. TC, I need to learn how to format the blog to show paragraph breaks for easier reading.
Great reflection, Kyle. I do agree that Wright is pulling us into a thoughtful, reflective conversation, almost to the point of having us ask the question, "What can I do as a believer?"
It is also clear that he has introduced many elements to this first chapter, which he wishes to come back to in greater detail.
Yes, I admire his unapologetic stance as Christian and not being afraid to bring what that means to the dialogue of setting the world to rights. I, however,am waiting on how he develops the concept of the Christian engagement in setting the world to rights.
Besides, he is not afraid to call a spade a spade, when talking about the misrepresentations of Christian for the last two millennia (pp.12-15).
Wrights sets off the question, "So why can't we fix injustice?" (p.4) Different forms of government have tried,and we see where that has gotten us, granting that some form form of governments have been more successiveful than others.
But is it ultimately the role of the government to fix injustice? I believe Wright help answer that question when he mentioned Wilberforce, Woolman,Bonhoeffer,King Jr,Tutu, et al.
But I believe the answer to the question of fixing injustice is found in Romans 8.
TC Robinson
TC, as you mention the role of government in the attempt to establish justice, it occurs to me that to the three possible responses Wright offers to the problem of injustice in chapter 1 (the nihilist, the escapist, and the theist), we could add the "fixist," the one who desires to fix what is broken--to make things right.
The variety of tyrannies and liberal democracies of the 20th Century fills the history books with the "fixists." Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot all attempted to force a fix resulting in horrendous violence. FDR and the "New Deal" ideologies (with their European counterparts) also have attempted to force a fix, though with less bloodshed but not much better results.
All are rooted in the rationalism of the by-gone modern era. The pattern is familiar: identify the problem, analyze it, design a fix, and apply. When dealing with material concerns such as beating a virus or landing a man on the moon, it works okay. It is when in our human arrogance we attempt to fix the soul apart from the Lord that things really get weird.
NT Wright really seems to be focusing on the postmodernists. He doesn't entertain the view of the one who wants to fix the problem as per the 20th century. Folks characterize the postmodern as someone highly skeptical if not cynical of the notion that we can even understand let alone fix the social ills around us. The postmoderns have moved on. Wright is targeting those who have rejected the hubis of the rationalism of the past couple centuries.
Wright's central point in Chapter 1 is a good place to begin as any I suppose. Everybody experiences the reality of sin in relationships and the broader community. My fear is that too few reflect upon it. We don’t know how to ask the harder question “What does it all mean?” We’ve got to help others get to the point of asking the questions of transcendent, eternal significance.
Romans 8 works for me too, especially Romans 8:14,
For all who are led by the
Spirit of God are sons of
God.
The Lord is working the fix. Our part of the deal is to live the righteous way in Christ and become that peculiar people that bear witness to the different way.
Kyle Phillips
Kyle, and as shifty as the postmodernists are, we cannot ignore them. They seem to be our greatest fight in the 21st century.
Consider the media in your category of "fixists." They operate from a postmodern stance. They are the ones being heard in the marketplace of ideas. Ideas, sadly, which go on to shape the psyche of our nation. But there is hope.
TC
TC, It certainly seems like the media has taken the dominant place in our culture. The low opinion of government in the US certainly suugests that it isn't in that role.
I wonder, though, if we are experiencing a rapid transition from media influence to internet influence. The social networking sites along with the bloggers are making an impact. Through the internet the individual is empowered as never before. That feels like good news and bad news to me. The good news is that the church through individual beleivers have a new means of communication and impact that is not cheap and accessible. The bad news is, so does everybody else!
Kyle
TC,
By the way. You're on for the initial reflection on Chapter 2. Can you post it by Thursday, July 12th. That keeps us on the two week schedule.
Kyle, great observation on the internet. Yes, I have seen some of that already. The impact is staggering. Have you noticed how much Youtube and MySpace are in the news?
Recently on Youtube I was watching a clip by Dr. Chuck Missler, who is associated with Calvary Chapel, on the existence of God. Now on Youtube anyone can comment. So I began to read some of the comments. Most of the comments I read were attacks on the notion of God's existence. They came from angry atheists or agnostics.
Yes, I will be ready for chapter 2 on July 12th.
Justice implies that nothing goes unrewarded or unpunished. If anyone believes in such a concept, they imply that there is a someone who knows all the facts about everyone's evil acts and good acts. This implies an omniscient being. If this being is omniscient he can guarantee a just verdict on the Hitlers, Pol Pots, Stalins, et.al. If this being is not all-powerful (omnipotent), however, he could never deliver the sentence of justice. So a person who believes in justice also assumes an omnipotent being. I believe Wright's goal is to conclude that only Christianity, Judaism, and Islam posit such a being. Thus, one must give up on the idea of justice or believe in an omniscient, omnipotent being. We call such a being God. This is why Christianity "makes sense."
Someone might object, "Yes, but if Judaism and Islam both offer such a being, how can Christianity claim uniqueness?" Well, if we were left with justice as the only virtue for which mankind yearns, it would appear that Christianity would not offer us anything that can't be found in the other "Western" religions.
So we introduce another longing of humanity: mercy and love. While everyone pines for justice, we also are very fond of love and mercy, especially in our case if not for others. Christianity uniquely offers both in the sacrifice of Christ. God demonstrated justice and love in the crucifixion of his Son. So Christianity makes sense because it doesn't have to choose between a God who is just but unloving and unmerciful, or a God is is loving and merciful, but unjust.
Islam's God is not merciful as most of humanity understands mercy. In Islam a Muslim can be forgiven if he works hard at being good and his good outweighs his bad. If the good outweighs the bad, the Muslim says God's forgiveness is mercy. But it is diluted mercy because on the one hand the Muslim has earned it and mercy cannot be earned as most of us understand mercy.
Islam's God is not just either because when he forgives the Muslim whose good outweighs the bad, God overlooks or ignores the bad, which is unjust. So in the final analysis Islam can claim a God who is semi-just and semi-merciful, but not purely either.
Judaism's dilemma is that in rejecting the atonement of Christ it must atone for its own sins. Yet, how does one pay an infinite debt. So Judaism, like Islam, expects God to be semi-merciful by ignoring what the Jew has earned, and semi-just by ignoring the sin of the Jew.
Christianity, through Christ's atonement, offers pure justice and pure mercy. Christ receives pure justice so that pure mercy can be offered to sinners. Those who come to Christ have their sins transferred to Christ, and His righteousness transferred to them. Justice and mercy meet at the cross.
Those who refuse Christ refuse mercy and therefore will receive pure justice at the judgment.
Great stuff! "So Judaism, like Islam, expects God to be semi-merciful by ignoring what the Jew has earned, and semi-just by ignoring the sin of the Jew."
Thanks for hightlighting the fatal weaknesses of both Islam and Judaism as competing theistic worldviews.
Andy said: "Christianity, through Christ's atonement, offers pure justice and pure mercy." While I am in total agreement with this statement, I want to know How does work itself out in everyday life? What does it look like in a poverty stricken nation like Darfur?
There are two things at work here. On the one hand pure justice was accomplished at the cross for all who will believe, OR it will be accomplished at the judgment for all those who won't believe.
Nevertheless, while pure justice was/will be accomplished, this is a vertical justice, if you will. In other words all sin and evil is ultimately vertical or against God. But proximately all sin and evil is against man. We are not to pursue vertical justice, that's God's job. And He has already spoken, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay."
Our concern should be horizontal justice in so far as we are able (Micah 6:8). We should strive to both deal justly with others, not defrauding them, and defend the orphan, widow, and oppressed.
Even though we will never fully achieve horizontal justice, God wants us busy emulating Him by pursuing it with vigor.
What about those who are suffering from horizontal injustice? They should cry out to God (I'm sure they do.) just as the Israelites did in their Egyptian slavery. They should entrust themselves to the one who judges righteously (1Peter 2:23). They may never see justice in this lifetime. Many have not as history witnesses. God did not promise to rectify all injustice in time, but eternity.
What about those who are aware of horizontal injustice. We should do all we can to rectify it through righteous and legitimate means (charity, prosecution, war (Romans 13). Individuals seek justice through the civil magistrate rather than personal vengeance and the nation seeks it through the God-ordained means of using might when all other peaceful means have been exhausted.
Thus, Christianity while pursuing justice in the here and now, has a God who promises to finish what we fail to achieve; pure and full justice.
The Lord's ultimate justice or the full establishment of righteousness in the kingdom is a real source of hope for the believer. Jesus rising from the dead evidenced that the injustice of his crucifixion could not stand. The King would not be thwarted! Praise the Lord.
As we seek to live the righteous way in the kingdom, to be that "light on the hill" those who are aware of the real need for justice will notice. That seems to be Jesus' point in the Sermon on the Mount about the light not being hidden but being seen.
My concern continues to be the many, many people who don't dial in to the justice issue. They don't "hunger and thirst for righteousness." Rather, they hunger and thirst for consumer goods. For whatever reason, lots of folks don't seem to think about the notion that being rightly related to God and their neighbor (the heart of justice) will really, deeply satisfy them.
My prayer is, "Lord, awaken those who slumber!" My deep concern is that many of those who sleep are in America's pews, more connected to America's call to conspicuous consumption than to the Lord's vision of the Righteous Kingdom.
NT Wright addresses those who sense that something is not right in the world. I'm afraid too many of us are pretty happy with the way things are.
Yes, Kyle you are absolutely correct. It seems to me, if we are going to be like our Heavenly Father, Christians must seek justice for others at every opportunity. The heart of God expresses this duty in so many passages:
Leviticus 25:35 ‘Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. 36 ‘Do not take usurious interest from him, but revere your God, that your countryman may live with you. 37 ‘You shall not give him your silver at interest, nor your food for gain. 38 ‘I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan [and] to be your God.
Deuteronomy 15:7 “If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother;
Deuteronomy 15:8 but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need [in] whatever he lacks.
Proverbs 3:27 Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, When it is in your power to do [it]. 28 Do not say to your neighbor, “Go, and come back, And tomorrow I will give [it],” When you have it with you.
Now I would claim that the Levitical and Deuteronomic examples are not necessarily acts of justice, but charity. The Proverbs example, however, is one of justice.
How do we cultivate a sense of responsibility in the people who do not or have not looked at what justice requires? My only answers are preach, teach, model.
Andy,
1 John really seems to engage the whole question of active justice through the lives of believers. It certainly is clear about the atoning work of Christ as providing for our need in the light of God's demand for justice (1 John 2:2; 4:10. John also is very clear about our concern for others in need as acts of righteousness or justice in the broader sense.
1 John 3:7, "Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous."
1 John 3:17, "But if any one has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love agid in him?"
The "closed heart" is a good characterization of injustice. What does the Lord see when he looks upon the church in the US? In my experience, true Jesus people are the most generous, open hearted people I've experienced. If only the vast wealth of Christian America would be released into the needy world in wise ways. Wouldn't it be great for secular America to see believers in America giving more and consuming less?
Preach, teach, and model. Simply, we need to lead the way.
Kyle,
Please clarify your view of how justice and mercy differ. I think we might be using the term justice in different ways.
Definitions are in order.
Post a Comment