N.T. Wright on Dispensationalism and Israel

 When I discovered N.T. Wright in seminary, I scoured the (excellent) Birdwell Library for books of his.  I found a short one challenging the idea of "the Rapture" (common among American Evangelicals who hold to a view called Dispensationalism).  I didn't know much then about the differences between Dispensationalism (held by many evangelicals since the late 1800s) and Covenant Theology (held by most of the Protestant Reformers, with roots in the Early Church Fathers).  I don't think Bishop Wright uses the term "covenant theology" in this video, but I believe that is closer to his own view.

N.T. Wright and Robert Barron Conversation

Two of my favorite bishops and theologians of the holy catholic Church are N.T. Wright, who was the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England before he retired, and Robert Barron, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Winona-Rochester in the USA.  Here is a wide-ranging conversation between the two:

 

N.T. Wright on "Once Saved Always Saved"

 A couple of the most influential Anglican Christians on YouTube are scholars N.T. Wright and Michael Byrd.  They've done some academic projects together, but also this pop-level YouTube channel.  With any theologian - even one as significant as Wright - talking about complex issues completely "off the cuff" in response to questions can be a bit dangerous, but this is a good discussion from Wright and Byrd on Calvinism and the common (mostly Baptist) idea of "once saved always saved."  Both men are (or so I thought) coming out of the more "Reformed" side of Anglicanism, which made this all the more interesting.

A highlight in this video is Wright being asked about his favorite books and movies.
I'm pretty sure this guy does not have a big TV in his living room like I do.  

 

NT Wright on Power, Kings, and God's glory

This message was preached back in November of 2016 at the beautiful First Presbyterian Church in San Antonio. 

NT Wright - The Challenge of Jesus and other good books

Here are my reflections on some of the first books I discovered from this guy called NT Wright.

 

N.T. Wright on Undermining Racism

Christianity has a unique contribution to make in combating racist attitudes; indeed it is not for no reason that the very concept of combating racism itself emerged in Western cultures that have historically dominated by Christianity.

Here is a video from theologian and retired Anglican bishop N.T. Wright addressing this issue:

A Christmas Devotion from NT Wright

A few weeks ago I attended a conference at Southern Methodist University (where I attended seminary), at which the featured speaker was N.T. Wright.  If memory serves, this is the fourth time I've heard him in person, and it was excellent.  As always, Wright's ability to respond off the cuff to questions with extremely thoughtful answers far better than I could produce with weeks of research impressed me.  I was even more amazed because in the precious little time Bishop Wright had between our lectures, he was apparently giving other lectures and sermons to other clergy gatherings, including the following.  Here is some deep theology for the Advent and Christmas seasons:

Reflections on John’s Prologue

In the beginning was the Word…. And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us; and we gazed upon his glory. 

John positively urges us in his prologue to see the whole of the story he will tell within the long reach of the first two books of the Bible. John, after all, focuses his story again and again on the Temple, on Jesus’ upstaging of the Temple, on his implicit warning to the Temple and its guardians, and on his final performance of that which the Temple itself could not effect.

What has that to do with Genesis and Exodus? Well, everything: because Genesis 1 and 2 describe, to anyone with first-century eyes, the construction of the ultimate Temple, the single heaven-and-earth reality, the one Cosmos within which the twin realities of God’s space and our space are held together in proper balance and mutual relation. The seven stages of creation are the seven stages of constructing a temple, into which the builder will come to take up residence, to take his ‘rest’: Here is Zion, my resting-place, says Israel’s God in the Psalms. 

Within this Temple there is of course, as the final element of construction, the Image: the true Image through which the rest of creation sees and worships the creator, the true Image through which the sovereign and loving creator becomes present to, in and with his creation, working out his purposes. Genesis 1 declares that the God who made the world is the heaven-and-earth God, the working-through-humans-in-the-world God. (I wish there was a word for that; it might be easier in German; or perhaps we could take the Greek and speak not just of ananthropic God, a God who was appropriately bodied forth in human life, but adianthropic God, a God who desired to express himself perfectly by workingthrough humans in the world.) And already, with this vision of Genesis before us, we understand both the beginning and the climax of John’s gospel: in the beginning, en arche, bereshith: in the beginning was the Word . . . and the Word became flesh. And on the last Friday, the ultimate sixth day of the week, the representative of the world’s ruler declares ‘behold the Man’: like Caiaphas earlier, Pontius Pilate says far, far more than he knows, acknowledging that Jesus is the Proper Man, the true Image, the one at whom, when people gaze, they see the Father; the one through whom the Father is present, and powerfully working, to bring about his desire and design. And in the end, when the light has shone in the gathering darkness and the darkness has tried to extinguish it, the final word echoes Genesis once more: tetelestai, it is finished. The work is accomplished. There follows the rest of the seventh day, the rest in the tomb, before the first day of the new week when Mary Magdalene comes to the garden and discovers that new creation has begun. John is writing a new Genesis, and the death of Jesus places at the heart of this new heaven-and-earth reality the sign and symbol of the Image through which the world will see and recognise its Creator and know him as the God of unstoppable love, the sign and symbol of the Image through which the Creator has established that love at the climax of world history and as the fountain-head for the rivers of living water that will now flow out to refresh and renew his whole world. That is the primary story John is telling.

But if it is a new Genesis it is also a new Exodus. For years, when reading Exodus, I confess that I used to misjudge what Moses says repeatedly to Pharaoh: Let my people go, so that they may worship me in the desert. I used to think this was just an excuse: we want to go home to our promised land, but let’s just tell Pharaoh that we want to worship our God and that we can’t do it in his land, surrounded by his gods. But the whole logic of the book of Exodus, and indeed of the Pentateuch as a whole, forbids that interpretation. If you read Exodus at a run you will easily arrive at Mount Sinai in chapter 20; up to that point it’s a page-turner, one dramatic incident after another, but then suddenly the pace seems to slacken as we get miscellaneous rules and regulations, though not (to be honest) very many of them yet. Don’t stop there; forge ahead; because the whole narrative is indeed moving swiftly forward to the aim and object of the whole thing, which is the restoration of creation itself, the purpose for which God called Abraham and his family in the first place, the purpose through which heaven and earth will be joined together once more, only now in dramatic symbol and onward pointing sign. The giving of Torah itself is just a preparation; what matters is the Tabernacle. The Tabernacle is the microcosmos, the little world, the heaven-and-earth place, the mysterious, untameable, moving tent – or perhaps it is the world that moves, while the tent stays still? – in which the living God will come to dwell, to tabernacle, in the midst of his people, in the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night. The whole of the book of Exodus is itself moving towards this moment, in chapter 40, when the Tent is set up, constructed and decorated with the highest human artistry, which itself is part of the point, and the Divine Glory comes to dwell in it, so that even Moses couldn’t enter the Tent because of that glorious presence. Exodus 40 answers to Genesis 1 and 2: creation is renewed, heaven and earth are held together, the world itself is halted from its slide back towards chaos, and the people of God, tent-makers and tent-keepers and pilgrims wherever the glory-filled Tent will lead them, are to live the dangerous and challenging life of the people in whose midst there dwells, in strange humble sovereignty, the promise and hope for the whole of creation. (This is course is why Leviticus is where it is and what it is, with the priests as the humans who stand at the intersection of heaven and earth; but that’s another story.)

All of this and much more – think of Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kings 8, think of the vision in Isaiah 6 – is then poured by John into the dense and world-shaping reality of the Prologue as it reaches its climax. In the beginning was the Word; and the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us; and we gazed upon his glory. We have been allowed where Moses was not. We have seen the glory, the heaven-and-earth reality, the human microcosmos, the Tent where the God of the Exodus is revealed as the One God of creation and new creation. The Exodus through which creation is rescued and renewed; the new creation which comes to birth on the eighth day after the dark power, the great and terrible Pharaoh, has been defeated once and for all. This is the story that John is telling.

Excerpt from an Address to Dallas Episcopal Clergy, 16 November 2016, by N.T. Wright

Wright: Resurrection in the 1st Century

N.T. Wright on "the Rapture"

As I recall, I  have talked about 'the Rapture' in a sermon on one occasion, saying that it was a relatively recent idea in the history of Christianity and there is no mention of "the rapture" at all in our classic doctrinal statements in Methodism (derived from Reformation-era doctrinal statements of Anglicanism).  Good Methodists may disagree on this issue, for the church has no official teaching regarding it.  Thus anything I share here is my own approach, not that of United Methodism.

You will not hear me say that "there is no rapture" - for I do not know this.  What you will hear me say is that, I think many Christians over-state the case for the Rapture, when actually the Scriptural evidence is quite weak, and possibly even non-existent.
Growing up and ministering in the Bible Belt of the American South it is common for me to hear people talk in a matter-of-fact way about 'when the Rapture happens.'  I am one of those who believes that, if this really were a major "first order" Biblical teaching the Scripture would say a bit more about it (and it would have been included in the ancient Creeds).  As it is, almost the whole idea is built on a certain way of reading only one or two passages of Scripture.

One of my favorite contemporary theologians is N.T. Wright, the retired Anglican bishop who now teaches at St. Andrews in Scotland.  Having grown up in English Evangelicalism, he too is quite familiar with talk about the Rapture, but as a New Testament scholar he is quite critical of the idea, claiming that it is based upon a mis-understanding of the New Testament imagery, as he explains below.  Advent is a time when, traditionally, the church focuses on our teachings about the Return of Christ and the Last Things (eschatology), so it is a good time to ponder this issue.

In a future video we will learn more about the history of "Rapture Theology" and what (if any) connection it has to the broad and ancient Christian tradition.

N.T. Wright on Creation, New Creation, and Marriage

N.T. (Tom) Wright, professor of New Testament at St. Andrew's Scotland, former Anglican Bishop of Durham, explores the Bible's connections between Creation and New Creation and Marriage along with how these great truths inform how Christians are called to live in the midst of a confused world as sign-posts of something true and good and of God.

My understanding is that this is the lecture he gave at the Vatican's recent "Humanum Conference," with speakers from Judaism, Christianity, and other religions - convened by Pope Francis - on the beauty of traditional marriage and family values.

On Matthew 22:1-14 (for this coming Sunday)

I remember being on a retreat with a group of Anglicans once, at a beautiful retreat center at Sewanee Tennessee.  While Methodist retreat leaders tend to pick "feel-good" or thematic Scriptures for our retreats, these folks (being good Anglicans) simply read whatever was in the daily lectionary for our Morning Prayer gathering, and it happened to be the text that we have set before us this coming Sunday in the Lectionary, Matthew 22:1-14. That is the first time that I remember ever really meditating upon this text, and - while I cannot remember what Father Patrick Smith said about it, I do remember thinking that the passage was very bizzarre, especially the bit about the wedding garment at the end.  Why would the original invitees kill the messengers?  That seems extreme to say the least.  Why would the king throw out the man at the end of the parable for wearing the wrong clothes?  That also seemed extreme and disconnected from his previous wish to invite anyone and everyone.  Had he switched from being a King who wanted to include everyone in his wedding feast to one who was now exclusive and elitist based on the most inconsequential of externals?

I've since come to realize that "the wedding garment" is nothing other than the New Life we have in living, covenant, communion with Christ and his own life.  In baptism we "put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27); in our daily living we are to "clothe ourselves with the new life" (Eph. 4:24 - also picking up on the ancient baptismal tradition of putting on a new robe after baptism).  In a similar Biblical image, the "robes" of our lives are washed clean in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:14).  One cannot be a part of a Kingdom that is characterized by Compassion, Holiness, Righteousness, Love of God and neighbor while at the same time obstinately refusing to be clothed with the new life that brings these qualities to us.

My fellow Methodist clergy (and Anglicans who have a "Wesleyan accent") may find John Wesley's Sermon 120 - "On the Wedding Garment" useful food for thought on this text (which looks to be unusually short for a Wesley sermon).

Here are also a few comments from N.T. Wright's Matthew for Everyone (Part 2) on this text, that struck a chord with me:

"...this parable...often bothers people because it doesn't say what we want it to.  We want to hear a nice story about God throwing a party open to everyone.  We want (as people now fashionably say) to be 'inclusive,' to let everyone in.  We don't want to know about judgment on the wicked, or about demanding standards of holiness, or about weeping and gnashing of teeth...

But there was a difference between this wide-open invitation (that the King eventually gives in the parable) and the message that so many want to hear today.  We want to hear that everyone is all right exactly as they are; that God loves us as we are and doesn't want us to change.  People often say this when what they want is to justify particular types of behaviour, but the argument doesn't work.  When the blind and lame came to Jesus, he didn't say, "You're all right as you are."  He healed them.  They wouldn't have been satisfied with anything less.  When the prostitutes and extortioners came to Jesus...he didn't say, "You're all right as you are."  His love reached them where they were, but his love refused to let them stay as they were.  Love wants the best for the beloved.  Their lives were transformed, healed, changed.

Actually, nobody really believes that God wants everyone to stay exactly as they are.  God loves serial killers and child-molesters; God loves ruthless and arrogant businessmen; God loves manipulative mothers who damage their children's emotions for life.  But the point of God's love is that he wants them to change.  He hates what they are doing and the effect it has on everyone else - and on themselves, too.  Ultimately, if he's a good God, he cannot allow that sort of behaviour, and that sort of person, if they don't change, to remain forever in the party he's throwing for his son." 

While it may seem a scary parable - a warning of judgment for those who reject the freely-offered invitation (and I suspect some will avoid preaching it for exactly that reason, or will try to "explain it away") - it nevertheless has within it much wonderful news:  The King invites everyone and (when seen in light of the wedding garment as the new life in Christ) the King's Son himself provides the wedding robe for anyone who wants to be a part of the party that is the Heavenly Kingdom - all we have to do is have enough sense (and humility) to accept his offer, rather than demanding to be let in on our own terms, or demanding that his welcome should conform to our expectations.  He, after all, is the one throwing the party.  And we are invited!

N.T. Wright on Sexuality Debate in the Church (1 of 3)

Here is a wonderful little video from Bishop N.T. Wright on the debate about homosexuality - addressing how we debate and what some of the major components of that debate should be more than coming to any conclusions on the thorny issue itself.  We know that there are folks who call themselves Christians who are all over the place on this issue, from the bitter vitriol against people who feel same-sex attraction coming out of of the (so-called) Westboro Baptist Church to the unqualified embrace of the homosexual lifestyle as good and holy by liberal groups in some parts of North America (and Europe).  The great vast majority of all Christians and churches are somewhere in between, striving to love everyone involved (since God does) and remain true to what seems clearly revealed in Scripture.

That we are so divided on this logically demostrates that at least some of us (perhaps all of us) are failing to think - and to listen - clearly on this issue.  What Wright says at the beginning of the video, about learning to reason together, working from premises to conclusions and logically analyzing the whole process is very important, especially for United Methodists since, like Anglicans, we explicitly claim to use logical reasoning to help us interpret Scripture. Some have asserted we live in a post-modern and even post-rational age, and as a society (and church) we simply do not know how to reason well; it may be that my generation has received more intellectual formation from watching Jerry Springer than from reading Aristotle's rules of logical reasoning.  I believe our collective inability to practice sound reasoning is demonstrated more clearly in our national political discourse with each passing year, distorting this and other debates.

In the video, Wright clearly hits on some of the major points of contention among Christians that we all need to think through much more carefully:

How can we know what our real and God-given nature actually is if it is true that, as Christians believe, our wills and desires are corrupted by our falleness and sinfulness?
By what authority do some people presume to dismiss certain parts of the Bible?
By other parts of the Bible? Then how -by what authority or principle - can one choose between the two?  And what is the basis for such a principle?
Or, does one use certain interpretations of some parts to dismiss other parts? If so, what rules of interpretation are being employed - and are they legitimate?
Have we even examined our rules of interpretation or even considered what might constitute healthy verses unhealthy ways of interpretation?

Can we articulate thoughtful responses to these questions?

These are all questions lurking beneath the surface of the sexuality debate that are not brought out or worked through clearly when it comes time to have a 4-minute "debate" at Conference, and this lack of depth disturbs me, especially since some are talking of splitting the churches over this issue. 

The related issue is that we Western Churches have to find better ways to dialogue and debate than what is afforded to us by our governing conventions and conferences in which Roberts Rules are used to prevent the debate from "going too long." The assumption seems to be "everyone already knows what they are going to vote on this (and voting is the point, right?), so lets just get it over with." But what if "holy conferencing" were about more than voting on policy but actually exploring deep issues of theology and ethics?  What about new opportunities to listen (as an act of love) and maybe even to learn something new from "the other side" (whomever we conceive that to be)?
------------------------------------------------------
This is the first of three posts discussing issues in the debate about sexuality. Coming up Next Time: The Sexuality Debate in the Culture

Resurrection Day!

Christ the Lord is Risen Today, Alleluia!
Earth and heaven in chorus say, Alleluia!
Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heavens, and earth reply, Alleluia!
-Charles Wesley

Almighty God, through your only Son you overcame death and opened to us the gate of everlasting life. Grant that we who celebrate our Lord's resurrection, by the renewing of your Spirit, arise from the death of sin to the life of righteousness; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
(The United Methodist Book of Worship, 393 - from a 5th century Gelasian Sacramentary)

Enjoy this video from Bishop and professor N.T., who is one of the great proclaimers of the Resurrection for our contemporary world.

Today you will be with me in Paradise...

Tomorrow is Good Friday, when Jesus died and was put in the tomb, where he also "rested from all his labors" on Holy Saturday before rising on the First Day of the new week - Resurrection Sunday.

Thanks to N.T. Wright and other Bible teachers, many Christians are re-discovering the Bible's complicated teachings on what happened to Jesus and the thief on the cross after they died and this gives us insight into what happens to us after we die as well. We follow where Jesus went before us: a period of restful waiting and then a glorious resurrection.

While many people simply think of going immediately to Heaven or Hell forever (maybe with Purgatory thrown in there for some), the Bible promises us bodily Resurrection to eternal life (or eternal condemnation) after a period of 'disembodied' waiting in Paradise.

Here are some of the relevant passages:

The thieves on the crosses next to Jesus.
One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise." - Luke 23:39-43

Paradise is a word used to describe beautiful gardens in the ancient world; Jesus' promise suggests a return to an Eden-like place. In my mind this evokes a recent experience: my wife and I laying on a blanket in the grass, watching sunlight pour through the Spanish moss and great Oak trees above us. Peace, rest, but not quite "sleep."

In speaking of Christ's death and then Resurrection, Peter quotes Scripture naming the "place" where Christ went after death as "Hades" (or "Sheol") in Acts 2:24-27:
But God raised him [Jesus] up, having freed him from death because it was impossible for him to be held in its power. For David says concerning him, "I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will live in hope. For you will not abondon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption..."

However as you can see when reading this passage, "Hades/Sheol" might simply be a poetic way to say "death/the grave" - that is Jesus was 'under' the power of death, in it's grip. So Hades may not necessarily be (as it is in Greek mythology, and in the parable of Luke 16) a 'place' where souls are consiously present and capable of interacting. Certainly, though, some level of spiritual interaction within the abode of the dead (Hades) seems to be implied in the next passage:

For Christ also suffered for sins, once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which he also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you... - 1 Peter 3:18-21



Wright's approach seems to me to be the simplest one: the followers of Jesus will go where he went before us - first through death and a state of "resting" in Paradise in his presence, before final Resurrection and the New Creation that God promises in Revelation 19-21, when he shall wipe away our tears and make all things new.

Interestingly St. Paul also equates "Paradise" with "the third heaven" when speaking of his own mystical experience in 2 Corinthians 12. For the Christian then, when we die we go to be "at home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8; perhaps also John 14) in Paradise, which we might (as N.T. Wright says) also refer to as "Heaven" (supported by 2 Cor. 12), so long as we don't forget that this is a temporary state, where we await the New Creation and the final Resurrection to Life eternal (as pictured in Rev. 21 & 22 - which is the eternal "heavenly" Kingdom for which we are waiting).

This is the way I attempt to preach the Christian Hope (especially at funerals), because I believe it is deeply Biblical and avoids reinforcing the "resurrection-less" popular image of going straight to a disembodied heaven/hell upon death. How do you tend to talk or think about these things?

Are we in Purgatory just now?

The Incarnatio Blog (of Methodist pastor Rev. Matt O'Reilly) ran an interesting post a while back with an meaty quote from N.T. Wright about a Biblical understanding of purgatory: "purging" happens not in a cosmic prison after death, but rather it is the business of the pilgrim life in this age. Though I may be mistaken, I believe that St. Ambrose of Milan (one of the great early fathers) said some things that, while not exactly the same, could be compatible with this notion: that this life, and ultimately death at the end of this life, are part of our cleansing process to prepare us to meet the Lord God "face to face" as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13.

This might fit well with 2 Corinthians 4:17 (especially as the NRSV translates it compared to other translations) "this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory..." The difficulties of this life are what strengthen us enough that we may stand glory (this is the theme of the movie "The Shadowlands" about the life of C.S. Lewis).

Much teaching that I hear (in Protestant churches, anyways) downplays or simply ignores the many Biblical teachings on the postive contributions that pain, suffering, and difficulty can make to our spiritual growth. It seems we mostly try to explain away these things, or explain why God isn't really "at fault" for them, or worry about how such teachings might be hijacked and abused by various "oppressors." Those mainline Protestants who worry about how this or that traditional teaching may be hijacked by oppressors seem particularly prone to "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" for some reason, thus you now and then hear the assertion that "suffering is never redemptive," which is clearly contrary to the Christian message of the cross. The affirmation that difficulty can help us to grow and to embrace God is a frequent theme in the New Testament and the whole Christian tradition.

N.T. Wright's argument, if correct, would naturally render prayers for the souls in purgatory as practiced among Roman Catholics quite superfluous (which Protestants have basically always asserted anyway). Yet, the reading that "this life is purgatory" would still need to account for a further post-mortem purging for (some of) the elect, (particularly on the Day of Judgment) as St. Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. In that sense, there might be appropriate ways to pray for those faithful who have died and are waiting to face that firey judgment. In the United Methodist Book of Worship (p. 495, borrowing from the Book of Common Prayer [1979], p. 389) we, rather in rather broad terms "commend to God's mercy those who have died, that his will for them may be fulfilled".

Check out the full Incarnatio post with N.T. Wright quote here. Also, see the video below:

Wright on the Sacraments

I know I've been quite infrequent in blogging lately. Hopefully soon I'll have both something good to say and time to say it at the same time. Until then, I hope you enjoy this excellent video selection of NT Wright talking about Sacramental Theology. I actually listened to the entire "Space, Time, and Sacraments" lectures when I was in seminary, and found it excellent food for thought.



A thought on his final point about balancing Word and Sacrament. We really do need a strong encounter with both. In some churches, this will mean more in depth preaching of the Word. In The United Methodist Church there is a movement afoot to reclaim our Wesleyan (and Anglican) practice of a weekly celebration of holy communion. Even where I live (in the deep South, where I assume Methodism has been most influenced by the strong Baptist presence) several of the UM churches/ministries in town do offer a weekly service of Word and Table and follow the church's liturgy in so doing.

While some may worry about this movement as making us "too Catholic" (meaning "Roman Catholic"), it is actually thoroughly Wesleyan. John Wesley himself encouraged the Methodists in America to use his revision of The Book of Common Prayer and to celebrate the holy sacrament each and every Sunday:

"I have prepared a Liturgy little differing from that of the Church of England (I think, the best constituted National Church in the world), which I advise all the traveling preachers to use on the Lord's Day in all the congregations...I also advise the elders to administer the Supper of the Lord on every Lord's Day."
-Wesley's Letter to the American Methodists, Sept. 1784

It will take courage, patience, and good teaching to move congregations in this direction who are accustomed to only a monthly celebration, or who are accustomed to a poor use of the liturgy; but in the end I believe it will strengthen the church's spiritual life while simultaneously moving our practice closer to our Wesleyan roots AND closer to the ecumenical consensus (of today and of the early centuries).

N.T. Wright on the Revelation to St. John the Divine

Wright gave this lecture at United Methodist-related Duke Divinity School back in October. I believe my brother, Nance (a divinity student), was in attendance.

Did you know? "The Divine," the title given to St. John in some older translations of the Bible (see the KJV, for example) is an old-timey way to say "theologian" (thus, many pastors and theologians have a Masters of Divinity degree). St. John is one of the four "canonical theologians" that were lifted up in particular by the Early Church. Do you know the other three?

Revelation and Christian Hope: Political Implications of the Revelation to John from Duke Divinity School on Vimeo.

NT Wright quote

Check out this post over at the Wesleyan/Anglican blog of Todd Stepp. It shares a great quote from N.T. Wright about God's accepting us as we are on the one hand and God's transforming our character just by loving us and calling forth our love of him on the other hand. This deep truth has implications not only for the Church's debates over sexual morality, but also over what it means for every aspect of our life to be "converted" and transformed by the grace of Christ, and brought under the reign of his Kingdom of Life.

I was blessed to attend a lecture by Bishop Wright this past Saturday at St. Matthew's Cathedral of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas on this same topic.

Thoughts on Cross-bearing discipleship

St. Luke the Evangelist (1st Century):

25 Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33 So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:25-33, ESV).

St. Basil the Great (4th Century):

In recieving the Baptism of water, we make this same agreement when we promise to be crucified and to die and to be buried with him.

St. Symeon the New Theologian (10th Century):

[In times of peace, when there is no persecution] the cross and death consist in nothing else than the complete putting to death of self-will. He who pursues his own will, however slightly, will never be able to observe the law of Christ the Savior.

Father John Wesley (18th Century):

[On giving up all that we have]: Withdraw the affections from the creatures and enjoy them only in God; enjoy them only for God, only in such a manner as leads to God.

The lord bishop N.T. Wright (21st Century):

Many of Jesus' followers then as now, have owned houses and lands, and have not felt compelled to abandon them. But being prepared to do so is the sign that one has understood the seriousness of the call to follow Jesus.

N.T. Wright on hell

I found this video at the "Out of Ur" blog connected with Christianity Today. This is N.T. Wright's intersting take on 'hell' - which he gets into a little bit in his marvelous book Surprised by Hope . What he says reminds me a good deal of the ideas about the nature of hell tossed around by C.S. Lewis in his own marvelous book The Great Divorce and elsewhere.

Many Christians in the historic Protestant churches seem to have lost a language for talking about hell. It may be, as some have suggested, this is because we don't really believe in hell or don't really believe anyone will actually experience hell. If that is so, we should look more closely at the spiritual condition of the world around us. I also wonder if we've given much thought to the matter, or considered that hell might be a necessary corollary to some of our other beliefs - such as the freedom (by God's grace) to accept or reject the offer of salvation given us in Jesus Christ. Presumably a free choice - if it genuinely is that - must make us liable to actual consequences.

I personally don't much like the English word 'hell' - owing to its associations with torture in Medieval theology and also to its origin in Norse mythology that has no clear connection to any Greek or Hebrew concept deployed in the Bible (like Hades/Sheol, Gehenna/Tartarus, and so on). Yet I think it is important for us to learn a compelling way to speak about the state of those who have forsaken God, as indeed Jesus Christ and his apostles certainly do in the New Testament. I applaud N.T. Wright for attempting to do just that.

Of all the biblical images of hell, the one that makes the most sense to me is that of "outer darkeness" (see Matt. 8:12; Matt. 22:13; Matt. 25:30), since by our sin we seperate ourselves from the God who is Light and Life (see Is. 59:2), and so we will continue on in that state of darkness and death unless we experience the redemption of Christ Jesus.

I think the old word "damnation" may also be instructive here. The Latin means "finding guilty" or "condemn", but the root of this word was also used to mean something along the lines of "to suffer a loss" Perhaps we should think of the sufferings of damnation as the loss of God.

"In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a question: 'What are you asking God to do?' To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But he has already done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They [do not will to] be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what he does.
-C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, chp 8 (p. 130)