9Marks Journal 2010 Nov-Dec Book-Reviews

8/13/2019 9Marks Journal 2010 Nov-Dec Book-Reviews

1/68


2/68

[email protected] | http://www.9marks.org

ContentsEditors Note

Jonathan Leeman

BOOK REVIEWS ON THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH

Book Review: Generous Justice: How Gods Grace Makes Us Just

By Timothy Keller

Reviewed by Jonathan Leeman Page 6

Book Review: The Mission of Gods People: A Biblical Theology of the Churchs Mission

By Christopher J.H. Wright

Reviewed by Bobby Jamieson Page 12

Book Review: The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bibles Grand Narrative

By Christopher J.H. Wright

Reviewed by Mike Gilbart-Smith Page 22

Book Review:Living in Gods Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture

By David VanDrunen

Reviewed by Bobby Jamieson Page 32

Book Review:Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed

Social ThoughtBy David VanDrunen

Reviewed by Jonathan Leeman Page 37

Book Review: To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in theLate Modern World

By James Davison Hunter

Reviewed by Greg Gilbert Page 41

2


3/68

Book Review: When Helping Hurts: Alleviating Poverty Without Hurting the PoorAndYourself

By Steve Corbett and Bryan Fikkert

Reviewed by Steve Boyer Page 46

BOOK EXCERPTS FROM WHAT IS THE MISSION OF THECHURCH?

Book Excerpt:Is Incarnational the Best Way to Describe Christian Mission?

By Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert Page 49

Book Excerpt: Why Do Good?

By Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert Page 53

MISCELLANEOUS BOOK REVIEWS

Book Review: The Priority of Preaching

By Christopher Ash

Reviewed by Alistair Begg Page 58

Book Review: Taking Your Church to the Next Level

By Gary McIntosh

Reviewed by Matt Smethurst Page 62

Book Review: Counsel From the Cross: Connecting Broken People to the Love of Christ

By Elyse Fitzpatrick and Dennis Johnson

Reviewed by Deepak Reju Page 65

3


4/68

Audio Leadership Interviews

Life and Ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention with Danny Akin

Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Seminary, talks about his conversion, the Great CommissionResurgence, easy believism, what hes learned from Paige Patterson and Al Mohler, and more.*Listen online Now

Posted on November 1, 2010

An Amazing Testimony of Gods Grace with Mez McConnell

Mez McConnell tells the riveting story of how God rescued him from a life of drugs and violence andsent him to preach the gospel in inner-city Edinburgh, Scotland. *Listen online Now

Posted on October 1, 2010

* This audio might not be supported by your particular device

4
http://www.9marks.org/audio/life-and-ministry-southern-baptist-conventionhttp://www.9marks.org/audio/amazing-testimony-god%E2%80%99s-gracehttp://www.9marks.org/audio/amazing-testimony-god%E2%80%99s-gracehttp://www.9marks.org/audio/life-and-ministry-southern-baptist-convention


5/68

Jonathan Leeman

Editors note

Several of us at 9Marks recently spent a long afternoon with a wise old friend talking about the conversationevangelicals are having about the mission of the church. There are two basic mistakes people keep making in this

conversation, said our friendly sage. On the one hand, some people pit good things against one anotherbodies versus

souls, this world versus the next, and so forth. This group needs to view human beings whole cloth.

On the other hand, some people fail to hold up eternal and temporal realities next to one another and ask which is more

important. Everything is crammed under the label equally important. But that doesnt make sense. We need to treat the

weighty things as weighty, and the weightiest things as the weightiest.

Notice then what our friend was doing: he was avoiding the either/oras well asa simplistic both/and. He was instead

going for what Tim Keller, referring to the relationship between evangelism and social justice, calls an inseparable

asymmetry. Things can be stuck together, but still differ greatly in their importance.

Whatever you might think about our friends counsel, the conversation about the churchs mission is difficult, which is

why we are devoting this Journal to reviewing the books on the topic. That way, you dont have to just hear from us, butfrom people who have thought about these issues longer and more carefully than we have.

Some of these books we would commend to you wholeheartedly, like VanDrunens, Hunters, and Kellers, precisely

because they discern the type of distinctions described above. Others we like for one reason or another, but would

refrain from giving a full endorsement, as with Wrights two books or Corbett and Fikkerts. All of these books are deeply

intelligent, Christian, and have something to teach each of us. I do want to call special attention to David VanDrunens

two books. A number of neo-Calvinists and tranformationalists just might discover that their thinking is more amenable

to aspects of the two-kingdoms view than they realize.

Finally, Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert kindly agreed to give us a sneak preview of their book What Is the Mission of

the Church?to be released next year by Crossway. Through it all, we hope these reviews and excerpts will help you,pastor, discern which things in your churchs life are weighty and which things are the weightiest.

5


6/68

Reviewed by Jonathan Leeman

BOOK REVIEW:

Generous Justice: How GodsGrace Makes Us

Timothy Keller, Generous Justice: How Gods Grace Makes Us Just. Dutton, 2010. 230 pages. $19.95

Two months ago I was asked to write a Sunday School class introducing the entire book of Isaiah. I felt somewhat

competent with the book and its message since Isaiah has long been one of my favorites. So I accepted the assignment.

The Bible, in response, was unwilling to be regarded so lightly; and it decided to remind me, as it often does, that my

professions of competence over it are those of a small yipping dog. Reading through Isaiah, sure enough, I discovered

an entire theme I had not really noticed before; you might even call it a major theme in the book: justice.

The word shows up five times in just the first chapter: Israel is commanded to seek justice and bring justice to the

fatherless and widow (1:17). Its people are condemned because, though they were once full of justice, no longer do

they bring justice (1:21, 23). And were told that Zion will be redeemed by justice (1:27). On and on the book goes,

mentioning the word 24 more times.

One more example: Ive often meditated on those wonderful words about the servanta bruised reed he will not break,

and a faintly burning wick he will not quench (42:3). Yet somehow I had never paid attention to the fact that justice is

mentioned three times in those same verses: the servant will bring forth justice, faithfully bring forth justice, and

establish justice (42:1, 3, 4). Interpret any one text how you will, the book of Isaiah seems to say that justice is a pretty

big deal with God.

The experience of reading Timothy Kellers latest offering, Generous Justice: How Gods Grace Makes Us Just, felt very

similar. Keller does not manipulate the emotions with heart-rending stories or melodramatic rhetoric. He does not offer

slanted and reductionistic readings of redemptive history in order to reinforce his political ideology. He just points to a

bunch of biblical texts. Its a grownups book, not a young zealots or an ideologues. The first five of eight chapters, in

6


7/68

fact, are chock-full of Bible. A good pastor, Keller knows that all those texts, faithfully interpreted, will do their own work

of pressing into a believers heart. Again, say what you will about any one text, you look at the whole pile and think,

There sure are a lot of them.

Generous Justicecontains two basic ideas, and you can see these in the title and subtitle. First, Gods work of

graciously justifying a person will inevitably result in the believers desire tobejust and to dojustice. Justice follows

justification. Gods gracemakes usjust, as the subtitle puts it. If you are a Christian, you should have a growing desire to

see justice done, both in this life and the next. And that desire should increasingly evidence itself in your actions and life-

decisions.

Again, social justice follows justification, and social justice isgenerous.

Second, the idea of justice is not simply aboutjust desertsor equitable punishment before the law. Its also aboutgiving

people their dueas beings made in the image of God. For the convicted criminal, yes, this means punishment. But forthe person stuck in poverty, the command to do justice (Micah 6:8) might call us to relief work, development work, or

the work of social reform. Typically, Christians think of such activities as charity. But if a persons poverty results at

least in part from larger structural problems beyond his or her control, then we must address those larger issues in order

to be justin order to give the person his or her due and establish right relationships. In other words, being just in these

circumstances means being generous, like the books title suggests. Justice is not just a responsive activity warranted

by transgressions of the law, its an initiating and forward-leaning activity. It involves going to places where the fabric of

shalom has broken down, where the weaker members of societies are falling through the fabric, and to repair it (177).

As many others have done, Keller calls this larger concept of justice which combines both just deserts and social

righteousnesssocial justice.

Ever the evangelist and apologist, Keller writes not just for the Christian, but for the skeptical non-Christian who is

convinced that Christianity is one of historys greatest sources of injustice. Biblical Christianity, Keller argues, leads to

just the opposite. Again, social justice follows justification, and social justice is generous.

The topic of justice or social justice, in my opinion, is more complex than Christians may at first realize. Its difficult

hermeneutically and theologically: its connected, like a blackberry deep in the bramble, to a host of other thorny

questions about the nature of the gospel, good deeds, the church institutional and organic, canonical continuity,

eschatology, church and state, and more. The topic is difficult emotionally: stories of poverty, ethnic discrimination, and

other forms of injustice hit us in the gut, making sound judgment a little bit harder. And its difficult spiritually: our hearts

are small and reluctant to make sacrifices for others, but they are also susceptible to legalistic and misplaced guilt.

Countless are the writers and preachers who have tried to navigate these treacherous waters only to crash their vessels

into one of the rocksthis writer included. But Keller, I believe, manages to sail us successfully betwixt the crags and

through the froth.

THE INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIC CHURCH

For instance, many writers and preachers today smother the distinction between a local churchs primary obligations

and a Christians. Drawing from Abraham Kuypers idea of sphere sovereignty, however, Keller patiently explains the

difference between the institutional church (the congregation meeting together with its leaders to hear Gods Word and

7


8/68


9/68

ESCHATALOGICAL FREIGHT

To a large extent, Keller avoids entering into debates over the nature of [Christs inaugurated] kingdom and other

matters of eschatalogy since he believes that an extremely strong case for doing justice and caring for the poor can

be made without doing so (203, n. 61.). And I think hes righta strong case is made. But this means he tries to avoid

siding, at least in this book, with the so-called transformationalists, who say that our work of social justice actually

redeems culture and ushers in the kingdom of the new heavens and the new earth; or siding with the two-kingdoms

advocates, who would say that our work of social justice does not redeem culture or usher in the final kingdom, per se,but it signifies our citizenship before Christ the King as we seek to ensure that his redemptive rule extends into every

area of our lives, physical and spiritual, secular and sacred. (Im working with David VanDrunens more careful, less

caricatured conception of the two-kingdoms. See reviews of VanDrunens books hereand here.)

What that means is, Keller writes in a way that should basicallysatisfy the two kingdoms minimum. He doesnt pack

eschatological freight, to use VanDrunens phrase, onto our works of social justice. He doesnt say they are ushering in

end-time realities. He doesnt say we canredeemculture.

Now, while reading the final chapter I did wonder if he does carry a small handbag of such freight. He begins the chapter

by observing that the whole world stopped working right when we lost our relationship with God. So far, so good. But

then he tells an extended story about an entire community which learned sign language as an example of sacrificingthemselves for the less advantaged and so doing justice. He doesnt quite say that this community restored Gods

creation shalom, but the storys placement will leave all but the most careful reader assuming thats exactly what he

means. And the problem with that assumption, of course, is that it contradicts the earlier point about a broken

relationship with God being the source of injustice and brokenness in the world. Self-sacrifice and sign language, by

themselves, dont fixthis basic problem between us and God and so restore creation shalom. At most, they cansignify

what a fixed relationship will look like.

Then again, Id like to say that thats all Keller means for the sign language story to teach, because a little later in the

chapter he observes that even the Nazis enjoyed the beauty of Mozart while slaughtering Jews. He recognizes that

peace, beauty, and even justice in this world will not ultimately redeem people. Only Christ redeems.

In short, a Christians work of social justice makes the world a better place. It demonstrates a Christ-like love for sinners.

It points to a world to come, whether that world is a replacement or a transformed version of our present world. But such

work does not redeem the world. Im fairly confident Keller would affirm all this. Still, it has to be said, he keeps his

kingdom and eschatology cards close to his chest. And once or twice he feels a smidgeon too optimistic for me, but his

overall exhortation to justice and caring for the poor certainly does not require one to hold a transformationalist position,

which I do not. If Kellers habit of always planting himself in a third way is any indication, he probably sees both sides

of the debate!

Keller wonderfully concludes the chapter and the book by pointing readers squarely toward the one thing that will make

them just: beholding Gods work of becoming man, identifying himself with sinners, and receiving the condemnation that

we deserved.

SO WHAT IS JUSTICE?

If I had to guess, the most contentious issue will be Kellers more expansive understanding of social justice, which I

described above. He makes a biblical case for it (e.g. Deut. 10:7-8, 18-19; Job 29:12-17; 31:13-38; Ps. 146:7-9; Is. 58:6-

7; Jer. 22:3; Ezek 18:5,7-8a; Zech. 7:10-11; Matt. 6:1-2), but he also insinuates that its a systematic theology concept,

combining both the biblical concepts of justice and righteousness (10ff).

9


10/68

Personally, Im convinced hes right, although I might nuance the comparison between the narrow definition (equitable

treatment before the law) and Kellers broader definition (giving people their due) a little differently. As far as I can

discern, these two definitions are saying the same thing, but the narrow definition has been situated in the context of the

courtroom. Treating people equitably before the lawisgiving them their duein court. When we turn to asking what

justice requires in another domain, such as in the economic domain, its the broad definition not the narrow definition

that will prove more workable. This sensitivity to context is one of the basic and helpful insights of Michael Walzers

classic Spheres of Justice(which, interestingly, overlaps somewhat with Kuypers ideas of sphere sovereignty). Different

spheres of life require us to slightly reformulate how we explain the basic ideas of justice, however one might conceive of

those basic ideas in the first place.1

For my part, I think Kellers giving people their due is a helpful way of explaining the basic idea of justice, at least in

theological terms, since it implicitly contains both God's eternal principles of right and wrong as well as the "intrinsic"

value he has imparted to every individual created in his image.

Suppose, for instance, that a rich man and poor man are situated differently beneath an unjust law; the law unfairly

advantages the rich man and disadvantages the poor man. What does true justice (giving people their due) look like in

this circumstance? It might require someone to simultaneously enforce the law on both men while alsoacting apart from

the law to redress those deeper injustices through acts of charity or efforts to change the law. In other words, justice

might require one thing in the legal sphere, another thing in the political sphere, and still another thing in the sphere of

personal relationships. It might even require someone, in Kellers language, to go to places where the fabric of shalom

has broken down, where the weaker members of societies are falling through the fabric, and to repair it.

As such, the laws in a truly just society will account for various kinds of imbalances in other spheres, such as the sphere

of economic exchange. Keller helpfully observes that the laws which God gave Israel didnt simply call for equal

punishment before the law in accordance with ones crimes; God also established laws that would address the various

kinds of disadvantages which people experience, laws for instance that would help the poor receive their due as people

created in Gods image. Gleaning laws or property reapportionment laws are clear examples.

A HEART CORRECTION

Now, I dont expect my brief defense of Kellers more expansive view of justice will convince everyone, but I dont think it

needs to. Whether or not we call acts of self-sacrifice and generosity justice or love or compassion, Kellers parade

of texts still stands, calling us to oppose injustice and care for the needy, and these Scriptures should weigh in on the

Christians heart, just like all the texts I discovered in Isaiah.

Our principal work must be to see that our own hearts and the

hearts of our congregations are growing with the love and justice of

God.

And this is right where I want to give Generous Justicemy highest praise. God cares deeply about justice, a concept

which is generally coupled with caring for the needy in Scripture if its not the same thing as caring for the needy. Some

people on the transformationalist side of the spectrum should read Generous Justiceto have their theology corrected,

particularly on the points I highlighted above. For myself, I needed (at least) a heart correction. For that reason, I plan to

read it again with my wife, and I would strongly encourage other pastors to read it.

10


11/68

Yes, the book just might create some messy pastoral questions like How much should we encourage our people to do

justice? And it will certainly provoke objections like, Theres no conceivable limit to doing justice more actively. Youll

become obligated to help every poor person on the planet! Well, yes, there are limitsthe same limits you might place

on doing evangelism, such as the need to faithfully steward other areas of your life. But more to the point, I think we

have to make such practical questions secondary, so that pragmatic considerations dont override theological ones. Our

principal work must be to see that our own hearts and the hearts of our congregations are growing with the love and

justice of God. How do we do that? By preaching to our congregations week after week, not just about doing justice, but

about justification. We must center our sermons where Keller ended his bookon the gospel.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:Jonathan Leeman is editorial director for 9Marks and the author of The Church and the Surprising Offense of Gods

Love: Reintroducing the Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline .

[1] Admittedly, Walzer, a committed communitarian, would be a little squishy and relativistic about whether or not such a basic universal idea actuallyexists.

11


12/68

Reviewed by Bobby Jamieson

BOOK REVIEW:

The Mission of Gods People: ABiblical Theology of theChurchs Mission

Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of Gods People: a Biblical Theology of the Churchs Mission. Zondervan,

2010. 304 pages. $24.99

Mission is a hot topic among evangelicals these days. Not missions, mind you, but mission.This summer, Southern Baptists hosted a conference called MissionShift, which produced a missional manifesto. Just

around the corner is a conference sponsored by the Gospel Community Mission Collective, which exists to promote,

create, and equip gospel communities on mission.

This fall, on a much grander scale, the Third Lausanne World Congress on Evangelization convened in Cape Town,

South Africa. It aimed to forge a global evangelical consensus about crucial issues facing the church today as we carryout the task of evangelizing the world. The Lausanne movement has grown out of the 1974 Lausanne Congress on

World Evangelization, which produced the Lausanne Covenant, a statement on the nature and priorities of Christian

mission which was chiefly authored by John Stott. Now, over three decades later, the Lausanne Congress at Cape Town

has produced another document, the Cape Town Commitment, which stands in this tradition and which will surely shape

evangelical concepts of mission in coming years. Its chief architect was a noted Old Testament scholar and missiologist,

a man who counts Stott as a personal mentor: Christopher J. H. Wright.

What kind of priorities undergird this document, and the movement it embodies? More broadly, what are the shape and

emphases of these newer conversations about mission among evangelicals?

12


13/68

Many of the answers are likely to be found in Wrights new book The Mission of Gods People: A Biblical Theology of the

Churchs Mission, which is the first volume in Zondervans promising new series, Biblical Theology for Life.

WHATMGPIS, AND WHAT IT DOES WELL

Following on the heels of Wrights denser and more hermeneutically-oriented volume The Mission of God(IVP, 2006),

The Mission of Gods People(MGP) aims to answer the question, What does the Bible as a whole in both testaments

have to tell us about why the people of God exist and what it is they are supposed to be and do in the world? (17). Bymission, then, Wright means the all-embracing purpose which encompasses everything that the people of God are

called to be and do in this world. He writes, So when I speak of mission, I am thinking of all that God is doing in his

great purpose for the whole of creation and all that he calls us to do in cooperation with that purpose (25).

The first half of the book focuses primarily on the kind of people Gods mission calls us to be. Christians should be

People Who Know the Story They Are Part of (ch. 2), People Who Care for Creation (ch. 3), People Who Walk in

Gods Way (ch. 5), and People Who Represent God to the World (ch. 7). With this theological and ethical foundation in

place, Wright turns his focus in the second half to the specific tasks Gods mission calls us to. Specifically, he calls us to

be People Who Bear Witness to the Living God (ch. 10), People Who Proclaim the Gospel of Christ (ch. 11), and

People Who Live and Work in the Public Square (ch. 13).

This book has several notable strengths. The first is that it is full of evenhanded, plainly articulated biblical theology. Here

are several examples:

Wrights concise summary of the biblical narrative and its theological implications in chapter 2 forms an integrative

foundation for a biblical worldview.

Wrights solid work on Christian ethics as the foundation of mission in chapter 5 provides an Old Testament flavored

antidote to the kind of nominal Christianity that plagues many churches corporate witness.

Chapter 8, People Who Attract Others to God, is a rich exposition of several Old Testament passages which

envision all the nations being attracted to worship the true God through his peoples distinctness in the world, along

with how these themes are picked up and fulfilled in the New Testament.

Wright sketches a simple, straightforward overview of the Bibles teaching on work and participation in the public

square in chapter 13 in which he rightly exhorts pastors to labor to equip their people for works of ministry in the

public sphere.

Chapter 14 provides a thoughtful reflection on the missional thrust of prayer and praise. That is, Wright argues that

worship in Scripture is not only the goal of mission, but that the corporate praises and prayers of Gods people have

an evangelistic impact of their own, quite apart from any efforts at being seeker-sensitive.

Another of the books strengths is that Wright joins together many things which evangelical Christians have too often

separated: faith and obedience, evangelism and discipleship, gospel proclamation and social action. Wright correctlyinsists that all these things and more have a role to play in the life of Gods people, and that these pairs mutually

reinforce one another in ways that more antithetical constructions of them have tended to obscure. Even if one wished to

raise questions about certain aspects of Wrights proposal, as I intend to, he is to be commended for painting an

integrated, biblically-informed portrait of what Gods people are to be and do in the world.

13


14/68

WHATMGP ISNT

Before examining a few of those issues, I should say a few quick words about what this book is not.

First, as Wright explains in the preface, its not a simplified version of The Mission of God, although it is both shorter and

simpler. The Mission of Godargued for a missional hermeneutic of the whole Bible and sought to expound the idea

that The mission of God is what unifies the Bible from creation to new creation. MGP, building on that foundation, aims

to answer the so what question: If the Bible renders to us the grand mission of God through all generations of history,what does it tell us about the mission of Gods peoplein each generation, including our own? What is ourmission? (17)

Second, the book is not a biblical theology in the sense of sequentially tracing an unfolding theme through the canon.

Rather, it is mainly a selective, topically arranged exposition of a number of (primarily Old Testament) texts which bear

on what Gods people are to be and do in the world. While the topical arrangement of MGPgives it a certain layered

richness, it leaves one without an overall sense of what the various biblical corporaparticularly in the New Testament

contribute to our understanding of the mission of Gods people.1

A FEW ITEMS WORTH PROBING CRITICALLY

As I said above, this book has much to commend itmore than Ive mentioned. Keeping that in mind, there are a few

aspects of Wrights proposal which are worth probing more critically.

Everything is Mission

The first is Wrights avowed insistence that everything is mission. Early in the book Wright explains that he

understands mission as the all-embracing category and missions as specific manifestations of that mission, on the

analogy of science and the sciences. He continues,

And it seems to me there are as many kinds of missions as there are kinds of sciencesprobably far more in

fact. And in the same way, in the variety of missions God has entrusted to his church as a whole, it is unseemlyfor one kind of mission to dismiss another out of a superiority complex, or to undervalue itself as not real

mission out of an inferiority complex. The body image has powerful resonance here too. That is why I also

dislike the old knock-down line that sought to ring-fence the word mission for specifically cross-cultural

sending of missionaries for evangelism: If everything is mission, then nothing is mission. It would seem more

biblical to say, If everything is missioneverything is mission. (25-26)

One wishes that Wright would have argued his point, rather than dismiss the opposing viewpoint with a wave of the hand

as the old knock-down line. And its hardly clear why his definition would seem more biblical. Still, theres no strictly

biblical reason why Wright shouldnt use the word mission the way he does. As he points out in chapter 1, a common

contemporary definition of the word mission is a sense of purpose or goal-orientation (24). So, given this reasonably

common usage, Wright uses the term mission to encompass all that the people of God are to do and gets on with hisexposition.

A further aspect of Wrights all-embracing definition of mission is that he intends to explode the hierarchy which

evangelicals have traditionally set up between evangelism and the whole broad range of Christian responsibilities.

Evangelicals have traditionally restricted the term mission to mean something like evangelism and church planting,

especially of the cross-cultural sort, and this prioritizes such activities over other Christian responsibilities. Wright wants

to do away with this hierarchy almost entirely. For example, he explicitly critiques the idea that we should put individual

salvation and personal evangelism at the center of all our efforts (273). Further, he poses the question, Is the churchs

missionprimarilythe delivery of the message of the gospelin which case the verbal element is all that really matters?

14


15/68

(30). It seems Wright not only wants Christians to give more attention to matters that we may be neglecting, but he wants

to do away with the common notion that disciple-making should be our central aimorhighest priorityormost urgent

task.

I say it seems because elsewhere in the book, following the Lausanne covenant of 1974 and the Grand Rapids

Report of 1982, Wright very cautiously affirms that the proclamation of the gospel has a certain priority in the churchs

mission. Yet even then he is quick to argue that in missional practice, the distinction is hardly, if ever, a real one (276).

Wright suggests that evangelism and social action should be so intertwined in our practice, much as prayer and Bible

reading should be in a Christians devotional life, that to ask which is primary is basically irrelevant (277).

Wright continues by addressing the suggestion that centrality rather than primacy might be a better word for

evangelism within mission (278). Without either endorsing or rejecting this terminology, he interprets the idea of

evangelisms centrality in a way that translates to total interdependence between evangelism and social action: If

evangelism is like the hub, connected to the engine of the gospel power of God, then it also takes the living

demonstration of the gospel in Christians engagement with the world to give the hub connection and traction with the

contextthe road (278).

A Response to Wrights Version of Everything is Mission

What response should be offered to Wrights statements about the place of gospel proclamation within his all-

encompassing category of mission?

First, there is certainly merit to Wrights insistence that the Grand Rapids Report of 1982, for example, was attempting

to reconcile two things which should never have been separated in the first place (276). If Scripture lays a whole range

of responsibilities on Christians, one thing we must not do in discussing the relationship between them is marginalize or

neglect any of them. These you ought to have done without neglecting the others.

Whatever we conclude about the nature of our responsibility

toward the non-human creation, not one blue whale or Brazilian

rosewood is threatened with eternal damnation as the just penalty for

its sin.

Yet on the other hand, I would argue that Wrights somewhat equivocal statements about the priority or centrality of

evangelism within the churchs mission obscure the unique emphasis we must give to evangelismand its consequents,

discipleship and church plantingif we are to be faithful to the whole thrust of Scripture. For example, in discussing thecosmic scope of Gods redeeming work, Wright argues that Our mission therefore has to be as comprehensive in scope

as the gospel the whole Bible gives us (41). This idea of the all-encompassing scope of our mission is part and parcel

with Wrights insistence that we should not erect a hierarchy of priorities withinour mission (30). But Wrights

presentation of these related points seems to veil important distinctions we find in Scripture which should lead us to

place a unique emphasis on making disciples of Jesus Christ.

If our mission flows from and in some sense participates in Gods mission, as Wright correctly and repeatedly insists,

then we should carefully note the different ways God brings about the various aspects of his comprehensive plan of

redemption. For instance, Scripture clearly teaches that God will usher in the new creation unilaterally, apart from

15


16/68

anything we do, on the last day. Certainly, we joyfully experience a foretaste of certain aspects of this new creation now,

but according to Revelations vision of the end, it is only at the consummation that the New Jerusalem will descend to

earth from heaven as a bride prepared (by God) for her husband. Scripture also clearly teaches that people will be

delivered from eternal hell only through faith in Christ, which will only happen through our evangelistic efforts, only before

the last day. Im fairly confident that Wright would affirm all of this. 2Yet he tends to so emphasize the comprehensive

scope of redemption that he neglects to properly wrestle with the dramatic differences in the means by whichand the

timing in whichGod works out various aspects of redemption.

Further, I would argue that by dismantling virtually any hierarchy of importance between creation care, social action, and

working in the public square on the one hand and disciple-making on the other, Wrights version of holistic mission fails

to reflect necessary practical emphases which flow from these biblical distinctions. For example, whatever we conclude

about the nature of our responsibility toward the non-human creation, not one blue whale or Brazilian rosewood is

threatened with eternal damnation as the just penalty for its sin. Yet the way Wright works against the idea of the

priority of evangelism (I prefer the term centrality) seems to me to run exactly counter to the way these weighty

biblical realities should impact our concept of mission.

If God is going to accomplish one aspect of his redemption apart from anything we do and another aspect exclusively

through our efforts, shouldnt that lead us to give special weight and urgency to what God accomplishes only through

us? If only one group of creatures in all of Gods creation (namely, humans) are threatened with eternal, conscious

torment which can only be averted through belief in the gospel, shouldnt that cause us to focus especiallyon

ministering to our fellow humans, without in the least neglecting our responsibility toward the non-human creation? Or

again, if human suffering in this life is temporal while Gods judgment against sinners is eternal, should we not seek to

address to whole sweep of human suffering, especiallythat which is eternal?3In view of these biblical realities, I think

Keith Fernando is exactly right to argue that evangelizing and making disciples is absolutely central to Christian mission

and that the vocabulary we develop for conceiving of Christian mission must reflect this absolute centrality.4

In sum, to place all of our missional imperatives on virtually the same plane of emphasis, as Wright does, does not seem

to square with (i) the way the Bible dramatically distinguishes between the nature of the plight faced by humans as

opposed to the non-human creation; (ii) the means by which God redeems the non-human creation as opposed to

humans; (iii) and the unique role Gods people have in working to bring about the salvation of sinners compared with

Gods completely unilateral, eschatological act of creating a new heavens and a new earth. Further, I fear that any

concept of mission which deliberately avoids making such distinctions leaves us without crucial biblical ballast for

keeping our churches focused on that which is of first importance.5

The Exodus as a Definitive Model of Redemption

A second matter worth probing is Wrights insistence that The exodus provides the prime Old Testament model of God

acting as Redeemer. This is what redemption looks like when God does it (41). Or again, Gods idea of redemption is

exodus-shaped (96). By this Wright means that, just as the exodus had political, economic, social, and spiritual

dimensions, so too Gods climactic act of redemption in the cross of Christ has the exact same scope. In other words,

Wright argues that the Bibles idea of redemption is not merely informed by the exodus, but that it matches the exodus

at every key point (103). Wright explains the practical outworking of this view as follows:

The exodus has been seen as the biblical foundation par excellence for theologies of mission that emphasize the

importance of social, political, and economic concern alongside the spiritual dimensions of personal forgiveness

Or rather, and with greater biblical faithfulness, it is the biblical basis for the integration of all these dimensions

within the comprehensive good news of the biblical gospel. Such holistic, or integral, understandings of mission

point to the totality of what God accomplished for Israel in the paradigmatic redemptive eventthe exodus. And

I believe they are right to do so. (109)

16


17/68

I would suggest that there are a few significant problems with Wrights articulation of the sense in which the exodus is a

definitive paradigm of redemption.

First, Wright arbitrarily privileges the exodus narrative itself (roughly Exodus 1-15) over the rest of the Old Testament in

constructing a paradigm of redemption. In other words, Wright sets up the exodus as the definitive model of

redemption abstracted from all that follows on its heels, whether immediately or remotely, including the giving of the law,

the establishment of the sacrificial system, the wilderness wanderings, the inheriting of the land, Israels inveterate and

unending rebellion against their covenant God, and all that follows from their rebellion in the grand sweep of the Old

Testament narrative. The problem with this arbitrarily narrow focus is that the Old Testament itself picks up and develops

the exodus themes in ways that ultimately contribute to the New Testaments appropriation of the exodus and shape our

understanding of what the exodus means almost as much as the original narrative. As the story unfolds, what comes

to the fore again and again is the peoples inability to keep Gods law and their need for radical spiritual surgeryalong

with a covenant that would not merely demand their obedience but supernaturally enable it and provide a truly effectual

means of atonement for sin.

Second, Wrights application of his holistic understanding of the exodus to the New Testament obscures the New

Testaments emphasis on redemption as forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God.

Certainly, Wrights conclusion that redemption through Christ is holistic is true in an ultimate sense. The new creation

will be a world of perfect justice, of total human flourishing, and of perfect fellowship with God. But in its discussion of

redemption the New Testament seems to strongly emphasize the vertical, theocentric dimension (what Wright calls the

spiritual aspect), while clearly indicating that holistic redemption in the social, political, and economic senses will only

be obtained in the eschaton.

Examples of the New Testaments accent on the vertical, theocentric dimension of redemption are found in the parallel

statements of Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:13-14. In Ephesians 1:7 Paul writes, In him we have redemption through

his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses. That Paul can define redemption as the forgiveness of sins demonstrates

that at the very least Paul regarded personal reconciliation to God as the highest peak in the mountain range of

redemption. Further, Colossians 1:13-14 says, He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to

the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. In this passage Paul draws on

the political imagery of the Israelites being redeemed from Pharaohs oppressive rule and brought into the service of God

to describe our present experience of redemption as being delivered from bondage to Satan and brought into Gods

kingdom. This radical transfer happens on an entirely different plane from Israels geo-political deliverance, which is

something that Wrights presentation of the exodus as the definitive paradigm of redemption unaccountably glosses

over. That Wright articulates a view of the exodus which doesnt align with the New Testaments use of exodus imagery

betrays a basic methodological error. That is, Wright fails to allow the New Testament authors interpretations of the Old

Testament to properly influence his.

Third, Wright asserts continuity between the exodus and New Covenant believers experience of redemption where the

New Testament plainly asserts discontinuity. God redeemed Israel politically, socially, and economically through

delivering them from political oppression, bringing them into their own land, and giving them his law to govern every

aspect of their life as a distinct geopolitical entity. Yet at least in its present manifestation, New Covenant redemption

differs from the exodus at each of these points.

Consider, for example, the life of a first-century Roman believer who happened to be a slave. What sort of political,

social, and economic redemption did such a believer experience? Did the apostles respond to the tangible plight of such

a one by saying that he or she had been redeemed, and so must put on that redemption by obtaining a new social and

economic status, just as the Israelites were delivered from Pharaohs oppression? Not in so many words (1 Cor. 7:17-

24). Or again, Peter calls Christians sojourners and exiles (1 Pet. 2:11-12), which alludes both to Israels status in Egypt

before they were redeemed and their status in exile as theyawaitedthe second exodus God promised to work for them.

Revelation, a book rich in exodus imagery, graphically defines the present experience of Gods people in terms of the

17


18/68

grisly experience of being persecuted by a hostile political power, much as the Israelites were before the exodus. Since

the New Testament speaks of Christians as already having been redeemed and yet being consistently subject to political

oppression, it is imprecise at best to say that redemption always embraces the political, economic, and social

dimensions.

Fourth, another way to say this is that Wrights distinctive portrayal of redemption as exodus-shaped partially

collapses the New Testaments eschatological timeline. Granted, Wright admits that we do not yet see the completion

of that redemptive work in present history (111; see also 103-104). But it seems to me that to speak of redemption as

inexorably exodus-shaped and as demanding an exodus-shaped mission (102) keeps the force of this admission

from shaping ones conception of redemption, and therefore of mission, as it should. Ultimately, we do look forward to

the glorious day when we will dwell with God in the new earth, the home of righteousness (2 Pet. 3:13), at which time

we will enjoy all the fruits of a perfectly consummated redemption. But at the present time, we enjoy the foretaste of that

redemption in the forgiveness of sins and the spiritual freedom we enjoy as members of Gods kingdom, even while

many of our social, political, and economic circumstances remain far from redeemed.

This is not to deny that our redemption through Christ has implications that spill over into every sphere of life, including

the social, economic, and political spheresfar from it. But it is to say that our theology of redemption, and therefore of

mission, must take stock of the differences between redemptions applicationnowcompared to the full consummation

of redemption in the eschaton. It should be noted that these differences strongly parallel the differences between our

present experience of redemption and the Israelites experience of redemption through the exodus, which suggests that

Wright significantly overstates the continuity between the exodus and New Covenant redemption in its inaugurated form.

In view of this, a more typological reading of the relationship between them has more to commend it than Wrights

dismissive label of such a reading as spiritualizing would suggest.6

Church and Christians Used Interchangeably

A final matter to discuss is Wrights consistent reference to the church as the people of God in a generic sense. That is,

he uses the term church interchangeably with the term people of God, with very occasional reference to local

churches in his application questions at the end of each chapter. As D.A. Carson points out in a discussion that touches

on Christians responsibilities in the public sphere, this is not without problems:

But however achieved, this equation between church and any collective of Christians, such that church and

Christians can be used interchangeably, skews discussion in a maximalist direction. John Stott is a fine

example of a Christian leader who takes this approach. When he argues that Christiansought to be involved in

various forms of social care, he means, equally, that the churchought to be involved in various forms of social

care. In other words, when he asserts that part of the Christiansobligation is to be involved in some enterprise

or other, this is, for him, virtually indistinguishable from asserting that the churchsmission mandates such

enterprise.7

We need to ask What is the mission of the local church? not

merely What is the mission of the individual Christian?

But, Carson suggests, if we suppose that church in the New Testament cannot be reduced to a collective of

Christians, then we have to ask whether the Christians responsibility to do good, to show mercy, to care for the poor

and so on belong to the churchas a church. If they do, then we would expect to see church leaders taking

responsibility for these activities and directing them. But what we find in the New Testament is that the churchs earliest

18


19/68

leaders, the apostles, were careful to protect the priority of the Word and prayer in their ministry, and even handed over

matters of justice withinthe congregation to other mature men (Acts 6:1-7). Further, the qualifications for

elders/overseers and descriptions of their work seem to place a distinct accent on the ministry of the Word and prayer.

Moreover, when we examine New Testament teaching about the gathered churchs distinct responsibilities, they seem to

cut a narrower profile than that of the individual Christian.8

This means that if we want to cling tightly to biblical priorities, we must be prepared to acknowledge that the full range of

activities which come along with serving as salt and light in the world may not be thechurchsmission, under the

direction of the churchs leaders while they certainly are the obligation of Christians.9Therefore our discussion of the

churchs mission is incomplete and possibly misleading until we wrestle with the question of the distinct responsibilities

of the local church as an institution over against the responsibilities of individual Christians. We need to ask What is the

mission of the local church? not merely What is the mission of the individual Christian?

CONCLUSION

As is surely evident by now, this review must fall slightly short of a commendation.

I hope that this lengthy critical discussion has not obscured my appreciation for the sound biblical theology which

comprises much of The Mission of Gods People. Further, though I have reservations about certain aspects of his visionfor mission, I want to state again that I think many of Wrights correctives are both biblical and needed. These include his

admonitions not to neglect the Bibles insistence that we are to do good to all men and that we are to care for Gods

creation. Wrights vision of what Christians are to be and do in the world draws together biblical imperatives which many

evangelicals have wrongly torn apart, whether in theory, practice, or both, and for that contribution I am grateful.

Yet I hope that Wrights proposal will not be uncritically imbibed, but will rather serve as a catalyst for Christians to

continue wrestling with the Bibles teaching about what we are to be and do in the worldand what the local church is

to be and do in the world. I hope that many more voices will contribute to this conversation and help spur us all on to a

more faithful practice of the mission to which God has called us.

ABOUT THE AUTHORBobby Jamieson is assistant editor for 9Marks.

[1] Readers who want to trace the theme of mission as it unfolds through the canon (with brief but valuable reflections on application toward the end)

would be well served by Andreas Kstenberger and Peter OBriens excellent book Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission(IVP, 2001).

[2] Though Wright does make an obscure and somewhat concerning statement at the end of chapter 11: So let us neither (at one extreme) neglect ourevangelistic responsibility by forgetting the vital importance that God places on the witnessing role of the church as Gods people, nor (at the other

extreme) inflate our evangelistic egocentricity by imagining that God has no other means of communicating his good news (199-200). Im at a loss as

to what other means for preaching the gospel besides Gods people Wright is referring to.

[3] In his informative study of recent debates surrounding the definition of mission, Keith Fernando soundly argues that if men and women arealienated from God and face eternal judgment, then communication of the message of reconciliation must have precedence over social action. Again,this is not to deny the necessity of social engagement. However, the thrust of the New Testament is that eternal realities have immeasurably greater

significance than temporal ones. We may feed the hungry, heal the sick, release the oppressed, but if they remain alienated from God then their gain is

relatively small, for the eternal reality has a significance that infinitely surpasses the circumstances of the present (cf. 2 Cor. 4:17). Chester makes thesame point in the context of a work in which he argues strenuously for Christian social involvement: the greatest need of the poor, as it is for all

people, is to be reconciled with God and escape his wrath. See Keith Ferdinando, Mission: A Problem of Definition. Themelios, Volume 33 Issue 1

[May, 2008], 56. The end of the quote refers to Tim Chester, Good News to the Poor: Sharing the Gospel through Social Involvement(Leicester: IVP,2004), 74.

[4] Ibid., 59.

[5] Im borrowing the image of ballast from Kevin DeYoungs excellent article, Theres Something Worse than Death in the September/October

2010 issue of the 9Marks Journal. See also Greg Gilberts similar reflections in his article Why Hell is Integral to the Gospel in the same Journal.

19


20/68

[6] For Wrights more extensive discussion of the exodus, see The Mission of God, 253-80. For a critique of Wright's views of the exodus which

complements the discussion here, see the reviewof The Mission of God by Mike Gilbart-Smith in this Journal.

[7] D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited(Eerdmans, 2008), 150. Evidence that Wright thinks along similar lines is found in the handful of

application questions in the book which apply Wrights expanded definition of mission to the scope of the local churchs responsibilities.

[8] Ibid., 150-151

[9] Ibid., 152.

20


21/68


22/68

Reviewed by Mike Gilbart-Smith

BOOK REVIEW:

The Mission of GodChristopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bibles Grand Narrative. IVP, 2006. 582 pages. $40.00

Reviewing a book about missions by Chris Wright makes me feel a little like a grown-up Pinocchio writing a critiqueof Geppettos toy-making skills. Chris was very much involved in introducing me to the mission of God and to the God of

mission when he served as a curate in my parents church when I was between the ages of 3 and 9.

I still have pleasant memories of Chris leading a Holiday Bible Club in Cage Green Hall, Tonbridgeand sharing the

gospel in a clear and faithful way. And Chris and his family were the first ones to embody the reality of overseas missions

for me. I remember sitting by the lake atAshburnham Placetalking with Chriss nine year old son about his familys

upcoming move to India. I remember saving some of my pocket money as a ten year old to put into a Bible Church

Missionary Society box that sat in my fathers study, excited at the possibility that my pennies might be used by the

Lord over 4000 miles away where Chris was training pastors.

About fifteen years later I heard Chris give a series of talks at New Word Alive on Deuteronomy, and was struck by the

missional reading of an Old Testament book that I had previously thought of as being a bunch of rules.

All that is to say, I owe a deep personal debt to Chris Wright.

The Mission of Godis the culmination of decades of thought and teaching that Chris has done on the relationship

between the Bible and missionsrather, mission. Hes been thinking about the material in this book longer than Ive

been thinking about anything. Its also a mammoth book, weighing in at 535 pages plus indexes. And so, in this brief

space I will not be able to do much more than briefly outline some of the content and engage with some of the more

controversial questions that Wright raises.

22


23/68

SUMMARY

In the introduction Wright describes how he used to look for the biblical basis for missions but grew to prefer to

explore the missional basis of the Bible (22). Mission is not just one of a hundred different biblical themes that we

might explore; the Bible is fundamentally about mission, and is even the product of that mission. We are not just people

who do missions for God, but God himself is a missionary God, and we have the immense privilege in being

incorporated into and involved in the mission of God.

The book then explores Gods mission and our place in it in four parts.

Part I: The Bible and Mission

Part one, The Bible and Mission, takes up the question of a missional hermeneutic. Central to Wrights approach to

missions is to use the term mission of God not merely to refer to what has commonly been called overseas missions.

Rather, everythingthat belongs to the overarching purpose of God constitutes his mission, his long-term purpose or

goallike a company might draw up a mission statement (23). This broad approach to Gods mission then opens up a

similarly broad approach to our place within it.

Wright critiques the fact that so much missiology has been built upon one text, Matthew 28:18-20. If the whole Bible isfundamentally missional, this kind of approach hardly makes sense. Wright argues that we must have a missional

hermeneutic of the whole Bible that is informed not only by the great imperatives of the Great Commission and Great

Commandment, but also the great indicatives which all reveal to us the identity and saving purpose of the Great God for

his whole creation (60).

The Bible is a book which has a mission, and that mission is Gods mission: to confront us with the reality of this God,

the reality of this storyand the reality of this people (54, his emphasis).

Part II: The God of Mission

Part two, The God of Mission, stares more closely at the identity of God, focusing on how the uniqueness of God

implies the universality of mission.

Monotheism is not, as some reconstructions of the religion of Israel would suggest, a growing development in Hebrew

theology. Rather, there was a radically monotheistic core to Israels faith from a very early period, however much it was

obscured and compromised in popular religious practice (73). This unique God reveals himself through a unique people

in the Old Testament, but his intentions in this were always universal.

The universal intentions of Gods election of Israel are fulfilled when God himself enters history in the person of Jesus

Christ, and acts as creator, ruler, judge and saviour. In Christ Jesus universal mission is opened up to be spread through

all nations

Part III: The People of Mission

Part three, The People of Mission, explores what it means to be Gods chosen, redeemed, covenant, holy people. A

biblical theology of mission cannot begin at Pentecost; instead Wright begins with the Abrahamic covenant as

arguably...the single most important biblical tradition within a biblical theology of mission and a missional hermeneutic

of the Bible (189). In Gods promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, we discover that the unique Gods intention through his

particular people is to reach all. Through the blessing of one man and his one seed, all nations would be blessed through

the New Covenant. This covenant is fundamentally missional. Mission is an unavoidable imperative founded on the

covenantal lordshipof Christ our King. Its task is to produce self-replicating communities of covenantal obedienceto

23


24/68

Christ among the nations. And it is sustained by the covenantal promiseof the perduring presence of Christ among his

followers (355).

Part IV: The Arena of Mission

Part four, The Arena of Mission, explores Gods intentions for all nations and cultures and the whole of creation.

Namely, Gods election of a particular people opens up into Gods grand, cosmic plans for his whole creation through

the coming of the Messiah.

It is in this final section that it becomes most evident that Wright is constructing a very broad model of mission.

Since Gods mission (his overarching plan) encompasses the whole earthhuman, animal and environmentso should

the Christians mission. And because Gods mission as applied to humanity involves the restoration of human beings

spiritually, rationally, physically, and socially, so should ours.

So, as Wright offers a vision of holistic mission he is truly offering a vision of cosmic proportions, as we are caught up

into the mission of God himself.

POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION

There issomuch that could be said in admiration for this book, not least regarding its sheer scale and readability.

I love the overall approach of the book. Wright is right that we mustnt see missions as some kind of small theme in the

Bible, but rather as central to Gods purpose.

And there issomuch Bible in the book. The nine page, four column Scripture index makes this abundantly clear. The

deliberate emphasis on the Old Testament is a helpful corrective to missiologies that neglect three quarters of Bible and

also to readings of the Old Testament that neglect mission.

It is also wonderful to have a book that is both broad in its scope and also emphasizes the non-negotiability of such

central gospel truths as penal substitution (312 ff.), the centrality of the cross, and the necessity of evangelism.

There is also a huge amount of missiological wisdom in the book. Typical of this wisdom is how Wright encourages

evangelism that rightly recognizes the dignity of every divine image-bearer we might seek to evangelize. Anything that

denies other human beings their dignity or fails to show respect, interest and informed understanding for all they hold

precious is actually a failure to love (424). Yet Wright doesnt swing too far in this direction; he continues, Not that love

means accepting everything your neighbor believes or does. Paul did not accept the religiosity of the Athenians, but he

did seek to relate to them with polite respect, even while challenging their assumptions.

While there is much to admire, there are also some serious causes for concern.

How can that be the case when the book is steeped in Scripture and the unfolding purposes of God? We shall first

examine Wrights biblical-theological method, and then raise some concerns about the conclusions he reaches.

24


25/68

QUESTIONS ABOUT WRIGHTS BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL METHOD

1. Where is continuity, and where discontinuity?

A missiology that focuses upon the Old Testament is certainly a valid approach, but it requires a very careful exploration

of the lines of continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments.

Wright employs polemical language to dismiss those who see the physical model of the Exodus in the Old Testamentfulfilled spiritually in the New. Within two pages they are accused of press[ing] a spiritualized application of the

exodus and airbrush[ing] thesocioeconomicand political dimensions of the original historical event (ital. his). They

misuse the typological method with a twist of Platonic dualism. They undermine the organic continuity between Old

and New Testament and make the Old Testament like a booster rocket that, once the space capsule is launched,

drops off and falls away into redundant oblivion. Instead, they ought to see that the biblical narrative is like a tree. We

now enjoy the spreading branches and abundant fruit of the New Testament fulfillment. But the Old Testament is like the

inner rings of the trunk...still supporting the structure on which the branches and fruit have grown (278-279).

Such language is powerful, but by choosing different metaphors, one could launch an equally scathing critique of

positions that see toomuchcontinuity.

One could say that Wright fails to see the dynamicway in which the New Testament reality fulfills the Old Testament

history. Instead he causes the new wine of the gospel to stagnatein its old wineskins,stranglingits bouquet. Instead of a

caterpillar finding its fulfillment in the butterfly free to take to the air, Wright insists that the butterfly be grounded as it is

forced to drag around the worn out body of the caterpillar in its unmetamorphosizedstate.

The fact is that neither set of metaphors proves anything. What is needed is a careful examination of how the Old

Testament paradigms are picked up and employed in the New Testament. Yet Wright fails to provide this.

I would argue that the New Testament suggests greater discontinuity than Wright allows. The exodusisclearly picked up

in the New Testament as a paradigm of our salvation from slavery to sin. Yet it is nowhere picked up as a mandate for

Christian political and socioeconomic activism. On the contrary, Jesus insists that his disciples refused political

resistance because his kingdom is not of this world.

2. What aspects of the Old Testament narrative are given more weight?

There is also an imbalance concerningwhichOld Testament events or institutions are seen as the model for New

Testament mission.

So, Wright sees the exodus and the exile as models of the mission of God. But if we picked other key themes or events,

its not clear that we arrive at precisely the same conclusion.

If we take, for example, the function of the law, the Levitical code, and the lessons of the Old Testament prophets, we

would see a picture in which our personal guilt before God is a far more central problem than our bondage to the

enemies of God, though this is certainly related to that central problem.

The basic problem here is that Wright doesnt seem to allow Jesus and the apostles interpretation of the Old Testament

to guide his own interpretations. For instance, he insists on giving equal primacy to the political, economic, and social

aspects of the exodus, even though theJesus of the Gospel records does not. Why does Jesus say that he came, and

how does he fulfill the salvation events of the Old Testament? We should ask him:

25


26/68

He came to preach: "Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out" (Mark

1:38).

He came to call sinners: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call

the righteous, but sinners" (2:17).

And he came to save his people from sin in a new exodus: "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to

serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45).

Strangely, Wright describes this very emphasis on salvation from sin as a spiritualizing of the Old Testament (276). In

so doing, does he unwittingly end up choosing his own interpretation over Jesus?

3. An overly horizontal reading of sin

A biblical theology of the mission of God needs to examine Genesis 3 in closer detail than Wright provides. Genesis 1 to

3 sets up the context into which sin comes, and from which the Lord seeks to redeem a people.

The two most substantial treatments of the fall in the book come in the exploration of idolatry in chapter 5 and in the

image of God in Chapter 13. In Chapter 5, Genesis 3 is explored for about a page (164-165) in which Wright rightly

describes sin as idolatry that blurs the Creator/creature distinction and thus attempts to displace God from his throne.

Chapter 13 explores the spiritual, mental, physical and social effects of sin (429-430).

What is missing from both accounts, and from the whole book, is a careful exploration of how Godsees sin. Sin certainly

has many destructive effects within the world, but what we see so clearly in Genesis 3 is not merely the horizontal results

of sin: we see Gods response to it. It is not merely that we are alienated, fearful, suspicious and hostile towards God,

but that he acts in holy anger towards us.

Once this is in place, we will continue to see this world as broken in all its relational complexity. But we will rightly see of

all of that in relation to God, and we will see that our primary need is to be restored to him.

Further, a focus on the horizontal rather than the vertical effects of sin seems to pervade much of the rest of Wrights

reading of the Old Testament.

The Exodus is a great model of New Testament redemptionprecisely because in it we see how Gods people, though deserving ofthe same judgment as Gods enemies, are redeemed through the

sacrifice of a perfect substitute. This is why the New Testament

presents Jesus as the Passover Lamb.

So, to return to the theme of the Exodus: even as Wright uses the Exodus as a central model for the mission of God, I

fear that he has overlooked the central event in the Exodus, namely, the sacrifice of the Passover lamb and the sharing

of the Passover meal. For Wright, Passover is seen purely as a reminder that Gods redemption is social: God judges the

genocidal Egyptians by destroying their own firstborn (267). But the Passover lamb is strikingly absent from this

description. Once we see the centrality of the lamb, we recognize that the Passover is a reminder first and foremost that

26


27/68


28/68

In his portrayal of holistic mission throughout the book, Wright has an imaginary talking partner: an advocate of a more

traditional and narrow missiology in which the gospel is defined exclusively as the salvation of individuals from hell and

to heaven, and mission is defined exclusively as sharing that gospel of individual salvation. This view of missions is the

one he grew up with.

I write as a son of Northern Ireland. That has to be one of the most evangelized small patches on the globe. As

I grew up, almost anybody I met could have told me the gospel and how to get saved...Yet in my Protestant

evangelical culture, the zeal for evangelism was equal only to a suspicion of any form of Christian social concern

or conscience about issues of justice. That was the domain of liberals and ecumenicals, and a betrayal of the

pure gospel... So the proportionately high number of the evangelizers and the evangelized...certainly did not

produce a society transformed by the values of the kingdom. On the contrary it was...possible to hear all the

language of evangelistic zeal and all the hatred, bigotry and violence coming from the same mouths. (321)

There is not space in this review, or the expertise in this reviewer, to unravel the intertwined social, political, religious,

cultural and ethnic complexities of the tensions in Northern Ireland. But surely it must be reductionistic to lay

responsibility for these tensions at the feet of Christians for regarding evangelism as more important than social concern,

or even to say that a more holistic gospel would have made any difference.

A 500 page book on mission that doesnt starein fact, doesnt

even glanceat the reality of hell for the unevangelized has lost its

bearings.

No doubt, there are many ways in which one would hope to see the salt and light of Christians in Northern Ireland would

reform the societys values, but there are also clear examples in which positive change has occurredchanges that

have not occurred in mainland Britain. For example, the British state has sanctioned nearly 7.3 million murders since the1967 Abortion Act; but not in Northern Ireland where the Act does not apply. Yet strangely, in a book championing social

justice as a coequal partner to evangelism in Christian mission, Wright doesnt mention abortion once. I fear that when

we start making things that non-Christians will love co-centers of mission along with evangelism, even some forms of

social justice will remain too unpopular with non-Christians to be championed by Christians. Its fine to talk about AIDS

and recycling, but abortion must be avoided.

Wright may have seen the primacy of evangelism over social action more clearly if he considered more of Jesus

evangelistic warnings. Jesus repeatedly talks about the dangers of hell. Just in Matthews gospel, one can find

references in 5:22, 29, 30, 8:12, 10:28, 13:42, 50 18:9, 22:13, 23:33, 24:51, and 25:30. Both the words heaven and hell

do appear next to each other in the Mission of Godsindex, and heaven has 42 entries and heavenly receives 17. But

hell receives only one. And the one reference to hell says nothing about the importance of evangelism, but, ironically,simply warns those who do not care for the poor (306). What about all those who do not hearthe gospel? Nowhere in

this book are they presented as being in danger of hell. On the contrary, physicaldeath is presented as the ultimate

and the most terrible of enemies (439).

A 500 page book on mission that doesnt starein fact, doesnt even glanceat the reality of hell for the unevangelized

has lost its bearings. It has fallen into the danger of elevating other undeniable human plights to the level of importance

and centrality that should be accorded only to our need to be reconciled to God and saved from the eternal death of his

wrath. We cansee with our eyesthe horrific images of children dying of famine, evil regimes destroying their own

citizens, AIDS epidemics devastating whole societies, wars ravaging whole nations, the environmental horrors that might

28


29/68

be unleashed by unchecked global warming, and so on. But we can only hear and imaginethe reality of billions of souls

heading towards unending torment in hell, without experiencing the loving presence of their perfect Creator, but knowing

him only as the Judge whom they have made their enemy. And only the gospel holds out to them the unending bliss

worshipping and enjoying their beautiful Creator, Saviour, and Lord as they see the glorified wounds of the Risen Lamb.

If we truly stared at these eternal realities, we would view the gospel and its power to save individuals from hell as rather

more central to Christian mission than healing the sick or planting trees. Do understand, Im not just comparing the

physical with the spiritual, Im comparing the temporary with the eternal.

Wright fears that, unless evangelism is removed from the position of primacy within Christian mission, everything else

will be removed altogether. My fear is that unless evangelism is recognized as uniquely central to Christian mission, we

may end up making the lives of people in this world more comfortable while they continue down a road that leads to hell.

2. What Is the Gospel?1

Similarly, Wrights conception of the gospel is as inclusive as his definition of mission.

So, according to Wright, mission is not merely preaching the gospel, but also social, political and environmental action.

And, according to Wright, the gospel itself is not merely the good news of salvation for sinners from the consequences

of their sin: Bluntly, we need a holistic gospel because the world is in a holistic mess. And by Gods incredible grace we

have a gospel big enough to redeem all that sin and evil has touched (315).

Of course, one must not deny the cosmic significance of the gospel. As Paul says, the creation itself will be liberated

from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God (Rom. 8:21). But once again, to

suggest that the gospel hasimplicationsfor the whole of creation does not mean we need to deny that the gospel has a

center. Wright acknowledges this, and is clear that the very core of biblical faith [is] the cross of Christ (312). He then

goes on to expound the huge dimensions of the redemptive work achieved in the cross to deal with the guilt of human

sin...to defeat the powers of evil...to destroy death... to remove the barrier of enmity and alienation between Jew and

Gentile...and to heal and reconcile his whole creation (312-313).

But Id love to ask a few questions that push things further: What is at the centerof Christs work on the cross? Are

these five areas of Gods redemptive mission all equally central to that mission?

As D.A. Carson has so clearly put it,

But I think it can be shown (though it would take a very long chapter to do it) that if one begins with the centrality

of penal substitution, which is, as we have seen, grounded on a deep understanding of how sin is an offense

against God, it is very easy to see how all the other so-called models of the atonement are related to it... It is

very difficult to establish the coherence if one begins anywhere else.2

It seems that when one sees the cross at the center of the gospel, and penal substitution at the center of the cross, it

makes sense why the gospel can also be a term in the New Testament that focuses on the central effect of the good

news: the salvation of sinners from hell and into a restored relationship with God through the death and resurrection of

our Lord Jesus Christ.

Consider, for example, the following passages:

1 Corinthians 15:2-3: By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you

have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins

according to the Scriptures.

29


30/68

Romans 1:16: I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who

believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Ephesians 1:13-14: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your

salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit

guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possessionto the praise of his glory.

In sum, while Wright may be correct to draw attention to the cosmic dimensions of the gospel, he fails to give sufficient

weight to what is most central to the gospel itself: the penal, substitutionary death of Christ which accomplished thesalvation of all those who turn from their sin and trust in him.

3. What is the church?

Wright argues that Holistic mission cannot be the responsibility of any one individual. But it is certainly the responsibility

of the whole church (322). And that seems to be the purpose of the church according to Wright: to have enough people

so that they will be able to spread themselves across the whole breadth of the mission of God.

Further discussion of Wrights ecclesiology must be left to Bobby Jamiesons reviewof Wrights recent book, The

Mission of Gods People. Suffice it to say here, it seems strange to me that if the renewal of creation, political action, and

social justice are all essential aspects of the churchs mission that we find so little about them in the New Testamentletters addressing New Testament churches. Instead, we find a great deal about preaching the gospel, living holy lives

and growing in discipleship. What we find is in fact a living out of the Great Commission.

Further, Wright seems to contradict himself somewhat about whether the Great Commission is the center of Christian

Mission. Early in the book we read,

A missional hermeneutic, then is not content simply to call for obedience to the Great Commission (though it will

assuredly include that as a matter of nonnegotiable importance)... A missional hermeneutic of the whole Bible

will not become obsessed with only the great mission imperatives, such as the Great Commission, or be

tempted to impose on them one assumed priority or another (e.g. evangelism or social justice or liberation or

ecclesiastical order as the only real mission). Rather we will set those great imperatives within the context oftheir foundational indicatives, namely, all that the Bible affirms about God, creation, human life in its paradox of

dignity and depravity, redemption in all its comprehensive glory, and the new creation in which God will dwell

with his people. (60-61)

That seems to suggest that the Great Commission is a pretty small piece in a jigsaw that would be incomplete without it,

but which has plenty of other pieces.

However, later we read, The Great Commision is thecommand of the new covenant (354, emphasis mine). Mission

then, as articulated in the Great Commission, is the reflex of the new covenant... Its task is to produce self-replicating

communities of covenantal obedience to Christ among the nations (355).

Whats going on here? Perhaps if we try to suggest that the Great Commission is one among many aims within the

mission of the church, rather than the center, one of two things will happen. Either it will fall off the edge, as other things

will be much more popular with the world and much easier to achieve. Or, as we keep reading our Bibles, it will not let us

off the hook, but will keep returning us to the center.

I pray that this would be the case not only for the writings of Wright, but for the understanding of the church as we

continue to reflect upon the mission of God and our place within it.

30


31/68

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:Mike Gilbart-Smith is the pastor of Twynholm Baptist Church in Fulham, England.

[1] For a great article which considers the New Testament use of the word gospel and its implications for our definition of the gospel, seehttp://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/files/2010/10/for_the_fame_of_gods_name.excerpt.pdf

[2] See http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2007_forum_penal_substitution.pdf

31


32/68

Reviewed by Bobby Jamieson

BOOK REVIEW:

Living in Gods Two Kingdoms:A Biblical Vision for Christianityand Culture

David VanDrunen,Living in Gods Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture. Crossway, 2010.

208 pages. $16.99

The transformationalist approach to Christianity and culture casts a captivating vision. Transformationalists argue thatbecause God will create a new heaven and earth in the end, and because his kingdom has broken into this present age,

we must work to redeem every aspect of culture here and now. Critiquing what they perceive to be a pattern of quietist

evangelical retreat, transformationalists urge us to do justice, seek the welfare of the city, bring the Lordship of Christ to

bear on all of life, and comprehensively care for others needs. And they are right to exhort us to take up these biblical

imperatives.

Yet it can sometimes sound as if the only way to give these specific biblical imperatives their proper place is to embracethe whole eschatological vision. This isnt necessarily the fault of the transformationalists; it may simply be that, in the

current evangelical conversation about Christianity and culture, very few people have presented a positive alternative.

Enter David VanDrunens new book Living in Gods Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture

(Crossway, 2010).

32


33/68

A BIBLICAL CASE FOR TWO KINGDOM THEOLOGY

In this book VanDrunen, professor of systematic theology and ethics at Westminster Seminary California, makes a

biblical case for a two kingdoms approach to Christianity and culture. What sets VanDrunen apart from

transformationalists is that his approach to Christianity and culture is grounded in creation and in what Christians hold in

common with non-believers, rather than seeing our involvement in culture as somehow deriving from and contributing to

Gods eschatological work of redemption.

In the introduction, VanDrunen surveys the current evangelical conversation about Christianity and culture and notes

similarities in the transformationalist views of neo-Calvinists, emergent church leaders, and N.T. Wright. From there, the

book proceeds in three parts.

Part One: First Things and Last Things

Part one, First Things and Last Things, is an exposition of the Bibles teaching on Adams role in Gods plan and Jesus

fulfillment of that role as the last Adam. The upshot of VanDrunens discussion is that redemption is not creation

regained but re-creation gained (26), which means that believers do not now take up Adams task and do it right, but

rather celebrate the fact that Christ has accomplished humankinds cultural mandate. As VanDrunen explains, this by

no means leaves Christians without any motivation for cultural labors, but it does put those labors on a different footingfrom most treatments of the cultural mandate.

Part Two: Living in Babylon

Part two, Living in Babylon, examines the people of Gods status as sojourners in the Old and New Testaments. In

these two chapters VanDrunen argues that now, as in the patriarchal age and during the exile, Gods people live as

sojourners and exiles on earth, and that we live in two realms, or kingdoms: the common kingdom established through

the Noahic covenant, which consists in the God-ordained society and institutions which are common to all humanity,

and the redemptive kingdom established through the Abrahamic covenant, which consists of Gods saving rule over

his distinct people.

Part Three: Christian Life in Two Kingdoms

In part three, Christian Life in Two Kingdoms, VanDrunen explores the practical application of the theological vision he

set out in part

Documents

9Marks Journal 2010 Nov-Dec Book-Reviews