At the National Pastors Conference in San Diego, PreachingToday.com's Brian Lowery got to interview N. T. Wright about his latest book—Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church—and how it relates to preaching. Since we are all in the midst of the Easter journey, his words are timely, challenging, and above all else, hopeful.
Preaching Today: In your book Surprised by Hope, you talk about a deeper understanding of hope "that provides a coherent and energizing basis for work in today's world." How has that deeper understanding influenced your preaching through the years?
Bishop N. T. Wright: [Studying] the Resurrection for an earlier book, Resurrection of the Son of God … ended up rubbing my nose in the New Testament theology of new creation, and the fact that the new creation has begun with Easter. I discovered that when we do new creation—when we encourage one another in the church to be active in projects of new creation, of healing, of hope for communities—we are standing on the ground that Jesus has won in his resurrection.
New creation is not just "whistling in the dark." It's not a kind of social Pelagianism, where we try to improve things by pulling ourselves up from our own bootstraps. Because Jesus is raised from the dead, God's new world has begun. We are not only the beneficiaries of new creation; we are the agents of it. I just can't stop preaching about that, because that is where we're going with Easter.
For me, therefore, there's no disjunction between preaching about the salvation which is ours in God's new age—the new heavens and new earth—and preaching about what that means for the present. The two go very closely together. If you have an eschatology that is nonmaterial, why bother with this present world? But if God intends to renew the world, then what we do in the present matters. That's 1 Corinthians 15:58! This understanding has made my preaching more challenging to me, and hopefully to my hearers, to actually get off our backsides and do something in the local community—things that are signs of new creation.
What themes emerged in your preaching after having been surprised by hope?
I've found myself addressing current issues—what you might call "God in public life"—and I've been doing so from a wide variety of points of view. If you start taking hope seriously, you begin to ask, "What does this mean for our public life?" You begin to wrestle with how this actually impacts education policy or what we do with those who seek asylum. These themes have crept into my preaching.
At this last year's Christmas Eve service, I talked about the problems the hill farmers in my diocese were facing because of foot-and-mouth disease. I noted how the government's attitude toward that issue was like the government's attitude toward those who seek asylum. It's the church's responsibility to stand up for those who have nobody to stand up for them. Somebody approached me on the way out the door and said, "You should stick to the Scriptures. There's nothing in Christmas about those who seek asylum!" I was so astonished, that the person had gone before I could say, "What about Matthew 2? What was Jesus doing in Egypt? Weren't they seeking asylum?"
I have found that my preaching is touching on some of the key issues of the times, presenting a Christian response and not just a political response for the sake of political response. I keep asking myself, How is one to think Christianly about these big things?
Many people still cling to older or limited versions of hope, resurrection, and heaven. How can today's preacher contend with some of those limited viewpoints in such a way that the listener is pleasantly surprised, but not offended?
Some people are always going to be offended when you actually teach them what's in the Bible as opposed to what they assume is in the Bible. The preacher can try to say it a number of ways, and sometimes people just won't get it. They will continue to hear what they want to hear. But if you soft-pedal matters, they will think, Oh, he's taking us down the old familiar paths. There is a time for walking in and just saying what needs to be said. Sometimes you just need to find a good line. The line I often use—which makes people laugh—is: "Heaven is important, but it's not the end of the world." In other words, resurrection means the new earth continues after people have gone to heaven.
I put it this way for my audiences: "there is life after life after death." People are very puzzled by that, so I begin to explain it to them. There's life after death. That was Jesus between Good Friday and Easter. He was dead, but he was in whatever life after death is—in paradise without his resurrected body. But that wasn't his final destination. Here I introduce the idea of a two-stage postmortem reality. Most Western Christians have only heard about a two-stage postmortem reality in the Catholic idea of purgatory. That's wrong! A person goes to heaven first and then to the new heavens and new earth. People stare at you like you've just invented some odd heresy, but sorry—this is what the New Testament teaches. The New Testament doesn't have much to say about what happens to people immediately after they die. It's much more interested in the anticipation of the ultimate new world within this one. If you concentrate on preaching life after death, you devalue the present world. Life after life after death, however, reaffirms the value of this present world.
Early in the book, you write: "Our task…is to live as resurrection people in between Easter and the final day, with our Christian life, corporate and individual, in both worship and mission, as a sign of the first and the foretaste of the second." What role does the preacher play in that good work? In other words, what does it look like to live as resurrection preachers?
So many people think preaching the Resurrection means doing a little bit of apologetics in the pulpit to prove it really is true. Others simply say, "Jesus is raised, therefore there is a life after death." This isn't the point! Those types of sermons may be necessary, but there's more to it than that. To preach the Resurrection is to announce the fact that the world is a different place, and that we have to live in that "different-ness." The Resurrection is not just God doing a wacky miracle at one time. We have to preach it in a way that says this was the turning point in world history.
To take preaching seriously, you need a high theology of the Word of God. When your preaching announces that Jesus is the crucified and risen Lord of the world, things happen. The principalities and powers are called into account. Human beings who once thought the message of someone rising from the dead is ridiculous, actually find that the message of resurrection can transform their lives.
Finally, there must be a relationship between what you say and who you are. Preaching is the personality, infused by the Spirit, communicating the Word of God to people. If there's a mismatch—if you're not being a resurrection person—you may say the right words, but something radical is missing.
At the end of Surprised by Hope, you offer a short but potent appendix entitled "Two Easter Sermons." Both sermons, to each their own degree, miss the point of the Resurrection. Thousands of preachers are climbing into studies, libraries, and offices to put together a message for Easter morning. If you were to give them a word of encouragement and a word of exhortation as they prepare, what would you share with them?
I would tell them to take very seriously the connection between what happens on Easter Day in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and what happened before Good Friday. In other words, the Gospel writers seemed to think that the resurrection of Jesus is somehow the fulfillment of his announcement of the Kingdom of God. We have tended to read the Gospels in such a way that the death and resurrection fall off one end, and then there's all that neat stuff about Jesus healing people and telling parables. But what on earth do they have to do with each other? Preachers must think and pray about how that message of the kingdom is the thing which resurrection is really all about—and, conversely, how resurrection is what the message of the kingdom is all about. When we put the Gospels together like that, then we are really in business! But that's tough. We're not trained to often think like that.
N. T. Wright is Bishop of Durham for the Church of England, and author of Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (HarperOne, 2008).
Posted by Brian Lowery at 8:54 AM on March 19, 2008
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1039
Post a comment
Comments
What a powerful word! Thank you for hosting brother Wright. I'd like to see more of this sort of thing.
Posted by: Brandon on March 19, 2008
That's what I'm talking about! Bam! It's this 1-2 punch that aligns the future hope of the resurrection with today's hope in reality. THAT'S what is the big deal about Easter! Amen and amen.
Posted by: Marie McCoy on March 20, 2008
Bishop Wright's mind is amazing--I'm not sure I can keep up with him. I'm afraid I don't see why having the right eschatology drives the way we live out the faith here and now.
I mean, if "Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself" (which every Christian and every Jew affirms) doesn't motivate you to work for healing and redemption of the whole person in the here-and-now, how does "the new earth will be our eternal home" add any more motivation or urgency?
Posted by: Chad on March 20, 2008
Chad,
Because the new heaven and new earth will be our home - a home in which all things are "set-to-rights," as Wright often says, we love both God and neighbor both because God has loved us and at the same our loving God and neighbor brings a foretaste of that future world into this one. Furthermore, in doing so, it somehow bears on the future. Wright highlights this by his reference to 1 Cor. 15:58 "Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain" If all we did was go to heaven and the earth destroyed, our labors might be found to be in vain, but since we come back, the fruits of our labors will in some way be beneficial. I hope I'm not being too presumptious in saying that NTW would answer your question along these lines.
Great interview and message - thanks Brian
Posted by: Gene on March 20, 2008
One thing Gene. I don't think Tom Wright would say that we "go somewhere 'heaven' and come back'. I think he would say we die and we are in Christ but we don't fly off in the sky we are just "in Christ" and then in the eschaton when all things are "set to rights" we are raised with Christ. It's the escapist theology that has poisoned the past 100 years of evangelical theology that Wright is speaking over against. He always refers to "on earth as it is in heaven"
Posted by: Sam Andress on March 21, 2008
Some great quotes to use for future reference and reflection.
Thanks and keep the good stuff coming!
Posted by: GUNNY HARTMAN on March 24, 2008
I agree with Bishop Wright that we, as western Christians need to be much more involved in righting injustices and helping those who are hungry or hurting, but to say that the central mission of the church is to make sure traffic flows smoothly and that the grass stays green in central park is way off the mark.
Posted by: Doug on March 24, 2008
Doug,
Could you please point out where Bishop Wright said, "The central mission of the church is to make sure traffic flows smoothly and that the grass stays green in central park is way off the mark"? I gotta say - I don't see that anywhere in the interview. Seems a little inappropriate to cheapen his point to the degree you have, putting words in his mouth to extreme measures in light of the greater examples he's given.
Posted by: bill on March 24, 2008
Jesus said our reward will be to rule over a city, or cities, so maybe your phrase about municipal policing and park maintenance is not so wrong!
This topic is what I preached on Resurrection Sunday at Narrow Trail Cowboy Church. I have been studying the areas N.T. Wright talks about here, the Kingdom and Resurrection. Even my DTS prof said there is not much on the Kingdom of God or the practical applications of it.
Also read Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, and Dallas Willard's Divine Conspiracy.
Paul wanted to "know" the resurrection power that raised Jesus Christ.
Jesus couldn't stop talking about the Kingdom.
These two define our future. Since Christ was raised, our sharing in the resurrection life is what all of creation groans for. We are agents (Royal Priests) training to minister/administer in the Kingdom of God as it will be fully revealed.
This is why the Kingdom is the engine that drives "love God, love one another". If we love God we will not sit back and wait, but we will work toward the kingdom. So, then we receive our crowns (which we then lay at his feet in worship) and in turn he rewards/entrusts us with dominion (what humanity was made for, to responsibly rule over earth) within His Kingdom.
Now, if that isn't motivation I don't know what is!!!
Posted by: Cowboy Preacher John on March 25, 2008
N. T. Wright's unfortunate attempt at very poor exegesis not only provides fodder for Brian McLaren's heresies, it undercuts the very argument he offers. Careful study of Scriptures does point to a "new heaven and a new earth" as the dwelling place of believers after the resurrection of their glorified bodies and the reunification of body, soul and spirit. However, the Scriptures also say, "For the former heaven and earth are passed away." Wright ignores verses about the present creation "burning up" with fervent heat and a recreation of heaven and earth. So, the claim that what we do to this earth is important because it is the future dwelling place of believers is just poor theology.
That being said, what we do with this earth IS IMPORTANT, just not for the reasons Wright offers. We should take care of creation because we are stewards of God's creation. It is not ours to use or misuse as we please and, yes, rampant consumerism belies Christian stewardship.
If those who want to make a case for "green" Christianity would simply take a clear view of Scriptures, rather than trying to twist the Bible into meaning whatever they want it to mean, they would find more allies among conservative evangelicals like myself. As it is, their misuse and low regard for the Bible causes conservatives to doubt and dismiss everything else they say as well.
Posted by: Jere Phillips on March 25, 2008
Jere,
If Wright were saying what you suggest, I would be disappointed, and angered, as well. But 110 pages into Surprised by Hope, Wright has not once mentioned anything approaching "green Christianity;" he agrees, in fact, with you that we are to care for the earth because we are stewards of God's good creation. I recommend the book. I think you'll find more common ground there than you might suspect. Until then, I would hesitate associating him too closely with folks like McLaren.
Posted by: James on March 25, 2008
I wonder if Wright has replied/will reply to Roman Catholic writer Richard John Neuhaus, who accused him of downplaying the beatific vision, and (oddly) said that Wright's vision of an active NH&NE sounded "mormon"
Posted by: pduggie on March 25, 2008
Yes! This is on point!
A friend, Sam Brink sent me the following from the book Craddock Stories,edited by Mike Graves and Richard Ward. "When you are raised from the dead, you're different. When you're raised from the dead, you don't look the same, you don't act the same, and you don't sound the same....
...when I was baptized just a couple of weeks short of my fourteenth birthday...The passage I read to you this morning was used by the minister who baptized me: 'Now you have been raised with Christ, you have died and now you have been raised with Christ. Set your mind on things that are above.' As I walked home with my wet clothes wrapped in a wet towel under my arm, I tried to think what that meant. You know, after you've been raised from the dead you don't look the same, sound the same, talk the same. But what do you do? How do you talk? What do you sound like?
I went to school Monday morning thinking, Is anybody going to know that I've been raised? Should I dress up a little better from what I've been dressing? It wouldn't hurt. Do I talk another way? Do I throw in a verse of scripture now and then? What do I do at ball practice? Are they going to say, 'Well looks like he's been raised from the dead.' How do you talk? How do you walk? How do you relate?"
My Easter message this year focused on celebrating not only Jesus' resurrection, but our resurrection, in and through him, to live a new life. As a develop a series on that idea of living as resurrection people this article was most stimulating. What should we look like? Keep wrestling with this question!
Posted by: Mark Pittman on March 26, 2008
"To take preaching seriously, you need a high theology of the Word of God. When your preaching announces that Jesus is the crucified and risen Lord of the world, things happen..." Yes! This sounds "dangerously" close to the word of God being alive in its own right. When all our props and methodology turn to dust, the word of the Lord will endure forever. How refreshing to hear you say that scripture is the change agent!
Posted by: Greg on March 26, 2008
Jere, regarding the "burning up" of the earth, there is an alternative reading, explained in this quote from Steven Bouma-Prediger in his book "For the Beauty of the Earth" (p.76):
"Only the relatively recent Dutch translation (Niewe Vertaling 1975) faithfully captures the meaning of the best Greek text: “and the earth and the works upon it will he found (en de aarde en de werken daarop zullen gevonden worden).”
To put it bluntly, this verse represents perhaps the most egregious mistranslation in the entire New Testament. The Greek verb in question here is heurethesetai, from heureskein, “to find,” and from which we get the English expression “eureka.” In other words, the text states that after a refiner’s fire of purification (v. 7), the new earth will be found, not burned up."
Something to think about.
Posted by: J. Walker on March 26, 2008
I'm impressed by the way everyone has expressed themselves with charity for one another. It speaks of kingdom inspired or resurrection inspired living.
I'm quite sure that without our faith in the Resurrection of our Lord and the possibilities it opens for us to be changed in this present world, none of us would be able to speak with such civility. You know, "love God, love one another?" Kinda proves that God is changing our world does it not?
So what does it matter if it's all to be burned up? It matters to God who gave us dominion of the earth in the beginning and sent Jesus to restore God's dominion in the hearts and lives of His creation. That life is more than what we see. We are commissioned. God has given us the mandate to be alive,(John 10:10) fully alive in our trust in Him and in God's enabling us to be God's agents in the redemption of all the earth. That we are to heal where we can and work to see a better world as we have the means to do so...
We are creators made in the image of the Creator of all the universe. So we get it by heritage. But it comes alive because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus who is putting all things right. I'm kinda reconciled to the fact that God has revealed to us a portion of what is to occour when Christ comes again. I need to trust God with those things He has chosen not to reveal. Deut.29:29. And in that trusting I'm to love others and God's creation as He has ordained it.
Now, my theology may be vague and sound crude but it's what God has enabled me to see and by which to shape my live.
Posted by: Brother Spence on March 27, 2008
Jere, I wish there were some way to help you see that your perception that Wright - and others - are doing poor exegesis is rooted in the paradigm from which you yourself are interpreting. You are coming from a perspective I used to embrace, but have increasingly moved away from the more I learn. Wright, is a world-class expositor, if there is such a thing, whose exegesis is highly respected in scholarly circles. When Wright speaks, people listen, only fools rush in and blither without carefully considering what he has to say. John Piper highly respects him although he differs with him in significant ways - that come out clearly in his book The Future of Justification.
As for I Peter 3 - the fire burning the earth, Jere how well aquainted are you with appocolyptic language and its use in the NT? In addition to the helpful comments of J. Walker - this may be something you will want to explore a bit deeper. I believe Peter here as Jesus does elswhere, Matt 24, and Jude and others use apocolyptic langage it's rhetorical effect.
Sam, read Wrights article entitled "This World is Not My Home" Posted the 24th - Maybe we don't want to use the word "heaven" for the reason you mention, but I think Wright affirms we "go" somewhere (Paradise?) until Christ returns.
Posted by: Gene on March 27, 2008
Bishop Wright certainly practices what he preaches. Or better, he preaches what he practices.
My wife, Jennifer, and I worshiped at Durham Cathedral this Easter and listened to Wright proclaim the importance of living out the reality of Christ’s resurrection in life-affirming ways in the here and now. He presented some pressing issues in the UK—the need of constraints on genetic research and the need to grant asylum to valid political refugees—concerns which he said were “only two of twenty or so” issues in the UK that he could have addressed that mattered to Christians. He spent the majority of his sermon time addressing these two issues. He briefly addressed abortion as well. According to his remarks, he has been or he is currently involved in efforts to address these matters. He mentioned that the Archbishop of Canterbury has invited him to be involved in a Church of England response to the genetic debate here in the UK. As if to anticipate potential criticism of his investing so much time on these two issues he said, as I recall, something like, “Christ’s resurrection affirms the goodness of creation and it tells us we should be concerned about real life now.”
Jennifer and I discussed Wright’s politicization of Christ’s resurrection. Should he have spent more time on textual exegesis and its theological implications for Christian living and less time on moral and political applications? Should we who preach the resurrection invest more sermon time addressing urgent social, moral and political issues in light of the resurrection?
Looking back on his message I think his attitude toward practicing and preaching the reality of Christ’s resurrection might be summed up in this way: “The here and now matters because of Christ’s resurrection. You testify to this reality by getting involved in flesh and blood issues. After all, Christ’s resurrection affirms God’s created order. The burden of proof is on you to not be engaged in real life concerns.”
Not a bad Easter message.
Posted by: michael jennings on March 28, 2008
Thanks, Michael. It's great to hear how Bishop Wright's preaching actually comes across live, from the pulpit.
Posted by: Chad on March 28, 2008
What a blessing Bishop Wright is to the whole Church. I had the privilege of interviewing him and being his escort for the day when he gave a talk, along with his friend and nemesis, Marcus Borg, at Washington National Cathedral a few years ago as part of a book tour. He is a great contributor the the theological debate. Blessings to you Tom and your ministry.
Posted by: Br. Chris Baumann, OSB on March 31, 2008
Thank you Rt Rev Wright from my heart for helping me move from fundamentalism to the fundamental of taking Christ seriously in my life now. Jere, Rev Wright has not dismissed any text in exegesis I will assure you. His ability to deal with all(not some choice proof texts only) has thoroughly impressed me with his regard of the texts of the Bible as the true Word of God. By addressing consistently the questions that the life of faith brings the Holy Spirit has moved me from a lukewarm "I have my fire insurance" christian to a true acceptance of Jesus as Lord of my ENTIRE life and thinking seriously what that will entail through the same power of the Spirit-led life. Without the power of Christ's Spirit working in us we are only saved sinners, not the truly human beings that we are called to be. In King Jesus to the Glory of the Father through the Holy Spirit's power, that is my prayer for all of us. God bless all of you.
Posted by: Dean on April 4, 2008
I have found all of Nicholas Wright's writings to be very helpful. I agree with almost everything he writes. I can not praise his his latest book, "Surprised by Hope" enough and have told my friends about it and have lent my copy to my pastor. Unlike Brian Mclaren's latest book, in which he appears to deny that the New Heavens and the New Earth are going to be an objectively real, new creations of God, and are only symbolic of what we humans can acheive with God's help in this world, Wright asserts that God will supernaturally re-create this present earth to make it into the New Heavens and the New Earth. Since I agree wtih 90 % of McLaren's new book, "Everything Must Change", this new book of Bishop Wright addresses that apparent fundamental error of McLaren's book. The fact that our resurrection bodies will be physical bodies, albeit transformed in to immortal and glorious ones and the fact that Heaven will be "merged" and united with the New Earth which God in a new act of creation (which is deplicited in Revelation 21 as the Holy City, the New Jerusalme descending on to the New Earth,)that will trsnsform this present earth in to a glorious and eternal one, gives us the reason, motivation and incentive to do our part to work towards acheiving social justice and preservation of the environment in this present world. Wright's specical contribution is to make thsi link clear and explicit.
Posted by: Anonymous on April 6, 2008
Really appreciated this interview. I haven't read 'Suprised by Hope' yet, but from the interviews I've heard and the essays I've read on his Tom Wright's perspective, I imagine it will be very helpful.
Also, to address a previous post, McLaren may draw from Wright on specific things (but certainly, Wright is not drawing from McLaren). I'm speaking as a guy who has a lot of respect for both men, but I would encourage you to be careful how close together you place Tom Wright and Emergent Village (and I think he would prefer the same).
Posted by: Eric on April 19, 2008