Hey Professor McKnight,
I had to email you because I just got done reading The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative
! I feel like the lamest college student -- it's Friday night! I just
had to let you know how amazingly influential this book has been. It was
a hard book to read no doubt, it got really lengthy at times, but the
last few chapters just tied it all together. It all made perfect sense.
I was so frustrated with this book so many nights, struggling to stay
awake, but I can't believe how much incredible information it contains.
I loved it, end of story. I feel privileged because here before me I have the most meaningful piece of material in my life: the Bible, yet to be read. I am so glad that the first time I read the Bible in full it will be with all the tools provided by Wright and your class. I am so excited to read the Bible and to discover even more clearly all the points Wright elaborated on, and ultimately be in complete awe of God's word. I finally feel "prepared" to read the Bible, if that's even possible. I never have read the Bible simply because I never knew where to start, but now I feel as if I can work my way through it. I can read it and finally begin to understand the unfathomable importance behind the stories. I know reading the Bible is a never ending journey that can never be fully understood, but I am finally ready and excited to start this long overdue journey. This book has truly been the most influential book I have ever read.
So I guess in conclusion I emailed you to say thank you for assigning this book, though I never thought I'd say that. This book has been a complete privilege to read. It was all completely worth it in the end.
"So ... like... thank you." :D
Sincerely,
[Name]
P.S. I hope you have the greatest weekend of your life.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
John, I answered your question with a lengthy response, but for some reason it just reposted my earlier comment. Weird. I need to do some work, so I don't have time to type it again, but hopefully later on tonight or tomorrow. Sorry.
Luke, your explanation of why you thought Wright not Calvinistic deserves specific comment. I can see how Wright’s work might look non-Calvinistic because he does not speak of the election of individuals to salvation. His focus is, as you note, on God’s election of a missionary people. Given Wright’s particular focus, there was no need to speak of the salvation or otherwise of individual Israelites, of the faithful remnant preserved by God’s efficacious grace. It is important to observe, however, that nothing Wright says about God’s corporate election conflicts with the unconditional election of individuals to salvation which was the matter in dispute in the Arminian controversy. Wisely, Wright has not addressed matters not central to his focus and so he has been able to offer a biblical framework in regard to God’s mission which both Arminians and Calvinists can affirm. Right?
Terry,
Wright does not even allude to their being 2 different meanings in election. His view that it is the election of a person unto service is seemingly what he believes the Bible teaches about the concept of election. If what the Bible says about election is corporate and missional, then how in the world can anyone see it as individualistic. I agree that his thoughts don't necessarily conflict per se, but they just seem like they would be difficult for a committed Calvinist to follow, that's all. I never thought of him as an Arminian. My experience is that even if a scholar vehemently denies Calvinism, he/she will not say they are Arminian just b/c of the baggage of labels.
I agree with your last statement, it just seems like for a Calvinist to admit that the Bible's grand narrative and consistent theme is God's mission creates a great amount of tension (not necessarily contradictory) in the Calvinistic system who emphasizes God's sovereignty to an extreme degree. Maybe it's b/c I'm not a Calvinist, but I just see this hermeneutic and way of viewing God/the Bible as being extremely tough for a Calvinist to swallow since God has had it all mapped out and pre-ordained from before time began anyways.
If Wright is a Calvinist as you say, then I am surprised and I commend him for writing such a work. I must admit, I would not have guessed that a Calvinist could produce a work like this and it leaves me optimistic. Maybe it's the brand of Calvinism that I've always interacted with, but the last idea I have ever gotten is mission from the Calvinists in my life. It's usually "sovereignty, glory, sovereignty, glory, supremacy, joy, sovereignty, glory, God, God, God, sovereignty, glory, God-centered, glory, sovereignty," while none of these words communicates anything about mission to me since mission has to do with becoming something you're not for the sake of others as opposed to being all into yourself. Would you not agree that there is a profound difference between Piper's mission book and Wright's? I don't even think you can compare the two. Piper is obviously Calvinistic in his view of mission/election, but Wright just doesn't come across that way at all. I know hyper-Calvinism is claimed as an immature way of viewing true Calvinism, but the fundamental tenets of Calvinism just seem to easily foster the hyper-Calvinist way of thinking, which a natural result of this would be anti-mission. Suffice it to say, I would have never in a thousand years imagined that Wright would be a Calvinist after the way he views election. Election viewed as individualistic and out of God's sovereignty is fundamental to Calvinism, and in Wright I see a completely revamped and "reformed" (no irony) definition of election that just doesn't seem to fit well into the system. More power to him if he is truly a Calvinist, he has fooled a lot of people.
I certainly won't stop reading Wright if he is indeed a Calvinist (that would be foolish!). And I do, in fact, pray that his ilk may increase in the reformed world. If Calvinists are jumping on the bandwagon of missional theology, then lets do ministry together! I can do ministry all day with a guy like Wright, but I coudln't say the same thing about 80% of the other Calvinists I have encountered. Thanks for commenting.
I would agree with Scot and Luke, Wright's view of Election seems extremely difficult to reconcile with Calvinism. My two good calvinist friends won't even consider it as valid, in fact they regard the idea as being elected to mission as a nonsense-acle reading of Isreal's election, since only so much of Israel was actually to be saved (elected), and that was the remnant. However, i will echo Luke, if Wright IS Calvinist, I will probably jump for joy at such an amazing missional work put forth by a Calvinist. Maybe then my calvinist friends will read it and get on board. Terry, I'd also be interested in how you reconcile Wright's view of corporate, missional election, with Individual election to salvation. How can it be that a corporate body, comprised of both the regenerate and retrobate, constitute a whole missionally elected body? I find that incredibly hard to reconcile with Calvinist Theology.
Also, as far as an Arminian looking for a "reformed response," I think John Wesley would be one. I personally am Wesleyan and though modern wesleyanism and classical arminianism tend to be slightly at odds with traditional Wesleyan soteriology, Wright seems to run the Wesleyan middle road in "Salvation and the Sovereignty of God." For one, I have never met a Calvinist who would support his view of the fate of the un-evangelized (though I must admit that it is more faithful to Calvinist Sovereignty). Wesley was extremely centered on the Sovereignty of God and the Total Depravity of man. After reading "Mission of God" and "Salvation belongs to our God," Wright has seemed like a traditional Wesleyan-Arminian to me, but that might just be my misreading him.
Again, if he is indeed calvinist i am most impressed with his focus on mission, the narrative grand picture of scripture, and lastly his ability to leave reformed theology at the door in order to properly treat scripture and certain topics in a way that engages Arminians. Either way, mucho Kudos Christopher Wright!
i meant to say "typical arminainism" not "traditional"
my bad
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.