It’s important to look at why Wright thinks we should be developing virtue, and if I’ve understood him rightly it is because of the following. Wright believes there is a tight tie-up between what we become now and what we will be fit for in the coming Kingdom. And that because he thinks Christians will be rewarded for what they do now but that the reward will not be some kind of prize but will be exactly that we get what we have fitted ourselves for. Only he doesn’t then have a good think what that might imply, especially as he thinks what we will encounter in the Kingdom will be quite like what we know of now of life on earth. I’ve already raised the question of those who die in infancy. Further, if there will be administrators in the Kingdom, will those who get those posts have to have developed administrative skills now, or is say developing the virtue of humility supposed to fit one? Will those who will play the piano have to put in a lot of practice now, or will developing some other virtue fit one for playing the piano? In order to talk to those of different nationalities in the Kingdom we will have to learn the languages now, because note that ‘tongues will cease’ – and of course I’m joking here! But, I hope people can use their imaginations to see that Wright suggests much, but his way of coming at things really doesn’t deliver. I of course think we should be developing virtue, and developing ourselves all sorts of ways, but not for the reasons Wright suggests, nor with the object Wright suggests.

On the other hand, if I am careful to NOT develop administrative gifts here, will that excuse me from those responsibilities there?

David brings up important issues. I find it hard to imagine the kingdom of heaven on earth and what we will be “doing” there. And I wonder about infants who died too. (And your comment is cute, Peter! I don’t want to administer things either.)

Interesting that you compare to Willard. They are both very satisfying to read, intuitive metaphysics! Does anyone know if they know each other or if one has significantly influenced the other?

David and Joanie (#1 and 3),
Introducing “what about infants” is a red herring. Wright is dealing with those, like you, who have the moral capacity and intelligence to know what he’s writing about. Do you *know* for certain anything about infants’ roles in heaven? I think not. So, why critique Wright on a side point and miss the big ideas? Wright is helping us “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” and offering wisdom on how to “lay hold of the eternal life to which we’ve been called.” You misunderstand Wright by thinking his view of “heaven” is simply now extended. You forget one little New Testament word of Jesus…”I am making all things NEW…”

David,
I don’t think Wright is only concerned with developing virtue because of what we will be fit to do in the age to come. I think it’s also, very significantly, about God getting what he lovingly, jealously even, longs for on earth now, like what he already gets in heaven. God is jealous to lead and guide and help with what happens right now among us, and for good reason. Leading a life of virtue is about God’s present desires for us and this world that he loves, which simply cannot be/are not fulfilled to the extent that people continue to live out vice and forego virtue (and thereby injure themselves and others). It’s about cooperating with God and love now as opposed to working against them; tearing down his creation or building up. Nothing that we do now with/for Christ is in vain–it will last, because people will last. Virtue on the earth is part of the rescue God has in mind. It’s about graciously receiving this important part of God’s will and rescue.

Excellent point, David. I think you’ve hit it very well.

Nitika,
I recently noticed that Dallas Willard refers to N.T. Wright in his latest book “Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge”. He references Surprised by Hope in one of the later chapters when speaking about the importance of the resurrection. Beyond that, i don’t know of any other influence or interaction between the two.

Thank you, John Frye and T. Wright is very clear that all the details of the restored, renewed material world finally in its intended full union with the immaterial world cannot yet be known. There will be discontinuity and continuity, but it will all be beyond what we could ask or think. It will be Jesus returning and putting everything totally right.
Nitika@4, I had the opportunity to ask Wright if he had read “Divine Conspiracy”, and he said he had. I don’t think it could be properly said that Willard “influenced” Wright’s thinking on this matter, but rather that “great minds think alike”
It seems to me that Virtue is a way to describe what “hitting the mark” -instead of “missing the mark”- of being Human looks like.
Dana

The Spiritual Disciplines you could say are an effort in grace growing. Very well put. Grace is God acting in our life to accomplish what we cannot do on our own. Left on our own we are not going to engage in a routine fashion in the spiritual practices of Jesus. The more we engage the Trinitarian presence through the spiritual practices the more we grow in grace. The more we grow in grace the more we find ourselves in the PRESENCE.
georgea

This anxiety about the synergistic aspect of salvation among Protestants is unbiblical and betrays bad theology. For example, Rom. 8:12-13 makes clear it is our effort by the Holy Spirit, which leads to actualization of salvation in the final eschatological verdict. Grace (the power of the Holy Spirit) has to be actualized by our efforts, even if we agree that “grace” is prevenient. The separation of grace it’s proper place in human existence shows a deficient theological anthropology. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation?but it is not to the sinful nature [sarx], to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature [sarx], you will die; but if by the Spirit YOU put to death the misdeeds of the body, YOU will live… (emphasis mine)