A Brief Review of N. T. Wright's "The Last Word"

I've recently finished reading through a magnificent little treatise (short book) by N. T. Wright entitled The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God--Getting Beyond the Bible Wars.  If you're not familiar with Wright, he is an extremely accomplished New Testament scholar (taught at Oxford, Cambridge, and McGill) and a prolific author--in fact, I'm not sure how he has time to write all the books he has because he's also a bishop in the Anglican Church.  Read more about him HERE at his (unofficial) website.

In The Last Word Wright attempts to answer a fundamental question: How can we, in any meaningful way, speak of the Bible, which is mostly a collection of narrative and poetry, as "authoritative"?  Before I continue, let me make clear that Wright does not say we cannot speak of the Bible as "authoritative"; he simply asks "how?" this can be.  In his introduction, Wright asks “the question of how we can speak of the Bible being in some sense ‘authoritative’ when the Bible itself declares that all authority belongs to the one true God?” (xi)  The central thesis of the work is put forth on page 23: “the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can make Christian sense only if it is a shorthand for ‘the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through scripture.’”   To live under the authority of Scripture, then, ultimately means to live under the authority of God as exercised, in some way, through Scripture.  In order to accomplish this, Wright proposes that our reading of scripture must be “(a) totally contextual, (b) liturgically grounded, (c) privately studied, (d) refreshed by appropriate scholarship, and (e) taught by the church’s accredited leaders.” (127f.)  

I especially appreciate Wright’s emphasis that corporate reading of scripture within the church must take precedence over individual readings if we are to resist fragmentation and truly be the church through which God’s Kingdom is breaking into the world. (133–34)   He proposes a model for the Church's relationship to Scripture (one which he has reprinted in numerous publications) called the "5 Act" model.  In it, Wright proposes that we understand the Bible as the first four acts of a five-act play.  Obviously the fifth act of a five-act play cannot be completely different from the previous four--it must be a continuous story; but, on the other hand, we cannot rigidly repeat the previous acts and expect to bring the story into any sort of completion.  Therefore, our acting out of the "fifth act" (during the life of the earthly church) must be continuous with the narrative already contained in Scripture, but it must also, in some meaningful way, be innovative insofar as we are moving forward in the story of God's redemptive work in the world, not backward.

As a whole, Wright’s central thesis—that the scriptures are “authoritative” only insofar as they are understood within the whole work of God’s Kingdom on earth—is a much needed counterweight to both the fundamentalism and liberalism that characterizes North American biblical studies and exegesis. If you are interested in a short work on biblical authority that is both scholarly and very accessible (Wright is the master at this combination), and which goes beyond the simple bickering between conservatives and liberals about "the authority of the Bible," then you would be well-served to pick up this book (which you can find for about $6 on Amazon.com right now).


I'd love to hear from you on the blog if you've read the work, would like to read it, or have comments on Wright's work in general, or the issue of biblical authority . . . or really about anything.  :-)

Speaking Out: Israel, the Goldstone Report, East Jerusalem Settlements, and Misguided Theology

As many of those who read this blog are probably aware, I spent a semester in the Middle East during my junior year as an undergraduate at Olivet.  My main intention going into this trip was to study the theology and religion of Middle Eastern cultures, especially Islamic religion.  However, the majority of the semester ended up being geared toward the politics of the region.  As an obvious result, studying the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was a major emphasis during my time in the Middle East (entailing a fourth of the coursework, which included two weeks spent in and about Israel and the Occupied Territories).  While I was very alert to the political activity in the region while I studied there, the truth of the matter is that, having returned to the States, I have not kept up nearly as much with political developments in the region as I would have liked to (which is not a bad thing, since you could easily lose yourself in attempting to keep up with all the developments).  Every once in a while, though, something happens which triggers a response from me about which I simply cannot keep quiet.

Last winter the Israeli invasion of Gaza (December 27, 2008 -- Jan. 18, 2009) prompted such a response from me (see summary article HERE, 1 year after the fact): I wrote several emails that many of you may have received (this was before my blogging days).  My concern was for the civilians living in Gaza.  With nearly 11,000 people living in each one of the 139 square miles of Gaza (packed in like sardines, to say the least), living conditions that are sub-par to even some refugee camps throughout the world (80%+ live in abject poverty, according to World Vision), and with no open borders through which to flee (because Israel controls the borders and rarely every lets anyone in or out), the civilians of Gaza literally had nowhere to run when a full-scale assault by Israel's military--including tanks, helicopter fighters, rockets and foot soldiers--was conducted.  The reports coming out of that region during the 3 week incursion were devastating to me.  Israel intentionally targeted several different UN food warehouses.  A Red Cross van was fired on by an Israeli tank after having just received permission to travel into Gaza to provide humanitarian aid--one of the Red Cross volunteers was killed.  White phosphorous mortars (an illegal weapon, akin to "mustard gas") were fired into civilian areas.
While all the rockets ever fired by Hamas (over a span of about 6 years) into Israel's southern region had, in total, killed approximately 10-15 Israelis (which is evil and is terrorism, let me be clear), Israel's armed forces killed 252 children during that incursion (according to B'Tselem, a prominent Israeli humanitarian watch group).  And that was just the children.  Total civilian casualties in the three weeks were well over 1,000.  In 3 weeks.  The fact is that Israel killed far more civilians than they did Hamas militants during those three weeks.  During the same period of fighting, nine (yes, the single digit "9) Israelis were killed by Palestinian fire, three of them were civilians. While pro-Israel supporters have always claimed that these kinds of civilians casualty numbers are the result of Hamas militants using civilians as "human shields," the fact of the matter is that we're talking about 1.5 million people crammed into a piece of land the size of a postage stamp--people who had nowhere to run to because the Israeli government controls access in and out of the territory.  The vast majority were not being used as "human shields"--there is just simply and absolutely nowhere to go.  In fact, there are documented reports (see the "Goldstone Report" below) of Israeli soldiers using Palestinian civilians as human shields.

I shared these statistics with friends and family members last winter--1,000+ Palestinian civilians, including 252 children killed, in three weeks' time over against 10-15 Israeli civilians over the span of 6 years--and asked them to consider if they truly thought what Israel had done could in any way be called "self defense."  I received very few empathetic responses, and I will offer my opinion as to why I believe that was the case in just a moment.  In short, I believe this is due to a misguided theology that is popular in the U.S. today.

I would like, however, first to draw attention to two other recent developments coming out of the region which I also simply cannot ignore.  The first is the recent "Goldstone Report" (see 2-minute video summary by Goldstone himself HERE)--a report recently published by a UN Commission, and headed by former South African judge, Richard Goldstone.  The report (see full-text HERE) was an attempt to compile all relevant data pertaining to war crimes and crimes against humanity that may have been perpetrated by both sides during last winter's Gaza incursion, described above.  It specifically reports on 36 particular instances of crimes perpetrated during the war.  Very telling is the fact that, while Goldstone and his colleagues attempted several times to seek Israel's aid in producing the report, the Government of Israel never let these UN officials into Israel, and also prevented them from traveling to the West Bank to talk with Palestinian leaders and victims, whom they were forced to meet with in Amman, Jordan. In total, the report condemned both sides for committing various war crimes and crimes against humanity; however, the Government of Israel blatantly denies that any such crimes were committed by its military.  Evidently the 252 children, a Red Cross worker, and UN employees killed and the various hospitals, food pantries, and humanitarian aid stations leveled were all necessary casualties in Israel's eyes.  I suppose that if my reader cannot at this point come to the obvious conclusion that, at the very least, Israel has gotten away with extremely reckless military behavior and denied any culpability for massive civilian casualties--if my reader cannot come to that conclusion him/herself, I assume that there is very little more than I can do to persuade him/her.  I am compelled to speak out on this, however, as my heart still does hang heavy at times for the peoples I met, spoke with, and lived under the protection of during my stay in the Middle East.

A second issue I feel the need to bring to my readers' attention concerns the recent breakdown in the peace talks in Jerusalem, which were thwarted by a recent announcement of Israeli settlement construction in East Jerusalem.  A summary of the situation runs like this: Vice President Joe Biden recently visited Israel in an attempt to restart the peace-talk process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (the PA, the dominant government in the West Bank).  The hope of the US is, as it has been for decades now, that a two-state solution might be reached.  That an independent Palestinian state could be formed alongside Israel.  It is a decent solution, but one which is increasingly infeasible.  Why is it infeasible?  Many factors persist.  One primary factor is the building of Israeli "settlements" in the West Bank.  To date, tens of thousands of homes have been built by the Israeli government in the West Bank--an act considered illegal since 1967 under international law [UNSC Resolution 242, unanimously passed].  So here's the rub: the U.S. and other international players keep trying to reach a two-state solution, while one state (Israel) continues to infiltrate the territory of the other would-be state (Palestine).  Even if a two-state solution was reached today, there arguably would be no second "state" to give the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have been forcibly removed from their homes and land for the past 60+ years.  In any case, VP Joe Biden was recently in Israel trying to jump start these talks once again.  Israel said we're in.  The Palestinians said we're in.  And even as Biden was still on the ground holding talks, Israel announced that some 1,600 more homes were scheduled to be built in East Jerusalem, which is one of the most hotly disputed territories in these talks.  In short, at the same time that Israel said, "Yes, we're willing to negotiate a peace treaty that includes giving these lands to the Palestinian Authority," they also announced that they were getting ready to build 1,600 houses on those same lands!  Obviously, VP Joe Biden was a bit perturbed, and chastised Israel, saying, "The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I've had here in Israel." (see quote in BBC article HERE)  If it is not obvious that Israel is being utterly duplicitous here, once again, I'm not sure what other evidence would hit my reader in the face more squarely than this.  The truth of the matter is that Israel has no intentions whatsoever of ever signing a peace treaty with the Palestinians that would require the relinquishment of any of these lands (lands that were home to many Palestinians prior to the creation of the state of "Israel").  They have stalled for 40+ years now, and they continue to intend to stall until there is literally no "second state" left to give over, even if they did sign a treaty.  They are de facto putting an end to the possibility of a settlement even as they enter talks aimed at a future settlement.

And now, let me come to the point of why I believe this is important for American Christians today, who may be reading this blog wondering why I highlight this particular conflict for special treatment.  While these kinds of atrocities, war crimes, genocidal tendencies, duplicity, and oppression are quite common in our world today--the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not being nearly the most deadly conflict currently raging in our world--this is the only conflict that is being fueled to an enormous degree by a specific theological position of American Evangelical Christians.  There are many American Evangelical leaders, pastors, authors, politicians, and other Christian laypersons who have been preaching a message for the past 40-50 years (and in some cases longer) that goes something like this: "The modern nation-state of Israel, created in 1948, is the direct inheritor of the promises made to Abraham and ancient Israel of the Old Testament, and since these promises include the right to this particular strip of land in Palestine, we Christians must 'stand with Zion' (which means uncritically supporting the government and military of Israel, no matter what)."  The conclusion of many Americans who donate money to Israel, lobby in Congress for Israel, and produce massive quantities of pro-Israeli propaganda is that, even as we watch the Israeli military kill 252 children in 3 weeks, this is OK because Israel is God's chosen people and everything they do deserves to be supported by Christians.

The Scriptural and theological rebuttal to this stance is lengthy and sound, and you can see my blog "Dispensationalism Fails the Bible Test Again" for a brief introduction to it.  In a nutshell, this reading violates the New Testament witness and makes us, quite obviously, advocates of violence, hatred, racism, and deceit--none of which have a place within the Kingdom of God as Christ inaugurated it.  While I do not have time to dive into all the details, let me simply note the primary reason that I continue to bring up these kinds of issues: This is a conflict that, as a result of my studies in the Middle East, I have realized is, to an alarming degree, fueled by American Evangelical Christians, some of whom are in my own family.  If you knew how many lives--including many Christian lives!--have been lost, how many homes have been demolished, how many millions of people have been hurtfully affected by Israeli activities like those described above, and if you realized that these activities are literally being sponsored--financially and ideologically--by a relatively small band of misguided Evangelical Christians in America, it would bring you to tears, as it has done so for me.  Thousands of people have died.  Millions have lost homes.  An entire nation of people has been scattered and oppressed. . . and there are some in America supporting all of this who call themselves followers of the Christ, who himself was born, grew up, and ministered in the West Bank!

Please, please. . . take the time to educate yourself on what is at stake in uncritical support for the nation of Israel (as groups like John Hagee's CUFI promote and finance).  Look at the glaring incongruities here between the activities described above and the Kingdom of God described by Christ in the Scriptures.  How can we continue to support this, while also calling ourselves followers of the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and Prince of Peace?  There are not two extremes--either uncritical support for Israel or anti-Semitism; don't believe that lie.  The middle path--the narrow path--is one that recognizes that the Way of the Kingdom of God transcends all the "ways" of any nation, including the one called "Israel," and that Christians must not mistake good and evil, even when the evil is perpetrated by allies or friends.

With a heavy heart, fighting off the despair that this blog may not change anyone's heart or mind and may only instigate more conflict, I rest my case (for the time being).

Sharing the Gospel/Feeding the Homeless: A Response to Nick's Blog

This post is an extended response to a question recently posed on my good friend Nick's blog.  His post entitled "Social Justice (vs?) the Gospel" raised a question concerning the relationship between meeting people's physical needs and the proclamation of the gospel.  I think this is a very worthy discussion, and would offer my meager insight on the issue.

First, let me ask this question, What does it mean to "proclaim the gospel"?  What, in fact, is "the gospel"?  I think this is one of those ideas that we speak about often, but rarely ask ourselves what we mean by it.  Are we talking about a simple doctrinal formula--maybe the Apostles' Creed, maybe 1 Cor. 15:3-8--that we recite, possibly along with some sort of explanation, and then ask people to agree to?

It is interesting to note the etymology (word origins) of the word "gospel."  The word used in the New Testament is euongelion.  It is used exclusively in the NT in the singular, but was a word widely used in the Greco-Roman world in the plural: euangelia.  In Greco-Roman culture euangelia usually denoted the "glad tidings" of some sort of recent military victory.  A herald would come into a city or village and declare the "glad tidings" of the Emperor's conquest of some distant land.  When the New Testament adopted this particular word to describe its own proclamation, and used the singular form of the word, a distinct political message was sent: As opposed to all the other "good newses" out there, this is the one "good news"!

And what was the content of this "good news"?  We could argue that when Jesus was on earth, the content of the good news was "Repent, for the kingdom of God/heaven is near!" (Mt. 3:2; 4:17; Mk. 1:15)  This is the summary of the "good news" that Jesus preached, according to the Gospels.  The good news of the Church post-Easter, however, is quite different. [After reading this sentence, I have realized that it would have been better for me to say, "The good news of the Church post-Easter, however, is something quite more (not something different).]  Whereas the kingdom of God was the content of the "good news" Jesus preached, after his ascension and Pentecost the content widens to include Jesus himself.  The Proclaimer becomes the proclamation.  Not only is the good news that the kingdom of God has entered victoriously into "this present evil age," but there are certain things about this man named Jesus that everyone needs to know and believe.

Thus, we need to realize that when we proclaim "the gospel," we are proclaiming both that Jesus is who we believe him to be (Son of God, who died, rose, was seen, and ascended into heaven) and that the kingdom of God has broken into our midst in a decisive way.  To be sure, from Acts on the New Testament focuses more on the former than the latter, but they are never completely disjointed.

Now here's the rub for the present discussion: The "good news" that is proclaimed by Jesus and by His followers is always accompanied by what we might call "mercy ministries" or "compassionate ministries."  Ask yourselves, How many compassionate miracles did Jesus perform for the people that sought him even as he taught them about the kingdom of God and called them to repentance?  Then think of the Book of Acts: How many miracles and compassionate deeds did the Early Church perform even as it proclaimed that Jesus is Christ and Lord, and that his kingdom had broken into this world?  Even one of Paul's main ventures during his ministry of "the gospel" was collecting money from churches he planted in order to help the impoverished church in Jerusalem (see Acts 11:27-30, 1 Cor. 16, & 2 Cor. 9).  It seems clear from the NT witness that "the gospel" can be understood as something which can be communicated verbally through "proclamation" (although the word here in Greek is not "preaching" or "proclamation" but rather a verb form of the noun euangelion: literally, most texts that speak of "preaching/proclaiming the gospel" say "gospeling the gospel.").  It also seems clear, however, that the ministry of the gospel--the proclamation of the "good news"--is always accompanied by acts of charity (meaning godly love, not just giving money to a poor person)--often demonstrated in quite miraculous ways!

If we follow the example of Christ and his apostles we will be hard pressed to see a need to continue the debate that asks, "What's more important--sharing the gospel or meeting people's needs?"  The question is a moot point in a Church living under the example of the NT.  The gospel demands that we call people to a decision because it's content includes certain affirmations about who Christ is and what God is doing in the world.  It also, however, necessarily includes acts of charity because the gospel includes the message that God's kingdom has broken into the world in a decisive way.  Because the kingdom of God has broken into this world, because Christ became Incarnate in this world, the gospel affirms every action we take--miraculous or mundane--to meet the needs of people who are still living in this world.

To share "the gospel" in its entirety demands that we call people to a decision about Christ and that we extend the influence of his kingdom into their lives in whatever way we can.