I agree that we have tried to use human ideas to mold both “heaven” and “mission” into things which are radically different than the way the Bible shows them, and that getting back to those biblically based ideas will lead to a great change in people’s devotion and worship.

I do have one initial concern with the "new heavens and new earth" destiny though, that being the fact that some teachers lose sight of what it is that institutes the new heavenly city in the first place. There is an idea that we can bring "heaven to earth" by doing good things; that the talk of heaven and hell in the Bible is more about attitudes and what we cause upon this earth through our lives. I don't think this is either true or helpful. There certainly needs to be a "grappl[ing] more directly with the connection of what God calls us to do now as continuous with what we shall be called to do for eternity," but we must not miss that it is through Christ’s return as conquerer in Revelation 19 that we are led into the bringing of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21.

Of course, those same teachers will argue from a preterist view of Revelation, but I still don't think this can support their claim. Hebrews 11.16 says that there is a city prepared for us by God and 13.14 says that we seek it and it is to come. Nowhere does it say that we build it or that we draw it to earth. Just that it is to come. Like Christ. And until that time we are "sojourners and exiles" with a "citizenship . . . in heaven" from where "we await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2.11, Philippians 3.20). If we get a right view of heaven but lose Christ as the ultimate conquering King then I think we have actually moved backwards some.

Kudos to McKnight for a thought provoking post.

Okay, first off, I can get on board with NT Wrights thinking, namely because I've come to the same conclusion with my studies, but Todd also has a valid point
"Nowhere does it say that we build it or that we draw it to earth."
I think that when we look theologically "forward" it behooves us to be cautious about our visions of the church's direction, and keep them biblically grounded lest we get to full of ourselves.

Tom Wright is someone I admire so much, I have to remind myself he's human like the rest of us. And what he says makes so much sense. Here's my interpretation:

God cares about what we do today. Our daily lives matters to God and to the kingdom of God--not in some abstract way that makes a distant God smile in some distant future when we'll receive distant crowns in a distant heaven. No.

What we do matters now. Our actions please God now (or don't). Our actions glorify God now (or don't). In some sense, we participate in building the kingdom now.

And that's what mission is about, right?

Also, I have to brag. I once drove Tom Wright and his wife to the airport after a retreat at Laity Lodge. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven.

But of course, heaven and mission and earth and life were just all connected in my car for an hour or so while we talked about Harry Potter, the wizard, and Jesus, the tekton.

Todd wrote "There is an idea that we can bring "heaven to earth" by doing good things.."

While I agree that good works will not save us we also pray "Let thy kingdom come let thy will be done ON earth as it is IN Heaven". That strongly suggests to me that while we are not the authors of the new heaven and earth that is to come, we are nonetheless to work for those principles that will be part of that new creation while here in this present one. Justice, peace, love for one's neighbor, serving the least of these, etc etc. When thinking about the preoccupation that many have with the hereafter I remember the old saying "you can be so heavenly minded as to be of no earthly use".

I've definitely become an N.T. Wright fanboy lately.

So, I actually have a somewhat different set of inquiries, distinct from much of the theological musings that can happen from discussions like these.

I read Mission of God, blogged about it, and believe, like McKnight, that the "Wright brothers" are exegeting well the proper theologies and ideas that the grand narrative of the Bible is attempting to convey. I'm really on board.

However, what are the practical implications of this theology in our ministry practices in churches and ministries across the world?

I, much like the vast majority of us, "believed Christ as my personal Lord and Savior" and was baptized in that kind of a "personal faith comittment" confession. Do we return to a more "Biblical" practice, confessing instead, "I repent of my selfish and individualistic behaviors as a believer to now conforming my life to God's Mission in the world"? Do we begin to move away from "topical" teachings that deal with very personal and individualistic problems (such as addictions, heartache, personal spiritual disciplines, etc.) and drive home more the Mission of God? How do we deal with the abstract nature of this kind of theology in a concrete and practical kind of a world? And, do we do damage to Christianity (and God's Mission) when we try to give people "easy" and "practical" steps towards living a better life in accordance to "Christian principles," as opposed to being an "agent" of God's Mission in the world?

While theology may be heading towards grasping a stronger "mission/earth" paradigm, I question (with hope and anticipation) whether or not ecclesial and para-ecclesial ministries will be captivated by this kind of thinking. And, would we be willing to transform our teachings and our ministry practices so that we raise a different kind of a generation of "believers" or "Christians" ... perhaps, that they would actually be "disciples?"

I once drove Tom Wright and his wife to the airport ... I thought I'd died and gone to heaven.

let's see ... we've talked about celebrity pastors. now we've got celebrity theologians.

what's next? celebrity ... messiahs? perhaps mccain's obama-is-the-antichrist ad is more timely than i thought...

but anyway, here's an admission from me that i'm not sure i've ever revealed to the Urbanites before:

i was a huge david cassidy fan growing up.

wait - that's not what i wanted to say... here's the real revelation:

i don't believe there will be a second coming.

here's why i'm admitting that: i think a lot of our present-day theologians harbor some views like this, too, and they just aren't admitting it. they are caught on the razor's edge between what they believe and the knowledge that the bible really doesn't support them. and they have to work within the confines of a 'biblical view' and shade (twist?) meanings to remain 'faithful' to the faith while at the same time trying to get across a more progressive (rational?) view of who Jesus was and what His life, death and resurrection (yes, i believe in that, though i probably differ from you in what i think it means) meant.

so there. next time, cross yourselves when you see my signature...

m.r. - fairburn, ga, usa

Heather, I don't disagree with you on the idea of working for "justice, peace, love for one's neighbor, serving the least of these, etc." while in this present age. I believe that is right on and is something we need to be actively engaged in.

The idea that I take issue with, which is not something you said but what other popular teachers promote, is that doing these works is how we bring about the new earth. That the new heaven and new earth are somehow a result of our good deeds and not a result of Christ return as conquerer, finally destroying over the powers of sin and death. That is what I mean to caution against.

what I appreciate most about these guys (and Scot McKnight too) is that they call us back to the text and the CONtext as well. they call us, such as in Philippians, to an understanding of citizenship that is more imperial than our American understanding.

grace and peace

Todd said: " There is an idea that we can bring "heaven to earth" by doing good things."

I'm not clear if you think he is, Todd, but I think its worth noting that this is emphatically NOT what Wright says in "Surprised by Hope." Wright argues, like Heather noted above, that what we do now matters in the future because as Christians we help to manifest, in a partial way, the Kingdom of God that will be manifested completely when Jesus returns. Nothing we do "makes" Jesus come back or the Kingdom manifest in an ultimate way - but every time we work for justice or share the gospel message, we are spreading the Kingdom.

While I acknowledge that the perspective you're referring to does exist, it seems to me that people advocating Christian involvement in social justice are often unfairly accused of believing it, when typically it is not the case. It certainly isn't when it comes to Wright.

There are two aspects of N.T. Wright's thinking/writing/interpreting that I find so compelling.

1.) I find his interpretations to be very much in line with biblical teaching when taken in its proper, original context.

2.) I find the implications of those theoligical positions to be extremely exciting, liberating, and challenging. It is the kind of teaching one would expect from the God of the Cosmos.

I hope McKnight is right. It seems like there are plenty of others who think the future is the Jonathan brothers (Piper and Edwards) and the words "penal" + "substitution."

toddh, I think it's a scary future if it doesn't carry the words "penal" and substitution." Now, I know Wright and many other British theologians have just decided to abandon penal substitutionary atonement, but they do so to their own peril. I'm not going to argue for it here myself, but I suggest readng The Cross of Christ by John Stott and The Future of Justification by John Piper (which is actually a response to Wright's teachings) to see why we can't deny PSA.

Jake, I am aware that that is not what Wright believes about the second coming. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier. The main teacher I am thinking of with this comment is Rob Bell.

toddh - amen. even the humble magazine that is the umbrella of this site opined during the past year or so about the rise of calvinism.

i doubt 'penal substitution' will go quietly into any good night.

of course, the reason it won't is because all those guys just like saying 'penal'...

m.r.

Todd,

That's quite a reductionist view of both Jonathons (Piper and Edwards) as well as the young, restless reformed people who read their stuff. The other day I blogged about Piper's view of piety (coming from his Desiring God blogsite), which he claims should produce a passion for social justice and practical mercy. So I guess there is much more to the Jonathons and some of their readers than the substitutional-atonement box than you have created for them.

By the way, C.H. Wright's book "Mission of God" is the simply the best mission theology book that I've read, hands down. In my opinion, it supersedes such celebrated books on mission theology such as John Piper's "Let the Nations be Glad," David Bosch's "Transforming Mission," Lesslie Newbigin's "The Open Secret."

Here's a plug for a great book on Gregory of Nyssa - Passion and Paradise by J. Warren Smith. If you want to be "robustly trinitarian," the Fathers are a good place to start!

The Trinity: Global Perspectives by Veli-Matti Karkkainen is also a great introduction to contemporary theologians on the Trinity.

Joel,
That wasn't at me, right? Cause I completely agree with you on the views of the 1, 2, and 3 John (Piper, MacArthur, and Edwards) and the rest of the new Reformed crowd. (Dang extra Todd's confusing things up in here . . . )

I heard Piper's sermon which corresponded with that blogpost you mentioned and I remember thinking to myself that he spoke to exactly what Emergent wants, but backed it up with a theology that they reject, showing that the real difference between emergent and non isn't in the goal, it's in the justification (double-word play intended).

What about the word "kingdom" even if it coincides with Tom's "earth"?

The Catholic Church has been talking about the Christian message in terms of 'earth' and 'mission' for 2000 years now. In fact, the Church has always believed and proclaimed that the gospel is not just about the individual believer and his salvation, but about the reshaping of society as a whole, as Christians proclaim the salvific message of Jesus, (which does not simply include justification, but renewal and restoration through Christ's resurrection and new creation). This has always been the gospel: to renew man to his original image- the image of God - in Christ, the Second Adam. It is therefore very comforting to see the work of the "Wright" brothers as they reemphasize this message with the evangelical world. During my evangelical days I so much longed for this message - but now, my heart is filled with so much joy - all of creation groans for the Son of Man- and through Him, God has reconciled the whole world back to Himself. Christ has truly reversed the fall of man! This will not happen just when Christ comes back again. Instead, it began at His Resurrection!

I think one of the exciting things about N.T. Wright's work, personally, is that his work and arguments have implications that, when taken to their full conclusion, challenge even some of his own self-identified beliefs. For example, if taken to their conclusion, his writings in "Jesus and the Victory of God" and "Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire" lead to an assertion of Christian nonviolence, but N.T. Wright declares himself to be a "just war" Christian. To me the fact that the obvious conclusions of the scholarship make the scholar uncomfortable is a good indicator of their quality.