Wright on God and Politics
Today I listened to one of the MP3’s that I linked to in my previous post, N. T. Wright’s lecture titled “God in Public: The Bible and Politics in Tomorrow’s World.” It was an invited lecture delivered on Sunday afternoon, November 18, 2007, at SBL in San Diego. I think this lecture helps to explain some crucial things about Wright’s theology. One thing that struck me was the similarities between Wright and Brian McLaren. This shouldn’t be surprising since McLaren is heavily dependent on Wright’s books, particularly Jesus and the Victory of God.
First, Wright states that his theological writings about Jesus and Paul have inherently political implications. Wright’s theology and Wright’s politics are a package deal. If you like his theology, but you aren’t too keen on his anti-American politics, then you might want to go back and rethink the theology.
I’ve gotten used by now to getting plaintive emails from people saying things like, ‘We like what you write about Jesus and the resurrection. We are fascinated by what you say on Paul. But why are you so critical of our president?’ [Laughter] But my answer normally has to take the form, ‘If you actually read what I say about Jesus […?…] understand what Paul was on about, you have to take the questions of God in public seriously in a whole new way.’ … Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all in their various ways about ‘God in public,’ about the kingdom of God coming on earth as in heaven through the public career and death and resurrection of Jesus. [Minute 12]
Second, he defines the kingdom of God so that the accent falls on saving the world, the creation, while the salvation of “individual souls” gets subordinated:
Yes, Jesus did indeed launch God’s saving sovereignty on earth as in heaven, but this couldn’t be accomplished without his death and resurrection. In other words, the problem for which God’s kingdom project was and is the answer was deeper than could be addressed by a social program alone. Equally too, yes, Jesus did die for our sins, but his whole agenda of dealing with sin and its effects and consequences was never about rescuing individual souls from the world but about saving humans so that they could become part of his project of saving the world. [Minute 22]
Third, Wright argues that the death, resurrection, and lordship of Christ inaugurated the eschaton, thereby entrusting to earthly rulers the duty of anticipating the new creation here and now, what he calls “restorative justice.” His proof text in support of this theory is Psalm 2, the same passage appealed to by Reformed theocrats of various stripes. He then says:
Jesus was hailed as already Lord of heaven and earth, and in particular as the one through whom the Creator God will restore and unite all things. And this gives a sharp focus to the present task of earthly rulers … Now, since Jesus’ death and resurrection … they are to look forward … to the ultimate eschaton. One day God will right all wrongs through Jesus, and earthly rulers – whether or not they acknowledge this Jesus and his coming kingdom – in fact are entrusted with the task of anticipating in a measure that final judgment and final mercy … They are to enact in a measure, in advance, the time when God will make all things new and will once again declare that it’s very good. [Minutes 37-38]
Fourth, the church’s role is to remind the earthly rulers of their obligation to enact Jesus’ victory here and now and to call the earthly rulers to account when they fall short:
Along with this vision of God working through earthly rulers there goes a vocation to the church to be the people through whom the rulers are to be reminded of their task and called to account … Part of the way in which the church will do this is by getting on with and setting forward those works of justice and mercy, of beauty and relationship, which the rulers know in their bones ought to be flourishing but which they seem powerless to bring about … Thus, the church in its biblical commitment to doing ‘God in public’ is called to learn how to collaborate without compromise (hence the importance of the common good theory) and to critique without dualism … The aim of this lecture, then, is to encourage readings of the Bible which by highlighting the public-ness of God and the gospel set forward such reforms as will enable the church to play its part in holding the powers to account and thus advancing God’s restorative justice. [Minutes 38, 40, 45]
My main objection to this view of politics is that it conflates the city of God with the city of man to the detriment of clarity with regard to both. Wright views the kingdom of God as not really being about the salvation of the elect on the basis of the atoning death of Christ applied to sinners through effectual calling in the context of the preaching of the gospel. Though personal salvation is included, it is only a means to the end of helping God finish his project of restoring creation. Wright is correct to interpret the kingdom of God in a creational context, but he is wrong in his over-realized eschatology which assumes that the new creation is advancing quite publicly even prior to the eschaton in the physical creation, in society, and in the political realm. This is exactly the opposite of Jesus’ teaching concerning the hidden nature of the kingdom in its present pre-eschatological phase. In so doing, he denigrates the spiritual, largely non-public, hidden-from-view activities of God’s Spirit in effectually calling the elect, justifying them by imputing the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ to them, and progressively sanctifying them in Christ-like character and personal obedience. The redemption of larger societal structures is more interesting to Wright.
By the same token, Wright sacralizes the city of man so that it loses its character as part of God’s common-grace, non-holy order for the provision of a temporary field upon which the operations of soteric grace may be played out via the gospel mission of the church. Common grace is the key here! Kline has taught us that God established a common grace order that began after the fall and which will be terminated at the second coming. Civil rulers belong to this common grace order. They are neither sacred nor sinful, although individual rulers can usurp god-like prerogatives and become sinful, even Satanic in their opposition to the kingdom of God. But as ordained by God civil rulers are merely given to promote temporal justice, to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. They are not agents of the eschatological kingdom. They are not means of bringing in the eschaton.
Finally, Wright never shows that the New Testament anywhere “entrusts” to earthly political rulers this supposed duty of anticipating the eschatological new creation by means of restorative justice. He appeals to Psalm 2, but no New Testament texts, to support his view that Christ uses civil rulers to bring in his kingdom here on earth, visibly, and in the concrete structures of society outside the visible church. (BTW, Psalm 2 must be interpreted eschatologically, in accordance with the apostolic hermeneutic attested in Acts 4:24-30 and elsewhere.)
I still plan to post on the Wright vs. Barclay debate on “Paul and Empire,” which will shed further light on Wright’s view of the relation of God and politics.