...in the US House or Senate to stand up to President Obama and say, to his face, the same things this British member of the European Parliament said to PM Gordon Brown?
Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP for South East England, gives a speech during Gordon Brown´s visit to the European Parliament on 24th March, 2009.
On Saturday I had the privilege attending a 3-hour lecture given by the well-known New Testament scholar, and Bishop of Durham, . N.T. Wright. It was hosted by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, CA. The title of the lecture was "Paul for Tomorrow's World." The lecture was taped and is slated to be available for viewing here.
Bishop Wright is well known for his defense of the biblical crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, among other doctrines. He is, perhaps, even better known today for his controversial teachings of a "New Perspective" on the writings of the Apostle Paul.
This was the first time I had heard Rev. Wright speak. He has a wonderful and engaging speaking style. It is no wonder he is so popular. Further, while the title of the lecture is indicative of Rev. Wright's position, I found it interesting that he did not really delve too much into the details of the New Perspectives theology. In fact, the vast majority of what he discussed was thoroughly orthodox and in agreement with Reformational Christian theology. What follows is my attempt to capture what he said during the lecture:
=========================
The First part of the lecture focused on "Paul and the Kingdom of God." Paul doesn't talk much about it but we badly need it. For some time he (Wright) has been trying to present Paul's message as a "big picture."
The problem is we think we know what Paul's message of the Kingdom is. However, we read Paul "with 19th century eyes and 16th century questions." We assume that unregenerate people go around worrying about whether they're going to go to heaven and assuming that they have to work their way in.
Paul's message about the Kingdom of God is "all about God; it's only about me inlight of that." Heaven is not our final destiny. In reality, God's sovereignty over the world results in Him rescuing that corrupt world.
Jesus is already reigning. Most Christians wouldn't disagree with that; but they don't understand what it means.
We often separate what Jesus did from what happened to Him. Jesus taught that all that stuff that the Jews had been longing for is now happening, but they just didn't see it. Jesus was busy "doing the kingdom."
The main point of the Resurrection wasn't that "Jesus is alive, therefore we're going to live again." Instead, it's "Jesus is alive, therefore God's new creation has begun."
The Kingdom of God is not about escaping this world. Love is not just our duty, it is our destiny. Because of the Resurrection, everything you do now will somehow be a part of God's new world.
---------------------------
The Second part of the lecture focused on Paul's teaching in his letter to the Romans (esp. ch 5:12-21). Up until now, Paul has been expounding the covenant faithfulness of God. Through His faithfulness to the Covenant, He is faithful to the creation.
When God saves us, He does it so that, through us, he makes the world right.
---------------------------
In the Q & A sessions, a few interesting questions were raised. He noted that the "fire" mentioned in 2 Pet. 3:10-11 is purgative, not destructive.
He noted that he sees an interesting potential that, in the Eucharist, there is a sense in which we have food coming from the future into the present. He thinks that may be a better sacramental approach.
Regarding the "intermediate state" (between death and the resurrection), the New Testament doesn't say much. The word used in Scripture signify a place to go and be refreshed, but not a place to live.
Romans 13 is about police work (not international warfare). Private vengance is out. Civil authorities are the way God has chosen to keep the world in order. But, how does that work out on an international level, between sovereign states?
Regarding the saints that were raised to life at Christ's death, he notes that this is one of the oddest parts of the Gospels. He doesn't know exactly why or what. Did they die again?
Regarding changing the pervasive pop-eschatology, he noted the best approach is to be involved in the community, showing people that Christians are not just polishing brass on a sinking ship, but that we care for other people because, through us, God is restoring the creation.
Regarding literature, he noted that so much Christianity today assumes beauty is unessential window dressing. We need to bring back music and art back to a place of importance in culture.
Regarding politics, we need to find a proper middle-ground between Anabaptist isolationism and theocratic domination.
Regarding unity in the midst of Christian disagreements, he noted that he believes women may be pastors, in light of the fact that Jesus' first witnesses of Him were women, Julia was an Apostle, etc. This is not something that should divide the Church.
===========================
In the midst of his discussion, Rev. Wright brought up a lot of important topics, such as vocation, eschatology, the already/not-yet paradigm, and issues that are adiaphora, on which I would agree with him wholeheartedly. For example, he repeatedly poked at the Gnostic, individualistic, me-centered understanding of salvation and eschatology that is pervasive in evangelicalism today. He encouraged Christians to have a broader understanding of Scripture, rather than just focusing on individual verses. For all of that, I am thankful for his teaching.
However, on a couple other points, I think he was off. First, at the very beginning he stated that because Christians read Paul "with 19th c. eyes and 16th c. questions," we assume that non-believers are walking around worrying about whether they're going to heaven and assuming they have to work their way in. I think Wright here is fighting a straw man. I don't know anyone who believes that people worry about whether they're going to heaven. I think it's pretty obvious that most unbelievers in the U.S. today don't give much thought to their eternal destiny. And when they do, I think they assume they're going to heaven. But they assume they're going to heaven--if there is such a place--because of their works. "I'm not such a bad person, after all. At least I've never killed anyone."
The second point on which I found disagreement with Wright was on the topic of a female pastorate. While he rightly points out that it was women who first told of Jesus resurrection, I don't think that narrative passage points to anything other than that women first told of Christ's resurrection. He didn't have time, but he neglected so many other didactic passages and the whole concept of the created order, biblical headship of men, etc.
All in all, the lecture was informative. Once it become available, watch the video online and post your comments here.
