“Eschatology determines ethics.” So said Dr. Hafemann almost everyday in Greek 101 at Wheaton College. And he’s right. What a man believes about what the future holds will shape the way he lives in the present. With that said, N.T. Wright has been getting a lot of press recently with his book Surprised by Hope, a slimmed down version of his larger book, The Resurrection of the Son of God. While I haven’t seen this new book yet, I do have a copy of Resurrection, and I’m not very comfortable with all that I’ve seen in it. Therefore, I was very interested to read this review by my former professor at SBTS, Dr. Schreiner. Dr. Schreiner does an excellent job highlighting the good and bad in the book and I believe he hits a couple things perfectly.

First, I often wonder as I’m reading N.T. Wright just whom he is attacking. Schreiner helpfully points out that the main errant theological targeted population in this book is very small, almost nonexistent. Almost no one today would say that in heaven we will not have physical bodies. Secondly, I think Schreiner does a good job of pointing out that Wright’s emphasis on the continuity between this world and the world to come is over played. Yes the Bible speaks of a basic continuity between this world and the next, but it also speaks of a radical discontinuity the to me seems to undermine his almost radical social program. Here are a few highlights to whet the appetite.  

As noted above, Wright often emphasizes that our work in this world is important. Christians ought not to think that their work in politics, economics, business, art, and so forth is insignificant. There has been a kind of pietism that has denigrated such work. Still, it isn’t clear that forgiving third world debt is a moral obligation on the same level as abolishing slavery. Wright too confidently dismisses all who disagree with him on this matter, sweeping away any objections with rhetorical statements. Moral claims in the public sphere must be advanced by careful reasoning, and Wright does not provide arguments to support his conclusions. Perhaps in the future he will tackle the matter with reasoned public discourse instead of dicta from above.

Wright commends evangelism as part of our work as believers, but he clearly emphasizes being engaged in the political sphere. Surely Wright has his emphases backwards here. The Scriptures teach that only those who believe in Jesus Christ and repent of their sins will enjoy the new creation. Isn’t the most important thing for human beings, therefore, to gain acceptance into this new creation? Aren’t there great artists and gifted politicians who have improved our life in this world (for which we are all thankful), and yet who will not be part of the new creation because they have rejected the gospel? Moreover, while Wright correctly affirms that everything done in this world matters, there is also discontinuity between this world and the next. The curse of Genesis 3 will not be lifted until Jesus comes again. Our work in this world is provisional and always touched by the curse. The invention of the car solved a pollution problem in the streets caused by horses, but no one foresaw that it would cause pollution problems of its own.